User talk:Marasmusine

Leave your messages below!

Francois Roche

Dear the portrait of this architects was done after 4 months of small corrections of many people Who are you to erase everything without taking care of the collective works —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.24.159.123 (talk) 10:31, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very sorry, but I'm not sure what you're talking about :/ Marasmusine (talk) 10:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

why did you cut and blank a huge part of the portrait of F Roche with this raison : This material _must_ be attributed to reliable sources with inline citations (WP:BLP)) (undo) —Preceding unsigned comment added by New-Territories (talk • contribs) 10:40, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I see. I blanked a huge part of the Francois Roche biography with the reason "this material _must_ be attributed to reliable sources with inline citations" because biographies must be attributed to reliable sources with inline citations - see WP:BLP. Marasmusine (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll also need to start a new account under a different name. You're not allowed to use the name of an organization, particularly not one that you appear to represent; see WP:ORGNAME. Marasmusine (talk) 11:56, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dear;;; I started to add the right references to justify all details of this portrait. It has to be improved as everybody is doing since several months, not to be blanked. The portrait of "design boom" you quoted is contradictory (read it) and wrong. He is not a mathematician but he did scientific studies (that is different). I know what I m talking about /// i m francois Roche —Preceding unsigned comment added by POLICE999999 (talk • contribs) 14:28, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look through the references you added, later. If you are the subject of the article, you really should not be editing it, as this is a conflict of interest (WP:COI). Marasmusine (talk) 15:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I did not write the article, but i know what is my life... and the article is not so fare of what I am. This rumor of mathematician is coming from Design boom and I tried just to correct it. But the portrait you blanked is mainly talking about scientific approach / what I am.... and architect The link to my own portrait is this one... http://www.new-territories.com/roche%20cv.htm My friendly regards.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.24.159.123 (talk) 15:36, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Box2D

Why are you flagging the Box2D page for notability? 11 of the 15 references are on independent, external, third party sites? What do you suggest for removing this notability flag?

The Box2D engine has been ported from C++ to several languages by third parties. It has been used in dozens, if not hundreds of games created by third parties.

Hi. Let's look at the references. Google Code, Sourceforge and dsource are hosts for projects, so not independent. Box2D.org is not indepednent. JayIsGames shows a list of games tagged with box2D, but has nothing directly to say about the topic. Torque is a primary source. gphysics link is broken, but if its a weblog it's doubtful it passes as a reliable source. Cokeandcoke is a primary source.

Conclusion: This article does not present any reliable, third-party sources at all, and by extension does not pass our notability guidelines. Marasmusine (talk) 08:49, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you say Torque is a primary source? GarageGames does not develop Box2D. They are using Box2D. So for example, Box2D is to Torque as Physx (nVidia) is to the Unreal Engine (Epic).

I can add this link to the page: http://www.pocketgamer.biz/r/PG.Biz/Paper+Bridge/news.asp?c=19738

Would this make Box2D notable?

Torque is a primary source because the company is using Box2D; see WP:PRIMARY. Your source is enough to cite the sentence "Box2D has been used in iPhone games such as Paper Bridge and Rolando." - but it isn't the significant coverage asked for by our notability guidelines WP:GNG. Marasmusine (talk) 08:13, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks for the explanation. I added a link to an article on Box2D by Adobe. Adobe does not use Box2D (as far as I know). However, Box2D does run on Flash (an Adobe product), so I'm not sure what the guidelines say about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Erincatto (talk • contribs) 07:22, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whilst the newsletter is not the usual third-party journal/magazine/book we would use, I think this could be a good source given the importance of Adobe. It seems that Box2DFlash is a derivative of Box2D, but of course the article can cover this too. I'll look into it further later. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had a chance to look at this?

ShiftSpace redirected?

Thanks, Marasmusine. I've annotated the entry and undid the redirect. Thanks for your help in resolving the matter. Harlo (talk) 19:38, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You removed/redirected the wiki entry for my organization due to "lack of coverage". Would you please explain? (Not trying to be contentious, just confused.)

Thanks, User talk:Harlo —Preceding undated comment added 21:35, 11 April 2010 (UTC).[reply]

Hi Harlo. Our guidelines on WP:Notability should explain all. Please also be aware of our guidelines on conflicts of interest. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 21:52, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Additional - if you think you can show how ShiftSpace is notable, you can go ahead and revert the redirect. If you like I can review any sources you've got and perform this for you. Marasmusine (talk) 22:00, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Marasmusine, I would like to point out that ShiftSpace has received as much coverage as the other web annotation systems on the page (all of which still have kept their own entries.) As I was the last to edit the ShiftSpace wikipedia entry, I might have taken some references out of the footnotes (as they were no longer referred to in the article). However, I could have included mentions from prominent art blogs as well as tech blogs. (Do you need a list? I can provide one— shall I post it here on this thread?)

I don't know how to view historical versions of the ShiftSpace entry-- the revision history of the entry only handles the redirect ([1]). I would like to view the page and see exactly what could infer "lack of coverage".

I doubt conflict of interest is an issue here even though I belong to the organization. Nothing in the article was untrue or misleading, and the language was entirely neutral in describing the product.

Thanks, Harlo (talk) 01:05, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dinky Bomb

Sorry if I'm not doing this correctly, I'm new to editing on here.

