User talk:Alphathon/Archive2

Re:"Still way too much non-free content" on the Mega Drive article

The logos are the key example of "too much"- they are very similar in style to one another, and we just don't need all of them. People often see articles as having a "free pass" to include a logo; this is often the case, but that quasi-"free pass" does not extend to three logos. If the logos were significant- as in, if the differences were worth discussing at length in the article- then the use of all three would be more justifiable, but that idea is a little silly. J Milburn (talk) 09:15, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Posting essays like that is not going to get you anywhere, if I'm honest, and I know the NFC policy/guideline, you don't need to copy it across to me. Basically, when push comes to shove, are these logos important? No. Would the article be severely lacking without them? Not really. As I have said, if the logos themselves were of significance, they would be discussed at length in the article. However, they aren't; the idea of discussing them at length in the article is laughable. As for WP:LOGO (which I wrote, as it happens...) the fact that people have raised the issue before does not mean that there is no consensus; een if it did, the fact there is no consensus on a specific issue does not mean you can use non-free content as you please. Logos, like any other non-free image, have to be justified; yes, a single logo image in the article on the logo's subject is generally considered acceptable, but that does not extend to as many logos as you please. Equally, you couldn't use multiple album covers in an album article without good reason, multiple photos in a biography of a dead person, or any other multiple use of a kind of image generally considered acceptable "by default". J Milburn (talk) 12:03, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, I guess since he hasn't responded to either of our grounds for inclusion, we take it to the next level tomorrow. Just about bed time for me today. If you want to take it to the next level without me, tonight, you can go right ahead. Some of the editors I talk to agree with the logos inclusion, but they are choosing to avoid wiki-politics; stress wise, a good choice. (please reply on your talk page if you intend a reply so I don't have to zoom back and forth)--SexyKick 00:02, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

AL, I don't think JM will look at the Mega Drive talk page unless you send him a message first : (--SexyKick 18:04, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Told you. lol - he just doesn't care about the Mega Drive article. I sincerely think we should be bold, remove the tag, and move on to peer review. You said you wanted to tone things up in the article too...do you want to do that before or after we get a peer review, move back up to good article, and then finally go through a self nomination FA review - where people are surely going to ask for rewrites of certain sections, and then we'll (probably mostly you in this case, since IMHO you're the better writer) have to rewrite stuff anyway? I think we should add the 1993 court case, and establishment of VCR and its influence of the ESRB into the article - right before the add ons section. Please respond here.--SexyKick 00:42, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'll be brief for now (I've been drinking so my attention span isn't great...or my spelling etc :P). Anyway, I really don't think there is any hurry to get it GAed - I think there is quite a bit (mainly in the history section) that could do with a spruce up, so until we have it in the best possible state that we can (for now and within reason), I don't see the point. Remember, the ultimate goal is to have a good article, not to have it recognised as such - that is just a bonus. I'll have a proper read through it at some point in the next week or so (time permitting) and see if I can flesh any of it out (and especially find info on the segmented marketing - we know it exists but it's really not obvious from the article; if it were, there wouldn't have been all this ordeal). As for the court case etc, I have no idea - I am not familiar with what you are talking about (the ESRB thing is likely because I'm in the UK so I only even heard of its existence maybe 2 years ago). If it's relevant to the MD/G though, just add it. The more info the better as long as it's relevant. If you're not sure, just post a draft in the talk or something. Anyway, I'm off to bed now; I have a long day of StarCraft 2... er, I mean work tomorrow :P. Alphathon^TM (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Scared to stick with C&C 3 Kane's Wrath : (--SexyKick 01:21, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean "scared to stick with"? Alphathon^TM (talk) 01:23, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

lol I mean you should play some C&C 3 Kane's Wrath. Awesome RTS. And, I certainly want the article to be as good as possible. I've fixed it up so much since it got delisted as GA at the beginning of the month. TBH there's no reason it shouldn't be a featured article as is, apart from the non-free tag. Also, no reason it shouldn't be a GA, since I fixed all the problems that had to do with its delisting. So I want to get its peer review going. I also think you'll be a little bit lazy with changing the article unless there's a true purpose for your changes.--SexyKick 01:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

