User talk:Rehevkor/Archive 5

Good Article promotion

	Congratulations!
	Thanks for all the work you did in making The Gathering Storm (novel) a certified "Good Article"! Your work is much appreciated. In the spirit of celebration, you may wish to review one of the Good Article nominees that someone else nominated, as there is currently a backlog, and any help is appreciated. All the best, – Quadell (talk)

thanks

thanks for responding, can I post some of the article here to be an example? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.252.255.164 (talk) 00:17, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

example

high it's me again and this is an exmaple i wish u respond to me.

this is some of the page

Hidden content, click [show] to reveal
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Grand slam champions who saved match point(s) (from 2000) This is a list of Grand slam champions who saved at least one match point on their road to win a slam (from 2000) F=Final, SF= Semi Final, 4R= Fourth Round Tournament Winner Opponent Round No. of Match points saved Match result 2001 French Open Gustavo Kuerten Michael Russell 4R 1 3-6, 4-6, 7-6, 6-3, 6-1 2002 Australian Open Jennifer Capriati Martina Hingis F 4 4-6, 7-6, 6-2 2003 Australian Open Serena Williams Kim Clijsters SF 2 4-6, 6-3, 7-5 2003 US Open Andy Roddick David Nalbandian SF 1 6-7, 3-6, 7-6, 6-1, 6-3 References

You'll have to forgive me if I'm unsure of what the issue is here. The temlate you pasted wasn't closed off, there was no |} tag to say the template had ended. Or was there another issue? Яehevkor ✉ 15:25, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

it worked!!! thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.252.255.226 (talk) 16:42, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

List of hard rock musicians

If you want to start removing the flag icons at the top, I'll start from the bottom. Then we can meet half way and get the list cleaned up a bit... Good? Dismas|^(talk) 10:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan - I don't have a lot of time but I can at least get a start on it. Яehevkor ✉ 10:21, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Neither do I and it looks like I'll be spending most of my time waiting for the page to load. Might as well start on it though... Dismas|^(talk) 10:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Actually I'm getting loads of errors trying to even view the article now. I'm starting to think the only real solution would be to split the article. Яehevkor ✉ 10:24, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Same here. Never seen the "Wikimedia servers are overloaded" message before! I have just about 15 minutes till I have to start packing up to leave work though... Dismas|^(talk) 10:27, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm headed off shortly also, but for less noble deeds. I've explained on the help desk why I think a split is the only option. Яehevkor ✉ 10:33, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

FO3

Rehevkor, you appear to be a significant contributor to Fallout 3, but was not mentioned in SCB '92's nom. So I am here notifying you of the existence of SCB '92's Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Fallout 3/archive1 nom, if you haven't already known. Regards, « ₣M₣ » 22:18, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your Help on the Help Desk!

Thanks for answering my question in the Help Desk! Pinkstrawberry02 (talk) 17:15, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Black Mesa Page

Hi Rehevkor,

I think given the nature of the sparse updates on Black Mesa that an exception for the sources I have provided should be given. Forum posts, blog posts, and social news sites (reddit is not really a social networking in that it's primary function is the dissemination of information and not social networking) are often unreliable, but in this case they are (no objective claims are made other than that these things were said, which the citations provide evidence for) and they are the only sources we have. I believe the information provided in my update to the page is very helpful to those wondering as to the progress of the game's development and should be kept instead of uniformly deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zachayes (talk • contribs) 21:49, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

If something has not relieved coverage from reliable sources, then it has no place here. This is an encyclopaedia not a mod news website. This "unsubstantiated theory" you keep trying to insert is the worst kind of original research too. Primary sources, such as forums, blogs and social networking (yes, Reddit is a social network) by the developers, should be used with extreme care, and never used as the basis for the article, you seem to be trying to use them to push every minor bit of detail from the developers in the last year. This has no place in an encyclopaedia article. Either way, my talk page is not an adequate host for discussions such as this, the best place is at Talk:Black_Mesa_(video_game). Яehevkor ✉ 01:45, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Inception: Themes and analysis section

Hi Rehevkor, I hope you are well. I've started work on a themes and analysis section for Inception (2010). I had a feeling that there wasn't enough critical opinion incorporated into the article, and too much of the analysis was stuffed into "Production", a first draft of only one sub-section is in my Sandbox here, I'd love to hear your comments. Best, --Ktlynch (talk) 10:38, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Mass Effect 3 Article

