User talk:Xihr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Xenomorph (Alien)

The edits you made to the "Ash quote" at Xenomorph (Alien) are indeed grammatically sound. However they are not verbatim, as filmic quotations should be. I hope you understand. (Broadacre 11:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC))

[edit] AFD of CS weapons

Since you have edited the article, I thought it would be helpful to inform you that it has been nominated for deletion. I am notifying as a normal part of the AfD process. --Habap 14:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sweetback

Hi,

I've removed the link Sweetback from the Sade article because that word currently points at Sweet Sweetback's Baadasssss Song, the seventies movie. It would seem more sensible to me to either disambig the word or have Sweetback point to the band, with the movie being Sweetback (movie) or Sweet Sweetback or whatever, but at the moment it isn't and I didn't want you to think I was being a pest or looking for some oddly specific edit war :) StuartDouglas 21:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nik Kershaw

Quote:fair enough, but what's MySpace have to do with their marriage? As you didn't wait for an answer and removed the sentence without discussion I assume that was a rhetorical question. Still, I'll answer it. It was relevant to their divorce, not marriage, and to Sheri's status as a songwriter in her own right, albeit not sufficiently well-known IMHO to have her own Wikipedia page. Nik Kershaw was originally listed as one of her friends on MySpace, but has since been removed - the implication might reasonably be drawn that the divorce was not that amicable. Besides, people with an interest in Nik might have an interest in Sheri's career. Can you suggest how else that interest might best be served, given my previously stated opinion that she is not a sufficiently notable person, in Wikipedia's terms, to have her own Wikipedia page? Maybe add her MySpace to the list of external sites? Although some Nik fans seem to feel that all mention of his long-time backing singer and (to quote him) "muse" should be expunged wherever possible, I can't get that excited about it either way. And I'm not a Wikipedia addict so I'm not going to start a feud. Do what you like. NickS 21:46, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Hello again - I see you've removed some rather partisan stuff recently added, but what do you make of this: "The songs from this album were written some years earlier while Nik and Sheri lived at Beslyns in Gt Bardfield."? NickS 16:14, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Sure sounds to me like original research, at the very least. I'll look into it. Xihr 21:01, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I notice you removed within a few minutes an anecdote added anonymously about how Nik Kershaw found his manager Micky Modern, as "uncited". Google shows that the essence of the story is related by Kershaw in an interview transcribed (with typos) at http://www.nikkershaw.it/press/interviews/2002interview.php?id=8 Is it not Wikipedia policy to flag such statements as uncited and allow time for a citation to be added? NickS (talk) 22:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Not if also looks non-notable and possibly has point-of-view problems, which was the case here as well. Xihr (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] About Epsilon Radiation

Wow, you've really made me eat my words on Epsion Radiation, and I hope we can make that article better, adding the information that you answered to me. Slartibartfast1992 22:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sexual Healing

It's good for you. Jerkcity 23:59, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] James D. Nicoll

Has the inclusion of third-party references satisfied your specific desire for notability? If so, please remove the notable tag from the entry. More can be added if it is deemed necessary. -- Metahacker 16:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enemy Territory: Quake Wars Release date

It's a fair point, there is no definitive release date for the game but I figured this was as good as it's going to get until they eventually announce the final date. I guess I'm just digging around for anything I can get at the moment on this release! --KASanderson 08:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Usenet personalities

The link to Usenet Freedom Fighters has been re-added to Notable Usenet personalities by anonymous IP (200.28.171.165). I agree with your deletion, but just for my edification, who are these guys? — Loadmaster 23:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Replace the '**' above with 'ff' to understand the comment. Spam protection wasn't allowing any new comments to User:Xihr's talk page because of that link. Alatari 05:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Charmaine Sinclair

Hi. I saw that you restored the magazine and film listing that I had deleted from Charmaine Sinclair. In case you didn't know, I wanted to let you know that the listing was removed from the article in December (see Talk:Charmaine Sinclair#An overview of much-needed changes) and moved to Charmaine Sinclair/disputed content. The anon editor cut and pasted that "article" back into Charmaine Sinclair. Since it was deemed "unnecessary" and judged that it "did not add any encyclopedic value to the article" based on WP:WPPORN#Filmographies, I figured that the same thinking still applied. If you think that something has changed since December, I'm happy to leave the listing in Charmaine Sinclair.

