User talk:JayC/Archive 3

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:NFSHP2 PC.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:NFSHP2 PC.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 23:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Intention (video game)

The speedy has been declined, and I've listed it for discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intention (video game).--Addhoc (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Juiced

I have declined your request to speedy delete Juiced to accomodate your page move. I agree with Mecu that a link to the disambiguation is more appropriate in this instance. If you still disagree, please address on the appropriate talk pages to achieve a consensus, otherwise bring it up at WP:RM. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted your most recent edit to Juiced. By now, two admins have advised you that a redirect to the disambiguation page is more appropriate in this circumstance. Again, if you dispute this, you will need to build a consensus favoring your change. Do not change Juiced back until you have made an honest attempt to do so. Caknuck (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

For god's fucking sake, it's guideline. I'm just trying to uphold the fucking guideline. --MrStalker ^talk 15:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

First of all, be civil. Secondly, the guideline relates to disambiguating between video games and their series; it is secondary to the more relevant guidelines/policies WP:DAB, WP:NCON and WP:NC. Let me know if you need any further clairification. Caknuck (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please explain why Juiced should point to a disambig instead of keeping it the way it was a few days ago, when it worked perfectly fine. Most articles linking to Juiced does so expecting a having linked directly to the article about the video game series. Juiced is the official name of the series, which is more then you can say about some "Juiced ball". --MrStalker ^talk 16:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

In any case where the name is ambiguous, a DAB page is appropriate. The only reason that there aren't more articles linking to Juiced in reference to Canseco's book is that someone took the time to directly link to the article, which uses the full title of the book. However, the book is commonly known by its short title "Juiced". When dealing with disambiguation pages, "official names" are secondary to plausible search terms.

This is a contentious move, so you need to try to build consensus to support your case. Caknuck (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Okey, I didn't know that official titles are supposed to be secondary to search titles. If that's the case, I guess it's correct. Thanks. --MrStalker ^talk 17:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Arn wallpaper 3.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Arn wallpaper 3.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Tcrbsv2-360-cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tcrbsv2-360-cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 10:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TSFirestormbox.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TSFirestormbox.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Cncra-win-cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cncra-win-cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image:Jade small.png

The image it was sourced from was a copyright violation. east.718 at 21:40, January 27, 2008

Er, no it's fair use. And if you think it's copyvio, why the hell did you delete it per CSD I1?!? --MrStalker ^(talk) 21:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not fair use when it's not being used anywhere outside userspace and is tagged with {{attribution}}. east.718 at 21:52, January 27, 2008

I can't help notice you didn't answer my question. --MrStalker ^(talk) 21:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Dood, DRV is kind of pointless. If you can point out where in mainspace the image can be used, I'll restore and fix it myself. east.718 at 07:45, January 28, 2008

Nah, it's not pointless, it got your attention. Does it matter if it's used in mainspace or not? The large image I don't exactly where it was used but the small one I used for my userbox which I liked very much. Isn't that allowed? Ubisoft as granted permission for use of shots of their software for any purpose, so I don't see the problem. --MrStalker ^(talk) 09:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The big image wasn't used anywhere, and non-free images aren't permitted outside of mainspace. The problem with all of them was that the permission Ubisoft gave extends only to screenshots of in-house developed and published software, not artwork - which that image was. Hence the reason for my deletion: "not a screenshot". "csd i1" was admittedly a pretty crappy summary for the smaller crops, but I guess it applies if you think hard enough about it. :| east.718 at 09:54, January 28, 2008

Template:Age of Empires series

The current version (with the "other" section) suits me fine; nice work. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 06:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. --MrStalker ^(talk) 09:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:User contrib

Hi. I've posted on that page RE: commas in the template not working. Lugnuts (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning: Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have been making on Command & Conquer: Tiberian series, Command & Conquer (video game) and Template:Command & Conquer series. Note that disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, by perpetuating disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after it has been discredited, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or your own error is a potentially blockable offense on Wikipedia. If this trend continues, I will alert an adminstrator to your actions and request for outside mediation in this dispute. Thank you. Kalamrir (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Slander. Please do, because I am sick of you. --MrStalker ^(talk) 16:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I think you are your own worst problem. And have been across this entire dispute. Do not try to project that fact on others. Kalamrir (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Okey. I'm going to say this one more time. Command & Conquer: Tiberian Dawn is not the official title of the first Command & Conquer game. --MrStalker ^(talk) 17:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I am compiling a list of six separate verifiable sources, with the specific intention of ending the spread of this kind of misinformation permanently. Also, due to the nature of your responses to the good faith edit of user Pkaulf in the Tiberium (video game) article, and also due to my recent experiences with you, I think it is advisable that you thoroughly read the following and use it as a guideline to improve your mentality as a Wikipedian: Wikipedia: Be welcoming. Kalamrir (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