I was part of the Dinky Bomb community from when it first started till the day it was closed down. The community still lives on through unofficial forums and many users still keep in touch through other means. I will start to add as many references as possible, I understand some are needed, but this in no way should be deleted. One great feature of wikipedia (through my eyes) is that you can read about almost anything (as long as enough people want to learn about it). Dinky Bomb deserves to be remembered, and I hope that this wiki page will help ensure that is it.

Here are the archives of the forums atari is in control of if this helps you at all: [2]

Also, here is the page from the games original creators : [3]

Here's a good video[4] that should help too. It's from the show Hi-Score that use to be on the G4 channel. Dinky Bomb was the main game on the show for players to compete and win prizes. (as gamer.tv produced the show, and back then they owned the rights to DBD)

--75.187.49.50 (talk) 21:18, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Effective deletion of Crimson Fields

Just a note that I was quite surprised to find this article didn't exist today on Wikipedia (the old version came up on Google when I was searching). Given that it is the only game that doesn't have a page in the List it's redirected too, it seems rather odd. One of the reasons I feel it's notable - though I don't know about Wikipedia's notability guidelines - is that it's been ported to a large number of platforms and is part of most Linux distributions. Another 3rd party link: http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/reviews/item/Crimson_Fields.php

Couldn't the previous discussion have been re-opened if you felt strongly about this? 115.70.63.154 (talk) 03:54, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had actually forgotten that I had taken it to AfD before... wow, 2 years ago now. The article has not been deleted, just redirected, so you are free to revert this if you wish. Whilst I'm not concerned how many platforms and distributions its in, the third party coverage is important. I'll have a look at allaboutsymbian's editorial process to see if it can be considered a reliable source. Another review may be necessary - I usually go by this footnote of WP:Notability. Marasmusine (talk) 10:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gate 88

You changed your vote to redirect, but I hardly think this would be appropriate, as every game on the freeware games list appears to have its own article. The AFD was closed by a non-admin citing no consensus, and while I agree there wasn't a consensus on the AFD to delete it, I don't understand why this game isn't perceived as a violation of the general notability and reliable sourcing guidelines. Andre (talk) 00:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing wrong with being included in a list without a corresponding article as long as the item is independently verifiable: My opinion was that HoTU is an acceptable source for this. However, it is disappointing that no-one else contributed towards the discussion, I rather think that it should've been re-listed again. Well, I'm going to go ahead and redirect the article anyway. Marasmusine (talk) 09:40, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion nomination of List of magical weapons

I have nominated List of magical weapons, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of magical weapons (2nd nomination). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 10:38, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sidewalk Prophets

You deleted a page I was creating, Sidewalk Prophets. The rules state that the band must be significant. This group is very significant - now on all major Contemporary Christian Music charts and being played on air at radio stations all across the US. They are on a major label "WORD" and they tour the country. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.159.25.34 (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete it. But I tell you what, if you can show me some coverage the band has received from a reliable source, I'll help you create the article. Marasmusine (talk) 09:27, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Anonymous IP trolling again

It's the the same troll behind the London-based IP who has beeb pushing gamecruft and trivia on articles like Heatseeker and Blood and Ice Cream Trilogy for months now. I was hoping you could take part in the debate on Geoff B's talk page. Eik Corell (talk) 00:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry I haven't been able to promptly respond. I'm finding it hard to find the time to attend to WP matters, at the moment. Marasmusine (talk) 00:23, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Slash'em

If you agree that subject is notable wouldn't it be better to place those kind of request on the talk page, because the notability tag makes it look like there is some problem with the article and they are going to be deleted as per WP:FAILN. I have added couple of links to prove notability.84.250.192.10 (talk) 13:30, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks, I'll take another look at some point. I think I wanted to see multiple significant coverage. Has only Howard Wen covered this game? If so, perhaps a merge into an article on Nethack variants. Well, we'll see. Marasmusine (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added references

You noted correctly that the Vincent Ostrom page didn't have sufficient 3rd party references, but I have since added several. Please take a look and remove the comment if appropriate. Thanks.R.G.Feeney (talk) 20:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Elasto Mania (article)

Hi Marasmusine. I have been following the Elasto Mania article for a while, and it has been almost one year since the last significant changes. The community linked to the game doesn't seem much interested in improving the article either than keeping it. They would fight for a long time for the article to survive, but the "notability" tag you've put there haven't driven them to improve the article much.

If you want, you can decide for yourself if the article has reached certain notability, but, as for someone who has closely followed the scene in addition to playing the game for almost ten years, I can say that it isn't comprehensive (for example, no mention of the World Cups) and that even the "gameplay" section lacks in quality.

In retrospective, since the scene hasn't put in the required efforts in the significant improving of the article, I would recommend it for its deletion. I won't especially make direct action towards it though, because I am seriously lacking in knowledge related to that process, nor do I feel the need to educate myself on that matter. However, consider yourself informed so as to the state of that article.

Yours, Twipley (talk) 14:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Eurogamer review is a good source. I normally look for multiple sources of coverage to show notability. If I can find another review, I'll have a go at tarting the thing up a bit myself. If not, perhaps I'll try incorporating Elasto Mania into a broader article, such as some of the List of... articles. Leave it with me for a few days. Marasmusine (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's cool with me. And what if I revamp the gameplay section, but without citing any sources? You think it might help better the article?