Hi Rehevkor. Hope I'm doing this right - I'm new to Wikipedia. I've been editing the Mass Effect 3 article for fun but it looks like is quality rating is dipping. Anything you see that you think desperately needs to be done to improve it? Ktmartell (talk) 22:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

York Youth Council

It is not promotional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 10redmoe (talk • contribs) 17:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Rehevkor! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation also appears on other accounts you may have, please complete the survey once only. If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:58, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rehevkor. You have new messages at Ron Ritzman's talk page.
Message added 01:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ron Ritzman (talk) 01:34, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

[[1]]

This is not original research, neither unsourced. I deliberately used weasel words to avoid future credit war, as to who was the 1st to discover this or that. The source however is clearly noted - a reference whithin the game itself. Best regards - Zarnivop (talk) 03:59, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Please actually read WP:Original research. You are using primary (if any) sources to to come to conclusions that are not stated or published by other reliable sources, you must "be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented." Please do so. Яehevkor ✉ 09:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

We are dealing with a computer game here. It is unlikely that an academic article will be published. Gamers community sources should suffice. There are many - I just state one that is on Steam official forum. As a side note - while keeping up to standards is commendable, moreso is manner-full deletion after discussion that actualy takes place, not before. Zarnivop (talk) 11:25, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

If no sources exist then is simply has no place here. You should follow WP:BRD, you were bold, I reverted, now discuss, stop restoring unsourced content to the article. And forums are not reliable sources. Яehevkor ✉ 13:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

While on any academic subject the claim "forums are not reliable sources"

You are right that I failed to follow WP:BRD. My bad. That said, back to the issue. I will now attempt to clarify as clearly as possible why the section you removed

1. deserves a place in a Wikipedia article
2. Is well sourced

The phenomenon described in the deleted section is part of the vital connection between game designers and gamers. The designer, almost certainly deliberately, placed hints into their creation, knowing that the game fans will find interest and joy in deciphering the hints and (undoubtedly) arguing over the implications. This goes a long way to enrich the game experience. Were you a gamer I could refer you to many such 'winks to the gamer' placed by game designers. This phenomenon is rooted deep into the gamer-designer relations.

By keeping to a strict and narrow interpretation of WP:RS you exclude any description of an important aspect of the gaming community, thus betraying Wikipedia completeness. Google autocompletes "is cave johnson" to "is cave johnson chell's father" with tens of thousands of results - all of which are of the type you rush to disqualify. Zarnivop (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Both your above points fail because 1) nothing "deserves" to be in Wikipedia, Wikipedia:Verifiability is law "To show that it is not original research, all material added to articles must be attributable to a reliable, published source appropriate for the content in question" 2) it is certainly not well sourced, a forum source should never be used in OR cases, and the implied use of the game itself as a source, which is a primary source, see Wikipedia:No original research#Primary.2C secondary and tertiary sources, from which you are drawing conclusions that are not expressly stated by the source, or from WP:OR "analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position not advanced by the sources." I'm not saying it can be ignored though, it's already covered in Chell (Portal)#Appearances pointing out a journalist made the connection - that kinda thing is fine. Either way, my talk page is not the place to hold this discussion, Talk:Cave Johnson (Portal) is. Яehevkor ✉ 17:45, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Metallica India tour

I suggest removing the complete topic of the cancelled Metallica concert in Delhi. It adds no value to the article. From my perspective the only value add is the information that Metallica made it's debut in India. Let me know what you think. Please reply on my talk page. Naveenswiki (talk) 21:41, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

• I have left the content regarding the cancelled tour as is, since it still receiving lot of coverage. Maybe once the coverage dies out. I will put this up for discussion on the talk page. Thanks for the feedback. Naveenswiki (talk) 19:18, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

3DS

I responded to you on the talk page, FYI. And I apologize, I didn't mean to come off as "brash" or "offensive". Sergecross73 msg me 01:15, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

No worries, I admit I did over react to it, for which I also apologise. Яehevkor ✉ 22:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks/Question

Thanks for your help. Do you know where I post about someone making an edit to an image? I'm not too good at it. CTJF83 22:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really up on how to deal with much image related stuff. But either way it depends what you're dealing with. Is the image here or on Commons? Is it free or fair use? Is it a change someone has already made or a change you want to make? Яehevkor ✉ 22:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Commons, free, I want to make. File:State positions Iraq war.png I just think it would be beneficial to color Iraq a different color. I tried an image editing program paint fill in, at the lowest tolerance and it colored several other countries too. CTJF83 00:36, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