And I'll do the same. Thank you for your concern, but I don't think Pkaulf qualify as a newcomer with over 800 edits, and you doesn't strike me as one either. Or are you? --MrStalker ^(talk) 12:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of his status as a newcommer or not, the point remains. Thank you for taking note of it. I hope to see an improvement in your mentality as a Wikipedian soon. Kalamrir (talk) 12:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Tip

Hello Kalamrir, I just want to give you two links: WP:VAND#NOT and WP:RM. --MrStalker ^(talk) 17:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello MrStalker, and thank you for the links you provided. I have taken note of the information in WP:VAND#NOT, and was made to conclude that the nature of your earlier edits - which I had marked as vandalism - do not appear to be among the list of edit types which are often wrongfully mistaken as cases of vandalism. This appears to suggest that my revert of your earliest edits on the premise of vandalism was in fact correct, and was also supported by Wikipedia guidelines, since they seemed to constitute "repetitively and intentionally unconstructive edits", as defined by WP:VAN. Thank you.

Admittedly, I am not without fault in this dispute either. Reading over WP:VAN, I appear to have repeatedly acted against a Wikipedia guideline described in "How not to respond to vandalism". For that, I do apologize. Kalamrir (talk) 11:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You might also want to read this: WP:AGF. --MrStalker ^(talk) 11:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

On what do you base the assumption I originally did not assume good faith in your edits? I believe we have both been active as members of the C&C task force for quite a while prior to this dispute, without any incident worthy of note. What do you believe it was that altered this? Kalamrir (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I happend to know that Tiberian Dawn is not an official title, and that Tiberium is not part of Tiberian series, and thus I'll do anything in my power to present this correctly on Wikipedia. I do this in good faith. Honestly, I think you are frustrated because you believe otherwise but doesn't gain any support from other editors. Thus, you become easily acceptable to the assumtion that my edits are of bad faith, which they are not. --MrStalker ^(talk) 12:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think this comment is quite emblematic of the origins of this dispute. Numerous forms of source material are readily available for you to consult that prove your assessment false, and secondly, these sources have been added by other editors than myself in the past. Thus, your assertion that I "do not gain support from other editors" is a fallacy. It should also be noted that thus far, only a single editor has made a single edit in your favor, which was a highly misinformed one as well. Since you have consistently and systematically ignored all the source material we have available in order to to press a case of blatant misinformation, I am left with no other option than to conclude that you operate on bad faith, and are intentionally attempting to disrupt the quality of our articles. I will act accordingly. Kalamrir (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

You just proved my point. Those sources confirm only one thing: That Tiberian Dawn is a widely used title the first C&C game. They do not confirm it's the official title. --MrStalker ^(talk) 12:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Fast and furious sequel

I have reverted your edit to The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift, as the sequel has not been named, and you linked to a non-existent article. Please do not change that entry unless and until you can cite a reliable source for the name. -- Donald Albury 22:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for page unprotection from an admin. --MrStalker ^(talk) 08:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The Fast and the Furious 4 is still "in development" and may never get made; that hasn't changed. I did not actually salt the ground under this one, as the nominator urged me to do; but until there are some reliable sources, this is going nowhere. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I do not wish to sound rude, but did you ever consider looking at the talk page of the article you deleted? Because on it, I clearly established both notability and verifiability. --MrStalker ^(talk) 18:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Some of those were links to blogs, or to other sites repeating what Moviehole reported. One site claimed the Hollywood Reporter as a source, but didn't provide a link to the HR article. More to the point, most of these weren't incorporated into the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I can't improve on them now, can I? Besides, what's unreliable with the MTV reports? It's more of a news channel then a traditional blog. --MrStalker ^(talk) 18:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Point is, the article didn't fall under CSD G4 and shouldn't been deleted. After all, another admin unprotected the page for me so I could create the article in the first place. --MrStalker ^(talk) 18:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No hard feelings here, I hope. There are some people who want to create articles for the seventh season of House ("cuz it's so good, you know it'll last longer than M*A*S*H") and I tend to be pretty hard-nosed about WP:CRYSTAL violations (and about recreations of deleted material). --Orange Mike | Talk 22:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course not. But this article is being created, deleted, recreated, deleted, recreated, deleted, protected, unprotected, created, deleted, undeleted, deleted, so it's pretty irritating. Even more since I think I have reliable sources and have put some effort into making the article good quality. But, what is life if it ain't sucking. --MrStalker ^(talk) 22:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Spore-logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Spore-logo.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to my attention, the issue is fixed now. --MrStalker ^(talk) 18:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Template substitution

