User talk:Rehevkor/Archive 3

Breaking Benjamin
Hey, can you please tell me why you undid my changes to the section? I don't see any sense in the wiki-links. --хенрик (talk) 14:02, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, sh**! I'm sorry. xD --хенрик (talk) 14:37, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Portal (video game)
Hi Rehevkor. I see you reverted an IP edit to the Portal page. Actually I agree with the edit you reverted. The sentence is singular. "Walpaw ... was hired ... (he) claimed that ...". To make it plural, you'd need something like "Walpaw and Faliszek were hired ... Walpaw claimed that ..." but IMHO the current version reads better. --Northernhenge (talk) 23:11, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I see another editor agrees with you so we'll leave it there. Maybe there is different usage in diferent countries. Sorry for troubling you. --Northernhenge (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

October 2009
Please read Don't template the regulars and try and avoid being so snarky, something highly amusing considering the message immediately above this one. I misread the EPs nature (didn't realise it was a live thingy, not a full release) and for that I apologise. Note, however, that in the case of WP:MUSIC sourcing is not necessarily what makes an album notable. You've reverted thirty of my edits without, it seems, even looking at them - you've simply reverted regardless. WP:NALBUMS says that "In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia". That's the general rule - it's on you to show that it doesn't apply, not me to show that it does, hence the meening of "in general". Things like this are just moronic; if it passes the AfD, the community has decided it is notable and the notability template is completely inappropriate - consensus tops guidelines. If they decide it's not notable, it'll be deleted. this has the same problem. With things like this - schools are generally understood to be notable. If you're going to revert my edits, why not try discussing them beforehand? I would suggest going through the edits you've made and reverting most of them - either that or I'll do it for you in a couple of hours. Up to you. Ironholds (talk) 11:22, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm commenting on the edits, not the editor. If an article goes to AfD, one of two things will happen. One, it will be found notable. In this situation, the template is not needed because either a) sources have been found or b) it is inherently notable. If it is found non-notable, it will be deleted. Either way, a message saying that the article "may not meet the notability guideline for web content" as seen here is irrelevant. Again, now that you've acknowledged some of your reverts may have been in error, please go through and retract the ones you find are "wrong". You can start with every single revert on a school article, since the general rule is that they are almost all inherently notable. Ironholds (talk) 18:37, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

St. Edmund Elementary School
I've undone your recent revision to this page, assuming it was a mistake. However, from the above discussion I'm not sure if it was. Generally most schools meet the notability requirements, but as notability is not inherited some exceptions may exist. Please contact me if you have reason to believe this doesn't meet the guidelines. Also, reverting an established editor over multiple pages before initiating a discussion is generally considered rude as you are not providing any evidence as to why you feel the edits need to be reverted and you are treating the prior editor in the same manner that one treats petty vandalism. If you continue to misuse the feature, your access to it may be revoked.  Them From  Space  18:52, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Christmas Tree (Lady Gaga song)
It may interest you to know that, since you !voted in the AfD, a series of new citations has been added to Christmas Tree (Lady Gaga song). You may wish to re-evaluate the article and possible reconsider your !vote, but this is not necessary. Dale 21:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Wot tags
Why are all the articles on the Wheel of Time series tagged as Ref needed??? Like |like here. The book is the reference in every single case of your tagging. -- S ilverleaf  23:30, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

|This
My great Uncle is dead. It is not a biography of a living person. I advice to tag is differently. Next to that .. why a reference tag? It is international knowledge that the facts stated in this article are true. -- S ilverleaf  19:45, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

RPGFan
Hi,

RPGFan is an official fan site that is reputable and has served the community, as well as the game industry, for over ten years. Please recognize that RPGFan is a valid source of professional content, and its reviews have been used commercially by many publishers and developers in the gaming industry. Please cease and desist your unwarranted edits. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapturous (talk • contribs) 23:06, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi,


