User talk:JTBX/Archive 2

wp:in quiz

Hi, Sorry for the delay, I'm on an extended wikibreak with limited Internet access. Please ask the next question. Thanks. --Ragib (talk) 03:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

M-1 Carbine Revert War

The M1 carbine article is currently on lock down. An administrator has requested some discussion from memeber of the Firearms Wikiproject. Can you take a look? Sf46 (talk) 19:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vortigaunt, notability, referencing, content and structure.

Because edit summaries aren't long enough and aren't meant as forums to debate this over, I'm bringing it here. Vortigaunt fails to establish its in its current form. Notability is not a case of "I think it's notable so it must be", it needs to be proved - especially for fictional subjects like this - and that burden of proof is on the article's editors. From WP:NOTE:

"A topic is presumed to be notable if it has received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject."

Look at WP:FICTION#Defining_notability_for_fiction's examples of what sort of coverage can define notability:

"For articles about fictional concepts, reliable secondary sources cover information such as sales figures, critical and popular reception, development, cultural impact, and merchandise; this information describes the real-world aspects of the concept, so it is real-world content."

Notability is best established through reception: How have these characters been received by the critics? How popular are they with fans/normal non-critic people? These need to be fully referenced to reliable, secondary third-party sources. From that extends merchandising, if available (in this case it is). Design and development commentary is a further avenue to help reinforce that notability. Currently, the article does not have anything of this type, which is why the "additional references needed" template is not enough, nor does it actually help describe what needs to be done. Without any established notability, the article's place on an encyclopedia is put in complete jeopardy. However, a lack of these things this does not mean the article has absolutely no notability and should be deleted - that is not my opinion or motivation for this. The template states this fairly clearly:

"If you are familiar with the subject matter, please expand or rewrite the article to establish its notability. The best way to address this concern is to reference published, third-party sources about the subject."

Only if they cannot be produced does an article need deletion, but I would be suprised if this and headcrab were unable to do this. However, the burden of proof is on the authors of the article.

As for the fansite template, that is because of the structure and content of article, while not written from an in-universe perspective, is written entirely from the view of a Half-Life fan - people unfamiliar with the subject will not likely understand it - and goes into far, far too much detail (conflicting with the principle of Wikipedia not being a collection of indiscriminate information) for an article on a fictional element. WP:Fancruft#Tone and focus is the area in concern here:

"One of the major aspects of fancruft articles is that they tend to focus entirely on their subject's fictional relevance, as opposed to their place in the real world."

To remove this issue, a full rewrite is appropriate, in order to properly balance real-world relevance with their in-universe role. Look at some of good status or featured status articles on similar subjects in the VG Wikiproject. Elite (Halo) and Flood (Halo), both classed as good articles provide good examples of how to properly establish notability for an in-game species and properly describe the subject in encyclopedic terms. Vortigaunt does not do this at all, which is why the templates are all completely necessary.

I want to reiterate this point one more time though, just to make sure it is clear: the issue is not that the subject is not notable. The issue is that the article in its current form does not prove in itself that it is notable, nor does it treat the subject's relevance in the real-world. It is a surmountable problem. If I didn't think it could be fixed, the template up would say "Vortigaunt is being considered for deletion", rather the current ones. -- Sabre (talk) 20:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Headcrab also exhibits the same symptoms, but with that I'd be even more confident that its notability can be established. Headcrabs are kind of everywhere in the video gaming culture and press. The real issues arise with the other creatures. These do not express notability, and I doubt that they ever can, certainly not as individual articles. A merge with locations and events into a collective World of Half-Life article or something like that (see comparable example articles under the VG project) may be able to accomodate some of them. I decided against putting similar templates on them all mainly due to the inevitable backlash from angry fans, which is why they're only on Vortigaunt, in hope that perhaps I can spark something towards sorting that article out as a start. These articles have just been in this state for so long, it seems too many people have got used to the way they are.

The same notability problem lies with characters. Freeman, G-Man and Alyx will probably have very little trouble with dealing with establishing their notability, they are cult icons in video gaming. The rest, though, could be covered in a merged article such as a Characters of Half-Life and a minor characters list, which can then deal with generalised real-world commentary on Half-Life characters (again, see examples). I won't deny the size of this task, I started dealing with the universe topics related to the StarCraft series back in June 2007, and I'm still working on it with only the characters in a reasonable state and being readied for GA nomination. But, the results can be worth it. -- Sabre (talk) 22:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

userboxes

Fixed them.--Playstationdude (talk) 01:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There seemed to be a missing divider in them. I found out by just comparing them with the playstation project's box. I don't remember that problem before though. I think a guy working on the Sega Project's userbox thought it wasn't supposed to be there when he was using it to make the sega box.--Playstationdude (talk) 02:26, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Biopredatormask2.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Biopredatormask2.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Page Move

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to The Cloverfield creature, without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. We have some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

