Archives

October 2004–December 2005 January 2006–December 2006 January 2007–December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 Discussions older than a week are archived every Monday.

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Judge Judy.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. —Bkell (talk) 13:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry, I reverted this vandalism to previous revision "Because Frank and kyle are awesome at DIMUN" - without looking that previous edit was also vandalism. So thanks for reminding. Best. Atabek (talk) 18:31, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Time 100.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 19:32, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to leave it open a few days because technically it has only been open for nine, and it has unstruck opposition. So a few more days may help in getting that struck. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:01, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Elton John.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. —Bkell (talk) 05:15, 11 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading Image:Ben Croshaw.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Yamla (talk) 16:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you find that the actual license is different from the one that's on the page, I don't get why you can't just change it? I added 3.0 license when it should have been 2.0 license; I've fixed it now, but again, I don't see why the whole tagging process has to be done when it can be easily fixed and you already spent the time to check the license. Gary King (talk) 16:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I actually didn't see it, I thought it said "all rights reserved". I'm running a fever and should probably sign off from Wikipedia. Sorry. --Yamla (talk) 16:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Looking through your contributions, I see you spend a significant amount of time fighting vandalism. Thank you! Yamla (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Gary King (talk) 17:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

why did you delete my legit edit about Kurt Hahn217.7.211.221 (talk) 19:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This can be found in the book:

Kinder sollen sich selbst entdecken: Die Erlebnispädagogik Kurt Hahns

1. ISBN-10: 3828892043
2. ISBN-13: 978-3828892040

could you please add this source, as I am unfamiliar with editing that. Thank you. 217.7.211.221 (talk) 19:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you can add your crunchbase profile after the Facebook home page. Universal Hero (talk) 21:45, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on your recent successful WP:FL promotions. You may be interested in taking part in our experimental procedure for the selecting lists of the day and lists of the month at WP:LOTD.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 00:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as this article happened to be on both the deletion lists we watch, you may want to reconsider your stance at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thottbot (2nd nomination). Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

man calm down this is wikipedia half of this is wrong anyway —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethono21 (talk • contribs) 01:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At several sites I've seen, it is confirmed that Jin is a member, and on CTV the episode was promoted as revealing the final two. Besides, since his grave is off the island, then obviously he got off somehow. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:26, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gary. I've been following the PR, and the progress you've been making, and I'm impressed with how speedily they've been addressed. I'm surprised no one else has commented, but for such a controversial topic, I'd press for at least 3 reviews before GAN/FAC. You might want to ask someone from the volunteers list here or here. PeterSymonds | talk 18:32, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to review the article, but it probably won't be until the middle of next week. I hope that's okay. – Scartol • Tok 18:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Gary King (talk) 18:51, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I could review this article but I have first got to finish reviewing Crawley, then do Bode and then I could have a look at this. It may be a while... JMiall₰ 01:17, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. I think it's ready to be taken to GAN; the reviewer will then tell you what s/he thinks needs to be added to get it to FA. PeterSymonds | talk 18:26, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, the 9th was the last time that user edited. Can you confirm to the best of your knowledge that you've addressed those concerns? They were mainly about style guidelines, but s/he also mentioned "substance", which was a bit vague! If the style guidelines conform, I think you should add a comment under the oppose and explain that the objections have been addressed, while also explaining that the opposer hasn't been active in the last few days. It might help if an uninvolved editor, preferably from WP:Skyscrapers, added a comment confirming that the list conforms to style guidelines (Raime (talk · contribs) seems like the best bet). That'll probably be sufficient for the oppose to be disregarded as acted upon. PeterSymonds | talk 22:38, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen that Raime's already supported the article. If the founder of WP:Skyscrapers is happy with it, then that should be enough hopefully. Perhaps ask him/her to confirm anyway, to be on the safe side. :) PeterSymonds | talk 22:42, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that just to be politically correct when you ask people to comment on featured article/list nominations, ask them to "comment," not to "support." The former is fine and neutral, the latter is canvassing. Thanks, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I closed a few FLCs a couple hours ago, but there was a new comment on that one, so I decided to leave it open so you would see it. I'll close it tomorrow. As well, you should be aware that there is a discussion that mentions you here. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 00:14, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I wasn't aware. Seems to be okay now. The main issue is the wording I use when I ask others to take a look at my nominations; I shouldn't use 'support or oppose' but rather ask for 'comments'. I'll be changing that from now on. Gary King (talk) 00:39, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to address the concerns here. There is a fairly defined line between canvassing and asking for a comment. Just address their concerns, and per above, try to be politically correct in the future when asking for comments. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From: I removed the example code because this is supposed to be as encyclopedic as possible.

If you're going to remove a significant portion of an article then MAKE BETTER USE OF YOUR EDIT SUMMARY. You will also notice that Python syntax and semantics exists which makes it not a loss of information and I note that you didn't make PHP syntax and semantics and so you've removed the information that really separates one language from another: its syntax.

