User talk:Marasmusine

DELETE ALL OMFGLOL

Soy PySol is also going to be deleted too. Thank you a lot for IMPROVING THE WIKIPEDIA! Now, you can also go to delete ALL ARTICLES IN THIS LIST because only a couple of them have references and notability: Alphabetical_list_of_open_source_games

The english Wikipedia sucks because of people like you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Panreyes (talk • contribs) 14:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page. Marasmusine 15:21, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wreck

Hi, on 5 July 2007 you removed 'C64' from the list of platforms for Star Wreck (game). I was wondering if any of the results here could be used as references? Mikesc86 21:59, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only one I would trust there is gamebase64; the others only seem to have sketchy information. Odd that it isn't on Lemon64, which is what I normally use. Marasmusine 07:31, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Marasmusine, I just read your proposal for the aerodyne article. I don't think it should be merged with aircraft or lifting body. Please review my recommendations. If my approach violates the normal conventions for editors of Wikipedia please forgive me as today is the first time I even considered making any input. I do not know what the "star wreck" code in the summary window means so I will leave it. KeB, Waafcdr 07:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Horizonssurvival.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Horizonssurvival.png. 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 22:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zeitgeist (video)

A draft userspace article has been created. Please see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 November 8. Pdelongchamp 20:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, okay? Marasmusine 09:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion

Hello! I noticed that you deleted the article Ant Wars based on WP:A7#A7. However, the article is more than just the web content of the mentioned page, it is an explaination of the 2004 ICFP Programming Contest. I would be more comfortable with the deletion had it been nominated on wp:afd. Could you please restore it and nominate it instead? --Bensin (talk) 17:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took "browser-based game" to be "online content", and I didn't consider being a spin-off of a programming contest to be an assertion of importance. However, since you asked nicely, I will restore and take to AfD. Marasmusine (talk) 17:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! --Bensin (talk) 17:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to the wrong person...

On your most recent post on the Little Fighter 2 article on wikipedia, you were addressing the wrong person totally...=/ Game4Fans (talk) 12:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I've replied on your talk page! Marasmusine (talk) 20:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fishy Deliantra claims

Hello,

I stumbled by chance on the Deliantra article and its associated talk page. It seems that the original page author provided you somewhat inaccurate informations.

- Deliantra's project start date: The original author provided you 1992 as the start date for Deliantra. This is incorrect. 1992 was the start date of Crossfire, the RPG on which the Deliantra's code is based on. The real start date for Deliantra (called Crossfire+ at first) can be traced back to early 2006, when its founder decided to create and maintain his own fork of the Crossfire project;

- Deliantra's derivatives: The original author's assumption that Deliantra inspired various other games is thus somewhat fact-stretching. The cited games (Wyvern, Daimonin, Graal Online) all borrowed from the original Crossfire material long before the Deliantra project was even planned;

- Deliantra's development progress: The following statement made by the original author: "The game actually was created in 1992 and well predates ultima online. Only work on it has started again in 2006." is incorrect and probably misleading. The work on Crossfire was continuous since 1992 to the present day, as its mailing list archives demonstrate; the work on what was to become Deliantra didn't start before 2006. So it has definitely not "started again in 2006", since it is the date at which it was forked from its ancestor.

In summary: although Deliantra can legitimately claim to be based on a game that is 15 years old and has been used as the workbasis of a couple other projects, I doubt it can use the notability of its "ancestor" for its own in an attempt to preserve its page from deletion.

I'd suggest you to review the informations provided by the original author with care, as this quite looks like a rather weak attempt to fool you, protecting an article which would have otherwise risked deletion.

