User talk:Voidvector/Archive 2

Image tagging for Image:Samir duran.png
Thanks for uploading Image:Samir duran.png. 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:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 11:10, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

OblivioWiki
I noticed that you removed OblivioWiki from the wiki links because it's a "commercial wiki," which means what? I'm not an expert at policies here, but if listing it goes against one of them, then I'll agree with the link remove. However, you'd have to remove the GuildWiki and NeverWiki links from Guild Wars and Neverwinter Nights 2, respectively, as they are sister sites and they'd be considered "commercial wikis" as well.

If the link is being removed because "2 wikis would suffice," well, Elder Scrolls Pages is a general Elder Scrolls wiki, which also includes Oblivion and older games, while the other is a mod-listing only wiki. Oblivion would well fit with the two as it's a Oblivion-only wiki. Btw, what makes the other two not commercial wikis, if that's the reason for removal?


 * I have replied on Talk:The_Elder_Scrolls_IV:_Oblivion.--Voidvector 02:08, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Cold War (Battlefield 2142) article
I see you've marked my article for not citing sources. Could you help me with this problem? Most of the information I draw is from the official website, but I don't know how to cite them other than listing their address at the bottom. Do you know how to put the little numbers at the end of sentences and such? Thanks. - Windows2142, 8 October 2006

fallout 3
Why did you revert the edit from "supposedly" to "currently"? There are many proofs, official, that Bethesda _is_ developing F3; you can find them in the references to the Fallout 3 article... agnus 17:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for replying. I have recently added link to a scanned version of one article from "PC Gamer Magazine" (rather credible source, in my opinion), where the author claims that he visited Bethesda and saw some work in progress. No real build, but lots of concept art. This is added as note number 2 under the article.agnus 21:35, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Big Dipper
Please tell me when you're through messing up the article so that I can revert it. Thank you. B00P 11:13, 9 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe that understand your reasoning for the changes, having read the edit summaries, and disagree with all of them. However, being a reasonable person, I invite you to list them all at once on my talk page. Use the section "Big Dipper 3" at the bottom. I shall hold off reverting to give you a chance. Fair enough? B00P 14:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

First, thank you for the prompt response. If parts of what I write here seem overly negative, please read through to the end and you'll see it's not really that bad.

Second, your reasons are as I thought them to be. Of the seven changes - there was an eighth, the dab at the top, which you, yourself removed - one is perfectly acceptable, and I would have (and still intend to) re-establish after the revert. Two others, while poorly executed, make relevant points - I was already aware of one - and will be attended to. Another, which I was also aware of, needs to be discussed. My "messing up" remark related to some layout features that you missed with your edits; I was not complaining about your intentions. I'll go into the details below.

Third, there are three considerations that you appear to have ignored.
 * 1) A scan of the article's history would have shown that the person who wrote the article is still involved in maintaining it. Common courtesy would indicate that while adding additional information is right and proper, a massive flurry of changes to the layout is a different matter entirely. A perusal of the file history would have shown that I welcome new information, although I may, on occasion do some slight rewording or alter the placement of the data.
 * 2) A glance at the article's discusion page would have shown that one of your changes had already been dealt with. And another, partially so. It's best to avoid jumping in without knowing that you are going over already plowed ground.
 * 3) Regarding layout, it is clear that you have a large monitor. Not everyone does. While your changes to the layout look okay on a large screen, they are just awful on a small one. I have been careful to maintain the layout so that it looks acceptable on both, if not perfect for either. Here is the main cause of the "messing up" remark.

Okay, fourth, on to specifics. I'm using your numbering system.
 * 1) Added page title to the first sentence Not absolutely ncessary. As the reader has just seen the title, he hardly needs to see it again, boldfaced, in the very first sentence. Although it is normally done, there are two considerations that override it here. 1) As should be clear, the asterism has many names and it would be incorrect to "annoint" one as the name. The article needed a title, so it got the one best-known to most readers. Notice, however, that the lead paragraph focuses on another name. This was quite deliberate. 2) With the map in place at the top right, the left-hand text column was the correct length to match. This was also quite deliberate. So, while the verbiage did not match the usual cookie-cutter format, it was correct.
 * 2) Grouped "Names and lore" based on regions of the world or source Matter of taste. I've got my reasons for having it the way it was, which are too complicated to go into here. You're not wrong - I just prefer it the other way.
 * 3) Added some more information about Irish lore based on The Starry Plough No, that's information about Irish politics. If you had checked the Discussion page and then the History page, you would have discovered that the Starry Pough was added by Dermo69. I trimmed it down and he approved. See the Discussion page for the dialogue on this very point.
 * 4) Changed the Native American myth to Abenaki myth That's fine for the "Hunter" version, but not for the "Cubs" version. This star lore was more widespread. I have no problem with a link, but I have a more direct one in mind.
 * 5) Changed stuff about region using Chinese characters Fine.
 * 6) Removed all the interwiki links for Ursa Major This is the one that needs to be discussed. I was aware of the links, but let them stand for a number of reasons. 1) Somebody placed them there, and as long as they aren't hurting the article, I felt it was best not to disturb someone else's work. 2) Although Ursa Major is incorrect, I never investigated the full range of what is on "the other side." In other words, having yanked the links, what is left for the other wikis. Do they have links to the real Ursa Major article? If not, did you put them in as replacements? 3) If there's nothing else, wouldn't these links have been better than nothing? Did you give these questions any consideration? Had this been the only change you made, I would have let it stand. As it is, I ask you to be absolutely sure that what you did is for the best. If so, after the revert, you can pull the plug again.
 * 7) Moved the map to the "star" section I was aware of the situation, and your reasoning is valid, but the execution was poorly done. To begin with, the size of the map - correct for the top - is too large for placement here. It really fouls up the layout of the text. Conversely, the photograph you moved to the top is too small, also fouling up the layout. Further, while the photo may look good to you, I've been looking for a replacement. On many screens it appears as a completely black rectangle. One must click on it to see anything, and the results are less than inspiring. This is hardly the way to begin the article. The actual solution, which I was about to impliment, is to put a second map just above the table.