On another note, I've found two reviews for you, if that can be of any help:

Alright! So, meet you there, Marasmusine! Twipley (talk) 15:27, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you can go for it with the gameplay section, theres no need for citations, so long as there's no original research, and you don't stray into WP:VGSCOPE areas. As for the links, I can only use critic reviews that have been through an editorial process, rather than player/user reviews. But thanks for looking. On a related note, what do you think of the clones X-Moto and Bike or Die? They don't seem to be notable at all. Marasmusine (talk) 16:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can only say that I know people who have been (relatively constantly) playing Elasto Mania for more than a decade, and that I could not imagine anyone developing such a "relationship" with X-Moto (or Bike or Die, for that matter). Not that Elasto Mania is a classic to be placed in the same category than Super Mario Bros. 3 or Doom, but, as much as I respect X-Moto, to me it is just "another one of those clone games." Twipley (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I am not too sure whether the Elasto Mania article should be kept or not. I mean, all my edits were reverted on the ground that "added trivia details are more fitting for a gaming wiki rather than here." My edits were sure not of "excellent" quality, especially owing to the lack of sources, but the article without such edits I feel of being still poorer. I am tired of all my edits being reverted anywhere I go. For what it is worth, I am just going to sit still and let the article die. It does not merit to live anyway. Twipley (talk) 22:58, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article state is currently being reverted so as to represent the proposed changes. (If that can be of any interest to you!) Meaning, the changes I have made were decided to be kept. Twipley (talk) 01:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

220 Volt (band)

You deleted the article 220 Volt (band). Your Reason and the procedere were not right. You pulled CSDA7, whith does not fit. 220 Volt even meet the criteria of notability, they published albums on Epic Records and CBS/Sony. Thy published Albums worldwide, including the US and Japan. -- Lanoman (talk) 10:21, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The text of the article was "220 Volt is a Heavy Metal band from Sweden. The band was formed in 1979 by guitar players Thomas Drevin and Mats Karlsson. " followed by their discography. There was no indication of importance, and no mention of those record labels. Therefore Speedy A7 was correct. If you can provide me sources for their claim of notability, I shall restore the article. Marasmusine (talk) 12:25, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All I can provide now is http://www.discogs.com/artist/220+Volt where you can see Epic an CBS as record companies (however the list is incomplete). Also they had music videos like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXCNzF02UhU playing in TV around europe. On amazon.com, there are also some albums available (sadly most are out of print) http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=ntt_mus_ep_srch/176-4355343-3055751?ie=UTF8&search-alias=music&field-artist=220+Volt&sort=relevancerank . -- Lanoman (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was told Allmusic should be a reliable source so you can find the band there -- Lanoman (talk) 13:53, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks: done, and updated. Marasmusine (talk) 14:17, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with a user

Please check my talk page, out of the blue this guy appears, attacking me personally and complaining about my edits to video game articles. I have asked him to be specific and linked him the rules, but this was repeatedly met by more attacks, so I've just deleted his comments. I would appreciate it if you could butt in here. Eik Corell (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've asked him for specific edits that he didn't like. Perhaps it was a borderline gamecruft removal, that could be toned down rather than stripped? Dunno, hopefully he'll respond and we can reach some sort of agreement. Marasmusine (talk) 23:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Elitch

Hi Marasmusine, i'm just wondering why you deleted what I wrote about Dave Elitch. I know it wasen't a very good article but I still think that you should have discussed it first. Just wondering / --Stiligknubbis (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we can discuss it now if you like. I redirected it to the band's article because he doesn't appear to have any notability beyond being in Mars Volta (WP:N), and no independent sources were cited for verifiability (WP:V). If this is the only notable band he has been in, it's nothing that can't be included in the band's article. Your material hasn't been deleted, BTW, if you disagree with me you can revert this, but if you do please consider the policy/guidelines I've mentioned. Thanks! Marasmusine (talk) 23:47, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think that I wrote in my text that he was a member of "Daughters of Mara" all the other members of that band have an own article, regards --Stiligknubbis (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Microwar

Hi, i'm new on english wikipedia. I saw you put a notice on [Microwar] because is not a "noticable game". My purpose was to add Microwar in the List_of_open_source_video_games page. Every other game from this list has a wiki page related even some that are not very noticable (or even not finished like) Word Whiz, Teeworlds, Rocks'n'Diamonds, Bitfighter... And of course it has no thrird party verification at that time, i'm just create the page yesterday. Pierre-alain dorange (talk) 11:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, yes, the games you mentioned don't seem particularly notable, nor provide third-party verification. I'll take a closer look at them at some point, perhaps they should be proposed for deletion, or merged to other articles instead.

You can help the Microwar article by showing if it has received any notice from the media: are there any magazine reviews, features, interviews, etc? Marasmusine (talk) 12:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put on the Microwar page some other links and some notice from the media.

Pierre-alain dorange (talk) 14:08, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I've removed the "proposed deletion" and will look through the links later. I need to make sure that the websites count as WP:Reliable sources, and that the coverage is independent (and not, for example, press releases). After that I'll help clean up the article to meet the WP style guide (probably tomorrow now.) Marasmusine (talk) 16:47, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some administrative advice

In dealing with a | long-time vandal, I repeatedly sent abuse emails to BT Internet, they were ignored for a while, but I've suddenly received a reply requesting "server logs" and the time zone in which any recorded data is recorded, so I have two questions: Server logs would be from the the server itself, right? Obviously there is no way I can just acquire such things, at least I wouldn't think it possible. For the record, this is what I got:

So that I can take further action against this offender I will need you to send me the server logs as this will show the IP Address used and the exact time the message was sent. Once I have this information from you I will be able to identify the account used and take action against the person responsible.
To make the logs useful it would be better not to ban the IP to prevent new IP’s being issued, but allow the user to stay on long enough for us to establish the identity assigned to that IP at the time off the offence.. If the IP changes, we can perform the same checks for the new address and hopefully this will pinpoint the same end- user.

