User talk:Miremare/Archive 2

Notice on Category:Discordian Wikipedians

You removed a note on the Category:Discordian Wikipedians page suggesting that people add it to their watchlist, since it has been nominated for deletion before. Is that really "canvassing"? It doesn't seem to fall under the definitions on WP:CANVAS. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 14:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, it kind of seemed like a pre-emptive plea for support or something. I won't revert or get indignant if you want to add it back, it just seemed a little strange to see it there, that's all. ;) Cheers, Miremare 17:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't really understand what counts as "canvassing" sometimes - I originally added that note because someone let the people in that category know it was being discussed, and was accused of canvassing. The note was intended as a reminder to category members that if they care about whether it gets deleted, they should watch the page. DenisMoskowitz (talk) 18:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

FIFA 10 rest of world and national teams

If that is so, why dont u remove the list of national teams nd rest of the world teams in previous versions of FIFA and also Pro Evolution Soccer ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alimpan barua (talk • contribs) 04:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Exactly! As a computer games buyer and football fan, I would be very interested in knowing what national teams, clubs and stadiums appear in the game. Why not simply remove the list of *FOOTBALL LEAGUES* from the FIFA 10 article as well, in case this kind of detailed information really is frowned upon?!?! This makes little sense, IMHO. At least please quote the relevant Wiki rules/regulations ... where is it stated that this kind of info is inappropriate? Mlindroo (talk) 16:42, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The point is that WP is an encyclopedia, and as such we're here to provide a broad overview of the subject, not to list anything and everything that game buyers might want to know. In deciding what to include as a list we have to consider how important something is to the game itself. The leagues are listed because they are a very important part of the game, giving a good idea of which teams, players, etc. are also included, things which form the very basis of the game, so we can justify listing the leagues in their entirety. However listing individual teams, stadiums, etc., are comparatively minor details. For the specific guidelines on these kinds of lists in video game articles see point 6 of WP:VG/GL#Inappropriate content, which also mentions the policies on which it is based. You might want to try asking at WT:VG if you want to know more about article content. Thanks, Miremare 17:11, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I really don't want to start an edit war here, but I would like to respectively point out that this level of information apparently has been considered appropriate for the FIFA series since 2005. If you want to remove this kind of information (while keeping stuff such as a complete list of FIFA 10 soundtrack songs! Why?!?!), at least you should similarly update the previous FIFA 0x articles. I have checked the VG/GL#Inappropriate content guidelines and in my opinion there is nothing there that's relevant to this issue (i.e. list of national teams, stadiums, "rest of world" clubs included). In contrast, the list of leagues included with FIFA10 is sufficient since the user can then easily figure whether a particular team from that country is in the game or not. Not so for Argentina or Greece... If you're a fan of Greek soccer (whose first division is not in the game), how are you supposed to know which four clubs are included? Mlindroo (talk) 21:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

If you want to add this information, take it to the talk page, but it needs to stay off until there is consensus to include it. It has been reverted, with reasons cited, therefore you need to discuss it, not just re-add it because you disagree. As for other FIFA articles, the responsibility of editing those does not lie with me any more than any other editor, and that they go against policy is no reason to press for that to continue.

From WP:VG/GL#Inappropriate content: "Lists of gameplay items, weapons, or concepts ... Sometimes a concise summary is appropriate if it is essential to understanding the game or its significance in the industry". Can I also point you towards the policy WP:NOT#DIR which states that Wikipedia is not "a complete exposition of all possible details. Rather, an article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Treat verifiable and sourced statements with appropriate weight."

Lists like this have been discussed many times at WT:VG, and if you want a change I suggest you try there, rather than on an individual game article. As for Greek soccer, I'm a fan of English soccer, but I wouldn't expect to find info on individual English teams in a Greek encyclopedia article. Miremare 21:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Don't be an asshole and let the team list there...

Seriously Miremare, just let the teams be listed. You're what's been going wrong with Wikipedia.

