User talk:ZeWrestler/archive3

Deletion of pictures
Most of them were blurry, and compressed in the wrong format, which was jpg. A screenshot of an old game can be compressed in png format without being lossy at all, even better quality than jpg. – DarkEvil 21:27, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Question about Final Fantasy Template
Hello. I've got a question about FF Template: why did you removed "Documents, Manga, Fan made games" from the template ( http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3AFinalFantasy_series&diff=19451328&oldid=19441438). I'm not angry, no, but just curious. Leider my English doesn't let the comment "rv fancruft" be clear for me ;). I can understand why to delete "fan fames" - those aren't the official ones. But documental films? Beyond Final Fantasy, FFVII Digest, Distance - FFVII:AC - those are Square(Enix)' movies. There is an official manga too (according to Anime News Network). Why remove them, then? This is some official stuff but not very common or well known, so some piece of information in a templete could be helpful to learn about it. E.g. in Polish Wikipedia we have almost everything (but who really knows...) what connects with FF (http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szablon:Final_Fantasy). Maybe it takes a lot of space but templates are always below the main article, so who cares ;)

So wouldn't be a good idea to include these things also in English template? If not - then OK. But I'm really curious, why :)--Joanna Kornas 21:12, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

GCOTW
Jacoplane 11:11, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

FF6 peer review
I was kind of hoping we'd get more of a response from the CVG peer review. Ideally I'd like to wait until we hear more on that front, but I dunno, really. – Seancdaug 18:05, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
 * As I can see, we've already got an answer on the new peer review. Removing some credits might make some place for more interesting facts about the game, I agree that some credits are not needed. – DarkEvil 15:04, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

Improvement drive
I'm curious, why did you remove several edits and nominees that should not have been removed from the improvement drive. -- ZeWrestler  Talk 18:50, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Added note, why did you add topics that have been previously removed? -- ZeWrestler  Talk 18:55, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * I made a mistake, see the Improvement drive talk page. Jacoplane 19:53, 25 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Looks like you have the AID voting scandal under control. :) --nixie 23:12, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
 * Ok, you got me. I'm the CEO of Diebold and we've been experimenting with manipulating the vote outside American elections. Wikipedia seemed like a good place to start. I guess we'll have to go back to the drawing board to make our manipulation more sophisticated :) Jacoplane 23:22, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Image:Kimahri2.jpg
I originally uploaded that picture months ago, though. Image:Kimahri Ronso art.jpg was uploaded just last week. ‡  Jarlaxle   19:59, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Cquote1.png and Image:Cquote2.png
Uh, sorry guys, I really don't understand what you mean by what you said on my talk page. But if it helps any, I made the quotation marks for some quotes I was going to use (but in turn never did). They were made in Photoshop and they are indeed my creation. I really don't know which image tags to use, but if they're any bother, tell me and I'll file them for deletion. Cheers for letting me know.. uhh.. what you did :D — Cua HL   20:34, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
 * No damage, this has been resolved. — Cua HL   21:03, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Disturbed
I don't know what you're smoking, but Disturbed is definitley nu-metal! --User:151.201.251.178
 * I have an idea, how about you register as an offical user of the site, and then maybe i might consider your argument. -- ZeWrestler   Talk 13:38, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I did! Look at the definition of Nu metal. Disturbed almost exactly fits that. They are nothing like metal, dude.

Cinema COTW
Hey, I notice you do a fair amount of work with a number of COTWs and improvement drives, etc. I just wanted to let you know that I (for better or worse, I suppose) rebooted the Cinema Collaboration of the Week by essentially starting over with rules more alike to other established COTWs such as WP:GCOTW. Please take a look at it and make any changes you feel are necessary. I'm hoping to get more support for this COTW so that it is as lively as others, notably GCOTW. Thank you. K1Bond007 06:56, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

link removed : phishing
So, there is a bit of debate on links on the phishing wiki page. The page has a great deal of information on phishing and it is worthy of a discussion of solutions that may or may not work. For example, sharecube.com/whitepapers.html has an article on why SSL, certificates, even image recognition don't work as anti-phishing solutions. The purpose is to foster public debate and enhances industry understanding.

