Template:Archive box collapsible

Thanks! It's shaping up nicely, the only thing I am missing is information on the game's reception. If you know of any old magazines or whatnot that had reviews, I'd love to know about them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...And thanks for the barnstar! Hopefully Riven will be ready for FAC before the end of the month. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Myst soundtrack orig.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) 11:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with this edit. The type of information you deleted is discouraged on wikipedia and, furthermore, is somewhat irrelevant to the over all page. If you continue by deleting the rest of this section, please discuss it on the talk page first and consider incorporating the deleted information into the article. ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contrib) 02:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the article have to be deleted? There was one before. I only want people to know as much about the song as possible.

Many bands, like Nirvana and the Beatles, have B-sides with Wikipedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tezkag72 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the articles are very poorly sourced including Fear Factory. For example FF has almost no sources until Obsolete. And the later history is very poor sourced. Every single sentence should be sourced. Have a look for example on Slayer or Red Hot Chili Peppers to have a picture about how a sourced article looks like.--  LYKANTROP  16:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right. Cheers.

PS: That envelope you use for your signature is really cool. I just had to use it too - sorry. :) --  LYKANTROP  ✉ 17:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the rumor thing, I guess I put too much bias into it. -[[bitdefuser] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitdefuser (talk • contribs) 15:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. That quote is referring to "Date elements that do not contain both a day number and a month". See the sentence above the one you quote. Linking the full date, as I did, allows the MediaWiki software to format the item according to the date preferences of each individual user. See MOS:SYL for more information. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 13:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Portal (video game). However, on the Steam forums I and many other users of Steam came to a conclusion that "us" refers to GLaDOS and Chell, meanwhile "them" refers to the Combine, Resistance and possibly Gordon Freeman. You deleted it and labeled it as original research. So I have reverted it back to my version. Anyway, thank you for your contributions. If you have anything to say about this, please post on my talk page. --TONO459 (talk) 09:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the devs was there at the discussion and he agreed. So I beleive it is fact. --TONO459 (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Remo, the source of the story, has a reliable history; used to work for Shacknews, now does a few other things but still should be considered reliable. --MASEM 13:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I saw that you erased the link to the Wikia I placed in the article. I agree with your point, that it is still not quite as worthy to be added to the article, but my question is, when you think it will? What kind of content will it need to have in order to guarantee its inclusion in the article?

Thanks in advance,

--Dreyesbo (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I noticed you have removed my link from the X-files page. This page did not have a link to a trailer so I added one. This link did not carry any advertising or any 3rd party branding. Why was it removed?

Thanks,

Chris

--User:Cperrott wiki (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, if there is no official site link, it would be ok to add an external link to a trailer? I think people who are reading the wiki page about the movie may want to see a trailer of the same movie.

