User talk:MuZemike/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2



June 2008

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Zombie Nation (video game) do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.  

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.

The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: 'youtube\.com' (link(s): . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. an image or a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thorougly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creators copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Put your knowledge to good use

Join us over at StrategyWiki. I just completed the guide for Zanac, and I noticed that you had made some edits to the article recently. I have fleshed out a walkthrough for all 12 areas, and would appreciate your amendments or corrections. I am User:Procyon on there, so hit me up when you've had a chance to review the guide. Thanks. Plotor (talk) 02:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Your recent mass addition of tags

During your robot style additions of tags to articles, in a great deal of the articles you added several "this section" tags to the same article. In situations like that (where the bulk of the article has no references period), all that is needed is a single tag at the top of the page:

Citations of the type you added are meant only for pages that include references for a majority of the page but have individual sections missing references. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 22:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. I will keep that in mind in the future. MuZemike (talk) 19:31, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Hard work recognized

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
Your hard work editing various video game articles has earned you this Barnstar. Keep up the good work!

Lumaga (talk) 02:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


In support of Operation COOKIE MONSTER (OCM) I'm presenting WikiCookies in appreciation for military service to the United States. Happy Independence Day! Ndunruh (talk) 04:05, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


Sorry. I just don't like these AfDs, which try to delete commercially released games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:55, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (July 2008)

  • Newsletter delivered by xenobot 03:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Project Nintendo?

I'm not in project nintendo, so I don't really care one way or another what talk pages get tagged with that. But I am a little confused on some of your recent edits for that. Why was Joust added to project Nintendo today but you just took off Klax? Neither one is a Nintendo property, but both were released for the NES as Nintendo licencees. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 19:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Joust was published on the NES by HAL Laboratory, which is a 2nd party developer of Nintendo. Hence, they would be part of that WikiProject. Same thing applies with Star Gate (Defender 2).
Klax, on the other hand, was published by Atari Games for other consoles and by Tengen for the NES; neither are 1st or 2nd party developer of Nintendo. And by the WikiProject guidelines, it cannot be considered a part of the WikiProject.
The requirements of inclusion of a game into WikiProject Nintendo is listed on its front page as follows: Also, please note that "game" articles are only included in this WikiProject if they are published by Nintendo. (1st and 2nd party.) A lot of NES game articles on Wikipedia have been incorrectly designated as such, and while I'm reworking and expanding the List of Nintendo Entertainment System games, at the same time I'm making small such corrections such as adding/removing the appropriate templates.
Hope that clears things up. Cheers! MuZemike (talk) 19:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Concerning the "warning" template on my user page.

I think you should reconsider when yo are putting warning templates on the pages of users were contributing to Wikipedia long time before you started nex time. And I do also welcome you on Wikipedia, and I am glad you are enjoying your stay. Platyna (talk) 16:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I really thought that labelling the rest of us as barnstar and template people was meant to be an insult, as well as us screaming out loud and trying to challenge credibility of other persons by attaching to their names edit counters and SPA templates to suggest they are sockpuppets. I thought that was definitely below the belt. Being here longer than us does not give you a free pass to hurl out such insults or to place yourself on a higher perch than the rest of us.
With that being said, it's only a Level 1 warning — I got one, too; it's not a big deal.
We're also trying not to degrade your voice or anything like that. We're not going after you like it's a personal crusade. Remember that I voted Speedy keep solely because of the way the article was nominated, which was 45 minutes after creation by a bot. Just keep the confrontiveness down. That's all. MuZemike (talk) 17:35, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I do appreciate the "speedy keep" vote, however what I told it wasn't mean to be an insult, but a honest description of the phenomena occuring on the Wikipedia what I am finding annoying. And maybe for you it isn't big deal, but I don't like being smashed with institutional forms of punishment.Platyna (talk) 10:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


Hey. I got an "orphaned image" notification for an image you removed, and checked your contributions history. So thanks for your hard work in tagging and assessing articles, and it's particularly good to see that you've kept a healthy balance by also editing articles and addressing the concerns brought up by others. Editors who dedicate themselves completely to the rules, discussion or other non-article-improving activity tend to become... stressed. Now -- *chased off the computer he's on, let me get back to you :/ * --Kizor 05:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm not trying to step over others here. But I did put your screenshot back in (now that I have looked at the article again), but in place of the title screen screenshot, which I do not think is going to be very useful of an image now. MuZemike (talk) 07:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

That Drawn-out AfD...

My advice—don't let attitude or circumstances play into your decision. Behaving rudely or nicely has no impact whatsoever on Wikipedia:Notability or Wikipedia:Verifiability. Articles stand on their own merit, not that of the editors. The sweetest talk will not save a bad article, and the rudest talk cannot destroy a good article. My other piece of advice—when you're engaged in a conflict, always assess how you feel after you've typed something. If you feel calm, submit it. If you're angry, close the window and walk away. If you were about to type something bad, you'll be glad you didn't send it. If you were about to type something good, you'll be more well-written and present a stronger argument when you come back. I like to think I have a reputation for keeping a level head, and that's one of my primary methods for maintaining that. I don't know if you were angry at the time, but I feel it's good advice in any event. I can't tell you how many times I've typed up a couple of paragraphs and promptly thrown them away. Pagrashtak 18:35, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


...I wasn't biting you; sorry if it appeared that way. I have been trying gently to convince the main editor that the subject just isn't notable but I'm not getting through. I guess I should have put my comment up one line but I was hoping to kind of tag along after yours to kind of show that there are more people who know how things work. I was really directing elsewhere.  Frank  |  talk  21:32, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. MuZemike (talk) 21:36, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Xenophobe References


I am the one who has contributed most heavily to the Xenophobe (and Space Lords) pages. Sadly, there are no official write-ups out there that go into the detail that mine does. My reference is my own experience playing the game and my very accurate memory for the details of those games that I spent many hundreds of hours (absolutely no exaggeration) playing. Um, that's hundreds of hours *each*. I was a bit obsessive about video games. Okay, scratch that. I *am* a bit obsessive about them.

I really don't know how to answer your... Hm. Not even sure what to call it... Evaluation? Of the entry. If you know of any official write-ups of the arcade game that are not strictly concerning the home version (plenty of those out there) or are not copyrighted, I'd be delighted to hear it. But otherwise, we're going with my own personal memory and experiences to furnish the facts about the game. And please believe me when I say that those facts are 100% correct.

Any advice? I'd hate to see all that work I put into that page get flushed just because I am not a Wikipedia-recognized "reference." Deejaye6 (talk) 04:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I myself have heard of this game outside of the NES release, so it cannot be that difficult.
For gameplay, for instance, describe briefly how Xenophobe is played, but referencing only from the game's instruction manual (it must come from the the designer or publisher of the game) when at all possible. Include just enough information that the reader can understand how the game is played. (This is normally the most difficult part of the article; even I have a tough time doing this with some articles sometimes.)
For the development and reception of Xenophobe, that's when you want to include verifiable, third-party resources to back every single item that is claimed in these sections.
All of this can be found in due time; I would not worry about this article being deleted anytime soon at all. This article surely has enough right now to be notable. However, it definitely needs outside sources in order to make sure it stays that way. MuZemike (talk) 08:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your welcome

Didn't see it till today. Added something to the SEMO dispute page. kind of serves as a closing statement. thanks for spending so much time doing your job. Andrelim1 (talk) 03:45, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding platforms in infobox

Regarding the your comment in your edit summary on Paperboy, actually its very clear that Platform(s) is for the launch platform. If you look, the infobox also includes other information only relative to the launch platform - modes, input methods, cabinet, display. Likewise the entire article, sans the ports section, is specifically about the arcade platform (the launch platform). If it were a generic infobox and an article discussing a brand series, I'd agree. However, that's not the case with the box or context of most game articles. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 14:08, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Softek (merger with article 'EDGE Games')

Might be a good idea, but if this is done then all searches for 'Softek', 'Softek International' and 'Softek International Ltd' would need to be redirected to EDGE Games as these are the three names by which Softek is commonly known and will be searched for within Wikipedia. I thus do not think it would be a good idea to do the merge unless all three search terms get redirected (not just 'Softek'). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MuZemike (talkcontribs) 17:58, Jul 30, 2008

Well, I dont think that upon merger the Softek entry should be cut and paste into the EDGE Games entry as the same information is already in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar!

It has been great working on The Guardian Legend with another editor who is passionate and knowledgeable regarding the subject. In fact, your initial cleanup on the article is what convinced me that it was worth expanding. The result so far has been well worth it and its future looks promising. Rg998 (talk) 06:33, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

First party sources?

Excuse me, but where did you get the idea that Casino (video game) uses primary sources? None of the websites cited are ran by Atari. --harej 00:35, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

They need to be reliable; the two sites referenced are not. See WP:VG/S for video game sites which are considered reliable. MuZemike (talk) 19:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Orion's Belt Game Page


I just noticed that you marked the Orion's Belt article for review regarding "notability" and "unreferenced". I created the article and I'm one of the developers. I would like to know what may I do to improve the quality of the article.

In your comments you specified:

  • no sources cited
  • notability is questioned

May I have some pointers on how to address these issues? Or what do I need to supply?

Thank you. Donbonifacio (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

First off, I would take extra caution in editing the article as well as even deciding if you should, because you have a conflict of interest with the article. This can make things problematic in editing an article of a game which you have vested interest. Please carefully read WP:COI regarding what you should do regarding this article.
Second, you can simply kill two birds with one stone to remedy the notability problem. What Maramusine said on your talk page regarding the article's deletion a year ago still remains true now. You must find verifiable, third-party sources and cite them in the article to establish its notability. For references, I would also read WP:V, WP:GNG, and WP:VG/S; the latter is a list of sites who are known to provide reliable sources. If you can find such sources, then the article has a good start.
Of course, the last thing I want to see is articles get deleted, so hopefully such reliable sources can be found. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 19:43, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I will also have to put a friendly warning on your page regarding the conflict of interest so you know about it, just in case you don't find your way here and read this. MuZemike (talk) 19:45, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello MuZemike, thank you for your reply and guidelines. I'm aware that I'm biased towards the article, and I'll proceed with caution when editing it. As for the reliability, I have 2 interviews for Portuguese websites and our SourceForge page that states that Orion's Belt is a web game. Yesterday I added other references. If these references don't suffice, I really don't know what else to do. Donbonifacio (talk) 07:51, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
I was researching for reliable sources for Orion's Belt. Isn't the reference of Jason Della Rocca enough? It you go to this post of his official web site, and ctrl-f for "Orion's Belt", you'll find a picture of the developers and I quote: "The developers of Orion's Belt picked up several awards."; Has you can see on Jason's profile, he is the executive director of the IGDA. Donbonifacio (talk) 12:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
This is starting to be familiar with another article that is being heatily debated for deletion, which is Astro empires; could be just coincidence, though. I should first ask what these websites are, (hopefully, they're not from tabloids like Correio da Manhã) and can they be translated to English (via Google translator or something different – this is the English Wikipedia of course)? Normally, interviews are only acceptable as far as establishing the game's reception, but not usually anything else regarding the game.
I think the reference from Jason Della Rocca's blog should be OK. If you look at the discussion here, they interpret blogs to be OK provided it's an "official blog" and not a "personal blog". If it's his official blog (I see it's sponsored by IGDA.), then I don't see any problems with it.
That's my assessment for right now. If you have any more developments, let me know. MuZemike (talk) 17:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I read the discussion on Astro Empires, and this is a similar case. How about our page? Doesn't that also count?
About the articles, the websites I presented are Porguguese GameSpot like sites. MyGames for example, publishes a magazine, a TV show and has the website. You can see here an article about orion's belt without any intervention from its developers. I've already added it to the game references.
Is there anything else I can provide to "untag" orionsbelt? Thank you for your time. Donbonifacio (talk) 18:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
No, the SourceForge references wouldn't pass because there is no fact-checking available for that.
As far as the Portugese site is concerned, from quickly looking at it, it looks like it passes verifiability. It if has its own magazine, then it should have some sort of professional editorship, fact-checking, etc., that it would be verifiable. Make sure you make inline references to those good articles (the MyGames one needs the English-translated link, like the one you provided) when you expand the article. You can look at WP:CITE for how to properly cite those articles for Wikipedia articles.
By the way, you can remove that {{notability}} tag, if you like; notability has been pretty much established now. Remove the {{unreferenced}} tag once you properly cite those references in your article. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Batman for NES and Genesis

I hate to ask this, but what are you doing to my articles...? (LonerXL (talk) 20:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC))

First, I am including the two articles in a merger proposal, which will merge several articles into Batman computer and video games. Second, I removed the Gameplay sections in both articles because all it describes are information which can be found in a game guide (please read WP:NOTGUIDE). Adding game guide information is not appropriate for Wikipedia standards.
If you want to discuss the merger, then please discuss it at the designated discussion section for the merger proposal. (It has been up for five months without any closure, so I am closing it.) MuZemike (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flightstick

I closed this AfD as I boldly redirected Flightstick to Joystick. It seemed like a non-controversial redirect to me. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 23:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, we're still entitled to give the article its day in court, especially when someone tries to muck up the deletion process. Thanks. MuZemike (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability for Multiwinia?

Hello. I couldn't help but notice your edits on the Multiwinia article, and I have just two questions. The first is where it's noted that blogs are not verifiable (I can use other sources, it's just that one had all the gametypes listed, so it was convenient). The second is where you question the notability of the subject. Why do you think that Multiwinia isn't notable? NeoThermic (talk) 08:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

First, WP:V, the official policy on verifiability, tells you all about verifiable sources. It says the following regarding blogs and similar sources (see WP:SPS for the entire section):
First, thank you for contacting me. Hopefully, I can get the article in question on the right track.
  • Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.
Basically, blogs are self-published; that is, anyone can create them. They do not involve editing or fact-checking. It's like saying that I claim that Earth is flat, and I try to verify that from someone's blog entry claiming that it is flat. However, there is no fact-checking behind what that blogger posted, and that's where you run into problems.
However, the exception may be in the case that the blog by someone qualified in a certain field whose work has been published by verifiable, third-party sources:
  • Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.
With all that said, without having such sources that are considered acceptable per WP:V, the article does not meet three of the five criteria listed in Wikipedia's general notability guideline, mainly Reliable, Sources, and Independent of the subject. I also have not seen any proof of substantive coverage, and because of the lack of reliable sources, I cannot presume notability. Hence, that is my rationale for the article not meeting the general notability guideline and consequently my questioning of the article's notability in general.
You can establish notability by including verifiable, third-party sources cited properly in the article. A good place to look, as far as video gaming-related articles are concerned, is here at WP:VG/S — it's a list of sites that have been determined by the community that they produce reliable sources, such as IGN, Gamespot, and Joystiq. It's also a good place to see what can and cannot be acceptable sources as far as articles for video game articles are concerned.
If you can find reliable sources for the article that establish the article's notability, then the article should be notable.
I hope this helps out. If you have any other questions, please let me know. I always try to help others out provided that they ask. MuZemike (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
The blog linked isn't just by anyone though, and thus could fall under the "expert" clause. Rockpapershotgun's report on Multiwinia is by Kieron Gillen, who is not only notable enough to have his own article, but as noted in said article is famed for his games journalism :)
I will add a few more references; the reason I chose the RPS blog was mainly for the fact that all six modes were described there, and the fact that the preview copy sent out to the press only has two or three game modes active, depending on what site received it, making it hard to reference independent sites for that info (I could reference the game homepage, but then that'd be a contrast to independent). NeoThermic (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
OK. I'd probably say the blog would fall under that exception and be fine in this case. Let me know if you have a question about anything else. MuZemike (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure, thanks for your help. At which point would it be "correct" to remove the notability and Primarysources tags? What I did today isn't much, but I'm pondering where the bar is :) NeoThermic (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, go ahead and remove them. I might add a {{refimprove}} tag later on to remind that you do need some more sources, but you defenetely have enough to avoid AfD or anything like that. Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier. MuZemike (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for List of Nintendo Entertainment System games

Hello, MuZemike. I just thought I'd let you know that I have left you some comments on the Video games project's peer review that you put up for this list. I hope my comments are able to help you out. Thanks, Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 04:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm trying to get back to it, but won't be able to in a week or so. I'll leave comments on the peer review on that page itself. MuZemike (talk) 04:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Let me just reply to your comments really quick to help out:
  • There's no need to link every region in such a huge list, but link it when you explain it in the lead, and I think you'll be good there if you decide to keep the codes.
  • As for the merger, well, User:A Link to the Past seems to have a lot of issues when it comes to country representation, and if you decide to propose the merger again, I would definitely be in support of it.
  • When I referred to List of Sega 32X games, I was more or less emphasizing the lead section expansion, since it will really be necessary if you send this to WP:FLC.