So, here's the plan. I'll revert, then repeat your #5. I shall also add a link as per your #4. After due consideration about it, do what you will regarding #6. As mentioned, I already have plans that will take care of your #7. This seems reasonable to me, and I have no problem with working with you. I shall wait on the revert if you'd care to respond on my Talk Page. B00P 08:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've done the revert.

I believe that we both discovered upon further investigation the #5 actually pointed to an Chinese version of the Teapot asterism in Sagittarius, not the Big Dipper. I've left the link out.

On the other hand, your #6 - the interwikis - was absolutely correct. They had been added shortly before you yanked them. The revert removed them.

The more I thought about it, the more I realised that if you found my idiosyncratic arrangement of entries confusing, then others would, too. I restored your scheme as per #2.

I hope that you are pleased by the results. B00P 14:54, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:DongFanghong_man_make_star.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:DongFanghong_man_make_star.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:25, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

System File Protection
I have checked the citation, and there is no "System File Protection" or "SFP" words on the page. System File Protection in ME cannot have been replaced by Windows File Protection in 2000 since 2000 is older. However, SFP was replaced by WFP when XP was released - not when 2000 was released. There is nothing relevant about that in the reference. It is just a description of the feature, and I already know about that. ONEtryout 10:17, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * conversation continue at Talk:System File Checker. --Voidvector 16:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

dogmeat page graphic
i took it down, and left my reasoning as the caption to the edit in the edit history. it is unlikely dogmeat and is more likely just a painting signifying some part of the game universe's history. really nice screen from the game, tho. maybe it should be kept and put elsewhere, either on the fallout general page or in the commons? 206.248.168.241 23:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, no biggy. --Voidvector 17:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Gory picture in Sri Lankan Civil War
A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Sri Lankan Civil War, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. Krankman 11:20, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 08:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Requests for mediation/Sri Lankan Civil War
Hello Voidvector,

Firstly, my apologies for the delay in progress on this case, as explained at Requests for mediation/Sri Lankan Civil War.

I am writing to you because, as a party to this case, your input is required before mediation can begin, to do with an offer by an experienced non-Committee member to mediate. Please see the Parties' agreement to WJBscribe's offer section and provide your input, so that this case can progress. Voting will remain open for seven days, and further elaboration is provided at that link.


 * For the Mediation Committee,  Daniel Bryant  08:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Punctuation
Sorry for the edit conflict on Punctuation. Can you check East Asian Punctuation (the new page) to ascertain whether your last edit to Punctuation got carried across to the new page. Thanks. Neil Dodgson 13:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Aldaris.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Aldaris.png. 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 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. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:H-duke.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:H-duke.png. 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 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. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Raszagal.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Raszagal.png. 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 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. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:33, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:AlexeiStukovFume.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:AlexeiStukovFume.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 Fair use, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See 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 Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Stukov-eulogy.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Stukov-eulogy.png. 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 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. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:35, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Tassadar-final-moment.png
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Tassadar-final-moment.png. 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 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. TomStar81 (Talk) 03:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Still needs a source
In the case of Image:AlexeiStukovFume.JPG, the source is still missing: it would either be external (ie:internet website) or internal (ie:you took it in game). In the case of the former the website is needed, in the case of the latter you need to add a line stating that you took the screenshot (or something to that effect). Otherwise, all images are now fair use compliant. TomStar81 (Talk) 00:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't create the original image, so I can't make the statement that I made it. I just wrote a description of the image origin which I know. Hopefully the user who made the screenshot would say something. --Voidvector 09:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Blizzard Entertainment
Ah, thank you for let me know it, I didn't notice. By the way, I reinstated your edits to the Controversies section with explanation in the talk page.--Supparluca 11:02, 25 June 2007 (UTC)