User:JAF1970/Archive/1

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.

Hmm, I can tell you've got nothing else going on in your life other than "guarding" the Spore page from being anything else than what you want. That's kind of sad. It's all yours. I hope your life gets a little less pathetic and pitiful... seriously, I do. Enjoy your Spore page. --Jonah5678 (talk) 16:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the personal attack. You can go now. JAF1970 (talk) 16:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


Hi JAF1970. I understand your rationale and appreciate your dedication to keeping Wikipedia reliable, but wouldn't you say that the creator of the game discussing development on the Wii is enough reason to note that a Wii version is being developed? Did you read the reference I gave? What benefit is there in waiting until EA lists the game in a release calendar?--Jonah5678 (talk) 18:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

No. Do you understand what "officially confirmed" means? JAF1970 (talk) 18:39, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but if your wife called you and told you your house was on fire, would you need to wait and hear about it on the news to be sure? Also, please answer my other two questions: Did you read the reference I gave? What benefit is there in waiting until EA lists the game in a release calendar? --Jonah5678 (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
When are you going to bring Nazis in? By that logic, I should include the Xbox 360, the PS3, the PSP, and iPods because Wright stated he INTENDED to bring Spore to every console system. Little hint: no one is actively working on the Wii version. No manpower. EA dictates that. Period. End of story. Until EA says it, it's just a fantasy of Wright's. One of the rules of Wikipedia: NO SPECULATION. This is not for my page, by the way. Go to the Talk:Spore (video game) page. JAF1970 (talk) 21:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Nazis, you're very mature individual. So the answer is "no" and "there is none". A quote from Wright from the article: "I can't say much about [the Wii version] except the fact that the overriding kind of factor ... in terms of looking at what direction that team goes with it, has been to make really good use of the controller" Also, the interviewer says to Wright "A Wii version has already been announced", which Wright does not correct him on. And you seem to be the main roadblock in updating this page, so I thought I'd talk directly to you. --Jonah5678 (talk) 21:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Has the Wii been confirmed? Yes or no? Has EA announced a Wii version? Yes or no? Wright can say what he likes - EA is the one who pays people to develop, and there is no, absolutely NO, manpower devoted to a Wii version. There's as much a chance of a Wii version as 360, PS3, and PSP. And Wright said that. The potential Wii version is mentioned in Development of Spore. End of story. JAF1970 (talk) 22:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
From Gamespot: "EA Games president Frank Gibeau said that Spore is 'already in development' for the newest generation of consoles, 'Wii included.'" The president of EA Games specifically said that a Wii version is being developed. That is the very definition of CONFIRMATION. Will you update the page or should I? --Jonah5678 (talk) 16:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Then why is only the Wii being added? (laugh) Spore is not a forum for fanboys. It's not confirmed, you put it in Development of Spore. End of story. How was the Mac OS X version announced? THAT'S an official announcement by EA. If it's not HERE, it's not official. JAF1970 (talk) 20:02, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
No, you said "there is no, absolutely NO, manpower devoted to a Wii version." In fact there is, as stated by the President of EA Games. I'm not a fanboy, I"m someone who's trying to let Wikipedia be used for its intended purpose: to allow access to credible information. You want to dictate how that information is dissipated, but it's not your place. --Jonah5678 (talk) 20:18, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
There isn't. He said 'already in development' - he should have said pre-production. If it ain't officially announced by EA, it's speculation. If it's not HERE, it's not official. JAF1970 (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
And how do you know that he should have said "pre-production"? Who are you again? --Jonah5678 (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Why do you keep adding just the Wii, then? If you were sincere, you'd add the Xbox 360, PlayStation 3 and the PlayStation Portable as well. (chuckle) JAF1970 (talk) 20:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Because he specifically mentions the Wii by name, thus confirming it. It's not about "sincerity", it's about accuracy. Could you please remind me who made you the sheriff of Wikipedia? --Jonah5678 (talk) 20:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Nice try. Unless the 360, PSP and PS3 are no longer seventh generation consoles. And I'm only keeping Spore nice, clean and efficient. I still don't understand why you don't post it at Development of Spore, where speculation and development goes. Can you not read? Nothing that is unconfirmed is in the main Spore article. Just hard facts. That's why the swimming/flying stuff is there. That's why the release date for a long time was there. For months, you had people posting Amazon's reseller date, and even when EA said "by the Q1", no one was allowed to put that either.
No press release = not official. Ever worked in a corporation? The president of a company can say one thing and the board will vote something else. JAF1970 (talk) 20:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Why would the board allow development to proceed on something they had voted against? If it's cancelled, then it will be listed as such when that information becomes available from a reliable source. --Jonah5678 (talk) 20:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Why would they state Spring 2008 would be the release date for months... then issue a press release for September 2008? The release date was TBA at Spore (video game) until the press release. Civ Rev was cancelled for the Wii by Firaxis. [1]
Why? Because "CivRev was originally a 360/PS3 project and was in development for over a year before the Wii/DS platforms were added, largely because we saw the success of those platforms and a lot of people (including myself) were very excited about them," said Firaxis programmer Scott Lewis. The result was that the time and effort it would have taken to remake a game built for higher-end hardware from the ground up would simply have been too costly.
Until a Wii release date is even hinted at in a press release, it's speculation. Many a slip between cup and lip. JAF1970 (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Contents

