User talk:Mel Etitis/Archive 33

Wikipedia:Deletion review#List of interesting or unusual_place_names

Further to your views on the undeletion, you may be interested that the page was relisted on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names (2nd nomination). Regards--A Y Arktos 10:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Hi - I am really confused about the process that has been followed on this whole thing. The AfD has now been closed. I have attempted to discuss with User:R. fiend. I don't feel as though I am getting anywhere. Could you please have a look again at the AfD (2nd nomination) and my comments at User talk:R. fiend#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion.2FList of interesting or unusual place names .282nd nomination.29 and his response to me at User_talk:AYArktos#Places_names. Thanks (PS you welcomed me way back on 9 March nearly a year ago :-) ) A Y Arktos 23:30, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

You might want to look into the 2nd Wikipedia:Deletion_review#List_of_interesting_or_unusual_place_names. It appears that the "c. 25 for Overturn/Relist and c. 14 for endorse" outcome of the first wasn't clear for everyone. -- User:

Henrik Steffens

Hi. Henrik Steffens and Henrich Steffens were duplicate articles. They are both about the same person and contained very similar information. To leave them both in existence would have been to cause potential confusion. I have replaced the redirect and included the material to be merged. I'm puzzled as to why you think the articles contradict one another. Certainly one describes him as being "of Norwegian extraction" on the grounds that he was born in Norway, whilst the other describes him as "German and Danish" on the grounds that he lived in Denmark and wrote in Danish. This hardly constitutes a contradiction. However, I agree that I should have merged the articles in the first place, as I have now done. You'll find it makes very little difference. Deb 17:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Henrik Steffens

I suppose that's true, yes, if I'm going to do something, I like to do it straight away. But the point is that I didn't really think it needed doing. Okay, the person who wrote "Henrich Steffens" might have been hurt at losing the whole of their contribution, and I take that point. But there was very little non-duplicate information. I don't actually know anything about Steffens. It's just that whenever I notice a duplicate article, I do a quick assessment of whether it is a duplicate, and take appropriate action, ie. either redirect it or merge the two articles. I prefer this to leaving it lying around. Obviously you have a different strategy, but I don't think that makes me wrong. One of the best things about wikipedia is that articles are never perfect and are constantly being improved. Deb 17:57, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Henrik Steffens

Well done! Deb 18:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

lawyer really exists

I'm tied up this weekend but will be dealing with ifd soon. --BradPatrick 12:38, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Duke Ellington

No problem, it looks like you only collided with my edits on line 31 (now line 33). I just changed one sentence back. If you think that changes the meaning too much feel free to change it again and I'll leave it be. I just thought that the wording was a bit confusing the way it was. Jnk 19:00, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Fair Use Fracas

Mel, I responded to your comments and those of others over on AN/I. I understand your position and I don't wish to make a habit of acting out of process but if two images like these blatant copyvios survive IFD then IFD is broken. I made my statement about that by deleting them. They are some of the most obvious examples I have seen on WP and I shot them on site. There was no "consensus" on IFD on them, go look at the log, myself, the uploader and a buddy of the uploader who's images I also was after responded and that was it. IFD is broken, let's fix it. --Wgfinley 01:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Rena Vlahopoulou

Hi Mel, I'm User:LiniShu, and I'm contacting you regarding the categorization of the Rena Vlahopoulou article. On 12 February I added tags for Category:Actors, Category:Film actors, Category:Greek film actors, Category:Greek stage actors, and Category:Stage actors to the article. The article had already been categorized into Category:Greek actors. Shortly thereafter, you removed the parent categories: Actors, Film actors, Greek actors, and Stage actors. I can reasonably guess that you were proceeding according to the widely followed (up until now) application of WP MOS about not having an article in both a category and its parent. What you may not be aware of are the results of the most recent discussion (January 2006) about Professions subcategorized by Nationality, specifically the professions of Film actors and Film directors. This discussion can be found at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Professions subcategorized by Nationality, and a copy with continued discussion can be found at Category talk:Actors#Categorization of professions by nationality. The consensus, given here in summary, was: a) it is beneficial for the browsing preferences of some users to have articles appear in both a Profession category and a Profession by Nationality category and b) it is not detrimental to Wikipedia to do so - i) per WP developers, large categories are not a problem for the servers, and ii) slightly "cluttering" articles with more categories is a secondary concern to having useful categories for browsing. It was decided, for the time being, to specifically apply the results of the discussion to Actors and Directors categories; one might say as a proof of concept.

