The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Regarding your recent edit to David Hasselhoff I found it necessary to revert it, but have to agree with you about the confusion. First, since it is a direct quote, it is wrong to break it up. Also the reference was to Knight Rider which can be seen in the words "it was how one man can make a difference" Baywatch was about a group of people making a difference. I did insert a couple of words into the quote trying to make sure that they were marked as inserted and not part of the quote. Dbiel ^{( Talk)} 17:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Also your edit should not have been marked as minor. See Help:Minor edit for the exact use of the minor check box. Wikipedia is a very complex place with al lot to learn; I know I still have a lot to learn myself. Yet at the same time, it is a place where a new editor can make a difference. Thanks for your participation. Dbiel ^{( Talk)} 17:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for the pointers! - Politizer ( talk) 20:28, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I noticed your question at the user talk of J Milburn. I wanted to let you know that you don't need the permission of an administrator to start the Crusade (novel) article. It will have "notability" if you are thorough enough in describing the book. It is not for administrators to decide what is notable and what isn't, as such a classification is completely subjective. If another editor actually had so much time on their hands as to argue the notability, I am certain you could easily argue against it and keep the article. Just make a good article and I'm sure you won't have any problems. — Godheval ^{T C W} 16:54, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Godheval's advice is pretty sound. If there are enough reliable sources to warrant a separate article, go for it. If there is only a little information about the series out there, compiling it into a single article may be the best bet. It's really up to what you think would look best- generally, if there are at least a couple of sources (like reviews, or news stories about the book) then a separate article works best. I know nothing beyond the series beyond the basics (I work in a bookshop) so I can't really give an opinion on this series specifically at the moment. I'd be happy to give my opinion on/help improve an article if you write one. J Milburn ( talk) 20:50, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to keep stuff cited to primary sources at a minimum, that includes the content you noted otherwise. I'd much rather find a reliable source for the strips. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^{( talk)} 23:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. The stupid change highlighter makes it hard to see what was changed :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^{( talk)} 14:15, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

No, don't let me force you off the article, I'm a random editor anyway and I only edit articles for a bit before moving on :P I was just trying to move a reference out of the lead (as there shouldn't be any unless there's a direct quote, generally), you can modify it however you want. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^{( talk)} 14:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, by the way, if you find a more recent comic than 800-whatever we have currently, replace it. I've been trying to find a good comic which features lots of the important characters together and also reflects the more recent style. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^{( talk)} 15:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the size and style are the issues with the poster. But actually, based on WP:NFCC a promotional poster made for a book release or something similar would be better than the comic. See, we can assert via a fair use rationale that we aren't inhibiting the comic's salability in any way, but if Jacques published a book with all the comics in it, having a free version is inhibiting salability (albeit in a very minor way.) Thus, a single frame, or a promotional item are even better are more in line with NFCC. We could always email Jeph and see if he'd make us our own splash image to use :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^{( talk)} 15:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm partial to this one just because it's one of my favorites strips, but the profile shots of the characters don't really do any justice. We can keep changing it though, whenever a better opportunity presents itself, and we still have the character thumbs anyhow, so it's not like we're severely missing an important component if we snub Dora in the infobox image or Pintsize in another. I guess we should focus on content first, heh. :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^{( talk)} 02:11, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

The rationale is fine, but I have to admit I'm somewhat partial to using templates: I suggest using Template:Comic_panel_rationale#Fair_use_rationale and just sticking it below the description/FUR for QC article but above the license. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^{( talk)} 16:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. It's my duty as a rollbacker. :) miquonranger03 ( talk) 02:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC) :D

Hi, Politizer, and welcome to Wiki. Please have a look at WP:EL and WP:COPYRIGHT; we should never knowingly add links to copyright violations, and I have no doubt that the autismnz site does not have permission to reprint the Cincinnatti Enquirer article. Also, be aware not to change the established citation style on an article (the TS series of articles do not use citation templates), or to remove deal URLs (they are better commented out), see WP:CITE. Best regards, SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I reverted your edit here. If that IP address is shared, and it might be, than your branding of every user of it as a vandal is rather rude. Furthermore, it's not your userpage. The edit you made there could be considered to be vandalism by some, or maybe even a personal attack. I understand you meant well but I suggest to take vandals to WP:AIV instead. Kind regards,    SIS  21:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. Actually, it's no use reporting such IP addresses to WP:AIV because if they don't have a certain number of edits or if they haven't been blocked a certain number of times (I think it's 5?) the petition will be rejected. But in cases where every single edit by a given IP address is an instance of vandalism, and especially when the vandalism has been persistent (as in this one, returning to some pages after vandalism was reverted and then vandalizing the page again) I usually feel safe in assuming that that address is not to be trusted, and I try to do something so that just in case someone stumbles across that address they will know. But you are right that it could be a shared address and I should not jump to conclusions about it, so I'll keep that in mind in the future. Thanks, Politizer ( talk) 21:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

With all due respect, but I've got very different experiences with WP:AIV. As long as the user is sufficiently warned (also see WP:WARN), vandals will get blocked. Maybe not always as fast or long as you (and I) might want, but that's another story.    SIS  21:54, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the bolding issue is something that came up long ago on Wiki, and has stuck around. In a way, it seems pedantic, but then again, it kind of makes sense. In any case, I'd consider nominations equally as notable as wins, because both provide a context into how prominent/influential this strip may be. However, if they are to be in the article, there is no real need to provide unnecessary focus on one thing over another. — Huntster ( t • @ • c) 01:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The image still covers text on a 1920x1200 screen resolution in firefox. If you don't like it on the right and can't format it properly on the left, it should be removed.-- Crossmr ( talk) 04:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Starting with Length: Very long chopsticks, usually about 30 or 40-- Crossmr ( talk) 04:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