The page had a lot of download-my-add-on-solution in a producty category. I am cool on removing corporate links, even informational, but it should be a stated/understood policy.

Comments can be sent to mike /at/ sharecube /dot/ com.

Thanks

Referances
I replied on the peer review page the best I could. – DarkEvil 15:05, August 8, 2005 (UTC) Oh yeah, it'll be ready for a regular peer review, the page will have its references and the censorship version with references proves to be encyclopaedic material which makes it non-gamefaqish. Other sections are good too and contain less fancruft material than before.

Orphaned images
You could be either talking about images like Image:Naocho.png which aren't currently used but they will later be integrated in the bestiary. or you could be talking about repeated images like Image:Magic Pot FFV.png or Image:MagiUrn FFVI.png from which I proposed to delete one of them since they are real unneeded duplicate (seems the FFV one did got deleted). Or you could be talking about nearly all my bestiary images, which are currently used, but not shown as so by the wikipedia software. They are used by clicking on the game's name in the Final Fantasy bestiary and can be easyly missed. This is why Cuahl wanted a new design. – DarkEvil 16:31, August 8, 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the compliment, it was not that hard, JiFish already had made a "model" on some images, I just adapted them for different needs. It's gonna be long converting the remaining ones on other articles for future needs, but let's convert them when needed only (or if we have some spare time). – DarkEvil 02:48, August 10, 2005 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the rationale should definitely be part of the project and made clear on the main page so that new members know about this. As for Seancdaug, I was kind of thinking about the same thing, where is he? The last thing he made was a minor change in the Adelbert Steiner article and then we never heard from him again and there are no sign of him being on vacation or anything else on his talk page. I hope nothing bad happened to him, but let's just say he took a small break even if that may sound odd as he was here everyday. &mdash; DarkEvil 03:05, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

American Old West at the US Collaboration
Some time ago, you supported the nomination of American Old West at the COTW. I have now renominated it at the new US Collaboration. If you are still interested, you can support the article with your vote there!--Fenice 08:54, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Phishing rationale
They seem good to me. After all, you've included pretty much all that can be said and they're not emails from the most legitimate companies. The rationale is good everything is correct. – DarkEvil 15:58, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

fair use rationale
Sure, no problem. I might not have time to check them all tonight though. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 20:32, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

welcome
Thanks for the welcome. I've made a few edits in the past, and I have decided to stay. I would like to point out that the topical index page has a notice on it saying it is obsolete. Thank you. G Clark 18:24, 2005 August 13 (UTC)

Brave New World
Peer review sounds like a good suggestion, you're right. X) I'm still learning the ropes here, so let me ask you - Do I withdraw the FA nomination, then submit it to peer review? Or should I submit it to peer review and let the FA vote run its course? Thanks. :) --User:Jenmoa 21:38, 14 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! --User:Jenmoa 02:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Red fox image
Why do you keep reuploading my edits to Image:Red fox with prey.JPG? I can't see any difference except that instead of saying it's been uploaded by Fir0002 it says it has been uploaded by ZeWrestler. --Fir0002 11:31, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * They even have exactly the same file size --Fir0002 11:32, August 15, 2005 (UTC)
 * I have reverted to my original upload --Fir0002 12:05, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

March of the Penguins
There is a current discussion on The March of the Penguins about the proper name of the article. The English title is "March of the Penguins"; however, someone has stated it should be "La Marche de l'empereur" since that is its original French title. Apparently there is some precedent for leaving foreign films in their original title. Anyway, thought you should know so that you can add your input on the discussion since you are the original author of the article. K1Bond007 20:00, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Re:Learning twice
Good observation, the page was indeed error. I have corrected it. It had skipped the fairly successful reproduction COTW, though it again was one that had originally been listed during the one per week period. - SimonP 18:00, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * I just counted by hand, but to count things like this I often copy and paste the edits into Word and then run a find and replace for the number sign that begins each line. - SimonP 18:23, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
 * Great work on completing the history section. It is useful to have more data in the discussion of how to fix COTW. From your numbers the average number of edits over the last eight COTWs was 41.3 the average for the eight prior to the two per week was 134.3. - SimonP 20:27, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