With your experience on Wikipedia (30,000+ edits!), if you care to comment on Category talk:Actors after considering this topic, your perspective would be appreciated.

For now, I am going to add back the parent categories to Rena Vlahopoulou, in order to be consistent with the other Greek actors articles that I had recently edited, and also to be consistent with the most recently held discussion and consensus on categorization of these type of articles. I have no wish or intention, however, of initiating an edit war, so, if, after reading the above, you still are strongly enough opposed to the presence of the parent categories to remove them again, we will leave it at that, pending further discussion.

Look forward to hearing from you. Thanks. Respectfully, Lini 02:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Mel, thanks for your reply on my talk page and your comments on Category talk:Actors. I'm afraid you didn't have a chance to "get the whole picture". I believe that when you looked at Category talk:Actors, all the sections on that page except the most recent had somehow been cleared - so you missed the earlier stages of the discussion, and yes, it would have appeared as if it was only between a few editors with only one on the side of populating the parent categories, and had not reached a conclusion. I've restored the "missing" sections, and may I direct your attention also to Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Professions subcategorized by Nationality, which is where the discussion began before part of it was copied to Category talk:Actors. Thanks in advance for your patience with the "confusion". --Lini 03:28, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Bachelor's Degree

Sorry if I used a powerful word--"incorrect" would have been better.

I did misunderstand the sentence in Bachelor's Degree but the following list makes the complete meaning of the sentence ambiguous. Since the line is followed by a huge list of schools the statement implicitly says that all schools outside a few British ones have switched to "Bachelor's of (Specific field)". I will write something to clear the ambiguity.

As for U.S. universities, I attended a very prestigious school that only awards A.B.s in Physics. So there. DirectorStratton 04:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Mission Impossible

Your mission, should you accept it, is to help folks at Asian fetish get the article sorted out.

I thought of you because I've seen you in fire fights before and you remain cool. Also, I think you would bring some skills with you that would be invaluable in dealing with the problem.

As one editor described the article: "Half violates NOR, the other half is well-documented, but just silly..."

The problem: An anon user 80.138.XXX using a number of IP addresses in that range has been inserting white supremicist garbage into the article. This is the same vandal who was so problematic on the Virago page. That page was finally deleted and a stub left in its place.

Prior to the anon's arrival the Asian fetish article had narrowly survived an AfD. Unfortunately, though it sounds like a misnomer, there is such a phenomenon as "Asian fetish." A fairly new user Wzhao553 tried to clean up some of the anon's stuff (see "Physical anthropology" section of the article). Having done so, Wzhao553 was somewhat attached to the product. I deleted the section several times and raised some smoke about it. Others joined in and an edit war with the anon ensued. The article was locked and then Wzhao553, to his credit, organized a vote on the "Physical anthropology" section and another section on "Testosterone."

The vote has now been completed and Wzhao553 has asked me for assistance in closing it, but wants an admin involved. I thought of you (sorry, I will make it up to you, honest). It looks like 80.138.XXX has been using a sockpupet named Mr.Phil. I think that most of the editors involved are fairly straight up and would like to get this sorted out. Some still think the article should be deleted in its entirety. The anon is a real problem. Would you be willing to take a look at it and then compare notes? Sunray 07:12, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Evi Adam

Thanks for the advice on my talk page[1] but I have a question. How do I make a category within a parent category? In other words: The parent caterogy is Greek people, I want to create a category with in it by occupations called Greek models. How is that done? Thanks. ~~Mallaccaos, 13 February 2006