That seems to be fine, try it in the article now to make sure something else in there doesn't change the formatting.-- Crossmr ( talk) 04:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

All the text is readable in the article now.-- Crossmr ( talk) 04:40, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The article definitely needs work, but there's some possibility that it could be GNG, etc. [1] I've come up with tons of mentions in newspapers and magazines via LexisNexis, but I haven't determined if any of them are nontrivial (it seems lots of them are 'buy at thinkgeek' kinda stuff.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^{( talk)} 14:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

You've dealt with the situation well- the article appears to be about a notable subject, and so I think any discussion about its deletion would be best to be at AfD. Your message on the talk page of the user removing the links seems to be all that is required for now- if the user starts to be disruptive again, further warnings and a block would be warranted. J Milburn ( talk) 21:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

My bad if that was a template added by a new user and not appropriately done. Usually people removing tags are suspicious to me, thus my undo. Dp76764 ( talk) 15:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

• Yep, it's tough trying to figure out the right way to follow the policies sometimes (I am still learning too). I kind of see the point of some of the edits those 2 account have done; a lot of TG links in articles seem unnecessary and on the verge of advertising. But indiscriminatory removal certainly isn't warranted. Dp76764 ( talk) 15:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

In case you haven't noticed yet, a reply awaits you on my talk page. Hertz1888 ( talk) 04:37, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I understand, but I slightly shrank the picture instead.

-- Mr Alex ( talk) 15:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Woops, sorry, I did respond to the discussion, but I just forgot to save.

-- Mr Alex ( talk) 01:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

I wrote at least four or five lines of explanation in the talk page, and I didn't want to start everything over, so I decided to explain later. I'll explain mow: Images that illustrates more than one character and that says "From left to right", It's used to illustrate numerous character when there are too many images in the list, as an example, see the List of Mario series characters, every single characters had their own image, there where way too many images, so the list's main image illustrates most of characters without having too many images. Another example, the List of Happy Tree Friends characters had too many images because all 20 main characters had an image. The list's main images makes the number of images lower. The two main images in the List of characters in the Star Fox series illustrates a few characters, and the article has only a few images, so Krystal and Slippy Toad could have an image too, but not Fox, he has in his article. You can do whatever you want with the two main images, it's up to you.

-- Mr Alex ( talk) 05:39, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for fixing my edits on Lolcat as I'm pretty much new at Wikipedia and have no idea how to properly edit. -- Dicttrshp ( talk) 17:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks again. -- Dicttrshp ( talk) 17:54, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Re your message: No worries. You didn't get in my way at all. =) -- Gogo Dodo ( talk) 04:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

IMO there's no serious doubt that the (goatee = mirror-universe counterpart) meme was initially popularized by "Mirror, Mirror", but I suppose you could question whether a given author using the meme is aware of its origin. How would you suggest wording an explanation that clearly avoids OR? Emurphy42 ( talk) 04:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry if it seems like I'm reverting every one of your edits. I'd best explain a bit further. You moved all coverage of reception out of the intro, and there really needs to be a few sentences or a paragrap on that in the intro as the lead is meant to summarise what comes after it. And the box art, whilst it looks great, pushes the WP:NFCC idea of minimal usage as it does not significantly increase the reader's understanding of the subject. Take a look at similar articles on WP ( Factions of Halo comes to mind), box art isn't used in articles concerning fiction. -- Sabre ( talk) 20:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Most VG articles work on a basis of two or three paragraphs for lead. On some occassions, four paragraphs have been accepted at FA (see Riven). I tend to structure the intro to articles I write in a similar style as recommended for VG product articles ( Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Newsletter/20080409), but the revised order is much better. I've re-added the bit that you stuck on the lead-in for the reception section, as we should mention the fact Dune II did it first somewhere - some critics were rather vocal on that. -- Sabre ( talk) 21:05, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I just put them alphabetically when I wrote the article. I'd keep the three playable species arranged alphabetically, but Xel'Naga should probably be moved down as you said. -- Sabre ( talk) 21:18, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, ok. I suppose RTS AI pathfinding behaviour isn't the same level as the AI that powers one particular NPC, such as a standard enemy in an FPS, as its far more player centered. However, the one-sentence paragraph of criticism will be shot down quickly at an FAC, its best to merge that into the preceding paragraph, as unfortunately, the only other criticisms I turned up were of the game AI, so the criticisms can't really be added to. -- Sabre ( talk) 23:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the barnstar! That was most unexpected! -- Sabre ( talk) 10:28, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you very much! One less StarCraft article to deal with! -- Sabre ( talk) 16:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

You're correct that I should've provided a rationale for removing the citations needed. I'll give do that now on the discussion page of the Lolcats page. If anyone reads the text carefully they will see that those things that are marked with citation needed do in fact have references at the end of the sentence. Khawaga ( talk) 01:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Shenzhou 7: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. - MBK ₀₀₄ 04:55, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure. Thanks you for cleaning up the article and bringing it up to standard. I will try to copyedit it further as it still needs some work. 76.71.44.20 ( talk) 14:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI but in the future, please transclude good article reviews to the article's talk page. Thanks! Gary King ( talk) 16:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Transclude; so at the bottom of the talk page, add {{ Talk:Species of StarCraft/GA1}}. Gary King ( talk) 16:56, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Yep, it's indeed a Pokemon article; how'd you get that oldid? To get the oldid, just go to the article's history, grab the latest revision (currently this one), and then grab the ID after "oldid=". So in this case it's 241434729. Gary King ( talk) 16:59, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Many thanks for the comment about the templates.I will try to use them but I am still trying learn about some aspects about Wikipedia especially with the templates and I still not computer literate as I would like to be.Many thanks- RFD ( talk) 17:06, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for notifying the admins. I was about to it myself. Happier editing! :D Peptuck ( talk) 21:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like he's trying to dodge the block. Peptuck ( talk) 21:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there's something fundamentally satisfying about how clinical and robotic Wikipedia can be when it comes to dealing with vandalism. Peptuck ( talk) 21:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you plan on moving Orlan space suit too, for consistency? How about the main Space suit article? ( sdsds - talk) 02:58, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I would prefer Wikipedia to be consistent in this, but don't have the knowledge or ability to move an article over a redirect. ( sdsds - talk) 03:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent! Thanks for your help (and understanding) regarding this! ( sdsds - talk) 03:24, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Please tag the OR statements specifically so that I could address them properly. Thank you. — Bl ue 。 14:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing them out, though I'd like it better if you can list them out in the article's talk page, and I'll do my best to address these concerns post haste! — Bl ue 。 15:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I have backup information on origin of Taejo Wang Geon.

