User talk:Miremare

Pro Evolution Soccer 2012

I just don't know why you can blindly follow part of the guideline , which is 'Inappropriate Content', to delete others' things. As I said before you know nothing about the game and you just know how to remove others' contribution. Licensed content is always important in the game and it affects gamers or even non-gamers to play the game or not. Is that you like to use that guideline to delete things? I can use it too for blocking you to delete it:

What is appropriate?

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Articles on video games should give an encyclopedic overview of a game and its importance to the industry. Readers should be presented with a concise overview of the game's plot and gameplay. It is also important for readers to be able to learn how the game was developed and its commercial and critical reception. Because the encyclopedia will be read by gamers and non-gamers alike, it is important not to clutter an article with a detailed description of how to play it or an excessive amount of non-encyclopedic trivia. A general rule of thumb to follow if unsure: If the content only has value to people actually playing the game, it is unsuitable. Always remember the bigger picture: video game articles should be readable and interesting to non-gamers.

Also, you don't know the tradition of PES team. Why the teams appear with full player and kit licenses in the screenshots/trailers/gameplay tests? This is because the team has already secured the license for PES 2012! That's why the team put them in the screenshots/trailers/gameplay tests! So don't tell me the license may or may not be final. Probably my english is not good at all for communicating with you, I'll suggest you to check all the official videos of PES 2012 here(http://www.youtube.com/user/officialpes). At the end of the clips there are always 'claims'(something like this) of the team saying that they are using the license legitimately,

or check these if you like:

Official Licensed Product of UEFA CHAMPIONS LEAGUE(TM). Official Licensed Product of UEFA EUROPA LEAGUE(TM).　All names, logos and trophies of UEFA are the property, registered trademarks and/or logos of UEFA and are used herein with the permission of UEFA. No reproduction is allowed without the prior written approval of UEFA.　adidas, the 3-Bars logo, the 3-Stripe trade mark, adipure, and Predator are registered trade marks of the adidas Group, used with permission.　F50 and adizero are trademarks of the adidas Group, used with permission　the use of real player names and likenesses is authorised by FIFPro and its member associations.　Officially licensed by Czech National Football Association　Officially licensed by CFF　(C) 2011, DFB　Licence granted by m4e AG, Hohenkirchen-Siegertsbrunn　(C) The Football Association Ltd 2011. The FA Crest and FA England Crest are official trade marks of The Football Association Limited and are the subject of extensive trade mark registrations worldwide.　copyright FFF　Officially licensed by FIGC and AIC　(C) 2001 Korea Football Association　Licensed by OLIVEDESPORTOS (Official Agent of the FPF)　Producto oficial licenciado RFEF　Campeonato Nacional de Liga BBVA　Producto bajo Licencia Oficial de la LFP　www.lfp.es　(C) 2002 Ligue de Football Professionnel (R)　Officially Licensed by Eredivisie Media & Marketing C.V.　Official Licensed Product of A.C. Milan　Manchester United crest and imagery (C) MU Ltd　Official product manufactured and distributed by Konami Digital Entertainment under licence granted by Soccer s.a.s. di Brand Management S.r.l.　TOTTENHAM, TOTTENHAM HOTSPUR are used "under licence from Tottenham Hotspur Plc"　(C) Adagp, Paris 2009../Macary - Zublena & Regembal - Costantini, Architects　Wembley, Wembley Stadium and the Arch device are official trade marks of Wembley National Stadium Limited and are subject to extensive trade mark registrations.　All other copyrights or trademarks are the property of their respective owners and are used under license.　(C) Konami Digital Entertainment

Finally I suggest you to stop removing things but write more for the page. Also, it is never good to blindly follow the guideline without knowing the full picture. Hope you will change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonyauyc2003 (talk • contribs) 03:28, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Ultimately this is about how an encyclopedia article should be written, which is prose rather than lists. This subject has been debated several times at WT:VG and the consensus is that lists are rarely appropriate. Generally, for a football/soccer game like PES or FIFA, a list of leagues, and a soundtrack list if the soundtrack has had a separate release, is considered appropriate, but anything else worth mentioning should be written about in prose. As it stands at the moment, these lists are not appropriate to Wikipedia -- the video game guidelines reflect wider consensus on these issues so if you are unhappy with them, or think they should be changed in some way, it would be best to post at either WT:VG or WT:VG/GL, though as I said, it has been done before, so don't be surprised if you are unsuccessful. Remember also that Wikipedia articles are not intended to be guides for people who might want to buy the game in question - they should, as you quoted above, be an "encyclopedic overview", giving each subject the weight of coverage that it deserves, which is another problem with lists of this kind. However there are other wikis that are open to this kind of content, for example this one. Thanks, Miremare 18:14, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I'm just tired to argue with you. I just want to say people put the section 'licensed content' on every game in the PES/FIFA series because it does have its value. No one has justified on it before(PES1/2/3/4/5/6/2008/2009/2010/2011 FIFA etc) except you. This section is important to gamers and non-gamers, that's why I'm going to protect it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonyauyc2003 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The fact that previous PES articles have done this is no reason to carry on doing it. It's not "important" to just list stuff, for the reasons I gave you above - that's why the video game guidelines specifically say not to do so. And regarding the FIFA articles, you might like to check those again, as they do not have such lists. Miremare 16:59, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

The Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949

A list of the Parliamentary debates on each of the Acts is entirely appropriate. The leading textbooks, such as Halsbury's Statutes and Butterworth's Annotated Statutes always include one. It is true that the list was badly formatted and needed completely rewriting, but that was not a reason to delete it. WP:NOT is not applicable.

