User talk:FlashNerdX

Speedy deletion of FunOrb

A tag has been placed on FunOrb requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for web content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Wildthing61476 (talk) 15:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Funorb_logo.PNG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Funorb_logo.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 02:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of The Klubfoot

A tag has been placed on The Klubfoot requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a club, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guidelines for people and for organizations.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Dethme0w (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of information

Your edits to Runescape have been reverted, as they made the article less neutral. If you have issues with the content of the article or my reversions, please discuss it on the talk page. Do not undo the edits made to undo your revisions (see Edit War). PeterA (talk) 10:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Since you blatently ignored a relatively polite request by me on this matter I am now requesting administrator intervention to resolve the issue. PeterA (talk) 15:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

So its okay for you to remove my edits, which clearly point out that your link to Runescape.com has nothing to do with the statement its supporting and that truthscape.com is no a verifiable source, without going to the talk page where there is already a discussion about the usability of truthscape.com but I can't make a revert without you call in a ref? As you haven't noticed thought you might like to know that I added the section on the riots / disapproval comments, maybe if you would like to talk about it there?FlashNerdX (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Well this time I haven't reverted your edits so as to not start an edit war, as that is what I believe you will start should I do so. If you can tell me why [Truthscape] is not a good source while [Tomsgames] is, then I will listen. However, you did not wish to engage in any discussion before knowingly making the article less neutral. Surely you noticed that there were neutrality tags on the article for about a month which is why I made the edits in the first place? PeterA (talk) 16:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I would the tomsgames.com articles as it is not a self-publishing source, where as truthscape.com is. I know that both articles are written by the same person but at least with the tomsgames.com article someone else had to okay it / it got some sort of review, even if it does approach the game from a very dated angle. I have no problem with trying to keep the article neutral but only if it is from a source that doesn't break the verifiability guidelines. There is a section on the Runescape talk page about this issue, if you would care to join in on that it would be grand.

My proble with the ""These changes were criticized by many players,[1] some of whom started virtual (in game) "riots", angrily protesting the changes"" section is that there is no mention of the changes being criticized by many players and no mention of in game riots. Whilst I agree that those could be valid comments the article cited to support it is highly unusable. Also you may be interested that there are now similarly sized (well, from what I've seen) riots happening in the game supporting the changes and asking people to stop complaining about the changes as some people actually like them.

I do apologies for kicking this of on the wrong foot and will take things through the discussion page next time but as there was a section on the usability of Truthscape there for 2 weeks or so and noone had spoken against it I thought it was okay to make the changes. As my objection was not against the neutrality of the statement from truthscape but the validity of the source itself I admit I did a revert when I should have started talking about it instead.FlashNerdX (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

[Regarding your message you left on my talk page]

Yes, that is exactly what I complained to you about but then realised that the source on Tomsgames was written by the same person that Truthscape is written by. Just because the Tomsgames was checked by an editor it does not mean that it was checked for content - probably only for coherence. PeterA (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

So does that mean that your okay with the removal of the truthscape references?FlashNerdX (talk) 17:55, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Well you could remove the Truthscape and Tomsgames references but then there would be pretty much no criticism taking us back to square one with the whole neutrality problem. PeterA (talk) 20:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

but if the information is unverifiable we can't use it either, neutrality is important but so is making sure it comes from a decent source. FlashNerdX (talk) 20:22, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Another little-known website is Just-Rpg, but it has been used as a source. I know that this isn't the best way to measure it, but Truthscape has a pagerank of 5/10, so it would seem to be a half-reputable website (Runescape itself has a PR of 6/10). PeterA (talk) 21:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between little known and self published. Haven't checked the just-rpg.com but its way more than a personal site.

Also please can you take this to the RuneScape discussion page? There is already a thread there about this issue and it would a lot better if you joined in the talks there.