Thanks again for the help.  :) ~~Mallaccaos, 13 February 2006

Thieriot

I'll leave the interviews for now, but not the IMDB. the IMDB is neither NPOV nor reliable. Like Wikipedia, they are a second-hand source that get their information from somewhere. With luck for us, it is somewhere reliable. Without it, not. Interviews are a first-hand source. As for NPOV, the IMDB frequently posts bios from non-NPOV sources as well as accepts submission from non-NPOV users. Here is a random example - actress Jamie-Lynn Discala [2]. The IMDB bio copies her official site bio word-for-word, and includes the line "Jamie has been busy making a name for herself as a remarkably multi-talented young woman", not to mention three different, self-conflicting descriptions of her ethnic background, only one of which is correct. JackO'Lantern 22:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. The IMDB does indeed offer excellent filmographies, but my vice is not that they repeat what people say about themselves in interviews, but rather that they post things that no one has ever said, ever. Like DiScala - that bit about her mother being Greek was completely made-up by a user who submitted similar notations to a bunch of actors, with lines about them "considering themselves mostly Greek, speaking Greek", etc. including one to Nicollette Sheridan, who only had a Greek stepfather. DiScala's mother is Cuban, not Greek, and indeed that is what it says on Wikipedia, and what it also says in a different trivia note on Discala on the IMDB, who win the Oscar for self-contradiction. I like interviews because they're frankly the only first-hand sources available to us, where we can get the information straight from the person, and rule out the middle men like the NNDB, IMDB and their kin, who never cite their sources. JackO'Lantern 22:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Oklahoma

Look at what Oklahoma wrote on his talk page:

Mel Etitis knows as much about me as he does about who "created the term" Cosmotheism. I am not "Paul Vogel" and I would think Mel would be able to verify that. Mel, are you "Paul Vogel"? I believe I am being censored because I am right and you are wrong. I noticed that you changed the Cosmotheism page to read "a prominent user of the term", but I won't waste my time waiting for an apology. Is this the standard way that a Wikipedian should treat someone who they disagree with?

I'm pretty sure he's right. You previously said he "confessed to being 216.45.251.197". That's not quite right. What he really confessed to is being a user operating under IPs beginning with 64, 68, 69, 70, etc. Those IPs trace to Oklahoma (hence his username), while 216.45.251.197 traces to New York. In addition, the editing styles are different: Oklahoma focuses on Mordekhay Nesiyahu, while Paul Vogel focuses on William Luther Pierce. Therefore, I'm pretty sure "Paul Vogel" and "Oklahoma" are two different people. So please reconsider this block, again (if necessary, a CheckUser request can be filed to clear this up). Also apologize to Oklahoma if necessary, for mistaken identity. --TML1988 23:46, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Punctuation

Re my Shelly Manne article, you do know, I hope, that placing commas inside of quotation marks (inverted commas) is standard U.S. editorial style? On the other hand, in the interests of consistency and an international stance, I will attempt to conform to the Wikipedia style from now on. I see you got around the problem in my article by just removing the quotes. Well, although I am ambivalent about that (I never could quite accept the reality of West Coast jazz as a meaningful musical category; however, that is my own opinion, and I suppose we must try to be neutral), let it be. In general, your editorial tweaking has been helpful; a second pair of eyes is always welcome. I know my prose can get a bit out of control and can stand a bit of tightening. Alan W 04:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Mo Hulian/Kristen Maloney

Hi,

I wanted to thank you for the tips on HTML and internal links you left on my talk page.

I was also wondering why you changed words in my edits of the Mo Huilan and Kristen Maloney articles and referred to said changes as "grammar corrections." In both cases, you took words that were completely grammatically correct and acceptable within the context of the article and replaced them with less appropriate, simpler words. I do understand that Wikipedia needs to be accessible to all, however, the words I used--I refer specifically to "garnered" in the Mo Huilan article and "quadrennium" in Kristen Maloney--were not complicated. In addition, in gymnastics "quadrennium" is a specific term that refers to a between-Olympics period under a specific Code of Points, not just any old four years.

Also, in the Mo Huilan article: you reverted my edit "Her gymnastics is known for both its exceptional difficulty and technique, but also for its inconsistency" back to "She is known for performing routines of exceptional difficulty and technique, but also for inconsistency." There was no reason to revert; the current version is quite stiff and is not gramatically correct ("inconsistency" needs a modifier).

I'm just wondering why you made these changes?