Woops, sorry about that. Hadn't been aware that was an issue, I just saw the article needed the template and didn't have it, and whacked it on. I'll be more careful next time!Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Battlefield Heroes

my brothers friend works at ea. im not lying. he is making bad company and said heroes will be out on July 2008. Agent007ravi (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

That's not a good enough reference. And since you live in England, and Battlefield is developed in Stockholm, I personally don't belive you. --MrStalker ^(talk) 13:06, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Battlefield Heroes v. 2.0

Hey, if you know for a fact that it's not 3rd person (and I'm not saying it is or isn't, because I don't know), then you need to remove the reference to it being 3rd person in the body of the article. -- JT ^Holla! 17:00, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I didn't say it wasn't. It's neither. It's both. --MrStalker ^(talk) 17:12, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The point is, if it's grounds for being deleted from the spot you deleted it, it needs to be deleted throughout the article. -- JT ^Holla! 19:23, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't say in the article that it is a third-person shooter. --MrStalker ^(talk) 19:30, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning

According to wikipedia any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. With the article said to have been" written like an advertisement". Adding a section about the controversy between the games is simply informative and adding items of interest to the article, hence increasing the integrity of the wiki page. The article was obviously written with a biased view of advertising the game and gameplay. Taking out a portion of an article for being informative, even if the information might be negative towards the subject, is as if you went to a page about Eliot Spitzer and saw nothing about his recent scandal. Therefore my addition to the article is in "good-faith" as an attempt to make the article well informed and complete. However, I am giving you a warning that the deletion of my addition is a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia" , otherwise known as vandalism and have been reverted. Wiki articles are not supposed to suppress the information on its subject, they are supposed to be informatively enlightening even if it may sound negative to the subject(Don't make it sound like a game ad!). I can understand thinking that an opposing view of a subject is bad, but to say that VERY TRUE facts about something is vandalism is misinformed. Do not delete wiki parts because you have a personal belief against them, delete the ones that are not informative. Thankyou for the time to clear up this misunderstanding, have a good day.—Preceding unsigned comment added by TF2isgreaterthanBFH (talk • contribs) 12:04, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Your contribution clearly violates WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. You re-adding the material after it has been removed per these guidelines, clearly constitutes vandalism. Please stop or you will be blocked. --MrStalker ^(talk) 20:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Red Alert 3

Hello. General consensus is to alphabetise platforms and media. P comes before W comes before X, hence the ordering of PS3, Windows, X360. Same logic applies with the media (DVD&Blu-ray). Give us a shout if you disagree. Thanks! Fin ©™ 19:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry there, didn't see your message on the talk page. There doesn't seem to be any mention on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines, but I took my recent action after a debate on the GTA IV talk page - in which, all participants (save Xeno, who I've had this conversation with already today), supported the alphabeticalising (to keep away from POV) of platform and media - Xeno kept changing the order on GTA IV. Shout back if you want to discuss it more. Fin ©™ 19:35, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. Sonce yesterday, I've added the topic to WP:VG, and a general consensus of "chronological, if different dates exist, alphabetical for same dates" has been formed. As RA3 is a future game, alphabetical should be used. Thanks! Fin ©™ 10:46, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Looks like WP:CREEP to me. --MrStalker ^(talk) 14:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your edit to Talk:Tom Clancy's Rainbow Six: Vegas 2

