User talk:JackSparrow Ninja/Archive

2006

July 2006

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, JackSparrow Ninja, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! Garion96 ^(talk) 12:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Twilight Princess reverts

Please discuss the current Twilight Princess reverts here before reverting again, thanks. -- ReyBrujo 20:05, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dolphin

Many, many, many species have sex for plesure. - UtherSRG (talk) 20:06, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wind Waker interview

Hey thar,

Let me know if/when you find that TWW interview where Aonuma restates the 100 years to hundreds. I know it's true indeed, but re-finding it is another thing. Good work on keeping the Zelda articles correct. Keep it up.

greets Martijn martijngamer@gmail.com

Sure!

That's what I like to do in the end.

You love something, you take care for it.

Nice job on your site btw. JackSparrow Ninja 22:02, 11 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Takt

Regarding this edit, you said to see the talk page, but didn't leave a comment. Pagra shtak 03:40, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

August 2006

Kodai no Sekiban

Please consult the Kodai no Sekiban talk page before reverting the article again: Talk:BS The Legend of Zelda: Kodai no Sekiban#Title mistranslation. Guermantes 05:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consulted it, and the story says it's Ancient Stone Tablets rather then your version. That's why I said, first make your point. JackSparrow Ninja 06:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're being absurd and childish. The part about the title mistranslation was posted about "Ancient Stone Tablets" not "Stone Tablets of Antiquity". Did you even read the discussion? I suggest you take a closer look, because you are obviously not familiar with it (or the language in general). There is a lengthy explanation about what each character means and why "Stone Tablets of Antiquity" is grammatically superior and truer to the denotation of the original Japanese. There has been no cited official translation. Until one is produced, the most accurate translation should stand. Guermantes 22:22, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Lordzeddhuman.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lordzeddhuman.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. 17:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

September 2006

list of worst games

hello jackSparrow, an anonymous user wants these two games which are South Park Rally and Robocop added to the list of worst games ever, to be honest i would love to dicuss those games for him or her but the problem is that i just dont have them games. if he or she desperately wants them there, what can i do? many thanks. Touth 20:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

jackSparrow, i have just discussed what i thought about South Park Rally. its not much but at least i discussed about it which might help. i have not yet discussed about Robocop but i will soon ok? happy editing! Touth 21:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hello jackSparrow, i have now discussed about Robocop. i hope my feedbacks have helped you and the other users! many thanks for your kindness. happy editing my friend! Touth 23:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Twilight Princess boxart

Yes, the {{fair use reduced}} tag only indicates administrators that older versions of the image should be deleted because they were too big or high resolution for Wikipedia. By the way, you should not blank your talk page except when archiving, as that may be considered vandalism. -- ReyBrujo 15:55, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FIFA 07 Box

You were right it was the cache. Great image for the article by the way, thanks! // Laughing Man 04:39, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

October 2006

After Burner: Black Falcon

What's your problem with the article?
I think the way it's put it's pretty neutral, but I said you could reword if you don't like it.
Removing the entire piece of information is, sorry to say, bogus. JackSparrow Ninja 02:29, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not information, it's ad copy, and it's clearly copied and pasted from somewhere. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is ad copy? It comes from the official website, which was added as reference, and the text added to make it neutral. How is information on the number and sorts of airplanes ad copy? Don't be rediculous please. JackSparrow Ninja 02:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the whole mess as an advertisement. Encyclopedia articles do not use language such as "With an emphasis on speed and firepower, you will haul ass over deserts, mountain ranges, forests, and blast into high-altitude combat in a number of high-speed missions. Then invite your friends into co-op games to help you get better scores and earn more cash. Then buy engine and weapon upgrades, and customize your paint job to create your own personalized jet fighter." - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:48, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which is why I have said, reword it if you don't like it. This is blatant vandalism from your side. Please get your act together and don't go abusing your power please. JackSparrow Ninja 02:50, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles which are blatant ads should be deleted on sight; this was recently added to the criteria for speedy deletion. That was a blatant ad. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are turning away from the point. It was information, which if in your eyes it was an ad, could be reworded. Which I suggested. Please explain to me why you don't want to reply on you ignoring the request to reword it if you had a problem with it. JackSparrow Ninja 02:57, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't want to reword it because I'm not in the mood to help a blatant ad squeak by. Feel free to reword it yourself if you want the article on Wikipedia, but please don't replace content that doesn't even bother to pay lip service to Wikipedia's purpose. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zelda image

Hello, I changed the image because the source of the original one is currently offline, so it can't be verified. The image I added was the official one according to IGN, I didn't know it was incorrect (though I noticed the different colors). I have now found this one on Amazon and it is similar to yours, but a bit darker. I don't understand why they are all different, but if you don't mind I would like to replace the current one with the one from Amazon (it's not watermarked). Mushroom (Talk) 01:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Mushroom.

They've made it from this photo, which is an event where Nintendo officially showed it. The IGN one is too light, and the Amazone one is too dark. I think the Amazone one will do untill Land of the Legend is back. I'm just carefull on what is placed how and where, since there are so many different.

Thank you for watching out for it though. Happy editting! JackSparrow Ninja 01:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have found a better one, still on Amazon. It's almost identical to the one from Land of Legend, so I have uploaded it. Happy editing! Mushroom (Talk) 01:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ace! Thanks for letting me know. JackSparrow Ninja 02:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Zendokumpscreenshot.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Zendokumpscreenshot.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. 03:08, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

November 2006

Image tagging for Image:Tloztp twilightking.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tloztp twilightking.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. 07:08, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Tloztp princesszelda.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Tloztp princesszelda.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. 08:06, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Winning Eleven vandalizing

Hey MrBronson,

Just thought I'd let you know I've put a protection on the Winning Eleven so that editing of the article by unregistered or newly registered users is disabled. I hope this will help. Let me know if there's any further problems.

greets JackSparrow Ninja 19:27, 4 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sarahfisher.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sarahfisher.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives 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. --Chowbok ☠ 20:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linkspam

I noticed that you added a link to an outside Zelda site to The Legend of Zelda: The Triforce Trilogy. This is linkspam. Don't do it, it will only get reverted and get you blocked. Scepia 06:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~But why was the link ever on there? It seems like advertising a site that that doesn't need to be linked to. Scepia 07:14, 10 November 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

I read the talk page. It's all good ;) Scepia 07:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zelda: TP

Just putting the semi-protection tag doesn't protect a page. Only an Admin can actually protect the page, you can always request protection though. TJ Spyke 04:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can I do that, or could you? Cheers. JackSparrow Ninja 04:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go, request it here: Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. TJ Spyke 05:01, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Raymanravingrabbidswiibox.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Raymanravingrabbidswiibox.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. 12:18, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Tloztp twilightking.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Tloztp twilightking.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with 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 fair use images 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. — TKD::Talk 20:48, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:3RR

Hey Jack,

Just wanted to let you know that you're in violation of the three-revert rule at List of computer and video games considered the worst ever, having reverted multiple editors in good faith at least 5 times in the last 24 hours. Please discuss the issue with them on the talk page rather than engage in an edit war. Please be aware that further reversions may result in a temporary block, as this type of editing is considered disruptive and counter to the whole idea of consensus-building. Thanks. — TKD::Talk 20:31, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule at List of computer and video games considered the worst ever. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The block is for 24 hours. Note that these are 4 clear reverts: [1], [2], [3], [4]; but there were also some partial reverts in this time period as well. Reverting constantly is not going to convince anyone, and is disruptive. Please discuss the issue on the talk page when the block expires. — TKD::Talk 00:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please discuss the issue with them on the talk page rather than engage in an edit war.

If you would look at the situation, you would see that said users are the ones that have started an edit war, ignoring any discussion that over time has been made by the users that look after the article.

The edits have not been in good faith. Well referenced parts have been removed, while others have been removed where a simple tag would have fullfilled. The edits that were made were done very carelessly and with no showing of good faith howsoever. Good faith would have been discussing it, as has been proposed many times by me. Yet these users believe, for some reason, they are important enough to have a veto that overrules anything else.