Please can you also include the time zone that the logs are taken in, i.e. UTC +00:00, EDT etc.

Now, he's been reported already at AN/I, sockpuppet investigations, and now, lastly, at the edit filter requests section. We're going in circles at this point, so what are my options here? This edit warrior has been at this for a year now, and we haven't had a chance to stop him until now it seems. Eik Corell (talk) 02:34, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eik, I think that server logs is something that only a WP:Bureaucrat is likely to be able to look at. I admit that I don't know the details of this level of investigation: I think that Wikipedia:Abuse response is your most likely destination for help in this matter ("Wikipedia:Abuse Response is a community initiative for the reporting and investigation of abuse originating from anonymous IP addresses. Those IP addresses are then reported to the service provider with jurisdiction over the IP address in hopes to counter and even deter abuse to Wikipedia."). I hope this helps! BTW I haven't heard back from Sameshizdifferentday, so I assume it was an account purely for voicing that one grievance. Marasmusine (talk) 13:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:E J 1994

If you don't mind, what was your reasoning for User:E J 1994's block here? The user had dozens of images with copyright problems before that instance and seems to have continued at the same pace. I just want to make sure before I warn him about his issues. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was for continued creation of inappropriate "Josh Mayo" related pages after many warnings. Looking at the date, 14th Nov, it looks like it was for Revelations series and Relentless (band). Marasmusine (talk) 08:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks. The copyright problems are from images uploaded before the block, so I don't think it would be appropriate to punish him for those. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 11:04, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Unofficial Tetris variant

Hello, you removed my recent entry to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetris_variants, noting Wikipedia:Verifiability. Here are some 3rd party sources who have reviewed the game:

Other sources:

Game in the app store: http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/fragmental-3d/id341239927?mt=8
Video instructions: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbdcC8IzBUw
Video of gameplay: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zh-A2XUAXrE&feature=video_response

Please let me know what else I can provide to prove that this game exists and is, in fact, a 3D variation of Tetris.

Thank you!

Zach Kinstner —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachkinstner (talk • contribs) 19:53, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

2012, Is it the End?

I proded this just before you redirected it, I'm pretty sure "2012, Is it the End?" is an implausible redirect to 2012 phenomenon. Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 16:35, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, can you revert it back for me? Just got stuck into something else here and there's windows everywhere. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 16:38, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Thanks, Jeffrey Mall (talk • contribs) - 16:40, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Proposals based on Verifiability

Marasmusine, do you understand how many tens of thousands of articles would have to be deleted if you required authoritative information to exist in third-party publications for everything? Why are you singling out prominent software products? (I see that some weren't so prominent.) I have read Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines, but I don't agree that the lack of reliable third-party publications means that an article should be considered for deletion. It doesn't mean that the article is based on unreliable information at all, and unless you can show that the article contains inaccurate or inappropriate information, it should certainly stay. There are several third-party sources cited for the C4 Engine article in addition to the product's website itself, and these sources can verify information in the article about the technologies supported and the games using the engine. There is also an independently authored book about the C4 Engine, but I didn't cite it because I didn't consider it to be the most reliable source compared to the product's own website. If you're going to continue down this route, please demonstrate how the sources for game engines you didn't propose for deletion were good enough to warrant keeping the articles, because I'm not seeing it. In particular, look at Torque Game Engine, Unity3D, Vision Engine, and Vicious Engine. Zilkane (talk) 07:31, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer on your talk page. Marasmusine (talk) 10:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I contacted the makers of the C4 Engine, and they got back to me really quick with some good info. There are 3 books that talk about the C4 Engine: one is an electronic book that 4 of their users wrote called "The Beginner's Guide to the C4 Engine", but it doesn't have an ISBN (this is the book I new about). The second book is an architecture book called "Virtual Architecture: Modeling and Creation of Real-Time 3D Interactive Worlds", and it's ISBN-13 is 9781435756427. It contains several chapters dedicated to the C4 Engine. There's also a new book coming out in March called "Game Engine Gems" that talks about the C4 Engine in one chapter, and it's ISBN is 9780763778880. Zilkane (talk) 09:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question regarding consensus

A lot of the edits I do on Wikipedia are opposed by other, partial editors. In almost all the cases, my side has been favored once other, experienced editors get involved. In the cases where biased editors get involved, primarily on video game articles, I have to explain bits and pieces of WP:VG/GL. That's all well and fine, and mostly, this is accepted, but when it's not, there is typically no arguing with the editors. All the whilst, they will claim that consensus is against my edits, and this is of course true, but how valid are such accusations when people do not address the guidelines I explain? I'm just wondering, because I've been in this pickle a few times, and it would be very nice if there were any guidelines or advice that would help me in such situations. Eik Corell (talk) 16:13, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a long thing, but I've not got a good answer to that one, sorry. I usually try my best to reach some kind of compromise, say a reduced section rather than completely removing material, remembering that both 'sides' are editing in good faith. Verifiability and NPOV issues are easier to take care of, of course. I'm afraid content disputes are always going to be difficult to resolve, but all the best help on this topic you will find at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Marasmusine (talk) 10:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good prods

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Difference between IMAP and SMTP You should've just speedied, imo. Too bad the prods didn't work. It's still nice to see someone apply the correct reasoning for once, no matter how bad and pointless the article. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 22:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice strip-down of the article, btw. Marasmusine (talk) 10:45, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Deletion Second Attempt

