User talk:Sima Yi

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please cease removing the BC Liberals from the Canadian conservative party template. They are not the same as the federal Liberals. Myciconia 04:29, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Amusing. I ask you about this in the Template's talkpage and you offer me absolutely no answer. Your position lacks evidence and not to mention logic. The B.C. Liberals are Neo-Liberal. They don't belong on a template about Conservatism. --Sima Yi 18:38, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion is not relevant. The BC Liberals are BC's right-of-centre conservative leaning party. The template does not state what conservatism is, it simply lists Canada's main conservative or rightist parties. British Columbia has a main right-leaning party, as does every other province in Canada...

It isn't "opinion". The B.C. liberals meet the definition of NEO-LIBERAL. FACT. Again, look it up. They do not belong on a template concerning Conservative parties when they are clearly Neo-Liberal. READ THE ARTICLE ON NEO-LIBERALISM. The fact is you have nothing to back up your claims whiole I do. Wikipedia says I'm right, simply because I can provide a source. If you'd like to keep vandilizing this template, then we can get a moderator, and I'll throw out every bit of evidence that I have.--Sima Yi 22:12, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

You've broken wikipedia's three-revert-rule, Wikipedia:Three-revert_rule. I think getting other opinions on this is a very good idea! It would be best if you reverted the template back to the original state as soon as possible. Myciconia 22:24, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Just to entertain your neoliberalism argument: right-wing parties are often the most neoliberal. Your idea that neoliberalism and conservatism are opposite is a very common mistake. Myciconia 22:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Amusing. You claim that I broke the 3-rev rule? Look at the history page on the template. The 3-rev rule goes on for 24 hours. You've reverted 4 times in that period. I've only been controlling your vandalism. More to the point, Neo-Liberalism isn't automatically compatible with Conservatism. Conservatism is by definition an approach to traditionalism.--Sima Yi 23:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Reginaldbalcock.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Reginaldbalcock.jpg. 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. 20:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Odin Sphere, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a direct copy from http://www.atlus.com/odinsphere/story/story.html, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

  • If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Odin Sphere and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Odin Sphere with a link to where we can find that note.
  • If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Odin Sphere.

It is also important that the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and that it follows Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at Talk:Odin Sphere/Temp. Leave a note at Talk:Odin Sphere saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Johann...[ T...C ] 01:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Stéphane Dion

Hello Sima Yi. I understand why you would want to have Stéphane Dion listed with the category for Roman Catholics, despite the fact that he is "lapsed." ("Revert back to previous version. Lapsed Roman Catholics are still Roman Catholics. The fact is that Mr. Dion is Catholic until he becomes an apostate or he is ex-communicated.") To me, unless Mr. Dion describes himself as a Roman Catholic then it seems rather meaningless to list him as one. How many people were baptised when they were newborns, but then never practise their given religion? Are they really Roman Catholics? I admire your correctness, but wonder whether there is better way to handle this for Wikipedia. Perhaps we need a new category: "Roman Catholic politicians (lapsed)" Que-Can 17:16, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi. The keywords in your post were "To me". This is your personal point of view, and is not encyclopedic. I will state it again: Catholics are Catholics until they apostate or they are ex-communicated. If you do not like this, then I suggest you contact yourlocal Bishop, and discuss it with him. I have no control over it. Sima Yi 19:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:ByakuganHinata.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:ByakuganHinata.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Warning: WP:BLP violation

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Mark Copani, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Please find and add a reliable citation to your recent edit so we can verify your work. Uncited information may be removed at any time. Thanks for your efforts, and happy editing! Burntsauce 19:53, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free image (Image:Growlanser V Generations.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Growlanser V Generations.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 23:16, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Honourable

No, not all MPs are styled as "The Honourable"; with a few special exceptions that are granted as individual honours, only those who have served in cabinet/Privy Council get that style. Bearcat 23:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, yeah. I realize that now, which is why I didn't revert it after Ground Zero's edit. You're a little slow on the draw, aren't you? Sima Yi 23:04, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Vaporware

Probably not, since vaporware is defined as a product, esp. software, that is promoted or marketed while it is still in development and that may never be produced (from Dictionary.com) or a new software that has been announced or marketed but has not been produced. (from American Heritage Dictionary). Still too early to announce it as a vaporware when it's not like the case of, say, Duke Nukem Forever. I'm removing said category. — Blue。 23:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Joe Volpe