This whole ordeal is caused because all users that have never been involved in the article, and have no background information whatsoever, have been dragged into this by one user that for some reason feels wronged about a well-referenced addition. I hope when overlooking the situation, you will see past a 3RR, which is nothing more then a try to stop the vandalism that this article is enduring, and unblock me. Cheers. JackSparrow Ninja 00:30, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it appears that the dispute is over referencing standards for inclusion in the list, and what may have been acceptable in the past is being questioned by multiple editors. Remember, consensus can change and that there is no ownership of an article outside of the sense for copyright purposes. Bringing in third (and fourth and fifth, etc.) opinions is fine; it's what WP:RFC does. That said, it looks like everyone is editing in good faith; it's a matter of how to define the standards for inclusion in the list that appears to be problematic. I'd advise you to be careful not to label their edits as vandalism, especially given concerns over verifiability and defamation; WP:VAND's definition is stricter than that. This isn't about vandalism; it's a content dispute.

I'll unblock if you promise to stop edit warring and work with the others to try to come to a consensus as to what the standards should be for "the worst ever". — TKD::Talk 00:59, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess a different point of view is possible.

Promise though. Thanks for understanding. JackSparrow Ninja 01:26, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've unblocked. Happy editing. — TKD::Talk 01:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Vandalism"

Please do not tag good faith edits by other users as vandalism. Wikipedia:No original research is an official policy on Wikipedia - please have a good read through it. Remember too that this is an encyclopaedia and articles should be written in an encyclopaedic-tone and have citations. Thanks/wangi 17:06, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember you were unblocked above because you indicated that you would stop doing these reverts... /wangi 17:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This was one -of many- case of vandalism by AMIB. He has removed many well referenced parts, and removing the game that is considered the worst ever by everyone -take a look at the article page, it's overrun with references to it- is vandalism. That entry is no OR, it is well referenced and supported by everyone. JackSparrow Ninja 17:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:TheLegendOfZeldaTwilightPrincessGraphicscomparison.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:TheLegendOfZeldaTwilightPrincessGraphicscomparison.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Fritz S. (Talk) 18:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

December 2006

Please stop ad-placing Land of the Legend

In the Phantom Hourglass article, you changed a distributor citation to a fan site citation. I have reverted it to a citation of my own site because we verified in July 2006 Phantom Hourglass was delayed until 2007, which was verified by other sites after we announced it. Additionally, in September 2006, NOA's press site updated to reflect the 2006 schedule, which showed PH not in the 2006 schedule. We got confirmation from both NOA and NOE that PH was not being released in 2006, and in North America, not before March 2007, and we also reported on this. You also have made reverts on the Twilight Princess page. The most embarrassing edit you made was about The Wind Waker 2, which was a report made by IGN after GDC 2004 in which they had the only image proving that fact about it. Land of the Legend has no authority over IGN on that matter because it was proved via a live photograph of the claim (TWW 2 as a title). Also, the LotL "pre-release" guide is nothing but a compilation of info from other sources, and using LotL's reference there, rather than original, verifiable sources is detrimental to the integrity of this encyclopedia. I have officially filed a complaint with the administration that you are tampering with articles and trying to advertise Land of the Legend with seocnd-hand citations. Please change because you are very active and do make better contributions, but your bias for Land of the Legend is ruining you. --TSA 06:53, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi Mellesime,

I decided not to respond to your topic on the talk page of The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, not to prevoke some war, but I thought I'd let you know personally what's the deal with TSA.

I do not know where you have heard bad things of him, but changes are they are correct. Though, to my knowledge, only Land of the Legend openly disagrees with him, many Zelda webmasters I talk to consider him a joke. His attitude aside, since the announcement of The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, he alone has been responsible for 3 major rumours concerning the game, and many smaller rumours and pieces of faulty information on the side. The only reason I let those references be there, is because they link to magazine scans, which are reliable because of the magazine. Whenever some references goes to TSA himself, I simply find another source or if there is none, delete it without comment. That often does the job. Commenting on it only gets you a lot of shouting and spam from TSA, and that's good for no one.

Just thought I'd let you know on the topic. Feel free to ask anytime you want.

Cheers and happy editing JackSparrow Ninja 01:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the discussions that I had been a part of were fairly civil, even if a particular user's reliability was in question. I hadn't meant to start any kind of spam war, or anything of the sort; simply to bring up that I found it funny that as much as I had heard TSA's name associated with false rumors leading up to the Twilight Princess release I was wondering why he was cited for the article. It was my fault for not actually looking at the source, so I apologize for any unnecessary argument that resulted in my question. -- Mellesime 08:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IGN

It can be verified that IGN is more often correct than they are incorrect. As I said, all you need to know is that Wikipedia - not me - says verifiability is more important than truth. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Land of the Legend

You explain, right here, right now, why Land of the Legend is verifiable - and yes, a source CAN be verified. Am I to understand you disagree with the idea of sources being verified as to whether or not they can be used? We have to verify if they can be used. If we can, it is verifiable. If not, it is unverifiable. As it stands, you have yet to verify this source. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They never do citations. --TSA 19:42, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reliability page is a joke

So I fixed it up. --TSA 20:34, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Bahrain International Circuit.jpg

Hello, concerning your contribution, Image:Bahrain International Circuit.jpg, we 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.bahraingp.com.bh/virtual-tracks.html. As a copyright violation, Image:Bahrain International Circuit.jpg appears to qualify for speedy deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Image:Bahrain International Circuit.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. If the source is a credible one, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source.

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 GFDL, you can comment to that effect on [[Talk::Image:Bahrain International Circuit.jpg]]. If the article has already been deleted, but you have a proper release, you can reenter the content at Image:Bahrain International Circuit.jpg, after describing the release on the talk page. However, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Alexj2002 22:23, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2007

January 2007

Blood in Zelda TP

Hi ForestAngel,

I'm not sure what the reason was for outburst on the Twilight Princess talk-page, but please be polite.

I agree that the rating is kind of stupid, since there is no (noteable) blood in Twilight Princess, but it is not our task to take sides. ESRB made that decission, stupid or not, and Wikipedia only notes that is is rated T for that reason. Any other comments on it shouldn't be on the page, and I am glad to see that they aren't.

Happy editting!

JackSparrow Ninja 02:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3 million+

See, I can't really trust that source. The main focus of the article is the number in each series sold, they just put the figure out there. For all we now, that figure was just a wild guess. Scepia 02:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop a stupid edit war / Phantom Hourglass

How about looking at what is editted rather then having your thehylia fanboyism take over?

The Nintendo Power July reference is fixing
The Hylia links are dead
And I have no idea what that neoseeker forum is doing there...

thank you JackSparrow Ninja 07:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not remove links to thehylia with no reason, and do not mask your edits to seem like you are actually doing something different from what you actually are doing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, ALttP, but those are broken links.. Urutapu 07:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC) -from article history rv[reply]

It are dead links... JackSparrow Ninja 07:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And that is irrelevant; you could have clarified that in your edit summary. However, you ignored me when I told you not to use that software to revert edits. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:35, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Robertdoornbos.jpg

How did you get this under the GFDL?Geni 19:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Legend of Zelda (series) - Virtual Console

Hi Axem Titanium,

The reason I added the Virtual Console to the chronology, is because I'd say in the basis it is a re-release just like the GameBoy Advance ones. It's availability on the Virtual Console I think is no different then the availability of it on a cartridge.

