User talk:TheSameGuy/Archive 2

Re: PotPlayer
Hi.

I do understand that one might get a little defensive about the blog that he likes but the fact is that Lifehacker does not have any of the three specs mentioned in WP:RS that a good reliable source must have. I just don't trust it. But if what that blog says is true, then I think you should have no trouble having another source for it, right? Do you have not a single other source that confirm that?

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 22:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not defensive about Lifehacker, in fact I never even added Lifehacker to that article as a source, someone else did, I was just cleaning the PotPlayer article up.
 * I was just saying though, Lifehacker is not a self published source/blog because it's not one persons personal blog, it's one of Gawker Media's sites (they're a company that own/run multiple sites such as, Gizmodo, io9, Kotaku, etc. each with their own editors). The main 3 requirements/specs for a reliable source are 1. the piece of work itself (in this case, the article). 2. the creator of the work (in this case, senior editor Whitson Gordon) and 3. the publisher of the work (in this case, Gawker Media). All three of those requirements are fulfilled, on top of the fact that Lifehackers and Gawkers notability has been established in the past by 3rd party reliable sources too and so there's nothing wrong with it being used.
 * However, as for finding another source, I agree that another source added to the article would be great as Wiki relies on as many sources as possible, and relies mostly on 3rd party sources rather than primary sources. However, I simply haven't gotten around to it as my only purpose on the PotPlayer article was to just clean it up while I was there and then I was done, so I figured someone else will eventually come along to add more sources. TheSameGuy (talk) 12:54, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey.


 * Yes, someone will probably add another source if the article has citation needed tag. Otherwise, no one will.


 * As for the three criteria, I am afraid your understanding is a little, shall I say, off. You see, the work itself must have acceptable quality, the writer must be known if not famous and the publisher must have an editorial over-watch. Lifehacker has no editorial board; and the contents quality is hardly better than my own blog. Obviously, the writer just assumed that embedded subtitles can be read. He has never tried doing so himself. (I did though.)


 * Best regard,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well the Lifehacker site has editorial oversight from their parent company and publisher, Gawker Media. As for the author himself being famous or well known, I guess someone would have to find a 3rd party source for him or the article, though I know he has also written for Macworld and PCWorld, and Lifehacker has it's own Wiki article (isn't notability established then?) with the guy mentioned on there as one of the writers, though I'm not sure if all that makes him considered well known or not. TheSameGuy (talk) 15:31, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi.


 * I really don't think everything that has a Wikipedia article is a reliable source. (e.g. Lots of tabloids have a Wikipedia article.) Notability is not reliability. Besides that blog's prose is so low in quality that it almost certainly has not been edited. (I recently tried to upgrade a Wikipedia article to FA status and you cannot imagine how effective a careless editor can be.)


 * But I guess we cannot have consensus. So, I guess I'll just let it go. After all, what's the worst thing that can happen? Some guy reads it, believes it, tries the product, fails, feels bad for believing Wikipedia and lets it go. So... cheers, pal.


 * Best regards,
 * Codename Lisa (talk) 17:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Notepad2Icon.png
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Notepad2Icon.png, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. 50.84.71.146 (talk) 14:41, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:MaxwellLogo.svg)
Thanks for uploading File:MaxwellLogo.svg. 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 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 '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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Werieth (talk) 03:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

File:Chuckles 1676.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Chuckles 1676.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Kelly hi! 20:17, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:RoboformLogo.gif
 Thanks for uploading File:RoboformLogo.gif. 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 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).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:57, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Marvel Studios
As per WP:FilmRelease, "the film's earliest release, whether it was at a film festival, a world premiere, or a public release," counts as the film being officially released. - Richiekim (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * That is not a policy, you simply linked to the documentation for an infobox which has nothing to do with what is typed in the lead section of the article.