The way you've rationalized removing code examples is on par with saying Spanish language can't have any Spanish words or phrases in it at all. If you have to cut any and all code examples to make PHP a featured article then it shouldn't be done because it doesn't better this encyclopedia. Cburnett (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a look, and the lead is fine: not too technical, while providing a good summary. It's an excellent article, and technical articles are, as you say, the most difficult to write, because of the balance between enough technical info and too much technical info! You've done a great job though, and once the copyediting's done, GA shouldn't be a problem. PeterSymonds | talk 21:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've taken the liberty of adding your latest request on the talk page to the PR, for the benefit of reviewers, in case they don't check the talk page. PeterSymonds | talk 21:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just wanted to apologise for not contacting you regarding the post at the FLC talk page. It never even crossed my mind to do that. As I've said, I have nothing against you, or the lists you've nominated, so I hope we can continue to work on Wikipedia without this affecting anything. And I will still continue to support your noms, assuming they meet the criteria that is, and I don't see why they wouldn't as your previous ones all have. So again, I apologise if you felt picked on or anything. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's alright; I'm still making friends at Wikipedia, anyways. I hope I haven't offended you; I hope I am considered to be civil (WP:CIVIL) in all matters related to me so far. Gary King (talk) 20:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Peter just reminded me of your Peer Review request, as well. I did look at the article, and as I said to him, following his review, I couldn't find anything else to comment on. Maybe next time though.. I see you have a backlog of articles you want reviewed! -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 20:25, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gary. If you have the time could you look at Degrassi: The Next Generation and comment at it's peer review, please? It just got given GA status and I want to take it to FAC soon.

Also I have nominated List of Scripps National Spelling Bee champions (here) and Chief Mouser to the Cabinet Office (here) at FLC, and would appreciate any comments you might be able to give there too, please. Thank you. -- Matthew | talk | Contribs 22:16, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge the "overview", "single player", and "multiplayer" sections into a single "gameplay" section. Talk about the game and its general aspects (first-person shooter, objective, etc.) and then have level three sections for the single player and the multiplayer aspects. Condense the multiplayer section drastically. No need to list modes (comment on a few as examples); basically, your job is to show how the multiplayer works and how it fits into the normal gameplay. Basically, summarize the individual sections, keep it coherent, and cut the extra section headings.
• Move the characters and story section into a "plot" section that covers both characters and the story. Try to keep the story as concise as possible - level four section headings to divide sections of the story are largely unnecessary. Just start a new paragraph. For the characters, describe them succinctly using prose. As for the in-universe referencing, you don't have to - I actually found it easier to cite using that style of referencing. You're free to use third party references or really, anything reliable and verifiable for them.
• Turn the "marketing" section into a "development" section covering the game and expand more on the development of the game. Include the "game engine" section as a third level heading of the development section. Also, cut out all the headings when you merge the "marketing" section. Move the "music and soundtrack" section above the "reception" section and change it to "audio".
• For the "reception" section, you want to cover how reception treats the different aspects of the game (gameplay - make sure you have comments on both single player, multiplayer, and the gameplay in general -, plot, graphics, game engine, audio, etc.). Listing the scores in the prose is largely redundant due to the table. I'm iffy about listing out all those awards as prose - a table/box/something else may be more appropriate, or incorporate it into the main body of the reception.

Do the above, get a good copy-editor, and you should be good. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:58, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

since there is already a CoD topic i just wanted to say that ill gladly help you on the article БοņёŠɓɤĭĠ₳₯є 06:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

likewise, I'll see what I can do. xenocidic (talk) 13:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise, though I've been working on that article long enough to question whether it's considered "stable" enough for FA class. Lets get it to GA class first. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:39, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already did so in the most recent archive, by outlining the consensus' of the page's editors. Specifically there is continuous insertion of speculation as to the fates of the characters who were involved in the nuclear attack, and involved in the attack on the bridge, and speculation as to the location and identities of the epilogue level. There are vandalisms involving fan site linkspam, adjusting reviews, etc. I'm keeping an eye out for it. ⇒SWATJester ^{Son of the Defender} 17:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, good work. Add a single player section into the "gameplay" section. In the "reception" section cut out all mention of scores since you already have it in the review column. Work towards providing the praise/criticism/etc. of the gameplay, graphics, etc. (quotes are encouraged) - see Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow#Reception or Castlevania: Dawn of Sorrow#Reception for how I did that. The story section could be reduced a bit also. As for your comment on different FAs, that's generally true. With these kind of articles you're gathering content and slapping in on a page and cleaning up, not constantly updating. As for where to find the in-game script, GameFAQs tends to have people post things like that. Otherwise, find some blog or fansite that does it or worst comes to worst, transcribe it from the game itself. Remember you can always condense the plot heavily and use third party sources for sourcing if necessary. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 18:56, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting! --Orange Mike | Talk 12:41, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]