User talk:McGeddon/Archive 3

MMORPG screenshot

Im currently writng some more content to go with the article, covering the single server vs sharded games, and also covering styles of play, also I want to incorporate some information on smart_gaming into this page as well (and update that page as well). I have wreitten and rewritten the new articles several times and I didnt like how they fit so i havent added them yet.

The eve online screenshot will reflect these changes which use the game as a primary example in many of the articles that i have written, and once they are posted the description will be modified as well.

I think that the screenshot should be one of the game most referenced in the article, and shouldn't reflect personal preference of the writer/editor. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ghosttr (talk • contribs).

Charazay Basketball Manager

Hi, I contribute a lot of information about Charazay on Wikipedia and noticed the tag you put on Charazay and excuse me, because I am rather tired, but do not understand 100% what it means, but basically it means its not notable enough to be on Wikipedia (correct?), why? How is it different from games like Hattrick, Ogame, Battrick or Sokker? TizianoF 20:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to add that Charazay is the online basketball manager with the greatest userbase and it has a 15,000 Alexa rank (looking at yesterday). Google returns around 50,000 results when searching for "Charazay". So I think that's enough for the Wikipedia:Search engine test. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TizianoF (talk • contribs).

Archiving Talk?

I noticed you archived the recent vandal chat from 203.87.127.18 and was wondering how to do that. I have a bunch of rantings from him too and deleted them, but would rather (and am probably supposed to?) archive them instead, and don't know how to go about it. — Aldaron • T/C 15:37, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Newbies

Please don't be so pedantic about templating newcomers. Adding an impersonal notice, like you did to Mr.P (the Zapffe enthusiast) (talk · contribs), for such a minor mistake, can be seen as biting them. Thank you. Reinis^talk 09:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Stormtrooper effect

An article that you have been involved in editing, Stormtrooper effect, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stormtrooper effect. Thank you. Pixelface 07:39, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Megaduel

Why have you removed Megaduel from the wikipedia?. Its a browser game just like the other hundreds of browser games that are on it, and has way more quality (and already more users) than many of them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cristian3d (talk • contribs) 18:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok. then what if the users from the game create the wikipedia page?. It was them that asked me to do it in the first place. They've seen plenty of other games in the wikipedia but not Megaduel (which has more users, quality, depth, gameplay than many of the others)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cristian3d (talk • contribs).

Thanks

Thanks for helping out with image deletion
Sorenw 10:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Being CONFUSED

sorry I do not understand sometime what the terms are but now I have an encyclopaedia plan!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Michaeldrayson (talk • contribs) 13:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

BBC Radio

Yes, here they are: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. I'm sorry about my non-descriptive edit comment, I don't revert vandalism very often. CR7 15:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the old one's should have precedence at the top with the new one's being a thumbnail with BBC Radio _'s new logo, to be implemented soon? CR7 15:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I've moved them so if people continue to believe they breach Wikipedia policy, they can be removed. However, the logos are referenced against the BBC website even if it is a small section. CR7 (message me) 16:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Update Radio 1, Radio 5 and Radio 5 SE have now started using their new logos. Plus, the Guardian's written this [7] and another source wrote this [8].

Apatheism

A notable author,Jonathan Rauch used the word in a notable publication, The Atlantic Monthly,it looks like this is a viable neologism Richard Dates 21:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

A Shoggoth on the Roof

Hi, just wondering why you removed some text from "A Shoggoth on the Roof"? Did you feel it was unencyclopaedic or not properly verified? Please feel free to comment on its talkpage or my own, thanks. --Sir Ophiuchus 09:40, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No, you're right, it is just a standard joke. The fact that they refuse to name the "insane member of the society", however, is a deliberate running joke, as it is assumed to have been written by the two guys who run the HPLHS. I can see your point, but I'd argue for keeping the "purportedly" at least, as it's quite unlikely the musical was written by one person. Thanks for replying! --Sir Ophiuchus 10:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

That's brilliant, thanks very much! --Sir Ophiuchus 12:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Colemanballs

Hi, thanks for your input on the talk page, that issue is currently the cause of some consternation. Just in the interest of some further opinion, could you take a look at Luvvies, Pseuds Corner and Dumb Britain, and see whether you think the same rules apply at those articles? I've already added the tags, but do you think that those articles are in the same boat? Jdcooper 12:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Correction

Im pretty sure that in the article collectible card games, that the 1st CCG ever was made by nintendo in 1889 in Japan. I've heard that somewhere. Sorry if I do something weird, I'm very new here. TY for your time. LordSkane

Thanks! Ok, maybe by tomorrow I'll have some sources. I get on at school, so I get on in spare time. LordSkane 18:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Source

Well, I typed in Nintendo 1889, and got the wikipedia page for Nintendo. Here is a copy/paste of the 1889 paragraph:

"Nintendo started as a small Japanese business by Fusajiro Yamauchi near the end of 1889 as Nintendo Koppai. Based in Kyoto, Japan, the business produced and marketed a playing card game called Hanafuda. The handmade cards soon began to gain popularity, and Yamauchi had to hire assistants to mass produce cards to keep up with the demand."

