User talk:MrStalker/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.

Contents

Welcome

Hello MrStalker/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Questions or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! ╫ ２５ ◀RingADing▶ 13:18, 21 January 2007 (UTC) ╫

Image copyright problem with Image:Nfsu_melissa.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Nfsu_melissa.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

You have tagged three redirects (Characters in the Need for Speed series, Template:NFS character, & Need for Speed characters) with {{rfd}}, but you have not listed them at WP:RFD. Nominating redirects for deletion is a two step process. Please complete the second step as described at WP:RFD#How_to_list_a_redirect_for_deletion. If they are not listed within a few days, I'll have to remove the tags. Let me know if you have an questions. Thanks. -- JLaTondre 16:11, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Okey, thanks for reminding me! --MrStalker 18:29, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

3RR rule violation in the NFS XI.

Note: I (MrStalker) never broke the 3RR.
Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.


Hello. First of all - watch out of WP:3RR. You have just broke it. Second. Please do not hijack the article with your own will. The sources could be given in any language unless there is proper and correct source is found in English. Check WP:CITE. NFS-Planet was not correct and did not noticed that the title was unveiled by the official publisher. Unless you find any correct English sources that will explain it was not a rumor, but a leak, the Russian source should be given in priority to correctness. Especially consider the fact that AG is professional reliable game news agency, most reliable of all Russian sources that could be given and is one of largest pc game websites. Unlike NFS-Planet, which is amateur fun site that copying all things from all over the world, even not checking them. Elk Salmon 15:46, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

LOL. First, I did not break the three revert rule. Three reverts is allowed. Second, as far as I am concerned, NFS-Planet is fully correct. I have yet not seen any evidence to suggest otherwise. Thirdly, Soft Club is definitely not the official publisher. Not in the majority of the world. Even if we suppose you're correct, does your source say anything about that Pro Street is an international title? I rest my case. --MrStalker 16:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Keep NFS on NFS talk page. Please refrain from reverts. If you don't like it - it doesn't mean it shouldn't be posted. It's happened and it should be explained why it's happened. First level notification is posted. It's warning to prevent from keep reverting, not that it's already happened. I used wrong time in my comment. Elk Salmon 16:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
If you don't like it - it doesn't mean it shouldn't be posted. ...well, same to you. --MrStalker 17:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Need for Speed XI

Hi MrStalker, I've objected to the "no consensus" ruling on the AfD here: User talk:Rlevse#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Need for Speed XI. Please don't take this personally, I just feel that its important that Wikipedia remains verifiable, which I feel do not is the case for unnannounced video games with sources that consist of purely fansites. I hope to collaborate with you in the future, and I invite you to join Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games. Take care, JACOPLANE • 2007-03-3 19:42