After submitting my first wikipedia article, only seconds later was it gone. Speedy Deletion. Originally confused I've had a good look at some other articles and the extent of their content. I think (and please correct me if I am wrong) that the original article I was writing (Thompsonblack) did not include enough information or references to validate its existence? Anyway, I would like to give it another go now with the proper information at my fingertips. Thanks in advance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fellowmonday (talk • contribs) 15:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Need your opinion

I've run into somewhat of a snag on the Undefeatable article. One user insists on mentioning a minor cast member along the main cast based on them being a politician in America. Check the wall of text they responded with on my talk page. I tried to take it to the article's talk page instead, but no luck. I'm fairly sure I'm in the right on this one, but I'd like a second opinion if you don't mind as I'm not really in familiar territory here. Eik Corell (talk) 16:08, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Eik, WP:NPOV is the main issue here, I think: giving undue weight to one particular member of the cast/crew. I had a look at the film style guide and left a note on the article's talk page. Marasmusine (talk) 22:02, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Want to ask a question

Hi, I'm new to wikipedia and am trying to "police" the recent changes as I'm sure many other people are, in the case of the band "kre8kers", I cited it for speedy deletion, was that the right thing to do? Thanks. --HappyBirthday2U 15:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Happy Birthday To You! (talk • contribs)

Hi, yes, it was an article about a band that did not indicate any importance so flagging it for speedy deletion was the right thing to do. If you are interested in such policing, make sure you have a good read of WP:SPEEDY. Welcome to Wikipedia! Use four tildes to sign your posts: ~~~~Marasmusine (talk) 15:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MyWebFace

MyWebFace should have been deleted under db-web. Woogee (talk) 04:37, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article described it as downloadable software, not web content. Marasmusine (talk) 11:19, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Undefeatable article

The user is still forcing their edits through, no responding on the talk page or even edit summaries. Edit warring is bad, so I need some help. Eik Corell (talk) 01:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message on Research's talk page. They seem to think that Berry is important so perhaps I can get them to start a seperate biography (if they'll enter a discussion). Please be careful about edit warring over content disputes! Marasmusine (talk) 11:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Raper

There's no doubt in my mind that the games are absolute shit. But they exist; people have written about them; they have had an impact, albeit a minor and sticky one. Unless things have changed since I joined Wikipedia back in 2004 I'm sure there has to be some kind of process before deleting and redirecting a page in that manner, even if you are an administrator with a degree in computer science and a fondness for computer games and military vehicles. -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 18:48, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Will reply on your talk page. Marasmusine (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive article-moving vandalism

This user[5] is vandalizing by moving articles to nonsense names. Eik Corell (talk) 16:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TeraCopy deletion

I noticed in the deletion logs that you deleted this article, but it is still there. Is this a bug or something? thanks, ErikHaugen (talk) 23:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I must've deleted it whilst Inglocines was editing it. But since I used the "self-blanking" speedy deletion rationale, I suppose it doesn't really matter! Marasmusine (talk) 23:24, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linkspamming

Like the sillybuns I am, I've fallen into yet another edit war. Here's the thing: The owner of the website closecombatseries.net is plastering his own site on any Close Combat articles on wikipedia, and he has posted about it on the site's forums, too[6]. There's a debate going on the talkpage of Close Combat Series. My concerns are WP:ELNO and WP:COI. Eik Corell (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The editor keeps adding the links and isn't responding anymore. Eik Corell (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spark (computer game)

I just saw that you have prodded the article. I just like to point out it's kind of a continuation of Attack Retrieve Capture game. Which is basicly kind of the same game. I have thought that it might be deleted but at the same time I wasn't sure of the policy regarding documenting clone games. I feel you should add some of the points on the talk page for the prod know. Regards, Govvy (talk) 17:43, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks, I'll do that. Marasmusine (talk) 18:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Attack Retrieve Capture

I have tried to clean it up, the game is on gamespot.com which adds some notability and I have added a short but straight to the point clone section which I think should be fine. I am not sure about the section Important People My gutt tells me that it probably should be removed. Regards Govvy (talk) 13:32, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll reply on the article's talk page. Marasmusine (talk) 13:55, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moving to main space: ReinXeed

Hey, Im just new here on wikipedia. Im trying to publish to main article called: ReinXeed. That's in my space as User:Vandroy01/ReinXeed

I saw the deletion log, and it says it's missing Importance/Significance of the band. Today i was correcting and searching for new info about the band. And i think i reached the importance and made some edits and it looks better now.

Please if it is missing something explain me, cause im new here and its hard to understand the tags. Im trying to do my best to that Article. (I read all the tips on wikipedia).

Thanks.

Hi, I'll take a look at it now and reply on your talk page! Marasmusine (talk) 17:41, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NODRAMA/2

Just a quick reminder that the Second Great Wikipedia Dramaout has begun. Please log any work you do at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/2nd/Log. Good luck! --Jayron32 02:04, 18 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to link different Wiki Languages to the main article (EN)

Let me explain, I see some Articles have a box (left side menu panel) that connect the same article but in other langauge, how i can enable that? or how i can link the article to others wiki language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vandroy01 (talk • contribs) 19:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vandroy! You'll find help on this subject at Help:Interlanguage links. Marasmusine (talk) 23:48, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

De-Orphing an article?

Hi, sorry for bothering you!, but I need your help!.