Cheers

JackSparrow Ninja 02:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Races of The Legend of Zelda series

Hi. I saw your name in the Zelda series Wikiproject, and I need your help. Your edits so far seem fair and competent, and the article above needs some major work. It's full of Original Research and has little citing. I was hoping I could enlist your help in trying to overhaul this article. I've already deleted large sections, and there is still work to do. Unfortunatly I haven't played every Zelda game, so if you could help me out by editing the areas I can't (in good faith) touch, I would really appreciate it. I would appreciate ANY help at all. DurinsBane87 00:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zelda: TP

I can't do it myself right now's but could you fix two links in the article? There are links to "Ocarina of Time" and "Majora's Mask" (which are redirects to the game articles), could you fix them? TJ Spyke 04:32, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks for letting me know. JackSparrow Ninja 08:49, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same thing with the Easter egg section. It should be like this: [[The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker|the Wind Waker]]. That way you get the correct links without having to show the entire titles. Also, the Game Ranking info on the GC version is wrong, it IS ranked since it has 14 reviews and only needs 10 to be ranked (see the talk page for how to get the right info). TJ Spyke 08:21, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link in Talk:Akiko Koumoto

Hey JoeSmack,

You've removed a link to playasia I left in Talk:Akiko Koumoto as information for any editors who wanted to work on the article more. I understand a link to a commercial website isn't the best in Wikipedia, and I wouldn't have done it in the main article, but I reckoned it be usefull for the editors.

That's how I see it at least. I'd like to hear your view on it.

Cheers JackSparrow Ninja 06:41, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woa! My mistake, I should have only been removing that link from articles themselves. I went back and checked, and this was the only talk page I accidentally did that to; my apologies for it being this one! Links like that are fine for talkpages, its mainspace that requires all the WP:EL critique. Anyhow, I really appreciate you bringing it up here like this in such a nice manner, but it was a boo-boo on my part and I reverted it so hope no harm no foul! Cheers! :) JoeSmack ^Talk 07:07, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should be noted this user has been blocked as a suspected sockpuppet (or quite possibly, emplyee) of MyWikiBiz. Just a heads up, Joe. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 07:21, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem ;-)

@Peter: The block was accidental. JackSparrow Ninja 09:42, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accidental block

Unblock reason: It appears there have been made some mistake, or someone else is somehow using or sharing my ip address.
I don't know how that works, I just know that I am me.
As you can see in my edit history, I've got nothing to do with that user "MyWikiBiz".

Thank you for understanding.

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

For blocking admins reference: I have extensively looked through his contributions, discussions on AN/ANI and RFCU files and see no discussion, nor remote similarity in the users. Im unblocking as a long term contributor deserves at least an explanation on their talk page.

Request handled by: Glen 08:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about this, you're good to go whilst I get this sorted. Glen 08:09, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a good faith mistake based on some articles you edited that were in common with them. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 10:01, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:After Burner Black Falcon logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:After Burner Black Falcon logo.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 01:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

Hey TJ Spyke,

I just thought I'd ask you, since you're around here longer then me, I thought you might know. On October 11, 2006, SEGA announced a PSP game called After Burner: Black Falcon. I just got a note from some bot today, that the logo for that game, which I uploaded, wasn't being used and thus tagged for speedy deletion. This surprised me, most certainly because when I wanted to find out about it, I can't find the article After Burner: Black Falcon anywhere, while I'm sure it was there; I think I even created it myself.

Do you know how I can track it's existence and what has happened to it for which reason?

Thank you

JackSparrow Ninja 01:35, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Type the name of the article, then click the deletion log. Apparently, the article was deleted on October 11th by User:A Man in Black as "blatant promotional stub" (not a valid reason IMO. You can always recreate the article (and put it on your watchlist). TJ Spyke 01:45, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Labour Party (Netherlands) move proposal

Hey AjaxSmack,

You moved a proposal to move because you said you opposed, yet you didn't leave a comment as to why. Mind elobarating more on the issue?

cheers JackSparrow Ninja 02:01, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I commented at the article talkpage about my reasons for opposition. — AjaxSmack 02:11, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

February 2007

Double Dungeon to Wii Virtual console, Q1 2007?

what is you sorce for this sentence
In Q1 2007, it will be released for the European Virtual Console on Nintendo's Wii console. i look up on some video game websites and they say no game with name is comming out in q1 in this year so again like i ask before what is you sorce and where is it if you do not have one that means your adding false imformation on to this article ok please tell me ok —Preceding unsigned comment added by Oo7565 (talk • contribs) 17:19, 2 February, 2007 (UTC)

Hello Oo7565,

First of, not to be rude, but could you perhaps try to word your messages a little better and entitle and sign it? It is very hard to read and understand it like this.

To answer your question, I made said article because it was on the List of Virtual Console titles (Europe), stated for Q1 2007.

Cheers JackSparrow Ninja 17:25, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And maybe try to Assume good faith ;-)

JackSparrow Ninja 17:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

sorry about that but how i am not assuming good faith please tell me?Oo7565 17:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"if you do not have one that means your adding false imformation on to this article"

no offense taken or anything, just noting ;-) JackSparrow Ninja 17:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guitar Hero III

Hi Lankybugger,

In regards to your revert of Guitar Hero III, I just want to let you know that it's been reverted back, and why. I specified the reason here.

Happy editing

JackSparrow Ninja 17:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. When I reverted it, there was no sourcing that wasn't present during the AfD. Cheers, Lankybugger 05:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Zootfly logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Zootfly logo.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 16:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Webcomic notability guidelines

Hi Fforde / Nydas,

I have created an outline for webcomic notability guidelines, something I want to create and try to establish with together with other editors to help the debates over a large number of webcomic AfD's going on lately.

As I have seen you in the AfD debate over Dueling Analogs, I thought you might be interested in helping on this project.

Thanks for your time and happy editting!
Cheers

JackSparrow Ninja 21:04, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STOP.

The simple fact that you add the link despite the fact that it's using Wikipedia as its source is becoming annoying. Stop spamming Landofthelegend. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? How is Wikipedia used as a source by lotl? JackSparrow Ninja 22:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, by the simple fact that the only web site with these exact figures other than Land of the Legend is List of best-selling computer and video games? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd appreciate it if you reverted your reversion. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I do a little research when it comes to news like this. Since they are the only one having (gathered) information about the most current TP sales -whereas the released list itself does not contain said information- they do well as a source for the most current TP sales.

Cheers JackSparrow Ninja 22:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Research? With very few exceptions, the contents of LotL are the same as the list on Wikipedia. And how did they come up with that extra 1.5 million copies for TP? Do they have secret sources, or what? You show me how they came up with an extra 1.5 million copies - when it is obvious to most everyone (with the exception of those who put links on Wikipedia for reasons outside of improving it, such as when someone just feels like spamming a web site) that LotL merely took the list from Wikipedia and repeated it without stating where they got the information. This list was created by Wikipedians, not LotL. You can't just get this list anywhere - it was made with a wide variety of different sources. So no matter what, this list was not made by LotL and it was not made by anyone outside of Wikipedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, I question your judgement if you think that one - LITERALLY one difference between the lists is enough to claim that LotL's is not from Wikipedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look at the link I gave you? Here's the top result, stating exactly that list. It's industry news, unless you beleive Gamasutra (among others) is also ripping off Wikipedia. [5] JackSparrow Ninja 23:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh? How the HELL is this industry news?! It was CREATED by Wikipedians. Are you implying that, by 100% coincidence, the Wikipedians made a list of best-selling game franchises using a variety of different sources, and a completely different web site used those exact same sources? Why should I trust GameSutra, which doesn't even reference where they got their information? You have managed to fail at giving me reason to believe that LotL didn't get this from Wikipedia. This is information created on Wikipedia. It is your burden to prove that the information on this source isn't from Wikipedia, not mine. And the simple fact that it is almost completely the same as the Wikipedia list gives VERY strong reason to not use the link. If you can't even begin to show how the list isn't from Wikipedia, then how can you argue that it be kept on Wikipedia? I've done a great job showing that the list is from Wikipedia, and in response, you do nothing to explain why LotL couldn't have taken the list from Wikipedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, Land of the Legend's usage at any place at any time in any situation is highly disputed. But when you refuse to allow it to be removed as a source regardless of the fact that you have nothing to verify that the information is usable and I have a very good reason why it's a bad source, you're not exactly looking at a Barnstar for civility. How about actually explaining why Wikipedia cannot handle not having LotL on it, and why this list cannot be the same list as that found on Wikipedia? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe Gamasutra [6], GamesIndustry.biz [7] and Forbes [8] all use Wikipedia when reporting on best-selling games lists, I don't know what to say anymore.

