User talk:MrStalker/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:NFSHP2 PC.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:NFSHP2 PC.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) 23:01, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Intention (video game)

The speedy has been declined, and I've listed it for discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Intention (video game).--Addhoc (talk) 17:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Juiced

I have declined your request to speedy delete Juiced to accomodate your page move. I agree with Mecu that a link to the disambiguation is more appropriate in this instance. If you still disagree, please address on the appropriate talk pages to achieve a consensus, otherwise bring it up at WP:RM. Thanks, Caknuck (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I have reverted your most recent edit to Juiced. By now, two admins have advised you that a redirect to the disambiguation page is more appropriate in this circumstance. Again, if you dispute this, you will need to build a consensus favoring your change. Do not change Juiced back until you have made an honest attempt to do so. Caknuck (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
For god's fucking sake, it's guideline. I'm just trying to uphold the fucking guideline. --MrStalker talk 15:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
First of all, be civil. Secondly, the guideline relates to disambiguating between video games and their series; it is secondary to the more relevant guidelines/policies WP:DAB, WP:NCON and WP:NC. Let me know if you need any further clairification. Caknuck (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, please explain why Juiced should point to a disambig instead of keeping it the way it was a few days ago, when it worked perfectly fine. Most articles linking to Juiced does so expecting a having linked directly to the article about the video game series. Juiced is the official name of the series, which is more then you can say about some "Juiced ball". --MrStalker talk 16:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
In any case where the name is ambiguous, a DAB page is appropriate. The only reason that there aren't more articles linking to Juiced in reference to Canseco's book is that someone took the time to directly link to the article, which uses the full title of the book. However, the book is commonly known by its short title "Juiced". When dealing with disambiguation pages, "official names" are secondary to plausible search terms.
This is a contentious move, so you need to try to build consensus to support your case. Caknuck (talk) 17:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Okey, I didn't know that official titles are supposed to be secondary to search titles. If that's the case, I guess it's correct. Thanks. --MrStalker talk 17:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Arn wallpaper 3.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Arn wallpaper 3.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) 19:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Tcrbsv2-360-cover.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tcrbsv2-360-cover.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) 10:48, 18 January 2008 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:TSFirestormbox.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:TSFirestormbox.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) 06:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Cncra-win-cover.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Cncra-win-cover.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. Project FMF (talk) 01:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Image:Jade small.png

The image it was sourced from was a copyright violation. east.718 at 21:40, January 27, 2008

Er, no it's fair use. And if you think it's copyvio, why the hell did you delete it per CSD I1?!? --MrStalker (talk) 21:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not fair use when it's not being used anywhere outside userspace and is tagged with {{attribution}}. east.718 at 21:52, January 27, 2008
I can't help notice you didn't answer my question. --MrStalker (talk) 21:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Dood, DRV is kind of pointless. If you can point out where in mainspace the image can be used, I'll restore and fix it myself. east.718 at 07:45, January 28, 2008
Nah, it's not pointless, it got your attention. Does it matter if it's used in mainspace or not? The large image I don't exactly where it was used but the small one I used for my userbox which I liked very much. Isn't that allowed? Ubisoft as granted permission for use of shots of their software for any purpose, so I don't see the problem. --MrStalker (talk) 09:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The big image wasn't used anywhere, and non-free images aren't permitted outside of mainspace. The problem with all of them was that the permission Ubisoft gave extends only to screenshots of in-house developed and published software, not artwork - which that image was. Hence the reason for my deletion: "not a screenshot". "csd i1" was admittedly a pretty crappy summary for the smaller crops, but I guess it applies if you think hard enough about it. :| east.718 at 09:54, January 28, 2008

Template:Age of Empires series

The current version (with the "other" section) suits me fine; nice work. Dihydrogen Monoxide (party) 06:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. --MrStalker (talk) 09:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Template talk:User contrib

Hi. I've posted on that page RE: commas in the template not working. Lugnuts (talk) 21:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning: Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have been making on Command & Conquer: Tiberian series, Command & Conquer (video game) and Template:Command & Conquer series. Note that disrupting Wikipedia to illustrate a point, by perpetuating disputes by sticking to an allegation or viewpoint long after it has been discredited, repeating it almost without end, and refusing to acknowledge others' input or your own error is a potentially blockable offense on Wikipedia. If this trend continues, I will alert an adminstrator to your actions and request for outside mediation in this dispute. Thank you. Kalamrir (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Slander. Please do, because I am sick of you. --MrStalker (talk) 16:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I think you are your own worst problem. And have been across this entire dispute. Do not try to project that fact on others. Kalamrir (talk) 17:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Okey. I'm going to say this one more time. Command & Conquer: Tiberian Dawn is not the official title of the first Command & Conquer game. --MrStalker (talk) 17:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I am compiling a list of six separate verifiable sources, with the specific intention of ending the spread of this kind of misinformation permanently. Also, due to the nature of your responses to the good faith edit of user Pkaulf in the Tiberium (video game) article, and also due to my recent experiences with you, I think it is advisable that you thoroughly read the following and use it as a guideline to improve your mentality as a Wikipedian: Wikipedia: Be welcoming. Kalamrir (talk) 12:09, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
And I'll do the same. Thank you for your concern, but I don't think Pkaulf qualify as a newcomer with over 800 edits, and you doesn't strike me as one either. Or are you? --MrStalker (talk) 12:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
Regardless of his status as a newcommer or not, the point remains. Thank you for taking note of it. I hope to see an improvement in your mentality as a Wikipedian soon. Kalamrir (talk) 12:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Tip