My Article Reinxeed has been marked as Orphan Article. I have been reading how to De-Orphan and "What's is this", etc, but still I cant understand what to do, they said i need to meet the linking criteria. Read so many times and i cant think a way to link:

Consider creating reasonable redirects to the article

I think there is no more articles to redirects

Check to see if there are articles about the same topic under a different name

I have been thinking its a way do de-orphan, but how i can Link the same topics to article?, how i can link?. I think for example I go to an band article that plays the sme style and edit there and link to reinxeed?.. Please explain me this way.

And also there so many ways that i cant think straight what is the correct one to link and how to link.

Im afraid to do some incorrect linking and get punished, that's why im asking for your help. Can you chek this out for me, please?.

I'm still working on my Article Reinxeed and this "marked" I got stuck in this problem.

Hope you help me. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vandroy01 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Vandroy - don't panic! You'll never be punished for editing in good faith. The worst that can happen is that someone will revert the link you add.

I've added a link to Reinxeed from the list of bands at the Rivel Records. There may also be some "List of X" type articles that the band can be added to. There are some other issues with the article that I'll need to discuss with you, but it will have to wait a few more days. Marasmusine (talk) 18:09, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

You can reopen it yourself, as there is nothing preventing you from doing so. I just closed it because there was a lot of support for keeping the article. I doubt there will be many (if any) votes of deletion from here on out. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Battlefield: Bad Company 2‎ article

There are various IPs adding lots of info on that article right now because of a recent beta/demo release, and one IP in specific is forcing through their own unencyclopedic edits. I was hoping you could take a look at the article, and the stuff I've removed in particular. Eik Corell (talk) 17:58, 29 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User is changing deletion vote of other users

Could you look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amir Madaninejad, user British-broadcast (talk · contribs) is changing the vote of other users. Sole Soul (talk) 17:28, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't see where any votes were changed, but I did leave some comments. Marasmusine (talk) 18:02, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. [7]. Now fixed. Sole Soul (talk) 18:15, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question about independent verification

I've just edited Web annotation to add two entries (Kutano and DotSpots) and while I was at it, I also added a reference for Sidewiki. After I did my edit, I looked at the history of that page and noticed that in the past someone has already added an entry for Kutano that was very similar to what I just added and you deleted that entry citing No article or independent verification given. I feel very embarrassed for my newbie question but what would constitute independent verification? Would a reference to a blog post on a blog not affiliated with Kutano and DotSpots be appropriate here? Exactly1 (talk) 07:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Exactly, I'll formally greet you and answer your question fully once I don't have a two-year-old fighting for my computer :> Marasmusine (talk) 08:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marasmusine! Thank you for the response. I have now read WP:Verifiability, WP:No original research and WP:Neutral point of view. It seems to me that applying these policies requires good judgment that can only comes with experience and I'm still not entirely clear as to what constitutes a reliable source. For instance the article on the first of the annotation systems listed on the page I edited is A.nnotate. I looked there to find examples of what a good reference is and I observed that basically all references there are either web pages on the A.nnotate site or are some online publications discussing A.nnotate. I think that the most important reference provided by you is is not a directory. After reading all this, it now seems to me that my addition of mentions of DotSpots and Kutano would only be acceptable if I also at the same time wrote Wikipedia entries about both of these systems similar to the A.nnotate article. I may do that in the future but I'm not ready to do that yet. Feel free to remove my recent edits to Web annotation for now. Thank you again for the explanation! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Exactly1 (talk • contribs) 05:54, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the additional information. I think that I now have a good idea how this works. I hope that I can find some time to contribute improve my previous edits. Exactly1 (talk) 07:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Carnivores page

Why did you cut off all things of Carnivores page I made?? If you thought that there were too details, you could delete something but in this way, you have deleted all information, there is the story only! I think that you might avoid to cut off everything! This is a video game page, not a film page. It needs more details.--Supremo (talk) 22:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Supremo, please can you take a look at our guidelines for video game articles at WP:VG/GL. We should focus on encyclopedic content (that is, real-world perspective backed up with citations) rather than lists of gameplay concepts. You may wish to write lists of locations, dinosaurs and weapons at the appropriate Wikia Gaming article, instead. Marasmusine (talk) 00:47, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blade wars

Hey, thanks a lot for the rewrite on the BW entry! I was writing up a cleaner version before I saw your changes. If I want to make any additions in the future, can I run them by you first or just edit and hope for the best? Definitely no complaints from me in any case. Thanks! Vaultage (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again, the blade wars project is something my boss threw at me yesterday morning :P I have a new mockup on my user page based on the original delete request, but I think I can incorporate our respective edits. Thanks for the help :) Vaultage (talk) 17:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hiho, Yeah, I work for the US branch of Changyou. Definitely trying to maintain a neutral PoV. The game's been out in China forever, so all the material (fan sites, equivalents of mobygames) is Chinese. Could that be a problem? I did make some minor changes to my userspace draft. Thanks for all your patience! Vaultage (talk) 08:47, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Damage to articles that don't satisfy Wikipedia's requirements

What damage is done to Wikipedia by those articles that for example: are not notable enough, don't satisfy Wikipedia's requirements etc? Why cant we have our articles left there, and instead you delete them? Tell me why, please! /Heymid (talk) 21:45, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only article you've contributed to that I deleted was FBL09; which you asked to be deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/FBL09. Are you talking about some other article? Marasmusine (talk) 00:39, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my FBL 09 article would have been deleted anyways, even if I hadn't requested it. Of course, I wanted to have it still there. I have two deleted ones: one on english wikipedia, and one on swedish wikipedia. I am really wondering the wikipedia policy. /Heymid (talk) 15:30, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, to answer your first question: the damage is that it negatively effects this encyclopedia's signal-to-noise ratio. Marasmusine (talk) 16:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BlueHost page deleted?

