User talk:Cabe6403/Archive 11

The WPVG Newsletter (Q1 2010)

 * Newsletter delivery by xenobot  16:50, 7 April 2010 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2010
MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 18:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q4 2010
MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 17:24, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Cuba_Libre
All input welcome. Cheers. walk victor falktalk 00:18, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2011
MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 02:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:LegoStuntRally.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:LegoStuntRally.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file 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 file 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 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q2 2011
–MuZemike 14:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2011
MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 06:54, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q4 2011
MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 06:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of AceGamez


A tag has been placed on AceGamez requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. mabdul 15:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2012
MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 19:11, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Toca2.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Toca2.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q2 2012
MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 21:17, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:ToCATCCCoverPS.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:ToCATCCCoverPS.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:46, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:RunningInThe90s.ogg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:RunningInThe90s.ogg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:54, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2012
MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 15:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks anyway
The article got a lot better now. --Niemti (talk) 09:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi Niemti, which article are you referring to? Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 09:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Kitana, but what was the UFO autofail about? (Ah, I see it.) --Niemti (talk) 09:27, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

GA articles don't need perfect citations, I don't know what content can be there besides "cherry picked quotes" and not get HUGE (this section is pretty big already, but you complained about Kitana's being too big specifically). --Niemti (talk) 09:30, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

As of "cherry picked quotes", for example:

In a retrospective article in Eurogamer, Alec Meer compared both games with "a sort of objectivity from me that hasn't been remotely possible over the last two decades of worshipping at its VGA shrine," stating: "I can see a game that can and will co-exist with rather than be supplanted by its remake. X-COM and XCOM are completely different games, both ingenious and both flawed in their own ways. I'd kill for a hybrid of the two, but having two rather than one sure is nothing to sniff at."[86]

And if anyone wants to see a full list of things that got outdated and the things that are still great, it's just in the linked article, listing it is unneccessery detail. It would just become tl;dr (it's about 35-40 sources there for the Reception section and reception-related content). What is relayed, is the most important stuff - this "the last two decades of worshipping at its VGA shrine", indeed. Amiga complaints (and sometimes even ridicalously laughably low reviews, and these areviews are in the table) were really just because of floppy disk swap problems without the HDD (which I just don't get it, I played it on an Amiga 1200 and everythings was fine, that's unlike Sierra VGA adventure ports for example that were actually unplayable due to what we called "dyskoteka"). --Niemti (talk) 09:36, 6 November 2012 (UTC)


 * First off, please stop making small short replies. I had long, detailed replies wiped out three times due to edit conflicts. Think before hitting 'save page'. Is there more to be said? Add it to your post then save. It's slightly irritating. Additionally, you are editing things you have previously said. Write something. Sign it. Post it. More to be added? Add it seperately, don't edit the previous content. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 09:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Cherry picked quotes make the section hard to read. Instead of " 'Niemti from Wikipedia said 'I like eating pancakes with maple syrup'[cite] aditionally, Cabe6403 from Wikipedia said 'funny, I also enjoy eating pancakes with maple syrup'[cite]. Someotheruser from Wikipedia said 'no, pancakes and jam is where it's at' " you can rewrite it something like "While many wikipedia users professed enjoying maple syrup with pancakes, jam was also a popular side[cite][cite][cite]". You get the same point across, it's shorter and easier to read. See where I'm coming from? Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 09:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

If there's an edit conflict on Wikipedia, just go back one page in your browser and simply copy the text, then edit again and paste it. --Niemti (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Doesn't work on IE which is what I'm limited to during the day. Additionally, I'd implore you to start using edit summaries more often - Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 09:50, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Ah, IE, didn't use you since 1998. Anywya, what was is probably most important factor in the game's sucess was really "One reason for the game's success is the strong sense of atmosphere it evokes." (as cited from Gameplay, someone else wrote but it's true) and "its unrivaled balance of tactics and tension", plus this "both completely brilliant and slightly insane" dichotomy of global strategy and small-unit tactics - "individual elements have been copied many times but whose charm has never been duplicated" (which are all "cherry-picked quotes). Mind you, its graphics and sound and the UI got REALLY outdated, and the plot was never good to begin with, and yet people still think it's an absolutely great game "to play today" (literally speaking, it's another quote). It's all in the article and I thought it's well relayed to everyone who reads it. --Niemti (talk) 09:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It may all be in the articles but dropping direct quotes doesn't read well. Take a look at the reception section of Halo 3, a featured article. It has 35 sources but only 5 direct quotes. Many sources back up points made in prose rather than a direct quote from each. Notice how it reads well, it flows and the quotes that are there, aren't lost in a sea of other quotes. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 10:04, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