The topic was under discussion and I do not see any evidence that consensus had been reached. While being bold is appreciated, it's important to use or at least check discussion sections before making major changes. -Verdatum (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This references have been used and debated before. There is reasonable argument that it is not as concrete as you would make it seem to be. The concensus reached was that the page name was not optimal but sufficient until an official name for the creature was released. -Verdatum (talk) 18:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not move a page to a title that is harder to follow or move it unilaterally while discussion about it is underway. We have some guidelines to help with deciding what title is best for a subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you. -Verdatum (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please take this discussion to Talk:The Cloverfield creature. Thank you. -Verdatum (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to move pages to bad titles or before discussions about the title have ended, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -Verdatum (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -Verdatum (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not only does the director say it refers to the monster, "mutliple sightings of case designated Cloverfield" can't gramatically work any other way. We're allowed psuedonyms - I gave the example of Thirteen in House as well - we don't know her real name, so we use a reliably sourced psuedonym instead. Will ^(talk) 19:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's just silly and a bad argument. Will ^(talk) 19:57, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Biopredatormask2.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Biopredatormask2.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

February 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Rjd0060 (talk) 22:21, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked you for 24 hours to prevent your continued reverting on Cloverfield (creature). You had a warning about 3RR here and chose to continue. 1 2 3 4. During this block, I recommend reading WP:3RR and understand that edit warring is disruptive. In the future, if you have a dispute regarding certain content of the encyclopedia, please discuss things with the involved user(s), and do not constantly revert to a version that you prefer. - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JTBX (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Sorry, but I have already learned not to do any of this again. I have added the proper discussion on the talk page of the article as well. In short, I have learnt now, sorry! JTBX (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

reason — Sit out the rest of the 24 hours. One with your number of edits should know better. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:37, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Well dat's just great.JTBX (talk) 22:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Biopredatormask2.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Biopredatormask2.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 19:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

Thanks for uploading Image:Alienrunner.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) 06:31, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:Wicsoviet.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Wicsoviet.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Hux (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC) --Hux (talk) 22:53, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Hitman_south_park2.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Hitman_south_park2.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Nv8200p talk 14:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot create an image that is a derivative work of copyrighted material and use it on your User page. You cannot use any "fair use" images on your User page either. -Regards Nv8200p talk 02:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The image of the PlayStation is OK, if it was created from scratch. The reason is that the PlayStation would be considered a "useful object." Designs for useful objects, such as vehicular bodies, wearing apparel, household appliances, and the like are not protected by copyright. However, I believe the artistic style of South Park characters is unique enough that using a character that looks like a South Park character could be considered copyright infringement even though that exact character never existed. Your South Park character may not be transformative enough from the original work to be free of copyright. -Regards Nv8200p talk 16:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. NotifyBot (talk) 14:02, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job

Cookies!

Here are some cookies as a way of saying "thank you" for contributing to our project. Keep up the good work! Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 19:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC) 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.[reply]

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}}!

The cookies are for brightening the day of another Wikipedian. I saw that you were in the adopt a user program and took a look at your contributions. : ) Cheers! Wisdom89 _{(_T / ^C)} 20:29, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

Hello. I used to be an adopter but I quit, but you can ask me any questions if needed. But I can't officialy adopt you. Cheers.--RyRy5 (talk) 20:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome. Please don't refer to me as your adopter. Maybe just a good helper. So, any questions?--RyRy5 (talk) 20:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Mm... well, you should read some polocies at one of my subpages located here. They should help you a bit. I know their helping me. For article writing, read WP:ARTICLE for some but not all the tips of article writing. For avoiding drama, just try not to start it and always stay cool.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 02:29, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always here to help. BTW, you should start archiving soon.--RyRy5 (talk ♠ wikify) 00:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Communism

I didn't understand your remark in the article Communism. I reverted it thinking it might be vandalism. I assume now that it wasn't. You might want to fill in the edit summary before saving. It will help other editors understand what you are trying to do. Student7 (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

EndWar confusion

Fully understandable. I've made that mistake myself before! No hard feelings about it. I went back to the Tiberium and Mass Effect articles as well, and undid those revisions; both instances were of unsourced original research, especially the ME one about the PC criticism, which absolutely needed to be sourced. Peptuck (talk) 17:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption

Hey there, I saw you were still seeking adoption, so I thought I would drop in and offer my services. Let me know if you're still interested. Cheers, xenocidic (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^^ Let me know if you're still interested in being adopted, if not, we can remove the offer from your userpage. xenocidic (talk) 21:08, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since I didn't hear back from you, I removed you from the adoption seeking category. If you still want to be adopted, feel free to add {{subst:dated adoptme}} to your userpage again. xenocidic (talk) 03:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding opting out - yes, of course, any time. Adoption is really just so that you can have a "go-to" person if you need something answered. I used to create adoption subpages for people but I'm only doing that now if conversations get lengthy. Anyhow, feel free to drop by my talk page whenever you need anything. –xenocidic (talk) 14:27, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For more on nominating articles for good article status, see WP:GAN. One quick suggestion regarding your editing, ensure you are using descriptive edit summaries on every edit. If you go to Preferences → Editing → Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary then you can have WP remind you when you're making a change without typing one. cheers, –xenocidic (talk) 14:37, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]