Hello there Marasmusine, why was BlueHost article deleted? DreamHost is also a link company to BlueHost and JustHost but how come they don't have articles? Can I please request it to be made? Because I don't know how to add references, only external links, plus they are web hosting companies so they should have articles, thanks.

Ultraman X77 (talk) 20:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Song of the Trees article=

I saw on the article page that it said that you deleted the Song of the Trees article. It's about a book by author Mildred Taylor, about whom I'm interested in writing. Could you tell me what was in the article? I would like to try to fix whatever was wrong with it. `Lithistman (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:51, 15 March 2010 (UTC).[reply]

I created the article again, but put a reference this time. I want to work on it, and make it longer at some point, but hopefully this will be acceptable for now. Lithistman (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if I need to provide a reference for the one-sentence plot summary I just added. Basically, the book itself is the reference, so I wouldn't think so, but I wanted to make sure. Lithistman (talk) 14:30, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the article is now in my Userpage.

Hello Maramusine, the "BlueHost" article is now on the URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Ultraman_X77 could you please revise it until it's Wikipedia proper enough to be fully published? Please tell me if it needs any improvements or word changing, thank you. (Also I tried my best on the references, seems like I can't put them properly, only as a links).

Ultraman X77 (talk) 21:04, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ultraman. I can fix the citations, but you still need to source the article using information from reliable, third-party sources. I'm afraid the Whois record and a Wordpress blog just isn't going to cut it. A web search shows some review sites that cover BlueHost, but we need to be careful to discriminate the reputable ones. This means being owned by a reputable publisher, or a site with a strong editorial process - see WP:RS. I'll look into it further during the week. Marasmusine (talk) 07:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disruptive user

Hey. Not sure how active you are around here anymore, but I figured I'd ask anyway. I've run into an edit warrior who, against consensus, is forcing his edits through on the Tony_Hawk's_Pro_Skater_4 article and others like it. I've reported it on the AN/I board[8], but no result. Eik Corell (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Yeah, I'm finding it really difficult to make time for WP these days. You're edit warring over a good-faith edit. WP:GAMECRUFT doesn't talk about game soundtracks. Magicianbink's edit does contain some original research, but the track list itself is verifiable [9]. Personally I'm not keen on including such a long list, but there's no need to make a mess of the revision history. Marasmusine (talk) 08:46, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As far as bungling that rule, that's my fault. The thing is, I've always seen soon soundtrack lists like these removed per this specific guideline, and I haven't been able to find any rules specifically regarding soundtrack lists, so what I did was that, unless there were sources to verify these soundtrack lists(also to underscore their) notability, I'd remove them per that rule. Sorry about the edit warring, I seem to be way, way too stubborn on some issues, and I'm gonna try my damnedest not to repeat this again, because I've done way too much of it. Thanks again! Eik Corell (talk) 12:33, 31 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Eternal Lands

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Eternal Lands. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eternal Lands (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:11, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PlaneShift deletion

Please review the deletion log of 8 April and in particular the deletion of PlaneShift article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2010_April_8 There is no reason in the world this article cannot stay on wikipedia. 3 more notable sources have been added and are present in the deletion log. Thanks. --79.40.27.216 (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AdventureQuest Worlds deletion

I heard that you were the one who closed the deletion comments to the deletion for AdventureQuest Worlds on February 7, 2010. I was among those who objected to it and I was told to head to your talk page in order to appeal for it's undeletion by the Requests for Undeletion page. The page is currently recreated and merged with Artix Entertainment, but where else am I supposed to put the storyline for it? Rtkat3 (talk) 3:40, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Rtkat. The guidelines for writing about fiction are located at WP:WAF. You need to balance material drawn from the primary source with material from secondary sources. At present Artix Entertainment cites no reliable, third-party sources so the plot summaries are already looking overlong. You may like to consider making the article conform to WP:Verifiability policy first. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 07:49, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Lone Wolf 3

Hi,

no offense but why did you undo:

The secondary sources that prove that websites related to Indie games wrote articles about the game
The citation for the terrain generation system (link to specification)
The fix for the dead link that proves that the engine was mentioned on etsnews (the original website seems to be down but there is a screenshot at the bottom of the specification)

It is easy to spend 1 second for a "full undo" click but it took me some hours to write the article. Instead of posting links to overloaded guidelines which gives the impression that the hole article/design is rubbish you could be more specific what exactly needs to be corrected to appreciate the effort.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki-Web-Contributor (talk • contribs) 14:16, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi WWC:

The links to indie game blogs did not appear to qualify as reliable sources (see WP:RS). We need reviews that have been printed in publications with "a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking." Most self-published websites don't meet this criteria. If you like, I'll get a second opinion on those particular websites at WP:VG/RS (the source-checking section of the video-games wikiproject)
The Rottger/Heidrich/Slusallek/Seidel paper did not directly talk about Lone Wolf, nor did the Venom Software link. I see now that the algorithm is part of the VGFX software, but I'm not sure why we should mention this (unless perhaps a secondary source has done so).
The ets-news screenshot does not mention Lone Wolf either.