What makes you think I haven't/don't play Kane's Wrath? Haven't played in a while to be sure (mainly due to being distracted by Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance), but it is indeed a great game. In fact, on most places where avatars are used (forums etc) I have a nice little Nod logo that I made :P. As for "I also think you'll be a little bit lazy with changing the article unless there's a true purpose for your changes", yeah, you're probably right. Whatever, it's not going to do any harm to try is it? If you want to, go ahead, I just think you're being a little over-enthusiastic, that's all. Alphathon^TM (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a little over-optimistic. But yeah, we should play on Kane's Wrath some time then. I used to maintain rank 3 on the 2v2 ladder. My rivals team always had 1 and 2 : \ Hasn't been patched in a while, I think the community is going to take over with some balance mods after the supposed KW mod SDK comes out. SexyKick 01:49, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't see why not. Where are you... country wise I mean (don't want any ridiculous cross-Atlantic lag or anything - my internet connection is bad enough as it is)? Whatever, might as well give it a try wherever you are. I'm probably not much of a challenge though - haven't played in ages and didn't really play much online when I did play frequently (was mostly LANs). Alphathon^TM (talk) 01:56, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Ah well, maybe you're right. I am in the US, and getting online at the same time would be cumbersome at best. It's cool to have a C&C connection though.--SexyKick 02:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I would much rather email you than talk in public.--SexyKick 06:03, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

So what? What we are discussing is a wikipedia article which is by definition a public matter. Besides, I'm not going to give out my email to some random on the internet. Alphathon^TM (talk) 14:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You don't have to give yours out. Mine is KnRy2@aol.com--SexyKick 17:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, but you can't email anonymously (at least not legally AFAIK) so if I email you at that address I would be giving you mine. Besides, this is a public issue, not a private one. Alphathon^TM (talk) 18:00, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I've been trying to talk with you outside of wikipedia for like three weeks now, obviously it is not related to the current issue. Whatever.--SexyKick 18:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, other than random chatter about RTSs, everything that has been said is related to the MD article or other articles (list of best-selling video games for example). As such, they should be discussed here IMHO. Alphathon^TM (talk) 19:02, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I already cleared up the misunderstanding about non-free content with JM. It's just the logos we need to justify, not any other picture.--SexyKick 19:21, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

So, I still think their use . They really don't demonstrate much, but that's not really what's at question here. If you look, I have left them in this time. Alphathon^TM (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I wish you would fix the rephrasing stuff you mentioned in the talk page. I feel I'm pretty close to finding out for sure about the text logo thing. It seems none of the three logos are actually copyrighted (especially the Genesis and JP logos.) I'm not 100% ready to change their license however. Please let me know any progress you make. I know you work on tons of articles, but I think at this point, this is the only article I work on anymore. Especially considering this last month.--SexyKick 19:43, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

This lets you look through the copyright catalog I found the copyright for the Sega Channel logo...sweet. Not the Genesis logo though.--SexyKick 19:52, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Not quite sure that applies. Copyright exists implicitly on an items creation. The only way in which it does not exist is if it is uncopyrightable or if the copyright holder releases it into the public domain. Alphathon^TM (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Now may not be the right time, as I believe we've lost our chance...but I told you so. JM wasn't, and isn't going to respond without our peppering him.--SexyKick 20:54, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It probably is the wrong time because of the other disputes, but if you think it will help go ahead and "pepper" him. I really can't be bothered with that right now but if you want to go ahead. It's certainly been a long enough time. Anyway, I'm fine with it as long as the two discussions don't get out of hand - it could get very confusing, even with the segmented sections. Alphathon^TM (talk) 21:06, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I think it is the wrong time. I am going to let him be, and follow up on finding sources for the logo talk in the article, or working towards switching the JP logo to text logo (Which solves everything.)--SexyKick 21:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

