User talk:Pagrashtak/archive6

Unblanking of a deprecated template

Hello again Pagrashtak. I noticed you reverted the blanking of the deprecated template {{CVGPeerreview}}. Is there any reason you think deprecated templates should place the old code as well as the deprecation notice? I'm not sure I understand the reason for the reversion. —[admin] Pathoschild 02:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it because every other deprecated template I had seen up to that point had not been blanked. What is the purpose of blanking the template? If you blank it, one has to search through the history to find out what the template looks like. Why not just have it available? Pagrashtak 17:41, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Deprecation phases out one template in favour of another. Disabling the old template is a part of that, although leaving it visible doesn't much affect the process. —[admin] Pathoschild 03:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I know what deprecation is, I'm just saying that deprecated templates I had seen up to that point had not been blanked. I was just trying to follow what I believed the standard was. Pagrashtak 03:58, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

FARpassed

Thanks. I wasn't sure exactly how to do it but I saw the code in the Template:Featured so I copied it from there. Axem Titanium 18:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Bereishit FAC

Could I ask you to reply please? If your objection has not yet been addressed, I'd like to deal with it. Dev920 (check out this proposal) 17:44, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Template Barnstar

		The Template Barnstar
		For helping me out in {{Animorphs Books}} and intergrating the {{cvgproj}} with several other boxes, I award you the template barnstar. Your modifications inspired me to align the {{StarWarsProject}} in a similar fashion (portal, selected articles), which you also helped me out with. Thanks. Hbdragon88 21:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey, thanks! It's very much appreciated. Pagrashtak 02:14, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Redirects and XHTML

Thanks for your comment. I have replied on my talk page —dto (talkcontribs) 03:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Super Mario 64

I'm glad you're trying to improve the article. As much as I would love to make over the article of one of the greatest games ever made, I've got my hands full with another one. :) But I'd still like to help you out, so here is the section "THE MAKING OF MARIO" from Steven L. Kent's book, The Ultimate History of Video Games: From Pong to Pokemon--The Story Behind the Craze That Touched Our Lives and Changed the World (2001). Here is an Amazon link detailing the book so that you can cite it properly. I don't believe Amazon mentions the location of publication, but it is New York. Without further ado, here is the text, taken from pages 529 and 530:

Shigeru Miyamoto, creator of Donkey Kong, Mario, Zelda, Yoshi, and Star Fox, entered the video game industry with a unique philosophy that was always reflected in his games. "When you draw a laughing face, your face should laugh," he once explained in an interview. "When you draw an angry face, your face should be angry. The character will capture your emotion. The emotions and fun in a game are not made while thinking about business."

By the time Nintendo launched Nintendo 64 (N64), Miyamoto had been creating games for nearly twenty years. He had witnessed and aided the evolution of the business, software, and technology of video gaming. His first game, Donkey Kong, was created by a five-man team and contained approximately 20K of code. Now, as he made the flagship game for N64, his team had swollen to more than fifty members. Instead of 20K, he and his team would write 8 megabytes of code - more than 400 times more code than in Donkey Kong. Instead of designing levels that fit on a single screen, they created enormous 3D landscapes complete with trees, castles, and dinosaurs. Adapting to this new challenge, Miyamoto created a new philosophy. While most game designers were coming up with features, then building their games around them, Miyamoto worked on creating expressive landscapes, then created ways to use them.

"One thing that was different with Super Mario 64 was [that] we wanted to make some snow mountain, a really big one. That came first, and afterward we asked [each other] for the ideas about how to make use of this mountain.

It was as if we were building up an amusement park. We first found our location. We purchased the mountain, and afterward, we thought of some interesting things we wanted to implement on the mountain." - Shigeru Miyamoto

Super Mario 64, Miyamoto's lead game for N64, did a better job of bringing a two-dimensional side-scrolling game into the world of 3D than any game before it. To accomplish this, Miyamoto's team used all of the old characters and objects made popular in early Mario games, then incorporated new devices that could only occur in a 3D environment. The big end battles, for instance, pitted Mario against a much larger foe on a huge 3D platform. The only way for Mario to win was to circle around the enemy.

