User talk:The Negotiator

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] EE3

Hey I saw that you started the EE3 article. I'll see what I can do about sources so it isn't deleted because it is too far in the future to have an article about it. By the way, you can't have your discussion page deleted (at least to my knowledge), but it's your own right to keep it blank if you want. People may not be happy though. I don't care, I just wanted to let you know I'm gonna try to work on EE3.--Clyde (talk) 18:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh by the way, the link that you are adding to Conquest is linkspam, I think, which are removed because sometimes the owner of some obscure forum adds them into an article just ot get the name of the forum out. No ads are allowed in wikipedia either, so I hope it is okay that I get rid of the link to the forum.--Clyde (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Well let me explain how things work. Not all the content you added is encyclopedic. Wikipedia is not the place for game guide info, a place for FAQS, nor a "how to" guide (see here). It's fine to put in an article that people cheat and forums were made to stop it, but to say where to go, what happens, and who looks at your problem, that's a "how to" guide for cheating related stuff. So what you might want to do is put in the sentence from before, with the external links removed. You can then put your external links you added at the bottom of the page with the other ones. Go ahead, put the official sierra website at the bottom. Heck, you might even be able to put the "official" forum there (not sure if that falls into linkspam)....but don't put it in the main part of the article. It's just not where it belongs. Finally, there's another slightly important rule here. You're not allowed to revert back to the same reversion three times within 24 hours or your blocked from editing. Now I'm going to overlook that rule as long we can solve this in a civil manner talking back and forth (in the past blocking only makes things worse), but please stop dogmatically asserting that I should "leave things alone" because I "do not understand" or I'll involve a third party. We need to reach some sort of compromise here.--Clyde (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi again. After I realized that we would not be able to quickly reach an agreement, I stopped reverting back to my version. Another user (User:Harlock jds) reverted it the fourth time, not me. Also, you said " why dont you rephrase my additions", I thought that the version I made was rephrasing your additions. I'd like to reach an agreement about this, and I really don't have any preference either way toward liking this or not. I looked through here, here, and here, and I think the best place for the forum would be as some kind of reference or note (I couldn't find whether forums are acceptable as references or not, I'll see what I can find). Maybe something like "There are many exploits which are readily available for players to use. Forums have since been started as a place to report them in an attempt to minimize the use of them.[1]" and the "[1]" would be the forum's website in a references section. What are your thoughts?--Clyde (talk) 21:36, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm quite aware they are official forums, but forums are usually not allowed as sources on wikipedia, and I'm pushing it by trying to include them. Also external links to other sites are not supposed to be in the article anywhere except in the external links section. Finally, attempting to insert any forum, whether official, "official", or fan made can easily be considered spam in article, and removed on good pretenses. You didn't answer my question on whether my idea was acceptable or not, you simply attempted to insult my intelect and call me grasshopper. Do you assume I've never heard of Sierra, played an RTS, or know what a forum is? Now I ask you again, Yes or no to my idea.--Clyde (talk) 21:48, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Okay I'll add the citation and the screenshot. Now that we've reached an agreement on the EE3 and conquest, I'm going to ask an admin about the 3RR.--Clyde (talk) 22:37, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Empire Earth

I like your page. What a good way to write Empire Earth! Did you copy it, or make it yourself? · AO Talk 14:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The text you have written on your page, above the template. It says Empire Earth. · AO Talk 19:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
Cool! · AO Talk 19:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Empire Earth

If you want to move the article, simply move the article. There is no point in adding a speedy tag to a redirect page. If you need any assistance, please let me know. Thanks. IrishGuy talk 00:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC) ok--Empire Earth 01:01, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

OK. I think I have it worked out. I moved it for you. Let me know if there is any error. IrishGuy talk 01:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Temp