 * RPGFan is owned by Cerberus Media Group. If you would like to inform yourself and do the proper research in the near future, please contact John McCarroll (johnm@rpgfan.com).  Responsible editing is important to the longevity of Wikipedia, and haphazardly removing valid edits only serves to harm the integrity and spirit of Wikipedia.  Please pass this along to all of your friends.  Thanks!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rapturous (talk • contribs) 23:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi,


 * I'm asking you to edit responsibly. RPGFan is owned by a business, its reviews and their scores have been used in the media as forms of advertisement for several gaming publishers and developers, and it has served all of the aforementioned outlets for over ten years.  If you are not willing to knowledgeably edit other people's changes, please do not edit them in the first place.--Rapturous (talk) 23:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi,


 * Perhaps if you made clearer your individual idea of professionalism and reliability, this matter could resolved more quickly. As it stands, I have stated that RPGFan has been used in the media, and published by other gaming entities.  Before you remove content, you must make a good case for how the content is not professional or reliable.  RPGFan has a Wikipedia page, and I offered you an email address so that you may be better informed.  According to Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability and reliability, RPGFan is a professional source.  Please cease and desist further revisions unless better informed.--Rapturous (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi,


 * Other users have added content for RPGFan in the past. Additionally, other members of the web site have added music soundtrack reviews links, information, and commentary throughout Wikipedia, whose only citations link to RPGFan.  If RPGFan is not a credible source, these pages will lose several citations and links, as well.


 * The content I have added has very simply been numbers and links. There is no conflict of interest, and the reliability and verifiability for RPGFan, as I have proven before, stands.  Other users will continue to edit for RPGFan, I'm sure, as it's a credible source within the gaming industry.


 * I fear that your removal of content may fall under VANDALISM: "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated."  Please cease frivolous revisions.  Thank you!--Rapturous (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Your report about Rapturous at WP:COIN
Hello Rehevkor. I noticed you withdrew a report at COIN about the above editor. Recent discussions about Rapturous on various user talk pages do suggest a concern that this editor might be spamming links to his site. Since December 11 I see him undoing ten edits by others on various pages which suggest: (a) he added his own link, (b) someone removed it, (c) he reverted the removal. Can you say why you changed your mind? I would propose that you restore the complaint, so we can have a discussion, and he can explain what he is up to, and why he is trying to force his link into the articles against the wishes of other editors. EdJohnston (talk) 19:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: RPGFan
Rehevkor, EdJohnston,

If you would, please contact me re: the incident(s) with Rapturous and RPGFan as a whole. My name is Patrick Gann and I am a staff member of RPGFan. I would like to receive some clarification and also clarify what happened over this last weekend. Not sure what Wiki's policy is on email, but you can contact me via pgann@rpgfan.com (as listed on RPGFan.com) or via patricksgann@gmail.com (which I used to register this wikipedia account).

Thank you,

Patrick Gann Tonelico00 (talk) 16:35, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I have replied at User talk:Tonelico00, and sent email to alert Tonelico00 to the message. EdJohnston (talk) 17:18, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and Ed, for your help. I will be reading all the links provided and contributing to the conversation further. My end goal is only that we all (esp. RPGFan staff) have a good understanding of Wikipedia's expectations. If that means we don't meet the criteria for reputable source, so be it. While I'm happy to promote the site, I (and we) would never be willing to do it and at the same time violate another site's editorial policy. Especially a fine site like Wikipedia.

Tonelico00 (talk) 02:00, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

You're on ANI
Cheers! -- Neil N   talk to me  23:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh, DRAMA :P Rehevkor ✉  23:55, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Atama got it spot on. "I talked to a friend who talked to his friend..." -- Neil N   talk to me  00:01, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Formal apology for my bad behavior
Hereby, I formally apologize to Eik Corell, and Rehevkor, for my bad behavior until now. I promise I'll stop pushing my Versions table into this aritcle. I have decided to copy it onto my personal website about these games, The Island CX, and leave it there. It has more relevance there, than it has here. - OBrasilo (talk) 01:25, 19 December 2009 (UTC)
 * No worries. These things happen. Rehevkor ✉  01:50, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