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Vivapinata comiccon.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Vivapinata comiccon.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) 20:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Wizardofozcomic.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Wizardofozcomic.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) 20:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sporecreatureeditor2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sporecreatureeditor2.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) 05:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sporecreatureeditor2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sporecreatureeditor2.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 15:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sporecreatureeditor2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sporecreatureeditor2.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 18:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sporecreatureeditor2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sporecreatureeditor2.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 01:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Halowars elites.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Halowars elites.jpg. 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.  Vintei  talk  02:38, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Vivapinata comiccon.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Vivapinata comiccon.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. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:58, 15 December 2007 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Hersheybar.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Hersheybar.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) 18:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Darth Malak

An editor has nominated Darth Malak, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darth Malak and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Newhartfinale.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Newhartfinale.jpg. 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. Ytfin (talk) 03:23, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Over the Hedge characters

An editor has nominated List of Over the Hedge characters, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Over the Hedge characters and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:59, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

MLB 2K8 succession box

That is not how succession boxes work. The far left box is for the game that follows MLB 2K8, whether or not it will exist and whatever it might be called. Yes MLB 2K8 is the current version of the game, but that's what the center rectangle is for, not the right one. The right one has nothing to do with 2K8, and therefore the word current is out of place there. TBD or Unknown would be appropriate, as MLB 2K8's successor has yet to be announced.►Chris NelsonHolla! 23:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Orangeboxvalvenewestmini.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Orangeboxvalvenewestmini.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) 02:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


Fair use rationale for Image:Frogger2.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Frogger2.jpg. 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 (talk) 19:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Toledo Mud Hens

Whether or not he uses it as an example in the podcast is irrelevant. It's pointless to list a random minor league team here, it does not enhance anyone's understanding. Minor league baseball is already linked in the sentence, so that's enough.►Chris NelsonHolla! 20:26, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't know which minor league teams will be used. JAF1970 (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
And one AAA team proves nothing. It will obviously be all the AAA, AA and High-A teams anyway.►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:21, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
How so? The Mud Hens, you may not know, own their own license. JAF1970 (talk) 23:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
It's just obvious. Let it go.►Chris NelsonHolla! 23:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
You know the old saying about assuming? JAF1970 (talk) 00:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Yep. But I'm not wrong, so it doesn't matter.►Chris NelsonHolla! 00:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The enemy's gate is down