That's more than a little subjective... You'd be better taking it up with those who edit the guidelines if you disagree with them though. Try leaving a message at WT:VG/GL. Miremare 18:58, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I, Robot Part 2

Oh, crap! I forgot all about the thing since I took a break on I, Robot since I'm working on Dragon Quest and F-Zero to FA status. Give me tomarrow and you can delete it. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

OK, np. Take as long as you like, I'm in no hurry. Let me know when you're done with it. :) Miremare 05:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Did you mean 250px in the infobox. The size being used in the infobox would be optimal in terms of fair use compliance when uploading an image, but i believe anything up to 300px is suitable for a fair use image. So it short terms anything from a width of 250px-300px would be suitable. 03:38, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

File:Warlock of firetop mountain spectrum cover.jpg

Did you mean 250px in the infobox. The size being used in the infobox would be optimal in terms of fair use compliance when uploading an image, but i believe anything up to 300px is suitable for a fair use image. So it short terms anything from a width of 250px-300px would be suitable. 03:39, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Burger King Links

@Jerem43:

Major League Soccer

I'm curious as to why a league that has teams in both the United States and Canada can only have the American flag. MLS is an international league, and I do not think it adds any kind of "undue weight" to add a flag to reflect that. All past FIFA game pages have both the American and Canadian flags when mentioning MLS, and I don't see why this page is any different. I cannot speak for any other leagues because my knowledge of them is non-existant, but MLS is without question an international league. --PlasmaTwa2 05:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Have replied on the article's talk page, sorry was a bit slow between the edit and the explanation. Miremare 05:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

World Rally Championship (video game series)

I noticed that you "moved" World Rally Championship (video game series) to List of World Rally Championship video games. I understand your intentions, however, WRC is an actual video game series, not just a collection of games related to WRC. Most of the games in the series do not have their own articles, but the original article contained a lot of useful information about each game. I have manually reverted your edit and cleaned up the article a bit.

The article now discusses only the official WRC series, not just games with WRC cars licensed from FIA. I have linked to List of World Rally Championship video games, but that article needs a major overhaul. I would suggest that instead of another list article, you simply put those games into a "WRC games" or "rally racing games" category. This would be much more useful and semantically proper.

In the future, please don't be so quick to throw away the hard work others have put into an article.--Subversive Sound (talk) 04:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello. To answer your first point first, I know that WRC is a series rather than a collection of games related to the World Rally Championship, which is why I moved the article to reflect that it wasn't, as it stood, covering only that series, but a broader range of WRC licenced titles.

In reply to your last point, my edit wasn't actually that quick, I was quite careful as I always try to be, and I don't think I threw anything away... The only info I didn't include in the reworked version was a few unsourced release dates - I just kept the year. I don't believe it was particularly "poorly done", as you said in your edit summary... the article contents should reflect the title, hence the change of title. This was a way of not "throwing away the hard work others", ;) though I note with dismay that you also reverted my tense corrections, style corrections, removal of the dead DAB link at the top of the page, reworking of certain sentences into readable English, removal of unjustifiable fair-use images etc... Finally, I don't agree that list of World Rally Championship video games is really in need of an overhaul, it just needs completing - there's a few titles to add yet. Miremare 22:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Nosegays and Red Dwarf

Those users don't seem to be engaging in the kind of talk page trolling that got Nosegays blocked, at least as far as I can tell. Blueboy96 21:08, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:FIFA World Cup 2010 EA Sports teams.png

Thanks for uploading File:FIFA World Cup 2010 EA Sports teams.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 12:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Salavat (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. Thanks, Miremare 18:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

FIFA video game series

You were involved in that discussion and it is rather inappropriate for you to revert a move. Yes, points were raised on both sides, however the consensus was for the change. I'll add that the only dissension besides yours says 'I think its current title is perfectly fine'. Basically an I like it type of response with no reason why the old name is better. Bottom line consensus was there. If you would like to reopen, you can propose a move back. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:15, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sonic 3d saturn title screen.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sonic 3d saturn title screen.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sonic 3d saturn diamond dust zone.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sonic 3d saturn diamond dust zone.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:39, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sonic 3d saturn special stage.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sonic 3d saturn special stage.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:42, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sonic 3d mega drive special stage.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sonic 3d mega drive special stage.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:44, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sonic 3d mega drive diamond dust zone.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sonic 3d mega drive diamond dust zone.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Warlock of Firetop Mountain

Greetings. Yes - will incorporate that board game material when I can. There are pages and pages of FF stuff that need tidying up, so working through it as fast as possible. Regards. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

National teams in FIFA 11

Hi, Miremare. I´m really tired of seeing how the national teams contained in FIFA 11 are removed after I added them to FIFA 11 page, time after time. The point is, if you consider that club leagues are a very important part of FIFA series (which I agree with you), why do you remove the national teams list? they are a very important section of the game too, and I consider that is a relevant information about the game. If league teams are listed, national teams would be listed as well. I understand that Wikipedia can´t refer to very specific details of the game as if it was a videogame magazine rather than an encyclopedia, but your position sounds a bit contradictory. If you believe I´m wrong, please explain what you think about this point, thanks. Fma12 (talk) 16:18, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