I've got no problem with that, although I do not agree with you, everybody is entitled to their own opinion. My arguments have already been heard in the AfD, so if an admin in spite of that decides the article should be deleted, so will be it. Reading the discussion you've had with Rlevse, I fell confident that he is fully capable to make a good decision. There's no hard feelings, and I might even hook on to that project of yours. You take care too //MrStalker 23:38, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Mmmm...I've been patiently waiting for a reply for over a week now... Hbdragon88 02:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Rlevse made everything pretty clear. --MrStalker 14:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Rlevse was only talking about the context of the AFD and CRYSTAL, which is separate from the issue we are discussing. Future events are expected to have some reliable sourcing. The fan sites (which are not independently checked or verified) cannot be used as sources. I don't mind if you drop off the randar for a few days, but I expect a response - especially considering that the posting by Rlevse was already there when we started to debate the merits of reliable sourcing. Hbdragon88 05:54, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
The article meets the verifiability requirement, which Rlevse also said. And no, Rlevse post was not there when we began discussing the merits of reliable sourcing. Look at the time stamps. I posted 9:59, Rlevse 11:56. --MrStalker 09:24, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Rlevse's comment doesn't grant a free pass on posting unverifable information. Everything needs to be well-sourced. Take Duke Nukem Forever, for instance. There aren't any wild theories and speuclation about what characters might be in the game, what weapons, what kind of specs are going to be needed - only what the 3D Realms developers have said and what other sites have reported on it. As EA Games has said relatively very little about the game, the article should thusly reflect on what they've said as opposed to what the fans have said. Hbdragon88 22:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
It is NOT unverifiable information. The article presents the facts as they are, everything is verifiable and true, because, the article doesn't say it's official, it doesn't say it's announced, it doesn't say everything is going to be in the final version of the game or when it's revealed. What it does say is that it is rumours, the article only repeats what other sites have been reporting. All sources are referenced very clearly, thus meeting the verifiability requirement. AS you said: only what the 3D Realms [in this case EA] developers have said and what other sites have reported on it. --MrStalker 06:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
If the other sites were reliable, like GameSpot, or IGN, I would have no issue with it (I liberally relied on those two sites to form the backbone of the DNF article). They are not. They are self-published sources that WP:ATT has solidly struck down on (with two exceptions, which this situation doesn't fall). Hbdragon88 22:21, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
So, you're saying that the sources are unreliable and therefore the article is unverifiable. I think the sources are reliable and therefore the article is verifiable. I'm not alone with my opinion, you aren't either. I won't change my mind, and I suppose you won't either. So how do we solve this? Well, my mama always said it's better with to much information then to little. --MrStalker 10:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Reliability is not negiotatable. Self-published sources (fan sites) are not reliable sources, period, as stated in the core policy WP:ATT. Not even saying "oh it's just a rumor" is good enough unless some reliable source picks up on it. You think that too much info is better? That's not the way things work here. You don't cite it with a reliable enough source, it can be challenged, and it will be removed. Seraphim Whipp thinks that my verison is better, that's WP:CON (breaks the deadlock between you and I), and therefore I will revert to my preferred version. Hbdragon88 23:13, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Both Rlevse and Seraphim Whipp thinks the article is verifiable, so apperently it is negiotable. --MrStalker 13:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
But Seraphim Whipp has also said that he thinks that my trimming down of the article is better than your version. Hbdragon88 21:06, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Hehe. I'm a she actually. Anyways, just wanted to say that I know how to spell Xbox; I was just typing quickly. :-)
Seraphim Whipp 00:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

CFD closes

The CFDs will be closed soon. CFD never runs especially quickly, although it's more up-to-date now than it used to be. There are still discussions open from 13 March. Even when they are closed, there is no guarantee that the recategorisation gets done right away. I am not an administrator and will not close anything that is not open and shut, but these seem to be uncontroversial, so I'll close them tomorrow if they are still open. Regards, 23:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You aren't? I thought only admins were supposed to close discussions. --MrStalker 14:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Command & Conquer

All done. Make sure it's how you want it, please.--Mike Selinker 17:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks a lot. --MrStalker 17:44, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Image:Flatout2_scr2.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Flatout2_scr2.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Done --MrStalker 07:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Flatout2_scr1.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Flatout2_scr1.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Done --MrStalker 07:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:Flatout2_scr3.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Flatout2_scr3.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 16:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Done --MrStalker 07:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Image:BGE ART 02.jpg

Your recent edit to Image:BGE ART 02.jpg was reverted. Fair-use images are considered orphaned if they are not used in another article. Using them on another image page is insufficient under WP:FU. --Yamla 18:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Okey, it's fixed. --MrStalker 07:56, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User box creator with template

I noticed you made a userbox here are two useful userbox creators you might be interested in

Java7837 20:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'll do fine. --MrStalker 07:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Alphasection1 small.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Alphasection1 small.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Done --MrStalker 07:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Beluga_small.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Beluga_small.png. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Done --MrStalker 07:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

User Category for Discussion

A category created by you or to which you have significantly contributed is being considered for deletion, rename, move or merge in accordance with Wikipedia's Categories for Discussion policies. This does not mean that any of the userpages in the category will be deleted. They may, however, be recategorized.
Please share your thoughts on the matter at this category's entry on the User categories for discussion page.
VegaDark 22:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: your report to WP:AIV

Hi, thank you for reporting this vandal. This user living in the US and since all vandalism stopped 5 hours ago, I think he simply went to bed and a block would be ineffective. But please don't hesitate to report him if he comes back :) -- lucasbfr talk 08:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

He was given a final warning that he simply ignored, so I think he should be blocked despite that. --MrStalker 13:04, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
(nah I missed it, thanks for pointing it ;)). Well block is not a punishment but a way to make vandalism stop. Blocking him 5 hours after the block would need a long block to be effective, and we might not even block the right person (apparently there are more dynamic IP addresses than I thought). That's why normally we only block people that are vandalism at the moment of the block (or recurrent vandals that would come back). I hope that helps! -- lucasbfr talk 19:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Okey, thanks for clearing that up. I saw someone else reported him again for the same thing and this time another admin blocked him for 24 hours so I guess i doesn't matter anymore. Thanks anyway. --MrStalker 22:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Nfs11teaser.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Nfs11teaser.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 21:11, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Some retard removed the tag, I've reverted back to last revision by myself. --MrStalker talk 21:13, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Request