Hope that helps more. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 04:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (August 2008)

  • Newsletter delivery by xenobot 22:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The Island of Dr. Brain

Hey. I saw you tagged this article for notability. I'm not really sure what you're looking for here: the game is the second of the Dr. Brain series, and the other titles in the series made it through. I know that notability isn't inherited, but I thought that only applied for people. I found eleven articles on Google about it, but they all require payment 'cause they're from 1992-3. Since you tagged it, perhaps you could give me some help on covering its notability? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 21:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'll keep an eye out of stuff that I might see. There has to be something out there. MuZemike (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Take a look at it now. I tossed in some references; nothing spectacular, but at least enouhg to get something going. Is there enough there to remove the notability tag? — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, that first one, even though it's a press release, is good enough at least to establish some notability. You can remove it, but keep looking for better sources like those from reputable sites found in WP:VG/S. MuZemike (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll keep an eye out. Thanks for the help! — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 20:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:TheGuardianLegendEuroBoxart.jpg)

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:TheGuardianLegendEuroBoxart.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, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: List of NES games question

Well, I don't know of a direct way to fix it to keep the names as they are, but one suggestion I have is to change link names like "The Legend of Zelda" to "Legend of Zelda, The" (random example) in the visual part of the links for every game like this. This should fix them all, but it can be a little long to do and aesthetically unpleasing, depending on how you see it. Hope that helps. Red Phoenix flame of life...protector of all... 00:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Forums are not good sources?

Howdy. You deleted the reference in Hearts of Iron III to the official announcement of the development of said game, with the notion that forums are not verifiable sources. Is this justified? The forum in question is the official forum of the game, does not need registration to read the info, and the person giving out the post was someone clearly official in the matter. Hence the reference should be considered a relevant source, as should all posts on official game forums made by what is evidently the developers themselves. This is far, far removed from speculation by "someone" on "some forum" as a source. Vin Kaleu (talk) 07:37, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:V, which is official Wikipedia policy. It is very clear on what is or is not verifiable sources. MuZemike (talk) 14:53, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Forums are considered self-published sources. It says the following in that section: Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable. MuZemike (talk) 14:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Ah, but the intent there is to prevent people from using self-published sources (such as one of their own forum posts in say a philosophy forum as a source on Plato). If a game-company has an official forum, and uses that forum for official communication (which is the case here), surely that should count as a reliable and easily verifiable (if the forum doesn't require registration at least). The point of giving a source is largely to back up a statement. When that statement is that a company has decided to start working on something, I'd argue that the closer the source is to whomever gave it out, the more accurate it is. Why wait for IGN to read on a forum and "report it", when we can go directly to the primary source? In this case, the interesting thing is not that IGN belives a game is about to be developed, but that the game-makers themselves announced it.
The wiki-rules state this as well:

Self-published and questionable sources may only be used as sources about themselves, and then only if:

  1. the material used is relevant to the notability of the subject being discussed;
  2. it is not contentious;
  3. it is not unduly self-serving;
  4. it does not involve claims about third parties;
  5. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
  6. there is no reasonable doubt as to who authored it;
  7. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

In our case, all of these criteria are fullfilled.

Vin Kaleu (talk) 18:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

No. Re-read WP:V. Official forums are not third-party sources and, hence, not verifiable. Since I believe you do not understand the policy, and you believe I do not understand the policy, I will request editor assistance for this matter. MuZemike (talk) 21:51, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
I have reported this to editor assistance here in order to settle this. The request is here. MuZemike (talk) 22:12, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Normally forums would not be allowed. Why not just use the press release? -epicAdam (talk) 22:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Galaxy_(video_game) conflict of interests

I'm not involved in the development of the game itself. The project from google code is related but distinct. Anyway, there are dozens of projects related to the original Galaxy game, and AFAIK all of them are released for free as opensource. Also, according to [Wikipedia:Conflict_of_Interest], as long as the policies of encyclopedic quality, editorial approach and the Wikipedia copyright policy are adhered to, it should be irrelevant who has written the material. Let me know if you need more clarifications. Raffaele.castagno (talk) 12:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. If I placed any conflict of interest tags on the article, go ahead and remove them. MuZemike (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

EyePet notability

Hi. I notice you placed a reliability template on EyePet. I have started a discussion on the article's talk page if you would like to join in? ChimpanzeeUK - User | Talk | Contribs 19:01, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 20:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Freedom Force characters

As regards notability, I would personally prefer to put them in the main article, but someone's been deleting them from the article, complaining that it's "fancruft". Given that a number of other video games have placed their characters in a separate article, I figured that doing the same here would be a reasonable compromise. I personally don't have a strong preference as to where they're kept, just that they're kept somewhere as I feel they are significant to the game itself. *wrinkles nose* I've since found out that there's a category of "Freedom_Force_characters" out there where some of the core members put into their own articles, complete with 3-4 sources, the sentiment seems to be against individual pages for character outside of someone like Sonic or Link and lately, a lot of editors are deleting pages with a warning of mere hours without putting the matter up to a vote or even invoking speedy deletion, so I feel a bit safer keeping the information in a larger article. They're usually (although not always) a bit more respectful of the rules when there's a great body of text. Anyhow, if you have any advice on either making the list more notable or to merge it back in again, I'd be glad to listen. -Fuzzy (talk) 22:03, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You need to have verifiable, third-party sources to establish notability, as you probably know. That stops most "fancruft" allegations and original research "claims" right, then, and there. That is the right way to establish notability of an article. Otherwise, if none can be found, then the only other option would be to merge back, as the article would be a possible nominee for AfD.
You may, as a third option, consider a transwiki of the extraneous information to Wikia or a similar appropriate Wikimedia project, so you can at the very least save the information from being completely lost. Hope this helps, MuZemike (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Monster Jam: Urban Assult

The user who created that page later created Monster Jam: Urban Assault, which I assume is the correct spelling of the same game, but is a much worse page. Since you have been involved in editing the page, could you take a look and possibly merge the two pages if indeed they are the same game? Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, I didn't even notice the misspelling there! Merging would be a good idea, then possibly speedily deleting the redirect afterwards. MuZemike (talk) 21:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Yep, R3. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:06, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
 Done Article merged and tagged as R3. MuZemike (talk) 21:48, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I'm Rex

Thanks for telling me this. I am a 10-year old kid. I am kind of a nerd because of me knowing how to make articles. Thanks! but i am trying to help Wikipedia by making new articles. Rex57 22 August 2008 (UTC) Rex57 (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:CHILD. I am considering making the appropriate reports. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 22:17, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Relisting AfDs

Generally they are just tagged and moved on the main AfD log pages, as you said, but they don't move on the WP:VG/Deletion page; they stay under the header of the day they were originally nominated. Personally I like this better since it is easier to see when the discussion originally started, and since I try to keep the page up to date to show only open discussions, I see no need to move them to the top of the list. MrKIA11 (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Tagging redirects

I noticed that you are adding {{WikiProject Video games}} to redirect pages, but generally those are not tagged, and there is no Category:Redirect-Class video game articles. Did you want to propose creating this category? Because otherwise it just shows all of those talk pages as unassesed, which doesn't look good. MrKIA11 (talk) 13:12, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

They get categorized as unassessed? That's not a good idea, then. I can undo them. MuZemike (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Since there is no category for them, yeah. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 14:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Old Man Periwinkle

I just couldn't resist a Match Game joke. After all, I'm just so full of _______. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshellsOtter chirpsHELP) 14:59, 29 August 2008 (UTC)


I have replied to your comment here. Thanks! --haha169 (talk) 04:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

See response on the talk page. MuZemike (talk) 04:20, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Smackdown vs Raw 2009 Roster

Please note:

  • AFDs should only be relisted if there are only two or three contributors or if the "votes" are pretty evenly split
  • When relisting an AFD it's necessary to move the transclusion from its original AFD day listing to that of the day when you relist it
  • If you don't know how to do that, please don't mark AFDs relisted

I have deleted this article as the vast majority of AFD contributors want it deleted. Stifle (talk) 09:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Don't you keep the original transclusion at the original day (i.e. copy-and-paste to the current day), or do you just cut-and-paste to the current day? Thanks, anyway, I'll keep that in mind. I wish WP:AFD was more clear about this. MuZemike (talk) 13:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
You should cut and paste to the current day, because otherwise it messes up WP:OLD. Stifle (talk) 12:28, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, thank you. I'll keep that in mind next time. MuZemike (talk) 16:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Are you Kidding me?

Your going to delete the List of characters in Tales of Vesperia page just because it hasn't yet been put together. God Almighty, Stop getting your underwear in a twist, It was GOING TO BE FIXED. Lordy, your moving so fast that I can't fix this up. The game just came out a week ago so please, remove that deletion sign, it's just unbelievable you'd take this up so fast. I'm trying to keep this in Traditional previous Tales Wikipedia RPG Format.--Jack Cox (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Please be WP:CIVIL. I will place the appropriate warning on your userpage. And no, I will not remove it. MuZemike (talk) 21:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)


Just FYI:

  • I do not run the IGDA website
  • Mathsci has been warned (and blocked) for harassment
  • I do not work with MacLean

Just thought you might be interested, --Elonka 17:40, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

That's why I tried to be as cautious as I could in what I have stated in the RfC. I didn't try to mean any disparaging in any way if you took it that way; I looked at what I was observing in the AfD. MuZemike (talk) 17:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Nintendo CfDs

I've been leading the transition of the old WikiProject Nintendo from a WikiProject to a task force, and nominated the Category:WikiProject Nintendo for CfD a couple of days ago. (I just nominated another one, a redundant member list category, in which we already have a separate page altogether for that, for CfD before reading the other CfD discussion.)

I should have been more clear on the reason for deletion in that there is really nothing to categorize, even as a task force. Our parent WikiProject, Wikipedia: WikiProject Video games, does not categorize articles as part of any task force — only if they are from other WikiProjects related to WPVG.

Anyways, someone (or yourself) will probably say the same thing about the CfD I nominated just now. So, if I get a consensus from the task force to delete the category, does that mean I can just ask any admin to delete it, or do I just tag it for speedy deletion (housekeeping)? Thank you for the help, MuZemike (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The simple answer to your last question is: Yes.
Merely point the admin to the relevant consensus. (And speedy deletion may also be an option, though again, you would have to point to the relevant consensus.) - jc37 00:28, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Combine Forces

Now that the AfD for Combine Forces has closed as a redirect (quite how he came to that conclusion I don't know, but as long as the article is disposed of its fine), can I recommend that List of humanoid and synthetic Combine in Half-Life 2 and List of Combine non-combat technology in Half-Life 2 both be AfD-ed as well, the former containing much of the same information, in the same style and often the same wording as Combine Forces, the latter just being a completely indiscriminate list of everything Combine-made in the game? -- Sabre (talk) 09:39, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done — get your galoshes out, because we have a blizzard coming. MuZemike (talk) 14:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No conflict of intrest

I made some blog posts the first time I saw The SNES game Maker articale. After it was deleted I reposted it so that others can read about it. Also other then that, I saw a delete notice for the raw vs. smackdown 2009 roster, after I post this I am going to make a post objecting to it's deletion based on whatever the articale currenly sayse because I haven't read it yet. I don't care what the rules are at this point, they can always be changed. I made a legitimate offer for it to remain up for 30 days until some undisputed sources can emerge and be placed in the articale. If it is deleted a 3rd time even after I have made the offer for it to say and at the same time my Unknown Creature, The(2005 movie) is not reposted; then that will prove to me that wikipedia favors the bigger man over the smaller man and I will call for everyone to boycott this site. No donations, No traffic, no nothin. I'm pretty popular with my internet web handle so they'll listen to what I have to say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roberttheman2008 (talkcontribs) 04:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:CIVIL; I will leave the appropriate warning on your page. And OK, I'm sure a handful of boycotters will do a lot. MuZemike (talk) 04:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


<<Sigh>> I almost started one too. Hasn't edited sense my last post to his talk page, where I explained things pretty bluntly. Maybe that will be enough. Dlohcierekim 15:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC) Running out of time. Will go to the RFC page soonest. Cheers, Dlohcierekim 15:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I am writing it as we speak. MuZemike (talk) 15:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
I thought I'd be indignant, but it turns out I don't even have to say anything. JuJube (talk) 07:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Super Mario for MegaZeux

This concerns the SM4MZX application for MegaZeux on the PSP and Wii hombrews. The article is listed for deletion before additional contributions could be made. It takes a while for Google to spider it for others to even notice its existence for editing. There must be a warning post that can be posted saying its information requires further authorization. not instant removal because people linked it its project are making the initial edits. There's more information out there about this projects, keyword isn't just Super Mario for MegaZeux. Its part of a project of applications of fanmade clones for various homebrews and for the PC and Mac themselves.

I've received little help from the admins around maintaining and improving the article. Once its warning is gone of deletion it is possible then for those that have beta tested or have found additional informations about the project / game to make edits to it, without my further contribution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Teabonesix (talkcontribs) 21:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

That is not what Wikipedia is for, as far as taking advantage of Google is concerned. I suggest you read WP:V regarding including verifiable, third-party sources, preferably those from this list at WP:VG/S. I really cannot tell you anything else. If you read the basic Wikipedia guidelines (click that link on the left-hand menu that says "help," or better yet, clicking Help:Contents/Policies and guidelines, you should hopefully better understand what Wikipedia is and what Wikipedia is not).
It seems from the discussion right now, the article stands a good chance of getting deleted. You can do one of several things:
  • You can request a deletion review (see WP:DRV for details).
  • You can ask the admin (whoever that may be that closes the AfD discussion) to userfy the article; that is, place it in your userspace, so you can improve the article by finding enough reliable sources that it passes the general notability guideline.
  • If it gets deleted, and you have a copy of the old article somewhere (either userfied in your userspace or lying anywhere) you can improve the article offline by finding better sources and then recreate the article. (However, the article must show significant improvement over the old version, or the recreated article can be very easily speedily deleted, which means basically "deleted very quickly without any discussion.")
I can flag the article for you for rescue, and if I get the time, try to improve the article to some encyclopedic standard as far as copyediting and manual of style is concerned. (I cannot right now, as I have commitments coming up after I'm done here.) I hope this helps. I cannot stop the deletion process once it has been started; policy dictates that it must go through; whoever it was that removed the AfD tag from the article was in the wrong as that is against policy, and that user was appropriately warned and everything reverted back to before the tag was removed.
If you have any other questions, feel free to drop a line. MuZemike (talk) 21:50, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. How can i go about editing the article offline? Teabonesix (talk) 18:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You can simply create a sandbox for your article-in-progress. Just create a subpage by clicking the following red link: User:Teabonesix/Sandbox, go to the article click "edit this page", copy all the contents of the article, and paste them onto your just-created sandbox. You will probably lose the image as they are normally not allowed in user sandboxes, but that can be addressed at a later time, as long as you have the content. Hope this helps. MuZemike (talk) 18:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I've always wondered about how to go about draft edits. Teabonesix (talk) 17:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


Oh, well. That's what RFC is for, to neutrally sort through disputes among editors. What we need now is input from people who've not interacted with him in the past. Dlohcierekim 13:11, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

List of characters in Tales of Vesperia PROD.

I have removed the {{prod}} tag from List of characters in Tales of Vesperia, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! Vivio TestarossaTalk Who 08:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the notification. I'm trying to get the list from the main article split there, as you do have the same information in two places. I should have been more clear on that when I placed the PROD tag. MuZemike (talk) 20:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Muslim Massacre third opinion

My third opinion is that the deletion debate has been well into snowballable territory for quite some time, and should be ended so that you those two can disengage and put your their energy to more productive use.