Man, you beat me to creating the article! ( Ender's Game (video game) Oh well. =) Anyways I removed the statement about them purchasing the rights in 2005, since I couldn't find that fact in the links. Perhaps you can point it out and reference it? Xenocidic (talk) 18:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It's in the company's Wikipedia entry. JAF1970 (talk) 19:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
You mean Chair Entertainment ? I think you're reading it wrong. They licensed the literary rights for their Empire game to OSC, not the other way around. Xenocidic (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
No, I corrected it. I misread it. JAF1970 (talk) 19:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
There we go. Have you considered joining the Video Games WikiPrjoect? Looking forward to working with you on this article. Xenocidic (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I've been working on VG for the last few years. I've created a ton of articles, including some major ones. JAF1970 (talk) 20:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Yea, but just to 'represent' or whatever. I guess personal preference. Xenocidic (talk) 20:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey there

Your humongous presence on Wikipedia is overwhelming. I know someone who apparently went on a date with you once. --Node (talk) 16:58, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh? Who? JAF1970 (talk) 17:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
He goes by Darien. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Node ue (talk • contribs) 21:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Sporelogo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sporelogo.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. MrStalker (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2008 (UTC)


Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Allgoodthingsfinale.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Allgoodthingsfinale.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) 04:38, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Xbox Live Arcade lists

The date list has a few tiny differences compared to the other. There's no need to be redundant here. I see no other console or download lists that are like this, Xbox Live Arcade shouldn't be an exception. I've created this section to discuss the matter: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#2_similar_Xbox_Live_Arcade_lists RobJ1981 (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Spore