Here is the S Korea's published geneology on Kaesong Wang clan,it clearly identifies the family ancestors came from 中國 = CHINA ' .

http://www.surname.info/wang/gae_seong.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigglypuffie ( talk • contribs) 13:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ultra-nationalist S Koreans knowingly omitted Taejo Wang Geon was of ' Han-Chinese ' extraction.This fact is well-known among Korean circle who take interest in history.By the way,I got that website from a non-Sinophobic S Korean forumite. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jigglypuffie ( talk • contribs) 15:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Just trying to keep Wikipedia clean and happy! DARTH PANDA ^talk 14:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'm not familiar with lovehkfilm.com either. I removed the text because in the article's ( http://www.lovehkfilm.com/people/chu_athena.htm) "Biography" section, it states: "For her next album, due out in September of 2003, Chu will take over producer duties and even write some of the songs too. (Yinique 2003)". Based on that, I assumed the biography section hasn't been edited or updated since 2003; although, if the lovehkfilm.com article was last modified in March (based on the page info), perhaps it was to edit/update the "selected filmography" section. So I assumed the text was copied from lovehkfilm.com, since the Wikipedia article wasn't created until August 2005. -- Silver Edge ( talk) 23:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Excellent edits to this article. I'm glad people are still around to nurse that article. — Deckill er 00:29, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Every article on Wikipedia — from Featured Article to stub — has opportunities for improvement, so whatever you can do would be greatly appreciated. — Deckill er 00:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey,

I'm working on changing the links in pages that link to Main characters of Megatokyo, to avoid double redirects now that it's been moved. Just out of curiosity...is it bad practice to redirect to subsections? I mean, for example, for the Tohya Miho redirect page, should it be #REDIRECT [[List of characters in Megatokyo]] or #REDIRECT [[List of characters in Megatokyo#Tohya Miho|List of characters in Megatokyo]]? Thanks, — Politizer^{(  talk •  contribs )} 05:24, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Redirect#Redirects_to_page_sections would seem to suggest that redirecting to a section is fine. - jc37 05:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

[2] Thanks, Pol! — Vano 17:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

If it's ok with you, I am going to blank out the section about Jessica Alba's herpes. I prefer not to even leave the discussion in place. If it were cheek implants or even liposuction, ok. But herpes and just one reference isn't enough, in my opinion. If not ok, let me know and I'll restore it. Spevw ( talk) 02:06, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I see your user page said that you have received one personal attack. Make that two!

Sorry, just kidding! I'm not really attacking you, just want to increase your count! :p Some people have a lot of friends in Wikipedia. If you want to discuss things, I would be happy to do so, even for an article that I normally don't read or edit. Spevw ( talk) 02:12, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Please accept this notice to join the Good Article Collaboration Center, a project aimed at improving five articles to GA status every month. We hope to see you there!-- LAA Fan sign review 02:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC) {{{1}}}

Hello, Rjanag. You have new messages at Blooded Edge's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please discuss before rm important facts added per BLP, thanks! Bobby fletcher ( talk) 23:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No facts were removed, as explained at Talk:Age requirements in gymnastics#Exonerated Section, and you are the one who has been reverting edits without consensus. — Politizer^{(  talk •  contribs )} 23:51, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

About posting incorrect information on the IGN page. I'm correcting you fools, because everything I posted was accurate.

I will continue to correct the mis information on that page. Go ahead and block me, we'll see how far that gets you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.107.139.80 ( talk) 00:59, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Absolutely no problem. I wrote it in a hurry and further rewording would be most helpful. Eubulides ( talk) 06:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the work on that article. I tried to get English language references and just couldn't find too many. LedRush ( talk) 15:23, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I also have a book on home about it. It goes to show you how lazy (or dependent on the internet) I've become in the digital age...I didn't even think to use something as archaic as a book! LedRush ( talk) 15:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure how much more I can contribute to the article without getting my new source. I am not a great editor on a big scale as I usually just look to one or two facts and try to get them right. But I will try and do a little better, and getting this article up to snuff is a good goal. My wife and I have our names intertwined on that beautiful mountain, and it would be good to get an article worthy of the place. LedRush ( talk) 22:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi Politizer. I apologize with my aggressiveness at that. That editor really bothers me sometimes with his edits. He will remove categories and information unless it's African American which bothers me because that's sending a message it's ok to leave the African American categories but everything else has to be proven. I'm sorry. Mcelite ( talk) 18:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that you marked these articles for deletion, but in the process, removed all of the Wikiproject Correction and Detention Facilities assessments. Please restore the assessments. I also notice that you plan on erasing the entire list because you think such a list is "frivolous" since you say it was copied from one source. I disagree that the lists are frivolous, and I disagree that they should be deleted. For one thing, it appears that many of the lists are incomplete, (see here) so merging them all into one master list may create a very long article. For another, there are comparable articles to lists of prisons in each state of the United States. In any case, please restore the assessments. Thanks.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 01:36, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Since you aren't planning on doing it for awhile I'll do it for you. Also, the speedy deletion tags should go on the article's page, not the talk page. I'll move them for you.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 01:46, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, for some reason I don't see these articles coming up at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 02:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks. It's a shame these lists aren't better. I'll start working toward improving them.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 16:37, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