I'd say, go over to those guys and congratulate them on being famous. JackSparrow Ninja 00:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...Yes, because if Forbes says it, that explains why they're almost exactly the same list. There is no logical reason for them to be the same other than the originating source being Wikipedia itself. You still haven't explained why they're the same, so how can you justify using these sources when there is a major concern over them? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think they're the same? Because they're correct perhaps?

If two metereologists say it's been 50 degrees today, does that mean they've ripped eachother off? Or maybe they're just both correct. JackSparrow Ninja 00:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because for them to be the same, they would have to use the exact same sources? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or just having the correct equipment that allows them to make direct measurements.

Do you know what information media outlets get from publishers? Better yet, do you know that nor the publishers, nor some other industry source, have released said information?

Famitsu magazine has just compiled a list of Japanese all time best selling games. Are you gonna acuse them of using Wikipedia as well? JackSparrow Ninja 01:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...What?

Explain how that is an apt analogy. Did I say "it's a list of games with sales mentioned, must be stolen!"? No, I pointed out the fact that "these two lists are exactly the same!". It is hardly an apt comparison. How can you argue that these are different lists? No matter how well-documented sales are, there is no way that two groups could make the exact list using different references. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's assume good faith and say that the Wikipedia list is well references, and thus correct.

If it is correct, how can it be any different from another correct list, also using publisher information.

I don't understand, please explain, how you can say that two lists can no be the same and correct. It's either the same and correct, or not the same and one is incorrect. JackSparrow Ninja 01:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's there to understand? No list can be 100% complete. The odds of them ending up with a 100% same list by pure coincidence are almost nonexistant. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it was a total list of single game sales, it might be correct. However, we're talking about numbers of series though, big more important things. Nintendo, for one, releases a list of all-time sales of their series every year. And like that, there are more publishers gladly willing to pimp the sales numbers of their top-selling games and games series.

If we'd be talking about reports only from small-time press, the assumption could be somewhat justified. However, Gamasutra, Gamesindustry and Forbes do not fit that describtion. Accepting that it might be an annual publisher report is a more elligble assumption then assuming three big outlets copy a list of wikipedia. JackSparrow Ninja 01:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They use one source of information. Do you think that those three sites got the lists themselves? No. They got the list from a source that took the list from Wikipedia. By the way - Forbes doesn't use the same list, so I have no idea where you get that it helps your case. That's two sites that use the same information as Wikipedia, when in reality they're just sourcing The Independent, a web site, which is not above sourcing Wikipedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:03, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Funny.

I bet you wouldn't bet your account that you can show how my adding a spam tag in good faith could be considered vandalism by any extent.

I dare you to. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove your reliability page and never cite Land of the Legend again.

Land of the Legend is not a credible source as it is a fan site. My site is not a fan site. When you get invited to GDC and the AIAS Awards at D.I.C.E, you're not a "fan site" anymore. I don't care if Land of the Legend forged its way into E3 the last two years, a mark of a true news site is that it gets invited to media events, which The Hylia now routinely is. I pay taxes on my site, the majority of our content is not taken from Nintendo's (C) materials (unlike Land of the Legend), and we actually use proper citations. Our site receives press materials from Nintendo and its publishers, as well as copies of games to review, and we've had our reports published on other major news sites and even in publications. That's the sign of a reliable media source. Land of the Legend has to get all its news from Go Nintendo or my site, and then makes up really ambiguous claims that they try to pass off as news. I love how they say "our colleagues think this is news, but it is old" in some of their reports. Or how my name, TSA, is censored to say "The Smelly Adventurer". Worst site ever. Too bad Alexa shows how much it sucks in terms of traffic to the public, so you can't even lie about that. --TSA 07:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:JackSparrow Ninja/Source reliability

Your subpage User:JackSparrow Ninja/Source reliability seems to be a little on the attacking side. Could you tone down some of your comments. Also there is an abundance of links that could be seen as spamming so could you instead just list the sites without links? Thank You Jedi6 -(need help?) 05:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also could you remove the links in the talk page too. Jedi6 -(need help?) 05:20, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upon further inspection its clear that your TSA section is an attack on a wikipedia user, please remove it. Jedi6 -(need help?) 06:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Hi Jedi 6,

As I've put in the top note:

This page is not intended to either praise sources or harm sources for who they are. This page is to reflect the nature of a source's reliability; a positive or negative comment is up to how they work: Wikipedia is not censored.

The fact that the webmaster has a Wikipedia account, obviously doesn't suddenly make him or the website more or less reliable. Though since he's since focussed his activities on his site, and people have stopped quoting him as a user (OR), I've corrected the header to reflect the website. It was not meant as a personal attack, those I always try to avoid.

The 'tone' of the page comes from when I put it first up, just as a basic outline. I just didn't really get back to it yet. I've editted it though, reflecting updates that have since happened and referenced it more.

Removing the links would make it sort of useless. It is set up as a help for editors, yet if they don't know exactly which source it is, or where to find it, wouldn't really help anyone.

Thanks for 'inspiring' me to improve the article though.

I hope to have informed you well enough. If not, feel free to leave me a message.

JackSparrow Ninja 07:58, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might I suggest that you open a discussion of your reliabilty page on Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games. That way you can get other editors to help edit your source list and might even make it a guideline for the wikiproject. Right now your list does seem a bit one sided as the good sources only say good things and the bad ones only say bad. By bringing more editors into the project you will be able to gain a more neutral and complete assesment of the various sources. Jedi6 -(need help?) 18:41, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

English to Dutch wiki

Hey Arnout,

I wasn't sure where or who to ask, but since you're active here, you might know. I'm getting more active on the Dutch wikipedia as well, and I was wondering about the technical aspects of it. Do you know if we can use the same templates, if we can use the same userboxes, how the featured article system works, stuff like that. Otherwise, would you happen to know where there's a simple list of stuff like that?

cheers Jack JackSparrow Ninja 16:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I am not sure; as I am only active here and not on Wiki-Nl. I am afraid in general not. Wikicommons is aimed at images for use in all wikis though, so perhaps there is something like that for templates as well. Featured article system probably works the same as here, propose an article and after review it is either accepted or not. Anyway Good Luck Arnoutf 17:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

If you want, I can let you know when I find it all out.

Just let me know if you want me to.

Happy editting

JackSparrow Ninja 18:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it cool, keep it fresh

Hi DreamingLady,

I've noticed in (some of) your latest edits there seems to be a bit of a frustration boiling up. Though I can wholeheartedly understand the frustration that Wiki-ing sometimes brings with it, I find it best to stay cool. It's taken me some time to figure it out, yet I gladly pass it on as advice.

Feel free to let me know if you've got any comments ;-)

Happy editting

JackSparrow Ninja 22:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great. I'm new to wikipedia, so I'm not sure if this is the way to talk to other users. Nevertheless, you'll probably see it anyway. :) Actually, it's not like I'm angry or anything, I just wished people wouldn't act so fanboyish. I mean, "Ralis looks like Komali????" Seriously, they are making that up to fit their prefered version of the Rito-Zora thing. But I'm more sarcastic about it than anything else, and I'm sarcastic 24/7. So it doesn't really mean much. one of the only two reasons I joined Wikipedia is to stop this kind of fanboy vandalism. So, yeah, I pretty much can't stand this stuff, but I don't let it get to me even though it appears I do.

BTW. The other reason I joined is to make proper pages for games that deserve it, but don't have a big enough group of fans. At the moment, I'm working on Geist, but I have a bit of trouble with the reception section. Do you have any clue if and where I can find sales charts for not-overhyped games?DreamingLady 23:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thar,

I can understand ;-)

I'm glad to hear you're ok. Yet, better to be safe then sorry right? And it can never hurt to say hi to anyone. (when dealing with normal people that is =p)

http://www.vgcharts.org is often good on video game sales, though as they state themselves, they're not flawless. Just keep that in mind.

As for Geist, that's a good one. I wouldn't know one. I'll look for it, though I think it's gonna be a though one and you might not get any further then one early press release, if at all.

Keep me updated on it if you like, and feel free to ask me anything anytime.

