User talk:Rehevkor

Re: Myst

Thanks! It's shaping up nicely, the only thing I am missing is information on the game's reception. If you know of any old magazines or whatnot that had reviews, I'd love to know about them. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...And thanks for the barnstar! Hopefully Riven will be ready for FAC before the end of the month. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 19:39, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Myst soundtrack orig.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Myst soundtrack orig.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) 11:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Coheed and Cambria "Trivia" section

I have no problems with this edit. The type of information you deleted is discouraged on wikipedia and, furthermore, is somewhat irrelevant to the over all page. If you continue by deleting the rest of this section, please discuss it on the talk page first and consider incorporating the deleted information into the article. ŁittleÄlien¹⁸² (_talk\^contrib) 02:06, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"My December (song)"

Why does the article have to be deleted? There was one before. I only want people to know as much about the song as possible.

Many bands, like Nirvana and the Beatles, have B-sides with Wikipedia articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tezkag72 (talk • contribs) 20:06, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Article tags

All the articles are very poorly sourced including Fear Factory. For example FF has almost no sources until Obsolete. And the later history is very poor sourced. Every single sentence should be sourced. Have a look for example on Slayer or Red Hot Chili Peppers to have a picture about how a sourced article looks like.-- LYKANTROP 16:55, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right. Cheers.

PS: That envelope you use for your signature is really cool. I just had to use it too - sorry. :) -- LYKANTROP ✉ 17:16, 21 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HL Ep. 3

Sorry about the rumor thing, I guess I put too much bias into it. -[[bitdefuser] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bitdefuser (talk • contribs) 15:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Dates on X-Files article

Hi. That quote is referring to "Date elements that do not contain both a day number and a month". See the sentence above the one you quote. Linking the full date, as I did, allows the MediaWiki software to format the item according to the date preferences of each individual user. See MOS:SYL for more information. All the best, Steve ^{T • C} 13:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal

Thank you for your contributions to Portal (video game). However, on the Steam forums I and many other users of Steam came to a conclusion that "us" refers to GLaDOS and Chell, meanwhile "them" refers to the Combine, Resistance and possibly Gordon Freeman. You deleted it and labeled it as original research. So I have reverted it back to my version. Anyway, thank you for your contributions. If you have anything to say about this, please post on my talk page. --TONO459 (talk) 09:35, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

One of the devs was there at the discussion and he agreed. So I beleive it is fact. --TONO459 (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Portal: Still Alive ref

Chris Remo, the source of the story, has a reliable history; used to work for Shacknews, now does a few other things but still should be considered reliable. --MASEM 13:34, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Horrible

Hi,

I saw that you erased the link to the Wikia I placed in the article. I agree with your point, that it is still not quite as worthy to be added to the article, but my question is, when you think it will? What kind of content will it need to have in order to guarantee its inclusion in the article?

Thanks in advance,

--Dreyesbo (talk) 17:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

X-Files (film)

Hello,

I noticed you have removed my link from the X-files page. This page did not have a link to a trailer so I added one. This link did not carry any advertising or any 3rd party branding. Why was it removed?

Thanks,

Chris

--User:Cperrott wiki (talk) 15:46, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, if there is no official site link, it would be ok to add an external link to a trailer? I think people who are reading the wiki page about the movie may want to see a trailer of the same movie.

I may have mistakenly added the wrong link on one of the pages but not all of them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cperrott wiki (talk • contribs) 07:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Death Magnetic

Yeah, it's no problem. I wasn't trying to be uncivil when I said it anyways, that's why I linked to it as well. It's true though, the guy was violating a lot of policies, and was obviously just doing it to provoke that kind of attention. Vixen Windstorm (talk) 01:47, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IT IS I

I get back from underway to discover my worlds are colliding. GNAH. Hi. -Nard 07:38, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Torgo

My edit comment was a little abbreviated. My point is more that there is a recommendation to merge in place so the notability flag is the wrong flag to use. The character is obviously notable enough for some level of inclusion in Wikipedia. Whether it merits its own article (which I believe it does) is another matter. Honestly, as an inclusionist, seeing the article is four years old, I think most of the burden of proof lies on the people who want to merge or excise the text. - BalthCat (talk) 19:58, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is the merger not completely relevent to the notability tag? If it is not sufficiently notable, do you actually think that arbitrary removal will take place? Or that an AfD will not result in a Merge? - BalthCat (talk) 20:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty simple really. There are no sources to establish any notability. The age of an article can't be used to circumvent one of Wikipedia's core policies. I think you may be confusing the tag with a speedy delete tag? The tag is placed there when an editor has concerns about a certain issue (in this case an obvious one), an issue that still hasn't been resolved. The merger request may be an effort to resolve it, but it doesn't stop that article having notability issues. If you want to remove it when address it first. Rehevkor ✉ 20:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not confused at all. The tag is simply *redundant*. - BalthCat (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No it isn't. There're no sources to establish notability irregardless of the merger proposal. It's as simple as that really. Rehevkor ✉ 20:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then nominate the article for deletion. If it isn't notable enough to merge, it should be deleted outright, or made a redirect. No? Otherwise, the merger tag is all we need to see. - BalthCat (talk) 20:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose it's been tagged for notability for a while now.. and the merger has stalled. I'll nominate for deletion asap. Rehevkor ✉ 20:27, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cute. Don't bother, I'm going to redirect and create a dab page anyway. This has been ridiculous. - BalthCat (talk) 20:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh? It was your suggestion. Rehevkor ✉ 21:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woah Woah Woah

I have no connection with Pendulum. Would like to though... free festival tickets! But anyway I digress how on Earth can you claim my edits were a conflict of interest? People edit articles they read, why are they reading it? Because they have an interest in the subject. That goes against the idea of a wiki in general! It's like editing Lostpedia regrading Lost and saying that possibly you like Lost so don't edit. -- Dee4leeds talk contribs all 15:58, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well Others in the world disagree. My reviews are always popping up on articles added by people I don't know. So I argue that it is professional and that I do work in the Music business! -- Dee4leeds talk contribs all 16:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]