With regards to referencing WebCanvas on the Infinite Canvas article. This page only elaborates on one aspect of such a concept. This aspect is restricted to webcomics, whilst there are many other applications for such a boundless digital canvas. WebCanvas is a relatively new undertaking which employs such an Infinite Canvas and where users can paint/draw/write anything thing from webcomics to architectural footprints. Also it is innovative because it allows instant collaboration from artists around the world. This project employs leading edge Web 2.0 technologies and for this reason it has won 2nd prize at Sun Microsystem's sponsored London Start-up Camp ^[1]. In fact it works much like wikipedia with a number of administrators moderating and reverting back certain damaged sections... However this is another matter. What matters here is that on an article about a concept, it seems very limiting to be only mentioning one aspect of it (webcomics) and not even mentioning one leading edge implementation that is general!! Especially when such an implementation directly contradicts some of the facts mentioned (e.g. scrolling problem, wii-browser incompatability, image loading times...). To demonstrate that these issues have been solved or mitigated only a simple perusal of the site is necessary! Best wishes. 82.69.178.229 ( talk) 01:49, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: WebCanvas

Hi Politizer, have read your points and now I understand why we are having different views. You are contextualizing WebCanvas as an art project or movement. In fact this is not the main issue that I’m trying to address. I'm trying to assert a new concept/technology which builds on top of Web 2.0 technologies (html,javascript,ajax,...) and deploys a new kind of web-page. You can make a parallel with the concept of a Wiki, and talking about some non-notable wiki-demonstration-site. What you are focusing is on the wiki-site, and not on the Wiki concept/idea behind it.

In my opinion WebCanvas is notable and important because this is a new type of web-page which combines the following aspects:

• Drawing/Writing/Painting input paradigm, instead of text-based as it is here. The importance of this is much more evident if you use a pen and tablet and are computer illiterate. Just imagine what you would need to do here if you wanted to draw a >balloon< instead of writing it. On the other hand, if you use WebCanvas type technology you can just draw it, like in a piece of paper!
• Boundless or Limitless or Infinite space, where you can just drag to any side 'forever' or zoom-in/out. This frees web-pages from the traditional constraints and scrolls...
• Instant update and relay of activity to any other viewer within the same WebCanvas section. This is, you can see things changing 'live' without reloading. To verify this, you just need to zoom-in until you see the drawing tools and click Menu /Location/Last Active, and you may be lucky to actually see someone in action. (Have you ever seen a web-browser talking to another one?!)
• This is a True What You See is What You Get, where anyone can intuitively express themselves just like in a pen and paper, especially if you are using a touch-screen or Pen and Tablet.
• A Wiki type moderating system based on images, instead of text! (contact the info@webcanvas.com if you want to see this in action)

Only to mention five important innovative aspects that the WebCanvas technology deploys. It also addresses and solves some other issues including those referenced on the Infinite Canvas article, and surely if the problems are important enough to be mentioned so should be the solution...

To be honest, it would be better to have WebCanvas re-opened and an article written describing it. Would you be interested in helping out with this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.69.178.229 ( talk) 19:53, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I agreed that the information that I removed from Jiang's article is significant. If u check the talk page, I am actually the one who provided all the original information and wrote "she came from a poor family" at the first place. But I just realised the source never use the word "poor". It only describes their financial situation. So how about change the wordings to reflect Jiang's family had finanicial pressure as stated in the chinese source? I think it is better and fairer than "poor". I just wanna make the article better and reflect what the source really said, it is not edit-warring at all :). But if you wanna change back to using "poor", I am OK with it. Because I don't want to argue and "poor family" is actually my work :). So please could you help me with the wordings? Thank you. Tinbin ( talk) 16:27, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, If you wanna change wordings back to "poor family", could you do a new edit instead of reverting the article? Because I also corrected a typo mistake and added back a missing citation. Thanks Tinbin ( talk) 16:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks your reply. I am sorry that I didn't indicate clearly the reason I removed the word "poor". Please do help me with the wordings as English is not my first language. Tinbin ( talk) 17:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I see that Chinese sources have been discussed at length above; I just wanted to add that the many Chinese quotes given in the footnotes should be translated for the benefit of readers (most of whom are not Chinese-speaking). I haven't had a chance to read through the whole discussion, but I would assume that there is still a need to translate those sentences (if there was some sort of consensus not to translate them, though I can't imagine why that would happen, please let me know before I start doing any translating). I might be able to start working on that sometime during the week, but if anyone else wants to get to work on it before then it would be greatly appreciated. — Politizer^{(  talk •  contribs )} 13:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I saw your comment on Jiang Yuyuan's talk page. Since you have read the previous discussion on Jiang's talk page, you should know that I am the one who provided all the original Chinese-sourced information and argued heatedly with the other editors on why those chinese-sourced materials should be kept. The other editors disagreed to keep the Chinese-sourced materials because they considered chinese-sourced materials unreliable and unverifiable. I even got banned for it. That is why I stopped doing the editing all together because I thought that my life is more important than arguing with the other non-chinese-speaking editors who only trust Bablefish (If Babelfish can translate everything accurately, then all the translators on the planet earth can just retire). I am actually very surprised that all my Chinese-sourced materials are now kept in the article.

