User talk:Th1rt3en/Archive4

It's trivia

Here's what the article would look like properly if you include it, by the way:

Gameplay

stuff stuff stuff

The game is won by reaching a quasar placed in the center of the galaxy, and facing "the largest NPC race whose giant empire blocks the way."

article article, near the bottom:

Trivia

• Unlike most Maxis games, Spore is the first game to feature an absolute win condition.

See my point? JAF1970 (talk) 02:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Image:VB101.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:VB101.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media 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. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Same for other episode screenshots of the same series, please see full listing at IfD page. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

MRPG template

That it's been a bad template for a long time is not an argument to keep using it. There is blatant organization throughout, you're just confused by the lack of completely unnecessary sectioning in the template. "No reason to split them" is no reason to split them. There is no problem for the reader to find articles on a one, two line max template, because they can read. It's properly split up, while you propose splitting them into groups of 1/3/3. Seven articles should NOT need a four-line template, especially when you seem to imply that readers have difficulty reading seven things, and we need most of the template to be white space. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Templates have been successfully shrank to cope with size before. Like you, many people think a template needs to be monstrously huge. Do you suggest we split the Mario template to have "3D titles", "handheld titles"? After all, it's only a couple extra lines. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:08, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Consensus was found because it was the right thing to do. People were making gigantic templates, and the templates were becoming too intrusive in the articles. Explain to me why a template with seven items on it should be three lines shorter than the Mario template, which has 44 articles across six lines? The Mario template has 14 items on one line, and does it well. And look at it - it's almost a two-line section of the template. I can't believe you're arguing size, that we can't do this because it might push it to two lines, but in the same breath argue for a three-line template. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Star Wars Arcade

Sorry about my mistake, which I realized later in the day. I was wondering how the article could be so wrong....d'oh...Asher196 (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Duke Nukem Forever

template says it's "an unreleased video game", not "a game that will be released in the (near) future". Sure, but we don't have any information about release of the game (it's vaporware, so probably it won't see a sunlight ;P). Putting this template, we're suggesting readers that game will be finished and released, which is rather not true. Thanks, Sir Lothar (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Let it be that templ. stays and informs that it's not released (maybe some little hope ?). OK. Now: you're assuming the game has been canceled, which there is no source saying that. - just like we don't have any source of game being finished for 100%. So putting this template and telling it's still under development is not reliable either :). You see my point ? Sir Lothar (talk) 20:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

plenty of sources saying that, right. I have plenty of sources (including big gaming paper game magazines and some Internet portals like Gamespot) saying that it's vaporware and no info on progress. Even 3D Realms stated that Anything else, and we mean anything else is someone's speculation (as sourced in article) so arguments are obvious. Anyway I won't engage in any edit war reverting each other because it's not my style of editing so I think it's EOT. Sir Lothar (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Extra color.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Extra color.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Gearsofwar2-contents.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Gearsofwar2-contents.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:SneakySnakesBox.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:SneakySnakesBox.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:24, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

you can help!

yeah, this is random and stalkerish, but trust me when I have a reason for asking. where do you live/edit? (City and country would be nice, but whatever you feel comfortable telling is fine.) You can just shoot me an email or reply here. It's for a project, I'll let you see it when I'm finished :) --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 14:06, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Is it really your belief...

...that following me around and undoing my edits is the best use of your time and talents on Wikipedia?

If so, that's rather sad, don't you think? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:20, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Ed Fitzgerald/spacing is not an established guideline on Wikipedia. Placing comments telling users to "not remove" them without providing any initial explanation is not helpful. Making changes based on personal preference is fine, but when you tell others not to change it you tread close to WP:OWN, for one. There are other arguments I can make as well. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 04:35, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

"Please do not remove" isn't "telling" anybody anything, it's asking – and an editor who was interested in cooperative editing would give another editor some consideration, unless there was a overwhelming compelling reason not to. Unfortunately, the only reason you've given is "The MoS says so", which is no reason it all.

