User talk:Just64helpin/Archive 5
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] Update Wii System sales
The Wii cumulative sales table is in desperate need of updating. If you need up to date console sales numbers, might I suggest http://www.vgchartz.com/. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.111.100.253 (talk • contribs)
[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:RatatatRemixesVol1.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:RatatatRemixesVol1.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) 03:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Queens plays Wii
We currently have a discussion about that part so please post there to prevent an "edit war", cheers. Stabby Joe (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Wii edit
I'm still not sure why you have the "W" in "We" and "I" in "If" in brackets. I assumed it was a mistake. Sorry about that. Can you explain it to me?----Asher196 (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Interstella 5555
References to Mozart, Miles Davis and Janis Joplin previously found in Trivia section are gone completly. Netrat_msk (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
You say that "references to Davis, Joplin, etc are not directly made in the film." Well, considering the fact that not word is said through the whole movie (not to mention dialoges), don't you think this is natural?
Let me remind you that article did not said the aliens WERE Mozart, Davis and Joplin, it just said there were "strongly reminiscent".
This indeed might be an original research, but in my opinion this is not something that can be called a research, since personalities refered are pretty obvious.
Anyway, to dismiss charges of unsourced information and original research, I'm going to contact Daft Punk and/or animation studio via their web forum (I guess they gotta have one) and make sure that a public answer is posted by people who took part in making of the movie (making this a source outside of Wikipedia and thus not an original research).
When accurate information is available, I'd like to insert it as a separate section and note a mere footnote, since I believe the whole concept of "extraterrestrial genius" is a central part of the film.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Netrat msk (talk • contribs)
Please review changes at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Interstella_5555:_The_5tory_of_the_5ecret_5tar_5ystem#Cleanup Netrat_msk (talk) 01:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Image captions
I know it's not mandatory (or is it? I'm not sure), but I'm adding it for consistancy. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Why don't you just press on the image and copy and paste the more specific description found there into the article? It takes only a bit more time, and it cuts out the middle man (me). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 13:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, brother. Remind me not to bump into you again. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- I am going to revert Harrison Ford, by the way. That "caption" section is part of Template:Infobox actor for a reason. If you don't like it, petition to have it deleted from the infobox. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know about you and discussion. After my first post on your page, instead of replying and initiating a discussion, you proceeded to make a host of distinctly counter-productive edits (adding a "note" instead of a fuller caption to pages I've edited recently), and then did that again, and then once more. Adding a fuller caption takes about, oh, I don't know, only twice as much time as adding a "note". Since you obviously don't mind spending some time going from page to page to do this, I'm not sure why you didn't spare the tiny bit of extra time to add a fuller caption instead. If you'd done that, I'd be more than happy and you'd be happy; it's a win-win, instead of what has gone on. As for Harrison Ford, the solution lies not in discussion, but outside the box - finding the information for a fuller caption. If that information isn't available, it's entirely possible the picture isn't really free and shouldn't be there in the first place (WP:Fair use). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Wikistalking#Wikistalking states that reading the contributions is not wiki-stalking, nor is it correcting errors or something else that violates policy. But there is no consensus at all that just-name captions are wrong or that they should be replaced by a "note" instead of a longer caption, which would have been the productive thing to do (and again, if you'd done that, we would have no problem). I'm certainly not responsible for all just-name captions (I've not edited the page Karl Marx, to pick a random example), and of course, there's no consensus that single-name captions are wrong in the first place. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean you changed the Tom Hanks caption to something more photo-specific? I just see an invisible note in your latest edit - did you mean you changed it sometime before today?Anyway, I certainly have no problem with photo-specific captions, or with you following my edits around and adding photo-specific captions, rather than notes, which I encourage you to do. As for the sentence "the burden lies in the person adding content, not the person removing it" - I don't know where that comes from - it doesn't sound like policy - I don't see why the caption should be removed alltogether when it can just be improved. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 00:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)- I said I would revert on Harrison Ford because I want the infobox to be consistent across Wikipedia. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- I think the comparison is more like - you would add a date of death to the article only if the person is dead. Likewise, you would add a caption to the article only if there is a picture. Comparing it more to the Ford situation - if the person has died but the date of death is unknown, we would still indicate that they are dead in the infobox. And thus if there is a picture but the details are unknown, we would still caption it. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- I said I would revert on Harrison Ford because I want the infobox to be consistent across Wikipedia. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 02:23, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- Wikipedia:Wikistalking#Wikistalking states that reading the contributions is not wiki-stalking, nor is it correcting errors or something else that violates policy. But there is no consensus at all that just-name captions are wrong or that they should be replaced by a "note" instead of a longer caption, which would have been the productive thing to do (and again, if you'd done that, we would have no problem). I'm certainly not responsible for all just-name captions (I've not edited the page Karl Marx, to pick a random example), and of course, there's no consensus that single-name captions are wrong in the first place. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- I don't know about you and discussion. After my first post on your page, instead of replying and initiating a discussion, you proceeded to make a host of distinctly counter-productive edits (adding a "note" instead of a fuller caption to pages I've edited recently), and then did that again, and then once more. Adding a fuller caption takes about, oh, I don't know, only twice as much time as adding a "note". Since you obviously don't mind spending some time going from page to page to do this, I'm not sure why you didn't spare the tiny bit of extra time to add a fuller caption instead. If you'd done that, I'd be more than happy and you'd be happy; it's a win-win, instead of what has gone on. As for Harrison Ford, the solution lies not in discussion, but outside the box - finding the information for a fuller caption. If that information isn't available, it's entirely possible the picture isn't really free and shouldn't be there in the first place (WP:Fair use). All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:42, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- I am going to revert Harrison Ford, by the way. That "caption" section is part of Template:Infobox actor for a reason. If you don't like it, petition to have it deleted from the infobox. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, brother. Remind me not to bump into you again. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
You know, on a basic level, since every other photo caption you've removed has been replaced with a longer one, thus satisfying your disdain for simple name-captions, does it really matter if there's one just name-caption left (Ford)? Besides, is that really a free photo? If it is, we should be able to find out where it came from - what year - place - it was taken in. Maybe you can help me with that. I don't see anything of that nature on the image page, do you know where else we might look? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 17:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, thank you for adding fuller captions to articles in your recent edits. I appreciate that. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 18:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Daft Punk
Re your message: Actually, I was just about to sign off for a bit. However, I am sure that there are others around that will catch any vandalism that might appear. =) -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
[edit] Question
Um...why?. Anyone can hear it for themselves. If you can hear something, know exactly what it is, but can't find a "reference", then isn't Wikipedia limiting itself in what can be added? - Tehunknown (talk) 18:07, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
- I did make a couple attempts to find a reference (via many a Google Search) but couldn't come up with anything. It might be one of those things they want you to find....like an "Easter Egg". - Tehunknown (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