Before I stopped doing editing on Jiang Yuyuan's article, I was actually starting something about Jiang's post-Olympics fame such as how she travelled to Hong Kong and appeared with local pop-stars on TV shows (I stole the idea from Shawn Johnson's article). But all this information has to be relied on Chinese sources, so I don't think I will finish it off now because I don't want my hard work to be wiped out by some senior editors who don't trust chinese-sourced materials. Anyway, good luck to you and if you need any help, I am happy to provide assistance. Tinbin ( talk) 17:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I think it's fine to keep the Chinese sources (assuming replacements can't be found in English) as long as there are Chinese translations...I just haven't gotten a chance to work on doing any of the translating, as I'm pretty busy this week. Anyway, I understand your frustration over being banned, as it can be quite a pain when language-illiterate editors try to make sweeping decisions about a language they don't know...and I hate Babelfish and think it should never be used for Wikipedia contributions. I'll try to work on doing some of those translations when I get a chance, so that no one will be able to try removing those sources from the article. —Politizer( talk • contribs ) 17:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I thought it was fine to use chinese sources too before the other editors erased them. As you should know that English media hardly have any coverages on people like Jiang Yuyuan apart from the Underage issue. I actually raised the question about using chinese-sources on the talk page and get the consensus from the other editor before I started. But at the end all the chinese-sources were still wiped from Jiang's article . I have been told previously by other editors that this is "English Wikipedia", so they don't encourage chinese sources to be used. I am very surprised that all the Chinese sources provided by me are now kept. And it makes all my previous arguments seem even more worthless and pointless. May be things have changed since then. So good luck. Again let me know if you need any assistance Tinbin ( talk) 18:23, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not answering sooner but I did not see your message. I agree that your reviewer is less than responsive and there are other suggestions he could be giving you for your article. One idea is to post a question on Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations asking for advice on what to do, asking your question under its own section header. I have seen questions like that asked there before. Another (which I just noticed you have already done) is remove his name, in effect renominating yourself.

Such behavior on the part of a reviewer is not O.K. I'm glad it's been taken care of, whatever you did! Sorry I was so late with my suggestions. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 01:18, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ah.. I didn't notice this before, but down the page is another comic with the title text in quotes. Can we do the same up there? (hold mouse over the Wikipedia protester one..) CompuHacker ( talk) 01:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

:) Please do criticize, no one gets better without it! I understand the frustration a short-term protection can cause, a combo of relief for a break and sadness that it won't last. I'll try to explain my thought-process though. This article definitely needed protection, as its history can show. When I protect articles, I try and work up with the lengths. Usually my first protection will be less than a week, and it will usually move up from there. This comes from the belief that protection should be a "deterrent" and that we should strive to only protect articles for the length of time needed. Now if this article had been protected before, and vandalism had returned, I probably would have protected it for a longer amount of time, and depending on the length of prior protections, and the severity of returning vandalism, I would jump up to indef. But I am always wary of indefinitely protecting articles that have never had protection before, hoping that making the short term protection will deter some vandals from returning, which would allow IP editors to still be productive on the page after the protection has expired. Please do watch the page after the protection expires, and if vandalism returns for a few days, then feel free to contact me or make another request at WP:RFPP. Hope this helps. Thanks for your message! Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 05:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome! And yes, there are a few topics that just always attract vandalism here :/ « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 05:06, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Re this edit. There are three steps to an AfD nomination. Doing just one is pointless. Also, for the step you did, the rule book says "new entries at the top". — RHaworth ( Talk | contribs) 09:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree it's good, but to put it in it would be best to move all such games from "other" to this sublist in one go. We'd also have to define "capture", as you saw with Reversi; is a player "capturing" a piece when they flip it to their color, or is it really a "capture" only when pieces are removed from the board like draughts, go, etc.

Also, games like Irensei and Gonnect are combination capture/n-in-a-row games. Under which list, then, do they get placed?

In short, it's a good idea, but I don't have the time as of right now to make a clean edit to add the sublist, and it may need further discussion before it is tried. Liko81 ( talk) 19:26, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

P.S.: Regarding your reversion of my edit regarding Hive on the Game page; The game really is rather unique among tile-based games in that the tiles are also moving pieces; most other tile-based games only involve placement of a tile and it cannot move once placed, while board games like Shogi in which the pieces are tile-like require a physical board. It is thus not "similar" to either Settlers or Carcassonne, nor is it really even a "board game" by the classical definition, however its mechanics are closer to a board game than practically any other tile-based game I've seen, and certainly is dissimilar from any other tile-based game mentioned. I think it deserves its own paragraph when describing its genre, as, similar to a "tile/card" game like Mahjongg, this is a "tile/board" hybrid, but of a different style than other games like Carcassonne that could be considered hybrids. Liko81 ( talk) 20:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Could you take a look at the page and see if you think that I am off base on this one?

Just so you know, I reverted one of your edits as we had been discussing it for a long time (one of last 5 communist states) and the compromise reached was to place it there. Of course, if you think the compromise was bad, please tell me...I respect your opinion as an editor. (also I stole your user page code and am trying to fiddle with it to make suitable for me....man I suck at code) LedRush ( talk) 19:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I know we didn't discuss this but I would prefer that this list have links to articles for the specific Reeducation Through Labor Camps. I know it's a lot of red links, but There are comparable lists for U.S. prison facilities. Also I noticed that by removing all of the links, you removed the link to the one individual Reeducation Through Labor Camp article that exists. The same goes for the links to the towns and villages in China that don't currently have articles. Red links are a great way to know what articles have yet to be created.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 19:53, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow. I like both of those formats. I'm not really sure what the established guidelines are for notable places in China are but I have noticed that as far as population goes, there are quite a few places with very large populations that don't have articles or have only have stubs. I agree about the street addresses.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 20:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I think either table would be fine.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 21:17, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

yah :D Xaihn52 ( talk) 16:15, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for doing some tidying up of the new content also. ( Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:16, 17 October 2008 (UTC))

I lol'd. Giggy ( talk) 02:06, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your offer to review the article Sinhala alphabet. I have replied to your questions on the talk page. For convenience, I copy the reply here as well.