Please recall that the MoS is not an invariant set of rules which is to be strictly followed under any and all circumstances. It's a set of guidelines to help us in our editing. That doesn't mean we throw out our power of reasoning and robotically do whatever the MoS says. We are still human beings, and we are expected to evaluate situations and circumstances and do what we believe to be best -- and if another editor says there's a problem, and that such-and-such is the solution, the least you can do is give him the benefit of the doubt and spend your time and emergy doing something productive instead of unnecessarily reverting.

In fact, we are supposed to WP:Assume good faith here, which you haven't been doing, I don't think. I've presented a problem, and you're essentially ignoring it, which is not at all AGF. I, too, am trying my best to assume good faith, and believe that you're a productive and caring editor who wants what's best for Wikipedia, and that you're not following me around simply to be a pest. Perhaps you might help me in that endeavor by finding something else to do that contributes more value to the project. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:48, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

By reverting the removal of such comments, you clearly aren't "asking". The Manual of Style has a consensus behind it while your spacing page does not; I am not the only editor who has removed the spacing, however you appear (as far as I can tell) to be the only one adding them. Wikipedia policies are not placed there simply to be ignored. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 05:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

I'd also like to suggest that you might find value in this essay: WP:Don't template the regulars Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:50, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

One last thing: template another user for being in an "edit war" when you are the other side of the confrontation.... well, it's not such a good thing to do. Anyway, have a nice day, enjoy your editing, and I hope we don't run into each other again. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:55, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Merely looked up the template for quick reference/posting. As a regular, you should be aware of the the three revert rule, and I wished to make sure you were. And, as a regular, you should also understand that you have actually violated 3RR on The Godfather, and that this is frowned upon. It also states that a warning is not required, I decided to give you a notice anyway. Other editors have reverted your spacing on The Godfather, not just myself. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 05:02, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you.

Whitespace is hideous and breaks my browsing. Miami33139 (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Editing conflict

I kept trying to fix the link myself and was wondering what the hell was going on. Tell me, is the a real reason to detach the code like that? It doesn't change anything that I can tell. I'm asking cause I code HTML and it just looks ugly that way.  æron phone home  17:13, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Space between templates is a peeve of mine too, but I don't ever recall it doing that in that way. The only time I saw stacks templates create a space was when the coder intentionally put it there.  æron phone home  17:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Lifeboat (film) and other Hitchcock films

Hi. I've noticed that we seem to be in danger of entering into a cycle of mutual reversions on this article and those on other Hitchcock films, and since that wouldn't be beneficial to either of us, or to the encyclopedia, I thought it might be helpful if we talked a bit and perhaps found some compromise ground.

As you may have noted, I spent about three hours last night expanding Lifeboat (film) with carefully referenced material, as well as finding new images that helped to illuminate the text. As part of my efforts, I also did some cleanup and layout work to bring the article's visual presentation up to par. As I think you're aware, there is a bit of a problem with the Internet Explorer browser's rendering of certain aspects of Wikipedia pages, including the way the lede section butts up uncomfortably against the Table of Contents. (I explain the details of this problem at User:Ed Fitzgerald/spacing.) To alleviate this I sometimes add one additional line of spacing between the lede and the ToC - the extra line being held in place by the hidden "spacing" comment that I'm sure you're aware of. (Without the comment to hold it, the Wikipedia software will strip away the additional line at the bottom of the section.) I find that this solves the IE problem, and when I look at the article with this additional line using orther browsers (Firefox, Chrome, Safari and Opera) it looks fine to me.

Now, it's true that this additional spacing is not specifically mentioned in the Manual of Style, but it's also true that it's not forbidden by the MoS either. Recall also that the MoS is not a set of hard-and-fast rules which much be strictly adhered to without deviation, it's a set of guidelines designed to help us in making our editing decisions. Add to that the exhortation to not let rules get in the way of improving the encyclopedia, a concept which is immortalized in WP:IAR, and I think my additional spacing is quite justified.

Obviously, you disagree, so I thought perhaps we might talk about what it is you find objectionable about it, and maybe reach some middle ground that will be acceptable to both of us. (Also, if I knew what browser you were using, it would help me to see what you're seeing.)