According to what you explained on my talk page: Could I mention the national football teams included in FIFA 11 using prose? It wouldn´t take more than a few lines and would bring more complete information to readers. Another question, if you take a look at PES 2011 page, you´ll see there is a lot of detailed information about almost everything, included irrelevant topics, of course (for example, even fantasy teams are listed). Is there a PES talk page to discuss this issue? If so, please paste the link on my talk. Thanks, Fma12 (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi again, I know what you meant, but I also remember what you said about making large descriptions of the game and its contents, therefore I choose to write a short text and to list the teams only. In fact, I just followed (or tried to) your indications about how the national teams section should be showed on the page. Nevertheless there are many users that will be able to edit and expand the section giving it a more accurate prose style. Thanks, Fma12 (talk) 16:32, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Of course there is anything in particular about national teams that needs to be said: I feel really disappointed about your procedure. I can understand your thought if you think that in FIFA series, club leagues are more important than national teams; but you deliberately omitted any reference to them, even deleting my edits, which had been made just to add information about the game. I agreed to modify the edit making it shorter instead the columns and flag version, and you deleted it too. It means to be a whim rather than a need of accurate information. There is a lot of information in both pages, Fifa 10 and Fifa 11 about many issues but anything about what national teams are featured. My colaboration with Fifa pages on Wiki ends here. I feel you have not been respectful toward me and the time I have dedicated to do this, sorry. Fma12 (talk) 20:52, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Warlock of firetop mountain spectrum gameplay.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Warlock of firetop mountain spectrum gameplay.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 05:08, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Warlock of firetop mountain spectrum gameplay.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Warlock of firetop mountain spectrum gameplay.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Warlock of firetop mountain spectrum gameplay.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Warlock of firetop mountain spectrum gameplay.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:44, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Dungeon Keeper 3

Hi there, Miremare. You've reinstated an archived page as a live link and asserted, in the link text, that Ernest Adams was the "lead designer" of DK3. He was nothing of the sort, and your re-assertion of this fact can only be derived from Ernest Adams' own text. The site in question is currently rebuilding itself and articles in response are still awaiting publication, so it should not count as a verifiable source. Thanks, and feel free to discuss this further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zyburger (talk • contribs) 19:06, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I don't really know any more about DK3 than is cited in the article and other cited sources, I was simply reinstating a dead link to its archive.org equivalent. Please feel free to make whatever changes to the article you feel are appropriate. It's a useful, and rare, source on DK3, but I'm not intending to support any particular viewpoint that it advances. Thanks, Miremare 23:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Forgive a newbie, and thank you for your patience. The piece is already linked to in the References section, which states that it is archived, as it cited heavily. Furthermore, and although the author says that roles were swapped and design duties were shared, you were quite right that he called himself a lead designer. Zyburger (talk) 05:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

No problem. I didn't actually notice that it was already being heavily used as a reference or I wouldn't have re-added it to the ext. links section. Miremare 13:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The Warlock of Firetop Mountain (video game)

Hi, just explaining my revert of your revert on this page. I totally understand why you reverted, and sympathise. However, Bladesofchaos is clearly not going to just suddenly stop editing the article, and his contributions are well intended and contain much that is constructive. Reverting his changes on en mass is not going to resolve the issue in the long term, and is unnecessarily dismissive of the worthwhile work included amongst them. I know it's more work, but I can suggest you go through his changes on a paragraph by paragraph basis, and copyedit and improve the text, retaining as much of it as possible, so as to use his content wherever possible while at the same time taking into account your very reasonable concerns about prose quality, referencing and level of detail? I'll give you first whack at it since you're a long term editor of the article but I'm happy to try myself if you're just tired of it. - DustFormsWords (talk) 04:10, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, yes I was looking through the individual edits with a view to doing just that, but now there's been more, and it's all getting a bit complicated. It is very frustrating that I have tried to engage the editor on the talk page with my concerns to very little avail, and his edits today, including the re-addition of the MobyGames link as a reference after I explained why it can't be used as such, leads me to believe that he hasn't even read any of what I said to him and has no intention of discussing anything. As such I had every right to revert his edits, BRD and all that, and to be honest I don't think that your validating what he's doing by reverting me is helpful, though I'm sure your intentions are good. But life's too short and I can't be bothered with this one any more, he can do what he likes with the article now as far as I'm concerned, I'm taking it off my watchlist. Miremare 04:43, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think you are being unfair to both DustFormsWords and myself. This is an obviously friendly and understanding editor, who is just trying to keep the peace and help the article. This is true Wikipedia behaviour. DFW doesn't deserve to be told that their edits are nothing more than a validation of my own. As I've stated before, the article did need improving, as there were some weaknesses. Your comments above again smack of ownership (e.g. As such I had every right to revert his edits) and ignore the fact that there has been discussion. There have also been comments left in the edit summaries. If you require more explanation, please ask, but blind reverts with a condescending comment are not the answer. The last sentence in your commentary above is also disappointing, as I would have hoped we could have kept things civil. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 08:29, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Please don't try to twist my words into an attack on DustFormsWords, as it was nothing of the sort. Please also don't try to twist "I had every right to revert his edits" into "I own the article". If that's really the meaning you got from that sentence, then it pretty much proves that you don't read or pay attention to what people are saying. And no, I haven't ignored "the fact that there has been discussion" because we didn't discuss it. I went to great lengths to explain the problems I had with your edits and engage in dialogue, while you made no attempt whatsoever to address any of what I said, simply re-adding your edits and accusing me of "ownership" just because I disagree with you. I don't own the article, and I'd remind you that neither do you, despite your apparent belief that it's OK to force through your own edits by attrition when you're well aware that there are objections. And if you think any of that is "true Wikipedia behaviour" then you're wrong. But I've had more than enough of drama on WP over the years and I'd really rather just walk away from the article than engage in any more. Miremare 16:14, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

