User:Andrevan/Archive29

This is my talk page. Leave a message. Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 i

Contents 1 Merry Christmas 2 Agathoclea's RfA 3 Re: Rock Stuff 4 See before deletion 5 Welcome messages 6 New Year 7 Happy New Year 8 Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw's Page Shouldn't be deleted! 9 Colour names? 10 Deletion Rampage 11 Endless deletions 12 Can I use your environmental tips? 13 help 14 Admin coaching? 15 Super Mario 64 16 Mario 64 17 Since you're not on AIM 18 Fair-use images removed from your user page 19 The Tireless Contributor Barnstar 20 Survey Invitation

[edit] Merry Christmas

'Tis the season to be forgiving. Sorry for being an ass, at least all these adventure game afds has resulted in better articles remaining behind. I hope you can also say no hard feelings. --Amaccormack 14:08, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agathoclea's RfA

Hello, and thank you for the support on my recent RfA. The final tally was 63/3/2, and I have now been entrusted with the mop. I hope I can live up to your trust, and certainly welcome any and all feedback. All the best, and thanks again! — Agathoclea 13:59, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Rock Stuff

Hey, thanks. That's not the first time someone has made an article due to its appearance on my To-Do list, making it more of a sort of wishlist I guess! Are you coming to CMU as an undergrad or grad? I'll be finishing up my PhD at that point, but I'll still be around... — brighterorange (talk) 15:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] See before deletion

[1] Daakshayani 11:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Welcome messages

Hello Andre. I removed Daakshayani's comments from your talk page. It was a sockpuppet of User:Kuntan, which has been established by checkuser and his edits. Also, I saw a welcoming message that you left on the page – [2], could you substitute the {{User:Andrevan/welcome}} template when you use it in the future? Yours sincerely, — Nearly Headless Nick 09:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Year

[edit] Happy New Year

(Feliz Año Nuevo)

I wish you and your loved ones all the happiness in the world this coming year.

[edit] Ben "Yahtzee" Croshaw's Page Shouldn't be deleted!

His games are incredible, I am a big fan of his stories and a bigger fan of his games. If only one page should remain on Wikipedia is would be Yahtzee's. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.101.157.140 (talk) 19:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Colour names?

I saw a person named "Gray Tortoise" have colour names when he/she signs name with the 4 tildes. How to do that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by OhanaUnited (talk • contribs) 05:06, 7 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Deletion Rampage

I like it how you can look stuff up on Wikipedia and it'll be there. Obscure stuff. Let's keep it that way, hmm? ~FarQ

[edit] Endless deletions

Hi. Before you make the assumption, I'm not some fanboy crying, "don't delete our articles". I am, however, curious as to why you seem so determined to have pages on Wikipedia deleted. After looking through your contributions, I notice that our interests have coincided twice - once when you went on your campaign of AfD nominations for Ben Croshaw and the articles that appear to have been rolled into 5 Days a Stranger series, and once earlier when you appeared on Talk:0.999.../Arguments telling us you wanted it to be deleted. The 0.999... thing doesn't really concern me because to anybody actually experienced in the article and its talk page, the necessity for such a thing is obvious.

I'm actually curious as you why you launched this one-man deletion campaign against amateur computer game producers. There seems to be no good reason for it. I'm a rational person who understands that there are some articles that deserve deletion, but I can't see why any rational person would behave in such a manner. It genuinely appears that you have some kind of antipathy towards Ben Croshaw or amateur game designers in general and are working in some bad-faith agenda. There is no other explanation for comments such as this. I have a hard time believing that anybody with purely good-faith intentions, hoping only for the improvement of Wikipedia, would ever make a comment like that. Why do you want these articles deleted? Please respond here and I will watch this page. Maelin (Talk | Contribs) 14:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Can I use your environmental tips?

I was sure you wouldn't mind, but I didn't want to use them without asking. It's the least I can do to further keeping our environment safe —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Faustus Tacitus (talk • contribs) 04:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC).

[edit] help

help

Hi, i need your help

One of your admin, Doc glasgow , is threatening me and blocking my account. We have a dispute in the definition on living person.

Please contact me for more information.

Thanks

Senatorto

[edit] Admin coaching?

Just wondering if you and User:Icelandic Hurricane have done any admin coaching. Trying to keep tabs on the coaches and such. Please let me know. Thanks, Fang Aili ^talk 15:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Checking in again--are you still interested in being a coach? Please let me know. Thanks, Fang Aili ^talk 17:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Would you contact Icelandic Hurricane and see if he still wants to be coached? You can update your status here. Thank you for volunteering. :) --Fang Aili ^talk 14:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Super Mario 64

The statements I edited were completely unsourced, unreferenced, and glaring problems in an otherwise good article. The edit in the introduction was a very conservative edit and much more accurate than the language it originally used. The paragraph in the reception section really ought to be deleted entirely, since it's pretty much a contradiction of the rest of the article, and of common sense.Frogacuda 04:04, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I think my edit expressing the same idea in a way that is more factually accurate. I provided an excellent rationale. A defining game would be something like, say, Will Crowther's Collossal Cave Adventure. All adventure games by virtue of being adventure game bear similarities to that game. It litereally defined a new genre. Mario 64 served as an archetype for many, if not most, later games in the genre, and it was the most popular 3D platformer ever at the time of its release. However there are MANY 3D platformers which are universally hailed as such which have no influence of MArio 64. Thus it does not define the genre.

