From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives

Archive 1 - July 28, 2007

Contents 1 Sig 2 Ruin 3 Comment 3.1 re.Dino Crisis 3 3.2 Wasted XIII Patlabor 3 article 3.3 BioShock Article 3.4 Dino Crisis 3.5 RE0 3.6 Silent Hill 2 3.7 Capitalization of Resident Evil titles 3.8 UC official cover 3.9 Chris Redfield image 3.10 re: Chris Redfield 3.11 David Ford 3.12 Una Kavanagh 3.13 Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BiohazardRemixSoundtrackCover.jpeg}

[edit] Sig

Go for it :p Please change the colors though, to reduce confusion ;) --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 16:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah never mind the color swap, I see you already changed the arrow color. :p --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 16:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ruin

People like you ruin wikipedia (Unsigned comment by User:Penfish)

Your edit that I removed was "copyright infringement" as so noted on the edit summary. Your link did not conform to the external links policy. Would you like Wikipedia to get into legal trouble? Please review the editing guidelines Wikipedia provides and try refraining from posting remarks such as that. Also, be sure to sign your talk page entries by using four ~, upon reviewing your talk page several people have explained this procedure already. Parjay ► Talk 18:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment

Thankyou. Honestly I did not mean to offend you, it seems as though he was personally attacking you. The more you responded, the more it fueled him up. I just wanted it to end, my vote is that we ignore him and if he continues to add his section to the article AFTER we stop provoking him then we can report HIM for vandalism. I really didn't think you were doing anything wrong, I just knew if you continued to respond to him, he wouldn't let up. Peregrine 18:56, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Unfortunately, in cases like this you have to keep responding to the other editor until it's clear they cannot back up their information properly, only then does it indicate if they are serious or vandalising or not. Indeed, since he has not been forthcoming with any new information other than the usual, I'll refrain from replying to him. Edit: and from viewing his user page he has just been banned for a week. Parjay ► Talk 18:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

All's well that ends well. I figured that was inevitable. Peregrine 19:07, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re.Dino Crisis 3

sos. i thaught you could after adding references. cos i added one. OV

Why did you remove the reference and then put unreferenced back on? that makes no sence. OV

well i think you may have had to use a better computer. It is the official Dinocrisis 3 website. OV

The 2nd time i did it i linked it to a working page. OV

"images were removed due to no fair use rationale; they still do not have one" what does that mean? OV

What do you mean close to vandelism! All i did was upload an image of something on a page involving it. And the page is the only page to involve it and it is too small to have itw own page! And all i asked was what does "fair use rationale" mean!

Actualy it was neva realy explained why it was removed.

aLL I did was ask what does it mean. as in so i know why you keep gettin rid of da Pics.

c'mon it's gettin annoyin. Bots keep harrassin me about the images not beeing on any page. And i copyright-listed them under Game Screenshot. so it IS FAIR! because it is listed as a Copyrighted image from a game company, and the image came from the creators (Capcom) Dino Crisis 3 site, making them game screenshots. Logic dictates that the images ARE FAIR-OV

Even look now!. Australis pic is some how there! [OV] —Preceding unsigned comment added by OsirisV (talk • contribs) 07:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wasted XIII Patlabor 3 article

So far so good. Been updated with character and added more details to introduction. Let me know after reading the WXIII: Patlabor the Movie 3 article. Ominae 11:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BioShock Article

You need to review the policies and look up some definitions. None of it is weasel wording or in violation of NPOV; it is all objective and sourced. Before reverting again I suggest you take it up in the talk section of the article or bring an admin into it, who will most likely agree with me.

My edits were altered by other users who also did not bother to read the policies they cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyrogenix (talk • contribs) 14:05, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

As I stated on the reply that did not show up in the talk section for BioShock, there is precedent for the type of wording that I used. It is found on every single article for a succesful game - take half life 2 for instance. The words "overwhelmingly positive acclaim" and "universal acclaim" can be found everywhere in the reception section. They are not weasel words and should not be treated as such. Maybe you would like to try removing those statements and see how fast your edits get reverted? While this is an encyclopedic site and editors should follow suit, there is no reason encyclopedic data, as long as it is sourced and does not violate NPOV, should not be able to describe something that stands out of the crowd as exactly that - something abnormally successful and well received. Hypothetically, you would not call something that IS absolutely perfect in every way possible merely "well received by critics." It is not properly descriptive.