Hello 'Mel'

I returned to Wikipedia and found somebody had awarded me a barnstar for my efforts on the 29 12 2005 edit of 'philosophy'. I see you have returned to the fray. Good luck. But no matter how you try, sentences like

In the modern context, it is used both formally and informally to refer to concepts in knowledge, reason, logic, and belief in their most elemental and abstracted forms.

will return, like the sea. Best, Dbuckner 20:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Prove a negative

It's easy when you set up a situation you can test - but try it with one you can't. I worship the teapot that orbits the sun - it's too small to be detected so you prove it's not there. SOPHIA 00:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I made and edit summary in reference to an untestable situation (ie proving that Jesus didn't exist). That you chose to extend that to a general statement led me to believe you had misunderstood me. I was giving you a clearer example of my comment in the context in which it was made. SOPHIA 09:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

"Confucius" reversion

Hi,

Sorry for not explaining the "major & unexplained change to reading section" in the Confucius article for Wikipedia.

I added the reference to Slingerland's complete Analects translation with commentary, and deleted the reference to Slingerland's partial Analects translation, because I thought if Slingerland's translation was good enough to include, it was good enough to include the complete translation (with traditional commentaries thrown in, no less).

I changed the reference from Creel's Chinese Thought from Confucius to Mao Tse-tung (which makes only passing reference to Confucius) to Creel's substantial intellectual biography of Confucius.

I added the reference to Ivanhoe's book because if one DID want something like Creel's Chinese Thought from Confucius to Mao Tse-tung (i.e., a more comprehensive history of Chinese thought and how Confucius figures in it) Ivanhoe's book would be an up-to-date guide that focused on Confucianism, per se.

I added the reference to Van Norden, ed., Confucius and the Analects: New Essays, because it is the only English-language anthology of secondary articles on, well, Confucius and the Analects.

I dropped the articles by Wu because he is not a significant scholar of Confucius.

But if you prefer the article as is, I won't try to change the readings again.

Best wishes,

Bryan bryan12603 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bryan12603 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 15 February 2006

Mo Huilan/Kristen Maloney

Hi again,

Thank you for your response.

"Garnered" in the Mo Huilan article: "garnered" is a word never found outside music and perhaps sports journalism. It actually means "gather or store in or as if in a granary", and is misused by journalists to mean something like "get" or "receive".

If the term has entered colloquial English and is commonly used in sports journalism, I don't see why it would not be appropriate to use in a sports article. A secondary definition of "garnered" is "to amass or acquire." "Gained" is really not the correct word and sounds very stiff and formal. I will try to find a third synonym to replace "garnered," but again, I feel it was appropriate in context.

"Quadrennium" in Kristen Maloney certainly exists, and might be a technical term in sport, but again it's surely better to use a straightforward plain English term. I can't see the advantage in using a four-syllable unusual word over one-syllable common words.

In this case, using one-syllable common words detracts from the meaning of the sentence. Maloney did not excel in any random four year period, but in one specific period. The only alternative would be to write "1997-2000," which sounds even worse. Any gymnastics fan reading the page would easily understand the word "quadrennium" and even if they didn't--must we always pander to the lowest common denominator and use "easy words?" I will be reverting this one, because I do think it was a needless change.

The sentence "Her gymnastics is known for both its exceptional difficulty and technique, but also for its inconsistency" replaced the clear and grammatically correct "She is known for performing routines of exceptional difficulty and technique, but also for inconsistency". Your version contains the odd use of "gymnastics" as a singular noun (not actually incorrect, but rare and uncomfortable sounding). You say "'inconsistency' needs a modifier", but I don't see why

Use of the word gymnastics as a singular noun is extremely common, and has been used in books and articles about the sport. Perhaps that isn't the case in British English, but in America and Canada it is very common to hear someone say "I don't like his gymnastics" or "his gymnastics suffered," much in the way you could say "I don't like his acting" or "her writing is excellent." I'll leave this one alone, but if you should see "gymnastics" used as a singular noun in future articles, please know that it is in fact correct and common.