Cheers JackSparrow Ninja 23:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, That it is. :) Thank you for the site. I can see I won't be able to rely on it for all games I want to give proper pages, but at least it has Geist info. Maybe I can now get it a GA status. :) Thanks so much.DreamingLady 23:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"If you'd like, I can help out with GA'ing Geist. If you could use some help, just tell me what you need me to do."

Thanks. I do have a few questions about whether or not doing something with the article would be a good idea or not:

Is it worth it to mention who did what in creating this game? Some game pages have a Voice Cast section, but I don't get why only the voice actors and the people who already have a big name should be mentioned. Is there a particular reason why no other pages have credits section (some rule on Wikipedia I don't know of?) or is it just a matter of choice and am I free to add it?

When is it a good idea to split the character section? Or any section that is practically a list (weapons, enemies, characters, locations).

Is there a criteria for who's opinions (reviews) count and if so, what?

Any general advice on good places to find info is nice. Or a place that has audio samples or scanned manuals of games.

Any idea what kind of sections I could add or which one(s) really need improvement (Reception?)? If not GA status improvement, then what sections would need for FA status improvement.

That's pretty much all I can think about now. Mainly advice and tips.DreamingLady 13:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As long as the page isn't going anywhere, I can wait. If anything needs improvement, I can always do it later. :) Besides, I'm waiting for the GA review at the moment and ain't doing anything with the article right now.

Any general advice on good places to find info is nice. Or a place that has audio samples or scanned manuals of games.

Audio samples are dangerous, because of copyright. I'm not sure how those work. Scans the same.

I kinda doubt a small part of a tune/song that can be found all over the internet in movie-reviews (like gametrailers') is going to give copyright problems. But ofcourse, I'm not certain. The scans weren't meant to be used, but to refer to or find some info for articles. For instance, if I'd want to add quotes "proving" Geist's story, I'd need some quotes from the manual (because some facts are only stated there). However, Nintendo games' manuals are almost always translated to dutch for the dutch releases, so I don't have access to the "genuine" quotes.

Any idea what kind of sections I could add or which one(s) really need improvement (Reception?)? If not GA status improvement, then what sections would need for FA status improvement.

I'm gonna take a good look at it this weekend, and I'll let you know =)

Thanks. Be bold. ;)

And I managed to find another question: is there any place that keeps track of developers. Because I've been looking for RFX Interactive info for days now, and apart from figuring out they only have games released in 2000-2002, their site does not exist anymore and that it most likely was/is a french developer, I don't know what happened to them and why, or if they still are in business. It's kinda frustrating. DreamingLady 21:32, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm speechless...

Both because I was the first person to be awarded your "cool cookie award" (awesome name, by the way), and because I was reading your userpage for the first time four hours ago...anyway, thanks!! –Llama man 01:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For the redlink userbox edit. Cheers for that. AlanD 20:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion/tagging

You have expressed an interest in the practice of putting up for deletion articles that needed to be tagged instead. You are therefore cordially invited to contribute to, review, clarify, and/or discuss a working draft on my userspace of a policy that needs to be clarified on Wikipedia, User:Balancer/Wikpedia:Deletion_is_not_a_substitute_for_tagging. Balancer 18:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Shadow of the Colossus sequel (or not)

Hey. About the header, I understand the connection between Ico and Shadow of the Colossus, but as the article itself describes it, it's not a "true" sequel, but rather a "spiritual sequel", which I personally don't consider to be the same thing. The information is valuable, but the header "Sequel" is sort of misleading. I left the comment because I couldn't find a better word or way to put it, so I thought I'd leave that to other editors. Hope you don't mind! —Squalla 13:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's a holder?

The question has turned up at Talk:Coats of arms of Europe. It would be nice if you could give an explanation. John Anderson 23:39, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trivia

What's there to discuss? It fails WP:V and WP:OR and isn't encyclopedic (it would definitely have to go if you wanted to make it an FA, for example). -- Steel 02:19, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello? -- Steel 20:46, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be the only one having a problem with it (right now), that's one reason. I want to avoid an edit war.

More importantly, rather then simply deleting it all, see how you can incorporate (parts of) it into the article.

We'll start nitpicking when it goes up to FA. JackSparrow Ninja 20:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There are plenty of places you can go to find people who would also object to it. There have been huge threads on WT:CVG in the past where people have made an effort to get rid of trivia.
It's unsourced, unencyclopedic information. It's also saved in the history, so you're more than welcome to incorporate it into the article if/when sources appear.
Um, no

-- Steel 21:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NetOracle

You may be interested and/or have the technical expertise to implement my request on NetOracle's Talk page. Your assistance would be appreciated. Jouster 03:05, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LotL

Media contacts Nintendo a variety of ways. Email? Snail mail? Phone? Which did LotL use? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1) Why do you ask me?

2) What does it matter? JackSparrow Ninja 04:16, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm asking if you know. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I don't know.

My guess is phone, since they posted it just 2 or 3 hours after offices opened, but assume is all I, or anyone, can on how. JackSparrow Ninja 04:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Z15item oocoo2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Z15item oocoo2.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 15:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userbar and improve me

Hi Luna Santin,

That userbar looks great, and I really like the improve me idea.
Mind if I borrow it for my userpage?

Cheers JackSparrow Ninja 03:29, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing, feel free. :) I'd recommend copying rather than transcluding (I occassionally fiddle, and I think a few things explicitly mention "User:Luna Santin" anyway). – Luna Santin (talk) 03:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Vandalism studies

Hi JoeSmack,

I just saw the WikiProject Vandalism studies, and as I try my best to fight vandalism, and consider myself member of the Counter-Vandalism Unit, it seems a very interesting project.

Could you perhaps, if accepting members, get me into it a little, telling me some basics I should know and what I could work on or contribute to. For instance, what are the points Remember above is talking about?

cheers JackSparrow Ninja 01:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

awesome! we'd love some contribution to the project! the data points Rem was talking about are here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Vandalism_studies/Study1. Basically each data point is an article that has at least one edit in November of 2004, 2005 or 2006. You can accrue this data points by hitting the random article link on the sidebar. From the data you can see there are plenty of article without edits in November in all three years, and those are noted but set aside each 10 data points. Each data point if it does have an edit/edits in some or all three years has each edit recorded. Sometime we get through 10 data points without any vandalism; thats fine. if you do run into some though, you want to record it as one of either Obvious vandalism, Inaccurate vandalism, POV vandalism, Deletion vandalism or Linkspam. If the definitions of any of them are unclear ask away; don't worry too much, we'll go over the data again. The layout of the data points are cut and paste from the previous 10 points all the way through. Again, thanks for being interested, me and Rem thought we'd be the only ones getting this first study out! Can we count you in for some data recording? :D JoeSmack ^Talk 06:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Joe,

Just did my first 'run' so to say.

It's pretty clear I'd say. Though, just to be sure, things like NPOV or inaccurate info that seems like a good faith edit, I didn't count as a vandalism. Is that correct?

I'm glad to contribute and help. =) JackSparrow Ninja 03:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to have more contributors! I've had one instance where there were edits with POV/inaccurate info be inserted, but with an unreliable source, and then the debate was about the source, etc etc. In the end, I decided it wasn't POV vandalism because it was in fact made in good faith. Go with your gut, and don't fret too much because we'll be double checking each other's work, and we can talk out the finer shades of the definitions when it comes to that. JoeSmack ^Talk 05:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And WOW, I just saw your contrib! Great job, spot on! You're a quick learner. We're aiming for 100 data points, and then we're going to see where we're at, lessons learned, data evaluated, and start planning for study 2. Keep up the good work! JoeSmack ^Talk 05:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am ecstatic that you are joining the project. Like Joesmack said, we thought it would just be us finishing this up. I also like you idea for study 2. As for the study, you are correct that anything that seems like good faith edits are not counted (including NPOV). Again thanks a lot for helping out; we really appreciate it. Hopefully we will finalize our results soon. I think our results will be useful to the whole community and may not be what most people would expect. Remember 12:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Vandalism studies - 100 data points reached - Excellent!!!!

