User talk:Tom Edwards/2011-01-03

Video game journalism

Since Video game journalism is kind of your baby, I thought you might be interested to see how many people actually read the article: [1]. JACOPLANE • 2008-05-5 13:21

That's quite a lot of people. :-) --Tom Edwards (talk) 14:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image:Hl2ep2 jalopy.jpg

You deleted this file because the same / a better image exists. Could you point me toward it? --Tom Edwards (talk) 18:57, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I guess it's since been deleted because I can't find it anymore. Restored that one. Melesse (talk) 23:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey Tom

I suppose you know who I am already, but hey thanks for taking care of things on this wiki for Source, I was first wondering who edited these pages, but when I saw your name under the History I felt relived. Mainly because your a great wiki guy for the Valve wiki, and this one under all Source. Thanks man.--MrTwoVideoCards (talk) 08:01, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

[2]

I think you're wrong. On WP:VER we read: Articles should rely on reliable, third-party published sources. Third-party meaning external sources (magazines, game portals etc.) not the producer's one. IMHO some external source would fit better as a source. Thanks, Sir Lothar (talk) 12:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

As far as there are other sources in article - that's OK. My point is that if we put all sources directing to the producer's site - it's POV. For example: an article about Diablo III shouldn't have sources only from diablo3.com and blizzard.com but also from reviews sites like gamespot.com, ign.com etc. You see my point ? Sir Lothar (talk) 14:57, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but not how it applies to the article in question. --Tom Edwards (talk) 16:29, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

FAR

Letting you know I've put Half-Life 2 up for Featured article review here. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:15, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Half-Life 2 has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Change to Citizen Journalism page reverted

RE: citizen journalism change that smells like advertising. Did not intend that. The site I added is a citizen journalism news site that is full fledged participatory. I have a few references including this Metro News: A citizen reporter for all seasons and this TechCrunch:Digital Journal Rev Shares With Their Citizen Journalists

The DigitalJournal.com entry is outdated and needs a rewrite. I'll see what I can do about that. Citizen journalism should be reverted back to my change, IMO. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.82.215 (talk • contribs) 17:13, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Neozone listed at RfD

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Neozone. Since you had some involvement with the Neozone redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). Agamemnus (talk) 16:13, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Crowned Portcullis.svg

Thanks for uploading File:Crowned Portcullis.svg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:10, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Audio Description

Mr. Edwards: In no way are my changes to the Audio Description page "copied from a brochure" or a copyright violation--I wrote the copy myself. I was one of the first audio describers in the world, c. 1981, have introduced AD/trained describers in over 20 nations and half the U.S.--I feel it is critical for the AD page to be timely and accurate.

Rather than start an edit war, per Wikipedia guidelines I would appreciate it if you contact me directly at jsnyder@audiodescribe.com to discuss any changes in the entry that you feel are necessary rather than proceeding with an edit based on what you feel something "looks like."

J. Snyder

Jsnyder42 (talk) 15:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jsnyder42 (talk • contribs)

We don't discuss articles in private on Wikipedia. I'll be writing to you on Talk:Audio description. --Tom Edwards (talk) 19:54, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

File:Queen opening uk parliament.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Queen opening uk parliament.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stifle (talk) 15:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

FAR

I have nominated Half-Life 2 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Vaypertrail (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

How wrong can you be?

You flamed people over an article in 2006 that said one thing, you said the other. It turns out that you were wrong.

Fuck off you.

k --Tom Edwards (talk) 18:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

k --Tom Edwards (talk) 21:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Alien Swarm notability

if "free game and source code from an industry-leading studio is clearly notable" is true, then you will have no problem finding 3rd party articles covering it.--Vaypertrail (talk) 22:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

[3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10], and then I stopped reading the results for "alien swarm valve". Please at least hit Google before you question notability in the future. --Tom Edwards (talk) 07:35, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

It's you making the assertion, not me.--Vaypertrail (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the semantics of who is making a claim and who is defending themselves here, it's considered polite to have some understanding of a topic before you start arguing about it. --Tom Edwards (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

No it does matter who it making the claim, see WP:BURDEN.--Vaypertrail (talk) 16:49, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

And it still fails WP:N, so are you ever going to fix that or just keep removing the template?--Vaypertrail (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Please explain why. --Tom Edwards (talk) 17:08, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Only contains a single outside source, Gamasutra (spelt wrong). Should contain at least two.--Vaypertrail (talk) 17:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

There is a list of eight articles you could include just a few inches upward - so how about including one? --Tom Edwards (talk) 19:54, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Not my job, you are the one making the claim that it is notable.--Vaypertrail (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

I've had it with this and given in. I do sincerely hope everything is to your personal satisfaction. --Tom Edwards (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

Moved to Talk:Valve Anti-Cheat#Unreliable sources.

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-07-28/Valve Anti-Cheat

Hello, I have posted a mediation response at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-07-28/Valve Anti-Cheat. I'm not sure if there is still a dispute, but I hope it helps. --Alpha Quadrant (talk) 22:52, 13 September 2010 (UTC)