I may have mistakenly added the wrong link on one of the pages but not all of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cperrott wiki (talk • contribs) 07:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's no problem. I wasn't trying to be uncivil when I said it anyways, that's why I linked to it as well. It's true though, the guy was violating a lot of policies, and was obviously just doing it to provoke that kind of attention. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I get back from underway to discover my worlds are colliding. GNAH. Hi. -Nard 07:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edit comment was a little abbreviated. My point is more that there is a recommendation to merge in place so the notability flag is the wrong flag to use. The character is obviously notable enough for some level of inclusion in Wikipedia. Whether it merits its own article (which I believe it does) is another matter. Honestly, as an inclusionist, seeing the article is four years old, I think most of the burden of proof lies on the people who want to merge or excise the text. - BalthCat (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is the merger not completely relevent to the notability tag? If it is not sufficiently notable, do you actually think that arbitrary removal will take place? Or that an AfD will not result in a Merge? - BalthCat (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty simple really. There are no sources to establish any notability. The age of an article can't be used to circumvent one of Wikipedia's core policies. I think you may be confusing the tag with a speedy delete tag? The tag is placed there when an editor has concerns about a certain issue (in this case an obvious one), an issue that still hasn't been resolved. The merger request may be an effort to resolve it, but it doesn't stop that article having notability issues. If you want to remove it when address it first. Rehevkor ✉ 20:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not confused at all. The tag is simply *redundant*. - BalthCat (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. There're no sources to establish notability irregardless of the merger proposal. It's as simple as that really. Rehevkor ✉ 20:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then nominate the article for deletion. If it isn't notable enough to merge, it should be deleted outright, or made a redirect. No? Otherwise, the merger tag is all we need to see. - BalthCat (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's been tagged for notability for a while now.. and the merger has stalled. I'll nominate for deletion asap. Rehevkor ✉ 20:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cute. Don't bother, I'm going to redirect and create a dab page anyway. This has been ridiculous. - BalthCat (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? It was your suggestion. Rehevkor ✉ 21:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no connection with Pendulum. Would like to though... free festival tickets! But anyway I digress how on Earth can you claim my edits were a conflict of interest? People edit articles they read, why are they reading it? Because they have an interest in the subject. That goes against the idea of a wiki in general! It's like editing Lostpedia regrading Lost and saying that possibly you like Lost so don't edit. --   Dee4leeds  talk  contribs  all  15:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well Others in the world disagree. My reviews are always popping up on articles added by people I don't know. So I argue that it is professional and that I do work in the Music business! --   Dee4leeds  talk  contribs  all  16:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read it, not only am I a DJ and work in music, I am also very professional. Something which many people agree with. More than say Robert Christgau in my opinion, who I believe has a habit of either being narrow minded or lacking, but of course that is only opinion. --   Dee4leeds  talk  contribs  all  16:36, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But the conflict of interest page states to avoid or TAKE GREAT CAUTION! I didn't plaster it all over the page I was subtle and it doesn't effect the neutrality of the article. --   Dee4leeds  talk  contribs  all  17:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly you may have to read the article again. At no point have I broken a rule of wikipedia, if anything you have: WP:GAME. --   Dee4leeds  talk  contribs  all  23:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Clear? You accused me of trying to turn the In Silico page into a advertising ground for The Three Rs. When I simply added my review to the reviews section. And I find it ironic that you linked me to Good Faith article when the problem is the lack of yours. --   Dee4leeds  talk  contribs  all  09:17, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey mate; it seems that Twinkle cut off the link in my edit summary, so it makes no sense -- it was supposed to say "please see this ≈ The Haunted Angel 20:56, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Aw you shoulda kept that link -- it was there as a statement about Metallica and their opposition to filesharing. They deserve it anyways...what can't they buy because of people downloading their new songs, a new personal jumbo jet?...all well I guess I'm surprised it lasted an hour hah :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.18.3.14 (talk) 15:35, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure its really necessary? Other than the fact it says "Myst series" as the article title, and its made clear that it is the franchise in the first couple of words in the intro, it just looks wrong to have the same word repeated twice. The bulk of users will be reading it on a computer where they can see the images, there's no way we can possibly cater to all possible ways of looking at an article (for instance, the amount of articles on Wikipedia that aren't optimised for proper presentation on high resolution widescreen is rather high). The way I see it is an application of common sense (not to imply your reasons don't use common sense either), use of the title field when the logo doesn't use the title, or when there isn't a logo definitely makes sense and is required (see Mortal Kombat and Terminator (franchise). Same is true when the logo consists of more than just the title (see Star Trek), it looks presentable. However, it just doesn't seem presentable in my eyes to repeat the same word when the logo is only the title. -- Sabre (talk) 00:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I'm well aware that this blog entry does not make for a reliable source on its own. Still, the radio source did pick up on the story, the person being interviewed also happening to be the blogger and since the earlier citation of the radio did not provide a recording of the show in question, I decided to keep the blog entry, in order to provide additional context for our readers. Of course, with the new citation, that's no longer necessary. I listened to the radio feature again and rephrased the section's first sentence according to what was said, distortion and clipping being mentioned explicitly and dynamic range compression being comprehensively described in laymen's terms. The would-be quote is gone and I hope that's a revision we can work with. – Cyrus XIII ^(talk) 10:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I realized you were right. My apologizes. --HELLØ ŦHERE 21:46, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): Autoblock of 89.167.221.3 lifted or expired. Request handled by: J.delanoygabsadds 03:46, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the revert. I wasn't looking carefully and thought someone was waving the flag. I need my coffee, I guess. Drmargi (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't bite the newcomers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.81.156 (talk) 05:54, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Unlike some anonymous editors, I'm glad you're following protocol for contesting content. If you'd like to start a section of the article's talk page, I'd be glad to see what we can do to consolidate that information.--HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 03:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, actually. My mistake! Thanks for catching it. — pd_THOR ^{| =/\=} | 20:57, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

— This is going to be a long three or so days... MuZemike 06:19, 5 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ok this is the third time I've tried to post a reaction to your editing. why are you changing facts? Is it ecause they dont' fit your world view? i can backup anything I have put on the sight by the comments the fans leave. no one has checked just deleted the posts then send threatening messages to me. what the heck? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.172.176 (talk) 15:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Any material lacking a reliable source may be removed, but editors might object if you remove material without giving them sufficient time to provide references, and it has always been good practice, and expected behavior of Wikipedia editors (in line with our editing policy), to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them."

Also if you look the comments oare on teh dragonmount site the fan reaction to the split. Do you work for TOR books? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.172.176 (talk) 15:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok so how would you cite 100 plus angry blog comments? the site is referenced allready on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.172.176 (talk) 15:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

97.112.172.176: Please read Wikipedia:Reliable sources. Neither blogs nor blog comments meet standards for uses as sources on WIkipedia. --Pleasantville (talk) 16:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:97.112.172.176 seems to have just registered an account as User:HellinaBucket in order to continue inserting the same information. --Pleasantville (talk) 16:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not citing the Blog, I'm citing the comments of the fans which ARE fact. Tor financial stability i can understand but the comments is the reaction of the fans. If this wasn't able to be taken into account movie pages and book pagews wouldn't have "critical Response" as seen on several movie and book reviews. Also there seems to be no problem citing dragomount.com on the page as it is, kind of contradictory isn't it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.112.174.15 (talk) 15:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now now reread what you just sent me. if what you say is true no movie or artist page would have the section of Critical response. I am trying to say that this is not uni-popular decision by Tor books. Now another example would be things put on world leaders pages, do you think Hitler has a glowing review? NO, sad to say life isn't as peachy as you seem to be trying to enforce on others. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HellinaBucket (talk • contribs) 17:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You win! I'm editing all the "UNRELIABLE BLOG SOURCES" —Preceding unsigned comment added by HellinaBucket (talk • contribs) 17:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

kind of convienant isn't it? you don't like something that is said so you change it. I bet you loved G. Bush or at least thought everyone in the world did. amazing