I personally agree with you on the WP:NOTNEWS thing, but community consensus clearly goes the other direction in this case, so it's best to drop it for now. --erachima talk 09:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Not necessarily with me but with the two users in question, regardless of what I say. Just trying to get the other two to stop, as it gets meaningless to try to talk past someone who is talking past you, if you know what I mean. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 16:59, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I'm sorry. I appear to have mixed up your name with that of User:MickMacNee. No offense intended. --erachima talk 21:04, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
None taken. There are too many Micks, Mikes, Marks, Macs, etc. flying around here. MuZemike (talk) 21:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: MfD

No probs. --Izno (talk) 23:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)


I noticed you added various "Reference Needed" templates, etc to the page Agone. You also added, on the discussion page, its "relevance" to WikiProjects: VideoGames. I just wanted to let you know that I deleted that, since Agone is not a video game, but rather a table-top role playing game. Thanks --Brandon (talk) 00:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I confuse the two sometimes. MuZemike (talk) 01:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Mud cake

We seemed to of prodded it at the same time heh. Whispering

That's weird. Normally an edit conflict goes up when that happens. I removed mine. MuZemike (talk) 05:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD Comments

Heh, I enjoy reading your comments for articles that apply to G11. Keep up the good work! RockManQ (talk) 00:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For all of your hard work down at AfD! RockManQ (talk) 00:40, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Thank you very much! They actually are quotes from the "Spam" skit from Monty Python. MuZemike (talk) 00:45, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry Case

I added some information to your sockpuppet case page against User: I hope that everything works out in your favor. --Candy156sweet (talk) 20:30, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; I appreciate it, regardless of the outcome. MuZemike (talk) 20:49, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Grace Period (Unix)

"A1: how steak is done" — hahaha! You're certainly deserving of the barnstar you've been awarded. Cliff smith talk 00:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Mario Bros. pre-assessment

I've gotta state up front, some of the prose bothers me. For instance it mentions Donkey Kong right off in development, but then again a few sentences later as one of the first platformer games. That seems like it could be organized a little better. Reception needs to define quotes by reviewers a bit better too, and seems like it could easily be larger for such a game...

It's a good start, just I really feel it has issues right now.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 23:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

OK. You should probably let A Link to the Past know about that, as well, as he made the necessary improvements, with myself and Someone another peer reviewing it. I have not worked on it much at all. I figured it had good potential after the peer review that it can make B-Class. MuZemike (talk) 23:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


If you wouldn't mind could you give me a hint of who that puppet editor is, or at least give me a link? I'm really curious. Sorry if I'm being a tad forward. --Candy156sweet (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll give you a clearer hint before I give the link. Common (boilerplate) AfD comment:
Keep per Wikipedia:Five pillars (notability to a real-world audience, unoriginal research, consistent with a “specialized encyclopedia” concerning verifiable fictional topics with importance in the real world).
Another hint: A second checkuser case two weeks ago confirmed that this user has been using multiple sock puppets. User has vanished but keeps coming back. (That's actually three, more 2 1/2.) MuZemike (talk) 00:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Still at a loss. Is this guy the sockpuppet of 63.3.11? --Candy156sweet (talk) 01:25, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, we mean <user removed per WP:RTV>; that's who I think Craw-daddy was referring to. The user made a lot a dubious boilerplate !votes like what I mentioned above. MuZemike (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Does this mean you are dropping the sock puppet case? If he is a sockpuppet of that editor, then switch the IP# to that case and conclude the other one. Hope it all works out. --Candy156sweet (talk) 05:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I want to make sure before I close. I will ask. MuZemike (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I replied at more length on my talk page. The summarized response is that "yes, I think it's him, but it's more of a 'gut feeling' based on circumstantial evidence than anything else". --Craw-daddy | T | 16:37, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
OK, we both seem to concur that this user in question may very well be pulling the strings here. I will close the current sock case. My question now is that how do we go forward on this? Do we open another sock case, despite the fact that the likely sockpuppeteer is a now-vanished user? MuZemike (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's appropriate, a checkuser request can be made to determine if there is indeed a link here, as is suspected. As I've said elsewhere, I'm not sure that this exactly qualifies as vandalism so it wouldn't fit into case A (you might have evidence/belief otherwise). It seems that the only case that might apply is G, but some sufficient justification would be necessary here. (I think this was the justification for the checkuser of the "ER" account). Seeing as this editor came back under a new account that was subsequently blocked, and seems to be trying to avoid scrutiny, this might be sufficient. I'm really not sure what sort of "level of evidence" is warranted in these cases. --Craw-daddy | T | 18:04, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

How do close a sock case? Do you just ping an admin to close it? MuZemike (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that the sock case will be closed automatically if no checkuser request is made, or as you did on the case, just request that it's closed. --Craw-daddy | T |

Comment: As much as it annoys me to have to edit and as much as I really hate identifying my IP range, I have been informed of this edit and this discussion and think it may be necessary to do so to save people unnecessary trouble and to keep myself vanished. As you can see from my post here as well as from [1] and [2] that my IPs are and have been in the 172 range. You should notice also that the 172 IPs I have used have few to no additional edits from them as I have been generally careful about only editing logged in. If those other IPs with all kinds of edits were somehow mine, I would think that would have come up in the checkuser results and been mentioned. Other editors have imitated my style for whatever reason and yet have been determined not to be me a la [3]. I don’t know if some imitate me because they like my arguments or as I think Randomran suggested to troll me; after all, I did successfully identify a number of deletionist sock accounts that resulted in their being blocked and wouldn‘t be surprised if any want revenge. Moreover, I am not the only inclusionist to have ever been around. And I certainly have no history of making vandalism edits like those IPs in question. I can understand why some might be suspicious and all, but now you know against my better judgment my IP range, which I really hope was not a mistake to reveal should my harassers be watching. MuZemike, please stop bringing me up as I vanished for a serious reason. I over the weekend just went through having to successfully have libelous material about me removed from another site. Please let me go in peace and as you will see I am not using this IP to make any additional edits. Thank you. Sincerely, the vanished editor, -- (talk) 17:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
<shrug> Well, there you go. Make of it what you will. (This appeared right as/after I was making my responses above.) I'll leave it up to you as to what you want to do in this case MuZemike. Maybe you can just leave the sock puppet case open (i.e. remove your request that it's closed). I don't quite know what to say at this point. --Craw-daddy | T | 18:12, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't care if you're a deletionist, inclusionist, delusionist, darwikinist, absolutist, etc-ist. The actions, in my view, indicate sockpuppetry is going on, regardless of what pigeonhole you happen to fall into. MuZemike (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I really think that this editor in question is unrelated to the sockpuppet account case for Unless the new IP# is traceable to Michigan, than you are barking up the wrong tree. I haven't found any real evidence aside from the mere circumstantial and coincidental. If there is anything connected, it would be that found a new way to be an irritant. This other editor is part of something else, which seems to be uniquely irritating. I really would hate to not further a sockpuppet case against the idiot puppeteer I've dealt with, but I really think that the case for should be concluded. I think one should be opened that directly relates to the editor who "vanished." Hope that you are able to solve the mystery. --Candy156sweet (talk) 03:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Re:WikiProject Sega and Nintendo

That's why I figured it would best to wait this out. They don't seem to be aware of some policies and guidelines, and are probably acting this way because they don't know any better. They would have done some things differently—as you've pointed out—if they did know better. Nothing will come of the move because the editors interested in Nintendo articles aren't going to collaborate there because they're too pissed off to. So I say assume good faith for now, and let them try to get their project in order. We'll check back in about a month and make the same offer we did before. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC))


You appear to severely misguided on this subject. Notability is timeless, and independent of region as well. A source in ancient Greek is just as good as a source in modern Greek is just as good as a source in English, and if anything we should be biased towards the inclusion of articles with only foreign language sources, as a means of countering systemic bias. In short, while the use of Non-English sources can present minor verifiability problems (as with any other source that is difficult to access, such as books not available online), they present no notability problem whatsoever. --erachima talk 15:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, I never thought of it from the systemic bias point of view, and you do have a point. However, as you mentioned, there would exist verifiability concerns, especially when they are the only such sources used. I mean, I do not know what the website is or is about if it's in another language I don't understand. I feel that if those sources cannot be challenged especially in an AfD, then it seems like we're taking someone's word that they do establish notability. That's my view on it.
In this context, it doesn't really matter besides making for policy discussion as my stance is now that the article in question should be kept. MuZemike (talk) 17:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

On Rrindie126, Quixotic92, and Kmzgirl

The RfC process is not currently protected. Can I create a subpage for it? Alexius08 (talk) 01:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

By all means. I can contribute to the RfC when I can. (I meant to initiate one , but my schedule has been sporadic as of late.) MuZemike (talk) 08:12, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I have just opened a sockpuppetry case here. You can participate on gathering evidences. Alexius08 (talk) 23:32, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Ninja Gaiden (NES)

You wrote: Sorry, but we don't exactly know if he died in his arms or not.

Ken Hayabusa's last words were said when he was in Ryu's arms. The same happened to Doctor Smith. You just need to see the ending and confirm it. Brazilian Man (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've played and beaten the game a zillion times, and I've seen the ending just as many times. He had to leave the temple before it collapsed. Even though it's a possibility, I have also read F.X. Nine's Worlds of Power book as a kid, and, even though not relevant here, described it similarly. Maybe it's a point of view thing, and that's the thing with NES games and older; that some things are left for you to figure out.
It doesn't really matter, anyways, as that entire plot section needs to be reworked anyway as it is too detailed. Also, better late than never on the comment. MuZemike 14:35, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Kingdom Game

Hi Muzemike, due to the lack of secondary sources on KG, i'm proposing we delete *until* we get those secondary sources which should be within the following months. MikelZap (talk) 19:39, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You don't have to lose the content completely. You could WP:USERFY in the meanwhile so you don't lose the content, that is, move the article into your userspace and improve on it there to the point where you can get the sources you need so it's suitable for inclusion here. If you have any questions on how to do that, click on the userfy link above, and if you have any further questions, let me know. I surely hope sources come up in that time. MuZemike 20:41, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
I did see your response just ended up getting busy yesterday, can i still userfi the page after it's been deleted? I didn't realize it was going to get wiped so quickly. Thanks for all your help. MikelZap (talk) 15:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you sure can. Ask the closing admin that you want the content of the deleted article moved into your userspace. (The closing admin being the user shown after "The result was delete…") MuZemike 17:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. joseph school of san jose city

This discussion should not have been closed. The lower case entry was moved to upper case, but the discussion still continues on the notability, capitalized or not. Little Red Riding Hoodtalk 23:07, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't a new AfD be opened up on the new instance of the article? Otherwise, the redirect should not have been speedied as it gives users no clue behind the AfD as no article is there. In any case, the redirect was indeed deleted, giving users no link to the article in the AfD. It had to be closed in this specific situation. It is very unlikely that a user is going to know what's going on when the subject of the AfD is a redlink.
If you still feel that the article should be deleted due to notability concerns, (I don't disagree with you; I probably would've moved to delete, as well.) open up another AfD under the proper name. MuZemike (talk) 00:17, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

List of Nintendo Entertainment System games reworking

I started reworking the List of Nintendo Entertainment System games article in my Userpage as per WP:BOLD and then noticed in the talk page you stated you were doing the same. I checked your sandbox history and noticed you'd done a fair bit but then edited over it. Are you still working on this or have you moved on?

Cabe6403 (TalkPlease Sign my guest book!) 11:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty much done with the list proper; still waiting for feedback on the lead. I tried to keep it as concise as possible while minding WP:SIZE (It is slightly over 100KB, which is actually not that bad for a fully-referenced, 800-game list). What I improved over the previous list was making it sortable, including the developer along with the publisher (seems to be the standard with VG lists), and just doing the year of release as compared to using one or more exact dates. But again, if you have any suggestions to improve the quality of the list, please let me know by either dropping a line here or at Talk:List of Nintendo Entertainment System games. Thanks, MuZemike (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Have you a link to the list as a whole? Cabe6403 (TalkPlease Sign my guest book!) 23:32, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
The search result as a whole here. However, references are required for each and every entry, just as noted in Talk:List of Nintendo DS games, Talk:List of PlayStation 3 games. So before changing everything, look at those and similar talk pages (which is what the users at WP:FL recommend) before we do anything. MuZemike (talk) 06:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Roberttheman2008

This RfC in which you certified the dispute has been closed. You may read the conclusion listed there. Wizardman 14:57, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the conclusion. If he hasn't edited in over a month, then I don't think any further action needs to be taken, provided he doesn't start up again. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 17:33, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
The Naomi Westerman situation has been dealt with. Wizardman 18:28, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian Legend todo

I noticed you removed the "Todo" template on The Guardian Legend's talk page. I was not planning on verifying developer names any time soon (if at all), and they look like they may never be checked, but was there a specific reason for doing that (a lack of editor action? a lack of sources? something else?)? --an odd name 18:15, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Mainly lack of editor action. I think amongst us involved editors in the article, we know what still needs to be verified. I mean, it's not big deal. If you feel we should put it back on, we can revert. MuZemike (talk) 18:42, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
No, just curious. :) --an odd name 19:35, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of to-do, do you think I should send TGL to a (fourth) peer review, or ask the magazines section, to see if anyone knows some last bit of development or developer-name info? It disturbs me how people would rather plop such info on, say, MobyGames without saying how they know (see e.g. Wao Isee there). I agree with Rg998, in retrospect, that it's worth an attempt at checking out before I or someone else decides it'd be better to use the known names from the game credits. --an odd name 21:37, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what peer review will accomplish, but I think the magazine section might be able to help out. I remember the coverage in Nintendo Power, and I don't think there would be any material regarding developer information in there. (In fact, Nintendo Power included very little info about developers back in the day.) You might want to try Game Players (another old magazine which I used to subscribe to, even though it was mostly focused on Sega, Amiga, Commodore, etc; but it had some Nintendo in there), EGM, and there was another American publication that I cannot remember off the top of my head that I also subscribed to back then.
Another idea would be to look in those magazines on information about other Compile games, such as Blazing Lazers, Gun-nac, maybe even Puyo Puyo. We know who developed the game as it is in the ending's credits; we just have to link them to verifiable sources, and maybe looking in the old magazines on other Compile games might help make that connection. MuZemike (talk) 00:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
…or even the Crush games like Devil's Crush or Alien Crush. (The latter I believe has already been remade for the Wii as a WiiWare game. MuZemike (talk) 00:31, 24 October 2008 (UTC)


I don't understand why alot of people haven't heard of it. I mean, it's the best zelda fan game there is (In my opinion). But I guess your right. Thanks for your nice response. It made me feel better. I may write an article on zconnection. Ever heard of that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tetiro (talkcontribs) 17:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Kohana socks

I don't know if they're socks or not, but they're not providing substantive reasons for keeping the article. I don't think it's worth the time to C/U them. Sometimes fans of software get upset and post a message on some forum/list attracting well-intentioned new editors that unfortunately are only marginally aware or WP:N... VG 22:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I might have jumped the gun when I saw similar reasons to keep and similar signatures; I just came across an AfD not long ago that was blatant socking of about 10 accounts and IPs involved. You may very well be right that it is just ownership problems by users who want to use Wikipedia for what it's not or who may not realize that we have certain policies and guidelines for articles and inclusion/deletion thereof. Thanks, MuZemike (talk) 02:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
Thankfully, the closing admin had no trouble evaluating arguments (the result was delete). VG 06:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)
You know, this might be the first time I've seen an AfD closed as delete despite all !votes being keep (not that I am complaining, though, and we know why). MuZemike (talk) 07:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


Hi, I noticed that you recently gave your vote on the AfD on List of United States presidents by handedness. The article has since then undergone significant changes. This is not an attempt at canvassing, but I would like to ask you to take a second look at the article, to decide if you wish to reconsider your position. Many thanks! Lampman (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. I don't know if my change of !vote will be necessary as it looks like it is now WP:SNOWing to keep. MuZemike (talk) 21:07, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Main Page redesign

The Main Page Redesign proposal is currently conducting a straw poll to select five new designs, before an RFC in which one will be proposed to replace the Main Page. The poll closes on October 31st. Your input would be hugely appreciated! Many thanks, PretzelsTalk! 10:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


You commented on Ariobarza's talk page about his recent behaviour. Having reviewed his edits, I believe there are significant concerns that need to be addressed. I have raised this issue at WP:AN/I#User:Ariobarza. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion. -- ChrisO (talk) 20:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I would've went to WP:RFC/U first, as multiple editors have already attempted to resolve the issue; I don't know how much ANI will accomplish at this point. MuZemike (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Philharmonia Virtuosi

I notice that you added a hangon tag to this article. Note that since you are not the creator, you can remove the tag yourself if you feel the subject is notable. Though the article has sources, there is no assertion of IoS currently in the article text so I,m leaving the tag on. If you decide to remove it, I would suggest you edit the article to state why the subject is notable. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 22:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It may not be notable, but I don't feel that it meets A7 as the two references assert the orchestra's existence. But you're right. I will remove the speedy tag, then. If you wish to bring to AfD, I would suggest so. MuZemike (talk) 22:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

WellStar Douglas Hospital

Deprodding of [[:{{{1}}}]]

I have removed the {{proposed deletion/dated}} tag from [[:{{{1}}}]], which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think this article should be deleted, please do not add {{proposed deletion}} back to the file. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!