It would be better to cite a source that explicitly states that the game uses VGFX or any particular algorithm. A primary source is okay, but to be honest if secondary sources haven't mentioned this information then it's not worth putting in the article. I'm also wondering if all the Lone Wolf games could be covered in a single series article, since the overall coverage is rather light. Marasmusine (talk) 15:03, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Marasmusine, thanks for the details. I found this on the VGFX specification page: [...] "heightmap terrain generation system based on the paper Real-Time Generation of Continuous Levels of Detail for Height Fields by Stefan Roettger". That's why I linked to this specification page to prove that Lone Wolf 3's 3D engine VGFX uses this algorithm by Rottger. The screenshot of the ETSnews page shows an article that mentioned the VGFX engine. Anyway maybe I will try to work on another article because I already spent a lot of time for this one. Best regards Wiki-Web-Contributor (talk) 23:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly FYI

Hello!

Just so you know, we shouldn't be {{subst:}} the template {{Primary sources}}, as you did here. This actually caused the page to show up in Category:Pages with incorrectly substituted templates. The standard listing of what can and should be substituted is at Wikipedia:Substitution. :) Keep up the positive contributions! ^Avicenna_sis @ 05:04, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

77.123.66.45 referral spamming

User:77.123.66.45 has been continually adding his own referrer to the official website listed on the Battlefield Heroes article. I keep reverting, he keeps adding it, and he's not responding on his talk page, so I was wondering if you could do something about it

Thanks, I've left a final warning. Seems to be a static IP, so if he does this again let me know and I'll temporarily block him. Marasmusine (talk) 15:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

People Aged 85 and Over

I understand what you are saying, but I think the article is of value. I and hopefully others will make edits to the page so that ommisions can be made on the deaths of certain people, or when other notable personalities become 85, so your fears that it may become dated are understandable but not a sound enough reason in my opinion to delete the page altogether. As for 85 being an arbitrary age, again I do understand what you mean but I feel it is the most logical age to have the page focusing on. Feel free to voice any other concerns you have about the page, but I will probably try my best to ensure it's existance.

Have a good day.

I was wondering what changes you consider neccesary to make the page adhere better to Wikipedia guidlines. With regards to the age 85, I was aiming to call the page 'people aged 80 and over', but I was amazed at how many well known people I discovered to be in this age group. If I had went through with that, I would have got a page that was simply too long, so I decided that 85 would give me a more manageable page to create.

It looks like you might get some good ideas for a more refined list in the AfD. I do wish that the wiki software would allow a user to cross two categories together - in this case a cross-section of Category:Living people and (say) Category:1920 births would automaticaly get you the kind of list you're trying to make. Marasmusine (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the page will be deleted but out of interest, would you still nominate the page for deletion if it were called 'Noted People aged over 80'? I know I previously stated that this would result in quite a long list but several other users have suggested 80 as a better 'mile marker' as it were.

Hi. I think my same arguments would apply. I assumed that in any list of people, those people would have to be "of note" anyway. I do like the idea of a list of people over a certain age that are still working in their respective fields, but I'm still not sure would be an objective demarkation. Marasmusine (talk) 18:43, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Confusion about reliable sources

The NASCAR Heat article references a modding community, but I'm not sure if the sources given are sufficient to justify mentioning them. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look. Eik Corell (talk) 16:37, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User adding track lists to video-game articles

User:Magicianbink has been forcing his edits through on the articles of the games in the Tony Hawk series. As you may remember, consensus was reached on the Tony Hawks Pro Skater 4 article to keep the soundtrack list as a drop-down menu, including a brief summary of the soundtrack, using gamespot as a reference. Well, since then he's added similar lists to other articles, and keeps reverting the people who remove them with the edit summary "Reverting removal of content". Since he's not responding on his talk-page, or really in his edit summaries for that matter, I figured I'd bring it to your attention. Eik Corell (talk) 23:24, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to write Notability article

Hi Marasmusine,

You wrote on my edited page "rm history largly copied from primary website; not written in neutrr" If I want to write down a company history how can I make sure that company profile is corrected and verifiable if it is not allow to copy from company website?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goonohc (talk • contribs) 03:25, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Goonohc; Sorry about the garbled edit comment - it should've finished "neutral tone." Neutrality is important. Before using the primary source, we try to built articles using secondary sources. So my advice is to first cover the basics of the organization using information already printed in reliable, independent, publications. I can help you with citations if need be. Marasmusine (talk) 07:32, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for a previously deleted page (Star Wars Combine)

Dear Sir,

PC Gamer magazine has reviewed the online MMORPG called Star Wars Combine in the Holiday 2009 issue (no. 195). Do you think that it is enough to publish the previously deleted page?

I have added a link to the MMORPG here: List_of_multiplayer_browser_games

If you think that it is not the case, you can delete the link, of course. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.37.140.17 (talk) 22:15, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds promising. PC Gamer US, right? (I'm in the UK). I need to see the extent of the coverage, but it should be enough to at least verify it for inclusion in the list article. If someone can send me, or upload, a scan, I can do something about it. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 22:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you an email through the wiki regarding the scanned article.

:-)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by RubenWan (talk • contribs) 22:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FBL09 to User:Heymid/FBL09

Can you do that please for me? /Heymid (talk) 20:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done Marasmusine (talk) 06:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly discuss User:Heymid/FBL09 for bringing it back to FBL09?

I mean, I have now written in the article what makes the game notable: "the first official modern floorball video game in a long time." Where can I discuss the issue of taking it back? /Heymid (talk) 10:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At a bare minimum, when the information in the article is supported by reliable secondary sources. Marasmusine (talk) 11:49, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]