I'm am thrilled that you have finished the last data point! I say we all go back and double-check the entries to make sure they are correct and then publish the results out to the whole community. YEAH!!!! Remember 06:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm stoked too, good job to all. I'll have a little extra time after work tomorrow and i'll try to pretty the project pages up a little bit in case people feel warm enough to stay if they like the study. it is important that this all looks professional and orderly. once we feel ready to post the results (we'll have to field some questions i gather), i suggest we put them in these places:

counter-vandalism projects talk pages
statistic projects talk pages
community notice board
village pump (w/diff showing the first post suggesting this project's creation of Rem's)
Admin notice board (i think)
signpost (done last, after others have had some time to gauge reaction)
antispam project? (WT:WPSPAM)
people in the project's participant list for vandal studies

i'd also like to get a proposed next study worked out in the wording of our results post, like - 'our initial study showed that X and Y from our sample. further work is needed to add more power to these results, and study 2 where we will Z is looking for more participants should you be interested.' in this way we can inform and turn interest into more user power. what do you say for study 2, more data points with similar criteria for vandalism definitions? JoeSmack ^Talk 05:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with Joe. We should check our results, make them look nice and presentable and draw up conclusions, and then present them to the community along with a note that we will be gathering volunteers for our next study. As for study number 2, I would be fine doing the same study in a different month with more data points or we could try the study that Jack suggested. We should probably make an area on the talk pages of the vandalism studies project to discuss this more formally. Remember 11:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added some general clean up to the study page. One thing i'm concerned about is using Linkspam as a vandalism category - it was added later after encountered part way through the study, so all edits should be double checked to be sure none more were paired to this category. Also, i stuff like this: [9]. We need to check our math, keep the number of significant figures uniform (2, 3, how many?) and remove all ???? from the maths part of this study. I'd also suggest we pick up this conversation over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vandalism studies/Study1. JoeSmack ^Talk 13:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I've moved the discussion to the project page now =) Talk to you there! JackSparrow Ninja 16:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR by anon on Armenian Genocide

I tried to submit a 3RR on user:85.99.64.9 who did more than 20 edits on that article. I think I screwed it up. Can you help me? Thanks, Morenooso 05:00, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I see it now on the bottom of the page. Too bad it not higher up in the instructions saying copy this and insert at bottom to complete report. Think I should tag the vandal with a level 4 template? That would make it easier for the block. Morenooso 05:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. You probably know way more than this humble padawan. Morenooso 05:16, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you don't mind me meddling with it, but I thought it would help to warn/explain him about Wikipedia not being censored, and I have placed a not-censored tag on the user's tp. As I expected, seeing his edits, the user is from Turkey, so I tried to explain how Wikipedia is still neutral in it. JackSparrow Ninja 06:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, I wouldn't have picked up on that. :) Appreciate the insight. – Luna Santin (talk) 06:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

March 2007

Erm

You kind of reverted over a revert, which lead to your edit being vandalism. Just so you know. Logical2u_{Review me!} 19:32, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed it. When I wanted to revert the revert, you beat me to it. Stupid timing error. Thanks though ;- JackSparrow Ninja 19:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Virtual Console date Ocarina of Time

Hey TJ Spyke,

Since you were one of the ones that changed it, and have updated the whole VC Japan list, you might be able to answer this. I have understood that Zelda: Ocarina of Time was released on the Japanese Virtual Console on January 30, but several people change it to February 27. I can't find a reference for the latter though. Can you tell me what's the deal with the date now?

cheers JackSparrow Ninja 20:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to Nintendo's official website, it was released on February 27th: [10] (See the 2007/2/27 date). TJ Spyke 22:58, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism studies study 1

are you still interested in vandalism studies? we could use your perspective over at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Vandalism_studies/Study1. JoeSmack ^Talk 13:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LotL

What's there to look at?

A photo from Thehylia was taken and cropped out the watermark
A message that claimed the photo was stolen was deleted
The photo was then watermarked.

So is there something I'm missing? - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:24, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A photo was taken by TSA, of a video screen on a big event, a photo anyone could take.
The Hylia claims the whole scene their own.
The Hylia makes a riot when someone else in the audience also makes a picture.
When presented with this, TSA/The Hylia does not respond.

JackSparrow Ninja 04:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...Huh? It's the exact same image. Are you implying that LotL was there and, at the exact same instant in time, no sooner or later than Thehylia, took a picture from the exact same angle and distance from Miyamoto? It is a physical impossibility - Hell, let me just spell it out - it defies reality for this to possibly happen. At what point do you claim that LotL took this photo? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's a picture taken from a screen. You can't go and claim right to something shown on a screen. If it was their own picture of Miyamoto, then yes, they'd be correct, but they made a picture of a screen a few hundred people were looking at, a few hundred people were seeing the exact same thing. A picture from a screen, as too can be seen here, which was taken from the very side before they slimmed it down, is almost entirely irrelevant to angle.

As TSA's claims of plagiarism have only been ranging from vain to rediculous, there is no reason to think that he is the only one out of a few hundred people that made those sort of pictures. JackSparrow Ninja 04:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you quite sane? How can you look at the images and say that they are different images? What don't you understand about "physical impossibility"? It wasn't a "similar" picture - what LotL did was take thehylia's image and modified it and claimed it as their own. The fact that LotL tried to cover up the fact that they took the image and didn't credit who made the image shows either guilt or deceit. No one is saying "Because thehylia took this picture, any other pictures taken cannot be legal". But LotL didn't TAKE any pictures. They are the same picture. Unless, again, you are implying that some guy from LotL and TSA took two pictures in the same instant at the same spot. No matter how much you say that TSA's accusations are baseless, if we open an RfC, no one will say that this is a different picture taken from a different position and at a different time. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It has nothing to do with "physical impossibility", and you are going past the reason it hasn't.

If it was a picture directly of Miyamoto, then yes, it would have been clear the two pictures couldn't be the same. But it wasn't a direct picture, I can see that right away. It is a picture of a screen, just like those big screens they have at E3.

If you've never encountered such a screen, I won't blame you for not knowing, but a picture of a big screen (like that) is exactly the same from 99% of the possible angles. Take a look at video footage from E3 shows, cut out the screen, and other then size, see if the angles are different. JackSparrow Ninja 07:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you say that the exact same moment in time, an LotL camera and a thehylia camera took a picture? You know, assuming good faith in evidence only goes so far. This is really just stretching it. Hell, do you have anything to show that LotL was even AT GDC? - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:37, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Centralized video game navbox discussion

You previously expressed a strongly-stated opinion about a video game navbox or all video game navboxes in general, or perhaps I clicked on your talk page by mistake. Whichever it is, you are invited to offer your opinion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Navboxes III: Son of Navboxes. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom hourglass Wifi

Hi InvaderSora,

Rather then making an edit war, please show me the article and tell me where in the article it says Nintendo Wi-Fi. I just quoted the multiplayer article for you, where it said no online.

JackSparrow Ninja 05:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you love edit wars and hate sources, but please listen to Sparrow's request. –Gunslinger47 06:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think an Admin could be a bit more civil, no? Can i have some fishy crackers? 20:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted from gamespot:

"He also filled in some gaps on the upcoming Nintendo DS version of the series--The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass. There will be a Wi-Fi-enabled battle mode nicknamed Wi-Fi Hide and Seek. The game is a Pac-Man-style chase, with two players taking on red and blue versions of Link.

Players must pick up "force gems" to see the positions of the phantoms on the board. However, carrying these also has a penalty--they will slow the player down, making it easier for the player to be caught. The other controls the phantoms, using the stylus to move them around to chase Link and hopefully bring him down. Aonuma commented, "The more you play, the more you get to experience the other player's habits, so it's very addictive." "

Please do not revert it again. I now have proof. Look for the article titled (some japaneese name) reflects on Zelda".20:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by InvaderSora (talk • contribs) 21:54, 10 March 2007

All it says in that part is Wi-Fi, not online Wi-Fi.