Hi, I deprodded WellStar Douglas Hospital because it has ER and general services which meets notability for hospitals. MadScot (talk) 22:55, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


you must not delete my magi —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forryga (talkcontribs) 02:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't make that decision; that is up to an administrator to make that decision. I only make the recommendation henceforth, which, with the information gathered is based on protecting the person's identity. It's not that I don't like what the person has done. I am, however, concerned about the person's right to privacy. And please, next time, start a new section with a proper header and sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~) when making a comment on my talk page. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 06:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Pakistani towns

Hi MuZemike - I've been declining your speedy taggings of Pakistani towns, as they all seem to include sufficient context. Cheers, Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it tells us that it's a town in Pakistan. I imagine that you see that as a little bit circular, since the same could be said of an article reading "Bob is a guy" ("It gives us plenty of context: it tells us he's a guy!") and I'd certainly speedy delete that. I think the best test as to whether the subject is "identified" is whether we've found the kind of information that we'd expect to find in the first sentence of a fully developed article. Suppose we had a fully developed article on a Pakistani town - we might well expect the first sentence to be "such-and-such is a town in Pakistan", where if we had a fully developed article on Bob, the first sentence certainly wouldn't be "Bob is a guy." Hope that clarifies things a little. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 00:23, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Ask for More

Thanks for that, nice to see someone is still in touch with reality. :-) — Realist2 15:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Sockpuppet case

You didn't need to start that case. New accounts who vote to keep without providing valid reasoning are ignored by the closing admin. Especially if the case is overly clear. - Mgm|(talk) 23:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

User is still trying to game the system nonetheless. It is also unacceptable to create (at least, that is my suspicion) multiple accounts for such purpose. It doesn't make a difference if it's on a talk page discussion or an AfD discussion — it's still socking and consequently a blockable offense. MuZemike (talk) 23:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

SPA Tags

You would think after being on Wikipedia for 2 years + I'd known that. Sorry I forgot to add the subst to that tag, I'll remember for next time. Wildthing61476 (talk) 22:35, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries. MuZemike (talk) 22:37, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


Wait, do you support this article? Or what?

I just have to ask...DX-MON says you're an admin, I need some help here. This entire debate has started to take my enjoyment out of being an editor away. I'M looked at as the one breaking the rules here, when I'm just trying to do my job as a New Page Patroller.

--Mooshykris (talk) 00:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not one; I don't exactly know where he got the idea (maybe the giving advice thingy, which any Wikipedia editor can do). Remember I am still siding for deletion, but as I had explained on his talk page, it may be good for inclusion later on when coverage of the game through reliable sources start popping up. That is why I recommended userfication so he can keep working on the article in his own namespace until the time comes when the article meets the guidelines for inclusion. I think the user doesn't readily understand the guidelines and policies; we shouldn't be biting them as a result, which I think you might be doing. I hope that clears things up a little. Thanks, MuZemike (talk) 00:34, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I got the idea of you being an Admin from your general attitude, and highly customised userpage, and large quantities of maturity. I do have to say that I feel extremely bitten, and ok, perhaps I mis-interpreted one or two things, but in the end my plea for you to just wait was as because of real-world curcomstances - perhaps there might need to be improvements made to the rules whereby people can ask for a deletion to be paused for a while so that the content can be moved, perhaps with a limit of 24 hours? btw, as so you do know for articles such as my libImage one, I have been programming for 10 years now (since I was 6), but because of my very technical mindedness, I need a non-techy to look into the article, which is why I started a talk topic for it on my talk page, I would appreciate somebody looking into that. DX-MON (talk) 01:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for the help you have given with the PokeBattlers issue. But I unfortunatly think it won't do much, as everything I've worked for seems lost now that I've been portrayed as the n00b in this situation :(

--Mooshykris (talk) 00:50, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Well, as for the "bitey" way, any behavior like that comes from being frustrated at going on this case for hours now. --Mooshykris (talk) 00:52, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about it. Sometimes it takes another editor telling someone that he/she is biting a newbie. I know I have been guilty of the same exact thing. MuZemike (talk) 00:53, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, until recently I was totally unaware of them being new. I was just doing my job as a new page patroller. --Mooshykris (talk) 00:55, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I know, so am I. I know how hard it can be to AGF and not bite them, especially when they can be so delicious sometimes. Again, don't worry about it. MuZemike (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Alright thanks,
On a lighter note, just curious, how do you make your user page look like that? --Mooshykris (talk) 01:06, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Usage of tables and padding as well as taking advantages of Firefox's capabilities. You can look at the code on my main userpage if you like. MuZemike (talk) 01:09, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

May I use a modified version based on the base design of yours for my userpage? I've been looking for a template to make mine on for a while, and I really like yours. I'll even credit you if you'd like. --Mooshykris (talk) 01:16, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
Go ahead. It's more an implementation of wikitables and html code, in which the templates/userboxes/etc are thrown inside the cells. You got to play around with it a little bit to get what you like. MuZemike (talk) 01:19, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


Socratic Barnstar.gif The Socratic Barnstar
For consistently being logical, patient, and thorough in every discussion, especially in AFDs. You're never on some simplistic crusade. Your arguments are always reality-based, and highly rational. Most of all, you have the patience to engage people you disagree with in a thoughtful discussion. I was especially impressed with this. You earned this by being so damned reasonable. Randomran (talk) 04:27, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
That's part of why I awarded it. In all the haste to show the article didn't meet our guidelines, nobody really considered that the newbie had no clue what we were talking about. You took a step back and explained it. Thoroughly. And tried to "thread the needle", and find a position that would still help the newbie out. Very reasonable. You deserve this. Randomran (talk) 14:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (October 2008)

  • Newsletter delivery by xenobot 16:17, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Admin mop.PNG Thank you for participating in my RfA, which recently passed with 126 in support, 22 in opposition and 6 neutral votes.

Thanks for your oppose. I will try to work on the issues that you have raised.
If you want to reply to this message please use my talk page as watch listing about 150 pages is a bit messy
·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 23:40, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

  • Hey, no problem. I surely hope you can prove me wrong and use the tools in the proper fashion. Congratulations, MuZemike (talk) 00:20, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Kerem Mete Ozmen

Re your comment on the AfD for this, I'm assuming you're referring to the author's amendment to Fenerbahçe S.K. to try and indicate the player is notable ? Or have I misunderstood that remark ? :-) CultureDrone (talk) 08:41, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, forget that - I see what you mean now ! CultureDrone (talk) 08:59, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Development history of the Final Fantasy series

Hi, you gave your input in the deletion discussion of this article; however, the problem remains on what exactly should be done with this article and the relevant featured articles. There is currently a discussion about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Eight featured articles to be demoted. Please stop by and participate. Thanks. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 11:54, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 15:21, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your nightclub is getting deleted.

Thanks. I have voted. :)--SkyWalker (talk) 18:19, 7 November 2008 (UTC)


Thanks very much for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:04, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again... I feel many people on wikipedia are so hostile. Thanks for being constructive! It does help.

-- (talk) 03:15, 9 November 2008 (UTC)-

No problem. Biting the newcomers does occur from time to time by more experienced editors. It shouldn't be done if possible, as new users have the potential to become good Wikipedians. MuZemike (talk) 03:18, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for the suggestions with Seeyou. I'm going to push Seeyou to tell us what language he/she is fluent in, so we can get around the language problems. If that fails, then I'll request a ban from ArbCom. --Ronz (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be the best way to go, especially if no progress was made with two RFCs and four trips to mediation. I understand it sucks to have to take it to the "big wigs," but I don't think there's too much other choice, and I would rather see an arbitrator, compared to any old admin, deal with something like this. MuZemike (talk) 20:16, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


Are you an admin?--JMST (talk) 01:27, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I am not. MuZemike (talk) 01:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok thanks I know you marked the Shocker Toys article for speedy keep. But it has been 5 days now and without COI votes it adds up to 3 keep and I wanted to get the AFD removed and start working on it again. If you know of any admins who could remove the AFD that would be super if not sorry for bothering you.--JMST (talk) 01:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
I only !voted to speedy keep; that is, given my rationale as to why the article should be kept and closed ASAP. The AFD started on Nov 8, so my guess is that sometime tomorrow an admin will drive by and make the call; I seriously doubt the AFD will be extended as this seems more like a semantic dispute than anything else. MuZemike (talk) 03:45, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Speedy... meep meep

I take it I'm not supposed to put something nominated for AfD up for speedy deletion? I've seen several AfD's closed speedily, so I didn't realize this was a no-no. Please advise. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 02:32, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no; you can. However, I would only do it if there is a consensus (or bloody obvious, such as with patent nonsense or word-for-word copyvios) to speedy the article. Otherwise, there is nothing in the deletion policy that says you cannot. And sometimes that is not a bad idea to do so; have an admin who trawls around the speedy list deal with it and move on with other AFDs that need attention. Hope that helps, MuZemike (talk) 03:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Empty nose syndrome

You might want to consider refactoring your comment over there. I also fairly regularly find myself debating DGG in deletion debates, but not to the level of disruptive editing. Please just take this as a friendly reminder to assume good faith, or at least give the appearance of doing so. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:40, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I think he is trying to stymie deletion arguments by intentionally !voting the opposite the majority every time, in which he is not contributing to consensus building per the WP:DE guideline. I don't understand what his agenda is, but I consider it disruptive editing in doing that. MuZemike (talk) 15:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposing turning list of DS games w/ rumble into category.

I'm making this proposal here. Feel free to discuss. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I won't be able to chime in right away as I am very busy, but I will get to it. MuZemike (talk) 01:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)


Hi, I do in general stick with what is said at WP:NAC, but after all, it is an essay. Also, where does WP:SK say that a nomination has to be "vexatious or in bad faith" to qualify? Yes, that is one of the criteria available, but it is not a requirement as such. Whilst the guideline does indeed not list the snowball clause as a reason to speedy keep, it does list it in 'See also', demonstrating its similarity. My reason for closing it was that it was uncontroversial (aside from nom), and that notability is not temporary. neuro(talk) 17:46, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The 2nd criterion is where it mentions bad faith nominations. MuZemike (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Exactly, that's my point. neuro(talk) 18:24, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
So you are saying that the nom's reason for deletion was so erroneous that a speedy keep was necessary? MuZemike (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
No, my point is that it is a criterion, not the criteria. neuro(talk) 03:28, 23 November 2008 (UTC)



I have added several sources to the Fightback article, which I believe are sufficient to establish its notability and verifiability. I would request that you review the article and reconsider your support for its deletion.

Thank you,

Sickle and Hammer (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for taking a second look. I know it's easy to get adrenaline going on all sides at AFD; have to step back a moment and revise to be meticulously kind. Dreamyshade (talk) 18:41, 26 November 2008 (UTC)


  • Thank you for your concern over this editors comments in Russian on my talk page. I have looked at the comments and see that it is tagged as resolved. I am surprised as Roman121212 states he has apologised, he has not, indeed he has left another message in Russian since. I find it very unsatisfactory the way that this has been handled, one contributor to the debate even seemed to find it funny. I am also fairly sure that Roman121212 is a sock of the creator of the original article Andy Matthews. Paste Talk 23:05, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
  • You're welcome. Besides, I didn't even know the KGB was out business. That tells you how far behind the times I am :-) MuZemike (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)



I am a player of the online game Travian and have done lots of editing to it in the past. I was wondering if you could possibly make a checklist (or whatever it is) that would get it on it's way to becoming a better article and maybe even one of Wikipedias best articles.

Thank you

(Please answer on my page if you can, Stealth (talk)

Alright thank you, and feel free to take your time, I am sure there are many problems, and I am ganna go fix some soon. Again thanks anyway!

Stealth (talk)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard MacDonnell (scholar)

I note that you recently closed this AfD as a snowball keep. You may well be about to do this, but it would be helpful if you could also do the associated housekeeping (ie, remove the AfD notice from the article & place the appropriate template on its talk page); there's some step-by-step instructions at Wikipedia:Deletion_process#Articles_for_deletion_page. It's all too easy for the AfD template to get forgotten and hang around for ages! Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 17:28, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks for letting me know; I plumb forgot. MuZemike (talk) 19:03, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


Just as a heads up, the nominator had actually previously merged that information (see [4] and [5]} to the section where he says it already exists (that's why it exists there) and thus per the GFDL, my understanding is that the contributions of the various editors who originally wrote that content must remain visible, so when he says it is already covered in that section in the nomination and himself merged the content a few weeks ago to the area where he is okay with it existing, the nomination strikes me as odd, because if he believes that section should exist, then we cannot delete the article, rather only redirect the article. Best, --A NobodyMy talk 20:13, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll take a closer look at it when I can. MuZemike (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 18:45, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Pe De Chinelo's RfC

looks to me the latest links you put up were after the RfC was started. I don't know if you are meant to highlight this fact in the main article, so I have put it on the discussion page, if you are able to put it on the main page then please do. chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 00:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if the user is still engaging in said questionable conduct even after the RFC has been initiated, then diffs can still be added to provide further justification of the dispute or failure thereof to resolve. MuZemike (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
cool, its the last edit on the Shakira article you just put up, looking at the times (I could be wrong as my default time is GMT) it was modified by him after you put the RfC up. thanks mate chocobogamer LOOK AT WHAT I DID 00:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
This RFC got four signatures within 48 hours, so it has been moved to the active list. Daniel Case (talk) 04:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Britain's Josef Fritzl

I don't see anything about banned user nominations in WP:NAC. Surely the comments themselves are now valid; we now have to start the process all over again for a page consensus says should be deleted. Ironholds (talk) 06:08, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I knew this was going to happen. Banned editors are not supposed to edit. Period. All and any of their edits are supposed to be reverted on the spot; that comes from the banning policy. The speedy keep guideline calls for AFDs nominated by banned editors to be closed as such; something which I see as consistent with the ban policy. I was thinking about ignoring the rules for a bit there, but letting a banned editor make such edits (i.e. AFDing articles) sets a bad example for other banned users. Their edits might happen to be constructive, but, are still not wanted by the community. I can ask over at WP:ANI and see what they think, and maybe I'm incorrect on my interpretation of the banning policy as well as closing as a speedy keep in this situation, but it's still clear that banned users are not supposed to edit on Wikipedia under any circumstance. MuZemike (talk) 07:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
I have asked at this ANI thread to see if my close was proper; that is, I am open to reverting it if consensus determines that I was in the wrong of doing so. MuZemike (talk) 07:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of awards received by Total Annihilation

Just pointing out that you merged to the wrong article here[6] which should have been merged to the Total Annihilation article, not the TA:Kingdoms article. — Balthazar (T|C) 02:39, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

You have got to be kidding me! These articles need to be disambiguated more! (just kidding, I happen to be having some trout this evening, anyway :-) MuZemike (talk) 04:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
In case you don't read my response on my page, here it is for you. The garbage was the list of locations, not the awards. I erased the list of locations, which in fact was garbage, it doubling the size of the article with things you never needed to know in the game or anyone would care about. No problems with the awards being there since that is relevant to the game. But its for TA, not TA: K. Oh well. Dream Focus (talk) 14:05, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
OK. The fact remained that it had to be merged as a result of the recently-closed AFD. I would otherwise very much agree with you that it's unnecessary and excess information. But hey, that's what happens sometimes when users want such information merged just for the sake of inclusion. MuZemike (talk) 14:41, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

July 29 in rail transport.

