User talk:Lunar Guardian

NintendoLand

Try Wikipedia:Request_for_move Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 00:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WiiU Bluetooth is not an official connectivity method

Bluetooth is not an official usable connection. It doesn't serve any purpose by nintendo on Wii and was not announced on WiiU, the WiiU has bluetooth for backward compatability with Wii devices. I am aware of the community that hacks into this wireless technology and uses it on PCs but as it is listed in wikipedia now, it falsely suggests that a non-nintendo storage or any device could be connected via bluetooth. This is not possible and there is zero information or hint this will be possible on WiiU.

IGN source is wrong, there is no bluetooth used for WiiU GamePad , rather it's a proprietary secured wireless technology based on IEEE 802.11n. If bluetooth was listed in wiki as a controller connection then it should have not been listed in the same section with USB and Network, and thus all of the controller connection tech should be listed if you wish to retain bluetooth, because it's not bluetooth that WiiU GamePad uses, it's totally separate and it has it's own antenna, it's called "terminal communication module" while the bluetooth one is called "controller communication module"

Bluetooth is shortrange and also low-bandwidth, it wouldn't handle the no-latency transfer fidelity that the GamePad critically relies on.

Sources are patents. IGN is a bad source, not sure why wiki people are humping on it, as so is Engadget.

Sorry for no explanation before - should I add this to talk page or will you do it ? Xowets (talk) 13:38, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

March 2016

Welcome to Wikipedia. I have noticed that some of your recent genre changes, such as the one you made to Austin Petersen, have conflicted with our neutral point of view and verifiability policies. While we invite all users to contribute constructively to Wikipedia, we urge all editors to provide reliable sources for edits made. When others disagree, we recommend you seek consensus for certain edits by discussing the matter on the article's talk page. Thank you. TJH2018 talk 19:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About Austin Petersen

Hello, Hamez0, and thanks for listing the Austin Petersen discussion at Deletion review. I can tell that you feel strongly about this, and you don't understand why Wikipedia is not allowing an article about him at this time. Let me explain. The reason is that Wikipedia, as an international encyclopedia, has to have criteria for what kind of subjects can have articles here. The main criterion is the General notability guideline, which states that a subject has to have received significant, non-routine coverage from independent reliable sources (such as the press). That guideline is sometimes called WP:Notability. Additional information is found at WP:POLITICIAN, which explains that unelected candidates for office do not generally get an article unless they were previously notable for something else. They may have gotten press mentions and minor coverage in regard to the election, but the election coverage is considered routine and does not contribute to their notability. Among the current Libertarian candidates, the only ones who meet this criterion are Gary Johnson and John McAfee, because they were already notable before they entered the race. If someone is running for office but does not meet the notability requirement, we commonly give them a redirect to the relevant election, as was done with Austin Petersen. That keeps their NAME in the encyclopedia, so that anyone searching for them is taken to an article where they can get information about the subject, even though the subject does not qualify for a separate article. Make sense? Ask me if you have any questions. You can ask here on your talk page; I will see it. --MelanieN (talk) 16:21, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see. What I am wondering now is if there becomes more notability and independent sources are found, what would the appropriate steps for someone to take to allow an article to be created? --Hamez0 (talk) 17:23, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's entirely possible that he might become more notable; for example if he becomes the actual nominee of the LP he would almost certainly rate an article. The appropriate step would be to contact administrator User:JamesBWatson on his talk page, show him your new sources, and ask if he would allow you to create an article to be put in place of the redirect. (If he finds the new sources acceptable, you could create a draft of the proposed article in your sandbox.) If JamesBWatson is unavailable for some reason, you could ask me, or for that matter any administrator. But you should ask him first. --MelanieN (talk) 20:03, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hamez, I see that you have been working on a draft of Austin Petersen and have tried to submit it as an article. That cannot happen, because the title Austin Petersen already exists on Wikipedia - as a redirect. You can't create a new article with that title, because the redirect already "owns" that title. The only way you can recreate this article is to get permission from an admin to expand the redirect into an article. If you expand it without first getting permission, the expansion will be removed, and the redirect will be restored because it was the result of an AfD discussion; see WP:G4 (which normally means speedy deletion, but in this case it would mean speedy restoration of the redirect). --MelanieN (talk) 21:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Petersen Userbox

I thought you might like to know I created a userbox for those who support Austin Petersen.

Code

Result

This user supported Austin Petersen for President of the United States.

Usage

Acidskater (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian Convention Results

As a consistent contributor to political topics, especially in the Libertarian party, I am curious as to your thoughts on including the Libertarian Convention results by state for Template:Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016 and re-ordering the candidates based on these results. Being that the delegate votes at the convention ultimately decide the winner of the Libertarian primary I believe they should be the results displayed in the template (or at least alongside the votes from the previous state primary ballots which give the official popular vote). I have begun a discussion on the template talk page and would like to have a few users involved in the discussion to come to a good consensus instead of a consensus based on the opinions of only two users (myself being one of them). Appreciate any feedback and if you respond here please give me a ping. Acidskater (talk) 02:08, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Hamez0. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Hamez0. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]