User talk:JTBX: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 14:27, 23 June 2008

Welcome!

Hello, JTBX, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ~~~~; this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! JTBX (talk) 20:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC) (From myself Lol no admin sent this to me :( )[reply]

Re: The PlayStation 2 conflict

I've replied at User talk:Dancter#The PlayStation 2 conflict to avoid fragmented discussion. Dancter 17:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied both at User talk:Dancter#PS2 and at Talk:PlayStation 2#Intro. Please direct further discussion of this dispute to the latter thread. Dancter 23:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation 2 intro

Before revert see the Talk:PlayStation 2#Intro my edit is fully explained there. --Ciao 90 11:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FROM THE PS2 TALK PAGE:

Pure numbers alone is not the only measure of "success". One must take into account other factors such as (a) the Atari 2600 and Nintendo ES dominated with 85% of total video consoles sold, while PS2 only had ~66% (with Xbox/Cube taking the rest). (b) There were 2 billion fewer humans back in the 80s, thus limiting how many units either Atari or Nintendo could sell. Smaller population == fewer opportunities for sale. (c) The fact that Atari gave birth to a new hobby for home entertainment (1977) and Nintendo resurrected the hobby from the dead (the 1983-84 crash) is also a reason why they deserve "most successful", not PS2. POINT: There's more to the word "success" then dreamt of in your limited philosophy. - Theaveng 14:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we just consider gaming; Playstation has done alot of great things. For starters, do you really think that Final Fantasy 7 would have been anywhere near as good, if it ended up on the N64 (where it was originally headed, before Nintendo opted for cartridges)? It would not have been anywhere near as long, nor would it have been as cinematic, and basically, would not have been the masterpiece that we all know and love (and what most of us consider to be the pinnacle of the entire series). We have Resident Evil. The game was only given the go-ahead, because Capcom new that the Playstation's userbase were generally older, and on it there was a market for stronger, more mature material. Not that it never would have happened, but it wouldn't have happened the way it did without the Playstation, and it wouldn't be the game it is today.

I agree. PS2 is my favorite console (for now). That still does not mean I think it should be labeled "most successful". (See comments above.) Best-selling, yes, but not most-successful. ----- Also: Most Final Fantasy fans consider FF6 to be the best, not FF7. (See various polls.) If you've not played FF6, do so now because it's the better game. ----- And Resident Evil is not the first survival horror game; that was "Haunted House" on the Atari, plus several similar games released on Commodore, Nintendo, CD32, and IBM-compliant PCs. Don't hold-up RE as some grand-new idea, because it isn't. The RE-style genre existed long before PS1 came along. ----- - Theaveng 14:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Playstation is responsible for getting gaming out of the nerd fraternity, and into the mainstream. While this is certainly a double-edged sword, there certainly wouldn't be the market for multi-million dollar gaming epics, without what Sony's Playstation did to the industry. Not the booming market we have today, at least. Look at Gran Turismo, it was placed in bars and clubs so it would help push gaming further.

"Into the mainstream" is a well-worn urban legend that many people like to repeat (along with Betamax had a better picture & Porn helped VHS win), but NONE of these supposed claims are backed by any kind of citations or proof. The previous consoles Super Nintendo and Sega Genesis both sold ~150 million units, comparable to how many PS1s/N64s were sold. I don't see any "explosive growth" as often is claimed. - Theaveng 14:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the games industry is galactic in scale, more money is put into developing games. While sure, alot of crap has come of it, do you really think anyone, let alone SEGA, could have afforded to make Shenmue? Or what about Resident Evil 4? It's not like little gaming masterpieces have been stamped out. PS2 has helped elevate gaming and sold a crazy amount of units, and this all I want to sum up. But you don't read and accuse a news site for a blog? And does it mean all the news sites we use are not 'experts'? I don't want to be involved anymore, do with the article what you want. JTBX 23:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't reveal my real name on the public forum. That's extremely, extremely rude, and I'm sure it violates some rule somewhere. I've deleted it. - Theaveng 14:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't reveal personal info