Additionally, I note that in your reversion of my work on Lifeboat (film) you changed one of the notes I added into a "footnote" which is listed seperately from the rest of the notes. This seems unnecessary to me, as there is nothing in the MoS which disallows the mixing of explanatory notes and citationary notes in the same list. While having two seperate list can be justified in an article with many explanatory notes which would get lost within a list of citations, starting an entire "footnotes" section for one explanatory note seems unnecessary to me. Because of this, I reverted this change that you made.

On the other hand, I applaud your move of the "cameo" section into "production", and indeed I've done that myself in other articles. (And I was looking at the cameo section at the end of my session, thinking that something should be done with it.)

In short, I assume that we both have as our goals having the best articles possible - with solid information that's well presented for the reader, so I'd love to ameliorate our potential conflict by finding a way to work together on this and other Hitchcock articles - if nothing else, perhaps a mutual agreement that we won't revert each other's edits without discussing them first.

I hope you can see value in my suggestions, and I look forward to your response. I'll watch your talk page so we can keep our discussion centralized in one place.

Best, Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 19:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello Ed. Yes, I agree that we are both trying to make the articles as best as possible, and I agree to an "edit ceasefire". However, I do feel that your methods are not always in the best interest of the community, that is to say in regards to what has been agreed upon.

In regards to your spacing, I obviously disagree with it being added prior to the Table of Contents. Other places, like the External Links/Navbox, I don't mind so much, with the exception that your comments do not explain why they are there, nor do they point to your explanation page, which can confuse editors. As I've stated before, your edits are based on personal preferences and not established Wikipedia standards that have consensus. (I'll get to WP:IAR later.) This results in essentially cherry picking articles to have this style, whereas the vast majority will follow WP:MOS, regardless of what browser they use. If for instance Lifeboat (film) was the only Hitchcock film article to have the ToC spacing, then it would be the only one with even spacing around the ToC for someone using IE.

I have read over User:Ed Fitzgerald/spacing before and understand what you are basically trying to do. (I use the current version of Firefox by the way, hence the whitespace.) However, this spacing is, again, your own preference; you appear to be the only person adding such spacing (correct me if I'm wrong) while I am not the only who has removed the spacing comments in various articles (see WP:OWN); nor is this new: Talk:The Paradine Case is from mid-June 2008. What I got out of your explanation page is that you feel that not enough space on one browser is a jarring appearance, while too much space on another is not. Well that's just an opinion when it comes down to it, one that is at least not under a consensus. (Why not bring up the issue at WP:VPT? Or change skins as another user had suggested. Or just talk about it at WP:MOS.)

There's also other style issues. You have removed {{trivia}} tags for sections, change image sizes, and others. Regarding the image sizes, you have to remember that your browser and resolution are not what everyone has. What may look good to someone with 800x640 resolution may not for someone with a higher and widescreen one. This version of Foreign Correspondent (film) is ridiculously saturated with oversized images that bleed into the cast section and add a lot of whitespace on my resolution, though I assume it looks fine on yours. The trivia tags should not be removed without at least a reason. You are also adding sources from IMDB, TCMDB, and the like; I don't believe IMDB pages are considered a reliable source. Stuff like no "cast notes" header and footnotes sections are more of my preference, however I am trying to follow things like WP:MOS, MOS:FILM, and comparing the sections to other featured film articles, as well as WP:REFNOTE. While Lifeboat may have had one (which I originally thought had more), other articles do have more than one.

On that note, you state that you are not "forbidden" to make some style changes, but I'm apparently "forbidden" to add a footnotes section. I've noticed this odd reasoning and other similar ones in your statements (e.g. "wacky Wikiworld"). While you may feel the conventions found it other publications are "standard" and should be used, consensus on Wikipedia is for the MoS, even if it's the wrong way. If you do not like other users changing the layout you made do not submit it in the first place (Wikipedia:OWN#Overview).