The rank glitch is unsuitable for inclusion based on WP:NOT#GUIDE. Per WP:FORUM and Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments I removed the section as material not relevant to improving the article. xenocidic (talk) 14:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the material was very much relevant to improve the article. Also, follow the spirit of the rule, not the letter of it. There are much on variuos talk pages not directly relevant to improve the respective article. --MrStalker ^(talk) 14:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm of the school of thought that spreading knowledge on how to cheat is generally A Bad Thing™ . Teaching people to glitch is way too game-guidey for WP. But whatever. xenocidic (talk) 14:58, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

MrStalker, Xenocidic's removal was clearly within policy. Please don't give people warnings for things that benefit the encyclopedia. Perhaps you should read WP:TALK, WP:NOT and WP:FORUM before issuing further warnings for talk page refactoring, a process that is both acceptable and somewhat common on video game articles. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 19:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

My interpretation of policy is that comments relating to the improvement of the article should not be removed. Clearly there is difference in opinion. You may interpret policy like you want but honestly don't care. --MrStalker ^(talk) 22:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

No content in Category:Digital Illusions CE games

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Digital Illusions CE games, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Digital Illusions CE games has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Digital Illusions CE games, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Empty categories

Got your message. I see your point. There was a backlog and we had to delete a lot of stuff. These empty categories were included in the sweep, maybe mistakenly. If you want, they can be undeleted. Please let me know. Cheers! -- Alexf⁴² 17:03, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

C&C template

How is the mere adding of the six factions of the Red Alert & Generals games, the developers and publishers, omitted expansion packs and the re-ordering of titles according to release date in any way whatsoever related to speculation, or in any way unrelated to Command & Conquer?

Please do not blatantly revert large edits without making any distinction between controversial edits and simple additions. It is arrogant, dismissive and unconstructive, and only invites disputes and editing wars. Discuss this issue on the template's talk page with myself and other editors, before reverting the "main series" and "spin-off titles" sections. All the other additions I've made to the template have no reason to be disputed by anyone. 84.196.74.217 (talk) 13:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

First of all, there is no articles about the factions you added, therefor there shouldn't be any such entries in the template. The links you added links to their real-world correlate, which has nothing to do with the C&C franchise. And, for example, calling Red Alert 3 a spin-off is purely speculative.

No reason to be disputed? You cleary doesn't how it works around here. Please check WP:CON, previous consensus stands for now. --MrStalker ^(talk) 13:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd like a link to a Wikipedia policy article that clearly states that linking to real-world correlates is undesired in a video game franchise template. Secondly, this reason you have cited does not relate to all of the new factions I have added, and as such you still have not provided any explanations as to why you reverted those as well. Additionally your response is still in no way explaining why you have also repeatedly reverted such additions as the publishers and developers of the C&C franchise to the template.

Red Alert 3 was described as a spin-off game in the official Command & Conquer website's featured news story section, on February 14th of this year. This news story was entitled "Red Alert 3 Announcement Video & Screens!", and can be consulted at the aforementioned website at any time. If you are lacking in such up-to-date knowledge, you may not be the best choice to take a prominent position in this debate, and should leave this to other editors who are more knowledge of recent developments in the franchise.

Please read Wikipedia:Civility and Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith, as clearly you do not understand how proper communication between editors is asked to be conducted on this website. 84.196.74.217 (talk) 14:05, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

There is no specific policy for navboxes, but it is common practice and a consensus to include articles related to the subject. United States, China, Allies and the Soviet Union are not related to C&C, and GLA haven't got any article. Where can I read RA2 is a spin-off then? And Generals? And please don't accuse me of uncivilty, as it's considered uncivil on your part. --MrStalker ^(talk) 14:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

If there is no specific policy stating real-life correlates are undesirable in a video game template, then there exists no reason to revert the additions. The definition of "spin-off" according to http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spin-off:

" 3. something that is imitative or derivative of an earlier work, product, or establishment "

Since there is no source I am aware of which explicitely states that Red Alert 2 and Generals are canonical parts of the main story arc of the C&C franchise, there according to the above definition of the term exists no reason as to why they should not be designated as spin-offs. If you do have sources in which Generals is mentioned as for example happening in between the first C&C game and Tiberian Sun, or in which Red Alert 2 is explicitely mentioned as taking place in between the first Red Alert and the first Command & Conquer, then please provide them. 84.196.74.217 (talk) 14:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Rrr2-wii-cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Rrr2-wii-cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Some congratulations are due.