"I don't want to be involved anymore, do with the article what you want [Troy]." JTBX 23:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't reveal my real name on the public forum. That's extremely, extremely rude, and I'm sure it violates some rule somewhere. I've deleted it from the PS2 talk page. - Theaveng 14:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images in GTA articles

I've reverted your re-addition of the images and the removal of the excessive non-free content tags because there were/are far too many images on those pages which aren't free. That quantity of images is not necessary for the reader to understand the content of the article and so are not necessary to be included. This is a very important policy for Wikipedia as it could result in legal action so using non-free screen shots must be completely, 100% necessary or it cannot happen. I hope it's clear now why the images have been removed and are tagged for cleanup. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In respect of your re-addition of the Liberty City images, please see this policy page. The image must do more than "aid in the description" of an aspect of the game, they must be used for critical commentary. Using images just as a description aid isn't good enough. The maps, and 1 image per game of how it compares to New York are acceptable. Images of lots of different places in the game are overdoing it. If the images are just being used to describe what the game looks like then using too many is going to be a problem when it comes to fair use. The fair use policy states that only the minimum required is used and it is not necessary for many of the pictures to be there for the reader to be able to understand the subject. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warhawk

Since the side articles of Warhawk are going to be deleted I think we should turn them into templates that hide, and then put them on the main article.--Playstationdude 14:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried making the template, but wasn't very successful. What it is is at the beginning people put Navbox on the beginning of the template. See Template:HighDefinitionMedia. I well look more into it and ask around. Also saw that you joined the task force. Just reserved the new Ratchet and Clank. I only hope that they make a last announcement of Co-op play. Loved the L1 over the shoulder view.--Playstationdude 20:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao90

See Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts where I opened-up a request for comment. - Theaveng 20:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Warhawk (PlayStation 3 game), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. *Cremepuff 222* 00:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warhawk

Luckily it doesn't come up on the article when I checked it. I really don't know what happened, but can you go to wp:rm and vote it to be moved to regular warhawk. Just recopy and paste your edits and I am sure someone will ad the ref later for you. Thinks for the add on of the article though, didn't know he released the information. You probably will take a long time to answer this since heroes is on.--Playstationdude 01:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I am sorry. Don't worry I just watched the new episode for today, and all it did was make me ask more questions then answers.--Playstationdude 01:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, I think the key to Lost's and Heros' success is the fact of cliffhanger questions. They are basically taking viewers the same way that soaps took our moms.--Playstationdude 01:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WWII Infobox

If you wish to edit the WWII Infobox, go to {{WW2InfoBox}}. I suggest, however, that if you wish to make the changes you made by substituting the template with a regular infobox, you should go to the template talk first, or you'll just spark an edit war. Regards, Parsecboy 18:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:WarhawkArbiters.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:WarhawkArbiters.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Biopredatormask2.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Biopredatormask2.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Firearms

Welcome to the WikiProject Firearms. I hope you enjoy being a member.--LWF 03:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ratchet & Clank

Here is what GameSpot said is bad about the new game:

There's some good humor in it, but the story isn't very interesting, and the ending is a letdown
So many different, often unnecessary gameplay mechanics that the game lacks an identity
Difficulty is too easy and only the last hour or so is remotely challenging.