Regarding WP:IAR, you should familiarize yourself with what IAR means, WP:EXCEPTIONS, some things at WP:ATA, and some others. IAR is not a trump card. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 02:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Come, let's not snipe at each other, I would very much like this to be a cease fire and a real attempt to find some modus vivendi, since we have some overlapping interests. I'm willing to put aside the spacing issue to this extent: I will not revert you when you remove my spacers, if you will not go out of your way to find them. If you come across them, and you think they're - in the specific instance - detrimental, then by all means remove them and that will be the end of it as far as I'm concerned All I ask is that you not remove them automatically, but evaluate each on their own merits.

If you can agree to this, between us, then perhaps we can move on to other issues and see if we can work things out there too. I hope so. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 04:56, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I would agree to that, but unfortunately it wouldn't solve anything. Since every ToC spacing will simply show the same amount of whitespace, I'm likely just going to consider all ToC spacings the same and remove them. So we'll have to figure something else out.

The recent movie edits by me have been for a cleanup of articles connected to directors or actors. I went over Billy Wilder films, some James Stewart ones, Clark Gable, and Alfred Hitchcock after watching TCM. While doing the Hitchcock films I wasn't specifically looking for spacing, though after a while I expected to find them, but I was doing general cleanup all around.

But, in the meantime, how about this: for any spacing you add, include either reasoning in the comment or point editors to your spacing page in the comment. The first times I came across the spacing I had no idea why they were there and did some checking over MoS policies before just removing them, still confused.

Again I'm mainly against the ToC spacing and not the semicolon/list separations or EL/navbox ones.

Thanks. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 16:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, your suggestion to include a references and or reasoning in the edit summary is very reasonable and I will do my best to include that. Maybe we could move on and talk about the issues you found with the other Hitchcock articles? Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 18:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for my few days of absence; I've been sick and have been off the computer mostly.

Anyway, I meant leave the reasoning in the actual <!-- comments -->, since the edit summary will eventually be pushed off the first page of the history.

I'll have to go back and look at my edits on the Hitchcock pages to refresh my memory. I remember doing a lot of minor cleanup, some slight image resizing, and the other things mentioned above. I removed the "cast notes" header to turn a list into prose, compared to other film articles.

Again, I'll have to look back over them. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 16:20, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your illness -- we've had a couple of cases of flu in my household, but fortunately (knock wood) not me so far. Great way to spend a holiday weekend!

I'll take a look at the edits as well -- I think Foreign Correspondent, The Paradine Case and Rear Window were the ones I was most concerned with. Thanks. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 19:33, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, stay well too. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 23:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Foreign Correspondent (film)

Okay, so regarding those three articles. My resolution is 1680x1050, which is somewhat high. With a lot of the images set to how they were they would bleed into the next section or not be set in a place that was past the bottom of the infobox. So I would see a lot of white space. Other things would be to balance out the left/right positions, avoid bleeding onto section headers, and the like. On Foreign Correspondent (film) in particular, two images in the plot section would show up just at the cast section, leaving a 250+ pixel gap of whitespace for me. The George Sanders image in the cast section now just pushes the cast list down only a little; I had trouble balancing this with the columns, there's probably a better way to fix it. Some of the other images seemed unnecessarily placed, such as cast photos in the response section. Since there's plenty of images for the article, they should relate to the section. Alternatively, the article could probably use a gallery for the case section. (Wikipedia:Accessibility#Images, MOS:IMAGES, Wikipedia:Layout#Images) Hope this answers some questions. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 23:15, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I think I just fixed up the cast-column images a bit better. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 23:18, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks for your explanation and thoughts -- and it's very good to know that you and I are working at different resolutions, so if we can come to a compromise between us, it'll be good for most users.