Hello Kalamrir, I just want to give you two links: WP:VAND#NOT and WP:RM. --MrStalker (talk) 17:06, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello MrStalker, and thank you for the links you provided. I have taken note of the information in WP:VAND#NOT, and was made to conclude that the nature of your earlier edits - which I had marked as vandalism - do not appear to be among the list of edit types which are often wrongfully mistaken as cases of vandalism. This appears to suggest that my revert of your earliest edits on the premise of vandalism was in fact correct, and was also supported by Wikipedia guidelines, since they seemed to constitute "repetitively and intentionally unconstructive edits", as defined by WP:VAN. Thank you.
Admittedly, I am not without fault in this dispute either. Reading over WP:VAN, I appear to have repeatedly acted against a Wikipedia guideline described in "How not to respond to vandalism". For that, I do apologize. Kalamrir (talk) 11:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
You might also want to read this: WP:AGF. --MrStalker (talk) 11:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
On what do you base the assumption I originally did not assume good faith in your edits? I believe we have both been active as members of the C&C task force for quite a while prior to this dispute, without any incident worthy of note. What do you believe it was that altered this? Kalamrir (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I happend to know that Tiberian Dawn is not an official title, and that Tiberium is not part of Tiberian series, and thus I'll do anything in my power to present this correctly on Wikipedia. I do this in good faith. Honestly, I think you are frustrated because you believe otherwise but doesn't gain any support from other editors. Thus, you become easily acceptable to the assumtion that my edits are of bad faith, which they are not. --MrStalker (talk) 12:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I think this comment is quite emblematic of the origins of this dispute. Numerous forms of source material are readily available for you to consult that prove your assessment false, and secondly, these sources have been added by other editors than myself in the past. Thus, your assertion that I "do not gain support from other editors" is a fallacy. It should also be noted that thus far, only a single editor has made a single edit in your favor, which was a highly misinformed one as well. Since you have consistently and systematically ignored all the source material we have available in order to to press a case of blatant misinformation, I am left with no other option than to conclude that you operate on bad faith, and are intentionally attempting to disrupt the quality of our articles. I will act accordingly. Kalamrir (talk) 12:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
You just proved my point. Those sources confirm only one thing: That Tiberian Dawn is a widely used title the first C&C game. They do not confirm it's the official title. --MrStalker (talk) 12:33, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Fast and furious sequel

I have reverted your edit to The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift, as the sequel has not been named, and you linked to a non-existent article. Please do not change that entry unless and until you can cite a reliable source for the name. -- Donald Albury 22:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for page unprotection from an admin. --MrStalker (talk) 08:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
The Fast and the Furious 4 is still "in development" and may never get made; that hasn't changed. I did not actually salt the ground under this one, as the nominator urged me to do; but until there are some reliable sources, this is going nowhere. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I do not wish to sound rude, but did you ever consider looking at the talk page of the article you deleted? Because on it, I clearly established both notability and verifiability. --MrStalker (talk) 18:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Some of those were links to blogs, or to other sites repeating what Moviehole reported. One site claimed the Hollywood Reporter as a source, but didn't provide a link to the HR article. More to the point, most of these weren't incorporated into the article. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:48, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, I can't improve on them now, can I? Besides, what's unreliable with the MTV reports? It's more of a news channel then a traditional blog. --MrStalker (talk) 18:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Point is, the article didn't fall under CSD G4 and shouldn't been deleted. After all, another admin unprotected the page for me so I could create the article in the first place. --MrStalker (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
No hard feelings here, I hope. There are some people who want to create articles for the seventh season of House ("cuz it's so good, you know it'll last longer than M*A*S*H") and I tend to be pretty hard-nosed about WP:CRYSTAL violations (and about recreations of deleted material). --Orange Mike | Talk 22:31, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Of course not. But this article is being created, deleted, recreated, deleted, recreated, deleted, protected, unprotected, created, deleted, undeleted, deleted, so it's pretty irritating. Even more since I think I have reliable sources and have put some effort into making the article good quality. But, what is life if it ain't sucking. --MrStalker (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Spore-logo.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Spore-logo.png. 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. Yamla (talk) 18:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to my attention, the issue is fixed now. --MrStalker (talk) 18:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Template substitution

Woops, sorry about that. Hadn't been aware that was an issue, I just saw the article needed the template and didn't have it, and whacked it on. I'll be more careful next time!Caissa's DeathAngel (talk) 21:06, 16 February 2008 (UTC)