I just want to let you know that the July 29 in rail transport ended in a no consensus. I am currently disputing that decision atWikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 December 3. If you wish to speak your opinion of the result of the AfD, please do so. Tavix (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (November 2008)

  • Newsletter delivery by xenobot 20:04, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Your request for IP checkuser

 Clerk note: I have moved your request to active status and it will be handled by a checkuser in a short time. Please note that the request for an IP check is prepared a bit differently. It is entered as a subpage of the IP check page and not as a stand alone page that is transcluded. If you wish to make additional updates to the report or you wish to monitor its progress, please go here and not to the page created when you filed the report. Changes made elsewhere may not be seen by the checkuser.

This is kind of an oddity of the process. We're sorry for any confusion. JodyB talk 11:58, 4 December 2008 (UTC)


I saw your comments on DGG's talk page and figured you'd be interested in this:

Since you have had repeated experience with this user's AFDs like, I thought I'd contact you. This user's AFD behavior is appaling especially how he refuses to bundle nominations in the same universe for which he uses identical reasonings. He also continually fails to consider the option to merge or redirect without intervention of deletion and makes no evident efforts to look for sources himself (there's a difference between unverified and unverifiable), instead preferring to force the issue by nominating for AFD (which causes a 5-day deadline for improvement) and which is specifically considered to be improper.

The articles in question might well require care, merging or even deletion, but the way he goes about it is unneccesarily terse and bitey.

I think it's time to launch an RFC. Would you consider helping gather evidence and supporting it? - Mgm|(talk) 15:27, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

I you so wish to, then do so. However, I will not try to gather evidence, nor will I favorably support it. I have already made it clear on the previous trip to ArbCom my position (i.e. the previous request for extension). MuZemike (talk) 21:06, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
  • No problem. I just want to make sure two people are actually willing to certify a case before I spend time making one. - Mgm|(talk) 22:13, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for your careful consideration at my successful RfA. Please let me know on my talk page if you have any suggestions for me. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 00:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

{{not a vote}}


Regarding this edit, I'm just curious about what led you to add the template. I'm new to AfD, so I'm just wondering if you feel my or someone else's actions constituted canvassing (I did leave a message about the AfD at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Correction and Detention Facilities, but only because I assumed people there would be more familiar with the topic and would be able help form a well-informed consensus; I'm not a member of that WikiProject so I wasn't soliciting allies or anything), or if it was because of something else.

Thanks, —Politizer talk/contribs 21:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I normally add that or the similar {{rally}} or {{not a ballot}} templates on top of the AFD discussion when it is clear that canvassing and/or increased SPA or meatpuppetry activity is going on in the AFD. It serves to let users know that such activity has been going on, let the closing admin that certain !votes may need to be weighed less/discounted as opposed to !votes by established users, and it lets those (normally new) users in question how the deletion discussion works. Hope that answers your question. MuZemike (talk) 21:47, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! —Politizer talk/contribs 21:48, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


Hi! Would you mind weighing in on this AfD: Brownmark Films The discussion has been re-listed several times and I'm hoping to finally get consensus on it. Thanks! SERSeanCrane (talk) 18:16, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Mind you that I'm not an expert in this field, but I can surely give my $.02 on it. MuZemike (talk) 18:18, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
NP, just an objective opinion would be nice. SERSeanCrane (talk) 18:21, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Re:Shortcut bar taken off at WP:NIN

I simply moved the shortcut box into the about box because it moved the logo a quarter of a page down. IMO, I think it looks better. BW21.--BlackWatch21 00:16, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. Now I see it after doing a blank edit. MuZemike (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


I had to take a break from school stuff, so I did make a slight update to your review (not sure if you have it watchlisted). I hope that helps! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 00:48, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Mario Bros. GA

Thanks for the Starman, guy. Sorry for being so belligerent on the Bulbasaur talk page, Sesshomaru just gets on my nerves, especially in this discussion. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:31, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Could you provide further input? Sesshomaru is pushing me to my last nerve, and if someone else was participating it would at least help me to calm down. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

List of NES games

I made a proposal on the talk page to limit references. Could you check it out? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 02:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I was just about to start working on that when you typed that! MuZemike (talk) 02:53, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Ninja Gaiden

Well, let's see... at first sight, I can see that it's lacking in references, and it doesn't discuss the conception and creation of the series, nor does it discuss its reception. Personally, I think that an article should be "done" if it's to be B-class - it doesn't have to be perfect, but it shouldn't need to add anything significant or have to have anything significantly rewritten. Though, it's certainly well-written enough to be C-class. I'm a bit of a fan of NG, so if you need me to look for sources, I'd be happy to help. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:11, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There are references all over the place, so I do not know what you mean there. I also do not know where you get that the reception of the game is not discussed where there is an entire section of it. MuZemike (talk) 07:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
You linked to the series page. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 18:48, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
So you intended to assess the series article (not the NES game) as C-class, no? MuZemike (talk) 18:58, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
Pretty much, yes. I don't even remember assessing the NES game. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for the clarification. MuZemike (talk) 19:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spurs-Suns rivalry

Please see the changes I made at Spurs-Suns rivalry and see if it now meets your approval. I added several sources about the rivalry, including a new section on how it spilled over into the coach's career as the Olympics coach. Sources include two by Associated Press writers and the San Diego Union-Tribune. I also added the latest chapter with sources from the past year's playoffs when the Spurs' use of the Hack-a-Shaq strategy reached a new level.--2008Olympianchitchat 04:24, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

a sly thank you...

Hey MuzeMike, just to say i came across your page quite by accident (we both voted in the Nintendocore debate) and we both use similar Userpage Headers. I originally used one which didn't allow a transparent background (ie the menu had a block of white space around it), but i noticed yours didn't. So I casually stole your code and edited it accordingly. So, I thought i should come and thank you. Cheers! --SteelersFanUK06 ReplyOnMine! 02:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem. You would probably do a better job coding your page than I do! But then again, that's really a top priority on my list right now. MuZemike (talk) 07:57, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Nintendo

You deferred the decision to delete the category three months ago (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 September 3) to the Nintendo task force. We got what appears to be a rough consensus forming among our active task force members to get rid of the category, as it is no longer needed as explained back then in the CFD. Can you look towards deleting the category, as we now have support for deletion? MuZemike (talk) 00:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a link to the "rough consensus"? And also an updated list of pages which are agreed that should be deleted? - jc37 10:01, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Don't worry about it; I already got it G6'd. The consensus was established at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Nintendo#Category:WikiProject Nintendo. Thanks, anyway. MuZemike (talk) 16:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Glad everything's worked out ok. - jc37 10:12, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Pe De Chinelo - rfc

This editor has recently posted this edit [7] proving fanboyism for Tekken and he is still refusing to comment at the RfC. Can we do anything without having to wait til the end of the month? He clearly isn't going to change, and probably won't comment, and it means we have to be extra wary of his edits. chocobogamer mine 21:36, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll ping him one more time. If no response, then we'll have to go to mediation. MuZemike (talk) 22:57, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
I have also done some canvassing at WikiProject Video games, WikiProject Rock music, and WikiProject Films to get more views/discussion of other users. Then, if we do hit mediation and above, we're not unprepared. MuZemike (talk) 23:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
cool cheers mate, just thought today's edits were the final straw, i cant believe he's still arguing, i thought he'd have dropped it by now. chocobogamer mine 23:24, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and try not to use the term "fanboy" (it can be hard sometimes, I know) as it can be pejorative in nature and doesn't make your side of the dispute look good. Use another, less-threatening term like "POV-pusher" (because that's what such behavior normally entails). MuZemike (talk) 00:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

ok. just the way it was worded was as fanboyish pov-pushing as u can get, thought itd b acceptable, obvs not lol. chocobogamer mine 01:36, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyvios on Ananda Yoga article

Hi MuZemike, just before you put the copyvio tag on the Ananda Yoga article, I had removed the offending portions that you mentioned in your tag. I also rewrote the introduction based on another source. So I removed the copyvio tag - if you find any more on there (I couldn't, but we can't be sure), I'll remove them also. Thanks, Priyanath talk 01:51, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

And I've just finished rewriting, condensing, adding fact tags. I don't see any copyvio remaining, if there were any left. Thanks for tagging it and bringing it to people's attention.Priyanath talk 02:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
Thank you, I appreciate it. MuZemike (talk) 02:58, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
LOL, thank you for the barnstar - I didn't even know there was an Article Rescue Barnstar. Now you have me wondering if there's an Editor Rescue Barnstar. Priyanath talk 03:08, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Alternate titles, and columns in Lists of articles

I noticed that you are a big contributor in the "List of Virtual Boy games", and I'd like to invite you to contribute to the Talk:List of Nintendo 64 games#Removal of Alternate Titles and Number of Players where we are discussing the use of keeping alternate titles in the "List" some have suggested that they take up too much space and that other columns could seem to be "useful only to fans", and other things that have been mentioned that, and other 'List of' talk pages. I know you might be watching the page and seen how I mention this on the Virtual Boy list page, but I hope you'll come and give you opinion, and hopefully keep these type of concerns from arising again and again at each "List of" pages. (Floppydog66 (talk) 21:40, 18 December 2008 (UTC))

Look there goes soda from my nose...

LOL. Very well put. I'm not sure I have ever seen my true feelings so eloquently expressed before. I think I'm turning into a weasel... --OliverTwisted (Talk) 04:54, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The No Game

Would you mind having another look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The No Game. I added a few similar games in from the same book. Thanks --Stephen 00:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

One (or possibly more) of them are keepable; at least Bowling solitaire seems notable enough. They are all being AFD'd separately. MuZemike (talk) 00:07, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

The Guardian Legend nihongo

What kind of correction did you have in mind here? (I thought it was curious for one of your edits to remove the Japanese name, and I was about to undo it myself after a day or two.) --an odd name 12:24, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely nothing was showing up where there should be Japanese Kanji characters on my computer. I just reinstalled WinXP on my desktop a couple of days ago. I thought someone either got rid of it or messed with the template. But I think it's my computer as other symbols weren't showing up, either. MuZemike (talk) 15:19, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
OK, I reinstalled East Asian language support, and now I see everything. Sorry, again, MuZemike (talk) 16:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
No, nothing to apologize over, I was just curious. Don't beat yourself up over a Windows thing. :) --an odd name 20:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Santa Clause is skiing in Adelboden.JPG Merry Christmas!
MuZemike, here's hoping you're having a wonderful Christmas, and here's also hoping that all your family and friends are well. Lets all hope that the year coming will be a good one! If we've had disputes in the past, I hold no grudges, especially at such a time as this. If you don't know I am, I apologise, feel free to remove this from your page.
Come and say hi, I won't bite, I swear! It could even be good for me, you know - I'm feeling a little down at the moment with all of these snowmen giving me the cold shoulder :(
neur ho ho ho(talk) 00:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

--A NobodyMy talk 02:22, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


Erm... this is rather odd. It appears that we both nominated Mech Platoon for WP:DYK (see your nomination here and mine further down in this section here). In fact, our nominations are pretty much identical except that I said "released for" and you said "on".

This is the first time I've ever done a DYK, so I have no idea what procedure is. -- Nomader (Talk) 04:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not see that. I'll remove mine; you get sole credit for that. MuZemike (talk) 04:06, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
Hey, thanks a bunch. -- Nomader (Talk) 04:09, 25 December 2008 (UTC)


I don't understand your reply to me at AN/I, could you rephrase it? Thanks. :) neuro(talk) 00:04, 27 December 2008 (UTC) left a talkback on my page, but I don't see anything... :S neuro(talk) 00:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
You caught me in multiple edit conflicts. I was referring to the comment above (it wasn't threaded under comment). MuZemike (talk) 00:47, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
I still don't see anything... am I being blind to something? :| neuro(talk) 00:50, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
My comment was supposed to be addressed to PMDrive1061. MuZemike (talk) 00:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
That is, I didn't realize the now-blocked account was a sock of Lyle123. MuZemike (talk) 00:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)
Oh, right. Thanks! :) neuro(talk) 01:05, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Your good works

Thanks for taking the time to recognize the efforts of others. Very kind of you. Enjoy the rest of your 2008, and have a very happy New Year! ChildofMidnight (talk) 00:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)


I've read what you said, and I've looked at the wikipedia guidelines page, and I will stop speaking inappropiately about the games, and from now on I will make sure I only use them for improvements on the article, and to report changes that I make after I edit them. Regards, mcjakeqcool. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 11:52, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

no rock

Except, of course, if you mean ROCK AND ROLL!!! ;) Thanks!--Cerejota (talk) 23:45, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Legend of Zelda WikiProject

Could you please explain why this was merged to the Nintendo task force? I didn't see any discussion of it, well, ever.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 05:48, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#WikiProject The Legend of Zelda merge for the main discussion. This was already mulled over several times at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Inactive project cleanup#The Legend of Zelda and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Inactive project cleanup#WikiProject The Legend of Zelda. MuZemike (talk) 14:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I see that it was discussed somewhere - but it's hardly appropriate that no mention of it was ever made at the actual article for the topic in discussion. It shuts out the very editors that are being affected by the change.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 16:20, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
There was also a rough consensus back in September to at least taskforcify the WikiProject at WT:ZELDA, which I think was right before WikiProject Nintendo got taskforcified. I doubt the consensus would have changed. MuZemike (talk) 16:28, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

DYK for Chronotron

Updated DYK query On 31 December, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Chronotron, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 17:27, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

A cat to ease all of your troubles
Happy New Year!
Hey there, MuZemike! Happy new Gregorian year. All the best for the new year, both towards you and your family and friends too. I know that I am the only person lonely enough to be running this thing as the new year is ushered in, but meh, what are you going to do. I like to keep my templated messages in a satisfactorily melancholy tone. ;)

Congratulations to Coren, Wizardman, Vassyana, Carcharoth, Jayvdb, Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke and Rlevse, who were all appointed to the Arbitration Committee after the ArbCom elections. I am sure I am but a voice of many when I say I trust the aforementioned users to improve the committee, each in their own way, as listed within their respective election statements. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to update the 2009 article, heh.

Best wishes, neuro(talk) 00:54, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources?