Also, I didn't delete any categories. The anon editor cut and pasted the entire "disputed content" article — including its categories — so Charmaine Sinclair had each category listed twice. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 05:35, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unicorn & Butterfly

Who are you, man, to decide to remove information about facts from wikipedia? Did you remove anything about twin towers because they are destroyed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpiw (talk • contribs)

No idea what you're talking about. Xihr 20:26, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Question asked

Please, if you would answer my question posed to your comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autodynamics. Thanks! Nondistinguished 21:36, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I answered your question at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autodynamics. Please consider my points. Thanks! Nondistinguished 22:00, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

Hi, Xihr. You deserve a barnstar. Axl 18:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Life
Awarded to Xihr, for contributions to videogame articles. Axl 18:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elite (computer game) edits

Hi! I've noticed you've made quite a few edits to the Elite article, while some are good I disagree with the removal of some information, though you're right that it shouldn't be in a trivia section - it may be good to work it into the article somehow (stuff like the BBC micro's mode switching). I do also feel that the rating system is an important part of the game - it's where the title of the game comes from, after all. Xmoogle 09:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Mentioning the ranks that can achieved and that "Elite" is the final one is fine. A list of all ranks and what points are required to reach them is game guide material, and not suitable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Xihr 20:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Centipede reversion

Why did you revert this? Denimadept 21:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Because the change was awkwardly phrased and inferior to the original. Xihr 00:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Um, quite the reverse. It used the wording right off the machine. Also, there were other edits you lost by doing a reversion. I suggest you reconsider. Denimadept 00:44, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

The Barnstar of Peace
for this cool and calculated response to an obviously aggressive editor, I hereby give you this barnstar of peace.  ALKIVAR™ ☢ 23:24, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inappropriate deletion?

UnknownMan (talk · contribs) was trolling, and there is nothing inappropriate about removing trolling. Making edits like this is not helpful to admins trying to determine the consensus on these afds. Please revert yourself. Picaroon (t) 23:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not aware of any guideline or policy that allows removal of a !vote, however frivolous to be perceived, during an AfD. I'm certainly aware of no guideline or policy that allows removal of such a !vote and replies to it by third parties. This seems completely inappropriate. [1] [2] Xihr 00:06, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
The people who replied were probably unaware he was trolling. As someone who has closes afds from time to time, I'm telling you that comments made in bad faith are completely disregarded in determining consensus. My logic behind these removals is that closing admins who don't do a thorough job checking over the voters may be swayed by his silliness, even though looking over his contributions show's he was just mindlessly disrupting the process. Now I will be re-removing the trolling, and if you think it should be replaced you may post to the administrators' noticeboard. Picaroon (t) 00:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
If your concern is about closing admins giving it too much weight, then the proper response would be to indicate so with a followup response, rather than remove comments and responses that you did not write with no explanation in the edit summary. Xihr 01:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding User:Epbr123

Just to let you know, I plan on working on a RFC on Epbr123 sometime tomorrow, unless someone beats me to it. So if you have any additional evidence in the way of page diffs, other than those provided by Cheeser1 on the Wikiquette Alerts page, please post them there so that they can be added to the forthcoming RFC. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 03:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Cheeser1's diffs are pretty complete, at least in the breadth of User:Epbr123's misbehavior, if not every single example of them (there are far too many to individually list at this point). If need be, I might add examples of his initial actions that precipitated the edit war on List of big-bust models and performers, as well as his long, unending, leading questions on its talk page in order to keep the argument going. Another good example of his disruption is simply (and falsely) accusing people of engaging in whatever behavior he's been accused of, apparently as an attempt to try to even the scales. I meant to mention, if there's something specific you want from me for the RfC, let me know. Xihr 04:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RFC filed against User:Epbr123

I noticed your discussions regarding the etiquette of User:Epbr123. Due to events that have occurred since then, an RFC has been filed and you are invited to participate in determining the course of action that should be taken regarding resolving the issues that surround the user and his contested actions. --Joe Beaudoin Jr. Think out loud 19:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List/External links/big picture