There was no consensus to merge the articles Parliament Act 1911 and Parliament Act 1949 either. If you had looked at the discussion on the talk page before merging them, you would have discovered that. James500 (talk) 08:02, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

More to the point where was the concensus to split it? You created two new articles that were duplicates of the pre-exiting article - and an FA at that. And there's no reason that WP:NOT doesn't apply to this article as much as any other - textbooks may include such lists, but I don't think you'll find an encyclopedia that does. A link to the site in question is fair enough, but no article is going to remain Featured with such a huge list of individual external links. Please take a look at Wikipedia:External links for more on that. Thanks, Miremare 17:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I disagree. (1) Halsbury's Statutes is certainly an encyclopedia. Butterworth's Annotated Statutes is probably an encyclopedia. (2) There isn't a clear distinction between encyclopedias and textbooks. The terms are ambiguous and interchangeable. (3) Anything that appears in a "textbook" is certainly notable anyway. (4) Absence of notability isn't determined by what books that label themselves as encyclopedias do not contain. (5) WP:NOT does not say that Wikipedia is not a textbook or acknowledge that there is difference enough to matter between the two or for that matter that there is any difference at all. (6) I did not suggest that WP:NOT did not apply to the article, I said that WP:NOT did not authorise the deletion of the particular content that you deleted, in the sense that the content in question was not merely a collection of links, because it imparted notable information (the dates on which the Act went through each of its stages and where this is reported in Hansard). Admittedly that information could be presented in much better ways, but that wasn't a reason to delete it. I am sorry if what I said was unclear. (7) That section should have been rewritten, not deleted altogether. (8) There was a merger discussion that established that there was no consensus to merge the material in those articles into the main article. Alleging that there was no consensus to split or duplicate the content in the first place is not an answer to that. Much less so when there's no evidence for that contention. As far as I can see, at the time the articles were created there was a one person consensus to create them because at that time there is no evidence that anyone else was interested, much less objected. I do not have to ask for permission to create content beforehand simply for the sake of it. (9) The fact that something is an FA does not protect it from changes, including very extensive ones. James500 (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

While there are differences between encyclopedias and textbooks, that isn't really the point - this just isn't the way Wikipedia does it. I refer you again to Wikipedia:External links. There's not a lot you can do to rewrite a long list of links into a section of prose, but the links are still there in the history in any case. Regarding WP:NOT, nobody is saying the links aren't related to the subject, and that isn't what WP:NOT is for - you don't need a policy to tell you to remove irrelevant things from articles after all.

You can take it as read that featured articles are going to require a little more than a "one person consensus" to start splitting them up, especially when there is no apparent need to do so. Of course you have every right to try, just don't be surprised when someone objects. Again, there was absolutely nothing in the two individual articles that was not in the main article or could not be put into the main article, so it's simply article duplication. Featured articles also require a much higher standard of edit than others in order to retain their status, which is another reason against "placeholder" edits such as adding lists of external links with an intention of rewriting them into a proper section at some point. If it's not a finished edit, it shouldn't be made in any article, let alone a featured one. If you need somewhere to work on things, you can always start a sandbox page in your own userspace. Thanks, Miremare 01:33, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Operation Flashoint

Miremire, you are the kind of person who gives Wikipedia a bad name. Instead of trying to improve it by turning poor edits into good ones, you seek only to destroy. Please take some time to reflect on whether Wikipedia is the right place for you. Thank you. P.S. If you decide to stay, you may be interested to learn that one of the guiding principles of editing Wikipedia is to "be bold". There must be a help page on this somewhere, please read up on it. 78.86.229.20 (talk) 15:16, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you're on about there, but if it's reverting the Arma thing, then it's because Arma is not Operation Flashpoint. The first Arma title, being a renamed Operation Flashpoint is directly relevant, but the others are not, being an entirely separate series from OF. It's all in the article title. Miremare 01:43, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Mega Drive

I just wanted to let you know that I have fully accepted your apology and have no intention of harping on this or asking for further clarification, etc. I continued to discuss your edits in the context of Kiefer's repeated calls for me to act more civilly, even on later edits which I believe aren't even close to being uncivil (and despite his admittedly erroneous reverting of completely civil edits).

Also, in case I haven't made this clear, I will not hold-over any ill-will from our recent discussions into any discussions we may have in the future. Additionally, I will endeavor to treat you and your arguments with all due civility and respect, and I apologize if I have not lived up to that standard in the past.LedRush (talk) 17:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Please don't edit my talk page

Please don't edit my talk page unless to give me some warning of an adminstrative action against me (or some similar level of "heads up"). I will continue to revert any post you make on my talk page as disruptive unless made as stipulated above.LedRush (talk) 17:55, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Thus showing your post directly above to be a lie. Your childish antics, unwarranted attacks, lack of basic respect to other people, and refusal to discuss things that you know you have no defence against finally strips away any lingering respect I had for you, nice going. Miremare 18:03, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Your above personal attacks against me demonstrate the lack of civility which undermines your actions on Wikipedia.LedRush (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Do grow up. Miremare 18:19, 19 October 2011 (UTC)