--Fenice 18:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Lets go phishing
There are a couple more things I can think of that could be added: I think then it should be good to go, no doubt more stuff will pop up when its on FAC.--nixie 00:58, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) More on identity theft, mabye in the damage section
 * 2) Whats the damage outside the US, I know it's also a problem in Australia but I haven't found anywhere that says how bad it is in Australia
 * 3) Whats the legal situation outside the US UK, I think you can also be prosecuted in Canada
 * 4) A second paragraph could be added to the lead to briefly discuss damage, legislation and anti-phishing.

On your User Page
Just thought I'd ask if you noticed that you've mispelt (Oddly, I don't know how to spell mispelt) the word "article" as "artical" on several occasions on your user page. Was that done on purpose, or is it a gigantic overlook? --Pookythegreat 06:23, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
 * thanks for pointing that out. honestly, i am a really bad speller.  I fixed it recently, with some of the spellings on the page, but i keep typing that often, out of old habit.  i'll correct my page. thanks for pointing it out. -- ZeWrestler   Talk 15:39, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
 * No problem, heh....But I must mention that you missed one! It's the title of one of your sections, under "pages that i've created".

Columbine High School massacre
The section "aftermath" elaborates on the Guerra Documents a bit more. Will this be sufficient, or do you think it still needs a bit more expansion? PRueda29 - 16:00 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I expanded it. Please check it for me to make sure it's ok. - PRueda29 16:43 23 August 2005 (UTC)

re:Featured picture ratio
There isn't really an exact ratio, I prefer a 70/30 ratio at least, however I don't hold exactly too that especially if there are mitigating circumstances and/or there are good reasons to promote or deny. Jtkiefer T - 19:51, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Phishing
Its really improved and you've done a great job on it - so I'll see you at FAC! -- Ryan Norton T 14:44, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Lots more work needed on phishing, I think, but I've done my best to reword and restructure it with a fresh eye. There's some good content there to build on. Thanks for the comment. -82.33.52.78 12:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Wolf
Hi, ZeWrestler! Thanks for your comments at the wolf peer review. The article is now a Featured article candidate; please vote as you see fit. Thanks again, Sango  123  20:56, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

FF 6
Hey ZeWrestler, I've been looking at the FF 6 article and I think it is ready for Featured Article status but before you nominate it I would suggest either creating articles for the red links already in the article or removing the links. I would myself but I don't really have much background on the subject of those links. Anyway I'm crossing my fingers that FF 6 will make it to featured article status, Derktar 05:07, August 27, 2005 (UTC).
 * The article should mostly stand on its own, I don't think the few red links will hurt the FAC. I say nominate it, and we polish out whatever objections they have.  Any idea where DarkEvil went?  He was helpful.  How about Chrono Trigger next? ;)  -- Norvy (talk) 16:18, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

no prob
Pretty standard response for empty "no" votes. In FAC, we want cosensus, not a vote count- all objections to FAC must be fixable- it's a rule, and a very useful one for an FA nominator. (You might need to use it again, if people write objections like "it's not a good topic for an FA") I'm sorry I can't vote for FF6 however; though I absolutely loved the game, I don't think the article is that exceptional (sorry) Borisblue 18:25, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Improving FF6
I think his points are (mostly) valid, actually: the censorship section, in particular, is a little out-of-control, and we may have overloaded the page with images from a layout perspective. I take issue with his infobox comment, for the reasons I've stated on the FAC page, but I'm going to sit down and see if I can address his other comments right now. – Seancdaug 02:00, September 1, 2005 (UTC)


 * Ze, I wanted to apologize for withdrawing my vote for the FAC, but I think BrianSmithson is right: the comments and criticisms brought up during the voting have destabilized the page, and I'm no longer sure that it's quite ready for prime time. Don't get me wrong: I think the article is looking better than ever, and I feel really guilty for this, but I think we do need to prove that we can keep the article in excellent shape for a while before it really deserves FA status. – Seancdaug 16:33, September 2, 2005 (UTC)