I guess I am the main editor of this article, so here my reply. The font support for Sinhala is clearly suboptimal, and I guess most people will not have the necessary fonts installed, let alone rendering support. This is why all the tables have a *png-version, for which you do not need the fonts. You can click on the link on the bottom of the tables to see them. The content is thus accessible to anyone, whether they have the fonts installed or not. All tables combined give you a complete overview over the independent glyphs. Making the image version the default would make the article visually more pleasing to most of the public, but might annoy people who do have the fonts installed. Any opinions on whether to prefer unicode, png, or a combination of both?
The archaic Sinhala numeral system mentioned above is so incredibly archaic that it is not mentioned in any Sinhala grammar or article I am aware of. The referenced webpage is the only source, so I am not sure if this would even pass WP:V and should be included. Any more material on the numerals would probably be OR.
There is an external link to the entire Sinhala alphabet (600+ glyphs). Given the size of the alphabet, I am not sure whether the full text should be included inline, but I could make a similar table to store on WP itself. Not sure though whether this would make any difference to the reader, they might just as well click the external link. Jasy jatere ( talk) 08:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

please check the new solution on Sinhala alphabet. I added a footnote with a link to the image. Comments welcome. Jasy jatere ( talk) 16:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Hello again. I was on a short wiki break. Could you check whether the new setup is OK for you? There is a slight problem with the img/text ratio for rendering, so I think that we are hitting the ceiling for the number of imgs on that page. Jasy jatere ( talk) 08:09, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no problem for the img at the bottom, just for the imgs in the text itself. So there is no need to remove the imgs in the footnotes. Not sure whether this solves your problem. I think all necessary glyphs are now accessible as imgs Jasy jatere ( talk) 22:31, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I notice that you marked this page with a NPOV tag but did not start a discussion on the talk page. I think the page could be better sourced and seems critical of a system where detainees are forced to work before they are proven guilty of their crimes (It seems like common sense to be critical of such a system to me). In any case, I await your reasoning.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 17:10, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't speak Chinese. They do seem to be on the same topic, but I've only given them a cursory look. Usually people like to have a discussion about whether pages should be merged and as I said, I'm unsure if they are exactly the same concept. If they are merged, I think we should use the surviving name for the lists. Have a good weekend.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 23:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Laogai says "It is often confused with, but completely different from, reeducation through labor, which is a system of administrative detentions." It's not cited but it does make me think they are distinct.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 01:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I found an article at Human Rights watch here that explains the distinction. I don't think we will have to change the articles because they specifically list only reeducation through labor camps while the Laogai Handbook lists all types of detention facilities, including prisons.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 02:34, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

It appears there's some overlap between Laogai and Reeducation through labor camps. see here

Here's also an interesting NYT article [3].-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 02:42, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I had thought that the lists were only a small portion of the facilities, when if fact the source contained prison data as well. So maybe a large master list is in order. However, I did noticed that a couple of the lists had been previously erased ( List of laojiaos in Gansu and List of laojiaos in Anhui. Perhaps it would make more sense to merge the lists into the lists of prisons by province (see Category:Prisons in China) and change the titles.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 03:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

The only problem I see is one of definition. Prisons hold prisoners who have committed crimes whereas laojiaos hold people who need to be "reeducated" but who are not criminals per se. To merge the articles it might be necessary to create entirely new articles like: List of prisons and laojiaos in ..... It might start to confuse the two concepts.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 03:52, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

I think that merging the articles might be a good idea but I think we should discuss it on the talk pages so other editors have a chance to comment.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 18:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I would love some help. Shall we say, I'll do the bottom half and you can do the top half?-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 22:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Why don't we hold off on adding what the camps produce for now. That might go better in the articles for the individual camps, assuming those articles are someday created. I've been looking on the internet and information on individual camps is pretty hard to come by.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 22:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't forsee plagiarism being a problem. We aren't directly quoting from the handbook, we are distilling the facts into a list. As far as the City issue goes, I've been creating redirects to the articles.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 03:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Good job on the lists by the way.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 03:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I've been away for a few days. The list looks great after your considerable effort. Not that it couldn't use some more references with regard to individual facilities. However, I must say, all around good work.-- Cdogsimmons ( talk) 17:28, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

I saw this and I can comment on it. The accepted convention here on wikipedia is that text copied from DANFS is allowable (The same reason the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica is) and is not deletable by any CSD criteria and also wouldn't survive a PROD and probably would be Speedy Kept at an AFD. Also, removing the content (which is cited) and stubbing the article is actually vandalism since you would be removing properly cited information. We have a guideline at WP:SHIPS on how to clean-up these articles after the initial import from DANFS is done. In other words, leave the article alone and it will be fixed up to proper standards. - MBK ₀₀₄ 05:04, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll also note that the content is not plagarized, it is being used as it is intended by the U.S. Government when they published it. As I've stated, your intent to stub the article and remove all DANFS content is and will be considered vandalism and I will deal with it accordingly if you carry-out with it. - MBK ₀₀₄ 05:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, I will not be removing any information, as per your and Benea's comments. By "plagiarism" I did not mean to imply any legal sort of copyright violations, but just generally lazy editing and excessive quoting (in that the entire article is an unattributed quote--I don't know DANFS's particular standards, but as far as I can tell referencing them at the bottom of the page is not the same as putting their words in quotes), so I guess I should have used a more appropriate term. I apologize for the misunderstanding. — Politizer^{(  talk •  contribs )} 05:16, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