I personally don't use that site.--Playstationdude 00:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Palookaville.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Palookaville.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be Warned

if you change the Cantell School article again disrespectfully your account will be liable for deletion. 86.144.144.30 (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Palookaville.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Palookaville.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:RuthJohnson.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:RuthJohnson.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Waggers (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cantell

Thanks for your edits to the Cantell School article, I'm sure you mean well. However, we have strict policies here at Wikipedia that our content must be verifiable without WP:original research - that means ideally each statement, especially if controversial, should be referenced with a reliable source. Please add references to the text you've edited, and where none exist, please delete the statements in question. Please also remember that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view - in other words, please leave your opinion out of it and stick to published, reliable, verifiable, referenced facts. Thanks, Waggers (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hi

Yep, I live in the Southampton area. Waggers (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your turn

Hi! It is now your turn to ask a question in India quiz. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problems

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Image:RuthJohnson.jpg, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material without the permission of the author. As a copyright violation, Image:RuthJohnson.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Image:RuthJohnson.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at [[Talk:Image:RuthJohnson.jpg]] and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at [[Talk:Image:RuthJohnson.jpg]] with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on [[Talk:Image:RuthJohnson.jpg]].

However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Waggers (talk) 12:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PINQ

Hi,

Your question has been answered. Can you please confirm whether the answer is correct, so that the quiz can continue. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛^{Talk to me/My edits} 08:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wp:in quiz

Hi, Sorry for the delay, I'm on an extended wikibreak with limited Internet access. Please ask the next question. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M-1 Carbine Revert War

The M1 carbine article is currently on lock down. An administrator has requested some discussion from memeber of the Firearms Wikiproject. Can you take a look? Sf46 (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vortigaunt, notability, referencing, content and structure.

Because edit summaries aren't long enough and aren't meant as forums to debate this over, I'm bringing it here. Vortigaunt fails to establish its in its current form. Notability is not a case of "I think it's notable so it must be", it needs to be proved - especially for fictional subjects like this - and that burden of proof is on the article's editors. From WP:NOTE:

"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

Look at WP:FICTION#Defining_notability_for_fiction's examples of what sort of coverage can define notability:

"For articles about fictional concepts, reliable secondary sources cover information such as sales figures, critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, and merchandise; this information describes the real-world aspects of the concept, so it is real-world content."

Notability is best established through reception: How have these characters been received by the critics? How popular are they with fans/normal non-critic people? These need to be fully referenced to reliable, secondary third-party sources. From that extends merchandising, if available (in this case it is). Design and development commentary is a further avenue to help reinforce that notability. Currently, the article does not have anything of this type, which is why the "additional references needed" template is not enough, nor does it actually help describe what needs to be done. Without any established notability, the article's place on an encyclopedia is put in complete jeopardy. However, a lack of these things this does not mean the article has absolutely no notability and should be deleted - that is not my opinion or motivation for this. The template states this fairly clearly:

"If you are familiar with the subject matter, please expand or rewrite the article to establish its notability. The best way to address this concern is to reference published, third-party sources about the subject."

Only if they cannot be produced does an article need deletion, but I would be suprised if this and headcrab were unable to do this. However, the burden of proof is on the authors of the article.

As for the fansite template, that is because of the structure and content of article, while not written from an in-universe perspective, is written entirely from the view of a Half-Life fan - people unfamiliar with the subject will not likely understand it - and goes into far, far too much detail (conflicting with the principle of Wikipedia not being a collection of indiscriminate information) for an article on a fictional element. WP:Fancruft#Tone and focus is the area in concern here:

"One of the major aspects of fancruft articles is that they tend to focus entirely on their subject's fictional relevance, as opposed to their place in the real world."

To remove this issue, a full rewrite is appropriate, in order to properly balance real-world relevance with their in-universe role. Look at some of good status or featured status articles on similar subjects in the VG Wikiproject. Elite (Halo) and Flood (Halo), both classed as good articles provide good examples of how to properly establish notability for an in-game species and properly describe the subject in encyclopedic terms. Vortigaunt does not do this at all, which is why the templates are all completely necessary.