That's not something I know much about, alas, best place I can think to post it is Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests. Best program to use might be GIMP though. Яehevkor ✉ 00:53, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

I've tried GIMP before with no success lol...I'll head to EAR, thanks! CTJF83 00:56, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Sonic Generations Talk Page

So I saw your change to the talk page. Now, I'm asking this honestly, in good faith, because I really don't know: Do you think that IP was talking about the his additions to the plot that I kept reverting, or the use of the Destructoid review? I was under the impression that was was actually talking about Destructoid. The "reverting of his work" that I mentioned, that I was referring to wasn't so much about "Generations" as it was the fact that I'm reverting just about all of his edits everywhere because he keeps asking random questions on article's talk pages. (Crap like "Why doesn't Arnold Schwartzneger have a German accent" that has no bearing on the article itself.) And he seems to use a couple of different IPs as well, so that may not be apparent by his contribution list.

But yeah, I was wondering what you were thinking, because honestly, with some of the stuff that IP writes, I'm not even sure what he's talking about... Sergecross73 msg me 20:01, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Truth be told I'm unsure what he (or she) was referring to - so I have self reverted for now. Although I think we can both agree that it was nothing productive. Яehevkor ✉ 20:30, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I do agree. I just wanted to check with you first. We seem to be similar-type editors, so I didn't want to get in a habit of us working against each other and reverting each other all the time. Sergecross73 msg me 13:23, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm a guy,Yes I do have past IPs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.71.62.59 (talk) 21:55, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Note on recent SPI

As I responded on my talk page, I believe the SPI was an attempt to take revenge against me for filing an SPI report about the same guy earlier. And it's not the first time the filing editor had filed spurious retaliatory reports against me. Here is an earlier 3RR filing made in revenge as a direct response to an earlier 3RR filing made by me. The same guy had also impersonated me in the past to take revenge. I'm sorry that you got dragged into it as well this time. Anyway both cases are closed now, so no worries. Thanks again for letting me know. -Thibbs (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

It's funny how people can get so obsessed to keep this kinda crap up for years. I browsed his SPI archive and it's troubling stuff. Either way, sorted now, until the next sock turns up anyway. I'll know what to look for next time he crops up for SPI purposes. Cheers. Яehevkor ✉ 21:27, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia organization

A description of WP organization is in this draft. Please look it over and make changes with accompanying discussion on its Talk page. Brews ohare (talk) 17:33, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Now moved to this location. Brews ohare (talk) 15:34, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

OXM issues

Just send me an e-mail, I'll reply with both of them. :) Salvidrim! 16:32, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

From what I can see, the interview about Sonic Generations is in the European version, which I only have in Italian. Would that suffice? Salvidrim! 16:37, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

That may explain why I've had trouble finding it, but that should do the trick. Thank you, I'll email you shortly. Яehevkor ✉ 16:39, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Lemme know if it works okay. Salvidrim! 17:40, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Got it! Thank you very much :) Now translate/verify :/ Яehevkor ✉ 18:22, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Well at least you have the issue/page number, but I agree that double-checking what it actually says is likely a good idea! :p Salvidrim! 18:31, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Youtube

Hi, I'm from youtube,but came here to ask something. Is You tube a reliable source? comment added by 184.44.129.253 (talk) 37:44, 19 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.44.129.253 (talk)

Dunno how you ended up here to ask, are you Tailsman? But generally no, it is not. Mainly because of WP:LINKVIO and WP:SPS. Very little content on Youtube is reliably published or published with respects to copyright. Яehevkor ✉ 18:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

I found this video on youtube,by GA I think,about how Sonic was created.(sign by the other guy)PS:Who?

Highly unlikely to be a reliable source. Яehevkor ✉ 18:58, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

He is posting in all the same areas, and writes in the same style, as all the other IP's suspected to be Tailsman, so...you can jump to your own conclusions I suppose... Sergecross73 msg me 19:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Already had tbf, no doubt in my mind ;P Яehevkor ✉ 19:04, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Wait,what?184.44.129.253 (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Listen,if I'm in the middle of something that I'm not post to be in,tell me now.(My last IP here was 209.240.205.63) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.44.129.253 (talk) 19:23, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

PS:I need to write better184.44.129.253 (talk) 19:44, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Relax, don't worry about it. Яehevkor ✉ 19:29, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Wishes