FWIW I didn't interpret anything Miremare said as an attack on me or anything other than a polite expression of a reasonable personal opinion. But thank you for the intent. - DustFormsWords (talk) 22:43, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Template:Crystal Computing series, you need to create the pages to show active interest. A reversion isn't really a contribution. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 03:55, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

There's no requirement for any particular editor to create any of Wikipedia's red linked articles, and there's nothing wrong with red links if they point to subjects that have the potential to be an article, as this is how many articles get created. However, as you've taken the time to discuss it, and I'm currently in the process of creating the articles in question anyway, I'm willing to compromise and remove the links until they're blue. Regarding your comments about the articles on the template being "barely notable", for WP's purposes there are no degrees of notability - a subject either qualifies for an article under the notability guidelines or it doesn't. These all do - I already removed those from the template that don't. Thanks, Miremare 19:47, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Parliament Act 1911 and Parliament Act 1949

I have undone your redirects of both these articles as it appears to me that they do contain content that is not in the article Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, specifically the dates of royal assent, the dates of commencement, the reason why the dates of commencement were what they were, the provisions authorising the short titles of the two Acts, the details of the repeal of the 1911 Act in the Republic of Ireland, and the long title of the 1949 Act. I have added some more content since. If you want to merge articles could you please carefully check that you are not removing content that is not duplicated. Thank you.James500 (talk) 12:27, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I was just about to write you a message about this. The subjects are already covered together in Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, which is a featured article. If you think that there is anything missing from that article please add it there, or if you think the article should be split into two separate ones please discuss it on the talk page there. But it's simply article duplication to have these two separately, and there's nothing in the two individual ones that can't be put into the main one. Thanks, Miremare 12:32, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Hard disk drive manufacturers Template

I'm not sure why u bothered to create the Hard disk drive manufacturers Template rather than just add to the existing List_of_defunct_hard_disk_manufacturers, but in doing so I suggest you should have done more research since your list (and the Wiki list) are seriously incomplete, see for example pages 16 and 17 of Porter's speech at the 100th Anniversary Conference: Magnetic Recording and Information Storage Santa Clara University, December 14, 1998. BTW, Iomega did make HDDs, at least if u consider Jaz an HDD. May I suggest u either delete the template or update it? Tom94022 (talk) 17:01, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

The advantage of navboxes over lists is that they can appear on as many pages as are relevant, usually all of the articles listed on the template itself. The contents of the template was based on the list, so I'm sure it's not complete, but something is better than nothing. :) Please feel free to update the template, list, or both. Thanks, Miremare 17:59, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Rareware

Hi, I just want to explain why the name Rareware should be mentioned in the lead of this article. I'm aware that Rareware is not the name of the company itself and I totally understand why you removed it, but still, I do think the term should be mentioned as many games that reference this article use it. Besides, it also helps to clarify how the company can be referred to. Please, feel free to contact me if you have any questions or comments. --Niwi3 (talk) 15:47, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Coalition governments of the United Kingdom

Template:Coalition governments of the United Kingdom has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:36, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Zeus assembler.png needs authorship information.

