User talk:Dp76764

WP:UTM
WP:BLP
Image placeholders
Link Checker

Try to stay in the top three sections of this hierarchy.

Complaints on the Civilization reversions

Firaxis editing their site is very unlikely, and will take some time anyway. I have just read the guidelines. Indeed, fansites are discouraged and I agree with this, but i wouldn't qualify mine as just a fansite, since it's the place where updated versions of the official maps and mods shipped with Civ4 (Earth Map, Earth Map Ice Age, 1000AD, Greek World) and Beyond the Sword (Rhye's and Fall of Civilization), and info in general about them, can be found. Indeed, the best place to link them would be in the text itself, rather than in the External Links. And by the way, I've just noticed that civ4 scenarios aren't mentioned in the Civilization IV page. There were a few more scenarios provided, not only mine. I might add them all, then.
Instead, in Beyond the Sword page they are listed and briefly described, and "Fall from Heaven", which is another mod made by an external user and later become official, has its own link, pointing to its site http://www.civfanatics.com/ffh.
What's more, it even has a dedicated paragraph (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_the_sword#Modding) which, being entitled "Modding", is misleading. It should be merged with the paragraph of the scenarios, and I should be allowed to add a few lines about mine as well, because in case I, too, have reviews to quote: http://rhye.civfanatics.net/pages/civ4_RFCpresscoverage.php

79.53.199.47 (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

• Are your 'updated maps' OFFICIAL or unofficial? Also, if you're affiliated with the Rhye's site, you should be careful about adding 'self-promotional' material, FYI. I'm not 100% sure why the modding stuff is left out, but it may have to do with the 'Manual of Style' for video game articles. Also something to be aware of is WP:GAMEGUIDE (ie: don't get too specific about things in games). There isn't a terrible amount of consistency here on these articles in regards to how they follow the rules for articles, which is why you see discrepancies between the articles, I think. But hey, if you're confident that your material can exist happily with the rules, then by all means, be bold and add it back in. =) And thanks again for discussing this instead of edit warring =) DP76764 (Talk) 20:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I am Rhye, the author. I've just registered with the name "Rhye20".
The updates of my works are necessary in order to be aligned to the game version. In other words, game companies provide patches to fix bugs and adjust various aspects. I do the same to the mods, and I'm forced to do that, in order to maintain compatibily with the game every time a new patch comes out. So, as for the official scenarios, their updates have to be considered official as well. I think that scenarios were missing in Civ4 article because they were secondary compared to the huge amount of content introduced, unlike in the expansions. However, I can add a few lines both to the english page and to the italian one (I'm not a native english speaker, that's why I never bothered registering). What's left is to decide what to do with paragraph: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_the_sword#Modding. It doesn't speak about modding: it just adds details of Fall From Heaven. I propose to merge the content in the Fall From Heaven paragraph and delete it, what do you think?.
Rhye20 (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

---

My apologies for the intrusion on your page - I'm not familiar with wiki and I'm not sure how to communicate with you. However, why did you revert my changes on Civilization IV and Beyond the Sword pages? rhye.civfanatics.net is a site that contains official mods and has absolute rights to be linked where I had edited. 79.43.198.237 (talk) 00:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Adult Swim task force

You seem to be interested in Adult Swim, and I would appreciate if you would collaborate on it at the task force, found here. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 23:10, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Left 4 Dead - rabies

I edited in a compromise on the rabies issue for L4D, but forgot to add a proper edit description. Please see the L4D talk page for my reasoning. Didn't want to make it seem like I was prompting an edit war. -LogisticEarth (talk) 17:03, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Michigan radio stations

Most radio station templates have the "broadcast area" section used to designate which area the radio station targets.--milk the cows (Talk) 20:51, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm cool with it. I work in the radio industry (radio jobs are getting kinda scarce, so I should be thankful). :)

Prod and AfD

WP:PROD and WP:AFD explain the basics. In summary, there are three types of deletion:

• Speedy deletion - WP:CSD (copyright violations, nonsense, vandalism, notability not asserted etc)
• prod, which is used for deletion when you think it's an uncontroversial deletion. Anyone can object (including the original author) by removing the tag, and no reason need be given. If this happens, it becomes a "contested prod" and prod can't be used again (since it is now by definition a controversial deletion). If nobody disagrees by removing the tag, then the article will be deleted after 5 days.
• AfD, where there is discussion of the merits or otherwise of deleting the article. It lasts usually for 5 days, unless the outcome is blindingly obvious and the discussion is closed early.

