User talk:JTBX/Archive 1

Re: The PlayStation 2 conflict

I've replied at User talk:Dancter#The PlayStation 2 conflict to avoid fragmented discussion. Dancter 17:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied both at User talk:Dancter#PS2 and at Talk:PlayStation 2#Intro. Please direct further discussion of this dispute to the latter thread. Dancter 23:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PlayStation 2 intro

Before revert see the Talk:PlayStation 2#Intro my edit is fully explained there. --Ciao 90 11:10, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


FROM THE PS2 TALK PAGE:

Pure numbers alone is not the only measure of "success". One must take into account other factors such as (a) the Atari 2600 and Nintendo ES dominated with 85% of total video consoles sold, while PS2 only had ~66% (with Xbox/Cube taking the rest). (b) There were 2 billion fewer humans back in the 80s, thus limiting how many units either Atari or Nintendo could sell. Smaller population == fewer opportunities for sale. (c) The fact that Atari gave birth to a new hobby for home entertainment (1977) and Nintendo resurrected the hobby from the dead (the 1983-84 crash) is also a reason why they deserve "most successful", not PS2. POINT: There's more to the word "success" then dreamt of in your limited philosophy. - Theaveng 14:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we just consider gaming; Playstation has done alot of great things. For starters, do you really think that Final Fantasy 7 would have been anywhere near as good, if it ended up on the N64 (where it was originally headed, before Nintendo opted for cartridges)? It would not have been anywhere near as long, nor would it have been as cinematic, and basically, would not have been the masterpiece that we all know and love (and what most of us consider to be the pinnacle of the entire series). We have Resident Evil. The game was only given the go-ahead, because Capcom new that the Playstation's userbase were generally older, and on it there was a market for stronger, more mature material. Not that it never would have happened, but it wouldn't have happened the way it did without the Playstation, and it wouldn't be the game it is today.

I agree. PS2 is my favorite console (for now). That still does not mean I think it should be labeled "most successful". (See comments above.) Best-selling, yes, but not most-successful. ----- Also: Most Final Fantasy fans consider FF6 to be the best, not FF7. (See various polls.) If you've not played FF6, do so now because it's the better game. ----- And Resident Evil is not the first survival horror game; that was "Haunted House" on the Atari, plus several similar games released on Commodore, Nintendo, CD32, and IBM-compliant PCs. Don't hold-up RE as some grand-new idea, because it isn't. The RE-style genre existed long before PS1 came along. ----- - Theaveng 14:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Playstation is responsible for getting gaming out of the nerd fraternity, and into the mainstream. While this is certainly a double-edged sword, there certainly wouldn't be the market for multi-million dollar gaming epics, without what Sony's Playstation did to the industry. Not the booming market we have today, at least. Look at Gran Turismo, it was placed in bars and clubs so it would help push gaming further.

"Into the mainstream" is a well-worn urban legend that many people like to repeat (along with Betamax had a better picture & Porn helped VHS win), but NONE of these supposed claims are backed by any kind of citations or proof. The previous consoles Super Nintendo and Sega Genesis both sold ~150 million units, comparable to how many PS1s/N64s were sold. I don't see any "explosive growth" as often is claimed. - Theaveng 14:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the games industry is galactic in scale, more money is put into developing games. While sure, alot of crap has come of it, do you really think anyone, let alone SEGA, could have afforded to make Shenmue? Or what about Resident Evil 4? It's not like little gaming masterpieces have been stamped out. PS2 has helped elevate gaming and sold a crazy amount of units, and this all I want to sum up. But you don't read and accuse a news site for a blog? And does it mean all the news sites we use are not 'experts'? I don't want to be involved anymore, do with the article what you want. JTBX 23:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't reveal my real name on the public forum. That's extremely, extremely rude, and I'm sure it violates some rule somewhere. I've deleted it. - Theaveng 14:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah it is extremely rude, don't reveal my name on a public talk page either, or I WILL report you. mcjakeqcool Mcjakeqcool (talk) 23:12, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Images in GTA articles

I've reverted your re-addition of the images and the removal of the excessive non-free content tags because there were/are far too many images on those pages which aren't free. That quantity of images is not necessary for the reader to understand the content of the article and so are not necessary to be included. This is a very important policy for Wikipedia as it could result in legal action so using non-free screen shots must be completely, 100% necessary or it cannot happen. I hope it's clear now why the images have been removed and are tagged for cleanup. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 20:01, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In respect of your re-addition of the Liberty City images, please see this policy page. The image must do more than "aid in the description" of an aspect of the game, they must be used for critical commentary. Using images just as a description aid isn't good enough. The maps, and 1 image per game of how it compares to New York are acceptable. Images of lots of different places in the game are overdoing it. If the images are just being used to describe what the game looks like then using too many is going to be a problem when it comes to fair use. The fair use policy states that only the minimum required is used and it is not necessary for many of the pictures to be there for the reader to be able to understand the subject. ●BillPP (talk|contribs) 22:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warhawk