Hi, Xihr. I noticed your agreeing with me with some reluctance at the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of big-bust models and performers (5th nomination), and I presume this is because of the external link dispute at that article. I just wanted to let you know, whether we ever do see eye-to-eye on that link or not, it's a minor issue. As far as the big picture, we seem to be on the same page. Regards, and happy editing. Dekkappai 22:18, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I still think the link is inappropriate, but obviously the much bigger problem here was the defacement, AfD, and further bizarre behavior by User:Epbr123. Compared to that, the link staying or going is of little importance. Xihr 23:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Elite (computer game)

That source I posted did have a few skeptical comments from users posting their thoughts after the article. Albeit almost all were "you're the man" comments. I did find some source calling it Vaporware and since it's been 8 years and no results that seems relevant to leave the skepticism comment in. I'll look for the vaporware source. Found it: | Elite 4 Forums Alatari 05:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

One thread in one chat forum does not exactly demonstrate the claim. If it's to stay, it has to be better sourced, more neutral and less weasely. Xihr 06:28, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Have you even read the Elite 4 article? Any product that hasn't even shown interactive demos within 7 years of production time is highly suspect that it will even be produced. The wording maybe changed a bit but the gist of the skepticism about whether the game will even be made will need to stay in the article. I'll find some industry experts who also believe the game is a dead end and link their articles. Alatari 08:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Searched for 'Vaporware "Elite 4"' and have found 6 forums with at least 10 different user names stating they are serious fans and believe it will never happen. One on Digg wrote this article: |Why there'll never be an Elite 4. How many post on how many different forums stating skepticism before it becomes noteworthy and verified? Hmmm.... Still gathering evidence then Alatari 09:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
The German language Wikipedia lists Elite 4 on their article about Vaporware as a top example: German Wikipedia Vaporware and yes I know we can't source other Wikipedia's. Looking for that ringer of a published authority who states what the evidence is pointing towards. Alatari 09:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Made my final edit. Hope it's a good compromise. I spent 3 hours researching it and it's solidly sourced. Alatari 10:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that's fine. It's now nice an NPOV and purely factual with no weasel words. Thanks for working with me on this. Xihr 21:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
It looks like Frontier might get this thing published. Hopefully it will do the Elite universe justice. Also wonder how relations between MMO Elite and EVE Online will be. Alatari 11:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Starflight

How come you're removing a paragraph as 'trivia' when it is clearly a information about the difference between this particular port of Starflight vs the other versions of this game? --Bhaak 11:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it's trivial information about an obscure port that has no place here. Mentioning the ports is fine, but going into excrutiating detail about how precisely the ports were different from the original in terms of difficulty and exact placement of things is not constructive. Xihr 20:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weyland the Smith and Weyland-Yutani: A Connection?

Cobb said, "I wanted to imply that poor old England is back on its feet and has united with the Japanese, who have taken over the building of spaceships". Since Weyland/Wayland is an English smith, a god of makers of things from metal, I felt (like a prior editor who'd inserted this) that it was relevant. Is this unreasonable, or just O.R.? --Orange Mike 15:03, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flatland

What's a COI linkspam? - DavidWBrooks 00:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

ah - conflict of interest. But even if the poster is the guy who made the movie, I still think the math-journal reviews are legitimate additions. Why aren't they? - DavidWBrooks 00:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
If they're legitimate interest, let someone else without a conflict of interest add them. Given his peppering of the page with his links, it's not only a conflict of interest, but spamming. Xihr 02:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I did re-add them - you took them out again. They strike me as legitimate, regardless of his/her intentions. What matters is the quality of the article, right? - DavidWBrooks 10:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Restoring his repeated linkspam isn't the same thing as a third party legitimately adding them. Xihr 21:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shays' Rebellion

Assuming that you know, can you tell me why the Shays' Rebellion article is currently protected? There is no discussion on the talk page about editorial conflicts---though, to be honest, the talk page is such a mess it is damned near worthless---and there is, in fact, so little content in the article, and so little referencing for what content is there, I am not sure where or over what a conflict would have arisen. Has the page been a target for a great deal of vandalism? If you know, I would be grateful if you would tell me.