I don't write it, I just try and stay under the radar. I think my barnstar snipers will hit before your cannon though : ).--Clyde (talk) 01:32, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm...in my experience getting an article to GA takes 50-100 edits and maybe a month, and getting an FA takes 100-300 edits and several months. However, most of these articles are developed enough that it would be much less. Maybe I'll do Empire Earth, but unfortunatly I don't own any games in the Empire series other than DotMW. Maybe a good mutual goal would be to go for Featured topic in the empire series. To do that we need maybe EE and EE2 either FA or GA, and the expansion packs well written. I'm going to go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games and see if a series article or an expansion pack article have been GA or FA for some guidance.--Clyde (talk) 05:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Well there's enough in gameplay that I might be able to get it to GA with only my experience in RTSes and what's already in the article. Trust me, the gameplay isn't the hard part of writing a CVG article. Finding sources is hard, and writing the development section is the hardest. Other sections we might want to consider including are audio, promotion, packaging, and release info. It kind of differs based on the game and what is available. Right now I am just looking for development info on Empire Earth. Also, from now on you might want to source things using Template:Cite web, since if you go to GAC without the refs in that form you'll have to transfer them to that anyway.--Clyde (talk) 19:35, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Projects

Have you considering joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games or Wikipedia:WikiProject Strategy games?--Clyde (talk) 23:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re:reflist and others

In regards to groups, you may just want to join so people know where your interests lie if they want to contact you or ask for help, and most people on the CVG talk and strategy talk are part of their respective projects. As to reflist, I use {{reflist}}, but any one will do. As to the waiting five minutes, I can't guarantee that I will wait exactly 5 minutes, but I'll wait a little bit to see if you revert it yourself.--Clyde (talk) 04:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image reduction

I'm not sure what you mean by the image "going blurry". I use GIMP (which is free!), and reduce the image with the software. I don't do anything special. If you have a set of images you'd like me to reduce I would be glad to do it for you. If you want to do it yourself to learn how I can try to help you. Re-uploading the image over itself is easy. On each image page now is a link to reupload a file. The only critical part is to make sure the upload name of the file is the same as the existing file. This is done for you automatically if you use the link on the image page. Let me know if I can help you more. Good luck! --MECU≈talk 14:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: YTMND

The main page width is fine, though I am weary about submitting it to GA; there are still some sourcing issues, particularly the fact that I cited a lot of information with YTMND Wiki. We should transition from YTMND Wiki sources to things like news sources where possible. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker. 23:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re:cell phone

I would say to keep in the EE article, and give it's own section comparing the two versions. That's what usually is done. By the way, has it been released. IGN says yes, gamespot says no. Do you know?--Clyde (talk) 17:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Well that answers the question, and shows me that gamespot is out of date.--Clyde (talk) 17:51, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I always keep a check on them to see if I can help. That's actually another reason I was offering you join CVG, but if you work with the GCotW and don't feel like joining, its just as well.--Clyde (talk) 23:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thoughts

What do we do about this? I'm trying to balance no game guide info with giving anons a chance. What do you say?--Clyde (talk) 03:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Username change

Please see my reply to your request at Wikipedia:Changing username. Regards — Dan | talk 03:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

As I said, due to a current software restriction this is sadly impossible. The block logs list "The Negotiator" as having been blocked for vandalism; the logs do not transfer when the name is changed. They should, but they don't. This means that, even if I renamed "The Negotiator" and gave you that name, the log would say that you had been blocked. Even if you don't mind appearing to have been blocked, it would be an irregularity in the record, which I would prefer to avoid. — Dan | talk 19:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, very well. — Dan | talk 00:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ...

...nice. Clyde (talk) 02:13, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I meant no offense by it. The nice word itself was referring to the new user name. Good name. The link within the "nice" word was a joke. If you've ever seen the particular South Park episode I linked, there is a very distinct and humorous way of saying nice in the episode so you would understand how I would have said it in real life.--Clyde (talk) 23:33, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cascading

I guess it takes a while. 4chan right now is not protected. Garion96 (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EE3

What do you need help with? It looks pretty good.--Clyde (talk) 00:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Borat FAC

I've just gone and added access dates and publishers to as many of the references on Borat! as possible, per your comment on my nomination. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 15:51, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