Since the side articles of Warhawk are going to be deleted I think we should turn them into templates that hide, and then put them on the main article.--Playstationdude 14:47, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tried making the template, but wasn't very successful. What it is is at the beginning people put Navbox on the beginning of the template. See Template:HighDefinitionMedia. I well look more into it and ask around. Also saw that you joined the task force. Just reserved the new Ratchet and Clank. I only hope that they make a last announcement of Co-op play. Loved the L1 over the shoulder view.--Playstationdude 20:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ciao90

See Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts where I opened-up a request for comment. - Theaveng 20:15, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Warhawk (PlayStation 3 game), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. *Cremepuff222* 00:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warhawk

Luckily it doesn't come up on the article when I checked it. I really don't know what happened, but can you go to wp:rm and vote it to be moved to regular warhawk. Just recopy and paste your edits and I am sure someone will ad the ref later for you. Thinks for the add on of the article though, didn't know he released the information. You probably will take a long time to answer this since heroes is on.--Playstationdude 01:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I am sorry. Don't worry I just watched the new episode for today, and all it did was make me ask more questions then answers.--Playstationdude 01:29, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, I think the key to Lost's and Heros' success is the fact of cliffhanger questions. They are basically taking viewers the same way that soaps took our moms.--Playstationdude 01:36, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WWII Infobox

If you wish to edit the WWII Infobox, go to {{WW2InfoBox}}. I suggest, however, that if you wish to make the changes you made by substituting the template with a regular infobox, you should go to the template talk first, or you'll just spark an edit war. Regards, Parsecboy 18:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:WarhawkArbiters.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:WarhawkArbiters.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:09, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Biopredatormask2.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Biopredatormask2.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 10:03, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Firearms

Welcome to the WikiProject Firearms. I hope you enjoy being a member.--LWF 03:14, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ratchet & Clank

Here is what GameSpot said is bad about the new game:

  • There's some good humor in it, but the story isn't very interesting, and the ending is a letdown
  • So many different, often unnecessary gameplay mechanics that the game lacks an identity
  • Difficulty is too easy and only the last hour or so is remotely challenging.

I personally don't use that site.--Playstationdude 00:00, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Palookaville.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Palookaville.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be Warned

if you change the Cantell School article again disrespectfully your account will be liable for deletion. 86.144.144.30 (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok seriously lolJTBX (talk) 08:31, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Palookaville.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Palookaville.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly unfree Image:RuthJohnson.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:RuthJohnson.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the image description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Waggers (talk) 22:51, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cantell

Thanks for your edits to the Cantell School article, I'm sure you mean well. However, we have strict policies here at Wikipedia that our content must be verifiable without WP:original research - that means ideally each statement, especially if controversial, should be referenced with a reliable source. Please add references to the text you've edited, and where none exist, please delete the statements in question. Please also remember that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view - in other words, please leave your opinion out of it and stick to published, reliable, verifiable, referenced facts. Thanks, Waggers (talk) 22:57, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Hi

Yep, I live in the Southampton area. Waggers (talk) 15:36, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your turn

Hi! It is now your turn to ask a question in India quiz. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Concerning your contribution, Image:RuthJohnson.jpg, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material without the permission of the author. As a copyright violation, Image:RuthJohnson.jpg appears to qualify for deletion under the speedy deletion criteria. Image:RuthJohnson.jpg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message. For text material, please consider rewriting the content and citing the source, provided that it is credible.

If you believe that the article or image is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

  • If you have permission from the author, leave a message explaining the details at [[Talk:Image:RuthJohnson.jpg]] and send an email with the message to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or released into the public domain leave a note at [[Talk:Image:RuthJohnson.jpg]] with a link to where we can find that note.
  • If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on [[Talk:Image:RuthJohnson.jpg]].

However, for text content, you may want to consider rewriting the content in your own words. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Waggers (talk) 12:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PINQ

Hi,

Your question has been answered. Can you please confirm whether the answer is correct, so that the quiz can continue. Thanks -- ¿Amar៛Talk to me/My edits 08:52, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]