I've been taking a look at various other templates, notably those of other major video game franchises such as that of Zelda, Metal Gear and Half-Life. The C&C template is simply miles ahead of any of them in terms of style and informative quality.

That's in part due to your contributions and constructive feedback, so I thought I'd just come out and say this up front. We've had bumpy rides in the past, but the C&C articles are definitely improving because of it. So, it's all good.

Well done. Kalamrir (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and congrats to you as well. After reviewing our past discussions I must confess I feel they were at times rather lame and about trivial things. I have discovered that mostly we agree in large parts, and then these huge disputes have grown up from a minor disagreement. The only explaination I have is that both of us might fit the description of fanatics. At times there were some uncivilty on my part, and I apologize for that. My only defence is that at times I've feelt a bit stressed out, and I hope we can put our differences behind us. Recently I have come to realize that it sometimes is better to just ignore minor issues. I also must say you have made see things from an different angle, large bacause of your overwhelming masses of text which I really don't have the strength to dispute. That and the fact that the current revision only differs slightly from my original one. Funny thing, I hardly know what we were nagging about. :P That said, I think there are some issues left to discuss, which is the biggest reason for my dispute with the anon user, that I will bring up on the proper talk page in due time. Right now, I will call it quits for the night. As said, it's all good. --MrStalker ^(talk) 21:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Perhaps something of an unfair advantage I have on Wiki -- I have an extensive background in touch typing, so I pour out these large slabs of text in no time. At any rate, it was definitely time that I gave you these credits and thanks, because you were the one who launched the idea of grouping the games according to universe, rather than "series", which indeed was always dodgy given what the sources were saying. This idea really worked out, to be honest.

Be sure to raise the issues you've talked about. Given the progress that we've already made, there is no doubt in my mind that the C&C template will become something editors of other franchises will come look at for inspiration in the near future. I was pretty surprised just how much better ours was starting to become compared to everyone else's. Kalamrir (talk) 22:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to intrude here, I just thought here was as good a place as any to congratulate both of you for your fine work on the template! Well done, it really is miles ahead of pretty much any template I've seen on here.Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 04:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

There's no need to be sorry. Thank you for your nice comments. I'm pleased how this worked out and I belive this good spirit can continue to exist into the future. Again, thanks. --MrStalker ^(talk) 10:27, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

No doubt you meant "nice" when you wrote "nive" (not to be confused with "naive"). And agreed, the template is shiny. xenocidic (talk) 12:33, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I meant. Error corrected :P --MrStalker ^(talk) 22:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

My congrats to you both as well. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 22:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Template:Rayman series

Hi.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ARayman_series&diff=206848886&oldid=206789065

This (and particularly this within) may be of interest. Sardanaphalus (talk) 08:34, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. But since the template don't use any such characters there is no problem. --MrStalker ^(talk) 08:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

As there aren't many links in the template, the possibility of one or more of the {{·}}s colliding with the template's righthand side is virtually nil unless it's being viewed in a (very) small window. As a template carries more links, however, the possibility rises; hence the {{nowrap begin}}--{{·w}}--{{nowrap end}} solution outlined in Wikipedia:Line break handling. At least, that's my understanding. Sardanaphalus (talk) 15:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The css-class nowraplinks and {{·}} works perfectly in most cases, {{nowrap begin}}--{{·w}}--{{nowrap end}} is only necessary in rare exceptions. --MrStalker ^(talk) 16:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Intriguing. I mostly use Firefox on a Windows XP PC and see this little problem fairly regularly. Sardanaphalus (talk) 00:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, don't blame the coding, because it looks perfectly good in Internet Explorer 7. --MrStalker ^(talk) 18:25, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahh yes, I forgot about a discussion I was involved with in the "Template:Systems science (and maybe elsewhere)" thread here. (In short, it looks like a current Firefox bug.) Thanks to your comments for prompting my memory. Sardanaphalus (talk) 03:02, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

VG Newsletter

DDR SuperNova 2

Actually, they are not the same game. This article is about the Arcade Version. The home versions (except for the Japanese one) are completely different from the arcade version, and only contain some songs from the arcade version, plus other stuff. ViperSnake151 01:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Fast and Furious

Hi, Don't forget to cleanup the links that went to the old Fast and Furious. Usually the page move would create a redirect, and it did here, but once you took that out you left some broken links behind. Thanks! --AndrewHowse (talk) 12:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Okey, thanks for your help! --MrStalker ^(talk) 13:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

AOE Template

Recently, you deleted Star Wars: Galactic Battlegrounds from Template: Age of Empires series (rather vehemently it seems, considering your edit summary). I don't think you were aware that this game and its expansion pack used the Age of Empires II engine. It's pretty obvious if you play the game that it came from that. There's been some debate as to whether or not it should be included in the template (personally, I'm part of the crowd that thinks it should and I added it there some time ago). Anyway, I wanted to let you know as to why the game was on the template in the first place. Thunderforge (talk) 02:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC) EDIT: Just realized you already knew this and wrote about it on the talk page. My bad.