There isn't really any grounds to delete the article, or its contents, as while the moral aspect is debatable, there's no legal issue here. A lot of US Navy ship articles are created this way, and while to just copy and paste makes for a shoddily formatted article, what is needed is a lot of copyediting, wikification, sectioning, etc. I'll take this on if you don't want to, but please don't cut it back because you personally disagree with the method, best to leave it as is and move on to something you enjoy more. Benea ( talk) 05:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I will leave that article up to people who are involved in WP:SHIPS or otherwise experienced in editing these articles. I just find it strange that a WikiProject allows that kind of copying, regardless of the legal implications, where a single external link would do. Granted, I haven't been on Wikipedia very long, and there are a lot of topics/projects where I don't have experience, but as far as I know in any other part of WP an article made up entirely of quotes (which is essentially what this article is, even though there are no quotation marks around it) would at the very least be marked with a cleanup tag.

I don't mean to be accusing you personally of bad faith or poor editing or anything; I just find it strange and a little confusing that there is a WikiProject operating in this way. — Politizer^{(  talk •  contribs )} 05:10, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry about those accusations. You're inexperienced with ship articles and how we develop them. For instance, take a look at the current TFA on the main page ( USS New Jersey (BB-62)), it incorporates DANFS text! Also, an excellent example of a GA is the one I've worked on: USS Texas (BB-35). If you're genuinely interested in this topic, we would welcome your involvement at WP:SHIPS. - MBK ₀₀₄ 05:22, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for looking over my rewrite of the lead section. I had considered hacking down the lead section to just the opening paragraph, but decided on a few more paragraphs in the interests of creating a better introduction to such a long article with such a large diversity of points. WP:LEAD gives its rule of thumb of 3 to 4 paragraphs, and I think the overall size of this piece warrants a bit more detail in the opening. In addition, the very concise lead now means that almost every alternative word now has a citation, which I feel looks a bit odd. Ohconfucius ( talk) 06:22, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point, and I wouldn't mind stretching the lead out to, say, a sentence for each main issue (rather than just one or two words, as it is now). I would still leave it as a single paragraph, though, as I can't really see any way of dividing it into multiple paragraphs without being arbitrary (since, as it is now, the lead-in is basically just a mini-list of what is going to come later in the article, and I tried to clump all the related things into single items—such as combining all the stuff about journalists' internet access and stuff to just a mention of general journalism concerns).

On an unrelated note, I was thinking earlier, should we do anything to allay POV concerns by mentioning (for example, somewhere in the lead-in) how the concerns & controversies have affected the overall views, opinions, and reception of the Olympics in general? (For example, something along the lines of "The opening ceremony and some other things were well-received by most observers, and Chinese nationalism/pride increased as a result of the games, but nevertheless there were also lots of concerns.") On the one hand, since this is specifically an article on the concerns and controversies then there is no need to go too in-depth into positive critiques of the Olympics, but on the other hand it would still be nice to avoid seeming like an entirely negative article, and just to make it clear that, even though this article is listing concerns and criticisms, the games consisted of more than just negative things. Do you have any thoughts on whether we could add a few comments to the article to that effect, and where/how we could do it? — Politizer^{(  talk •  contribs )} 06:45, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I've expanded the lead-in a little bit, as described in my comments above (not really adding any new information, but just more clarification on the things already mentioned in the lead-in). Let me know if it looks ok. — Politizer^{(  talk •  contribs )} 07:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• Looking good. I'll dig around for something suitable to counter the overall negative gloss. Ohconfucius ( talk) 07:20, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

• How the paragraph is phrased could still pose some problems: I am not sure Rogge categorically stated in his closing speech that 'these were truly exceptional games... in spite of the controversies', although it may certainly be implied from his words before, during and after. We need to examine the entire closing speech to see if he explicitly said that, and then find an acceptable verbatim quote for the article. What we do have quotes for are that (a) controversies were inevitable (before the games began), and (b)that they were outstanding (during the closing ceremony). Because some of those controversies during the games were rather big issues, putting (a) and (b) together like what we now have could be considered original research. Do you see what I am getting at? Ohconfucius ( talk) 06:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• I haven't read or heard Rogge's speech, but I trust your understanding of it. Personally I was just trying to clean up the writing style and keep the ideas coherent. If you think there really are OR concerns in the current wording then you are free to clean it up; I don't think, though, that the last sentence of the lead-in is erroneously putting together ideas like you say it is. (a) is irrelevant (at least in the way the intro is worded right now) to (b); we're not saying that "[ Rogge said [they were successful in spite of the controversies] ]," but rather "[ in spite of the controversies, [Rogge said [they were successful] ] ]." That probably sounds a little nitpicky, but I think it's significant: as you have pointed out, it would be false to claim that Rogge himself explicitly said anything to that effect, but I think it's fine for us to say essentially "There were controversies. But Rogge praised the game anyway." That is the idea that I meant to convey with that last edit. — Politizer^{(  talk •  contribs )} 06:52, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
• Having re-read the lead again, I would agree with you. It's a fine line, and I think we haven't crossed it, after all. Ohconfucius ( talk) 09:13, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• I have to confess that script-assisted date audit was supplemented by a substantial manual effort. Therein, I used both a line-by-line and a S&R way of eliminating the access dates to get rid of blank fields. By those means I also removed the automated (template-based) date-linking (of ISO format dates) which I detest. By simply removing the 'accessdate=', and hey presto, the date field becomes invisible! So, it was completely intentional. No more wikilinking! Ohconfucius ( talk) 15:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
  • That's ok, and I have done what I can to remove the ISO dates in about the first half of the article. I agree that we should remove empty parameters such as 'accessdate= ', but I don't think we should remove accessdate when a date is actually given, as that information is important to the citation.
  • Also, by the way, I left some comments at talk, and I would value your input if you have a moment to comment! Thanks, — Politizer^{(  talk •  contribs )} 15:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