You're being completely irrational. GameSpot has been considered a reliable source (in regard to gameplay information and console editions) on Spore, so why are you so persistent on removing any mention of the Wii version in the article? Yes, the Wii version wasn't mentioned in EA's press release, but only because it won't be ready for the September release date. While I understand that any mention of PS3/Xbox360 or PSP versions are based purely on speculation, there has been significant mention of a Wii version. Sillygostly (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No, you are. Wright's desire for a 360, PS3 and Wii version is not news. It's not confirmed, nor even being developed. Even so, guess what? It's fodder for Development of Spore. NO UNCONFIRMED NEWS OR SPECULATION IN THE MAIN SPORE ARTICLE. JAF1970 (talk) 00:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I have not posted speculation. Did you even bother reading the article I posted? If GameSpot can be used to confirm the existence of the DS version, then why should the Wii version be any different? The Wii version was explicitly mentioned in the source that I provided. And don't you accuse me of vandalism. You might want to read Wikipedia: Assume good faith and Wikipedia: Edit war before you accuse me of breeching Wikipedia guidelines. Sillygostly (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I work in the video game industry. There's no manpower being devoted to the Wii version. Number one. Number two, you're deliberately ignoring the notes left by myself and other users regarding platforms. Development of Spore is there for a reason. However, I'm forced to take decisive action. JAF1970 (talk) 01:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Excuse me? Rampage? How dare you assume bad faith on my part and make me look like some sort of monster. I don't see how the sources provided for the DS version and the like PRIOR to the press release issued by EA are any more reliable than the evidence provided for the Wii version. To date, we are yet to see any screenshots of the DS or mobile versions. Sillygostly (talk) 01:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Last warning. Stop. JAF1970 (talk) 01:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Last warning? My, my, aren't we tough? If you have something to say to me, then say it. Sillygostly (talk) 01:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
You may request mediation if you like, but you are in violation of Wikipedia rules in that you're going against something that has already been discussed numerous times. Please notice the notes on the page. They're there for a reason. JAF1970 (talk) 01:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
If I am in violation of Wikipedia guidelines then so are you as you have assumed bad faith on my part, "yelled" and threatened me numerous times, and you have still failed to answer the one little question that I've been asking of you... How is the source provided for the DS version [prior to the EA press release] any more reliable than the source provided for the Wii verison? Sillygostly (talk) 01:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. And come on, you know better than to edit war. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 01:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I started up a discussion at the bottom of that article's talk page. Let's try to sort this out calmly and without calling each other idiots, ok? Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 01:17, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I haven't been insulting. Check my talk page if you like. JAF1970 (talk) 01:19, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Note the use of 'idiotic'. And I'm not saying he's been the sunniest flower in the field either, but the only thing that comes out of namecalling is unnecessary tension. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 01:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I was not vandalising the article. I have tried to reach a consensus with JAF1970, but he/she constantly ignores me or types in unhelpful and unnecessarily hostile messages such as "Cease and desist" or "last warning". For God's sake, will you just talk to me about this? Sillygostly (talk) 01:25, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, because you kept changing without 1. heeding the notes, 2. reading the discussion already on it.
Oh, and Spore is rating RP. Period. JAF1970 (talk) 01:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
RP is not a rating. It is a symbol used in advertisements prior to a game's release and/or classification. The OFLC has a similar symbol ("TBC"), but I don't see how that would benefit anybody reading the article. Sillygostly (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I think I agree with Sillygostly here... the rating is pending, RP isn't actually a rating. It just symbolizes that the game is in the process of being rated. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 01:31, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
You'd be wrong. RP is copyrighted by the ESRB. It's enforced on all unreleased games to indicate it hasn't been rated yet. This is not like the X rating (which is UNCOPYRIGHTED). A film can't call itself NC-17 without approval by AMPAS. RP is a rating by the ESRB, and it's a copyrighted one. Look up the ESRB page, please. I know the industry. JAF1970 (talk) 01:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Whether or not it's copyrighted doesn't really matter... and as you said yourself, it is enforced on all games which haven't been rated yet as a temporary placeholder. It isn't actually a rating. Suggestion: in the rating field, we just put "pending". How does that sound? Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 01:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
This is silly. Electronic Arts is using the RP rating for Spore. (laugh) Why is this such a topic of contention? And yes, it's very much a part of it. No one can use the RP rating without ESRB's approval. EA had to get permission from the ESRB to use the RP rating for Spore.
Why is Sillygostly so adamant about not using something Electronic Arts is using, as well as every single site in existance? JAF1970 (talk) 01:38, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's go to the official Spore site, shall we? Tell me, WHAT'S THAT AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE? Looks like an RP badge to me. Case closed. JAF1970 (talk) 01:40, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Just because you work in the video game industry, it doesn't mean you work for the ESRB. The OFLC classifies video games in Australia, but technically, they are a government body, and aren't involved in the video game industry at all (*strictly* speaking as they also classify movies/DVDs and literature as well, similarly to the BBFC in the UK). RP is not a rating, plain and simple. I don't think the ESRB ratings should receive special privileges over any other rating system just because it has a separate symbol for unrated games. I still argue that the ratings box should be reserved ONLY for finalized ratings (as confirmed by their respective classification bodies). I think using the RP symbol on websites is convenient for gaming companies as it basically secures a place within the article in which the finalized version can be displayed. Sillygostly (talk) 01:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If I tell Sillygostly the world is round, he'll say it isn't, even if I show him photos from space. The RP rating is smack dab on the official site and he claims it doesn't count. (rolling eyes) JAF1970 (talk) 01:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and the DS version of Spore is rated E. (laugh)
I rest my case. Only the finalized ratings should be added to the article, and in this case, the DS rating should be added to the article as soon as it is unlocked. However, since it is the only game to have been rated so far, that should be specified in the article until the other versions have been rated. i.e. ESRB: E (DS) Sillygostly (talk) 01:48, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree; only finalized ratings should be added, as RP isn't actually a rating. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 02:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please stop insulting me like you did in Talk: Spore (video game). Continue to do so and I will be forced to take action. I have no doubt in my mind that you wouldn't be so forgiving if the shoe was on the other foot. Sillygostly (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

(I may as well hijack this heading)
Please watch your civility next time. I think you'll find that assuming good faith will help you quite a lot. Cheers and take care, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 02:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Xbox Live Arcade releases by date

I have nominated List of Xbox Live Arcade releases by date, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Xbox Live Arcade releases by date. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. User:Krator (t c) 09:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Stop adding the Wii

while I'm with you on this one, didn't MoP make something of an informal ruling on the talk page? xenocidic (talk) 20:30, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Tell that to the troll. JAF1970 (talk) 20:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I was referring to this comment xenocidic (talk) 20:37, 14 February 2008 (UTC) -
“