Hope this helps. I tend not to do much at AfD, but occasionally try to clean out the backlog of speedy deletion and prod nominations. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 22:30, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

My apologies

I'm sorry if I came off in any way pushy at Talk:Rihanna#2009 Grammy's, which wasn't my intention. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 00:12, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The fact that this idiot managed to have his own article on Wikipedia in the first place still boggles my mind. --Whip it! ^{Now whip it good!} 01:22, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Star Wars invitation

I have noticed that you are listed as a member of the Star Wars WikiProject, which has been defunct for a long time. I would like to inform you that I am attempting to revitalize it. As such, I would officially like to invite you to participate in the project once again. If you are interested, please sign your name at Wikipedia Talk:WikiProject Star Wars#February 2009 Roll Call. Hope to see you soon! Firestorm ^Talk 23:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

re: Michigan source

Thanks. That MSU link looks very solid to me: 3rd party, published, reliable, etc. However, the article's phrasing would have to be changed, since this reference only supports the claim of "the longest freshwater shoreline in the continental United States" (emphasis added), not the whole world. It's admittedly a lesser claim, although the rest of the sentence could be included to add weight: "and rivals the entire U.S. Atlantic seaboard". Kevin Forsyth (talk) 21:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

• Sounds good... I'll discuss further over there, for a wider audience. Regards, Kevin Forsyth (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

re: SimCity Articles

Ok Ill stop.

Is it acceptable for me to post them on the talk page? Kotosb (talk) 20:41, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

family guy list

there doesn't need to be consensus when it has clearly been demonstrated that it passes the criteria as a source. Its not as if its about formatting, but the problem was if it valid information, and that is what was proven. Its legit, and all in good faith. The sources in question have been used before and are 100% accurate Grande13 (talk) 15:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I wont revert it anymore for now, but the source is legit and has proven to be legit and reliable source while meeting wikipedias criteria Grande13 (talk) 15:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

what are you questioning about the material? i've provided links to the old history pages of the episode list with the source being used and its been completely accurate. It also has met all the criteria like I mentioned as it doesn't violate any of wikipedias policies. I have a good track record and have been a main contributor and regulator of the page and I wouldn't use a source or insert information that wasn't 100 percent confirmed. I think the info on the blog is also proof in itself that it is who it claims to be as noone else has this info before it was posted there. Also when other information there was posted almost two years ago the same situation applied as the news it gave was found no where else. There is no other explanation of how someone could have come across that information unless they were tied into the show, such as the director Grande13 (talk) 15:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

its not like im just talking and going with a story here. All of the past info that source has provided to this site can be seen in the history to prove it, and you know i'm right about it being reliable Grande13 (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

the source has a neutral point of view and offers Verifiability with its past history . It passes the criteria needed along with other ones not listed here, you know its a gray area and this one falls on the side of it being legit. Maybe thats now how it works, but it still is correct and verifiable. Its not OR, it was a self published source, and according the those standards and criteria it meets all objectives in determining if the informatiton from that can be used as long as its neutral, doesn't effect the integrity of the article, and so on Grande13 (talk) 16:15, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Fox no longer has a page thats updated with any sort of episode guide resembalance, hence they moved to freakinsweetnews, they just must not have updated that part on the site, cause it used to be fan run in the beginning. And the Copyright Database is unreliable as to when information gets uploaded there as sometimes its up years in advance while other times not at all or until after it airs. A lot of people come here, and I know its not the spot for breaking news, but its also now appearing elsewhere and people should see the legit info and correct titles as if not there will be tons of vandalism here like usual as people always are adding fake things. With the truth out there it helps spread the correct information on the web and wikipedia can be seen as a reliable source for family guy and other things, as right now everyone reads things on wikipedia with skepticism as it is knowing its not true. You know there is a way for this source to slide as its not earth shattering news that has a huge effect on people. Grande13 (talk) 16:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Then let me source the blog again. I know you believe its not something anyone can make up, and the fact that its been used in the past I feel you must think its legit as well. There are loopholes where blogs and such can be used on wikipedia, so wouldn't it just be easier to use one of those to allow the site to reflect as much accurate information as possible, and once a more pronounced site offers the info then I can change the source, but until then I can use the blog? Grande13 (talk) 16:47, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