File:Wikisanta-no motto.png

Rehevkor, I wish you a a Merry Christmas, Happy New Year, and all the usual holiday wishes. Good food, good health and good times. :) Salvidrim! 05:39, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you sah! And a happy new year to you too. Яehevkor ✉ 12:16, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Uncle Scrooge Similarities

I had originally added six links to verify the claim. One of them was cited as possibly violating the guidelines. Upon review, I realized that one almost certainly did, and one possibly did, so I removed those two links. However, the remaining links to CNN, the AV Club, E!Online, and Cracked.com are all legitimate sources for the claim. Therefore, I re-posted with the four remaining links. The four remaining links still verified all the information in the McDuck Similarities section. Therefore, they should be reintroduced.

Is there a reason it should not be reintroduced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.224.23 (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

You should bring it up on Talk:Inception, I believe there is consensus to include it, it doesn't warrant its own section. Яehevkor ✉ 22:14, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtful comments Rehevkor. I agree that it shouldn't have its own section, but do believe it deserves its own subsection under the Reception and Reactions section. I'll try to mention that on the talk page once I figure out how to use that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.102.224.23 (talk) 22:20, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Warning

A reminder - please try not to engage disruptive editors, especially not with evident vulgar personal attacks. I know sometimes it is hard to restrain, but it does nothing and the only possible outcome is more trouble. Revert, ignore, report. :) Salvidrim! 21:30, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I got trolled and responded in kind :/ Going to go have dinner, glass of wine and come back later. Unfortunately there's nowhere to report gross incivility and actually have anything done about it. Яehevkor ✉ 21:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

You didn't get trolled. You hit me with a three revert rule when you were the one who broke that rule first so I made a snide remark and it got under your skin. That's all. Learn to cooperate with others instead of domineering over them. On top of the fact I added a legit source to the Myst article, you were way off trying to overwrite me. So really, you got schooled, not trolled. 74.56.51.128 (talk) 21:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Sure there is. I bet he/she will be blocked by the end of the day. I and User:Salvidrim have each given him warnings. After four, one can be blocked. Cheers! ~ Lhynard (talk) 21:45, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Guess it's over for the moment then, thanks for advice and assistance everyone. Яehevkor ✉ 22:34, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Personal attacks by 74.56.51.128. Thank you. —Salvidrim! 21:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

BWI

FYI... I know not to use weekly, I made the thing, I did it because the user was pissing me off so I intended to undo it. Thanks! Cali4529 (talk) 23:03, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Ah, sweet. No worries then. Яehevkor ✉ 23:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing to the discussion about BWI. Folklore1 (talk) 14:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

What does it mean that "a user was pissing you off" so you "intended to undo it"? Doesn't that strike as inappropriate in the least!? Jesus, I'd heard horror stories about people who considered large sections of wikipedia their personal domains, but I never thought I'd have to deal with this shit myself...— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.173.134.91 (talk • contribs)

You'd have to ask on Cali4529. Also, take a read of WP:AGF. Яehevkor ✉ 15:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Please fix Broken Sword 1 plot

Can you help fix the plot on the broken sword 1 article? Tnx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.111.221.60 (talk) 14:44, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't really have the time or knowledge to do so at the moment. Яehevkor ✉ 18:18, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

No problem — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.111.221.60 (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll see if I can trim it when I have the time, but it's not a small job. Яehevkor ✉ 20:08, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Isaac Clarke

I tried to put the user who pushes the article on the right track (I even made some constructive edits for a good start), but then article's author has just flatly ignored me and all the Wikipedia guidelines - again.

So please keep this article merged (unless someone else makes a proper one). Maybe even lock this as a redirect.

Thanks. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 17:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll have a look over it, but while it does seem horribly sourced, with limited notability your redirect was reverted by 3 different users. Rather rudely, none of them were kind enough to provide you with an explanation, but it does indicate a de facto consensus to keep it for the moment. I should have time to go over the article properly this afternoon. Яehevkor ✉ 14:19, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Star Trek link

Hi. Saw you removed the link based on content violations. We have official contract with Paramount Pictures for the rights to promote Star Trek via Rolestar. Please undo your change and put the link back on the page. Thanks so much....John — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnrstar (talk • contribs) 18:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Since you obviously have a conflict of interest here you should suggest the link on the article's talk page, Talk:Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan and an uninvolved editor can add it for you if they deem it suitable. You seem to be editing here to promote Star Trek and Rolestar which is completely unacceptable. I have left a notice on your talk page which has some advice and guidelines to follow when editing under a conflict of interest. Яehevkor ✉ 19:03, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