Uh, JAF1970... what do you mean? Will Wright himself has stated that there is a Wii version in development. Can I safely say this dispute is settled? Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 02:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

 ”
Uh, Sid Meier said there was a Wii version in development and even gave a tentative release for Civilization Revolution. How'd that work out? No press release, no dice. Even better, EA stated and re-stated a Spring 2008 release date. How'd THAT work out? JAF1970 (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
as I said, I'm with you on this one, but since MoP already made an informal ruling of sorts, I just don't want to see you get sanctioned for a 3RR violation or something. xenocidic (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The point is that Will Wright has stated he's working on a Wii version. Personally, I think that his word should warrant at least a mention in the article. And Xenocidic, I may be an administrator but that doesn't make me right; I encourage you guys to question my actions and think of new ways to do things. That way, we'll get some great consensus on matters. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 04:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Fair enough =) Anyhow, I'm stepping out of the whole Spore debate (at least until a 360 ver is confirmed). I just don't know enough about the subject matter. Best of luck JAF. xenocidic (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Wright never said that. He said he wanted to. JAF1970 (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

From [2] and [3]:We're doing Spore on the Wii...
I think that clarifies his intentions. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 04:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Notability of Champions Online

A tag has been placed on Champions Online requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Corvus cornixtalk 22:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

GameSpot announcement, preview in next issue of Game Informer, etc, etc. JAF1970 (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Spore

Do not "yell" at me as it is considered rude and uncivil. I did not arbitrarily "delete" any of the Spore-related articles. I simply redirected them as the information provided in the DS/Mobile articles are copy/pastes from the main article. You for one are ignoring the fact that you're artitrarily CREATING articles that serve absolutely no purpose. Sillygostly (talk) 02:07, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I will indeed yell when you decide to delete articles without even going through Wikipedia rules. You have consistly proven to be obnoxious, beligerent, and completely ironic in you accusing me of trying to do "power moves" when you decide you're allowed to delete entire articles without permission - you might want to look up WP:Vandalism. JAF1970 (talk) 02:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
1. I did not delete anything. I redirected the DS/Mobile Spore articles as they are mere copy/pastes from the main Spore article. 2. Redirecting superfluous articles is not considered "vandalism". 3. You have just breeched several WP guidelines/policies in your message (may I suggest "Comment[ing] on the content, not the user."). 4. The Spore articles do not belong to "you". Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia and users are free to edit as long as they follow WP guidelines, which I am. I still stand by my notion that the DS/Mobile versions lack the notability to warrant their own articles. Sillygostly (talk) 02:16, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Um, kid? You erased an entire article without even proposing a Quick Deletion. That's removing an article, because it has its own categories, infoboxes, links, etc. etc. It was a violation of Wikipedia rules, big time. JAF1970 (talk) 02:22, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a "kid". In fact, don't address me, period. Comment on the content, not the user. And I haven't removed an article, I redirected it to the main article. There's a difference. The DS/Mobile articles consist merely of copy/pasted information. In cases such as these, a redirect is desirable to deletion. Sillygostly (talk) 02:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You might have noticed Rob put the VGProject in the talk page of one. He seems to think they're articles on their own, too. You ignored Wikirules, knowingly, apparently. JAF1970 (talk) 02:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
How is that even relevant? The DS/Mobile versions lack the notability to justify separate articles for those versions. Simple as that. The Sims 2 Stuff Packs article is an example of how seemingly "different" games could all be contained within a single article (as any information that would be provided for the stuff packs if they were to be given their own separate articles would be minimal). Sillygostly (talk) 02:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
In your opinion. You arbitrarily decided for yourself to delete them yourself, without applying for quick deletion, etc. JAF1970 (talk) 02:39, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
What opinion? Redirecting articles is not the same as deleting them. If I had the authority to delete articles then we wouldn't be having this "discussion". For one, I don't believe that "Spore Creatures" should be deleted, however I believe it should be redirected to the main article. Sillygostly (talk) 02:43, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
No, you deleted the articles and bypassed Wikipedia rules. End of story. JAF1970 (talk) 02:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I redirected them as the supplementary articles consist of nothing more than copy/pastes of the main article. End of story. And would you care to remind me of which Wikipedia rules I've supposedly "bypassed"? Sillygostly (talk) 02:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