Hi! I've seen you're pretty good at creating .svg-files. I was wondering if you could create something like this one, but without the clock and with something like this instead. I would be really happy if you could do that. I'm planning to use it with this template. --MrStalker talk 15:26, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem :-) How does this look? —METS501 (talk) 18:42, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Absolutely marvelous! Thank you very much! --MrStalker talk 22:01, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The vandal on the ProStreet article

Just thought I'd mention that if you want the person to be blocked for their recent vandal edits, you gotta keep warning them and such so that when you can report them for more vandalism, the admin can see that the person has had adequate warnings and that jazz... I'm gonna go warn them now.

Don't let it bog you down :).

Seraphim Whipp 16:01, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the vandalism wasn't that severe, and I'm sure he or she was acting in good faith. A friendly notice will be enough I think. --MrStalker talk 16:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I dunno, I think it's past good faith now as its been persistent and the person has been told continually via edit summaries...
Seraphim Whipp 16:14, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Do you think that it's the same person that has made all the edits? Well, I don't know, but since it comes from different IPs we can't assume that. It can be different persons that got the same false information from a forum or such. --MrStalker talk 16:21, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Definitely the same person:
A WHOIS for 121.6.94.203 : [1] Singapore
A WHOIS for 121.6.17.40 : [2] Singapore
So they've been warned a few times now lol.
Seraphim Whipp 16:33, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
As it turns out the guy was actually correct... but that doesn't change his behaviour, he should have brought the issue to the talk page. --MrStalker talk 19:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure it's one person who is under dynamic IP. So, unfortunately, it's not possible to block him. Elk Salmon 22:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
D'ho... oh, well, if he starts doing it again it's just keep reverting then. --MrStalker talk 22:17, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

About NFS: PS cover picture

Could i have copyright to use this cover on estonian wiki? Yoosq 14:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No, because it's not mine to give. The copyright is owned by Electronic Arts. It may, however, be used on the same conditions of fair use as it's used on this wiki. --MrStalker talk 15:27, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Great to know. I have been working with the wikipedia for about two years, anonmyous editing although my account is pretty old. I finally decided I might as well put a name to the face, and learn all the ins and outs of contributing. Any other tidbits you'd like to provide, I'd love. Ryancwa 18:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome :D --MrStalker talk 18:55, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

"Tiberian Dawn" and the search box

I've noticed that entering "Tiberian Dawn" in the search box directs the user to an internal Wiki link, which in turn redirects to the Command & Conquer series page. Do you think you could perhaps fix it so that entering "Tiberian Dawn" (with or without caps on the first letters of the words) would lead directly to the Command & Conquer (video game) page instead? Thank you. 84.192.116.199 07:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing that to my atention, the redirect has been fixed and should work properly. I guess I missed that before. If you notice anything else please let me know. --MrStalker talk 09:34, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Indeed, there seems to be one other such case. Entering "Tiberian series" in the searchbox will produce a results page, rather than it linking directly to the Command & Conquer: Tiberian series page. It's not as much of an issue as the previous one, but I'd say it is worth mentioning. 84.192.116.215 11:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Easy done. --MrStalker talk 14:10, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I read somewhere that a deal with mac and Pro street but i can not find the sourse, i am new so i need help. i hope that you can forgive me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mark4life92 (talk • contribs) 05:10, 4 July 2007.

That's alright. I've heard that Carbon will be ported to Mac, but nothing about ProStreet. The website says nothing about it. If you can't find any reliable source it cannot be included in the article. --MrStalker talk 17:10, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
I got the artical from Carbon and thought it was for Pro street, and i have never cited a source, im learning Mark4life92 talk
To cite a source, use <ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.example.com |title=Example.com |date=07-07-07 (publishing date) |publisher=Example Inc. |accessdate=07-07-07 (current date) }}</ref>. There are several more variables to use, but these are the most important ones. To sign a comment on a talk page, use --~~~~. --MrStalker talk 06:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox. --MrStalker talk 08:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC)