User talk:MuZemike

Warnings

Note: Always remember to substitute user warning templates. For help on user warnings, see the WikiProject on User Warnings.
Older warnings may have been removed, but are still visible in the page history.
[Admin: block | unblock / Info: contribs | page moves | block log | block list]

June 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Zombie Nation (video game) do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.  

Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove unwanted links and spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia.

The external links I reverted were matching the following regex rule(s): rule: 'youtube\.com' (link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9sZG7Y7CdTc) . If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. an image or a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. If the external link you inserted or changed was to a blog, forum, free web hosting service, or similar site, then please check the information on the external site thorougly. Note that such sites should probably not be linked to if they contain information that is in violation of the creators copyright (see Linking to copyrighted works), or they are not written by a recognised, reliable source. Linking to sites that you are involved with is also strongly discouraged (see conflict of interest).

Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! XLinkBot (talk) 00:20, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Peer review for List of Nintendo Entertainment System games

Hello, MuZemike. I just thought I'd let you know that I have left you some comments on the Video games project's peer review that you put up for this list. I hope my comments are able to help you out. Thanks, Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 04:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm trying to get back to it, but won't be able to in a week or so. I'll leave comments on the peer review on that page itself. MuZemike (talk) 04:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Let me just reply to your comments really quick to help out:

• There's no need to link every region in such a huge list, but link it when you explain it in the lead, and I think you'll be good there if you decide to keep the codes.
• As for the merger, well, User:A Link to the Past seems to have a lot of issues when it comes to country representation, and if you decide to propose the merger again, I would definitely be in support of it.
• When I referred to List of Sega 32X games, I was more or less emphasizing the lead section expansion, since it will really be necessary if you send this to WP:FLC.

Hope that helps more. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 04:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Notability for Multiwinia?

Hello. I couldn't help but notice your edits on the Multiwinia article, and I have just two questions. The first is where it's noted that blogs are not verifiable (I can use other sources, it's just that one had all the gametypes listed, so it was convenient). The second is where you question the notability of the subject. Why do you think that Multiwinia isn't notable? NeoThermic (talk) 08:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

First, WP:V, the official policy on verifiability, tells you all about verifiable sources. It says the following regarding blogs and similar sources (see WP:SPS for the entire section):

First, thank you for contacting me. Hopefully, I can get the article in question on the right track.

• Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, knols, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.

Basically, blogs are self-published; that is, anyone can create them. They do not involve editing or fact-checking. It's like saying that I claim that Earth is flat, and I try to verify that from someone's blog entry claiming that it is flat. However, there is no fact-checking behind what that blogger posted, and that's where you run into problems.

However, the exception may be in the case that the blog by someone qualified in a certain field whose work has been published by verifiable, third-party sources:

• Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

With all that said, without having such sources that are considered acceptable per WP:V, the article does not meet three of the five criteria listed in Wikipedia's general notability guideline, mainly Reliable, Sources, and Independent of the subject. I also have not seen any proof of substantive coverage, and because of the lack of reliable sources, I cannot presume notability. Hence, that is my rationale for the article not meeting the general notability guideline and consequently my questioning of the article's notability in general.

You can establish notability by including verifiable, third-party sources cited properly in the article. A good place to look, as far as video gaming-related articles are concerned, is here at WP:VG/S — it's a list of sites that have been determined by the community that they produce reliable sources, such as IGN, Gamespot, and Joystiq. It's also a good place to see what can and cannot be acceptable sources as far as articles for video game articles are concerned.

If you can find reliable sources for the article that establish the article's notability, then the article should be notable.

I hope this helps out. If you have any other questions, please let me know. I always try to help others out provided that they ask. MuZemike (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The blog linked isn't just by anyone though, and thus could fall under the "expert" clause. Rockpapershotgun's report on Multiwinia is by Kieron Gillen, who is not only notable enough to have his own article, but as noted in said article is famed for his games journalism :)

I will add a few more references; the reason I chose the RPS blog was mainly for the fact that all six modes were described there, and the fact that the preview copy sent out to the press only has two or three game modes active, depending on what site received it, making it hard to reference independent sites for that info (I could reference the game homepage, but then that'd be a contrast to independent). NeoThermic (talk) 20:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

OK. I'd probably say the blog would fall under that exception and be fine in this case. Let me know if you have a question about anything else. MuZemike (talk) 20:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for your help. At which point would it be "correct" to remove the notability and Primarysources tags? What I did today isn't much, but I'm pondering where the bar is :) NeoThermic (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, go ahead and remove them. I might add a {{refimprove}} tag later on to remind that you do need some more sources, but you defenetely have enough to avoid AfD or anything like that. Sorry I didn't get back to you earlier. MuZemike (talk) 17:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (August 2008)

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 22:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The Island of Dr. Brain

Hey. I saw you tagged this article for notability. I'm not really sure what you're looking for here: the game is the second of the Dr. Brain series, and the other titles in the series made it through. I know that notability isn't inherited, but I thought that only applied for people. I found eleven articles on Google about it, but they all require payment 'cause they're from 1992-3. Since you tagged it, perhaps you could give me some help on covering its notability? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'll keep an eye out of stuff that I might see. There has to be something out there. MuZemike (talk) 19:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at it now. I tossed in some references; nothing spectacular, but at least enouhg to get something going. Is there enough there to remove the notability tag? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that first one, even though it's a press release, is good enough at least to establish some notability. You can remove it, but keep looking for better sources like those from reputable sites found in WP:VG/S. MuZemike (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep an eye out. Thanks for the help! — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:TheGuardianLegendEuroBoxart.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:TheGuardianLegendEuroBoxart.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:17, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: List of NES games question

Well, I don't know of a direct way to fix it to keep the names as they are, but one suggestion I have is to change link names like "The Legend of Zelda" to "Legend of Zelda, The" (random example) in the visual part of the links for every game like this. This should fix them all, but it can be a little long to do and aesthetically unpleasing, depending on how you see it. Hope that helps. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 00:00, 13 August 2008 (UTC)