You vandalized both articles by clearing them, kid. How come you didn't ask for a Quick Article Delete? Because you know you'd lose? Do not ever delete articles without Wikipedia consent. Ever. JAF1970 (talk) 04:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

JAF1970: It is possible to be bold and make decisions like that. If you'd like to reverse his decision, just discuss it between yourselves; I'll just slip in from time to time to give advice. Also, please keep the "kid" comments out of this; we're all equals. Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 04:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Report at WP:AIV

I removed your report from WP:AIV because this is a content issue and not vandalism. If you are unable to resolve your issue through discussion, you may want to look at dispute resolution. I will, however, note that calling someone "twit" and "kid" is not helpful.--Kubigula (talk) 04:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Look at what he's calling me - and I've already stated he's being rude, obnoxious, obstinate, and refusing to follow Wikipedia procedure by at the very least trying a Quick Delete of the articles. If I did that to someone else's article, I'd be snapped back so fast it would make my eyes spin. And "kid" is an insult? Since when? JAF1970 (talk) 04:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a competition. You have relentlessly ignored every single one of my comments over the past few days in order to suit your own desires. I have stressed countless times that I do not want to request a speedy deletion because I don't want to remove the Spore Creatures article altogether. I just feel that it should be used as a redirect link to the main article. Read my comments carefully before dismissing me as a "16 year old twit". Please be civil. Sillygostly (talk) 04:32, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
No, it's not, but you don't seem to think that. You don't pay attention to Wikipedia rules, and if you're offended at being called a kid, you call yourself on your very own talk page a 16 year old crossdressing, sunken chested Australian Muslim. (rolling eyes)
And you still haven't said why you haven't applied to Quick Deletion. JAF1970 (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Why? Because I would much rather prefer to use the article as a redirect link. I don't feel that it should be removed altogether. Sillygostly (talk) 04:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
No. You must apply for Quick Deletion. It's not your option to wipe out someone's work and replace it with a redirect. That's deleting an article. Stop being intentionally dense and claiming you're not deleting articles. JAF1970 (talk) 04:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, are you dyslexic? I wasn't deleting articles. Besides, the information included in the DS/Mobile articles are completely identical to the information included in the main article. Thus, a redirect is justified given the circumstances. Sillygostly (talk) 04:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Seriously - both of you need to stop personal observations about the other. Stick to the article issues. Sillygostly is right that a redirect is different from speedy deletion, though JAF is right that the effect is similar in that a lot of work is wiped out. This is a content dispute, and if you can't agree, try getting some opinions at a WikiProject or going to WP:DR.--Kubigula (talk) 04:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. I'm all for moderation/consensus. Sillygostly is just taking matters into his own hands. JAF1970 (talk) 04:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't making personal observations as I asked a bona fide question. It wasn't my intention to demean anybody. I have been trying to reach a consensus with JAF1970 over the past few days, but he has dismissed every one of my comments. The DS and Mobile articles were created only a few hours ago, and they consist of nothing more than copy/pasted info from the main Spore article. So technically, no work is being lost. Sillygostly (talk) 04:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Um, no. You've been talking with a set idea in your head, and when you were told, "No, I don't agree.", you went ahead and did what you liked without getting a consensus from others. That's about as plain as it can be put. JAF1970 (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Consensus? You've never made an attempt to reach a consensus with me. You've arbitrarily created superfluous articles which serve no additional purpose (as the information in the new articles is already present in the main Spore article). Sillygostly (talk) 05:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
(cough) A consensus means more than two people. It means you post an AFD tag on the article and people debate and an admin makes the final decision. And you didn't even try to make a consensus with me. YOu simply decided you were right no matter what I said and were going to do what you wanted. JAF1970 (talk) 05:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
No, I never acted as if I was "always right". I just don't see the point of the DS/Mobile articles when information pertaining to those versions is already included in its entirely within the main Spore article. All four versions are (in some ways) the same game, however it would be in the best interests of the readers to compare the PC/Mac/DS/Mobile versions as opposed to isolating them within their own articles. Sillygostly (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, you never went ahead and made whatever changes you liked. Like today. Just deleted articles and failed to even notice the VG Project tag in both articles. JAF1970 (talk) 05:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
The VG Project is irrelevant. And I didn't delete anything. I merged the articles. Sillygostly (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Can I save what you just wrote? The VG Project is irrelevent. By the way, if you check WP:Vandalism, you'll see that despite what was earlier said, it's considered clearing a page. And anyway, we know given the chance, you'll go delete (cough) "change" the article to a 10 character redirect the second you get a chance to. It's not speculation - it's observation. JAF1970 (talk) 05:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't "clearing out" pages. The information provided in the DS/Mobile articles is identical to that included in the main article, so no information was lost. Sillygostly (talk) 05:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Not anymore. Been adding info to Spore Creatures. I'll be removing info from the Spore page now. JAF1970 (talk) 05:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Jaf - I've looked through Sillygostly contribs, and it's clear he did nothing wrong. From a content perspective, you both acted in good faith and simply have different views on style and presentation. You reverted his changes, so I'd suggest he try to build a consensus on the content issue if he wants to change it. In terms of your interaction, I have to say that you've made yourself difficult to work with. Assume good faith and avoid personal comments. I hate sounding like the PC police, but it's hard to make progress if you don't build a collegial atmosphere.--Kubigula (talk) 05:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. I was adding additional information. And by the way, "did nothing wrong"? He started a consensus on the SPore talk page, proposing a merge... then 15 minutes went ahead and did what he wanted. This is called "bad faith editing". I'm working on fattening these articles. The best part was him putting fact citations on the article when everything was in the links. JAF1970 (talk) 05:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