Building from Miyamoto's amusement park analogy, Super Mario 64 included huge slides and other kinds of activities that bought true variety to the game. Everybody at Nintendo recognized the game as a masterpiece; the only problem was that Miyamoto was taking too long to build it. According to Hiroshi Imanishi, Nintendo president Hiroshi Yamauchi's right-hand man, the release of N64 was delayed until Miyamoto was satisfied with Super Mario 64. The delay would have been even longer, but Yamauchi finally told Miyamoto that the game was good enough.

If you have access to academic databases such as LexisNexis, Academic Search Premier, or Proquest (search for old New York Times articles), I would highly recommend those. If not, I can always try to add in stuff later. Good luck! (For the record, I've given this exact same message to a couple other editors). --Tristam 06:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

comments on Air Force One FAR

Just curious, you listed out five or so problems with the article. Why didn't you simply make the edits? I just hit two of them in five minutes. I guess I don't really understand the featured review system or something. ericg ✈ 17:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

The main reason is that if I state that the article is not of featured quality without saying why, other editors will complain that my comment is not actionable. Thus, I pick a few problems from the article and state them. If the problems I stated were the only problems with the article, I probably would fix them myself. Another reason is that if I remove an image from the article because I do not feel it is fair use, it almost always gets put back. By stating that I do not feel the image is fair use on the review, I bring this issue to light; either the image is removed, or it is clear to other editors that a problem exists. Pagrashtak 16:35, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Cvgproj problems

See Talk:Advance Wars: Dual Strike. The old-peer-review paramater is messed up. I don't know how or why this happened, and I don't figure out how to fix it... Hbdragon88 02:48, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Howard Stern Sirius.jpg

Hello! Can you help? You implicitly approved Howard Stern Sirius.jpg a few months ago by correcting the appropriate tag on the page. Someone just tagged it for possible deletion. I will be out of town and unable to defend it. I see you are an administrator, so any help will be appreciated. --Bark 13:54, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Ogre Battle Black Queen box art.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ogre Battle Black Queen box art.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 16:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Deleted image not deleted from international Wikipedia

Deletion log for Image:Norderney - 1.jpg reads: 21:10, 18 February 2007 Pagrashtak (Talk | contribs) deleted "Image:Norderney - 1.jpg" (no copyright status for 7+ days - CSD I4)

While not contesting the deletion nor the reason for it, I should point out that the image is still hosted at http://nl.wiki.x.io/wiki/Afbeelding:Norderney_-_1.jpg . Clearly if an image is deleted in one language it should be deleted in all of them, but there doesn't seem to be any simple procedure for this. Lee M 02:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

That's not actually true. The rules concerning allowed images vary between the different language Wikipedias. For example, here at the English Wikipedia we allow fair use images in some situations, but other languages forbid them altogether. I don't work on the nl Wikipedia, let alone have the power to delete images there. Pagrashtak 04:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Thank you for the suggestion. I'll add those date tags to images I have already tagged, and will on others in the future. :) - Deathrocker 00:13, 4 March 2007 (UTC

Kappa Kappa Psi

If you're deleting the information I re-added to the Kappa Kappa Psi article, then you need to delete it from every fraternity and sorority article that has similar information straight out of their constitutions or websites. — BrotherFlounder 12:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Please feel free to remove any copyrighted material you find yourself. Or, if you prefer, you can report suspected copyright violations at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Pagrashtak 03:16, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Zelda articles

Hey. Sure, I'll give you a hand on them tomorrow (or, actually, later today). I'm about to head to bed though, but I'll be on tomorrow. — Deckiller 06:00, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I gave the development section a quick look, and turned the triforce trilogy into a disambiguation page. Perhaps a paragraph on each individual game's development can be found to give the two sections a bit of a difference? — Deckiller 16:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, one of the Zelda editors reverted my dab page without explanation. I left a note on that user's talkpage, and no response was given. Perhaps resistance to change is what has kept a lot of these articles in their current state? — Deckiller 00:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Comma

Huh, thanks for that. I was always told you don't use a comma to seperate the last two things in a list, I guess that it's basically a matter of opinion and both are acceptable. TJ Spyke 22:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Please add!