Thank you for your intervention on the Stéphane Dion page. Could I request that you also look over a controversy on the Volpe page. Thanks, CJCurrie 22:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

GoldDragon is still reverting to his version. Could I request that you make a statement on the talk page? CJCurrie 21:13, 24 September 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Stephane Dion

Please do not re-delete 9 months of other people's work. This morning you once again tried to delete 15% of the entire article. Read WP:DP carefully. This is sourced material which has been debated and modified by contributors with POV concerns. Reopening debates, revising, and reorganizing is one thing; what you are doing, and on the scale of what you are doing, is vandalism.--Eric1960 14:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] September 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Stéphane Dion. 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. And yes, I've warned the other guy as well. nattang 20:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I've only made two reverts in the past 24 hours. Maybe you should actually count them before taking the time to put on warning templates? Sima Yi 20:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

However, you are engaged in a content dispute/edit war with another editor and that merits a friendly warning. If there is an edit war , I often placed these warnings to remind editors to find another solution to resolving a content dispute, instead of reverting each other, even if they revert less than what the so-called "maximum" is, which is 3. But the important thing is to follow 3RR, not only by the letter of the policy but also the spirit of the policy. nattang 21:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Is two reverts over two days really considered a war now? Anyway, thanks for buffing up my post on WP:RPP. I'm hoping the disputes can be resolved on the talk page before the page comes out of protection. Sima Yi 21:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sigh.