New Vegas Edits

Alright, what do I have to do to cite content that's already in the game, and not get repeatedly bitched out for reverting content that clearly contradicts the game itself? This is ridiculous; if it were a novel plot summary I could simply cite the page number and no one could bother me, but somehow video games are magical wonderlands where only fucking *reviews* are acceptable sources, because that's the only 'official' writing about them, and because wikipedians view any and all published works as equally credible sources. There's no analysis to be done in sketching out the basic summary on a piece of fiction; there's right and wrong. The source is ***WRONG****.

It's not about the truth, it's about having the source for your inane and demonstrably false opinion! How fucking wonderful.

So really, what do you want from me? Do I have to literally telephone a developer and get my own interview to correct the most basic incorrect fact in this damn page?!?99.173.134.91 (talk) 15:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You can't really cite the game in this case - you'd run afoul of WP:No original research. I don't believe the game really species how directly or indirectly it was struck. You will need a reliably published source to change the information. You seem to be getting riled up about a single word here, might I suggest you not worry so much about it? Why is it so important? I reckon both "concentrated" and "directly" could be correct per the game, it's just in this case we have a source for "directly". You have yet to provide one for "concentrated". Either way, unless you can reduce your aggressiveness I'm having a hard time finding the motivation to communicate with you. Яehevkor ✉ 15:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

So if I offer a direct quote from the game that's original research, and absolutely forbidden? But any random small-magazine reviewer can say whatever he likes based on the 25 hours they get to review a title and that's something I can cite? Really; I'm incredulous, but it's still a serious question. I thought original research applied to *interpreting* the work yourself, not to stating the facts of what's present in the work. You make it sound like it would be original research if I said the game involved the ruins of Las Vegas, save it came with a little blue number above it linking to an outside source. That can't possibly be right.

And as for the actual content at issue, as I wrote in the talk page, the problem is that both wordings are still wrong. I was just using "concentrated" in an attempt to write something which wouldn't get reverted and was slightly less wrong. The point is, the city of New Vegas exists as it is because scarcely 1 in 9 warheads aimed at the region got through, and the core of the city was not struck. That's stated explicitly in the game; there's no interpretation or 'original research' about it.

And the reason I got involved in this whole mess in the first place, as I recall, was that the wording to which I originally objected stated that the city wasn't "targeted" at all, as you showed me in your quote, which is absolutely and completely false by any possible interpretation of the work.

There's just no good reason to include something that anyone who actually played the game would know to be utterly false. You're following the rules and defending a source which you know to be false (unless you never played the game at all?) exclusively for the sake of following the rules, to the detriment of the actual content presented in the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.173.134.91 (talk • contribs)

If you have a direct quote then feel free to present it on the article talk page and everyone can come to a consensus. I'm aware that Mr House prevented most of the nukes from hitting, but I don't believe it's ever specified where those that got through landed, it's at least hinted that they avoided hitting Las Vegas itself. (from memory) As WP:Verifiability states, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth," the text as it stands is supported by reliable sources, there should be a another source and/or a consensus otherwise. Яehevkor ✉ 16:58, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Apologies

I was not aware of such copyright. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OS X Epic (talk • contribs) 17:29, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Lostprophets

Could please add a semi protection thing for the Weapons (album) article? This is due to people changing things without discussions. – Chickensdoorknob (talk) 23:02, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Unless I am really out of touch with reality, Rehevkor is not an admin and cannot alter the protection settings of pages. You might want to lodge a request at WP:RFPP if you believe a page needs such protection. Salvidrim! 23:08, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, what he said :P Protection is usually the last resort though, it'd be unlikely for anyone to grant the request. You should first try to discuss the issue, there are other avenues available at WP:DR too. Яehevkor ✉ 23:42, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

New talk

You have been involved in a talk previously here. Feel free to join, and provide more answers/discussions. --121.217.70.231 (talk) 06:45, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Black Mesa

You must not have noticed my edit summary that the source isn't related to the statement it is linked with. I see that you found an archive of it, but that doesn't make a pre-release article about HL2 any more of a source on features in Half-Life: Source. Some guy (talk) 13:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The paragraph in the article is about how HL:Source includes the improved physics and a few minor graphical features from the Source engine, but is otherwise unchanged. This is obviously not discussed in the article used as a source for that information, since the article was written before HL:Source was even announced. The source doesn't have any relevance there. The reason this is significant is people at first thought HL:Source was going to be what Black Mesa actually is, a complete remake of the game, but it's just the same resources running in a different engine. This doesn't have anything to do with how much Valve tweaked the Havok physics engine. Some guy (talk) 21:41, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

re: the revert of Assassin's Creed III

re: your comment in the revert.