By the way, and on a related matter, thanks for the fix earlier on the Whiskey Rebellion article. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 03:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it's been on the receiving end of a massive amount of (very immature) vandalism, not legitimate edit conflicts. I assume that the cause is someone covering Shays' Rebellion in an elementary school social studies class somewhere and that the teacher encouraged them to research on Wikipedia, and/or they have access to the Internet from school, though I don't know for sure. Xihr 07:10, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, that makes perfect sense to me. This, I assume, is also the reason that we get spates of vandalism to other articles involving the colonial and Revolutionary war periods. Alas... The internet (and Wikipedia in particular) can be a great tool, or it can be merely a source of amusement. Mores the pity that for a great many people it is more the latter than the former. Thank you for your response. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
I've noticed this on the Sugar Act; the hypothesis seems a sound one. --Orange Mike 19:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I've noticed it in other articles as well, such as Whiskey Rebellion (possibly even the same class) and Code of Hammurabi. It also appears cyclical; it starts up and stops. Xihr 21:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ultima IV maps

What is your problem. These links have been up on that page forever, and they're a resource. There is no adds, there is no promotion, hell there isn't even any links on the pages. And the Text files are over 20 years old now, even the phone numbers on them to Apple BBS's from 1985 are all useless. Would it help if the link was to the same files via Textfiles.com?BcRIPster (talk) 17:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doom 3

Hi Xihr, regarding this edit, I placed {{fact}} tags on a couple of “quotes” because I haven’t found anything in the game to verify them. Although they may be uncontroversial, they seem like speculation of original research. Where in the game does the player learn that the message specifically “warns that Betruger's tests are threatening to overload the portal's containment fields”? The players know that the catastrophic scenario takes place, but can they be sure that's exactly what message contained?

When do the players learn that the demons are “confident that the only key to their defeat lies safely in their hands”? The best quote I can find in support of this statement is in pak003.pk4->sound\vo\delta2b\bet_soulcube_in_hell.ogg, but that does not prove that the demons are confident about having the Soul Cube. I hope you understand that my intention is to remove all the original research within the Plot section.

Lastly, why did you restore the information about the radio chatter of various teams? Even if it is a part of the plot, it is insignificant, and it is explained in further detail at the bottom of the #Presentation section. —LOL (talk) 20:21, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I only meant to revert the first {{fact}} tag, not the second and to restore the comment about the screams. I'll fix. Xihr (talk) 21:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension

Hi, just regarding your reversion of the Buckaroo Banzai page with the following comment "rv highly suspicious (poorly written) claims", sorry if it was poorly written, but all you had to do was google any of the new titles I put in to verify the legitimacy of what was added. You can also verify it on the Moonstone Boooks page: http://www.moonstonebooks.com/banzai.asp Can I suggest you re-write what I had added into more acceptable prose. 89.101.242.183 (talk) 12:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

If so, you need to cite reliable sources which make those claims in the article. Xihr (talk) 19:21, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I will do, thanks for your help in this 89.101.242.183 (talk) 20:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ASCII art

Any particular reason for removing ">:3"? The table actually looks worse now for it, so I'm assuming there was some compelling reason. Cratylus3 (talk) 14:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the entry was clearly comical. Xihr (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dewmocracy

Thank you for your brief commentary on the Dewmocracy article. Would you mind elaborating on what material you feel is worthy of merging? I do not see how a merge would be beneficial given the trivial and non-notable nature of the information presented, and believe that shuffling it over to Mountain Dew would be a disservice to the people who have worked on that article. Coccyx Bloccyx 23:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The description of what it is, and that is all. User:Mithent's comment on the AfD page was sufficient. Xihr 02:08, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Shield

Why did you revert my last change? You do not need a / after br when doing a break. Maybe you should have checked all that I did before unnecessarily reverting. I put the article back to where YOU said it should be. Then I removed the /'s because they aren't necessary and they aren't uniform to other articles' infoboxes. The revert you did was unnecessary. I had previously removed the unnecessary character summary additions to what you had. Your reverts weren't in good faith, IMO. Please explain.KellyAna (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

