User talk:JAF1970/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Don't feed the trolls!

That is all I have to say  :D --Samtheboy (t/c) 22:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

(sigh) JAF1970 (talk) 23:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] For you

Dansiman (talk|Contribs) has given you a WikiCake! WikiCakes promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cake, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Bon appetit!

“ Despite our disagreements, we both want the same thing: a better Wikipedia. ”

Spread the tastiness of pies by adding {{subst:GiveCake}} to their talk page with a friendly message.


[edit] April 2008

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for trolling and general disruption. When in discussion please make sure you keep your cool. Refrain from using CAPSLOCKS as this is generally considered "shouting". Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. ScarianCall me Pat! 15:33, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
Hello, JAF1970. You have new messages at Dansiman's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} template.

[edit] GOW2

What website did you find the box art for Gears of War 2 on? King Rock Go 'Skins! 03:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Joystiq. JAF1970 (talk) 04:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Civility

This is the second time I have to remind you. Be civil. I don't care if they are wrong and you are right. USING BOLD CAPS LOCK is considered shouting and is unacceptable, as you did here. Our policy states that major viewpoints can be included in articles, as stated in WP:WEIGHT, from Jimbo himself.

“  : From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the mailing list:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it is true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
 ”
  • Therefore, if a viewpoint is held by a majority, or a significant minority, it should be easy to name. The reliable third party sources are evidence that the viewpoint is held by a significant minority/majority, therefore cannot be excluded merely as you have a comment from a game designer. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 23:04, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
A "significant majority" once believed the Earth was flat, rocks never fell from the sky, and South America and Africa were never connected. JAF1970 (talk) 01:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about the references as they stand now, not in 200 years. If there are reliable, third party sources, then it warrants inclusion in an article. If you don't like it, take it to the Mediation Comittee. I doubt you will have much more success there. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 01:38, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Partick Buechner and Will Wright are fairly reliable sources for Spore, wouldn't you say? JAF1970 (talk) 01:46, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Either way, the fact remains, one primary source doesn't nullify 10 other third party sources. Go to the proposals page. Write your sourced version. Thats how this is going to work. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 01:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, what? These are the creators of Spore. JAF1970 (talk) 04:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
  • I'm just saying what policy says. I personally have no opinion whatsoever on the game, or it's genre. I'm merely pointing out policy ays, if there are reliable sources that have a viewpoint, then it should be included in the article. The other parties disagree that one source nullifies all others. You need to convince them otherwise. You also have not provided the source for their comment. I suggest you write your version on the proposals page. The others have done so, so you should as well. Whether you are right or wrong, the process must be followed. So, if you will, [1]. Thats the only way this will work, for them anyway. Merely asserting that you are correct won't change the fact that they disagree, therefore you need to convince them otherwise. Steve Crossin (talk) (review) 04:14, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
    • So, it's me and the people actually making the game vs. people who have never even touched the game? JAF1970 (talk) 05:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:JAF1970

I've started this discussion on you, based on your recent actions. Feel free to comment if you want. RobJ1981 (talk) 23:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Calling people trolls isn't helpful. Your behavior shouldn't just be ignored. Sorry if you are offended, but it's not trolling at all. RobJ1981 (talk) 00:01, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Why exactly do you think a team Spore member should determine how the article is setup? That appears to be a conflict of interest to me. A person working on the game (helping with it, or whatever) isn't the judge of how the article looks. They might approve of images, I'll give you that. But you would need reliable information for that. Either way, you are overreacting on the talk page. The article isn't suddenly "garbage", "destroyed" or "useless" due to images being gone. That's your view on it, but that certainly doesn't appear to be the consensus of everyone else involved with the Spore article (or even many people just viewing it). RobJ1981 (talk) 21:16, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
Well, you stated no one objected - that's untrue. And the gargage, destroyed, useless? That's my opinion. My opinion is as valid as yours. Feel free to state you like it. Like I said, I'm going to get the approval of Maxis to restore the pics. JAF1970 (talk) 21:18, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Matt Sanchez

Hey Jonah, I understand we have both had issue with Wiki editing of our perspective bios. Matt Sanchez drop me a line, we'll compare notes matthew.a.sanchez@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.95.229 (talk) 21:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Talking on talk pages

Concerning this edit here, I believe the common practice to reply to comments which are higher up in a discussion page is to reply at the end, but unindented to indecate who you are replying to. Replying after the comment breaks the continuity of the page and makes reading it at a later date confusing. Thanks, John.n-IRL 14:24, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, thats only half correct, see here. Dansiman informed me of my mistake on my talk page. John.n-IRL 17:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Spore Archive

Hi, you seemed to have archived discussions that are little of a week old. Im not sure if there is a pre-agreed time frame for archiving on the page but that seems a bit short? John.n-IRL 10:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The issues in the newer ones were resolved, so they were old as soon as moderation occured. And another was forum-style stuff, which doesn't belong anyway. JAF1970 (talk) 16:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree that a couple of them were archived too soon; two in particular were less than three days old at the time. Though they may have been closed topics, I think it's a good idea to leave them there until at least a week after the most recent post in the thread, to give less frequent visitors time to see them without having to go into the archives (which some people may not be familiar with). Even pages like X for Deletion and Administrators Noticeboard, which typically have a far more experienced audience, don't archive topics before they've been idle for a full week. The Spore talk page isn't nearly as active as those, so there's nothing wrong with leaving discussions up for longer still, as long as the total page size is manageable. In my opinion, at the very least, the last five topics and the NFCC topic should have been left in until the page got much larger again.
As to the forum post remark, the planet/star topic was called a forum post by someone, but it may have simply been a poorly worded question (it was old enough to archive though, no complaints on that one). The "Validation" and "Internet required" topics were led with "sorry if this seems like a forum post" probably because of the forum talk in the earlier topic, but both were most definitely not forum-style questions, they were about the article itself, requesting clarification on the information present.
This being said, while I feel that too much was moved to the archives, I'm not going to revert it as I think it's not all that harmful. But in the future, could you maybe be a little more conservative when you decide how much to archive, JAF1970? Thanks, Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 20:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
No prob. JAF1970 (talk) 20:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NYC Meetup: June 1, 2008

New York City Meetup


Next: Sunday June 1st, Columbia University area
Last: 3/16/2008
This box: view • talk • edit

In the afternoon, we will hold a session dedicated to meta:Wikimedia New York City activities, elect a board of directors, and hold salon-style group discussions on Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia projects (see the last meeting's minutes).

We'll also review our recent Wikipedia Takes Manhattan event, and make preparations for our exciting successor Wiki Week bonanza, being planned with Columbia University students for September or October.

In the evening, we'll share dinner and chat at a local restaurant, and (weather permitting) hold a late-night astronomy event at Columbia's telescopes.

You can add or remove your name from the New York City Meetups invite list at Wikipedia:Meetup/NYC/Invite list.

Also, check out our regional US Wikimedia chapters blog Wiki Northeast (and we're open to guest posts).
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

No need to shout. John.n-IRL 18:33, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Attackofthegenos logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Attackofthegenos logo.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 11:31, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletion of The SimCity Box

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article The SimCity Box, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? MBisanz talk 08:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Motpcd.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Motpcd.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) 07:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Bioniccommando remake.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bioniccommando remake.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) 08:40, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Civrev.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Civrev.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) 12:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)