Fair enough as long as, as a condition of the revert, you take a direct interest in maintenance of the article. I was within inches of locking the page down because the vandalism was so pervasive, so overt and, most importantly, was not being caught and reverted by established editors. The version you reverted to still has significant errors that appear to have been deliberately inserted by anonymous editors as acts of vandalism. I could not find a stable version to revert to short of the redirect. If you want that article to stay intact, it will need a lot of work. Rossami (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I can't commit to any conditions, but I watch list and remove questionable content when I see it. But deletion should be the last resort, some vandalism or bad faith edits sneaking in is never a reason to just wipe out an article. If you really feel the article is without hope then at least gain a consensus, be it through AFD or merge discussion. Яehevkor ✉ 22:39, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Metal band revert

Sorry. That metal band was an orphan article dating back to 2006. They were the back up band, so I thought I would help clear the orphan backlog (170,000+) and just put the wikilink in.--Canoe1967 (talk) 00:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Inception revert

Hi, you've just reverted my change to the Inception article on the basis that it is original research. I have a screenshot here I intend to use to demonstrate my point, but I'm only up to 9 edits at this point and I can't upload it yet. I will now be re-adding my text to the article and will provide the picture shortly thereafter. In the meantime, please do not revert my edit. Nalorcs (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I've now added the picture, you may see a summary of my proposed changes on my talk page. Nalorcs (talk) 23:04, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I've adjusted my text and contested the deletion, please have a look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_April_7#File:Inception_.282010_film.29.2C_presence_of_Cobb.27s_wedding_ring_at_different_times_in_the_movie.jpg

I'll leave the fine folks at Talk:Inception to come a consensus on this, once you have your sources. I have no further desire to "compound" the issue as you put it, since you clearly do not believe me when I tell you this is an issue of original research. Яehevkor ✉ 11:16, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for fixing my "terrible habbit", haha. (I do seem to get a lot of visits from that rotten DPL bot.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Firefox article needs you!

Your edits have been dearly missed at the Firefox article. Come back! Thanks! ҭᴙᴇᴡӌӌ 00:24, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Question

Why did you remove info about the rat plague on the dishonered page? I am not trying to start a fight, just curious because I thought that was a good touch. ThePro1212 (talk) 21:30, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It was apparently sourced to an open wiki, which cannot be used as sources. Яehevkor ✉ 21:31, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Question

Hi Rehevkor,

I need major help & I am hoping that you can help me. I created a DJ Mell Starr page and it was deleted. I am looking for help as to specifically why it was deleted so that I can corrected what the issues are so that I can get the article publised. Wikepedia is so confusing to me. I don't even know if you will see this message and I am not sure if I am asking the correct person :(

DJ MELL STARR 22:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Mell Starr (talk • contribs)

The article still seems to exist at DJ Mell Starr, only the copy on your user page was deleted, some editors have cleaned it up, and it seems to be in a survivable state. If you have any specific questions/issues, I can certainly try and assist. Яehevkor ✉ 22:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Can you please take a look to see if it sounds a little better. If not please advise on what I should delete and what I should keep. There is factual information that does have referneces and it is liable. I just need a lil help. Thank you so much.

DJ MELL STARR 00:37, 10 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Mell Starr (talk • contribs)

It seems someone has deleted that draft, but if anything, you should really work on the already live article at DJ Mell Starr, and that is only if you edit in compliance with the conflict of interest guideline. I'll give the article a once over - but autobiographical articles often need to be written completely from scratch. Яehevkor ✉ 08:31, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Revised the DJ MELL STARR article in the Sandbox

Good Morning,

I have revised the autobiographical article that I created for DJ Mell Starr and it can be found in the DJ Mell Starr/Sandbox. Can you please take a look to see if it sounds a little better. If not please advise on what I should delete and what I should keep. There is factual information that does have referneces and it is liable. I just need a lil help. Thank you so much.