  1. Wow, so it's in the trailer. Are you saying that this article has to include every single word seen in the trailer? Because it does not and should not do so. I fail to see how a trailer including a list validates including said list into an encyclopedia entry (which has many, many differences from a trailer).
  2. So because they're members of a forum that only requires a computer, internet connection, browser, and keyboard to join, they are reliable sources? Anyone who has those four things can join the forum, and last time I checked, hundreds of millions of people do not constitute a reliable source. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I never said "this article has to unclude every single word seen in the trailer" or anything of the sort. Here's a fun article: Strawman. This article in question is a article for an upcoming video game. Those always contain less than attractive sections. Have a look at the article for Tales of Innocence for an example. That looks 100 times worse than the section you don't like in this case, yes? Yet, if you tried to remove it a dozen angry people would try to revert you within the hour. The problem lies in that the game isn't out, nor is there a significant amount of good info released about it. That leaves us with the little tidbits, unfortunately. If you want to help me re-write it so it's less like a list, then i'd be happy for your help. Let's just not nuke it, okay?
Onto the second thing: The controversy section never said "The Queen and all of men strongly opposed, bla, bla", now did it? It just tried to make it clear that some people thought. Now unless you have a source showing that it was automated bots who made those posts, then it was definitely PEOPLE who were making this claims. Keep in mind that right after its mentioned in the article, a clear REFERENCE is provided.
Thanks. Sima Yi 22:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
So basically, you say that because other articles suck, this one is allowed to? That because people would oppose the removal of bad content, you can oppose that too? So basically, your argument for keeping the list is that other articles have it? You've got nothing to suggest that this article should have it, only that you want it to have it.
I have to find a source that says they are? The whole point is you can't prove that ANY of these opinions are legit. Do you have evidence to suggest that the controversy is legit? If not, how can I provided opposing evidence? You can't disprove something that was never proven. What part of reliable source do you not understand? There is nothing to suggest that these forum goers are reliable, so how can they be considered reliable sources? Do you have anything? Anything at all? I've heard many comments against all consoles on forums, should every console have a criticism section that says "PSP sucks because it has no games" "DS and Wii are gimmicks" "PS3 is an expensive grill" "360 explodes" etc.? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Why did you start your post with more strawman tactics? Stop putting words into my mouth, please. My point was that dozens of other unreleased games use that kind of unattractive styles? Why? Because they are STUB class articles. That's what makes them stub class articles. There's not enough info out there, to get it up to B-class so we do our best to just get information in there. When the game comes out and the internet fills up with information, we can then re-organize everything and get that fabled B-Class stamp that we're looking for here.
Secondly, you seem to be misreading the controversy section. It doesn't say people proved those claims. Just that those claims were made. Also, opinions by definition are not right or wrong. So they can't be "legit." The section simply states that the claims were made, and the section that immediately shut down those claims. It disproves those claims. If you had checked the references you would have seen that. Sima Yi 22:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
So basically, articles about unreleased games are exempt from the manual of style? And don't claim I'm using a straw man argument - that's exactly what you're arguing. Articles have to be cleaned up at any point, no matter what.
It doesn't matter if the claims were made, ever. Wow, random people with no notability, reliability, importance, etc. said something on a forum? And it hardly matters, your source. Your source shows someone of importance responding to people of literally NO importance making claims on a forum. Can you show that these people making the criticisms are real, and not just one person? Do I have to keep asking if you know what a reliable source is? Hint - it's the exact opposite of a source which you can't prove is legit. And I think EarthBound is the worst thing ever made. And yes, my opinion is neither right or wrong. However, it is also illegitimate - I love EarthBound. So clearly, the opinion presented is illegitimate. And if someone were creating sockpuppets on the forum to troll the game, only one opinion presented would be legit - the sockpuppet creator. All opinions expressed by the later posters would be "illegitimate". See, I think you are quite confused - you seem to think it is my job to show the source unreliable. Let's ignore the fact that this is a forum where anyone could do what I say could have been done, and extremely easily too - let's just say that I never proved that. Do you have anything that shows that these users are not sockpuppets? This is EXACTLY why there are rules on citing sources. Why are the criticisms worth mentioning? Why more so than any other random forum posters' criticism? They are opinions formed by random people who may not even be people, but one single liar. The simple fact is that without exception, forums are NOT reliable sources, because we cannot verify the truth of statements. We do not know who the posters are, we do not know their credibility. What will it take for you to figure that out? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Just to note, this is from WP:V: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source." So why is this forum a reliable source? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
There you go agains starting off by putting words into my mouth. I never said anything was exempt from anything. Back on topic, the claims were made, and that's a fact. Not just on those forums, but in other places. Places like here, and here. The internet community has clearly been making these kinds of accusations for a while. Now I'm a fan of this game, and I'm looking forward to it. When I see these kinds of people making this accusations it makes me angry, to be quite honest. But when I come to wikipedia, I have to be objective and fair. So I include their claims, but I also balanace that out by putting in the response from one of the game's developers. That way both positions are represented and everything is fair and balanced. That's why I'm defending this section. Because there are people out there who see the sprites and immediately think the game has stolen something from Squaresoft. The section is there to provide valid information as to why that's not true. Now I've offered to work to try and clean this up if that's what you want. (Cleanup isn't deletion of valid info though.) Unfortunately I'm the only one trying to work together here. You seem to be more interested in working against other editors than working with them. Now that we have MULTIPLE sources showing people making these claims, you can't really say it isn't happeing anymore without going into some kind of conspiracy theory. If you want to help me re-write it, then let's do that. But don't just nuke it, thanks. Sima Yi 23:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Show me anything that shows this message board to be a reliable source. Just because a reliable source has a reliable person responding to something does NOT make the people he's responding to reliable. Every single time I ask you what makes this the only forum in the history of time and space to be reliable, you say "well, you can't prove them to NOT be reliable!" It's your job to prove that this is real controversy. The responder has no ability to know whether or not this is real controversy, so the fact that he responded to it does not show it to be real controversy. Will you do me a favor for ONCE and explain why criticisms from random people is worth mentioning anymore than things like the Wii, PS2, etc. which have had so much more criticism? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, I never said these people making these claims were some kind of reputable Lords. In fact I'll go ahead and say that these people have no idea what they are talking about. But there are enough people making the accusations to make it worthy of note on the article. What makes it stand out from silly Wii/PS3 criticism is that these claims made against this game are potentially slanderous, libelous, and bring the game's legality into question. Those are serious accusations much different from the typical fanboy claiming the Wii or PS3 has no games. The accusation was serious enough that it got a response from the developers. Sima Yi 23:53, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
People have claimed that Sony stole rumble technology, analog technology, etc. from Nintendo. Why is random peoples' claims more relevant than those random peoples' (which are certainly more widespread and made by more people)? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:55, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Well sir, I must say I'm very please that you brought that up. You see, people do criticize Sony a lot about all kinds of things. That's why Sony has a nice section and several sub-sections on such controversy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony#Controversies Sima Yi 23:58, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you're right! In a way. Let's look at the sources provided, shall we?

BBC - reliable. Electronic Frontier Foundation - reliable. Wikinews - fully sourced by some of the biggest news sites in the English-speaking world, so reliable. Ars Technica - reliable. Ziff Davis - reliable. Wired - reliable. The Guardian - reliable. Joystiq - reliable. Next Gen - reliable. Engadget - reliable. Dell - reliable. CBC - reliable. Excite - reliable. Sony - reliable. Hewlett Packard - reliable. Yomiuri - reliable. Forbes - reliable. Sun Times - reliable. Computer World - reliable.