On your recent comments:
  1. Done some work with the citations. Hoepfully it will be acceptable now.
  2. For some odd reason the link still wouldn't work, so I had to arrange it differently.
  3. Will consider
  4. Sent a request to the uploader for the source, but he appears to have not edited since January. Will remove if nothing comes up in a few days.
  5. I've actually been thinking that one could be replaced with an image of the back of the DVD case, to better illustrate the text (Would such an image be considered a free image if it was a pic taken by a user, or would it have to be fair use?) In addition, it appears to be a promotional image that doesn't actually reflect how the final packaging looks. I'll remove it and put up an image request.
  6. Been working on that as well. --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 13:11, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image:EE_Art_of_Conquest.jpg

Just so you know, I removed the whitespace as you requested from this image, but I did not remove the clean up tag. If you are satisfied with it please remove it (as I'm not sure if I'm allowed to). Thanks. :) --RazorICE 11:34, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Also fixed this image. I think. I'm not sure if that's what you were looking for. --RazorICE 11:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] EE mobile

You can go ahead and remerge it, I don't care that much. The only reason I split the article in the first place was because the infobox was bleeding into the references (at least on explorer firefox and opera), and was misleading and bulky.--Clyde (talk) 23:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Still doesn't solve our problem though...--Clyde (talk) 00:10, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Um...

Yo check this [1].--Clyde (talk) 23:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ref

Do you own EE? Because we need a ref for the story section. It's a good article by the way.--Clyde (talk) 14:38, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Prison Break season 3 episode list

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Template:Infobox Prison Break season 3 episode list, by Ladida (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Template:Infobox Prison Break season 3 episode list fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Housekeeping - no articles use this template as the third season of Prison Break has not begun and no episodes are notable enough to be created yet


To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Template:Infobox Prison Break season 3 episode list, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 00:26, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey. When I tagged it for speedy deletion, I meant to tag it for template deletion because at the time it did fit the criteria but I forgot to change it. However, it no longer fits the criteria as Season 3 has premiered. You should also note that the template should have been created at or after the premiere date of Season 3 since none of the episodes were notable at that time. Regards, Ladida 00:12, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ad-Aware Reference

The features box you created in the article looks good and the clean-up looks pretty complete too.

Thanks for your comments on that better-spyware-removal reference. You are quite right the article is undated and the Ad-Aware version isn't specified.

I didn't put that reference in there - it long pre-dates my working on the page, but I did have a look at it.

The article is marked as "copyright 2006" and so I assume that it was written in that year and that they were writing about "Ad-Aware SE", but that is not clear in that article. There is a link to another article which specifies that they are looking at "SE", presumably in both articles. Since I didn't put it in I can't tell you much else. Ahunt 22:45, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that it was edited to make the software look poor, but I did add a critique section. There are many software articles on Wikipedia that have been tagged either as "advertisements" or for "speedy deletion" because they weren't balanced and appeared to just promote the software.
When I started work on this article it was just messy and unstructured. There were criticisms but they were difficult to make sense of. Your latest changes look pretty good, although the "advert vultures" might accuse you of deleting criticisms to make the software look better. Personally I have been using Ad-Adware for a number of years since our IT folks recommended it at work. I am a big fan of it and the fact that Lavasoft have made it available in a freeware version for Windows. I thought it just needed a better article than it had.
I am not sure that this sort of software justifies a huge article. It looks to me like you are probably close to having it pretty complete and being able to remove that "clean-up" tag in the near future. Ahunt 02:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
No problem - I got the software logo image which includes the "Ad-Aware globe icon" and put it on the page. The article is looking pretty complete now! Good job! Ahunt 12:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You're welcome

My pleasure to keep it clean. Hey I was wondering, do you own AoC?--Clyde (talk) 02:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Well if you ever happen to play through some of the campaigns and feel like citing the campaign section with lines from the game, it's probably the greatest obstacle for it ever becoming featured.--Clyde (talk) 20:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GameFAQs

I only partially reverted your edit. See my edit summary. --- RockMFR 23:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:EmpireEarth1.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:EmpireEarth1.gif. 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 05:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)