re-prod
that's ok. the rules are a little peculiar, but this one is actually rational: the rule is that a prod can be stopped by anyone objecting, and if someone objected a little earlier, they are likely to object still. I certainly do not think those articles can possibly stand as they are--they would much more reasonably each be one or two paragraphs in a combination article. There's some dispute about the propriety of using AfD to force merges, and you are likely to get some flack over it from some, while others will support you. I certainly will admit, that the threat of a possible deletion can be a very strong argument to induce people to be willing to accept a merge, especially since what happens at AfD is almost totally unpredictable.  DGG ( talk ) 02:44, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Fear Factory / Final Exit / Final Exit Network
Hi ! I got your message about 'our' Fear Factory / Final Exit / Final Exit Network thing. I read the link about "No original research". I don't really see why I got my info deleted. I could have said "Wow it's obviously clear ! Fear Factory's Final Exit <-> Final Exit Network" That's not a really "wikipedian" behavior.

I could have also said "Ok, but if you read what the Final Exit Network is about and what Fear Factory is singing in the Final Exit track, it's about the same topic !" Same problem.

But, I linked a source for what I said. A portion of video and a transcript which clearly talk about the Final Exit Network, in which everybody can clearly hear (read) Jerry Dincin's sentence which is used in the Fear Factory's song.

If I didn't have these sources, I'd have been completly on your side: pure speculation, personal interpretation, etc.

But the sources are here. What I wrote was not based on an deep analysis coming from a 4-hour yoga reflection about Final Exit Network, the meaning of life, euthanasia and the Fear Factory song. It's a logical, neutral and purely objective thing: -> I'm listening to the song

-> I'm wondering what the spoken words at the beginning are

-> Google found things for me in 2 mouse clicks

-> I found the exact quote on the CNN transcript and the video. (In my mind: "Wow! Both Jerry Dincin and Fear Factory are talking about the same thing!")

-> I use wikipedia to learn about the Final Exit Network. (In my mind: "Wow! Again: they're talking about terminating very sick people lives to avoid pain and suffering")

-> I found the meaning of the second sentence, which is almost the title of a book... about (again) the same topic.

-> I write something (while not using "I think...", "For me...", "In my mind...") on the Mechanize and Final Exit Network wikipages about what I have found ("found", not supposed or "guessed after 4 hour of deep meditation").

-> I linked the sources.

-> I got deleted for "No original research".

KuBi4K (talk) 12:37, 21 January 2010 (UTC) KuBi4K

Simonpettersen
I've indeffed him, and raised the issue at WP:ANI, where I've recommended no unblock without a ban on uploading files. Mjroots (talk) 20:10, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I know how you feel!
Tell me about it! :D -- Soetermans |  drop me a line  |  what I'd do now?  21:13, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Tool/Nu-metal
"Undue weight"? "Vague"? I see nothing "vague" about what was added: a reputable/published author mentioned Tool as being a nu-metal band. There are sections on both the nu-metal page and the Tool page that state Tool being an influence on prominent nu-metal bands. Hence, your revert of the citation sounds like a little WP:POV - nothing questionable about the source, so...? --Danteferno (talk) 01:21, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That doesn't fall as "undue weight", because both the nu-metal page (and again, the Tool page) already state the band's association with the nu-metal genre. Therefore, nothing contradicts anything.