I want to reiterate this point one more time though, just to make sure it is clear: the issue is not that the subject is not notable. The issue is that the article in its current form does not prove in itself that it is notable, nor does it treat the subject's relevance in the real-world. It is a surmountable problem. If I didn't think it could be fixed, the template up would say "Vortigaunt is being considered for deletion", rather the current ones. -- Sabre (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Headcrab also exhibits the same symptoms, but with that I'd be even more confident that its notability can be established. Headcrabs are kind of everywhere in the video gaming culture and press. The real issues arise with the other creatures. These do not express notability, and I doubt that they ever can, certainly not as individual articles. A merge with locations and events into a collective World of Half-Life article or something like that (see comparable example articles under the VG project) may be able to accomodate some of them. I decided against putting similar templates on them all mainly due to the inevitable backlash from angry fans, which is why they're only on Vortigaunt, in hope that perhaps I can spark something towards sorting that article out as a start. These articles have just been in this state for so long, it seems too many people have got used to the way they are.

The same notability problem lies with characters. Freeman, G-Man and Alyx will probably have very little trouble with dealing with establishing their notability, they are cult icons in video gaming. The rest, though, could be covered in a merged article such as a Characters of Half-Life and a minor characters list, which can then deal with generalised real-world commentary on Half-Life characters (again, see examples). I won't deny the size of this task, I started dealing with the universe topics related to the StarCraft series back in June 2007, and I'm still working on it with only the characters in a reasonable state and being readied for GA nomination. But, the results can be worth it. -- Sabre (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

userboxes

Fixed them.--Playstationdude (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seemed to be a missing divider in them. I found out by just comparing them with the playstation project's box. I don't remember that problem before though. I think a guy working on the Sega Project's userbox thought it wasn't supposed to be there when he was using it to make the sega box.--Playstationdude (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Biopredatormask2.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Biopredatormask2.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page Move

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to The Cloverfield creature, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. We have some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

The topic was under discussion and I do not see any evidence that consensus had been reached. While being bold is appreciated, it's important to use or at least check discussion sections before making major changes. -Verdatum (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This references have been used and debated before. There is reasonable argument that it is not as concrete as you would make it seem to be. The concensus reached was that the page name was not optimal but sufficient until an official name for the creature was released. -Verdatum (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow or move it unilaterally while discussion about it is underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. -Verdatum (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this discussion to Talk:The Cloverfield creature. Thank you. -Verdatum (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to move pages to bad titles or before discussions about the title have ended, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -Verdatum (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -Verdatum (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only does the director say it refers to the monster, "mutliple sightings of case designated Cloverfield" can't gramatically work any other way. We're allowed psuedonyms - I gave the example of Thirteen in House as well - we don't know her real name, so we use a reliably sourced psuedonym instead. Will ^(talk) 19:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's just silly and a bad argument. Will ^(talk) 19:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Biopredatormask2.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Biopredatormask2.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you for 24 hours to prevent your continued reverting on Cloverfield (creature). You had a warning about 3RR here and chose to continue. 1 2 3 4. During this block, I recommend reading WP:3RR and understand that edit warring is disruptive. In the future, if you have a dispute regarding certain content of the encyclopedia, please discuss things with the involved user(s), and do not constantly revert to a version that you prefer. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JTBX (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Sorry, but I have already learned not to do any of this again. I have added the proper discussion on the talk page of the article as well. In short, I have learnt now, sorry! JTBX (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

reason — Sit out the rest of the 24 hours. One with your number of edits should know better. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Well dat's just great.JTBX (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Biopredatormask2.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Biopredatormask2.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) 19:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Alienrunner.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Alienrunner.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) 06:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Wicsoviet.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Wicsoviet.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) 12:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Wicsoviet.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Wicsoviet.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Hux (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC) --Hux (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hitman_south_park2.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Hitman_south_park2.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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Nv8200p talk 14:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot create an image that is a derivative work of copyrighted material and use it on your User page. You cannot use any "fair use" images on your User page either. -Regards Nv8200p talk 02:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image of the PlayStation is OK, if it was created from scratch. The reason is that the PlayStation would be considered a "useful object." Designs for useful objects, such as vehicular bodies, wearing apparel, household appliances, and the like are not protected by copyright. However, I believe the artistic style of South Park characters is unique enough that using a character that looks like a South Park character could be considered copyright infringement even though that exact character never existed. Your South Park character may not be transformative enough from the original work to be free of copyright. -Regards Nv8200p talk 16:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:WarhawkArbiters.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:WarhawkArbiters.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. NotifyBot (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job

Cookies!