One more try here, I have some semi private things I want to ask your advice with over email, AIM, MSN, text message, even skype or cell phone. They have no place on wikipedia.--SexyKick 23:14, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Explain what they are and I may consider it. Until then, no. What is semi-private about it? If it is related to Wikipedia, we discuss it here. If it is not, then why the hell would I want to discuss it with a random Wikipedia user? I don't know you and you don't know me. What is this about? BTW, I am fairly sure it against Wikipedia policy to request personal details. Alphathon^TM (talk) 23:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

It is sort of related to Wikipedia, but not really. If it for some reason makes you feel uncomfortable to talk with me outside of Wikipedia, then nevermind. I'm not trying to put any pressure on you. I know giving wp:outing is wrong, but I didn't think it was wrong to ask to communicate with you over something else. These last two weeks have been so depressing : ( And after I felt so good for cleaning up the article so well too.--SexyKick 23:29, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I think you're just taking this a little too seriously. At the end of the day we are talking about a few images on a Wikipedia page - if they are removed or the article doesn't get FA/GA status does it really matter all that much? It really isn't something that should stress you out. Just take a look at it from the outside - it's actually quite funny :P. (Did I miss your tone again?)

Anyway, it's not that I'm uncomfortable about it, it's that I'm not comfortable to talk about it when I don't even know what "it" is.

Alphathon^TM (talk) 23:55, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

I do agree with you about the US. Why do we have to do everything different just to be different?? Different units of measure etc.--SexyKick 00:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

I blame the Stonecutters hehe. Alphathon^TM (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

MD caption headers

You don't think the Top etc. losing its bolding is worth keeping it big?--SexyKick 02:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean? They remain bold whether or not they are is small. Alphathon^TM (talk) 02:29, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I have tested this on all major browsers (Firefox, Chrome, Opera, IE and Safari). Alphathon^TM (talk) 02:31, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hm, I guess I just can't tell...without ctrl+scroll wheel zoom. There we go. Thanks AL, my mistake.--SexyKick 03:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, I wanted to let you know that was not me who put the Genesis Complete image back in there. (I list my IP on my user page too, in case I forget to log in) I sent the IP user a PM though, in case he wants to discuss it in the talk page. Rather a shame he didn't : (

Beast edits with the wording in the article as always! The only reason I had used that saying in the Virtua Racing caption was because it was a source quote, yours is certainly better. I truly believe we work at least decent, if not good together, and I want you to know you have my respect. SexyKick 04:56, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks .

Be careful when listing your IP - it can change from time to time. Usually every time you start your modem/router you'll get a new one (although it depends on the ISP), so it may not stay accurate.

Yeah, don't worry, I had assumed it wasn't you - you would have at least put in an edit summary after all and the fact that there were two annon IPs that did it suggests either they were a) N. American users who wanted the Genesis to be prominent or b) trolls looking to be disruptive purposely. Sure, they could have been legitimate editors but the nature of the edit suggests otherwise.

Yeah, I got that it was a quote from the source too; bear in mind when making source quotes to put them in quotation marks (or use a quote template - for an example, see the Saturn page). Also bear in mind when quoting that journalistic articles tend to be less formal than encyclopaedic articles, so should be used sparingly. They can be useful, but generally should only be used when trying to show something relating to the article itself, such as the fact that something has been criticised or praised by the media, not its contents.

Anyway, glad that you're happy with my edits . Alphathon^TM (talk) 10:11, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Hey, just wanted to make sure you noticed my Ctrl+0 comment in the Mega Drive talk page. This could be why we seem to experience differences in image sizes and page layouts despite using the same resolution.--SexyKick 19:41, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

DCEvoCE

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--SexyKick 02:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Comma use

In reply to this (which just popped up on my watchlist, no opinion either way...)- serial comma. Our guidelines on their usage can be found here. J Milburn (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Fair enough. I was under the impression that the policy was to use the "Oxford comma" (how I've always known it) only when ambiguity may arise. It would seem that I was mistaken. Still, no harm done either way. Alphathon^TM (talk) 00:18, 11 August 2010 (UTC)