My overall problem with the layout you've ended up with on Foreign Correspondent (film) is that it's rather under-illustrated, and two of the images are smaller than they need to be to have any impact. Because it's a wide shot, the "assassination" image needs to be considerably larger to have any "ooomf", while the plane crash image needs just a little more size to clarify. I take your objection about the images taking up too much space seriously, and, looking at the layout I had, I see what you mean. However, I think your compensation may have gone too far in the other direction. Here's what I'd like to try:

• I'd like to restore the 3-shot in the automobile in the cast section. It always seems best to me to have in the cast section a photo with as many cast members as possible, instead of a solo shot. (I can't always do that, but that's what I strive for).
• I'd like to restore the picture of Joel McCrea to the plot section, and move the photo of George Sanders that is currently in the cast section into "plot" as well, but at a considerably smaller size than I once had them, in deference to your perception of the images taking up too much space.
• The photo of Albert Basserman I would like to restore to the "awards" section, since Basserman is relatively unknown (compared to McCrea and Sanders) and he did receive a nomination for the film. Again, this image would be at a smaller size than it was before.
• I would shift the plane crash image to other side to help avoid right-side monotony and get a more balanced layout. Its size I would increase just a little, since the image is complex enough to need more size to help it be seen clearly.
• Finally, I would move the assasination image down near the bottom of the article, to use some of the whitespace associated with the notes section, in order to give the image some space to expand. I really think it needs to be quite large to payoff visually.

All in all, I think such a layout will give the article a better balance, allow some more images, and still not be overwhelmed. I hope it will address your concerns, and I'd be interested to hear how it looks from your persepctive. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 00:28, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

It definitely looks better now. But still some things:

• The assassination image should stay in the plot section. It's better to have a plot related image instead of just cast related ones. For the whitespace in the reference section is common, I suggest trying more columns.
• For the Albert Basserman image, the caption can state that he was nominated.
• The trivia tag should stay, with relevant/cited info placed into appropriate sections to try and get rid of the trivia list (WP:TRIVIA)
• There needs to be more than just IMDB and TCMDB for references.

I've made these changes, take a look. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 15:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I strongly feel that the assasination image needs to be significantly larger to have any impact at all. If we can't agree on a placement where it can expand, I'd rather lose it entirely rather than have it take up visual space when it's not having any particular effect. Remember that the images illustrate the article as a whole, and not necessarily the secific section they're in. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 16:42, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

I've made the changes along those lines, restored the solo shot of McCrea (who is, after all, the only billed star of the film) and removed the assassination shot (I miss it, but it needed more size that it could have in the place it was). I also integrated the miscellaneous material into the body of the article, since I absolutely loath trivia tags. I hope this compromise layout work for you. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 16:52, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Yup, I think that looks like a good compromise. Now what were the issues with the other two films you mentioned? ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 20:17, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Sory, I've been sidetracked by some other things - I promise to get back to this discussion soon. Ed Fitzgerald _{t / c} 07:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, take your time. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 16:44, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

List of Metal Gear media

Hello there. Came here to give you some thanks and congrats for this list. I saw the effort you've benn putting to it on the page history and on its FLC page, so I came here to congratulate you. As you can see I translated it for the Portuguese language Wikipedia (you may have already noticed that, I assume), and even if the text is under the GFDL, I'm really grateful for your job, as it's potencialy to be one more list of the videogame genre that's going to be featured in our Wikipedia. So, thank you. I wouldn't be able to nominate it to be featured here without thanking you for the job. And just to give my simple contribution: the url for the source of the song "First Bite" (ref #97) on the album section was not changed (from "game-ost" to "squareenixmusic"), but the "publisher" was; and I noticed that the correct url for it is the same for the "Snake Eater" song (ref #98). See ya, Mr.Yahoo! (talk) 01:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I gave you a picture of my collection and I am glad to see it was used. However, I have added to my collection and have taken a better picture in hopes of it being placed on the List of Metal Gear media page. Im sorry, I have no idea of how I am supposed to contact you but I hope you get this and can make the picture change. Thank you very much! [IMG]http://i564.photobucket.com/albums/ss81/TvaloreJ/100_1671.jpg[/IMG] TvaloreJ (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Is there something wrong with the picture? I see it is uploaded when I click on it but it doesn't give a visual picture on the main page of "List of Metal Gear media"... [IMG]http://i564.photobucket.com/albums/ss81/TvaloreJ/100_1671.jpg[/IMG] TvaloreJ (talk) 20:36, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but I am extremely greratful to have my collrction on the "List of Metal Gear Media" page. I added about 15 new pieces to my collection I would greatly appreciate it if you could upload this new picture.... thanks so much! [IMG]http://i564.photobucket.com/albums/ss81/TvaloreJ/100_17012.jpg[/IMG] —Preceding unsigned comment added by TvaloreJ (talk • contribs) 19:47, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Metal Gear Rising