Thank you again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mademoiselle Sabina (talk • contribs) 05:03, 15 February 2006

Consensus / philosophy

I've said I unconditionally support the draft article by User:KSchutte/Philosophy, so long as you support it (OK that's the only condition). It has faults but he seems to know a bit about the subject. Dbuckner 18:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Keble College - Timmy Mallett

Timmy Mallett was a student at Keble College. He matriculated but dropped out of his studies and never graduated, but he was a student at Keble College. Why was his name removed from the page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Njd123 (talk • contribs) Revision as of 21:57, 15 February 2006

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Pleace check your last edit at this page. I think the deletion diff was an error. 84.59.190.118 22:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

CSD on existence of god pages

Hey, can you please delete Arguments_against_the_existence_of_God and Arguments_for_the_existence_of_God please? They were merged into Existence of God last year, but someone returned Arguments_for_the_existence_of_God to the version with content again. Please delete both page histories so this doesn't happen again. Thanks :) Infinity0 ^talk 23:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Temple of Confucius

Thank you for your continuing attention to Temple of Confucius and fixing up some of the problems. I put it into categories relating to the Philosophy of Politics and Politics and Religion because of the fact that Confucianism was a government cult with certain political and cultural purposes. This is demonstrated by the Confucian temples in a way that is not evident from the article on Confucianism itself. However, I do admit that "Temple of Confucius" did sit rather awkwardly alongside the other, mostly Western-oriented articles in the same categories!

I would actually like to somehow bring the photo of the Temple of Literature from the Vietnamese page on Van Mieu and put it on the Confucian temple page, in the section on Confucian temples outside China. I think it would help counterbalance the highly "Chinese" image that the current single photo inevitably conveys. However, I've had a look at Wikipedia Commons, I'm still a little unsure how I should do this. Do you know of anyone who would be able to help? Bathrobe 01:06, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of the top photo, with the pond. It has a refreshing Vietnamese look about it quite different from the Chinese feel of the top photo. Thanks for the explanation about the categories. I agree that the categories were inappropriate. I found it quite difficult to categorise the article, except for the obvious assignment to "Confucianism".

Bathrobe 02:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Mel Etitis, thank you for doing so quickly and efficiently what I was obviously ill-equipped to do! It makes a huge difference to both the Van Mieu and the Confucian temple articles! Bathrobe 11:51, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

BCE/CE

I have noticed several times that you have changed BC/AD articles to BCE/CE for personal reasons, and would like to ask that you stop this because while I personally do oppose the dates drastic changes like that are disruptive. I personally favour the author's choice rule, and wouldn't change BCE/CE article to BC/AD. I hope we can work this out, Chooserr 07:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Gradual or sweeping change?

Thank you for your message Mel. This is a little absurd, given the huge changes in the Philosophy page since November. I'm all for reverting to the pre-November version, but this is like those daft planning departments that prevent you from stripping off some 1960's pebble-dash from a Georgian house. Dbuckner 08:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

OK - indeed I already pointed out in the talk page that there are grammatical inaccuracies and 1066-and-all-that passages, but there are certain editors I want to get onside, and he is one of them. Dbuckner 13:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Dbuckner 13:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Yorùbá

Hmm, you have a point there. My reason for changing it over a number of articles and categories was that Yoruba in its common or popular use (as the term for the ethnic identity) is written without tonal diacritics. I am aware that the version with the accent marks accords with Yoruba's own orthography, and I can well imagine that specialized literature on African philophy makes a point of citing the name in its correct tonal representation. I don't really know how to solve this; I have the feeling that we should be as consistent as possible throughout Wikipedia, but on the other hand it might be a good idea to keep using Yorùbá in some specialized contexts. What are your thoughts? — mark ✎ 08:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Asian fetish

"...it can't respond to what happens after it's in place, only to what will happen if it's not applied": I don't agree that protection is in response to risk. That implies that protection is always pre-emptive, and it isn't. The semi-protection policy itself is quite clear on that, and I can't imagine we protect articles because we suppose there might be some vandalism at some point. The page has been protected in some form or another since 3rd February, which is a long time. Perhaps at least give unprotection a whirl, and re-semi if the anon does as threatened and blocks won't stick? -Splash^talk 23:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that looks like grounds enough for re-protection. Since the anon's faith is questionable at best, using only semi (to avoid class-detention) is probably reasonable. -Splash^talk 15:01, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Is there something we can do to get the 80.13x.x.x IP addresses banned from the Asian fetish page? The anti-semetic, anti-woman, anti-Asian diatribes are getting a little tiring, and I'm not Jewish, a woman, or Asian! -- Gnetwerker 00:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I agree -- I think the page is distasteful, but the partisans are so aggressive, the page won't be going away soon, so I feel the best course is to label it as POV and try to reduce the outright racist content. I wish that WP had a true reputation system. -- Gnetwerker 18:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry!