Sony's controversy section has several references, almost all of them some of the most well-known web sites in their respective fields. You have a forum. It's a wee bit different, don't you think? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that would really fit in to the PE article if I were claiming news articles were making these claims. But that's not the case. Considering the context is of people (as in average members of the gaming internet community) making these claims, I'm thinking sources showing just people making the claims prove the point. If you want to change the wording a bit so it says "Members of the gaming community have claimed..." go ahead. Just don't nuke the section. Thanks.
(P.S. I hate to say I told you so, but it seems the angry Tales of Innocence community has reverted your edit. =/ ) Sima Yi 00:20, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't MATTER. It has to be from a reliable source. Why are these the average gamers in the internet community? They're a small group of people (assuming that these claims are even true) commenting on a game on a single forum. Did you not read that Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth? You can't verify that these claims are true, so no matter how true they may be, they cannot be mentioned in the article. And even if you did prove these claims to be true, this is an extremely small group of people and do not warrant mention as if this is a notable controversy. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Wow, you haven't read a word I've written, eh? I have never at any time said that these claims were true. Just that they exist. If you had been reading my responses, you would see that it's not just on one forum, but multiple forums. This is especially relevent because one of the forums is Gonintendo, which has strict rules against trolling. In fact every site that has been allowing comments on this game features people making claims of plagerism. Show me one that that doesn't I dare you. Despite the fact that I've debunked your claims with multiple sources you seem to be enjoying taking your old posts and running them over with a thesaurus. Are you trying to prove a point now, or just trying to get the last word in? Sima Yi 00:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
"They exist" is a pretty bad reasoning. And just a question - how many of these comments came from anything other than comments on a blog or forum? I believe about... zero? Yup. And no, since I've already proven you wrong by the simple fact that forums and user comments are NEVER reliable sources, I'm not trying to prove my case. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Once again, the thesaurus job on things you've already said. I guess you really do want the last word. I've been pretty polite, and pretty considerate thus far, but if you're going to keep acting hostile, and continue to bring nothing knew to the conversation, then I am wasting my time. The fact of the matter is your argument rely on logical fallacies (like the strawman) to plug huge holes in an argument that was shakey to begin with. Instead of addressing the content in question in a fair, and unbiased manner you seem to be more concerned with running endless ad hominem attacks against the people in the references. (And yeah ad hominem is another logical fallacy.)Sima Yi 02:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
So you, who is arguing that forums and blog comments are reliable sources, even though any human being could post on them, are saying my argument is shaky? To say that forums can be used says: "everyone is a reliable source". - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:44, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Considering you've been doing nothing but putting words into my mouth it certainly looks like you are the one arguing that "forums and blog comments are reliable sources." You create arguments for me, and then attack them. Why not stick to what I actually say? Better yet, why not actually read what I'm posting here for you? Also, your logical fallacies aren't going to impress anyone. Looking at your contribution page, and seeing the edit wars you try to start on other articles, if anything this will probably hurt you down the road. One final time, I'll spell it out for you:
  • I do not endorse or support in any way, shape, or form what these individuals are saying. I simply acknowledge that it has been said (and it has, check the references).
  • The article itself does not support or endorse the individuals in question.
  • The article itself REFUTES what these people have been saying.
  • The fact that you attack the first sentence in the section only reinforces what has been said in the next sentence.
If you actually closely read what you are contesting, you would probably avoid a lot of self-inflicted embarrassment. Sima Yi 02:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
(Also you seem to be taking this whole thing rather over seriously. If it makes you feel better, just because you embarrassed yourself by running an argument based on nothing but logical fallacies, I don't think any less of you. So if you are posting just to save face, you can stop now.)Sima Yi 03:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I am taking it a bit seriously - clearly, arguing with someone who thinks that >6 billion people are reliable sources is a waste of time (especially when he thinks that Wikipedia guidelines and policies are logical fallacies). - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Once again you open with something I never said. Are you really that bad at arguing? I'm not sure how much I can help you here, but I know there are other Wikipedians around who are really good at debate, and could probably teach you how to do it properly if you would ask them nicely. Now that you've come out and pretty much said you've been a bit too serious about this, you should probably get your head together. It's only the Internet, dude. Not serious business. Now maybe after you've had some sleep, a hot meal, and you've gotten your head together, feel free to come back and discuss constructive edits with me. Unlike some people, I'm always willing to work with other editors. ;) Sima Yi 03:53, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
