User talk:NeoThermic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As per request, I declaire my talk page open for talking. I'm not sure why you would want to, but its here, sort of like the appeal of fresh concreate and writing your name in it... NeoThermic 17:15, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi...you probably know your way around here, so I'll spare you the welcome message. :D — Ilγαηερ (Tαlκ) 28 June 2005 18:07 (UTC)

[edit] GNAA VfD

Heya, I felt that it's best to message you personally. Firstly, I'm glad that you understand that there is nothing personal in my decision to discount your vote! However, I want to say this to you personally, and encourage you to continue to edit Wikipedia. My discounting of your vote was not a punishment for not editing much, it was because I must be consistent with my VfD policy for that VfD only. The fact is that I considered whether to readd your vote based on what you said, but I am concerned that this will open the floodgates to trolls and those who believe that the discounting criteria is wrong.

So I just want to say that, though I would normally give your vote weight on a vote for deletion, the GNAA is not an ordinary article or ordinary VfD as it is the sixth attempt. So that I don't seem to favour you, I can't count your vote :( I guess what I'm trying to say here is that I want to, but am constrained against it. Which sucks, but if people had played by the rules in the first place I would not have had to make hard decisions like this one :( Unfortunately, because of the stupidity of some, your vote has been effected. Ta bu shi da yu 9 July 2005 04:06 (UTC)

I see I've not lost my ability to change people's minds :) I accept that you have to have accountable votes for this VfD, seeing as its been up so many times. I do, however, have a suggestion for next time. Either they have 100+ edits, or they are a registerd user for at least 6 months since the beginning of the current month (so in the case of this VfD, you would have to be registerd no later than 31st Jan. That would allow the shy wikipedians the ability to have a voice, as its obvious that such VfD's don't crop up often.

I'm also glad to see the qualities that make you a good admin, and I hope to see more of it in the future :) NeoThermic 9 July 2005 12:55 (UTC)

[edit] An odd edit summary . . .

Given the lack of particular interest in talk, I'm not particularly concerned with removal of the Stardock template, but what did you mean by "On top of this, Stardock sells Uplink via SF, which is illegal." in the edit summary? GreenReaper 15:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't have time to explain it :)

The discussion on the talk page never came to a real conclusion, you're right. However, the main reason why I wished to remove it is that any version of Uplink: Hacker Elite being sold is illegal. See [1] For the full info on whats going on, but in short SF owe introversion unpaied royalties, which were accumalted before SF went bankrupt. Since SF hasn't paied, IV are suing for their losses. Now while we shouldn't bring legal issues on to wikipedia, I feel that we shouldn't allow stardock (who are selling Uplink: Hacker Elite illegally in this case) to be on the Uplink page. On top of that I have my own reservations of the size and unglynss of the {{stardoc}} template, but that is neither here nore there.

NeoThermic 15:59, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Interesting. I'm not all that surprised, though. Strategy First caused Stardock some discomfort as well when they withheld revenues from the original Galactic Civilizations. That's the main reason Galactic Civilizations II is being published directly (and even then the distributor messed up, but it didn't cost nearly as much).

Please be wary about calling such things "illegal" on Wikipedia until proven in a court of law, though. Are Strategy First's actions immoral? Most people would say yes. But US bankruptcy protection is quite lenient to companies who are still trying to make good on at least part of their debts, and has a strict order of which debtors should be paid off first, so it may well be legal (if not nice) for Strategy First to do what they are doing. This probably depends on the terms of their contract with Introversion. I'm not an expert in international royalty law, and I couldn't find anything covering this situation, only the other way around.

I find it hard to see how Stardock could be doing anything illegal either way. Stardock, along with the other distribution channels, has a contract with Strategy First to distribute the game electronically in return for a royalty. Strategy First had the right to make that contract - and presumably retain it, at least for pre-existing contracts, otherwise Introversion would have said something earlier. This is likely to be an unfortunate detail of Introversion's contract with Strategy First. Stardock has lived up to their side of the deal. It is unfortunate if Strategy First is not passing that money on, but it's not Stardock's fault, legally or morally.

The only way I can see Introversion dealing with the situation is via Strategy First. However, I would bet that they have tried and failed to do this and are now trying to go after the secondary distributors. I just don't think it will work, as there's no compelling reason for them to stop selling it. GreenReaper 02:51, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Episodes of Lost (season 3)

I happen to have Episodes of Lost (season 3) on my watchlist, and noticed your edit summary. Please be courteous to your fellow editors even in edit summaries, per Wikipedia's policies on civility and not making personal attacks. Much obliged, and thanks! — Mike 02:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I had a lapse of courteousy to others after a long annoying day of work. I really should just stop editing in such cases :P NeoThermic 02:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

It happens to all of us — just go visit WP:SPIDER when you're in that kind of a mood, though. ;-) — Mike 03:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Must say, I've never laughed so hard at a wikipedia article :) Thanks :D NeoThermic 06:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)