I CAN PLAY ORGAN TO!!! Do you write? I do. I came to ask if you can add to my articles: BWV 540, BWV 564, Toccata and fugue in E major, etc. I really need some more people to add to keep them from getting deleted. I don't think they are, but they might do to no one adding and it's small content. Aaron Pepin

Oracles

Hi there. I was hoping we could talk about these edits to Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages a little. First off, I take your point about Flagship. I had toyed with changing Capcom to Flagship, and had only left Capcom because that's what the article stated before I started working on it. It's fine with me to leave Flagship in the lead.

I feel that my version of the lead is a better summarization of the article, per Wikipedia:Lead section, which states "the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". Your edits, which reduced the lead from three paragraphs to one, in the case of Ages, has no summarization of the Development section, which is the most interesting part of the article. You also removed summarization of the Plot and Gameplay sections. As such, I do not feel that your lead serves as a "concise version of the article" — do you?

On a somewhat separate note, please be careful when deleting named references, especially those placed early in an article. You'll notice that your edit to Ages broke reference 11. Also, may I ask why you changed the {{See also}} template to the redirect seealso?

By the way, glad to see on your user page that you're in a good Wikimood; I hope we can discuss this without bringing it down. Pagrashtak 14:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, one reason I reverted is because you didn't do a partial revert; your intentions were to revert back to the lead with plot and gameplay and development in the lead, but you reverted content unrelated to that logic.

And on the note of content in the lead, I do not see how development is important in the lead. All the readers need to know in the lead is basic info on its release and how it plays. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I did in fact do a partial revert. I did not revert your deletion of the character list, because I was intending to do the same thing when I rewrote the Plot section. I've already explained why development is important in the lead. Consider these passages from Wikipedia:Lead section: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article", "Many users read only the lead, so it should be self-contained and cover the main points.", and "The relative weight given to points in the lead should reflect the relative weight given to each in the remainder of the article." If the lead does not cover the largest section of the article, how does it comply with the Manual of Style as quoted here? I intend to restore the expanded lead as I continue to work on the article, given my statements here, which I feel most experienced editors would agree with. If you wish to pursue the version of the lead that does not comply with the MOS, I suggest you ask for the input of fellow editors to see if they agree. Pagrashtak 03:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You also reverted my edits of the first paragraph, though, which was not part of your intention. Additionally, development is extra information that does not need to be represented in the lead. I very rarely see development info in the lead. And I can concede gameplay and plot, but just because there's lots of info on development does not make it particularly important enough to be in the lead. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree that I don't usually see development info in the lead, but that might be because I don't usually see much development info in video game articles. The next time I edit the lead, I'll take a closer look and keep the Flagship reference, etc. Pagrashtak 03:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care. The main reason I reverted Ages was because you altered the lead back to the original version. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I can understand that. By the way, I noticed you mentioned elsewhere that A Link to the Past is on your short-list for upcoming work. Let me know if you need a hand with something there, or need some copy edit help with it. I'm barely finding enough time to work on the Oracle articles right now, but I'd like to see all of the main Zelda game articles at GA or better. Pagrashtak 03:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Assuredly, I've got the Plot section done - Hell, a friend of mine is helping out with it by taking screenshots to put in it. Other than Plot, anything else is probably not great and could use some copyediting. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Reversion of CVG->VG fix

I am fixing links from "computer and video games" to point to "video game" after a restructure discussed here. I have fully read the policy on not fixing redirects that are not broken, and was reassured by administrators and other editors that fixing these links should not cause a disturbance. While I do not quite understand the harm or discourtesy in fixing the non-displayed part of a link while leaving the visible part as-is, I appreciate your comment. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 05:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Note: I've posted a more in-depth explanation and reply to your concern at my talk page. *Vendetta* _{(whois talk edits)} 13:29, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Burlon4.JPG

Hi there, meandering through "Random article"s (as one does) came across this image. It looks like the original poster wanted to revoke the license but then you reverted. Can you tell me why you did that? (I am only curious as I have uploaded a couple of images and am still trying to get to grips with licensing/copyright etc.) I also note that the original author never did come back to challenge the reverts so he can't have been that bothered. Thanks for your help. Mmoneypenny 20:31, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the uploader soured on Wikipedia and decided to leave the project. That's fine and is his right. However, his text contributions are licensed under the GFDL, and the image is question is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution ShareAlike License v. 2.5. These are non-revocable. We want others to be able to freely distribute and adapt our encyclopedia as permitted by these licenses. We could not do this if we were to allow users to remove their contributions. If you're wondering why I got involved in the situation, my admin duty of choice is deleting images. I came across this image and several others by the uploader and restored their licenses to clear the backlog of images marked for deletion. I hope this answers your question. Pagrashtak 23:34, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks for clearing that up for me.Mmoneypenny 04:55, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Lage Raho Munna Bhai FAC

Hi! Thanks for your observations in the FAC of Lage Raho Munna Bhai. Two images have been removed. One image, Image:Munnaradio.jpg seems to have adequate fair use rationale for the article. I request you to please review the images once again. If still the images are found to have problems, those will be removed at once. One query: are posters ok for the article? For example, Image:Lage Raho poster4.jpg, Image:Lage Raho poster3.jpg and Image:Lage Raho poster2.jpg (provided, of course, they are relevant to some portion of the text). Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 07:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Replied at FAC. Pagrashtak 16:02, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

York City FAC

Does this mean the images can only be used on the York City F.C. article? Mattythewhite 16:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Part of the misunderstanding comes from the common use of the phrase "Fair use image". There really use no such thing as a "fair use image", there is only a non-free image which an editor feels can be used in a particular circumstance under fair use. As Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria#10 explains, "The image or media description page must contain: For each article for which fair use is claimed, the name of the article and a 'fair use rationale' as explained at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline. The rationale must be presented in a manner that can be clearly understood and which is relevant to the article in question." (emphasis mine)

You can't just say "This article is fair use because...", you have to give the article and explain why the image qualifies for fair use in that particular article. I hope this helps, and feel free to ask if you have any more questions. Pagrashtak 16:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Pagrashtak, I think I've been able to add a suitably specific fair-use rationale all non-free images within the article. Would you be kind enough to have a last look at it and determine what, if any, course of action remains to be taken before you could offer your support to the FA nomination? Many thanks.. The Rambling Man 16:49, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The rationale on Image:York City Logo.jpg is not article specific. Pagrashtak 17:29, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Of course. It's done now, many thanks. The Rambling Man 17:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

FA Status for Song Dynasty

For the pictures mentioned (and not mentioned), I have fixed their copyright status to the accurate license tags, and provided copyright links for each. I hope this is enough for you to strike your objection. Thank you, --PericlesofAthens 18:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at Image:Northern Song Dynasty, porcelain Ding Ware Bottle, 11th–12th century.jpg, but the copyright page you link to ([1]) mentions nothing about the GFDL or CC - why did you mark the image with false information? Pagrashtak 19:02, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I was basing that off all the other Freer Gallery of Art images at: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Freer_Gallery. I was not trying to mark anything with false info. I was using what I thought was standard.--PericlesofAthens 19:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, do you know then which type of copyright tags I should use according to what the Smithsonian says here:

Fair use of copyrighted material includes the use of protected materials for non-commercial educational purposes, such as teaching, scholarship, research, criticism, commentary, news reporting, and other content. Unless otherwise noted, users who wish to download or print text and image files from this Web site for such uses may do so without the Smithsonian Institution’s express permission, provided that they comply with the following conditions:

1. The content may only be used for personal, educational or noncommercial purposes;
2. Users must cite the author and source of the content as they would material from any printed work;
3. The citation must include all copyright information and other information associated with the content and the URL for the Smithsonian Institution website;
4. None of the content may be altered or modified;
5. Users must comply with all other terms or restrictions which may be applicable to the individual file, image or text;

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by PericlesofAthens (talk • contribs) 19:08, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

You should revert to the {{Smithsonian}} template and remove any PD, GFDL, or CC templates. I should add that I don't believe the images will qualify for fair use, however. Pagrashtak 19:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I just replaced them all with {{Smithsonian}} and removed any other tag templates. And why is it that you believe the images will not qualify for fair use? Is there somewhere else on the internet where you can find a free image (public domain) of an 11th century Chinese-stoneware Jun Ware planter? Plus, I haven't flooded the article with images from the Smithsonian, it's just that one in the beginning, and then the others are placed in a gallery towards the end. For a Featured Article, there should be the best quality images possible, to reflect wikipedia's best standards. The images of the Smithsonian definitely hold water in that department, so to speak. I doubt you or I could find an image on the internet of an 11th century stoneware piece that would equal the quality of the one from the Smithsonian. Thoughts?--PericlesofAthens 20:13, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You might take a look at Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, if you haven't yet. In particular, to use non-free media such as the Smithsonian images, there must be no free equivalent and it must be impossible to create a free equivalent. The internet has nothing to do with it. The high quality of the Smithsonian images does not strengthen a claim of fair use. Also, criterion 8 states "The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose." A gallery of non-free images at the bottom of an article is decorative, as there is no text beside it which it could illustrate. Do you assert that no free alternative image exists for these images, and is it impossible to create a free alternative? Pagrashtak 20:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What? Those images aren't just plopped towards the end indiscriminately and for no purpose. The art gallery is placed under the Culture section of the Song Dynasty article, as the lead paragraph describes Chinese art during the Song Dynasty (there's no better way to emphasize or enhance the text than to provide these images). As for the first picture, of the Jun Ware Planter, I suppose it's out of place. I'm thinking about moving it into the separate article created for Culture of Song Dynasty, or simply placing it in the Culture section of the Song Dynasty article. In any case, in regards to alternative images, I found this on the web for Jun Ware planter [2]. So far I can't find any copyright info for it. It's from a Glendale College website. It's not nearly as good as the Smithsonian picture, but what do you think?--PericlesofAthens 22:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any copyright information on that page. You need an image that's released under the GFDL, certain Creative Commons licenses, public domain, or any other free license. Pagrashtak 00:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Devil May Cry Featured Topic

I will try to turn it into a Featured Topic soon but first I will make DMC3 and Dante Featured Articles, as well as raising the series page to GA, it's always good to know we are doing a good job, Cheers! -凶 15:59, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey thanks for the peer review help on 1080° Snowboarding. It's a GA now, but I don't think it will be able to reach FA due to it's size.--Clyde (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting GA! Pagrashtak 17:55, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Nepenthes rajah photos

Greetings! It looks like you tagged several of the images on that page as replaceable non-free images. I was wondering if you could explain on the talk pages why you believe the fair-use rationale isn't valid. I'd like to use the disputed template, but I can't dispute the current template if I don't know what your problem with the rationale is. Thanks! --Rkitko ^(talk) 16:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

If you read the tag I placed on the images, it states the reason right there: "[I]t illustrates a subject for which a free image might reasonably be found or created that adequately provides the same information." Pagrashtak 17:54, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

{{futher}}

• • I have explained that in the links, that it's sister templates do not require explict wikilinking. Explict wikilinking makes it MUCH MORE COMPLITCATED!100110100 22:24, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Replied at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 2#Template:Further. There's no need to copy your comments from there to here, unless I appear to not have noticed them for a couple of days. Please refrain from yelling at me on my talk page. Pagrashtak 03:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)