Happy New Year, MuZemike! Question: Are you at all familiar with The Christian Post? Until today I was not; I don't travel in the circles of either Christian current events or Christian academia, so I'd never heard of it. But it appears to be a highly reputable online publication. I'm bringing it up because I'd like you to look at the article about it on Wikipedia, then perhaps look at the article it has published about The Voice, and then consider whether or not you would be interested in reconsidering your position at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Voice (Project)? Please understand that I really have no dog in this hunt, other than wanting to establish consensus and avoid a need to relist. Cheers! Unschool 06:41, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I took a second look at it; the Christian Post one I think is all right as a reliable source, but I still don't think the others are. It would still be deletable per lack of significant coverage via multiple reliable sources (see WP:GNG) as well as being borderline spam (that is separate from notability concerns). MuZemike (talk) 20:16, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for looking at it. I plan to clean it up and remove the spam, but I can see that it still probably won't satisfy you, and your reasoning is perfectly respectable, so I shan't bother you again, unless I can come up with some more solid sources. Unschool 14:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia and a Crystal Ball

Aha! I don't get it. Diego Bank (talk) 02:55, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Click on the second wikilink in the caption, and you will see what I mean: Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Credit for the picture of the crystal ball goes to User:Terrillja, as displayed here. MuZemike (talk) 05:52, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
Oh :) I thought it had something to do with "distortion" due to refraction. Diego Bank (talk) 22:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for I Love Katamari

Updated DYK query On 5 January, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article I Love Katamari, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 09:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Late bloomer

Check the latest version of Late bloomer. Still a lightweight article followed by a list, but I think no longer original research and much more than a Wiktionary definition. At least a more interesting list than most. Comments? Aymatth2 (talk) 20:35, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:MikeTyson'sPunchOutBoxart.jpg)

You've uploaded File:MikeTyson'sPunchOutBoxart.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:46, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Midwest Gaming Classic

Just wanted to tell you, if you make it down to it this year please feel free to stop by the "older" part of the Museum hall and say hi. Always like to meet another Wikipedian from the video game project. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 21:53, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll try and make it this year. I only live 35 minutes west of Oconomowoc; hopefully the weather holds up as it has been especially harsh up here this year. MuZemike (talk) 23:38, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (December 2008)

  • Newsletter delivery by xenobot 22:18, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your comment at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Pearl_necklace_(sexuality)_(3rd_nomination)

Dear MuZemike. I was not using WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS as a threat, I was using the nominators own standards to show other articles which could just as easily hit the mark and how futile this one actually is. It makes me wonder why the nominator has specifically picked on this one, his reason for example "let's hope we can reach consensus on it this time" makes me suspect that this is a Bad Faith Nomination. I will make that allegation if push comes to shove as well. In the mean time, I would ask you please to redact your comment, since that was not the intention at all. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 08:13, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

It looks like you're trying to threaten deletion on the other articles, and I do not see any specific provocation from the nominator (Note: I do not know the nom here or personally; I'm just going on what I read). I do not see a bad-faith nomination. This is another (different from the other two - that is, I highly doubt we have socking going on) user nominating for deletion. He/she just happens to disagree on the inclusion of the article, especially when the other two AFDs closed as "no consensus." By practice, no consenssus AFDs are subject to re-nomination.
With that said, I'll only redact the "new low" statement, but nothing else, because you are using WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a reason for keeping, which is never good in any AFD. Thank you, MuZemike (talk) 08:30, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for striking that, MuZemike. I apologise for biting your head off. If you go to the AfD again, per your comments above I have clarified my reason for showing those articles. I was only using sex related ones because of the article nominated, as a comparison. Once again, sorry for mouthing off at you. :) Thor Malmjursson (talk) 08:41, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Don't worry about it; I think we both have common ground on this, anyway. MuZemike (talk) 08:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


Hi. Although I agree with you about the dubious notability of Family Park Tycoon, which is why I tagged it for notability when recreating it without copyvio, I have removed the PROD tag because I believe that it could be redirected to Astragon or List of Astragon games. In the absence of additional sources, this may be the best handling, though I have again tried to explain to the article's original creator what constitutes a reliable source, here. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:43, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I was not aware of that list article. I can start a discussion on that talk page regarding redirection. MuZemike (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if a full discussion is necessary, though it might be a good courtesy to give Canand1 a day or two. I'd be very surprised if he produced anything more substantial now than he did in December. I think there may be language issues there. I wasn't aware of the article either until I was trying to explain to him how to handle a PROD and it occurred to me to check the publisher. (I'm in the process of trying to fill out the Prodfull template, which I find highly counterintuitive. :)) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 16:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, we can do that. MuZemike (talk) 16:54, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
Just to let you know, Canand1 has produced two German reviews, which I've added to the article on his behalf. I have no idea if these sites are reliable or not or if you feel they meet notability, because this is not my area. :) Would you mind talking to him directly about any issues with these sites? It's kind of tough for me, since I'm out of my area. If these sources do not bring this into accord with WP:N, a redirect may be appropriate still, of course. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 23:34, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Playnormous

Updated DYK query On 10 January, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Playnormous, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 02:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Futaba Channel

Hi there. You were a participant in the AfD discussion for Futaba Channel, which I closed as "delete." I have decided to relist the article at AfD; the discussion is here. Your further input is welcome. Xymmax So let it be written So let it be done 18:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: The Guardian Legend FAC

I tried to give examples of elements unique to each mode (Labyrinth and Dungeon) in the screenshot descriptions, to show that they are both necessary for understanding the game. I can't guarantee they will love them, but check them out. --an odd name 23:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

TGL would definitely the first NES-only FA, and consequently the first FA for an NES game never released in arcades. Marble Madness and Space Invaders started in arcades, and have seen so many other ports that they don't count in my view; I couldn't find any other NES game in the list either. Sounds like a noble goal! --an odd name 01:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Ninja Gaiden Trilogy - Basaquer Battle.png)

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:Ninja Gaiden Trilogy - Basaquer Battle.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) 05:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Esenthel Engine

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, MuZemike. You have new messages at Darth Panda's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Orphaned non-free media (File:Ninja Gaiden Nintendo Power.jpg)

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:Ninja Gaiden Nintendo Power.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) 05:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Chicago Syndicate

I am trying to understand what you said... You are trying to say in so many words it that, the sentences have to be original, and rewritten?? Is that what you mean~??(LonerXL (talk) 08:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC))

Yes. It was too much of a duplicate of the web page I specified. Rewrite it without copying the structure directly. Oh, and next time please start new discussions/comments at the bottom of the page (that goes for any talk page on Wikipedia. Cheers, MuZemike 19:08, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay. No problem at all, MuZemike. Take care.(LonerXL (talk) 03:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC))

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Virtual Boy games

Hi, great work on bringing this back to featured quality. There are a couple unresolved issues that (I think) are keeping this FLRC being closed as keep. Is there anything you can do? Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 00:09, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, sorry. I have been sidetracked with other stuff as well as another FAC. I will try to address them. MuZemike 01:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
No problem. My concerns have been resolved, and I asked Truco to revisit the FLRC again. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


Hello, I'm not sure if this is the right section to post about talk.

When you have time, can you upload those shrunken pictures for this article? List of characters in Tales of Symphonia, Thanks.DragonZero (talk) 07:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh sure! I can get that done in no time! I don't have the file right here, but I can reupload and shrink accordingly as needed. MuZemike 08:16, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:STCC Game Logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:STCC Game Logo.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 January 26

Could you please answer my question in the black president DRV? =- Mgm|(talk) 08:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry for the delayed response, but Monday morning = work for me. Also sorry that it's probably not the answer you're looking for. MuZemike 19:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Strange spin off of the Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/

While the obvious socks were blocked, it appears that for in a bizarre twist a user they targeted is being fingered as the sock puppeteer (socks voted to keep while the user in question nominated the article for deletion...). Comments appreciated at User_talk:Terrakyte#Request_for_unblock..--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 07:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Did you consider bringing this to WP:ANI to see what other admins think about it? The user seems very unrelated to the three now-confirmed socks and IP, indeed. Is it possible that the IP covers multiple locations and that the block of User:Terrakyte is purely collateral? MuZemike 16:59, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
I haven't yet went to ANI. By all means, if you think it could bring more interested editors, please do so. It would be nice to get to the bottom of this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

AfD Nintendo DS storage devices

I withdrew it, little too hasty on that nom. If interested lets discuss a merger at the talk page. Rgoodermote  21:42, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I will if I can. Don't worry about the AFD; we all make the mistake of going the deletion route before considering a more preferable merge or redirect route (there's a whole section on me at the WikiProject Video games talk page of me about of AFD a whole bunch of articles when a couple of them had valid merges (I wouldn't have guessed, however), while others diligently found sources establishing notability. Theoretically, when you nominate an article for AFD, there should be no opposition for deletion, provided users follow the steps prescribed in WP:BEFORE. However, this is not a perfect WikiWorld, so that does not happen. In a nutshell, don't worry about it. MuZemike 02:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Some comments of yours

Could you explain this comment of yours? Also, earlier you said that I'm apparently unable to work with other editors. I think it's odd you say that, since we've agreed on multiple occasions. [8] [9] [10] [11] We also seemed to have no issues with each other at Talk:The Addams Family (video game) or Talk:MicroProse. So I'm a little confused. --Pixelface (talk) 06:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not that I don't agree with you at all (I surely do agree with you at times, especially those in which you specified), it's that it seems that the way you're going at some issues, especially discussion of guidelines, policy, or general talk, is not acceptable at least in my view. Yes, I think you are engaging in tendentious editing especially in regards the guidelines pertaining to notability. However, myself being someone who specifies in video game-related articles (mostly retro) and am used to dealing with such articles that may not presumably be notable until proven, I try to be as lax on the GNG (a more universal guideline than WP:FICT or WP:PLOT) as I possibly can before bending towards merging, redirecting, or outright deletion. You are a very intelligent person who is capable of doing some good things with the encyclopedia. It's just that you, just like I do from time to time, take things too far. (You can look at my contribs and see that I have AFD'd a some pages just to make a point.) Maybe I get too caught up in what everyone else says in the RFC (and that's how I have commented), but being myself, I would just say to calm down, relax, and try to stop yourself when you think you're starting to act diskish. I've at least been trying to lay off the drama by plainly grinding (Like TEND but in a good and productive way) in the mainspace and working on new VG articles that need such help.
In closing, I would hope that you at least change your temperament on things. I have tried to hold back as much as I can from you previous comment on the RFC, and I would hope you could do the same, especially after this lengthy comment from me. Thank you, MuZemike 06:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
"Yes, I think you are engaging in tendentious editing especially in regards the guidelines pertaining to notability" I don't have an axe to grind. Although some people at my user RFC might. I can think of times when I've offended most of those people.
What Pagrashtak did at WikiProject Video games was not the right way to handle the situation. I don't know who Akari Kanzaki is. But I saw an editor who started editing fairly recently get reverted by an admin, who then asked a WikiProject for backup, which resulted in that newer editor being blocked for 24 hours for violating 3RR because they were outnumbered. Blocking people is a big deal. Blocking new editors is a big deal. It could have all been avoided if Pagrashtak would have done the right thing in the first place. And people wonder why participation on Wikipedia is going down.
If I see a change to a guideline and I think it's bad, I'm going to say so. If I see a proposal and I think it's bad, I'm going to say so. If I see people trying to enforce rules they personally made up, on people who don't want to follow those "rules", I'm going to speak up.
I really look down on people who are just following orders. After being here 2 1/2 years, I increasingly don't care if a policy or guideline says something — because I know how they're made. They were written by mere mortals, other strangers on the Internet. I want to know why it's a good idea. I want to know how it improves Wikipedia. How does it make Wikipedia a better educational resource? If someone looks it up on a search engine, what can Wikipedia teach them?
The development of Wikipedia's "notability" guidelines has been insane. I can understand having guidelines that exclude certain subjects from Wikipedia. But Wikipedia doesn't even have an article about notability. In VFDs, people say would "non-notable." I can understand that. But take a look at List of arcade games. Nobody would have nominated any of those for deletion in the past. But now, someone would look at GNG and misunderstand it and nominate them all for "failing" the GNG. It's asinine. There's no point in wasting time working on articles that people are going to nominate for deletion. It's the soul-crushing bureaucracy that's wrong. It's the power-tripping "enforcers" that are wrong. And people wonder why participation on Wikipedia is going down.
Regarding the Outside view by Sephiroth BCR, I offended Sephiroth BCR a few months ago when I told him nobody cares about how "cool" his bedroom is. Because they don't. And yeah, that reply by me to Sceptre was uncivil, but we had agreed to disengage from each other in April, and Sceptre didn't — multiple times. I asked permission to engage again from Elonka. So yeah, when Sceptre closes an RFC I started, on Christmas no less, I was just a bit peeved. Both of my blocks in 2008 were after interactions with Sceptre. Sceptre was indefinitely blocked twice in 2008. And people wonder why participation on Wikipedia is going down.
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shoryuken, I asked Rwiggum if he had another username. It's an easy question. Then Rwiggum got all bent out of shape, instead of actually answering the question. Rwiggum responded uncivilly. I responded to a "Really?" with an "Oh really?" You said I was bashing other users. I called WP:ATA a worthless essay. You told me don't be a dick. Then you copied your comment over to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hadouken (2nd nomination), where it didn't apply at all. I should have behaved more civilly at those AFDs, but what gamer hasn't heard of Shoryuken or Hadouken? When people are uncivil, I should ignore it. I shouldn't respond in kind — but I do.
But maybe I'm wrong MuZemike. I can admit when I'm wrong. Can you? Can anybody on Wikipedia these days? Or are people too afraid to admit when they're wrong? --Pixelface (talk) 12:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Attempt to list Downtown Billings article for deletion

You did a speedy close on the Afd I proposed for Downtown Billings. As you said, by the looks of the AFd entry, I botched the listing somehow. If you check out the article, you'll see my rationale is valid. Maybe a little help listing it. Thanks--Mike Cline (talk) 22:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't see it. I typed in the name of the article in the search box, and I got nothing. Perhaps I misspelled it. MuZemike 22:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Undid the close and fixed the AFD template. MuZemike 23:00, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Many thanks - deletion is not really my thing!--Mike Cline (talk) 23:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Ninja Gaiden Peer Review

I'm not sure if the PR was really closed, but I wrote a review anyway. I hope you find it useful : ) -- Noj r (talk) 05:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit: I went ahead and moved my review to the correct article, here. -- Noj r (talk) 05:05, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

thank you

My RFA passed today at 150/48/6. I wanted to thank you for weighing in, and I wanted to let you know I appreciated all of the comments, advice, criticism, and seriously took it all to heart this past week. I'll do my absolute best to not let any of you down with the incredible trust given me today. rootology (C)(T) 08:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Orange flower with water.jpg

The WPVG Newsletter (January 2009)

  • Newsletter delivery by xenobot 00:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

I have no idea how to do what you just did on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Foswiki, but it's also happening on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Scrotwm at the moment. I'm not sure what to do about it though. §FreeRangeFrog 04:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Basically, tag the article with the {{coi}} template, place {{subst:uw-coi|Scrotwm}} on each talk page you suspect the user has a conflict of interest (make sure to add a heading and signature; if the talk page does not exist, I like to {{subst:welcome}} the user first so as not to come off WP:BITEy). Then, go to WP:COIN and follow the instructions in making a report there (or you can follow my example for the Foswiki report that I made). The few users involved over there may or may not help out, depending on the veracity of the situation. Hope that helps, MuZemike 04:56, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! It's late right now so I'll hold off on it until tomorrow and see if it gets any worse. Cheers! §FreeRangeFrog 05:00, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Crystalis

It doesn't look like it. There are a lot of GameFaqs user reviews cited readily in there and the overall context...yeah. It should be fine just to directly downgrade to Start or at most C. :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:13, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


Hey man, I need help! I'm trying to make P.N.03 get a Good article reassessment and I don't know what to do. Its my first reassessment and since your doing it to other games like crazy, can you please help me with it? Respond soon. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Did you try to follow the individual reassessment instructions at WP:GAR? Add {{subst:GAR}} on the very top of the talk page, click the top baby blue link in that box, place your rationale on the reassessment page, transclude the page onto the talk page (i.e. add {{Talk:P.N.03/GA1}} on the bottom of the talk page to transclude it), and then don't forget to inform other involved editors (using {{subst:GARMessage|P.N.03}}) as well as giving a friendly notice on the applicable task force and WikiProject pages. Hope that helps.
P.S. Make sure you have your ducks in a row on the GA reassessment, make sure you're familiar with the Good Article criteria, and make sure the header on the reassessment is not "GA failure" like the one very-poorly-done informal reassessment already on that talk page. MuZemike 04:08, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind about this article. I don't know if I can do the reassessment right. So instead, I'm going to do a reassessment on the Nintendo DS. Sorry to waste your time. GamerPro64 (talk) 03:52, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't know. I mean, looking over it real quick, I see a lot of verifiable material. On the same token, I see a lot of unreferenced sections. Since all the images come from Commons, I cannot see anything right now that is wrong with images, except perhaps that there may be too many. However, I think it might be justifiable regarding the article's size. MuZemike 03:56, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Theodore l. Sendak

You might want to let the author of the article know about the prod rather than the person that moved it. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:01, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I think I did, because I accidentally prodded the redirect, so the original author would've received the notification. I'm using NewPageWatcher for the first time, so I'm still getting used to how it works. Thank you, anyway, MuZemike 00:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