Hi, I'm very sorry -- it seems that I made a mistake, which you kindly corrected (to the article on Kingmaker (band)). I was doing a big list of disambiguation edits, in this case on the term "rugby", and I appear to have got that one wrong. Sorry again, and thanks for correcting it -- but as you can see from my contributions list , I did hundreds of them accurately.

I'm sorry for the mistake, but a mistake is not vandalism: Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_vandalism_is_not

I am concerned that the message your have left on my talk looks like the standard subst:test-n might-be-vandalism warning, which I feel is inappropriate. Would you like to consider deleting it?

Thanks! BrownHairedGirl 23:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Mel, thank you very much for so promptly changing the entry on my talk page and for removing the finger-wagging note ... and for being so nice about it :) I'll take care to check my disambigs more carefully in future! BrownHairedGirl

KT Tunstall nationality

I edited the article on KT Tunstall to change to the form of nationality expression proposed on the article's talk page (by an unregistered user). Both that other user and I find it to be a far more convenient way of expressing nationality to write that ' KT Tunstall is a British singer-songwriter from Fife, Scotland'. There are several reasons that this ought to be considered the standard for any questionable Home Nation 'nationality', and even more reasons for it to be so with musicians (although particularly bands). There are further personal reasons for KT Tunstall's nationality to be expressed as such; she is of Cantonese and Gaelic Irish ancestry, without a drop of Scottish blood, although being adopted does blur the situation; she's based in London; and at the 2006 Brit Awards (on Wednesday), she declared herself to be 'proud to be British', which is a strange thing for a Scot to say. Compartmentalising against practice for other countries, against the facts of an individual's case, and against the wishes of the individual seems a tad ridiculous. Bastin8 00:10, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Kristen Maloney

I am reverting the article again and making a complaint with Wikipedia's Help Desk. If you continue to needlessly alter this article, I will continue to correct it. You are changing words that do not need to be changed, and in doing so, you are completely altering the meaning of the paragraph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mademoiselle Sabina (talk • contribs) 07:34, 17 February 2006

Taoism

Good job on the Taoism article, it is more accurate (IMO) and easier to follow than the previous version. --Fire Star 15:33, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Namco arcade games

The admins should check on you

I've provided info in the edit summary on my updates and added links to the discussion page, you choose to ignore them. I've played the game and have written my own emulators for many Namco arcade games, my info is correct. I've provided links and you can download MAME and the roms and check for yourself. Frankly if you actually knew about these games you wouldn't question my submissions, you come across as being no more qualified to update the Namco arcade games entries than gingerfield. Please stop reverting my submissions without actually having any info about these games, I have absolutely no intention of submitting incorrect info.

Marchen Maze is a Namco System 1 game, all Namco System 1 games have a resolution of 288 x 224, the vertical games actually have the monitor rotated on its side. The whole point of an arcade system is to have many games run on the same hardware.

If you actually played the game in a MAME and selected Game Information you would see the resolution is 288 x 224. Also if you go into service mode an goto the settings screen you would see the lives are listed as "ALICE" (default is ALICE 3 for an initial 3 lives).

Marchen Maze info: http://caesar.logiqx.com/php/emulator_game.php?id=mame&game=mmaze http://www.arcade-history.com/history_database.php?page=detail&id=1560

Guitarist list links

The decision has been made to delete the article, but removing the links comes first. I'd be done already if the servers weren't having such a hard time. There is no AfD because the page is going to be deleted due to copyright issues, but somebody had inappropriately removed the notice from the page. --Michael Snow 18:27, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

It had already been decided, the page had been listed as a copyright problem for two weeks, and my removing the links was a signal of that decision. I realize you can find the links after deletion, but it's customarily done before, and the message when you're deleting the page specifically reminds you of that so you don't forget to remove them. Also, I would prefer not to leave a bunch of red links lying around that invite people to recreate copyright infringements. --Michael Snow 21:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)