It doesn't help that you ignore me and complain about me ignoring you. So, what makes any of these forums or blog comments reliable? What do you have to prove that they are reliable sources? If you continue to ignore the question, then it'll be simple to have the paragraph removed without your input, simply by getting outside input (so far, I've found two people who strongly disagree with the idea that criticism from random people warrants mention and none that agree). - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Look I've already stated it many many times. These people are WRONG. Why you keep pretending that I'm trying to support them, I do not know. What makes them noteworthy is that the widespread comments on the subject got a response from the legal affairs guy from the company that's designing the game. Let me say it again, because obviously a dozen times isn't enough. I DO NOT VOUCH FOR THE RELIABILITY OF THE INDIVIDUALS IN QUESTION. They are brought up so that the part about Vincent Dehaut responding to it makes sense. I'm a big fan of coherent paragraphs you see. More to the point you seem to be trying to sneakily bestow some kind of divine right on yourself by taking wiki rules by the letter. If you knew as much about wiki rules as you think you do, you'd have read by now that it's important to follow the SPIRIT of a rule, rather than mindlessly follow the letter. As for your threats, they're pretty empty considering you've done nothing but ignore every point I've been making so far. Threatening to edit without my imput when you're already doing just that, is rather silly. Going to a project page and getting two whole other editors to nod at you (especially when you've likely only told them half the story) isn't going to work either. If you knew what you're talking about you'd know that wikipedia is not a democracy. Sima Yi 04:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
You have nothing to prove that even one single comment on the visuals is legitimate. You can show that he responded to these comments, but not that the comments themselves are legitimate. You've also failed to show that the "controversy" is widespread and even made by anyone even remotely important or of any significance. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Again, you are embarrassing yourself by responding to posts you haven't clearly read. How many times do you want me to say it? The individuals in question are WRONG. All of those people calling the game a plagarism are WRONG. I am not defending them. And considering they're only there so the paragraph makes sense, why is their "legitimacy" even brought into question? And you seem to be under the impression that you would have your way if I wasn't editing this article. If I weren't reverting you someone else would be, and it would be done just as fast as the guys who revert you on other articles, like the Tales of Innocence scenario in which you also embarrassed yourself. The fact that you keep asking for the legitimacy of people who are only being mentioned for who wrong they are, shows that you really aren't reading things before you comment. Sima Yi 04:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I see something odd about you saying that I'm ignoring you at the same time as you ignore me. I seek proof that these users are unique from each other. I seek reason to believe that this is widespread enough to warrant mention. I seek any reason to believe that this controversy section warrants existence. I see nothing in terms of that.
And embarrassed? I was reverted for the reason that "Wikipedia should have more info", a concept supported by no policy or guideline at Wikipedia. Height and weight are trivia, and trivia is frowned upon. I removed trivia, and the user reverted in spite of that fact. I do not get embarrassed when people ignore quality guidelines. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm not ignoring you at all. If anything I'm giving you far too much attention. The fact that you may be suggesting that one person over the course of well over a year (check the date differences onthe references) is going to EVERY SINGLE website that mentions the game just to trash it, is a little ridiculous don't you think? I love crazy paranoid theories as much as the next guy, but this one is a little out there. Now if you think the word "controversy" is a bit too powerful, then re-word the section's heading. Again, I'm willing to work on constructive edits with you. As for the other thing, you clearly don't know as much about wikipedia as you think you do. If you waltz into an article and plan to make radical edits without at least TRYING to get some sort of concensus on the article's discussion page, it is not odd at all that the article's community will revert you as soon as they spot you. Bugging people on project pages isn't trying to get consensus. Feel free to edit that Tales of Innocence article again tomorrow. Just don't be surprised when someone reverts you again. And the fact is that if someone did report you for trying to start massive edits wars with various communities, a moderator would see that you absolutely refuse to work with other editors (especially when I offered a dozen times), and you'd likely get warned. Sima Yi 05:03, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Growlanser VI Precarious World.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Growlanser VI Precarious World.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. Project FMF (talk) 23:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Growlanser.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Growlanser.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. Project FMF (talk) 01:29, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Growlanser IV - Wayfarer of Time (Delux).jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Growlanser IV - Wayfarer of Time (Delux).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. Project FMF (talk) 01:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Tears to Tiara (Battle).jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tears to Tiara (Battle).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) 07:37, 2 June 2008 (UTC)