I do agree with what he said about the word "perfect," that did not belong in my statement and he took the right approach by bringing the issue to the talk section. So, that being said, maybe you would like to take a look at some examples and fix things up properly rather than such a destructive response as to repeatedly tear down the edit immediately. I'm fairly sure you violated the 3RR rule as well rather than simply asking me to take it to talk or elsewhere. Not all of us are as experienced with wikipedia as you are.

Pyrogenix 14:32, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not even going to bother reading that here. You can discuss it on the article talk page with myself, and the other editors. Parjay ► Talk 14:34, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

No, unfortunately I can't. I have been blocked from editting the article apparently. My edits do not show up even on the talk section. Pyrogenix 14:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

If you were blocked, it's nothing to do with me. Another editor on the article that is an admin probably did it. Parjay ► Talk 14:39, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I refer you to the wikipedia article on resolving disputes.

Avoidance

The best way to resolve a dispute is to avoid it in the first place.

Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute. When someone makes an edit you consider biased or inaccurate, :::improve the edit, rather than reverting it. Provide a good edit summary when making significant changes that other users might object to. The revision you would prefer will not be :::established by reverting, and repeated reverting is forbidden; discuss disputed changes on the talk page. If you encounter rude or inappropriate behavior, resist the temptation to :::respond unkindly, and do not make personal attacks.

Writing according to the "perfect article guidelines" and following the NPOV policy can help you write "defensively", and limit your own bias in your writing. For some guidelines, :::see Wikipedia:Wikiquette.

DO NOT simply revert the edit, you may make appropriate changes or discuss what is wrong with the edit with me or in the talk section. If you have valid points as to why it is wrong, state them, that way we can civilly resolve the issue. I have once again reviewed the policies and spoken to very knowledgeable users, the edit is sound and DOES NOT qualify as weasel wording or opinion, as even Masem agreed. Given that it violates no policy, is now 100% sourced and is ENTIRELY objective and acceptable encyclopedic language as per the manual of style (refer to other games if you would like some precedent, I can give you at least 5 articles to look at) I have made my change and I do not expect to see it slapped aside without good reason.

Pyrogenix 12:38, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Kindly take your own advice. Remember, initially you kept reverting to your changes from the original content. And as mentioned before, take this to the article talk page subject where myself and the other editors are discussing it. Parjay ► Talk 15:32, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dino Crisis

Actually, look at Richard Yearwood's IMDB page, he played Gail, and Alex Karzis played Rick. Wasn't the version I put up correct? Lychosis ^T/C 17:15, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, the original was correct. IMDB isn't a reliable source - whoever added that information was either confused or did so on purpose. Check the game credits. It also kind of makes sense that Yearwood would play the black guy (Rick). Parjay ► Talk 20:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression that IMDB was a reliable source for filmographies. I think it says that on the reliable sources page, doesn't it? Also, I'm fairly certain game credits can be wrong, as well.  :3 Lychosis ^T/C 20:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe it is. The IMDB has a fairy bad record for adding un-sourced information, for example go check just about any in production listing - cast lists are usually full of crap. Parjay ► Talk 20:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

This? I dunno, that's what I'm running on, here. And, on another note, I don't think it's completely unheard of for someone to play a character who is a different colour than they are, is it?  :3 Lychosis ^T/C 20:24, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, WGA certified complete and correct credits are reliable. Dino Crisis however, is not certified as complete nor correct. Check the credits section between verified and non-verified articles on the IMDB. Yes, it's not unheard of someone playing a different colour - however, when the entire cast is white save one black actor, and the characters are white save one black actor, it's fairly obvious who played whom. Parjay ► Talk 20:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

'Kay, I'mma just take your word on this, 'cause you seem to know what you're talking about pretty well. Maybe someone should do the update thing for IMDB though, so they'll make it right? Lychosis ^T/C 20:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RE0

バイオハザード translates directly as Biohazard! i just removed the question mark from バイオハザード because i know "a little" Japanese and knew that bit was correct. and the numbers -like in english- are placed after teh words. 先行者招呼那些不显示坚持不懈 08:50 September 4 2007 (UTC)

Dude, like I said, it's a wiki style. The ? mark is there for people to click so they know what language that is - it's NOT there to suggest it is incorrect. Parjay ► Talk 12:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Silent Hill 2

I saw your OR tag on Silent Hill 2. I'm assuming a big part of it was that "Gameplay" and "plot" were lacking in citations. Unfortunately, IGN doesn't seem to have properly formatted guides like they do for 3 and 4. I'm assuming that the unsponsored walkthroughs on GameFAQ's et al aren't good reliable sources? I'm assuming the same thing for this fan site? --Lenin and McCarthy | (Complain here) 15:50, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capitalization of Resident Evil titles

Not to be nitpicky, but shouldn't the other game titles all start with a capital letter (for example "Resident Evil" is not "biohazard" but "Biohazard"), given your reasoning? Prime Blue 06:44, 26 September 2007 (GMT)

I dunno about romanized JPN names, the only edits I applied were CODE>Code per standard English on the wiki. Parjay ► Talk 14:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you please direct me to the page where this conventions are detailed? I don't want to make the same mistakes in the future. Thank you in advance. Prime Blue 21:56, 26 September 2007 (GMT)

Sure, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (capital letters) (there are also links on there to various other guides. Parjay ► Talk 18:42, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] UC official cover

Sure, here's the page where the cover appears: http://www.gamespot.com/pages/image_viewer/boxshot.php?pid=933020 CrushNush (Talk) 22:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The link is a blank page. Parjay ► Talk 22:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Blank page? Please check again, or try these link if it doesn't work again http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/residentevilseries/index.html CrushNush (Talk) 22:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a blank page. NO image. I just gave the link to four people on MSN and they get a blank page too. To be honest, I believe you're conning us. Parjay ► Talk 22:57, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Err... I can clearly see the pages, I don't know what's wrong in your browser... ? I'll give you again the links: first this one is the main page of the game in Gamespot: http://www.gamespot.com/wii/action/residentevilseries/index.html

There you can see the box, click on it and a pop up window will appear with the box. Sometimes it appears immediatly or sometimes you have to scroll down to see it. If it doesn't work for you AGAIN I dunno what the hell is wrong.

And just to note something, I don't have the intention to con anyone in something so trivial like a game's page in Wikipedia, please... CrushNush (Talk) 23:28, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, it's not there and I have others saying the same. Parjay ► Talk 23:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

LOL I don't know how to prove it, it's jus there if you want a screencap to show this odd situation just tell me. This is so weird. CrushNush (Talk) 23:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Right, I see what's happening now. The cover is only shows up on the USA site: http://us.gamespot.com/wii/action/residentevilseries/index.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=tabs compare to the default UK one I'm forced to view: http://uk.gamespot.com/wii/action/residentevilseries/index.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=tabs Parjay ► Talk 23:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I was becoming a bit mad that you couldn't see it lol CrushNush (Talk) 23:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Same here. Anyhow, I've updated the article and edited the link on the image so that it will difently point to the usa site and not the users home location. Parjay ► Talk 23:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Good! CrushNush (Talk) 23:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Redfield image

Yeh, I noticed that some days ago. I guess he did not bother scrolling down the page or something. :p Anyways, thanks for looking into the matter as well. --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 04:19, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] re: Chris Redfield

It appears to have been a simple error: I somehow failed to see the fair-use rationale. --Rrburke^(talk) 12:32, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] David Ford

Sorry for getting back to you so late. I didn't even notice your message since I'm being bombarded with oprphaned image notices by those damned Wiki bots. I'm not entirely sure what's going on with Ford's death. Capcom's various retcons and changes have left more than a few loose ends over the years and this is probably another one of them. The guy found in the storage room by Jill in RE3 who shot himself in the face with his Mossberg is definitely supposed to be David Ford, but as you've said, the memo chronology is messed up, leaving another loose end/ambiguous event. In any case, change it however you want. Gamer Junkie 01:09, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Una Kavanagh

I posted a comment related to her on the Jill Valentine talk page. I've received no reply from the Company representing Una thus far, but I'll give it a few days more. If I don't receive a reply by the end of next month, I'll just assume that they're not interested in responding. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.58.113 (talk) 19:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not her. She's way too old to be the "immature high school" girl that the director of Rsident Evil casted.

[1] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.32.231.185 (talk) 20:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed fair use rationale for Image:BiohazardRemixSoundtrackCover.jpeg}

Thank you for uploading Image:BiohazardRemixSoundtrackCover.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
• That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)