They specifically say "with no announced plans for online play". JackSparrow Ninja 21:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Advice on Phantom Hourglass

Hey Scepia

GameInformer just confirmed that The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass will first be released in Japan, meaning before the 2007 holiday seasons (US date). However, I wasn't too sure how to format this with the Japanese date. I've just put

2007 (first region)

for now, but perhaps you have a better idea to format it.

JackSparrow Ninja 05:35, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering that release dates start with the 1st region on top (which is nearly always JP, NA, EUR / AUS), i am actually not sure that (first region) is needed. I will leave it, as a user may be confused, but i also noticed that the page uses flagicons. ^{I am going to change them to superscript}. Scepia 05:41, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I did this, is because Japan is always automatically put above, because usually it's first. However, this time it's confirmed, so that's why I was looking to making it clear it was confirmed to be first now. JackSparrow Ninja 05:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Gamemanual

Thank you for the site. I already had found it myself, but still thanks for the effort. BTW., great practical joke. :)

And thanks for the award. :)DreamingLady 21:21, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Even though I feel that you have an agenda to promote LotL, I must apologize for my attitude towards you - including rudeness, sarcasm, and insults. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I really appreciate this. I always do my best be civil towards everyone. Should I ever have failed you in that, please accept my apologies for that. I honestly believe you are a good editor, but our indifferences on this topic seem to clash. I hope we can one day work out our differences and work better together.

Don't worry too much about sarcasm though. As a friend of me says "sarcasm is an exotic language". JackSparrow Ninja 21:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you give me any more cookies, I'll get sick of them. :p - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:29, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

North America (Americas) delete review

Thanks for voting and expressing your opinion about the article North America (Americas). As you know the debate was closed, and the result was "to delete it". Since I, as the creator of the article, thought the decision was hasty and wrong, I opened a to review the deletion.

This mean that administrators and regular editors can vote again and, most importantly, argument why the decision was wrong or right. Please, take a look at this and express your opinion:

North America (Americas), deletion review

Thanks for your time reading this message. AlexCovarrubias ^{( Let's talk! )} 22:55, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism study

I have finally finished double-checking all of the data points. All we need to do is check all of the calculations for the page and write the conclusions! We are almost finished. Please help out if you can. Remember 22:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is now triple checked and we're hammering out the conclusion wording. Come on by, we'd love your input. This is pretty exciting stuff, we're so close to the end! :D JoeSmack ^Talk 00:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're pretty much done, you still around? Love to hear your input... :) JoeSmack ^Talk 20:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're deciding on what to start for study 2, what do you think? JoeSmack ^Talk 20:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

April 2007

Removing LotL

The way I see it, regardless of if you believe LotL is a secondary source (independent from the subject) and verifiably notable enough, you have to open a discussion. I suggest bringing it up at WP:CVG. If LotL survives after a substantial discussion, I won't touch it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can discuss it here. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't answer, I will propose on WP:VG to have all links to the web site removed. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:14, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it slipped my mind.

Anyway, I'm working on giving the Wikiproject Reliable Source on video games shape. If you have a little patience, we'll get it all worked out nicely. JackSparrow Ninja 19:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a while, so I thought I would remind you. Just note that at present, you seem to be the only one pushing Land of the Legend to be used. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not willing to provide reliability of a fan site as a source, then what right do you assert to insist its inclusion? [11] That seems like a pretty good consensus - 100% of the respondents see no reason why this fan site is a notable fan site. "It's a fansite. Pseudonymous authors, mostly just recaps stories from other sites, no apparent editorial control or oversight." "This has been discussed several times before, see Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess/Archive 2#Is LotL a reliable source and countless other pages. Even if TSA's claims of plagiarism were untrue (and I'm not saying they are or aren't) I see nothing that makes this site more reliable than any other fansite." "I've seen JackSparrow commenting on and linking to User:JackSparrow Ninja/Source reliability like it was some kind of semi-official body or guideline, when most of it is either slander or half-truths. He's not listed any of TSA's positives for The Hylia, nor has he bothered listing negatives for Land of Legend. To be quite frank, they're both just fansites and I wouldn't mind them all purged. On the other hand, I'm not too bothered if we leave the references in, although I'd take a reference to Official Nintendo Magazine and IGN over Land of Legend any day." You're not allowed to filibuster discussions by ignoring them. If you don't respond, you have no right to be adding this site as if you've proven reliability. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:38, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you do not stop reverting the removal of your spam, I will open an RfC over you. I'm sick of this. You have never given a reason why you're adding this site, to the people that are commenting on its notability! How can you say such a bald-faced lie? You never participated in the discussion and provided a rationale. How can you even claim to have a good reason to ignore anyone who disagrees with you? Where did you EVER provide a rationale for adding this web site? You claim that there's no consensus - yes, there is no consensus - for adding the site. You are one person who wants the web site to be used, and there are several people who disagree. If you do not stop ignoring the discussion and refusing to answer the requests of those involved, I cannot say that it will end up as being advantageous to you in any way. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've answered you every question, I've provided a long list of evidence of the reliability of a number of sources. You never commented on either. JackSparrow Ninja 20:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What a wonderful point! I mean, even though you never actually edited the discussion in question so that the people involved could actually respond to anything you've ever said on the matter, you clearly "participated". PS: How in the world does what you say make LotL a secondary source - aka, a source that is not affiliated with the subject material, a site which is reliable and cannot be called a fan site.

"Wikipedia articles should rely on reliable, published secondary sources wherever possible." None of what you said makes LotL a "reliable, published secondary source". Hell, my web site was the first to report on the latest information on Pokémon Diamond - particularly, the three starters. But that does NOT assert notability. My site has higher Google hits, higher Alexa rank, and we also have a foothold in the industry. But unlike you, my site is not-notable as a source outside of special circumstances, while you insist on making everyone accept that Land of the Legend is actually important. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for all the help you provided

		The Original Barnstar
		For all of your help in gathering data for the first vandalism study, you greatly deserve this.

Thank you so much for helping us out on the first study. We were dragging alone and you helped provided a definate boost to the project with your quick and extensive help. I greatly appreciate your help in making the study possible and I hope you will continue to help out on furture studies. Hopefully, we our first study will be seen as something valuable and I think we might have started something that will give a greater understanding of how wikipedia works and will help out the whole community. Remember 12:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of games considered the worst ever

I saw the tags on the article and proposed a change which might make it salvagable and reasonable. Since you were involved in the article, I thought you might like to comment. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ speak ○ see ○ 18:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your revert

The information was added to the development sections of each game; therefore, the article is now redundant and should be turned into a disambiguation page. — Deckill er 16:44, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video games notable for negative reception

I'm trying to generate consensus on which games should be included in the article. Feel free to drop by Talk:Video games notable for negative reception and leave your thoughts on the proposed criteria. Cheers, Lankybugger ○ Yell ○ 01:02, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May 2007

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dinoandrade.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Dinoandrade.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Ape Escape Racing box.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ape Escape Racing box.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 under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 22:11, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 2007

Fair use rationale for Image:Planetmoonstudios.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Planetmoonstudios.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure 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 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 fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and 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.BetacommandBot 08:48, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boerkini

Hello. I don't know if you keep an eye on your uploads that have been moved to Wikimedia:Commons. In any case, someone challenged the origin of Image:Boerkini.jpg, as it has appeared elsewhere on the web. If that fine photo is your original work, I suggest you comment there; someone seems to have used it without attribution. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 13:36, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block

I have blocked your account for false claims to be the creator/owner of copyright violation. State if you wish to challenge or have the block reconsidered.

Blocked
You have been blocked for vandalism for a period of time. To contest this block, add the text {{unblock|your reason here}} on this page, replacing your reason here with an explanation of why you believe this block to be unjustified. You can also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Please be sure to include your username (if you have one) and IP address in your email.

If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia after the block has expired, you will be blocked for longer and longer periods of time.

Please do not erase warnings on this page. Doing so may be considered disruptive. Infrogmation 11:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

JackSparrow Ninja (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I have been blocked for apparent copyright violation, yet I am not told what for specifically. I did not violate anything on purpose and would like to know the problem, which I can only guess to be a misunderstanding. I have been blocked by mistake before.