Plus you have still not mentioned anything to justify the lack of validity in that Runescape section about the game changes. As it makes NO mention to any of the points you are making I am removing the reference. If you wish to discus it on the Runescape page and can prove why it can be used, or you wish to include a viable alternative reference, then change it back but please don't do it until then. FlashNerdX (talk) 13:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Removal of headers here

Please do not remove messages that have been posted on your talk page. Simply leave them there, or you can archive them. ~~Meldshal42 (talk) 17:08, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

how do i archive them and why can't i get rid of notifications about articles I'm no longer bothered about?FlashNerdX (talk) 17:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Runescape-Logo.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Runescape-Logo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

August 2008

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Talk:RuneScape, you will be blocked from editing. Your so-called "archiving" was not really archiving at all. You're just removing selective sections in the talk page which are not favourable to you. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

what the heck? I removed a bunch of dead discussions, repeated 'i can't edit' and repeated dodgy requests for neg critisism that didn't even get close to any of wikipedias policies. As for 'not being favourable to you' I have no clue what on earth you mean by that. Please explain how the removal of people asking for links to the runescape wikia, game change consolidations, adding in an RS history, and mentions of RS merchandise is favourable to me.FlashNerdX (talk) 15:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

It's perfectly fine to archive. But absolutely wrong to remove dead discussions. Move dead discussions to archive (yet I can't find any of the items you removed are transferred to the last archive, Talk:RuneScape/Archive 27). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 15:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm now getting really confused here. There is the distinct chance that I may have mucked up the archiving process and if so please tell me where I went wrong. I copy/pasted the old version of the talk page into the archive and then got rid of a couple of the discussion points that were either inactive or resolved / had reached consensus / were not being disputed.

"It is customary on Wikipedia to periodically archive old discussions on a talk page when it becomes too large. Bulky talk pages may be difficult to navigate and may contain obsolete discussion." I took it down from 24 topics to 13, mostly on old discussions.

"There may be circumstances where it benefits discussions to keep older sections visible on the talk pages, so that newly visiting editors can see what has been discussed already, and so they can avoid bringing up topics again that have already been addressed." That's why I put in the two new bits at the top. If you want to leave the actual discussions in then fair enough but as it was the same responses I just thought a straight up faqtype bit would be best.

"If possible, archive talk pages during a lull in the discussion. In other words, keep the full context of the discussion together by not archiving in the midst of an active discussion." far as I can see no active discussions were archived.FlashNerdX (talk) 15:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I most likely don't have time to respond to Wikipedia concerns because I will be starting my first full-time job on tomorrow (if you go to my talk's page, just one heading above yours, you'll see it) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:22, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Just think of it as stalled for now. I'm not sure if I am allowed to go on Wikipedia in work place during lunch hour. (They blocked Facebook...) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 23:39, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi FlashNerdX, I recommend you ignore OhanaUnited's threats. Even if OhanaUnited was correct and the pasting into archive didn't work properly for whatever reason, there would would still be no reason to start threatening blocks. I don't know why OhanaUnited reacted in this way, however it's possible s/he is nervous about starting a new job. PhilKnight (talk) 12:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Borderline wp:personal attack at Talk:Video game addiction‎

I ask that you focus on the content, instead of other editors. I expect you will not repeat this kind of behaviour.

"dude(sic), your(sic) generalising wildly." Fortunately, you are not correct. It is OR, and thus not in the article. Please, a bit more formality? And courtesy? The MMOG industry has been attacked in the press, I have turned the article from a set of statements of fact into a set of statements of press opinion where possible.

"Your(sic) also approaching this in more of an evanjelical manner than an encyclopedic one." You are reading my mind poorly. Please stop. You are approaching wp:personal attack. Please don't tell me my thoughts.

"When there are 2 billion gamers, imagine how very very tempting the worlds the artists and developers will paint for them will be. *blink*" is another good example of this. "Keep it encyclopedic, keep the language neutral, keep the argument neutral, ..." It is a talk page. Please alter your approach. Please follow your advice (it is good advice) on language/argument when addressing others' thoughts.

"...and remember that if MMO's are as bad as you make out..." You are editorializing on my thoughts. You cannot read them. Stop it now. The MMO industry is under attack in the press. I have tried, working within the sources we have, to change the rhetoric into actual content... to point out that the press reports these as MMOG problems, where before it said they WERE, while they are really general gaming or even more broadly Internet time-spending problems. Please change your approach.

"... then the article will clearly show this if those principles are followed." The article was strongly slanted against gaming. I have softened that a great deal. It needs much more work. If you read my notes about this, rather than divining my thoughts, you may be able to understand.

I look forward to your contributions, rather than further comment about my thoughts and intentions.

Thank you. :)sinneed (talk) 17:09, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:PressLogo Jagex Mn.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PressLogo Jagex Mn.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:14, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

About Talk:Jagex/archive 1

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Talk:Jagex/archive 1 a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. Lordtobi (✉) 11:03, 12 March 2017 (UTC)