your link takes me here WP:BLP#Reliable sources., then from there I go to Self-published material may be used in biographies of living persons only if written by the subjects themselves. Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:

so by this " Subjects may provide material about themselves through press releases, personal websites, or blogs. Material that has been self-published by the subject may be added to the article only if:

  1. it is not unduly self-serving;
  2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  4. there is no reasonable doubt that the subject actually authored it;
  5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

These provisions do not apply to subjects' autobiographies that have been published by reliable third-party publishing houses; these are treated as reliable sources, because they are not self-published."

i can include anything that he directed himself Grande13 (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

that sliders episodes changed names since the director with the blog was the one who directed that episode. Shouldnt we fix that somehow. there was even a post a few weeks ago on the blog about how that episodes name change came to be??? Grande13 (talk) 17:43, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

well we need to change that sliders episode title somehow cause its pointless having the wrong title up here as its just going to add to confusion. How about you correct that one and you can leave off 7acx15 for now until its in the database Grande13 (talk) 15:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

i would think the director of the episode saying "For the Sliders episodes I suggested this be renamed "Road to the Multiverse", and Seth dug it. Road to '85 got a big rewrite after animatic, and didn't feel like a "Road" show at all ....meanwhile, Sliders is a total Brian & Stewie adventure, w/ a song ....so - to me it made more sense for this ep to be the Road show. Beleive me, it has NOTHING to do w/ me wanting to hog all the "Road" shows now. :)" on the blog would be more of an authoritative source then copyright database who have had that file in there for months already. It should be changed to "road to multiverse. As you saw i fixed up the directors page so that should be sufficient enough for the title change for now, and we can rely on the copyright database for future titles. So lets change that one away from sliders since its incorrect. [[1]]Grande13 (talk) 17:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Its only reliable with the initial title, over time with more and more changes to script it becomes less reliable. We might as well use freakinsweetnews as at least its not a blog and gives us a chance to post the right info as opposed to posting something we know is outdated, and the copyright database doesn't ever update old records, so its never going to change there. Why post something that you know is wrong? There is updated info available so the misleading needs to end. We might as well just change the title and keep the copyright database link then cause it can't stay how it is Grande13 (talk) 17:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Well i can verify past situation on the Copyright Datbase where the title there was not the final title after the episode had gone through revisions. It needs to be changed Grande13 (talk) 17:41, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Feet of Clay 'improve' tag

Hi, you added a 'refimprove' tag to Feet of Clay some weeks ago. Could you explain why you did so? The article does contain little more than an introduction, a summary (which I wrote) and the titles of the book's translations into other languages. Which of these would need to be verified? 92.224.161.124 (talk) 17:42, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

FG

Since you're an active member of FG articles, I'm thinking about merging Mort Goldman and Neil Goldman (along with anything on Muriel) to either a new article - Goldman Family, or even just redirecting them to List_of_characters_from_Family_Guy#The_Goldmans, as their articles alone are not really notable. Thoughts? CTJF83Talk 04:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you use IRC chat? I kinda feel like doing a little editing tonight, and might as well clean up some FG articles. CTJF83Talk 04:50, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Well you should IRC sometime! It makes editing and decision making a lot easier! Have a good night. CTJF83Talk 05:05, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Like to add an new external link to Massive Attack page

Hi, you removed a link to my Massive Attack fansite from the page for Massive Attack a few months ago. You said my fansite link would need to be "a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." What 'unique resources' does your site provide that are not already provided by other sources?" I made a list of what my site provides in unique resources beyond the Wikipedia article but never received any reply back. Could you please review this now. Its at the bottom of the TalkPage. Cheers! Nametaken12 (talk) 13:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Just after replying to your comment on my Talk Page. Could you please review it and get back to me with your answer. Thanks! Nametaken12 (talk) 17:09, 18 March 2009 (UTC)