That's a redirect to Wetwired (website) which I also moved. Redirects can't be tagged as A7. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:04, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, NPW again. It seems to want to mark the original location instead of the new location for deletion. Thanks again, MuZemike 00:06, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I think what may have happened is that NPW see's the original but doesn't notice that it's been moved. The Sendak page author didn't get the warning, User talk:Clrobison because their name wasn't in the history list. No harm anyway. CambridgeBayWeather Have a gorilla 00:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Super Mario Bros. theme

Since you have some interest in the Mario articles, I was wondering if you were interested in working on this? I've built it up pretty well, but it gets tiring doing all the source searching by myself. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:55, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

That's a good article, so far! I'll see what I can do to improve it. I also plan to nominate the article for DYK in regards to the ringtone factoid (if you don't mind, that is). MuZemike 15:26, 18 February 2009 (UTC)
No problem. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 19:04, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ninja Gaiden (NES) Plot tag

I noticed that you placed a plot tag on Ninja Gaiden (NES). I would like to remedy this, but I don't want to screw up what is otherwise a decent summary, so I put a couple of revisions on my sandbox for review. The first is simply the existing summary with a few cuts. The second is one I did a while back, when I was but a padawan. When you have the time, could you look at them and let me know if either would satisfy the tag while maintaining a decent coverage of the story? Thanks. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 07:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I just had a couple of users peer review the thing here, if you didn't see it already. Basically it needs to be cut down in length (undue weight) and prose improved. I'll be a bit busy today, but I can look at it when I get time. Thanks, MuZemike 14:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. It looks like they would prefer a full rewrite to a simple trim. I'll get to work on that soon. Other sections are largely outside my expertise, though. Again, thanks. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 06:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

I think the other sections look good, especially the Reception section. Of course, there is always room for improvement in both the Gameplay and Reception sections prose–wise, but I think those sections there are GA–quality enough that it would be good (as I experienced in my recent Featured Article nomination of The Guardian Legend, where it got grilled on good enough that it wasn't good enough for promotion to FA—I don't think that will be a huge problem with going to GA). It's the plot section that I've had problems with, and maybe it's that I don't do a very good job on writing about fiction or plot summaries. If we can get that Plot section whittled down a little bit and prose improved, then I would consider nominating for GA. MuZemike 08:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
The first one in your sandbox looks good. I will replace the current section with that one for right now. Feel free to keep working on the new one, however. MuZemike 17:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Super Mario Bros. theme

Updated DYK query On 20 February, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Super Mario Bros. theme, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 11:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games

Updated DYK query On 22 February, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Winter Games, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 06:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


Re:Unnamed Ratchet & Clank Future Sequel

Ok, I will move it to "User:HK22/Unnamed Ratchet & Clank Future Sequel. I will work on it, and then in a few months or so, we can paste it back into the main namespace. :) — HK22 \my contributions/ (my talk) 03:54, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

RE:AfD nomination of Ratchet & Clank Future: (TBA)

Thats OK, I have created the user-sub-page. Just delete the one in the main namespace. — HK22 \my contributions/ (my talk) 07:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I already saw that. Another user came in and edited over the cross-namespace redirect before the redirect could be deleted. Your speedy deletion request was declined for lack of valid reason under the criteria for speedy deletion, hence the AFD on that instance of the article. Remember that whatever is in your userspace remains intact, regardless whether or not the AFD'd article gets deleted. An AFD discussion lasts for five days normally (same with prod tags), so it would be five days before an admin comes in and closes the discussion (which may include deleting the article if there is a rough consensus for deletion shown from the discussion; anyways, further reading is the deletion policy). Hope that clears things up. MuZemike 07:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

My sub-page

Can you take a look at this. I've cleaned it up a bit. I will keep adding information, as it comes along. — HK22 \my contributions/ (my talk) 07:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that IGN article when I did my initial search for sources. First off the IGN article doesn't go into much beyond the message at the end of the game; this should be sourced in the Ratchet & Clank (series) article, as it is currently unsourced. It also doesn't say anything about the game; that is, there are no in-depth interviews, previews, etc. about the game. While articles and staff reviews from IGN are very reliable sources, this is not saying anything else besides that it is hinted at via the ending of Quest for Booty.
In addition, the article needs multiple secondary sources that are independent of the topic to establish notability for its own independent article. In a nutshell, it needs more reliable sources in order to stand alone, but give it time; I'm sure that will happen within the next month or so as more information comes in.
Now, for copyediting. It is no longer good practice to link dates as they provide little context in the article (see WP:LINK and WP:OVERLINK). The same applies with countries/continents such as "Europe" and "Australia". Finally, the Trophies section is not needed in the article because it doesn't explain anything in context with the game. Remember to stick with good ol' prose—the same type you use for writing papers (that will develop in the article as it expands). That means full paragraphs and not one-line or one-sentence paragraphs, as that doesn't signify good encyclopedic prose. (Even I fall into this pitfall once in a while.)
Other than that, give it a little time for the article to develop to the point where it can stand on its own. Remember, when in doubt, consult the manual of style for advice or just ask us for help. There are plenty of editors around that will lend a hand if you ask. Hope this helps. MuZemike 08:04, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh yeah, and I forgot to mention that "See Also" sections are generally discouraged now, so you may want to remove that section, as well. I have combined sections to improve readability for you as well as delinked those excess links. I'll leave it to you to remove the Trophies and See Also sections. MuZemike 08:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Super Mario Kart

Hey I noticed you nominated Super Mario Kart for A-class at WPVG. Two reviewers supported it and so I changed its talk page rating to A-class, but an admin came around and changed it back to GA, citing the A-class criteria page. I guess WikiProjects without a formal A-class review process (like ours) should go through the article's talk page instead of our project page. Also, it seems like the WPVG has had an A-class review process in the past, but it's currently not active. Should it be re-activated? — Levi van Tine (talk) 12:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

This should be brought up at WT:VG. In the meantime, I will let the two reviewers know about this. MuZemike 13:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey thanks!

Chocolate chip cookies.jpg Cookies!

You deserve some cookies for making that great table on your articles page. I totally swiped the format of it for myself! Thanks! has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the "WikiLove" by giving someone else some cookies, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookies}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Levi van Tine (talk) 14:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's simple and not hard to make. I hope you enjoy it! MuZemike 17:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Popotan GAN

I have done some of the stuff you asked. For the others I have either asked for further clarification or given reasons why I believe it I disagree.じんない 23:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I don't think I'll get to the rest of the stuff that you mentioned and/or opposed to this weekend as I have some significant commitments this entire weekend. I'll definitely look at the images myself and see what I can do. I use PNGGauntlet to compress PNG images, and I just simply reupload smaller-size versions of JPG (as well as PNG, but the smaller file size I say takes precendent) images in which they are displayed in the article, hence not facilitating the use of the "###px" links in the images. The lead is also another issue that should also be fleashed out. Everything else looks really good so far. MuZemike 07:13, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Done adding the site. The only thing I really disagree with what you did was the image size reduction. If you look at other feature articles like Chrono Trigger, Donkey Kong and Final Fantasy VI they all have screen resolutions closer to their real size. Even PC games like Myst and Starcraft also have much higher resolution screenshots than the original of mine.
Ultimately though, I think only the screenshot resolution actually impairs some of the understanding that the higher resolution one didn't.じんない 06:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll take a second look. At least the ones I reduced, I didn't initially see any decrease in quality. MuZemike 19:25, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
OK, I reverted the box cover, as I can see some reduced quality. I don't see any significant difference in the screenshot, however, at least none that I can see with the current display size in the article. MuZemike 19:30, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
Mine's with the text. I know this because I originally also tried 200x150 and could not distinguish some of the characters in the text. Maybe 300x225 might be okay, though I still contend 50% the ogiinal is well within "fair use" rational.じんない 21:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
You can try that. My screen may be smaller and of lower-resolution that I may not have picked it up. MuZemike 22:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I uploaded a 300px version of the image and used smooth scaling in hopes that everything is readable. Let me know what you think. MuZemike 01:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, looking at the Legacy section, it looks like there's something missing in that second-to-last sentence (...anime conventions,, in which it cuts off after the comma). That sentence also needs to be completed. Sorry that I didn't catch it before. MuZemike 19:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Done. I mentioned it at the bottom of the review.じんない 21:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Just checking back to see what else is needed for the GAN (go ahead and reply in the review).じんない 04:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Ninja Gaiden (NES) on hold

I have placed Ninja Gaiden (NES) on hold. Please see its talkpage for details. Thanks and good luck! CarpetCrawler (talk) 19:11, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Whoops! I wikified the wrong article! Oh well, now that I've wikified it correctly, the seven days will start now, instead of the 27th. Egg on my face for me, my apologies! CarpetCrawler (talk) 23:21, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

RE: Ninja Gaiden Second Look

I'll take another look tomorrow night. -- Noj r (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Ratchet and Clank Future: (TBA)

Why do you want to delete Ratchet and Clank Future: (TBA)? its got alot of info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guinea pig warrior (talkcontribs) 05:29, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

I have ALREADY explained on your talk page that the article was userfied into User:HK22's namespace. Otherwise, I have made myself clear as to why it does not belong in the mainspace, and several others agree with me on that. Please make any meaningful contributions to User:HK22/Unnamed Ratchet & Clank Future Sequel. Thank you, MuZemike 17:00, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay so is the Ratchet and Clank Future: (TBA) page gonna be deleted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Guinea pig warrior (talkcontribs) 09:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Please stop moving HK22's userfied version of the article back onto the mainspace; it is starting to get disruptive. It is not ready enough for inclusion yet, and about a dozen others including the original author agree. MuZemike 15:31, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ratchet + Clank TBA

Just put it back into my subpage. I getting tired of Gineau Pig Warrier moving again and again. — HK22 \my contributions/ (my talk) 22:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, User:Masem speedy deleted it per G4 (recreation of deleted material), but I told him to put it back into your userspace, as I don't think he was aware. Guinea pig has also been warned, upon threat of a block, not to do it again. MuZemike 22:10, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Thats great, Masem moved it back to my user subpage. Finally its been deleted. — HK22 \my contributions/ (my talk) 22:15, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

When you said stop moving it into the mainspace I was'nt on the computer at the time so please be a bit more open minded I just got the message.

RE: Ninja Gaiden Second Look

I have left some comments on the discussion page. Thanks, -- Noj r (talk) 05:05, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Ninja Gaiden is Good?!

Seriously?! it made good status?! Yay! Angels declare their joy from the heavens! I'm glad to have been a part of this. It's really you and everyone else who should be proud of this. Y'all did more quality work on it than I could possibly have ever hoped to do.

Now if you'll excuse me, I must do the dance of joy! Join me, won't you? Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 07:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (February 2009)

  • Newsletter delivery by xenobot 00:21, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

CSD template

I added it .. as the author, adding "db-author" is pretty acceptable. It's pretty simple: while I was in the middle of creating the AFD, another editor speedied the article as a repost. That means there was no reason for the AFD, so I removed the links to it, and requested that the AFD be deleted.—Kww(talk) 22:54, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

OK. I thought it was some hidden vandalism/disruption from the article's creator (I wasn't explicitly referring to you.). If you look at the previous AFD, you might understand where I was coming from. As far as the CSD is concerned, I don't know if you can have AFD discussions deleted for that reason (but then again, G7 does apply to any page). FWIW, I don't see any harm in deleting it (it will probably be closed very shortly if not while I am writing this message). Doesn't matter with me, either way; I thought someone else nonchalantly added that in. MuZemike 23:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
You have got to be kidding me! Looks like we'll have to keep this AFD going unless an admin with his head screwed on properly does the right thing here. MuZemike 23:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
...and User:DiverseMentality beat me to the punch on the apparent sockpuppetry. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Aaliyahforever. MuZemike 23:06, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: WQA notification

Re your messages: Thanks for the heads up on that. I've read the WP:ANI, WP:WQA, the two AfDs, and various talk pages where my name, the WLaccount name, and/or the AfDs have come up. I really don't have much to say about it all at this time. Nothing needs responding to from me as others have tried talking to WLaccount, though it doesn't seem to be getting anywhere looking at the latest attempts to blank the articles in question. Thanks for bringing attention to the situation. I appreciate it. =) It has certainly been interesting and amusing reading. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 23:54, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Nintendo task force thingy

I have moved my self onto the active users section, I am the first person to do so (who isn't you)! =) 'The Ninjalemming'' 20:50, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh actually I would give it abit more then two weeks just incase people are on wikibreaks with out declaring it or can't go on the wiki for what ever reason. And when you do delete them I would give them a kind note that you have just incase of one of the above. If you under stood that then well done, I wrote that poorly; and if you wish to repliy to this please do so on my talk page. Cheers! =) 'The Ninjalemming'' 20:56, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll make it four weeks. Until April 9. Hopefully that's better. Thanks for your interest, MuZemike 23:30, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm cool with that =) 'The Ninjalemming'' 20:51, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Mushroom Kingdom Fusion (sandbox)

I suggest rewording "that is a hack of Super Mario Bros" to "based upon". The former has a slightly loaded connotation IMO. MLauba (talk) 23:24, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Nintendo 64 accessories merge

I'm not opposed to the merge, but please don't just redirect all without moving over the content from the individual articles. Although a lot of it overlaps, not all of it does. Andre (talk) 21:06, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Then why didn't you say that at Talk:Nintendo 64#merger proposal before I closed it? I left the thing open for FIVE days, and NO ONE commented on it. I put merge templates on all the articles, so anyone who was watching the page knew to go to that discussion. MuZemike 21:36, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Five days really isn't that long. I don't check my watchlist every day, and when I do it's often very selective as to which diffs I read. Anyway, I'm not saying I'm opposed to the merge, but please do merge and don't just redirect. Andre (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I'll request comment at WT:VG leave it open longer, and, if necessary, request that an admin close it. Luckily, I didn't prod them or they would be gone by now (I knew very well that they were, at a minimum, plsusible search terms for the list items). MuZemike 21:46, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
I probably should have requested comment at WT:VG instead of boldly doing it myself. Maybe someone will recommend something, now. MuZemike 21:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
Bold is fine, and I'm not saying you did anything wrong by being bold, I'm just pointing out that there was some content on the redirected pages that you didn't merge in. Discussions don't need to be closed, they can stay open indefinitely. Andre (talk) 22:10, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Shari Lewis

Just saw your comment about Bradbeker's sock puppets, which you posted at WP:ANI. I'm curious: were all of Lewis' characters all real sock puppets? Nyttend (talk) 04:56, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

IDK. I suppose we'll be singing The Song That Never Ends til we figure that mystery out... MuZemike 23:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Abadox Gameplay Horizontal.png)

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:Abadox Gameplay Horizontal.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) 05:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Abadox Gameplay Vertical.png)

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:Abadox Gameplay Vertical.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) 05:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Tag question

You recently tagged List of Catholic Cardinals football coaches for cleanup... The article is short on text, but I don't see any other major issue. Would you explain? Strikehold (talk) 21:09, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Unless you cannot find any highlight notes in those years that just have the reference link, I would think you could put some content in there. If not, perhaps I would suggest placing an emdash instead of a reflink so it's not misleading. I hope that clarifies things a little; nothing big, however. MuZemike 21:16, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Thanks for explaining. I don't quite see why a reference tag without text would be misleading, though... They are there for each line, instead of at the end, because there is not one source for all of the data for the years in question. It was culled from multiple sources for different time periods. The Catholic site, for example, has it divided into separate pages by coaching eras. I suppose I could change the column title to "Notes and references" if that would improve clarity? Strikehold (talk) 21:23, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
You can keep it as "References". Let me clarify: there should be some content with that reference link, like you have with the ones that say "competed at the club level". MuZemike 21:27, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The content for the reference is the information on the row itself: coach, record, and years. For some of those coaches, there wasn't anything especially noteworthy, or I couldn't find much information on them. I'm sure there is something that could go in there for each of them, but then that is simply a matter of expansion, rather than cleanup... Strikehold (talk) 21:50, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


Hello MuZemike,

I noticed you marked an article as a stub using the {{stub}} template. Did you know that there are thousands of stub types that you can use to clarify what type of stub the article is? Properly categorizing stubs is important to the Wikipedia community because it helps various WikiProjects to identify articles that need expansion.

