User talk:Jtalledo/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Jtalledo! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to insure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. if you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 331 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Michael Alter - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 19:17, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Edits to Criticism of Family Guy

I've replied to your comments about my edits here. I'd also appreciate your views on my comments in this section. Bertcocaine (talk) 14:52, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Re-version

Hi. You PRODded this as a neologism, and as the PROD expired I deleted it just now. But when I came to look at "What links here" to see if there was any tidying up to do, I found that it is referenced from over a dozen articles, and it seems that the term is fairly widely used; so I have restored it. I am letting you know in case you choose to take it to AfD; I wouldn't recommend that as, though it could do with sourcing, it seems to be serving a useful purpose. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 08:07, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

I never said the article was an orphan in my proposed deletion rationale. And second of all, about half those links are related to the show Power Rangers, so it seems that the term is being used primarily in the context of that show. A quick Google search doesn't show many relevant results for the term either. And the article is completely uncited. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:32, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

No, I wasn't intending to criticise, just explaining why I thought on the whole it should stay: it isn't one of the newly-invented neologisms we get so often, it has been around some time and it seems to be serving a purpose. I agree it's uncited and far from an ideal article, but zapping it would mean a bit of tidying up all the links to it, and on balance I think we're better off with it. But feel free to AfD if you like. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 14:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Fair enough. I was actually thinking about re-merging it with reversion. Thanks for clarifying - it would be great if more admins were as good at communicating. :) --Jtalledo (talk) 22:09, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. —DoRD (talk) 13:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for noticing that. I hate it when the sources are wrong. :/ Theleftorium ^(talk) 14:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Street Fighter

Whups. Sorry about deleting those older entries. I'm on a wonky mac at my fiancee's house so I don't trust this buttonless mouse. :) Andrzejbanas (talk) 14:53, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

Dreamcast

You can not remove the independent release discussion as all commercial activity for the Dreamcast from 2003 todate has been independent therefore it is essential that it is mentioned in the consoles history. Independent Games have grown increasingly significant over the years and are covered by big gaming website such as kotaku, joystick and several others: http://kotaku.com/5355311/happy-birthday-dreamcast-heres-a-new-game

Also note these are commercially released independent games, not homebrew games. The only reason they are released as independent games is to keep the prices economical!--Cube b3 (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

7 years of commercially released independent games, Sega stopped supporting the Dreamcast in 2004. Even the Sega released games such as Radio Allergy, Karous are from independent studios.

As I've explained to you, these games are commercial not homebrew games that deserve a brief mention and I am working on the citation right now. If you still feel indepedent games need to be summarised discuss the changes first.--Cube b3 (talk) 05:36, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Wonder wizard of oz tv title card.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Wonder wizard of oz tv title card.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Yakuza spin-offs

So is Kenzan!, going by the exact same link you put in the edit summary, but that's still there. So... do we put them in a separate section (for spin-offs) or remove them both? Or could you put them in the order they were and just have a kind of note which basically says "This is a spin-off"? I don't know, but... you can't really have one without the other. Don't know if you just missed it or what, but, thought I may as well say something. ~Chelsea (talk) 19:32, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Team America

Understood; it was just hard to believe the the characters actually are puppets, ya know? • GunMetal Angel 05:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of List of active drive-in theaters for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article List of active drive-in theaters, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of active drive-in theaters until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Otters want attention)} 21:28, 26 October 2010 (UTC)