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Nfsc-cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Nfsc-cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Rayman Raving Rabbids 3

So I have a reason for it to be a redirect, you have nothing to say about the subject besides that there was a video, and your only response is "take it to afd"? AfD isn't for this. Why should it be an article? Existing doesn't make it deserving. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (May 2008)

Re:Deleted category contents

Other than the CFD notice, all that was on the page was-

{{DEFAULTSORT:Fast and the Furious, The}}
[[Category:Action films by series]]
[[Category:Auto racing films]]
[[Category:The Fast and the Furious|Films]]
[[Category:Universal Pictures films]]

So nothing of any real interes, sorry. J Milburn (talk) 08:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thank you so much for the barnstar! *pins it to chest* And thank you also for uploading better versions of the pics. I once knew what it meant to get it down to low res as I had done so before, but have since forgotten and can't find the original instructions. Something to do with the 72dpi? How did you reduce the file size? Was it the save for internet feature? Ah, teach me! (I have Photoshop 7). As for the HD video, it still looks blurry to me, oddly. In any case, I've watched that video way too many times already... clicketyclick_yaketyyak 19:00, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the image with Faith I captured with PrntScrn in Windows Media Player (with overlay disabled) from HD source found at GameTrailers and pasted into Photoshop CS2, I then used a reduze noise filter and resized to 640 px wide using the bicupic sharper setting, and then saved with the "save for web"-feature in jpeg with "very high" quality setting. The other two I copied directly from the website by looking at the source code and finding the images' urls. The HD video is HD, but it isn't exactly Bluray-quality. --MrStalker ^(talk) 20:01, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Nfsu-ps2-cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Nfsu-ps2-cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Future of Task Forces (part two: Atari)

(a message I left on WPVG talk page) In archive 41, we talked about sending video game series task forces into whole Publisher task forces. Example: Devil May Cry to Capcom. I would like to request that the actual creators of the task forces would meet here to discuss the issue I talk of in Archive 41.Gears Of War 01:50, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:BGE2-scr1.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:BGE2-scr1.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (June 2008)

Re: Your bot...

made this edit which is not very good. --MrStalker ^(talk) 06:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll look into it. Thanks for notifying me. Your vigilance is commendable. :) -- Cat ^chi? 11:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Spore-logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Spore-logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:14, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Official Spore Box

Official box can be seen here. JAF1970 (talk) 19:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Unless you can find a natural 256px (or bigger) version of the Spore box, don't use blurry blow-ups. There's no rush - it's better to have sharp and goodlooking than ugly and blurry. JAF1970 (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Spore-win-cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Spore-win-cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:17, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:JC2-CVG-scr1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:JC2-CVG-scr1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Attacks in the article Need for Speed

Lighten up dude. You make it sound like I commited a serious act of vandalism on the page. Consider the offense before sending such a text to someone. -- Lyverbe (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks against another editor or anyone else are never tolerated, no matter how small. Remember that. --MrStalker ^(talk) 17:43, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Need for Speed: Undercover

Hello. Just saying thanks for getting the article up & running in its early stages - while I think I'm fairly accomplished at general editing, I'm still not the best at expanding small articles. Sorry if I was a bit harsh on the reverting of your "expected" quote =) Thanks! Fin ©™ 00:01, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, it's always a work in progress! --MrStalker ^(talk) 00:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Hawx-logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Hawx-logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Tcrbsv2-360-cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tcrbsv2-360-cover.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:49, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (July 2008)

Newsletter delivered by xenobot 03:35, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

New template dispute

Seems there is a new template dispute going on. Since you're the person who originally proposed many of these changes to the template, I thought you might want to have your say.

The discussion is being held here. Kalamrir (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)