DJ MELL STARR 15:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DJ Mell Starr (talk • contribs)

Fringe "Manhatan" ↔ Manhattan

Sorry, I should have checked this first. I must confess that my revert was very much influenced by the (in my eyes wrong) edit summary: it's not assuming good faith to call an anon's first (and only) edit vandalism even though they were probably just correcting what they thought was a typo. I started editing Wikipedia like that, and had I be accused of vandalising an article when all I wanted to do was improve it, I probably never would have edited again. Anyway, the note you added was a good idea! --Six words (talk) 10:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

No worries, it's an easy mistake it make. Ruby2010 was certainly wrong in marking the edit as vandalism, though. Яehevkor ✉ 15:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Max Payne 3 Cast

I put back the cast in. It DOES belong there. I actually came a few days ago to see who is in the cast. This game is heavy on acting so its relevant to this game. And the cast did a good job so they deserve credit. I was surprised to see the cast was removed when I came again today. Wikipedia said it was removed by you. So I put it back and please don't remove, others might want to also know what the cast is and like me they come to Wikipedia to find out. Don't know why you removed it. Its not copyright because i give credits to the cast. And its not spam because I am not associated with any of the cast or with Rockstar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Max3cast (talk • contribs) 22:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) No, it doesn't belong, please read WP:GAMECRUFT. Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Michael de la Force

It is my opinion that you are not looking at the full body of work. It is easy to say everything is unreliable and write something off. But, then your source becomes unreliable too. Because the facts are there. Michael does not publish the OBIE Newsletter, and Michael does not publish the New Light of Myabmar. These institutions are both much older than he is. The government who publishes the New Light Of Myanmar also publishes visits when Hillary Clinton visits or any Myanmar government visitor. With all due respect, please review the facts and state the truth will dealing with subject. Otherwise you are not actually running an information portal you are selecting based on what you like. Please tell me what other American journalist has covered all of the leaders of Myanmar, Jiang Zemin, Li Peng, Zu Rong Zhi of China, Ramos and Estrada in the Philippines, Ford, both Clintons, Obama, NRCC recognition, American Indian Chiefs, Spent a decade on a soap opera, etc., etc. These things may not be important to you, but they are facts. Thank you for your consideration.Of course in our publications we do not always have bylines; one would realize that if you studied the magazine. You know wikipedia does not even have an entry for LEADERS Magazine. Are you even familiar with it? Every president of the United States has been interviewed at the White House since Nixon and in the magazine; every Russian president, every Chinese leader in the three tier system, since the late seventies. So, deleting is fine, but wikipedians lose in the long run because all of the information stays hidden. If you don't believe what is said, before you delete the page without making an effort to assist in making it better instead, you should take a poll of wikipedians and find out how many know about LEADERS Magaqzine. You should also take a look at the magazine and realize there are no bylines and have not been for 33 years. Everything is not on the web. I would like permission to remove the tags and continue to build the page while wikipedians, if interested in the facts, have an opportunity do some research. (68.173.127.108 (talk) 16:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC))

Thanks, I'm not American so maybe I'm not as knowledgeable on the related subjects as some, but that's irrelevant. I went by what I read in the article, sources there and the sources I was able to dig up. Sources speak louder than words here and the few sources there were were not saying much. There were some claims to notability in the article, but without sources to support it they're not much use. Articles here cannot survive on facts alone.

Either way, the AfD will run its course (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael de la Force), if you want the article to survive you can explain why you think he is notable there, and you can assist by adding reliably published third party sources (i.e. articles about him and his achievements, not sources published or written by the subject.) Practically all the sources provided so far aren't sufficient. Яehevkor ✉ 16:26, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughts, but the reality is that is not true. All of the sources you removed this morning were not published by the subject. And not being an American when it comes to LEADERS is also something to think about. That magazine has interviewed your queen, most every industry leader, prime minister, etc. for the last thirty years. There is a global context.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.173.127.108 (talk • contribs)

Perhaps the magazine is notable, but that does not relate directly to Mr. de la Force. Notability is not inherited. Яehevkor ✉ 16:43, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: User since blocked for disruptive editing.

MRQE not a valid external link?

Just wondering how MRQE is Spam? AndrewWickliffe (talk) 23:18, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You apparently have a conflict of interest there, you should suggest the link on the talk page instead of adding it to several articles. Яehevkor ✉ 23:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Okay... I was trying to self-moderate myself on a case-by-case basis. No more ones with possible COI. AndrewWickliffe (talk) 23:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)