• Sure I'll have a look, and leave some comments there. Ohconfucius ( talk) 15:53, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I am reviewing your article Gunnerkrigg Court for GA. I have placed some comments on the GA review page: Talk:Gunnerkrigg Court/GA1. (It looks like the first reviewer did not actually start a review page, as this one would be called Talk:Gunnerkrigg Court/GA2 if he had.) I promise to be responsive to all of your comments and feel free to contact me. Regards, — Mattisse ( Talk) 23:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Posted with the following comment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Comics/Webcomics work group: Wikipedia and You: "From comixpedia, an analysis of what has been going on in Wikipedia about wecomics. Suggest reading for perspective." I did notice on the talk page that your article had been deleted on 2006-02-09! — Mattisse ( Talk) 02:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link! I'm going to go read it right now (if I can get myself to stop fiddling with the sizes of the images in that article). Regarding the article deletion, yeah, I noticed that too, and I still haven't figured out what happened there (and have been too lazy to investigate in the history). That deletion happened over two years before I was on Wikipedia, so apparently somewhere along the line someone reinstated the article and User:Terraskye did a lot of work on it before I came along, so I can't really take credit for much of the work that's been done on the article. — Politizer^{(  talk •  contribs )} 02:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Since it was decided at AfD nomination that lolrus should redirect to lolcat, I don't see why lolcat should not describe or even mention lolrus Netrat ( talk) 00:03, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

You removed my contrib to TS because my work is a work of fiction: however, it is a work that is loved by teenagers with TS because it explains their condition in understandable lang. and because it shows a role model who suffers from TS. Furthermore, the book's page has been updated to explicitly mention TS. I would appreciate you contacting me at ****** and inform me whether I should go back and place my book in the TS page's further reading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Doc Perel ( talk • contribs) 21:36, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

It`s not a blog page, take a closer look. And yes, that thread concerns Roy`s armor and many other important things. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.141.91.219 ( talk) 00:23, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

On 24 October, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article re-education through labor, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

My apologies. I was removing numerous spam links (as well as some text written in Arabic or something) at the very bottom of the page, and in the middle of it, I started getting a "server having problems" (or something) message when I saved the changes. I just looked the page over and didn't see anything important removed, though. And I was going to make a note of it on the God of War talk page, but as I said above, I kept getting those messages. If you'd like to see confirmation of the stuff I removed, revert one of the God of War pages back to undo my deletions and take a look at the very bottom of it. Once again, I apologize for not being able to post a message about it due to server issues. Spartan198 ( talk) 08:03, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Spartan198

Okay, I've made a note of the changes on the talk page for God of War (video game). Spartan198 ( talk) 08:27, 25 October 2008 (UTC) Spartan198

Those links were all red and led nowhere. I know, because I clicked on each one of them. All they took me to was the "create-a-page" screen. I haven't seen anything like that on any other articles I've looked at. Spartan198 ( talk) 02:57, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Spartan198

ar:غود أوف وور + bg:God of War + ca:God of War + de:God of War + es:God of War + fa:خدای جنگ + fr:God of War + it:God of War + he:אל המלחמה (משחק וידאו) + nl:God of War + ja:ゴッド・オブ・ウォー + pl:God of War + pt:God of War + ru:God of War (игра) + sr:God of War + fi:God of War + sv:God of War + zh:戰神 (遊戲)

This was what I deleted, but before I actually did the deletions, all links were colored red and led to the "create-a-page" screen. If they were works in progress that someone was in the process of completing or something, then I didn't know and apologize for it. But like I said, they led nowhere when I clicked on them prior to deleting. That was my reason. They were visible on the main page, beneath the God of War series spoiler tag. Spartan198 ( talk) 03:08, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Spartan198

Okay, I'll keep that in mind. Glad we could clear this up. Spartan198 ( talk) 12:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC) Spartan198

I, too, doubt that the image is self-created. The reason I removed the tag was simply that it wasn't appropriate at the time I tagged it: the tag was only appropriate if no copyright tag was present and if no source were listed, and both were given. It would make sense, especially if you have other evidence against this being self-created, to list it at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Nyttend ( talk) 16:38, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

My reply here. – RyanCross ( talk) 05:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

		The Hidden Page Barnstar
		I award you one for finding Trekphiler's page for people who always think that "new message" bar is real. Aren't you glad you checked your mail? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 21:40, 26 October 2008 (UTC) (BTW, how do I get the {{click}} template to work?)

Thanks. Am I right I could swap out the Wikiglobe with no glitches? And can I add a caption? (I'd like to keep the "AOL"ishness.) If I can't, I can always look for a phone gif or something... Which reminds me: is there a way I can avoid trouble with using svgs here, & in userboxes (which always seem to crash on them)? TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 22:17, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Not a biggie. I found a Brit 'net booth pic that will do nicely. Thanks again. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 22:25, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Have a peek now. ;D TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 22:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh - I presumed the original reviewer would have done that, and I finished reviewing the article as he's on a WikiBreak ATM. Thanks for pointing it out! Dendodge Talk ^Contribs 23:21, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem! Thanks for informing me. Tony (talk) 02:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, Thanks for replying to the question on my talk page from Klutzulmaniack. Just to let you know, I've copied the question and your response over to their talk page. I'll watch the page for a few days in case your reply wasn't sufficient. -- Ged UK ( talk) 08:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)