Here are some cookies as a way of saying "thank you" for contributing to our project. Keep up the good work! Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC) has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.[reply]

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

The cookies are for brightening the day of another Wikipedian. I saw that you were in the adopt a user program and took a look at your contributions. : ) Cheers! Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

Hello. I used to be an adopter but I quit, but you can ask me any questions if needed. But I can't officialy adopt you. Cheers.--RyRy5 (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. Please don't refer to me as your adopter. Maybe just a good helper. So, any questions?--RyRy5 (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Mm... well, you should read some polocies at one of my subpages located here. They should help you a bit. I know their helping me. For article writing, read WP:ARTICLE for some but not all the tips of article writing. For avoiding drama, just try not to start it and always stay cool.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 02:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always here to help. BTW, you should start archiving soon.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 00:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Communism

I didn't understand your remark in the article Communism. I reverted it thinking it might be vandalism. I assume now that it wasn't. You might want to fill in the edit summary before saving. It will help other editors understand what you are trying to do. Student7 (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EndWar confusion

Fully understandable. I've made that mistake myself before! No hard feelings about it. I went back to the Tiberium and Mass Effect articles as well, and undid those revisions; both instances were of unsourced original research, especially the ME one about the PC criticism, which absolutely needed to be sourced. Peptuck (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

Hey there, I saw you were still seeking adoption, so I thought I would drop in and offer my services. Let me know if you're still interested. Cheers, xenocidic (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^^ Let me know if you're still interested in being adopted, if not, we can remove the offer from your userpage. xenocidic (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I didn't hear back from you, I removed you from the adoption seeking category. If you still want to be adopted, feel free to add {{subst:dated adoptme}} to your userpage again. xenocidic (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding opting out - yes, of course, any time. Adoption is really just so that you can have a "go-to" person if you need something answered. I used to create adoption subpages for people but I'm only doing that now if conversations get lengthy. Anyhow, feel free to drop by my talk page whenever you need anything. –xenocidic (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the expansion tag on "Reception & Legacy" on the C&C vg article.

Any hot tips you'd like to share on how to best go about expanding this section? You mean that for example I ought to include greater amounts of relevant information from those four source articles I referenced to? Kalamrir (talk) 10:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes and because it is an important game it should have more, for example take a look at Halo:_Combat_Evolved#Reception to get an idea of how it should look like and obviously any information on influence on other games, etc. JTBX (talk) 10:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll get to this as time allows. I have access to a lot of things which can serve as reliable source material and third-party references, so it shouldn't be too much of a problem. Kalamrir (talk) 10:23, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 267: / Line 267: @@
 :^^ Let me know if you're still interested in being adopted, if not, we can remove the offer from your userpage. [[User:Xenocidic|xenocidic]] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|talk]]) 21:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 ::Since I didn't hear back from you, I removed you from the adoption seeking category. If you still want to be adopted, feel free to add '''<nowiki>{{subst:dated adoptme}}</nowiki>''' to your userpage again. [[User:Xenocidic|xenocidic]] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|talk]]) 03:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
+*Regarding opting out - yes, of course, any time. Adoption is really just so that you can have a "go-to" person if you need something answered. I used to create adoption subpages for people but I'm only doing that now if conversations get lengthy. Anyhow, feel free to drop by my talk page whenever you need anything. –<font face="Verdana">[[User:Xenocidic|<span style="color:black">'''xeno'''cidic</span>]] ([[User talk:Xenocidic|<span style="color:black">talk</span>]])</font> 14:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
 == Regarding the expansion tag on "Reception & Legacy" on the C&C vg article. ==