User talk:Deusfaux

I'm not sure if you are aware of the 3RR policy, but it plainly states that a user cannot commit the same revert on the same article in a 24 hour period. Before you or Drewcifer3000 break that policy, I have initiated a discussion here into whether Broken (Nine Inch Nails EP) is a studio album, and therefore Ghosts I-IV is the seventh album, and The Slip is the eighth etc. Please contribute to the discussion, so this can be put to bed soon. -- Reaper X 06:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Desufaux, since the question of "Is an EP an album?" keeps coming up, I thought I'd bring the discussion straight to you rather than passive aggressively revert your recent edits to NIN pages. Personally I'm not really sure about it either way, so I did a little research to figure it out. What I found at the Extended play page is this: "In the United Kingdom, the Official Chart Company defines a cut off between EP and album classification at 25 minutes length or four tracks (plus alternative versions of featured songs).[2][3] When the Compact disc became the dominant physical format, capacities increased, with a CD single usually having around 10–28 minutes of music, an CD EP up to 36 minutes, and an album generally 30–80 minutes." So what I interpret this to mean is actually somewhat contradictory: that the cut off is either at 25 minutes or 36 minutes. The two sentences don't seem to agree with each other on that. What is clear, however, at least based on the language used here, is that there IS a distinction between EP and album (what defines that distinction seems to be unclear, however). So therefore an EP and album are two different things, and are mutually exclusive. This is far as I took my research, and perhaps this might be worth looking at a more reliable source, but I wanted to start the conversation with you first. Let me know what you think about this. Drewcifer (talk) 09:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

An EPis not a full length album. End of story, if you want it changed get consensus on the talk page.Ridernyc (talk) 09:52, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into it more, but from what I was reading before, an EP and an LP are both albums. One generally shorter, one longer. You'll notice my edits to the articles are careful not to change the numbering where the sentence concerns anything that specifically describe a LP. "full length" for example. My thinking has never been that Broken is an LP or a full length album, but that it is album of sorts. Moreover, a particularly important one. You can make the argument that many artists release less notable EPs, consisting mostly of remixes, b-sides, or other less substantial material. The fact that Broken consists of eight original tracks, is of substantial length exceeding half an hour, and represents a very distinct NIN sound, make it all the more notable and worthy of mention on other NIN album pages that make reference to the amount of work NIN has produced. Broken is a major release, and the wording of those edited sentences could reflect that "nth major release" "nth studio release" etc, if the "is an ep an album" issue can't be sorted. Deusfaux (talk) 10:32, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

While any information at Extended Play might be helpful, I don't think whether or not Broken constitutes an EP is the issue at hand. From the first line at the Album article: "An album or record album is a collection of related audio or music tracks distributed to the public." Taken at that definition (or similar ones found at dictionary.com, etc) any EP is an album, Broken included. Either my edits are correct, or the sentences need to specify "LPs" or "full length" albums. But why you'd want to go that 2nd route and not throw acknowledgment to Broken is beyond me. Deusfaux (talk) 10:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, well it seems like I misinterpreted your edits. If I am to read you correctly, you aren't arguing that "Broken is an album because it's an EP" (though the answer to this question is getting increasingly hard to pin down, it looks like), but you're actually arguing "Broken is a significant release in NIN's history, and therefore should be mentioned along side every other major release." Perhaps I was paying too much attention to the language rather than the intent of the edit? If that is the case, I would actually agree with you, that Broken is significant enough to be mentioned alongside the other releases. Now the only tricky thing is how we word such a thing. Which brings us back to the "Is an EP an album" debate. Perhaps there is a way around this that avoids the word album all together? Drewcifer (talk) 11:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Well I made a few suggestions (and have made edits in the past) that move away from the simple "album" phrasing. I would be happy with "nth studio release" or "nth major release" with consensus that Broken is each of those things (both made in the studio vs remixed, and major for the reasons given above). Or I would be less okay with "nth LP" "nth full length album/release/etc" with consensus Broken is none of those things. OR I would be okay with the edits I have been making where Broken is considered a plain old vanilla album ("nth album/studio album"). Three choices seem far more generous than what's being offered by those who revert my edits. I'm also open to other language I haven't thought of, of course. Deusfaux (talk) 23:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I appreciate the work you are doing on the List of video game remakes and remastered ports article, but please try to also add references supporting the fact the new entries are remasters or remakes. More importantly, do not remove existing references like you have done in this edit. Thank you for your collaboration. Tanonero (msg) 10:40, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Hi. 1. I'm not super familiar with editing, especially the markup code. Some edits may be unintentional or partial, to be completed when I figure it out or someone else does it.

2. I haven't figured out citation rules yet but everything I'm doing can be cited, frequently using citations found on Wikipedia articles for the games in question. Surely data that can be verified in seconds is better than no data at all. I'll get to it or someone else can tag in.

3. I believe you're misreading my edits in your linked example as I've not knowingly removed any citation for a game still listed. But my method of creating new entries and organizing them appears to have confused the edit tracker and you into thinking I removed good data. I didnt. It was copied as templates from elsewhere, temporarily, then changed to the actual data.

4. I'm halfway through the list removing ports. And have about a dozen others to add. Another day. Deusfaux (talk) 10:55, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did at Xbox Wireless Controller, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. If you only meant to make a test edit, please use your sandbox for that. Thank you. -- ferret (talk) 19:14, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

do you really need it spelled out how completely redundant that portion was? Deusfaux (talk) 19:27, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Could you explain how removed redundant padding repeating above explains why an image was removed and for what reason? -- ferret (talk) 19:41, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

I can't, that image wasn't visible or known to me either time I viewed the article and removed what should have been only the paragraph 'below' it. I'm seeing the image for the first time, only now that I'm on a different device. Thanks for clarifying. Deusfaux (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Rare Replay shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. An edit war occurs when two or more users begin repeatedly reverting content on a page in a back-and-forth fashion to restore it back to how they think it should be, despite knowing that other editors disagree with their changes. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or undo the edits made by other editors when your changes are reverted. Instead, please use the talk page to work toward creating a version of the page that represents consensus among the editors involved. The best practice at this time is to stop editing the page and to discuss the disagreements, issues, and concerns at-hand with the other editors involved in the dispute. Wikipedia provides a page that helps to detail how this is accomplished. If discussions reach an impasse, you can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard, or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection while a discussion to resolve the dispute is ongoing.

Continuing to engage in further edit warring behavior can result in being blocked from editing Wikipedia—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, or whether it involves the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also, please keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your demeanor, behavior, or conduct indicate that you intend to continue repeatedly making reverts to the page. Cyberlink420 (talk) 20:07, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

The fact you know all this and still engage in it is really telling. You were nearly blocked in the past for the same thing, too. Deusfaux (talk) 20:15, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

WP:NPA, WP:AGF. Also, you've made four edits, I'm still at three, hence why I haven't reverted your last edit. I'm asking you as a courtesy to please self-revert. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 20:18, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

If you've made 3 reverts, then I would only need 3 matching reverts to your reverts to be back at the condition of the article my original contribution (not a revert) made. Not to mention the additional separate changes made after your first revert. Come on now, this is arcane hand-waving just to get away from the actual merit of the information. Yikes Deusfaux (talk) 20:32, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

That's not how WP:3RR works. If that was all it took the fact I kept some of your changes with the last revert would mean my "count" was also reset, which it wasn't. I'm trying to engage with you in good faith, but this is not helpful. -- Cyberlink420 (talk) 20:38, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.