They aren't required, and they aren't wrong, either. They're perfectly valid. Try to concentrate on edits that will improve the appearance of the article, rather than edits no reader will ever see. Xihr (talk) 23:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
That was rude. Did you miss the part where I DID improve the article by removing the edits you had previously removed? You seem to be asserting ownership over the article by making unnecessary reverts. Your explanation clearly indicates a "your way or the highway" attitude about the formatting, which is not compliant with Wikipedia policy. Your reverts were unnecessary and your edit summary was inappropriate. As I have recently been informed, reverting valid edits is definitely showing bad faith. KellyAna (talk) 23:28, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
You lost me at "removing the edits you had previously removed." We're talking about one particular edit and one particular reversion, not other edits prior to that. And please assume good faith. Xihr (talk) 00:49, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
You need to fully review all the edits and see that your edit did not assume good faith since you reverted a perfectly legitimate edit. My point is an IP edit came in once, their edits were reverted to your last revision. They came back and I reverted them back to your revision. THEN I removed unnecessary slashes. You reverted those edits (my removal of the slashes) which is considered against good faith. You cannot ask me to assume good faith when you did not on my edits even though I reverted originally to your "request" that character summaries be simple. You REVERTING my removal of the slashes is the definition of NOT assuming good faith so dont tell me to assume good faith. KellyAna (talk) 01:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
You obviously need to read WP:AAGF. And how exactly your unwarranted editing of my own editorial changes on my talk page supposed to represent your claim of assumption of good faith? You're doing your best here to indicate that you don't deserve the fruits of WP:AGF. Xihr (talk) 09:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I brought in a neutral third party and am moving on. Do as you want and enjoy. KellyAna (talk) 14:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
In the future, please try to be not so quick to jump the gun on accusations of bad faith, since doing so is in and of itself failing to assume good faith. Xihr (talk) 22:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I do believe you are the one making false accusations. I asked a question about your inappropriate reverts. You're the one that went where you did. You obviously assert ownership of articles you don't own. I would further advise you to behave civilly as you have not thus far. I asked a question, you immediately were the one who did not assume good faith and further edited links to make people look bad. It's sad really. Just sad. KellyAna (talk) 01:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I explained why I did what I did. You were the one who jumped full bore into groundless accusations. Please calm down. Xihr (talk) 01:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Calm down? Full bore??? You are a funny over reactionary. KellyAna (talk) 01:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FreeSpace 2

Hi, do you own the game? (before I ask anything else) -- Cat chi? 23:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. And no, I will not pirate it for you. Xihr (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
That's certainly not assuming good faith accusing someone of wanting an illegal copy of a game. KellyAna (talk) 01:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
It was a joke, pest. I know this guy. Now you're just trolling; go look to try to make trouble elsewhere, please. Xihr (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
No sweat I have legal copies of all the FreeSpace games except Silent Threat expansion. About the node map. I recall getting it off of the official site. That was some time ago - well over 2 years. It might have been added to the official website despite being a 'fan creation' as you suggested. Volition had done so in the past, especially for missions.
We certainly have this official map that establishes most of the nodes. Everything else should be in line with all briefing connections in the game. It is not OR to duplicate that info. I suppose we could verify all node related info not mentioned on the official map I just linked. We do know a lot about the subspace nodes from the briefings. For example we do know that the Sol (at the end of the first game) and Capella nodes were severed (at the end of the second game). I suppose we could cite exactly which mission establishes node connections. How does that sound to you?
-- Cat chi? 02:21, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, at the very least the copyright status of the image you posted is in question, and so probably is insuitable. A recreated map from a source map is perhaps borderline original research. A better solution would be to just include the original map you cited above, and get permission to do so. Even in that case, the caption to the image was overlong and didn't need to say much more than "This is a jump node map of the Terran-Vasudan region of space." Xihr (talk) 04:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Image captions are supposed to explain the contents of the image in question. That is the very point of them. The reader should understand what about the image is significant. The summaries can be longer if an additional description is needed. Explanation over the alterations to the map (destruction of the nodes) only makes sense. The summary wasn't that long either, a mere 3 sentences. Consider various captions on the article September 11, 2001 attacks and how long they are. Mind that these are description of the photos and not a map. Or consider the article Tibet with 6 sentences as the caption.
A recreated map from a source map is not any where NEAR original research. We do it all the time on a wide range of articles such as various maps on countries, world and etc (see: Image:McDonaldsWorldLocations.svg). If a node between two star systems is mentioned on a briefing in the game, thats more than adequate to construct such a map. There is noting original of using information established in the game itself to construct an image. Consider reviewing this: Wikipedia:No original research#Original_images
We do not need any permission to use images under fair use. Fair use by nature is use without permission for educational purposes. If you mean getting free license permissions that is unlikely to happen.
Please notify me on my talk page so I know you posted a reply.
-- Cat chi? 14:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
That is not Wikipedia's current policy. Fair use is not clear or broad enough to save this particular case, since it is not clear exactly who owns the copyright (and the credit is assigned to someone's alias, rather than Volition, Inc. or something more direct). One needs to secure explicit permission, and/or a relicensing, in order to use an image of unknown origin. Xihr (talk) 22:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Star Dust (aircraft)