Hey. I just wanted to take this opportunity to let you know I am not intentionally 'Edit Warring' you, simply editing conflicts result. I apologize for that. Maybe we can work together and find some better references and split up sections to make this a team effort? Any ideas? GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 04:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

S'alright. It's no big deal, I'm sure we'll get plenty of info tomorrow. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 04:13, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Sims games template

Hello, could you please tell me why you reversed my removing of the link to Development of Spore from the template: Sims series and why it should be there? Thanks. Kentourian (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I have to disagree with your reasoning it seems to me the template is/ should be reserved just for video games excepting the related section with I don't believe the development of spore article is notable enough to be included. Kentourian (talk) 02:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Halo Story Order

Any real reason for adding this? We refer people to the story overview anyhow, and it seems strange to leave off all the novels and such. --Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Kaysing reference section

Hey, I just looked and saw that it was you who removed the formatting from the Kaysing reference section all three times. Now I see that you're actually removing some references as well, so I wanted to ask what the actual problem is?
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 18:02, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I haven't removed any references from the article. I did combine a few duplicates, and removed non-existent and/or incorrect 'main article' links, but I haven't removed any refs. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 18:04, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Red links shouldn't be removed simply because their (currently) red links. And there are at least two Kaysing references that seem to have been deleted now.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 18:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

I grouped two BA refs into one and I grouped two Kaysing refs into one. Before my edit there were 7 Kaysing refs and now there are 6, one with two anchor links.

I'm not removing red links, I moved the book one to the book citation. But you're placing them in {{main}} when there is no link to any main article. WP:REDDEAL mentions nothing about placing red links {{main}} or similar templates. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 18:18, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

About the missing refs, there were two Keysing references that were missing the page numbers. Maybe someone else removed them, I'm not sure, but I'll have to go back through the diffs now and re-add them at some point.

You obviously are removing red links... being in a {{main}} doesn't make them special. Anyway, more importantly is that you're messing up the layout that I've been working on. I forgot to add the URL link to the Kaysing book earlier, but that should be there as well. Each of the specialised sections has a main link though, and there was a reason for that... NOw you've removed the Clavius link saying something about it being the incorrect article. It's not the incorrect article, it's (currently) simply a redirect to the article about the scientist. If you have a problem with them not pointing to an article it would be much more constructive to actually start an article then to have to go through all of this pointless back and forth about it.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 18:30, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

The Clavius article has nothing to do with the external links that go to a website that merely uses his name as their title, therefore it is not only not a main article, it is also irrelevant. Being a {{main}} does make it something a bit more special, because it's related to the section instead of the article, otherwise it would be placed in the 'See also' section. That section also is kept clean of red links. We don't place a {{main}} on the Notes, Citation, or News sections, because those links are irrelevant to the article, as are the incorrect Clavius link, and the YouTube link, as well as articles that don't exist yet. Again, WP:REDDEAL says nothing about links being kept in section headers or related article templates. If you feel this is how Kaysing's book should be wikilinked, I suggest you start the article first, then wikilink it with a {{main}} tag. I'm uncertain of the use of amazon.com links and whether they violate WP:EL or not. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 20:36, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Right, "main links aren't special" is exactly my point. All the same things apply to them that apply to all other links, so please stop removing them simple because their redlinks. Links to the book page on Amazon are obviously not ideal, but there's nothing inherently wrong with them.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:20, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Nonono, I was saying that the use of {{main}} does make the links at least seem more significant since they are specifically directing readers to an article with relevant information to the topic. Most of the time they're used for articles that have been split to reduce length. They're not placed to link to an article that may one day be created, especially in a reference section. In this case the problem is the use of {{main}} with a red link and not the fact that the article is not yet created. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 04:32, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe they seem more significant to you, but their not... The article needs to be created, is all. "Main" and "See also" links are clearly not only for article spim-outs either. I'm not really sure where that is coming from. Anyway, the main issue is that by changing the layout of some sections and not others, you're making some appear more or less important/visible. For an article such as the Moon landings conspiracy theories article there is always a concern about weight and neutrality. I was striving to achieve a consistent layout for everything... Anyway, fine. I'll just set it aside and work on something else for a while. This isn't worth my time.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 04:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Wait...are you saying that by placing a {{main}} tag on one ref section for the related book, one on another ref section for a related book with no article, one on a section for youtube videos, and one on a website ref section linking to the person that the site is named after, that you are effectively giving each reference section equal weight?