I'm not sure if that counts as a CCG or TCG, but I thought I should let you know

Hanafuda are classified as such:

"Though refined card games were played in Japan by the nobility since its early eras, they were not commonly used for gambling, nor played by the lower classes. This changed, however, in the 18th year of Tenmon (A.D. 1549) when Saint Francisco Xavier landed in Japan. The crew of his ship had carried a set of Hombre (48-card Portuguese) playing cards from Europe, and card games, or more specifically, gambling card games, became extremely popular with the Japanese. When Japan subsequently closed off all contact with the Western world in 1633, foreign playing cards were banned.Despite the ban, gambling with cards remained highly popular. Private gambling during the Tokugawa Shogunate was illegal. Because playing card games per se were not banned, new cards were created with different designs to avoid the restriction. For example, an anonymous game player designed a card game known as "Unsun Karuta". These cards were decorated with Chinese art, each depicting Chinese warriors, weaponry, armor, and dragons. This deck consisted of 75 cards, and was not as popular as the Western card games had been simply because of the difficulty of becoming familiar with the system. When gambling with a particular card deck design became too popular, the government banned those cards to restrict gambling activity, which then prompted the creation of new cards. This cat and mouse game between the government and rebellious gamblers resulted in the creation of many differing designs.

Over the next few decades, several new card games were developed and subsequently banned due to the fact that they were used almost exclusively for gambling purposes. However, the government began to realize that some form of card games would always be played by the populace, and began to relax their laws against gambling. The eventual result of all this was a game called Hanafuda, which combined traditional Japanese games with Western-style playing cards. Because hanafuda cards do not have numbers (the main purpose is to associate images) and the long length to complete a game, it has a partially limited use for gambling. However, it is still possible to gamble by assigning points for completed image combinations.

By this point, however, card games were not nearly as popular as they had been due to past governmental repression.

In 1889, Fusajiro Yamauchi founded Nintendo Koppai for the purposes of producing and selling hand-crafted Hanafuda cards painted on mulberry tree bark. Though it took awhile to catch on, soon the Yakuza began using Hanafuda cards in their gambling parlors, and card games became popular in Japan again. Today, Hanafuda is commonly played in Hawaii and Korea, though under different names. In Hawaii, it is called Sakura, Higobana and sometimes Hanafura; in Korea it is 화투 (Hwatu).[1] It is also played in the former Japanese colony of Micronesia, where it is known as Hanafuda. It is a four-person game, and is often paired cross-table, though the Korean and Japanese versions are usually played with three players, with two-person variants. Despite its focus on video games, Nintendo still produces the cards, although this business is diminishing.

Thats the wiki article. Its a bit lengthy, but I'm still not sure if they count as CCG.

LordSkane 18:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Procedure

Hi, do you have any experience in situations like this? I'm sure you know what situation I mean. What is the procedure? Jdcooper 19:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Devoninspiration

Pretty clear case of conflict of interest, see my evidence on the user's talk page. Not sure what to do next, though. —johndburger 03:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I understand the conflict of interest now. I'm not sure what to do next either as I want to do the right thing. I feel the pages stick to the facts, but should I take them down? Or wait until someone without a conflict of interest verifies them? Sorry, I'm relatively new. Thanks in advance for any help / advice. Devoninspiration 10:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)DevonInspiration

AfD nomination of List of games with unspecified rules

List of games with unspecified rules, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of games with unspecified rules satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of games with unspecified rules and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of List of games with unspecified rules during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Rambutan (talk) 15:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Dawkins and Lightning Rods

• The reason I included the internal reference to lightning rods is to illustrate precisely that it is NOT a very unusual term. On the other hand, I don't care to defend it, especially in a lede, although I like a *little* spice in my encyclopedia. (Calling Samuel Johnson)
• Based on my readings of the cited material, I think that Dawkins is becoming increasingly like Shirmer [sp?], a professional controversialist.
• I believe that there is a kind of propaganda function about the creationist/evolutionist wars that Wikipedia should not be takling sides on. I contrast this article's activist editors' stance with the stances taken in the leading WP evolution articles.
• Having tested the waters, I have entered the page discussions.
• If my involvement in this caused an editor to summon the vandalism police, I think it might be an indication of excessive defensiveness. DCDuring 17:55, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:Absolutely.gif

Image Copyright problem

This is an automated message from a robot. You have recently uploaded Image:Absolutely.gif. The file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. If you believe you received this message in error, please notify the bot's owner. OsamaKBOT 19:46, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

anti-humor

There is a pronounced lack of interest in humor (I mean in writng articles about) among wikipedians. Is missing sense of humor a specific trait of wikipedia community? `'Míkka 20:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

user space

Yes that is the plan. My initial submission some 18 months ago was rejected for not being sufficiently notable, but partly also due to the fact that I was still learning the proper style appropriate for encyclopedic content on Wikipedia. I suspect that the inferior quality of my original submission, as well as the significant elements of parody and humor may have been a red herring that led some to believe it was an attempt at hoax or graffiti, rather than recording genuine information about a chess variant. The current form is already an improvement, fortunately, although notability is hard to prove. Gregorytopov 13:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Linking to user page articles

Hi, you left a message on my talk page, and I responded to it with a question, but I do not think you noticed. (Of couse not, why would you?  :-) Anyway, here is the thread. --Jjamison 15:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the response! --Jjamison 15:52, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Just to let you know for future reference that you should avoid linking to user subpages from Wikipedia articles (as per WP:USER), as you did with User:Gregorytopov/Stanley Random Chess from List of games with concealed rules. Thanks. --McGeddon 21:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice; I was unaware of this policy. However, I must say I can not find the part of WP:USER that states this. Can you give me the section name/number? Thanks. --Jjamison 15:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Conservapedia

It's not OR because it was already published (by RationalWiki), which knows Conservapedia better than anyone. Remember, that WP "encourages editors to add undisputed facts. It has traditionally forbidden editors from inserting their own views into articles." I did verify RationalWiki's facts, indeed, but it was not my research. And there's "plenty of plagiarism", even if I just cite two examples. I can't cite 500 examples or more, you know. --Dukered 14:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)