He doesn't exactly do research. He claims EA didn't officially call the DS version "Spore Creatures", except for the fact they submitted it as Spore Creatures to the ESRB for rating, they've held hands-on previews of the game and called it Spore Creatures, etc. And he proposed a "merger" in the Spore talk page, but went ahead and did it himself. Why? Well, I guess if no one discusses it in 5 minutes, it's all up for grabs. Let me ask you - what interaction is there? He does what he wants - I even called it on this page. I said, "He'd just wait for a change to make his changes again when no one is looking", and bingo. And you say *I* am difficult to work with? JAF1970 (talk) 06:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's the problem: Consensus? You've never made an attempt to reach a consensus with me. You've arbitrarily created superfluous articles . Now, that's his opinion, but he treats it like it's a fact. He's never once opened a forum on the fact - something that you yourself said he should do. However, he doesn't.

He suggested a merger in the Spore talk page... but 5 minutes later he did it for a third time, without any discussion whatsoever. JAF1970 (talk) 06:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

There was *NO* consensus on the separate articles that you created. The Spore article was fine just the way it was. But you went ahead and made separate articles anyway. I believe you're the one who needs consensus on the superfluous DS/Mobile articles. Sillygostly (talk) 06:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Gostly started a discussion, then made a bold edit. That was fine and within WP norms. After you reverted, he probably should have dropped back to discuss. However, I see no bad faith editing by anyone, though you two clearly rub each other the wrong way. My comment about being difficult to work with refers to the {eye rolling) and (coughing) stuff - it's just unnecessary. You article work looks good, just try to contain the outrage. Anyway, I'm signing off for the night.--Kubigula (talk) 06:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't REMOVE anything from the Spore article, Kugilula. I wasn't removing any work done on the main article. New articles don't need a consensus - they only need to be struck down by an AfD tag if people think they're not relevent. No one's put an AfD tag - but Rob did put a VG Project tag, which means it's relevent to at least one other person. JAF1970 (talk) 06:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
New articles don't need a consensus. As a matter of fact they do. Articles were made for The Sims 3 and The Sims (film) but they were merged with The Sims main article as they lack notability for their own separate articles (regardless of whatever little information is current available on the two topics). Sillygostly (talk) 06:46, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
No, they don't. If you want to merge them, you have to

