User talk:Bill/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

GTA IV

Just to let you know, I've reverted the GTA IV article back to the edit made by Dipol. Dipol's was the last "good" edit made before the vandal stuff started. I reverted to that version because a citation and some spelling changes got lost during the vandal/revert/vandal/revert cycle. - X201 18:15, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that, I thought I got them all. ●Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you put this on for me buddy for the April 25th release date?

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/29185/April-25th-UK-release-for-GTA-IV

Cheers

Need some help

Hi its me again didn't know where to go to so I think you may help. You said that too many fair use images are not needed and I think the policy you gave me stated, under Unacceptable Usage that they should not be used in galleries. Okay so I have here:

• Afrika (video game)

It contains a gallery of images that are not free but fair use licensed. Is it appropriate to delete them from the article? thanks. JTBX 22:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep it is appropriate to remove those pictures as their content is not being discussed in the article. Most of the time non-free images shouldn't be in galleries so that's a good indication of improper usage. ●Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Guybrush revert

No worries. Pele Merengue 01:04, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

GTA: SA Myths

I am open to any sites which users think may be a reliable source to support the recently added paragraph in this section. It would help users unfamiliar with this topic to understand that there is more than one myth. So if you could, please replace the "my epsilon" website as a source with the website you mentioned. And also please do not delete the content recently added but improve it, if needed to comply with the source you add. Thank you --JayJ47 (talk) 07:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

North Haverbrook

You reverted my edit without explaining why. I know it seems a bit stupid at first glance, but it really could be a different North Haverbrook. --Jnelson09 03:23, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It's definitely possible, but the problem is saying that is speculation and without a reliable source making that statement it can't really be included in the article. ●Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Critism of JKA

Hi. I added this critism because I have the US and EU-versions of this game. Once I unistalled the EU-version and installed the US-version and backwards. It is difficult to find a source on google-web for that. D@rk ^talk 17:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If that criticism is just from you then I'm afraid it can't be included in the article. You need a reliable source making that comment otherwise it cannot be verified. ●Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

The attribute-image is beside the sentence. It's better to leave that attribute beside the text. D@rk ^talk 12:39, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

It's best to find a criticism from a reliable source so that it's verifiable. If it cannot be verified then it cannot stay in the encyclopedia. ●Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 14:25, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The huge edit you reverted on my userpage.

Out of curiosity, what was it? I can't see it! Zazaban (talk) 00:19, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as I could tell, somebody replaced everything with a line of code for a table pasted hundreds (possibly over a thousand) times. It didn't show up properly for me either. ●Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:52, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

delete

Hi. Why do you deleted my screenshots in article Grand Theft Auto San Andreas? I asking, becasue I want deal in screenshots in GTA San Andreas. Do you mind, to screenshots redo to article San Andreas? Alden(Sharon boyfriend) or talk 19:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

As I said in the edit summary, there's already images used to illustrate items in the article and to assist in the analysis of the game. More than one image per item is excessive and is basically just a gallery of images. As the images are from copyrighted material, having a large quantity of them is against the fair use criteria used by Wikipedia. Usually, 1 screenshot is enough to aid the critical commentary in the article. Unless there's something very specifically discussed, more than one image per item/section is usually excessive, as it was in this case. ●Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:30, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Springfield v. Shelbyville

Hello. Please assist me by giving me your rationale for considering my addition to this section "Original Research". I have read over the guidelines, and do not see why you would consider it such. I make my citations to other sources; if you feel that I have to cite every Mapquest reference in order to substantiate my findings, so be it, but really, I have a talk page and you might consider the courtesy of commenting there instead of being as callous as you have been. Thank you. Sesesq (talk) 11:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Replied on talk page as requested:

The section you have added is original research because it is an original conclusion. Nobody to do with production has made these comments and no reliable analysts have made these comments. The content is based upon you looking at maps and Wikipedia pages and making your own observations and conclusions. Every analysis on Wikipedia needs to be attributed to a reliable source. ●Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 15:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I guess I'll just have to contact the administrators and ask them if they agree with your interpretation of the principles, because I certainly don't; given the fact that if one were to apply your standards across the board, one would have to excise substantially more of the article than simply my work. Sesesq (talk) 18:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Replied on talk page:

I certainly encourage you to discuss this further with administrators and people involved with making these policies. If you do think any of the other content is original research then you can go ahead and edit it or discuss it on the article's talk page. A lot of the content is attributed to various episodes for descriptive purposes, but it's possible that original claims are present on the page. ●Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your coolheaded and courteous response. Here's an example of another part of the page that I think is no less OR than mine, and your response will help me better understand the principles you are citing:

There are no geographical coordinates or references to US states that might identify which part of the country it represents. Nevertheless, fans have tried to determine the town's location by taking the town's characteristics, surrounding geography, and nearby landmarks as clues. Whenever an episode attempts to show or say what state it is in, the audience is somehow prevented from learning what is revealed.

But you must understand that I don't object to this kind of OR, because we are dealing with a fictional universe here. One critic of my editing called it fancruft, but isn't any discussion of the possible location of a fictional city bound to be fancruft? I would easily accept a restriction of my editing if this were a discussion of something with any basis in reality, but the whole concept of discussing this matter verges on the surreal, no? Sesesq (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Replied on talk page:

That topic does have a source when it is discussed in the main body of the article and most of the citations aren't in the lead paragraph per WP:LEAD. The citations 11 and 12 in the creation section backup the claims made. In particular it's important to note that the citation 11 which is mentioning geographical information is from an article about the location of Springfield and not a map. If you were to use maps to cite your conclusions that still would be original research because the ideas and theories you're presenting are your own. If there is OR in the article, I wouldn't suggest you take that as approval of it because the article is in constant development and these things can just slip in. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:11, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [1]. --Maniwar (talk) 21:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Central discussion of objective criteria

Your feedback is welcome at Proposed Objective Criteria for TV Episode Notability.Kww (talk) 19:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

About RFC comments

Just wanted to give a thanks. I know we may disagree on the root issue but i believe that people can dissagree and still both be doing what they think is right.--Cube lurker (talk) 02:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem, thanks for making the statement to bring it to people's attention. Discussion is the key to consensus so no matter what people's position is on the issue, they should be ready to discuss things. ●Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 03:36, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Objective criteria for episode notability

I've attempted to synthesize the discussion. Again, feedback welcome.Kww (talk) 18:37, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Blackburn Rovers F.C.

I have tried to engage in reasonable devate over the main rivals issue. However referring to Bolton as "seond rivals after" is not alphebetical. Any order other than alphebetical should be deleted. I feel that blocking me from posting was unfortunate and it could have been dealt with in more reasonable fashion. Brfc97 (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Wikipedia. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

It might not have happeded today, but you deleted a lot of stuff from a GTA IV artcle and it seemed as if the material would have been fine not deleted, so I just reverted it. Dnvrfantj (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

You know what, that's probably what happened. Im sorry for the mistake. Dnvrfantj (talk) 20:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the revert of the attack edit of my edit on Hashmi, Usman,s talk page. ww2censor (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:48, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Titles in the MOS

I was referring to this section on honorific prefixes, e.g. Dr. quoted:

Academic titles

Academic and professional titles (such as "Doctor" or "Professor") should not be used before the name in the initial sentence or in other uses of the person's name. Verifiable facts about how the person attained such titles should be included in the article text instead.

--Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

My edit reversion just now

Apologies, for the error in posting ref re Gus Poyet to your talk page which I have reverted now. In my haste I linked to your talk page rather than the subsequent editor who had posted an image on hi site after your edit, doh! :-) Tmol42 (talk) 15:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a problem! Bill ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:47, 18 March 2008 (UTC)