Hi Xihr,

You removed the two lines of morse code (STENDEC/STR DEC) I had copied from the German WP in the Star Dust article.

Do you really think they constituted "original research"? I thought of it as simply a helpful illustration of the problems with morse and how a miscommunication could arise in this context. Please consider. Cheers! -- Syzygy (talk) 13:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Geometry Wars

Hi Xihr, you removed my edit because you suspected it to be "linkspam". I'd like to ask you to look into the matter more deeply. Ever played Echoes? It is pretty similar. I was searching for the history of echoes when I stumbled across the game that it probably originated from. Therefore, a link is justified. I leave the matter in your hands however. Do as you think is best. Kind regards, --Cruzlee (talk) 15:30, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quake II Revert

Hi,

I'm just writing to see if we can discuss the revert you made to the Quake 2 article. Basically there were three things I added: some information about player models, a screenshot of Quake 2 Max, and a screenshot of Action Quake 2. Since you didn't give an explanation for why you reverted, I'd appreciate it if you could give me one for each of those changes. Thanks.

The technical information involved game guide material that was non-notable; the custom content graphics were also non-notable; and the screenshots are POV since they concentrate only on a mod of Quake II', and not the game itself, and have questionable copyright status. Xihr (talk) 06:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
First, I didn't add any technical information. In the last edit I made, the changes I made were: 1. A couple of sentences in "Custom Content". 2. A reception section. 3. Three screenshots- one of Action Quake 2, one of Quake 2 Max and one of the Optimus Prime model. So which of those are you referring to? Second, I don't understand what you mean by "game guide material". Third, how are the screenshots of mods here any different to the one of the Ghostbusters mod used in Doom_(video_game)? Fourth I disagree that the custom content graphics are non-notable. They give people an idea of what custom models look like, and since custom models are used by pretty much everyone who plays Quake 2 online, I think it's a reasonably important feature of the game to illustrate. Anyway, thanks for your quick reply. Ben 2082 (talk) 06:33, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Virtues of Ultima OR tagging

Hi Xiph,

Could you be more specific concerning the "OR galore" you found in the article? Looking over the article, the only thing I could find that appeared to be OR was the table providing the relationships between Mandrake the Bard's Principles and Virtues. Kitanin (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is confusing about the tag, since the entire article consists of posting highly detailed, extrapolated claims without citation. Xihr (talk) 05:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, almost nothing in the article is extrapolation, but is instead directly from the games. (With the aforementioned exception of the relationship between Mandrake's Principles and Virtues, and upon a re-read, the Anti-Virtues.) Basically, the citations will be Ultimas IV-VII, Ultima VII part II, and Ultima Underworld II themselves. Kitanin (talk) 08:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The Shield: OR and seconday sources

Reference The Shield: The change you reverted contained analysis, which is original research unless it is properly attributed to a reliable secondary source. Please see the talk page for a more detailed explaination. Reverted (again). /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Salted bomb

I thought you might like to know. [3] 70.130.233.21 (talk) 05:20, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Bravo. A very good start. Xihr (talk) 06:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] StarForce: No personal attacks

Please remember WP:NPA. I do not have an axe to grind - the information you removed is of direct relevance to the article, particularly StarForce#StarForce_3.0_Reputation. --Tom Edwards (talk) 22:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