Frankly, all you are really doing is balancing how each section looks. What does the Clavius article have to do with the readers understanding of clavius.org? How does main-linking YouTube help the reader understand the moon landing hoax article any better? You're not balancing the ref sections as much as you are needlessly overlinking them... ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 05:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Balancing how they looked was the point... but, that's OK. It's fine the way that it is as well.
— V = I * R (talk to Ω) 05:09, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

You are restoring promotional material.

Why were the edits to Cheerwine "questionable"? All edits had edit summaries that were clear. The article was an advertisement as it was. The material I removed did not belong in the article. There is no rationale for the non free images you restored they are not logos, they are promotional photos. Please address the talk page of the article. Wikipedia is not a vehicle to advertise or peacock a product. This is an encyclopedia. Mjpresson (talk) 03:51, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Photos are to show the product in lieu of free images. The photos contain trademarks and copyrighted packaging design. ^TH1RT3EN _{talk ♦ contribs} 05:15, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

I will continue removing promotional and irrelevant or non-encyclopedic statements from the article. Mjpresson (talk) 04:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you seriously consider what you are restoring encyclopedic? HmmmmMjpresson (talk) 04:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Reach citation

I'm not sure there IS a source on the internet that confirms that the game is somehow related to a Halo novel. I'm sure just citing that all three (somehow, First Strike is left out, even when a lot of it deals with the battle) involve the battle would count as original research.-- OsirisV (talk) 13:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Dead Rising

Template:Dead Rising has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Crufty?

The events that caused the destruction of the comic book was 'crufty'? Why even put the value of the comic book in? The comic book is an important enough character to be given scene headings as Brock is given scene titles. The episode structure focuses on the comic book so I'm going to add references to the comics journey. Alatari (talk) 04:57, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Cheerwine-icecream.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Cheerwine-icecream.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 10:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 10:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Unterbheit.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Unterbheit.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Resident Evil templates

I split out the templates because the main template was getting way too big. And from what I can see, there was no actual dislike for the two templates; one template was redirected for no reason, the other was redirected for lack of content. The latter, being characters, now has adequate content, and will only grow [I've already got several more Resident Evil characters waiting in the wings]. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the clogging of the main page could be alleviated by the method of linking to the other templates which is already done. Maybe we should reopen the discussion on WT:VG? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ClerksEp3.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ClerksEp3.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 04:43, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

human-powered vehicles

Hello, I opened discussion on Template:Human-powered vehicles, thought you might like to comment.Nankai (talk) 00:11, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:ClerksEp3.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:ClerksEp3.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:34, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection 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.

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. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:50, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

MGS Peace Walker story

Hey, I've put in a story section for the game, having progressed very far and I think it's not much of a blot unlike the atrocious one in MG Wiki. Feel free to tinker with it, but be wary of this Whitmore guy, that one has big issues against me.--Eaglestorm (talk) 17:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of J. G. Quintel for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article J. G. Quintel, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. G. Quintel until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.

Orphaned non-free image File:Brocklicense.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Brocklicense.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 03:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Helper.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Helper.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 15:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:VGnavbox-bloated

Template:VGnavbox-bloated has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — This, that, and the other (talk) 11:04, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:StarWarsBookAndRecord.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:StarWarsBookAndRecord.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 04:01, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:DrG1.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:DrG1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)