There's no defending the reception paragraph, and I've since deleted it. It's blatant POV, and if left in, IMO, it's a threat to the article's neutrality. At best it needs to be counterbalanced. Frogacuda 04:21, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

The rest of the article says the exact opposite, though, as do many other sources. It's a really weak argument. I can cite you 100 sources that say Super Mario Bros is the first scrolling platform game, but that doesn't make it true, it makes it a popular misconception. The reception article needs balancing. I'm not trying to slight the game. I love the game. I'm just trying to represent a broader view missing from the article.Frogacuda 04:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

There are no reliable sources that say that Mario 64 was mission based, attacking focused more on punching than jumping, that levels were no longer linear and time based, etc, etc? The whole article talks about how innovative and different it is, and yet it's supposed to have the same feel as an old school 2D game with linear monodirectional scrolling levels and arcade gameplay! You're just being stubborn for the sake of it, and you're not listening to what I'm saying.Frogacuda 04:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and if you actually read the 1up reference at the end of the paragraph there's nothing in it that even remotely supports the claim that Mario 64 captured the feel of the old series. And citing one source is not sufficient to support the claim that "many" felt that way. That would fall under the category of weasel words.Frogacuda 04:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mario 64

Andrevan, I'd really like to get the Mario 64 article up to FA status again, but you are aggressively sabatoging it, even if that isn't your intent. Please read the wiki manual on Neutral Point of View. References to not justify editorializing in an article. You can find a million sources that say it's a great game, but you shouldn't put "This is a great game[1][2]" in the article. You write, "it was hailed by many as a great game." Similarly you don't put a sentence that says "The game was so revolutionary..." or any other highly opinionated statements. These sentiments may be true, they may be popular, but they do not belong in a good wikipedia article.

Please refrain from policing genuine attempts to bring an articles status up based on your own particular sentiment. There are appropriate and inappropriate ways to phrase these thoughts, and I'm not trying to remove any content, I'm trying to maintain a neutral standpoint via wiki's own standards. Frogacuda 02:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

The refernced articles don't reflect the language used in the comment. Bits of it, perhaps, but not the whole sentence. Hence my edit. I kept the refs, and I kept the general sentiment of the statement, but I worded it in a neutral way that more accurately reflects the content of the references. It is a VERY strong, very opinionated statement, and does not come off as neutral in the slightest.

Please note that I'm not trying to remove the sentence about it being regarded by many as one of the greatest games of all time, and recognize the distinction. Frogacuda 02:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've reworded it a bit as a compromise. I hope we can find a middle ground beyond trying to ignore my concerns. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Frogacuda (talk • contribs) 02:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

My main problem with your new edit is that none of the articles purport that Mario 64 set a standard by which all 3D games would be measured. The Gamespot link purports that it established "a new standard for the way 3D space in games would be navigated." This is (IMO) quite accurate, as its dynamic camera system and analog control have had far reaching impact. It doesn't mean that the game as a whole is neccessarily some kind of high water mark by which other games need be judged. That's a much more difficult claim to make. Frogacuda 02:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not really splitting hairs. As it was, it smacked of hyperbole, and the point is stronger when it actually articulates something special about the game, which is probably why the article worded it as it did to begin with. I think it still accurately reflects the high regard in which it is held. Why do you find the current wording problematic or should be simplified to such hyperbole? Frogacuda 03:26, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Since you're not on AIM

I'll tell you here that I changed my mind and will remain on that web site. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair-use images removed from your user page

Hello, Andrevan. I've removed some images from User:Andrevan/SM64, as they are copyrighted, unlicensed images that are being used on Wikipedia under claims of fair use. Unfortunately, by Wikipedia policies, no fair-use images can be used on user pages; please see the ninth item of the Wikipedia fair-use policy and Wikipedia:Removal of fair use images. These images have not been deleted from any articles. If you have any questions, please let me know. —Bkell (talk) 04:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Tireless Contributor Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		I  Meteoroid »  award Andrevan this barnstar for his tireless work on many video game- related articles. Meteoroid »  01:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey Invitation

Hi there, I am a research student from the National University of Singapore and I wish to invite you to do an online survey about Wikipedia. To compensate you for your time, I am offering a reward of USD$10, either to you or as a donation to the Wikimedia Foundation. For more information, please go to the research home page. Thank you. --WikiInquirer 21:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)^{talk to me}