And please remember WP:NPOV. Xihr (talk) 22:04, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I repeat: the information you removed is of direct relevance to the article, particularly StarForce#StarForce_3.0_Reputation. Do you dispute this? --Tom Edwards (talk) 22:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
As I already indicated, I don't see how it's relevant except to make a POV claim. Xihr (talk) 22:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
It's relevant because it goes against claims made later in the article. --Tom Edwards (talk) 10:49, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
I think the article talk page is a much more appropriate place to have this discussion. --DachannienTalkContrib 22:14, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation of “Sade”

The pronunciation of “Sade” is already given in the lede. Why are you restoring the second note, which is redundant as uses an ad hoc notation instead of the IPA? —70.183.105.254 (talk) 04:12, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Because it's traditional, and very few people understand IPA well enough for it to actually be a useful pronunciation guide. Xihr (talk) 21:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
What you're calling “traditional” is really ad hoc. Many people are going to see your second “h”, and wonder if there's an aspiration ad the end of the first syllable. Meanwhile, the IPA as close as we have to a generally understood system. Yes, not everyone knows it, but more people know it than would know, say, [shä·dā´] (which is how The American Heritage Dictionary would represent those sounds). —70.183.105.254 (talk) 05:09, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FYI: 90.205.80.229 / 90.208.215.240 / Avengah

Same dude. Vandal, troll, abuser of sock-puppets. —SlamDiego←T 00:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, what is this in reference to? Xihr (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
His interaction with you has been to insist that there be a “silent R” in the phonetic representation of “Sade”. He has been a willfully disruptive editor, and was blocked. He got unblocked by promising to sin no more. If he returns to disruption, I suggest that you review his talk page and then contact an admin. —SlamDiego←T 06:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for the explanation. I will take it under advisement. Xihr (talk) 08:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of magazine appearances for Charmaine Sinclair

Xihr, I've reviewed WP:NOT, and I'm not entirely sure why you invoked it for the deletion of the magazine appearances section of Charmaine Sinclair. I think the deletion negatively impacts the rationale for the entire article, under WP:N#Notability requires objective evidence. Since the subject is a glamour model, highlights of her magazine appearances are significant. Perhaps a subset of her appearances, especially as a covergirl and a Playmate model, would be appropriate. Charmaine1997 (talk) 01:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tristan A. Farnon

Not that bizarre, I think. "Tristan Farnon" is the name of a leading character based on a real-life person called Brian Sinclair in All Creatures Great and Small, a popular series of books and TV programmes. It seems perfectly reasonable to disambiguate that name from "Tristan A. Farnon", and equally reasonable to direct the reader to the real name. What's odd about that? Richard Pinch (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If anything, the disambig should go to All Creatures Great and Small, not the person that the character was based off of. Xihr (talk) 18:29, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Why? Is there a guideline to that effect, or is it simply your personal opinion? Richard Pinch (talk) 19:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with any guideline directly on point, but it's hard for me to see how it's not common sensical. Xihr (talk) 22:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I see. I hope you find the current message, referring to Tristan Farnon, less bizarre. Richard Pinch (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Could you please explain more fully?

I do my best to understand the points of those who have concerns over material I contributed. You stated a concern over WP:COATRACK.

I have had other contributors express a concern over COATRACK. I have asked everyone who stated this concern to be specific about which section(s) of the COATRACK essay they were concerned my contributions ignored. No one has been prepared to be specific. I don't mean to embarrass you if your characterization of the article posing a "definite" COATRACK concern was meant to be taken rhetorically, rather than literally. But, if you meant this to be taken literally, and you still hold that view, I would be very grateful if you were prepared to take the time to be specific.

I found the lack of reply to my query on the part of others who expressed this concern very frustrating, because if I really am oblivious to some aspect of my contributions ignoring the advice of this essay, their unwillingness to reply is not going to help me recognize this, and, well, stop doing it.

You also wrote:

...besides the subject is not as notable as the article purports to be.

It would be a big help to me if you could help me understand which passage(s) you think misleading purports greater notability than Abdul Salaam merited. Is there any way you could see your way clear to spelling that out?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 16:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I you do take the time to reply, you can do so here. I'll check back.