1. set up a AfD in the target article 2. actually get a few people discussing it YOU HAVE DONE NEITHER. The difference between this and that is that no one actually posted the AfD tag in either article. You just posted some "let's merge" in the Spore article and did it yourself 5 minutes later without ANYONE discussing it. JAF1970 (talk) 06:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

But I don't want to delete Spore Creatures. I want it merged with the main article. Sillygostly (talk) 06:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
We know what you want, but there's no WP:IDON'TLIKEIT, you know. You don't want it? Post AfD's in the articles. Stop trying to get everything your way in 5 minutes. JAF1970 (talk) 07:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

SporeWiki

Perhaps your contributions would be better suited here... http://spore.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page Sillygostly (talk) 06:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This article even claims that Spore is becoming released on PSP... http://spore.wikia.com/wiki/Spore Sillygostly (talk) 06:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and? I don't see myself posting on the PSP version in the article. I'm very aware of SporeWiki, thanks. I have posted there once or twice, but I post at Wikipedia because that's my preference. I don't appreciate the oh-so-subtle hint to go someplace else. If you're so devoted to Spore (and by the way, Spore isn't the only game article I do work on), perhaps you should post there. JAF1970 (talk) 06:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Block notice

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at Template:Sim series. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Stifle (talk) 16:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Halo3 spartans.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Halo3 spartans.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) 04:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Halo3 trailer chiefalone.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Halo3 trailer chiefalone.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) 04:57, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Halo3 museum.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Halo3 museum.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) 05:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Brutespiker1.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Brutespiker1.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) 05:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Halo3 toddmacfarlane.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Halo3 toddmacfarlane.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) 05:21, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

New mailing list

There has been a mailing list created for Wikipedians in the New York metropolitan area (list: Wikimedia NYC). Please consider joining it! Cbrown1023 talk 21:11, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Exorcist3 keating.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Exorcist3 keating.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) 04:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Exorcist3 ewing.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Exorcist3 ewing.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) 04:56, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Gow2 offltdbox.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Gow2 offltdbox.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) 05:20, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Getting out of the wrong side of bed

Hi JAF,

It seems like one of the most recent edits to the Spore article really annoyed you somehow, I'd suggest not having a big rant on the talk page as it doesn't really look that great for one of the article's main contributors! Possibly instead have a word on the contributor's talk page instead of the article page! Otherwise, keep up the good work! --Samtheboy (t/c) 09:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

HOwever, he is not discussing anything and he's absolutely WRONG. JAF1970 (talk) 18:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ageia

Hey JAF - I noticed you reversed my move of AGEIA to Ageia. I wanted to point you to WP:MOSTM, which says that WP should not use all caps for company names and other trademarks, even if that is what the company does. In fact, there was recently an article move to Nvidia, even though the company prefers all caps. As a result, I would like to try the article move again, but wanted to talk here first. Let me know your thoughts. UnitedStatesian (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Understood. JAF1970 (talk) 20:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Great, I'll mark Ageia for speedy deletion so that AGEIA can be moved to it. UnitedStatesian (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
So long as you do the messy work. :p JAF1970 (talk) 22:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop removing the orphan tag

The orphan tag on Keystone (video game) is justified. A few links is an orphan. Fable 2 being "major" as you state doesn't fix the orphan problem. Any further removing of the orphan tag will be considered vandalism. Fix the problem, if you don't like the tag. Otherwise leave the tag alone, instead of removing it. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:49, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Question: Do you see the categories? Why not put orphan tags on other XBLA games, like Street Trace NYC, which has almost no links to it, or Braid, or any other original XBLA games? JAF1970 (talk) 20:51, 24 February 2008 (UTC)