User talk:Simeon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Simeon's userpage
Welcome to my talkpage! I'm mainly active on the Dutch Wikipedia but I occasionally make some edits here as well. Just add any questions or comments here if you want though you'll probably get a faster response if you go to my Dutch talk page.
Add a new message here

Contents

[edit] Company of Heroes (Micro/Macro)

Ok. I see your point of view. I'll leave it like it is. I thought micromanagement was what you (and to your credit you have Wikipedia on your side) call macro management. Happy editing.

cheers Fneep 22:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Kane (Command & Conquer) picture

It's not really about 'what I want'. I believe there is a Wiki guideline about pages on fictional characters that literally states that the most recent canonical appearance of the character is the one that should be placed on top of the page.

I learned this the hard way myself from the Big Boss page, where I initially placed a rather cool pic of Naked Snake on top, only to have it reverted back to that Metal Gear Solid 1 artwork of Big Boss in his seventies by other editors for that very same reason. 80.201.170.125 20:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Tussen haakjes, ben je een Nederlander of een Belg? 80.201.170.125 20:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Nederlander ;-) But I'll continue in English :P It's just that the Tiberian Sun picture is the way most people remember Kane and Kane in the C&C 3 promo is a bit dark and it's only purpose so far was to show the fans that he's back (well, it could be taken from an actual ingame cutscene but still). Like I said, when the game arrives (or new trailers), we'll probably get some better and more recent pictures :-) Simeon87 20:35, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
I can imagine they'd create such guideline though but it might not be that useful in all situations. Simeon87 20:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Sorry about getting confused with the language list at Pixel - I didn't see that you'd just moved it. My mistake. :-) Angus Lepper 23:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's okay. But it's kinda odd because I've seen fi: being lower in the list in other articles too. Perhaps it's because "Suomi" should be listed lower alphabetically (and by placing it lower in the list, it's listed among other languages that start with an S as well)? - Simeon87 07:36, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

I'm not really sure what this comment was about. This is a public access computer and I just ran across this because I went to the wiki.

>Instead of complaining on talk pages, you could try editting and improve it yourself. Thanks, Simeon87


Isn't it usually best left to people that are knowledgeable on a topic to add to it? If it is bad then it is bad. Having someone just change it because it is bad won't help the wiki.

Well, it referred to the contributions made by someone under that IP: see here. Those contributions weren't really constructive but IP addresses can change, so that's probably why you saw it. If you're not the person who made those edits, then the comment above was not for you. Simeon87 19:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:World forge logo.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:World forge logo.png. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI 12:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Prod Warning

[edit] JME Molecule Editor

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article JME Molecule Editor, 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 explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest 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. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. Whispering 11:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I just wikified the article, I have no affiliation with the application described in the article. - Simeon87 12:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I would say that change in conclusions I made removed concern about unverified sources. I see the JME Editor page as a brief description of very useful free software (I am using it practically daily) without any over-statements. I am willing to work on updating the page, so please do not further mark it for removal. The best proof of usability of this soft is a Google search on JME eiree

I've placed a response on your talk page. - Simeon87 21:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abandonia (2nd nomination)

You were involved with some prod-twiddling on this article (prods shouldn't be re-added, by the way, see WP:PROD), so I figured I'd inform you of the AfD I started on the subject. End transmission. --UsaSatsui 02:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:HintScreenshot.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:HintScreenshot.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 08:45, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Sorry the only reason I blanked those pages was because I deemed them too short to be legible for the "Random Article" link. Please reply on my talkpage. --Gutzky 12:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flight Simulation Changes Are Valid

The addition of the Next Generation Flight Simulation section describes three companies that are developing advanced flight simulators. The purpose of this is to describe some current R&D in flight simulation. None of the companies have anything to sell readers. This is information, not commercialization.

The moving of the theme park ride section to the motion base page is also logical and proper. The flight simulation page should keep focused on actual flight simulation, and not include Disney rides that happen to use Stewart bases. Every flight simulator has user input as part of the control loop. Without that input, it is just a fun ride, not a flight simulator. One link to the motion base page, just so a reader could check it out would be enough, not a paragraph of just links to theme parks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.1.226.2 (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You have to consider that, while I'm not familiar with these companies, it's possible to doubt the statement that there's nothing to sell - after all, why would there be any need to link to that particular section on all other Wikipedia articles about flight simulation? If there's nothing to gain, there would be no need to direct people to that section. But I shall assume good faith as long as there's no promotion going on. - Simeon87 (talk) 15:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You can tell that the links to the companies web pages have nothing to sell by clicking on them and seeing for yourself. Moran Simulation web page isn't even online at the present.

[edit] Flight simulation changes part 2

The links in the next gen section have been removed to assuage your concern regarding commercialization. I agree that wikipedia should not become just a links page.

Question: Does an entire simpit section, with photos belong on the flight sim page when there is a wiki page dedicated to just simulation cockpits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.1.226.2 (talk) 15:03, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, in general it is a good idea to describe a specific subtopic briefly in the main article (in this case, flight simulation) combined with a link to the article about that subtopic, like it is currently done (many Wikipedia articles do this). Perhaps it could be shortened a bit but it's usually a good idea to discuss the various elements in the main article so the reader knows, after reading the article about flight simulation, what the relevant topics are and the reader can read the more detailed articles if desired. - Simeon87 (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussing various elements? The thing takes up an eighth of the flight sim page. One sentence and a link would be just right.

[edit] CMME

Beetje flauw, om in de engelse wikipedia dan ook maar meteen te nomineren voor verwijdering, terwijl het engelstalige publiek er klaarblijkelijk verder niet zo'n probleem mee heeft. De eerste 'notability' melding ging over de inhoud van het artikel, en niet over 'of deze software wel bekend genoeg was'. Hans Oesterholt (talk) 21:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Feit blijft dat men Wikipedia tracht te gebruiken om eigen software te promoten en dat het artikel nog steeds geen redenen aangeeft waarom de software 'notable' is. Tot die tijd blijft de nominatie gewoon geldig - de taal waarin een onderwerp beschreven wordt verandert in dit geval niet zo veel aan de notability hoor. - Simeon87 (talk) 23:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Joh, zie maar. Ondertussen gaat het redelijk hard met het aantal downloads. Wellicht is een en ander over een week of twee minder discutabel. Hans Oesterholt (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Dat kunnen wij niet controleren - aan de hoofdpagina te zien zijn er slechts 100 pageviews tot nu toe dus dit soort beweringen zijn wellicht nog wat voorbarig? - Simeon87 (talk) 00:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
105 ;-) Hans Oesterholt (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] fitnathemovie.co.uk

I think the url is real, the artwork is exactly the same and wasn't BOL a 17th century dutch painter? Together with the fact that the registration is non-commerical points it to be authentic. Twobells (talk) 16:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Of course the artwork is the same, it can easily be copied from the official website. The connection between the UK registrant and Geert Wilders, if any, is quite vague and a last name is used by many people... even if some Dutch painter with the same name lived in the 17th century, it would only vaguely connect that person in the UK to the Netherlands through some person centuries ago. This has no implications for the activities of the painter's ancestors and Geert Wilders' activities. So, quite frankly, this doesn't mean anything. The official .com domain is reliable because it can be shown that it belongs to Geert Wilders. And considering the controversy surrounding this movie, all information should be sourced with reliable sources, not some unofficial website. - Simeon87 (talk) 17:32, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

You were right, seems that the UK site was a anti-wilders hoax, even going as far as suggesting 'muslims' would 'hack' the site when its obvious that the site content was the originating authors.Twobells (talk) 12:32, 23 March 2008 (UTC)