--Danteferno (talk) 01:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Politics, Religion and Her (song)
Since you participated in the AFD for this article, I thought you might be interested in a discussion here. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Portal 2/Gamespot
I'm sorry, but why did you removed my ref to Kotaku article? It might have been removed from the store, but the very fact that Kotaku has this info means something. Kotaku is a reliable source of information for video games, so why is this information considered "wrong"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pwlodi (talk • contribs) 01:28, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Black Lotus (Fallen Angels demo)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Black Lotus (Fallen Angels demo). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Black Lotus (Fallen Angels demo). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:14, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Sonic Syndicate's Musical Style
Why did you undo my changes on the Sonic Syndicate page? That was a very poorly written explanation and I was just fixing it up a bit. I've been a fan of Sonic Syndicate since the very beginning of their run under that name, so I'm fairly familiar with their musical style. American Hardcore and Death Metal mixed DO NOT make Melodic Death Metal, so that statement right there proves that whoever wrote this is not the smartest. They didn't mix any "American Hardcore" in their first album of Eden Fire, it was straight up Melodic Death Metal. Also, In Flames and Soilwork are not influenced from Metalcore, so that little closing statement really made no sense, and had no purpose being there whatsoever. Every fan of Melodic Death Metal knows that there is zero Metalcore in either of those bands music. Plus, Sonic Syndicate aren't "Melodic Metalcore" now, that is an awful, made-up, internet sub-genre that doesn't actually exist. They are still Melodic Death Metal, only with more Metalcore influences on their two later albums (just as I explained in PERFECT detail). Can you please revert it back to my changes? That guys description is really embarassing. I'm a longtime Sonic Syndicate fan, and I just don't like seeing that when I pass through the Wiki. -Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.160.129.236 (talk) 18:22, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Songfacts
You want to do anything about this? The IP's stopped for now, but there're still plenty of links to be removing. I'd suggest just throwing it on the blacklist since the blacklist requests are being turned over at a glacial pace. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Care to help me debone some of these links? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 00:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Metal
Yeah, that site looks bad too. Rollback'd as many as I could. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 21:28, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

FAR
nominated Half-Life 2 for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.--Vaypertrail (talk) 15:28, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Dead Space karma
As you wish (about revision 363549940 - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dead_Space_(video_game)&action=history)

It's your content, and your responsibility. If you think Wikipedia is only for bland story, it's your choice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.194.234.160 (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes. Rehevkor ✉  13:40, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Good. ---117.194.234.160

Image violations
Stop restoring the images until you correct the image licenses. The current tag you have on them is for "only be used for images of a person, product, or event that is known to have come from a press kit or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media."--Vaypertrail (talk) 16:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

And the other "does not significantly impede the right of the copyright holder to sell the copyrighted material, is not being used to generate profit in this context".--Vaypertrail (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Certainly not reasons to delete or orphan the images, if an issue at all. Since you have taken the issue to FfD anyway let the issue be resolved there and leave the images as they are. Rehevkor ✉  16:59, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * The policy you linked me to says it doesn't apply to clear copyright violations, like this one. The magazine has exclusive publishing rights to them, republishing them without permission clearly violates criteria 2 of WP:FUC, and the website terms and conditions.--Vaypertrail (talk) 17:09, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not a clear copyright violation Rehevkor ✉  17:11, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Not clear to you it seems, ok, let me be more clear. The Magazine (GameInformer) exclusively published screenshots and artwork of an unreleased game that they received from the game developers. Only they have this material and it is a central part of their commercial articles. By copying their exclusive content, you are devaluing the commercial worth or 'exclusivity' of their article. And as the game is unreleased and no alternative images are available, it is still worth money in the market. Respect for commercial opportunities. Non-free content is not used in a manner that is likely to replace the original market role of the original copyrighted media.. I hope that clears everything up.--Vaypertrail (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * That can potentially cause them to fail fair use criteria, but doesn't make them copyright violations. Rehevkor ✉  17:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair use is part of copyright law.--Vaypertrail (talk) 17:24, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, and? It's fair use is a point of debate, just because you believe it fails it doesn't mean you can act as if you're right and violate our rules doing so, as I pointed out earlier, some disagree with you. The correct course of action was indeed to bring up the issue at FfD, not edit warring, requesting page protection then try to speedy them. It's a grey area, you cannot act as if it's not. Rehevkor ✉  17:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * So are you going to tell me how they pass criteria 2? Or something that I have said about the images that is untrue?--Vaypertrail (talk) 17:38, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I have said my piece on that respect on the FfD page. Rehevkor ✉  17:39, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll take that as a no, as the "Well all my friends did it too so I thought it was ok" argument is what you seem happy with.--Vaypertrail (talk) 18:00, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * What exactly are you trying to say here? Rehevkor ✉  18:03, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I don't want to know what you're on about. I've said part, and will have nothing further to do with you and your tone. Good luck! Rehevkor ✉  18:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)