Decline reason:

What do you think all these image warning are for?- Mr.Z-man 17:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): User seems to understand the problem and has pledged to do better in the future. Request handled by: ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 13:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am requesting input from the blocking administrator. Newyorkbrad 21:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Jordan191.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jordan191.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Infrogmation 11:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unspecified source for Image:Benettonb191.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Benettonb191.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 11:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Infrogmation 11:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Puzzleproductions dioarama.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Puzzleproductions dioarama.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Infrogmation 11:49, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Triforcehardware.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Triforcehardware.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 08:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

July 2007

Non-free use disputed for Image:X360 ghostbusters.jpg

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:X360 ghostbusters.jpg. 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 11:25, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Tloztp princesszelda.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tloztp princesszelda.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 21:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:X360 Bluedragon Box.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:X360 Bluedragon Box.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 21:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Nds ffccrof logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Nds ffccrof logo.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 19:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Ps2 segagenesiscollection box.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ps2 segagenesiscollection box.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 00:47, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Lordzeddhuman.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Lordzeddhuman.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. Ejfetters 12:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

August 2007

WP:CVU status

The Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit project is under consideration to be moved to {{inactive}} and/or {{historical}} status. Another proposal is to delete or redirect the project. You have been identified as a project member and your input as to this matter would be welcomed at WT:CVU#Inactive.3F and at the deletion debate. Thank you! Delivered on behalf of xaosflux 15:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Z15item oocoo2.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Z15item oocoo2.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. Until (1 == 2) 05:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:After_Burner_Black_Falcon_logo.jpg

I have tagged Image:After_Burner_Black_Falcon_logo.jpg as {{orphaned fairuse}}. In order for the image to be kept at Wikipedia, it must be included in at least one article. If this image is being used as a link target instead of displayed inline, please add {{not orphan}} to the image description page to prevent it being accidentally marked as orphaned again. MER-C 09:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

September 2007

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Tloztp twilightking.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Tloztp twilightking.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. BetacommandBot 14:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2007

Block review

Do you have anything to say about your claim to be the photographer of Image:Boerkini.jpg? Wondering, -- Infrogmation 23:59, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, i see. Now I understand your earlier message. That came while I was inactive for a while, hence the lack of response.

As for your question, I am affraid I have not. I can not remember doing anything concerning the subject. Considering I used to stay logged in on a public pc, my best guess is a housemate (or amnesia).

I understand that's nothing to you however, since you just see this account.

I guess all that's left for me now is to request a reconsider, hoping my history shows I mean well, and hope an old mistake can be forgiven. JackSparrow Ninja 02:38, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you understand the mistake you made? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 01:03, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am well aware of the rules, and I do endorse them. Since I came to understand how it works, I've been trying to be very detailed about it. The more I think it was a friend who didn't know how it worked.

Either way, I will promise it will not happen again. JackSparrow Ninja 02:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That image was copied to Commons and used on Wikipedias in other languages before being discovered not to be your own original photograph but a copyright violation of a commercially published photograph and creating some problems. Understand that YOU are responsible for what is done on your account. Thanks, -- Infrogmation 21:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Z15item oocoo2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Z15item oocoo2.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. BetacommandBot 17:55, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Raymanravingrabbidswiibox.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Raymanravingrabbidswiibox.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. BetacommandBot 15:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

help with dispute

could you go to http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/John_Tory i have a editing dispute with "CJCurrie" could you help fixing the problem and looking who is wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ntb613 (talk • contribs) 03:15, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

November 2007

Revert

I didn't make that revert... Andre (talk) 04:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NiGHTS

The game is not pushed back you could call sega your self(which I did ) and they will tell you every thing. Some idiot believed that a fan page said that its only for PS3 and xbox360 n later said this game is not a sequal its a remake but please call them.--DarkFierceDeityLink 23:14, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's a big difference between what a company tells just anyone that calls them, and media sources.

Besides that, last time with the delay, SEGA of Europe denied it even to Gamespot at first.

On this topic alone, the source has been the first to report on half the article. The previous delay for Europe was confirmed by this source months before it was official, they were the first to confirm multiplayer, online and a lot of storyline details, all long before it was official. Based on that alone, it's safe to say this is a reputable source.JackSparrow Ninja (talk) 23:26, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

^ a b Tawny Ditmer (November 14, 2007). "NiGHTS delayed again". NiGHTS into Dreams.com. Retrieved on November 14, 2007. you re not allowed to use fan web site like that one. There are lots of false information. --DarkFierceDeityLink 23:37, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lots of false information? Like what?

Like the exclusives I just mentioned?

That aside, GameLegend is at the base of this news, which was also at the base of above exclusives. JackSparrow Ninja (talk) 23:40, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter you are not allowed to use fan pages.--DarkFierceDeityLink 23:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And also if they game is delayed don't you think sega.com would update the release date. They update the page every day.--DarkFierceDeityLink 23:51, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're dodging the question.

And no, SEGA doesn't update the page every day. Didn't happen last time.

Fansites have been used and approved on numerous wiki articles, including this one. How come it is suddenly a problem?

Fourthly, GameLegend is a publisher, not a fansite. JackSparrow Ninja (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DarkFierceDeityLink is right. This first site is broken, meaning it goes to a 404 error page. And also, it seems that said site has nothing to do with NiGHTS development or production. Until said delay is announced by SEGA, its only a Rumor. Dengarde ► Complaints 00:15, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right about the trivia section, I'll talk to him about that. As for the site, well, it may not be a fansite per se, but as far as I know, it has to involvement with the development or production of NiGHTS, so it's not all that reliable. It says that Sega confirmed the delay in Europe, So if you can show me where Sega confirmed it, we could use THAT as the source instead. Dengarde ► Complaints 00:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither do sites as IGN or GameSpot.

I'm just talking about a media outlet, which has proven itself on this level before, reporting on news.

Last delay -as well as a lot of the game's features- it wasn't reported by SEGA either, other then through this outlet.JackSparrow Ninja (talk) 00:49, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

IGN and Gamespot are just as un-reliable. The only real way we can use those as sources is if they provide proof, which this site doesn't seem to have.

As for the last delay, I don't know anything about it, so I'll avoid arguing at this point. But like I said before, the site said that SEGA confirmed it, so if we can figure out where then we can state that it was delayed in the article. Otherwise, it's simply a rumor until someone involved with development in a notable way confirms it themselves.Dengarde ► Complaints 00:58, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How does one proof they have been given said information by the first party, other then having such claims been proven before? Isn't that the point of media/news outlets?

I don't know if and how they are involved in development with the game, but so far all their reports -sometimes several weeks before an official statement- have been correct in every detail.

So in that regards, I wouldn't be surprised if they'd be somehow involved. JackSparrow Ninja (talk) 01:26, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man

if FrosticeBlade never undid a lot of things i would of never readded the trivia section im sorry about that. but for the dates they should stay the same until Sega says something.--DarkFierceDeityLink 00:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nights: Journey of Dreams

Hi. I noticed that you appear to be engaged in a dispute with another user on this article. I understand the frustration that can occur in these situations, but can I please ask you to refer to the advice on dealing with such problems here. Also please consider that you both appear to be close to violating the spirit of WP:3RR, which may result in a block even if you make less than three reverts in 24 hours. I have left exactly the same message on the talk page of the other editor. Thanks TigerShark (talk) 00:52, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

December 2007

Hey

Do you like Super Smash Brothers?--DarkFierceDeityLink 14:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly do. I was one of about 100 people invited to the premier announcement at E3 2006, and it's kept me excited eversince. =D JackSparrow Ninja (talk) 13:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be cool if NiGHTS and Megaman would be in Brawl?--DarkFierceDeityLink 01:08, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:NiGHTS characterart.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:NiGHTS characterart.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. BetacommandBot (talk) 03:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2008

January 2008

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:NiGHTS characterart.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:NiGHTS characterart.jpg. 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 (talk) 23:17, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Wii nights01.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Wii nights01.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) 21:26, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]