My end point, Niemti, is that you are a good editor. A bit rough around the edges when it comes to interacting with others (as evident by the RfC and ANI) however you've proved to me here you are able to have a reasonable discussion - something others do not believe. Unfortunately you need to play the game if you want to avoid a ban by the looks of things. Have some humble pie, take the criticism on the chin and build on it. I'm willing to assist when I can. I've said it before also, slow down your editing. Take a short break or focus on, say, one article a week. I would perhaps break the snowball at ANI and volunteer for a wikibreak. You've said you could do with one, volunteering would look great and show you are willing to listen to others. Cabe 6403  (Talk•Sign) 10:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Let me continue (it's GA and not FA). One more reason is also this "the hundreds of little personal stories that unfolded during the tactical game" thing (also true), which maybe I skipped. But it's linked to, as "In 2012, The Escapist ran a feature article about "why X-COM is the greatest game ever,"[8]" so anyone can read the whole article and learn what the author wrote, why "the greatest game ever" indeed. And it's not like this one author was alone in his judgement, "the greatest" or just "one of the greatest" games, especially among strategy games, it's just a widesopread and really common sentiment across the gaming media and it keeps on for 18 years now (as the article shows too), and this is the most important thing, something really unique - it's not just for sentimental reasons, it's legendary status is not that it once was great, the game's standing among the others just is still very strong for so many years, despite so many attempts to emulate it (maybe except the just-released XCOM: Enemy Unknown reboot/remake/reimagination thing, and I wrote about such opinions in this game's Reception section, in particular in the last paragraph), and I don't think there is another title like that in the entire history of video games. With the remake, you got multiple reviewers checking if the new game is better than a game released 18 years ago - as for to see is is the next "best game ever", and they were literally talking about it like that, and without irony. Talking about how revierws at the time thought that graphics are pretty good, or something like that, it's totally irrevelant. Revelant stuff would be listing the of-the-year awards that it won upon the release, but good luck finding info on that without literally digging through vintage magazine from the early 1990s. --Niemti (talk) 10:33, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not going to debate this issue further, clearly we have differing views on the subject. Wikipedia, as you know, is based on consensus. Currently, I believe the consensus does not favour your way of writing these sections (the same issue has been raised by multiple editors independently). Why not start a discussion on WP:VG regarding the subject and get a wider opinion. Maybe the consensus will be different to what I believe it currently is (and it that case I'd be happy to have another look at these articles). Remember, it's not you vs everyone else. Put forward a convincing argument of why, listen to what people have to say regarding it (on both sides of the coin) and prepare to accept the outcome regardless of what it may be. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 10:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

"Humble pie" - I really would if it was limited to the stuff that I actuqally did, but not with all the groundless/absurd accusations (including things like outright projecting on one guy's own faults on me) and personal attacks and just this general lynching atmosphere and the portrayal of me as some kind of the Antichrist of Wikipedia (allegedly breaking "damn near every policy", which would be quite an achievement indeed, if it was only true). I can't accept something like that. --Niemti (talk) 12:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, it's been blown out of proportion but you're partly at fault as are other parties. However, in this case, the spotlight is on you so it's really up to you to take the high road and accept that certain accusations are founded. The conduct of other users is moot at this point. Cabe  6403  (Talk•Sign) 13:03, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Keen on contributing
Hi.

I've used Wikipedia for quite a long time and always been keen on contributing. It was actually back in 2005 when I promised the former distillery manager at my favourite distillery, Ardbeg, to write a Wikipedia article about Ardbeg. I still regret that I never took the time to live up to my promise.

Whisky is a great interest of mine and there has been one book in particular that saw me through 3 whisky presentations I held at work, and I've just managed to get hold of the latest edition (after loosing my first copy). It's extremely thorough and has taught me loads about whisky.

So, when I saw the Spirits WikiProject, I realised I was fresh out of excuses not to set some time aside to help Wikipedia in other ways than donations.

I'm a newbie to MediaWiki (bot not other Wikis), but as long as I can manage to get enough time, I think I can contribute greatly to the Whisky section in the Spirits project.

I'm happy to start off by checking facts on existing pages and help out in other ways.

I hope I'll be welcome onboard and I'll try my best to find the required time.

Cheers, Dan