Yours. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.136.38.156 (talk) 17:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, if the "historical interest" claim is dubious, the best thing to do is take it to a discussion for deletion, since it also fails one of our other guidelines. If you'd like to comment you can do so here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Deliantra (computer game), but please take a quick look at WP:N too. Thanks for raising this issue, Marasmusine 18:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thse comments are, however, not really correct - the original name was Crossfire, not Crossfire+ (as I explaiend elsewhere, the renaming was done to avoid confusion). Also, since none of the original developers is left in either derivative, it is not correct to claim one branch is the real one and all the others are not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.139.53.102 (talk) 14:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken, but I'll still ask you to review WP:N. Marasmusine (talk) 20:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that the "root" coder, the one that created Crossfire in the first place (Frank Tore Johansen) doesn't work on it anymore since 1994. However, there has been no continuity break when he left, as all the others contributors still continued to work on the game. The project lead was taken by Mark Wedel, which was already one of the most important contributors at that point, and whose participation can reliably be traced back as far as July, 1993 (see for exemple http://archives.real-time.com/rte-crossfire/1993/Jul/msg00001.html), which predates by far any of the Deliantra dev's participation. Given that Wedel still was the administrator when what was to become Deliantra split, and given that neither he nor the majority of developers back then followed it, there is little question about which one can be considered the "mainstream" base, and which one cannot. Even the Deliantra's founder acknowledged this in the early versions of the game's home page by describing it as such (See http://web.archive.org/web/20060523003748/http://cf.schmorp.de/ for example): Crossfire+ is an offspring of the original Crossfire project, with which it still has a lot in common(...). Note that the author was not using "original Crossfire" to describe the code left in 1994 by F.T.Johansen, but the "2006" version of the game, as he then describes the similarities between his project and the "original", speaking about in-game content and the network protocol, both elements not being present in the 1994 code, but very well in the 2006 one. Given that both the Crossfire+/Deliantra's founder and the Crossfire developers claim that the project nowadays bearing the name of "Crossfire" is the original, and Deliantra is one of its offspring, I hardly see how an external observer could claim the contrary. 80.201.137.68 (talk) 18:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou for your comments. At this point, it's important to only have in the article what can be verified using reliable, independent sources (see WP:V). If there aren't any (which appears to be the case, but I'll be happy if some turn up) then we shouldn't have an article on it. Marasmusine (talk) 19:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Zigzag1.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Zigzag1.png. 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 19:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Zigzag2.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Zigzag2.png. 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 19:49, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't this a personal attack?

Hi Marasumine but if you check out User:Paul_1953 and see that im listed under a User i hate heading then isn't that considered a personal attack or against wikipedia rules? Thanks Dan the man1983 12:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a personal attack. I will leave a second warning for him. Marasmusine 14:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect of Evolution computer and video game

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Evolution computer and video game, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Evolution computer and video game is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Evolution computer and video game, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, bot! Remember, bots need love too! Marasmusine (talk) 16:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Entry rules question

We noticed that a lot of companies have entries in wiki (IBM, HP, etc), and also that there are many product entries (Rational Test, QTP, etc). When our CTO tried to create an entry for our company, and products, he was told it was not allowed. He probably used some inappropriate language - too much like marketing rather than just a statement of useful facts - but we don't know. Can you clarify what he needs to do to get the same opportunity to create wiki entries as other companies ?

Thanks. Gmacgregor (talk) 16:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will reply on your talk page. Marasmusine 16:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

I thought I'd bring this to your attention. Paul 1953 is still making personal attacks against people who were involved in the List of Characters in Bully page, after warnings to quit doing it. [1] McJeff (talk) 12:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank-you for brining this to my attention. I have left a third warning (he won't get more than four) and directly asked him what the issue is. Marasmusine (talk) 20:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When Closing AfDs...

Use subst:{{at}} instead of {{mfd top}} for closing AfD discussions. I've fixed a few for you. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 12:59, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

stop biting!

Please refrain from deleting our wiki page, prior assuming I'm not fully autorhized to use our copyrighted material, ask.. at least! This would be appreciable.

Paolo Russian Software Labs - Ital TBS Group, Trieste, Italy

Paolo.russian (talk) 09:47, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

p.s. I should have edited your "user talk: " thing due to my error, sorry that!

thanks but let's stay professional please..

I appreciate your post with a working (I hope, didn't check yet) link to a practical page to resolve my problem. But all of you guys are telling me "don't post brand-names, no services, no nothing". It will be appreciable also a democratic policy for the all of your users. Why Playstation, General motors,alitalia,microsoft,assicurazioni generali (insurance colossus) and thousands of other products, services, manifactured products are okay while our tiny wiki documentation is faulty?