You can view the full list of stub types at WP:STUBS.

If you have questions about stub sorting, don't hesitate to ask! There is a wealth of stub information on the stub sorting WikiProject, and hundreds of stub sorters. Thanks! Ksbrowntalk 22:18, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Dashpot_arrangement_in_ICF_coaches - tagged as fictional ?

Hi there! You tagged Dashpot_arrangement_in_ICF_coaches with the in-universe tag which seems inappropriate for an article dealing with an entirely factual subject. Perhaps you intended to add a different tag; please could you take another look? (PS having recently copy-edited the article I agree with all the other issues you raised through the other tags - the article needs a lot of work or else a speedy deletion!) Cheers -- Timberframe (talk) 00:51, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, might have hit the wring one, there. Sorry! MuZemike 03:08, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


I see you 2nd'd a prod on 5x5=25, that prod was contested by the article's creator so it has been moved to AFD here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/5x5=25, you may want to add your comments.


I deleted it as not showing notability in general. It had one sentence of prose - Starforce is a 1984 flight simulated arcade game developed and published by Taito exclusively for the arcades. - no sources at all, and the text gives no indication of why this game is notable. jimfbleak (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

unreliable source?

What makes Bemanistyle an unreliable source? ViperSnake151 13:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Content is user-generated. Read WP:SPS. MuZemike 15:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Happy Saint Patrick’s Day!

Irish clover.jpg

On behalf of the Wikipedia:Kindness Campaign, we just want to spread Wikipedia:WikiLove by wishing you a Happy Saint Patrick’s Day! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 15:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Barbarian II: The Dungeon of Drax, question about unsourced tag you added

I'm wondering why you tagged Barbarian II: The Dungeon of Drax as unsourced. What part of it do you believe needs citations? Most information could be gotten just by looking at a screenshot of the box it came in. Not a lot of information to be had in games that simple. Dream Focus 02:54, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

It should still be shown (normally via inline citations) so that readers know where the content is coming from and to assure to readers that it is not original research. I'll change it to {{nofootnotes}} until they are added. I would recommend, next time, that citations be used because that is what most readers, reviewers, patrollers (like me) look for when verifying material.
Note that I am not questioning notability of the game; it very likely is notable—as with many other similar Amiga/C64/ZX Spectrum games—as there is likely much coverage in those applicable magazines. MuZemike 03:14, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I also did some small cleanup (i.e. italics, eliminating instances of "you", etc.) to get it in the right direction. MuZemike 03:32, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
I never played the game, just stumbled across the article for its prequel, there a bit about it there, which I copied over to its own article. I'm not sure where any citations could be added though. Dream Focus 03:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
If all of it is coming from the box, then just add one citation at the end of that section. MuZemike 03:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

ProD of Aeroallergen

Your prod was too hasty. Please be more careful in the future. Bearian (talk) 15:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I know. That's why I left it be instead of going to AFD on it. MuZemike 16:20, 19 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you; no harm done. (I've done the same thing.) Bearian (talk) 17:00, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

3RR report

Please try to ensure that users are warned prior to reporting, as in this case the user was relatively new to Wikipedia and thus should have been given adequate warning of the policies they may be in breach of which they're unlikely to be familiar with. Any further disruption after the warning warrants a report on the 3RR noticeboard, unless of course they're a well established user and should have known better. Overall, remember to assume good faith. Thanks. Nja247 09:25, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Resident Evil

Duly taken to (this) AfD, thanks for the heads up though. - Jarry1250 (t, c) 22:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Badagnani RFC

Hello, MuZemike. Eugene2x (talk · contribs) files WP:Requests for comment/User conduct on Badagnani (talk · contribs). Since you've known him for his behaviors, your input on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Badagnani would appreciated. Thanks--Caspian blue 01:52, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Can't look at it right now, but I'll try to comment when I get a chance to sit down and look at it more closely. MuZemike 02:47, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of 5x5=25

I'm confused as to why you think that my article on the 5x5=25 exhibition of 1921 is worthy of deletion. You stated that "I can only find a trivial mention in a Socialist newspaper here, but nothing else. Notability not established, unless offline sources can be found." Searching on Google for "5x5=25" and "Rodchenko", for example, I find it mentioned in many articles on Constructivism in good quality newspapers, art galleries, and some journals. By searching Google Books, it also returns quite a number of results.Jimjamjak (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Add them in, then! I could be wrong. MuZemike 17:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Remember that notability is not established through one's perception of a subject, but through the amount of significant coverage in reliable secondary sources as I have mentioned before.
I quite understand that. I think that given the current recreation of this exhibition in the largest art museum in the UK, it is not just me who thinks it might be notable. I was slightly put out because I didn't feel I had been given a chance to barely start the article before it was tagged for deletion.Jimjamjak (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Also remember that if you are contesting the deletion to please remove the Proposed Deletion tags from the article. That shows that the proposed deletion has been contested. It still, however, may be sent to Articles for deletion for a community discussion. Hope that helps out more. MuZemike 17:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the help here.Jimjamjak (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

AbsoluteTelnet DRV

Hi! Thanks for the additional comments on Wikipedia:DRV#AbsoluteTelnet. I left further comments on the DRV page regarding AbsoluteTelnet in print. I found four print sources that mention AbsoluteTelnet. Is this the kind of thing you're looking for? You said you might consider a relist if I was able to find other source material, particularly print sources. Also, could you explain to me what "this is not AFD round 2" means? I see you repeat that in a number of DRVs but I'm not sure what it means. --Brian Pence (talk) 17:27, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

"This is not AFD round 2" normally means that you're either trying to re-argue the points made at the relevant AFD or are making arguments that are normally made at AFD. DRV is different in that it is used either because the closing administrator may have made a faulty judgment in deleting (or keeping) an article at AFD or via CSD, or if new information pops up after the AFD closure which may have resulted in a different result in the AFD if presented then.
I would be for relisting it now that it looks like you have something there (I'll change appropriately on the DRV page) for notability. Hopefully, everyone else can do the same.
Hope this helps out. MuZemike 17:35, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Rufus (Street Fighter)

Updated DYK query On 27 March, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Rufus (Street Fighter), which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Gatoclass (talk) 01:00, 27 March 2009 (UTC)


ta very (RNLB Mary Stanford) ClemMcGann (talk) 23:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Ratchet & Clank Future: A Crack in Time

Could take a look at the Ratchet & Clank Future: A Crack in Time page. I copied some stuff from my sub-page, but I need you to add more if needed. — HK22 \my contributions/ (my talk) 02:24, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: I'm not a leader

O.K, I understand. I thought that since you made the Task Force, you were the leader. But again, I understand. GamerPro64 (talk) 01:16, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, you can link it all the way back to Tree Biting Conspiracy, who created the old WikiProject Nintendo. I simply came along and pretty much boldly converted it into a task force when quite a few just simply wanted it redirected to WP:VG. Nintendo is too big for that. With the 900+ pages, it needs some collaboration/coordination apart from the otherwise already-excellent job WPVG has done on a large scale. MuZemike 04:31, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Stacey Nelson

I dont personally know Stacey Nelson but I do know that she is one of the top women athletes in the entire country and I was surprised she didnt have a wikipedia page. As for my username, I couldnt think of a good one so I just created this one so it was a name I could easily remember. I edited the page, I didn't want to be hit by the conflict of interest banner. Thank you for your time. UFGatorsSports (talk) 08:15, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but your username sounds like you officially represent the University of Florida Athletic Department. Apologies I you took any offense for my slapping a COI tag on the article, as that is what I thought. MuZemike 15:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Roblox on Wikipedia .


You removed my link to the roblox Sup-page and said that once it is back in the Main space it can be listed again. The problem is we can't get it back in the main space. I thought that the purpose of that section was to further the coverage of video games on Wikipedia. If you search roblox up, you will see it is one of the most popular online games on the web, yet there is still no Wikipedia coverage.--gordonrox24 (talk) 20:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

That section is for new articles in the mainspace, not for userfied pages. That is regardless the perceived notability of the game. As I noted in that edit summary, it can be added on that list if it makes it back onto the mainspace. MuZemike 20:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Okay thanks!--gordonrox24 (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

RPGFan as an unreliable source

I've noticed you listed Final Fantasy V for Good Article Reassessment. However, you've placed unreliable source templates next to statements by RPGFan. I'm sure this has been brought up in the past, but this website is sourced by numerous Good and Featured Articles; see pages that link to it. If you question it in on one articles, shouldn't you question it on all of these articles? If need be, we can begin a discussion with WikiProject Video games. ~ Hibana 00:41, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Those are reader reviews that I flagged down (i.e. user-generated content like the user reviews found on Gamespot or IGN). The other ones look like they come from people who edit for that site and hence are subject to the normal fact-checking et al that are characteristic of a reliable source. For example, take Gamespot's coverage of Command & Conquer: Red Alert 3. This review was done by one of their professional editors who work for that site, which has been editorialized and fact-checked for accuracy. Hence, this would be considered reliable. However, this review was user-generated by a user and has not been editorialized or checked for accuracy. This falls under self-published material and hence is not relliable, as stated in the verifiability policy. That's how I see it with RPGfan and as with every other reliable site for video games—not all reviews (particularly user-generated) are considered reliable to use. I hope that adequately explains it. MuZemike 01:09, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
I see. Thank you for clarifying. ~ Hibana 01:14, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Beef O'Brady's

If there truly so many sources out there to prove notability, how come they aren't in the article as well as the info those sources supposedly have? I will check back on the article in a few days. If the sources aren't there, I am putting it up again to be deleted. Postcard Cathy (talk) 01:19, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

It just needs to be shown that sources exist for notability; they need not necessarily to be in the article to establish that. AFD or PROD are not for cleanup; we don't delete unsourced articles that clearly demonstrate notability (though for BLPs that is currently being hotly debated and is on the forefront of the flagged revisions drive, but that's beside the point), and there is no deadline in doing so. As far as notability is concerned (apologies for not showing explicitly on the article's talk page), but Google news search here comes back with plenty of good sources, and I am sure there are more in the regular Google search. MuZemike 01:30, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Graeae Theatre Company

You were one of the people who voted to Speedy Keep this article as obviously notable. The same editor who put it up for AFD under flimsy rationale is now tagging it with a notability tag, despite overwhelming consensus of the AFD. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look. DreamGuy (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Check out the user's contribs today – Special:Contributions/Azviz. It definitely looks like there is a bigger problem going on. I'm running this through ANI; perhaps the Old Guard can make sense of this. MuZemike 18:08, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Happy Easter!

Hase mit Ostereiern (2).jpg

On behalf of the Kindness campaign, I just wanted to wish my fellow Wikipedians a Happy Easter! Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 07:20, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

RfA comment

Hello MuZemike. I left a note over at WP:Requests for adminship/Law regarding your comment on SPI contributions. EdJohnston (talk) 19:38, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Dublin Pride


Noticed that you tagged my entry for speedy deletion. I have attached arguments against this on the talk page. Note this entry has already been edited by admins.

But I still would like to know why you decided to tag it for deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martin-09-DP (talkcontribs) 23:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2009 April 11, which you already sent to. I have sense to believe that you are frustrated with how that is going and are attempting to shirk the deletion process by recreating under a different article name (note the different capitalisation), especially while the deletion review is still going on. This can be construed as being disruptive. I saw the original version of the article, and there is nothing different from this. It is still as attempt at spam, and it still looks like it's not notable (though I would argue it wouldn't fall under WP:CSD#A7). It also doesn't matter if other similar LGBT festivals exist (see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS). In either case, it still falls under the criteria for speedy deletion, and it was inappropriate to recreate it with no changes to it that can address the reasons as to why it was deleted in the first place, not to mention during a still–open deletion review on it. MuZemike 23:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)
Note – I did not catch the comment made by PhilKnight on that DRV, nor did I realise that it was userfied into your userspace and brought back. I'll assume good faith. However, that section "Volunteers" is not within our guidelines, and I will remove that. Please accept my apologies, MuZemike 23:40, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Chocolate Castle

Hi MuZemike, sorry you're having techincal trouble ATM, I've tried to fix the above article with your suggestions. If you can would you let me know if I'm on the right track? A gameplay section which doesn't convey the game properly is troubling indeed, hope it's an improvement. Someoneanother 23:45, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, as you may have noticed, I cannot get online much until I get this straightened out. Hopefully my new motherboard comes in within the next couple of days. As a result, I am obligated to give you an additional full week to make any additional corrections. Take your time on making any fine adjustments needed. MuZemike 05:16, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Abadox Gameplay Horizontal.png)

Ambox warning blue.svg Thanks for uploading File:Abadox Gameplay Horizontal.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) 05:50, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

GA Check

You're very thorough, and that's very good. As for the prose you should definitely point out as much as you can; your rationales are very well-reasoned, but again you don't need to fail or place on hold over minute problems. I think that you're doing a good job with your decisions, although I believe that Chocolate Castle's development section actually could have been fixed with an on hold. It's better to err on the strict side than the lenient side, and you're doing a good job of maintaining good quality. bibliomaniac15 The annual review... 20:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

That was placed on hold for a bit (about five days or so) before deciding to fail it, when it was indicated that it couldn't be fixed at that particular time. MuZemike 01:11, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay. In that case I agree with your decision. bibliomaniac15 The annual review... 01:13, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

When you said "The Development section seems all over the place and not exactly going from one point to another", you meant the reception section, right? bridies (talk) 21:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, my bad. MuZemike 05:23, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
OK, addressed all the points, I think. I'd never heard of Microcosm but it does sound very similar, plot wise. I wonder if any third party sources noticed. bridies (talk) 00:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Fixed the dates. bridies (talk) 22:22, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Not really a surprise, I guess...

That guy who accused you and me and some one else of being sockpuppets was blocked today... for having used five sockpuppet accounts to attack people. Go figure. DreamGuy (talk) 01:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

I KNEW IT!!!! I knew back at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Graeae Theatre Company there was something fishy going on (as well as the corresponding ANI post). As Baseball Bugs put it so eloquently: "weasel". MuZemike 15:24, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Blue Dragon GAN

Okay I have addressed all of your concerns for the article.--(NGG) 22:16, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Prose in the story section is good, but you forgot to add a reference to the end of the Development section, before the Audio subsection: Later in an issue of Weekly Shōnen Jump, it was announced that Blue Dragon Plus is in the works for the Nintendo DS. This game will be a real-time simulation RPG and feature 2D sprite graphics. MuZemike 22:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Addressed.--(NGG) 22:23, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Passed. MuZemike 22:44, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the review.--(NGG) 22:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

spa tag on FreeOrion

While it's entirely possible that the IP address you tagged is intended to be a sockpuppet account for an existing editor, I'd like to recommend that you remove your tag as by definition IP addresses are not Single Purpose Accounts. Only an actual account can be. A great many internet service providers have diversified networks in which users pull an address upon each connection, so wikipedia cannot assume that an IP address belongs to any one person, or that one person uses the same IP address from one edit to the next. In this case there are no other edits from that address but as I say it's possible that the next time that individual logged in they had a different address. And of course it's entirely likely that an existing editor simply forgot to log in before making their edit.

Please assume good faith. I'm of the opinion this article does not meet the criteria for inclusion, but there's no reason to be uncivil, even unintentionally. Please feel free to ignore this suggestion if you prefer, it was unsolicited. Hope all else is going well for you. -Markeer 23:22, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

First, it is not uncivil to tag users as suspected SPAs. There are other users and IPs in that AFD that have also been tagged as such. If whomever is logged in wants to indicate that the edit was made while logged out, then they can indicate so on the page and subsequently remove the tag. The same type of disruptive editing as well as sock and meat puppetry can and has occurred solely from IPs. I should also point to the off-wiki canvassing attempt also present, which provides more justification to exercise caution. MuZemike 00:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


(&Quote,)There are literally thousands upon thousands of articles , including Category:Stubs, that are in desperate need of improvement. I still have yet to create my own article; I helped improve existing articles (i.e. created by someone else) to Good Article status and beyond. There has to be something out there that will help you improve some articles here. Don't give up! MuZemike 08:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC) (&Quote) Uh Yeah Thanks I suppose? ...

  • runs*