Dear uploader:

The media file you uploaded as File:Zeus assembler.png appears to be missing information as to its authorship (and or source), or if you did provide such information, it is confusing for others trying to make use of the image.

It would be appreciated if you would consider updating the file description page, to make the authorship of the media clearer.

Although some images may not need author information in obvious cases, (such where an applicable source is provided),authorship information aids users of the image, and helps ensure that appropriate credit is given (a requirement of some licenses).

If you created this media yourself, please consider explicitly including your user name, for which:{{subst:usernameexpand|Miremare/Archive 2}} will produce an appropriate expansion,

or the {{own}} template..

If you have any questions please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:13, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Warlock of firetop mountain spectrum gameplay.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Warlock of firetop mountain spectrum gameplay.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 06:04, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Re: the above, it seems you again see only what you wish to. The image failed notability. You made an effort here ([1]), but were curiously not interested in doing anything about the above ([2]), so I had to do it. I've reinserted the link as that exact image is at a legitimate site and therefore a far stronger claim that "take by uploader", which is in itself sloppy as it is essentially WP:OR. The image itself is now in the Gameplay section, which while fine is back at the size it has been for some time, to stop it squeezing out the text. I was also under the impression you were done editing the article , as per your comments here([3]).

Thebladesofchaos (talk) 00:37, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I was done with editing the article - no need to sound quite so pleased with yourself - but I had a notification here on my talk page about an orphaned image, as you've seen. In reply to your points, you're all over the place I'm afraid. I haven't edited File:FightingFantasyDSCover.jpg other than to correct a typo in the rationale that rendered it invalid to the intended article and was causing the image to be removed from that article. What do you mean by "the image failed notability" - Wikipedia has no notability requirements for images. You didn't have to do anything whatsoever to the fair-use rationale of File:Warlock of firetop mountain spectrum gameplay.png, as it already had a fair use rationale. And could you please explain how it looks "ridiculous" to have the screenshot conform to the style used throughout Wikipedia? Can you point out another article that uses screenshots in the way you propose to use this one? You aren't putting forward any logical justification, just your own unusual preference which you place above everyone else's - and one that you don't appear to be trying to impose on any other articles. The image isn't from WOS, or any other website, I took it myself, and editors taking screenshots of games is not original research,* that's a ludicrous suggestion. It's common practice, and the "source" field in the fair-use template is to state "where you acquired the copyrighted material, or how you regenerated it" (emphasis mine). It is there for informational purposes only and is not intended to be justificative of the image's presence. By changing it to suggest it was acquired from another source, or changing the copyright information from that stated by the game's own inlay, is not defensible on your part and almost certainly invalidates the rationale, so please don't. Nevertheless I'll change it to something a bit more specific.

*Whereas you stating that the game's copyright belongs to Steve Jackson and Ian Livingstone is original research, because it doesn't, it is copyright Puffin Books and Crystal Computing as stated on the game's inlay, which is the only possible source for this information. Miremare 02:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I believe FF games state who the original copyright holders are, which can only help. As to uploading your own game image, we can do better. We can use this ([4]), which at least comes from a semi-credible source. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 07:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

There's no need to replace the image. As I said above, the "source" of the image is irrelevant, and the game itself is the ultimate source of the image anyway. The WOS image is inferior due to the composition (characters being bunched into the left of the screen), its use of identical sprites for the two characters, and lack of visible doors, which are a major element of gameplay. As a side note the fair-use rationale also suffers from most of the same errors that I pointed out above. A non-free alternative would be a compelling reason to change the image, but there's no such thing in the case of this game. And further to the size issue, you are still making the image way too small - it's practically impossible to make out what the image is at that size. Images also need captions explaining what they depict, per WP:LAYOUT, which you also keep removing. Again, please explain why you're doing this. I've put the image back minus its "px" field. This will the image at the each user's prefered thumbnail size as defined in their preferences. If you're finding images too large, consider tailoring your settings to compensate. Miremare 17:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

OK. Let's take a breath. I never liked this ([5]) as it was condescending, but matters were resolved amicably enough. I'm sorry about the comment (childish) as I just wanted to see the image rationale improved, as there is at present a rather excessive witchhunt being conducted by at least one user on all images for even the slightest of reasons.

That said, yes, the original is a better image and the old size is fine. I have just moved it so it is not such a visual eyesore and does not jam up the text. I have also reworked the text for a better flow and avoided link overkill or repetition. Regards Thebladesofchaos (talk) 05:28, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I appreciate your willingness to compromise. Cheers, Miremare 23:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

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)