User talk:Gladys j cortez/Archive4

Archives
Archive the first Archive the second Archive the third Archive the fourth Archive the fifth Archive the sixth Archive the seventh Archive the eighth Archive the ninth Archive the tenth

RE:Fastoon

OK, i will jus leave Fastoon as a redirect, i know that article was not suitable for Wikipedia, besides there is already a article about Fastoon on the Ratchet & Clank Wiki. Moon Star X1 (talk) 04:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Blindness

I guess I was, as I added those without knowing they were from separate issues. I'll try to remember the cite thing for the future. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:52, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

thanks

You are correct, and I've redacted the motivation part. DGG (talk) 18:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a Note

Per the conversation at DGG's page - I think the "timewasters" and "rpgnet" are determined as objective, unbiased, and reliable sites for reviews on board games/rpgsand board game related/rpg game related products. They rely on real names, are reviewed before posting, and also have opinion. Also, my idea is to restore the Blood Angels page, turn it into a discussion of their individual appearance in multiple media (a handful of books, a video game, a planned movie, some gaming books and some models), and have Dante as a small section under one game. There was a major UK comic book award for the one product (Blood Quest I think its called). I just started looking into this, and I don't know much about the topic. But what I have found so far (review wise, product specs from third party sites), make it seem like I can find enough to make an article that can be neutral, include criticism and critiques, discuss product history, and all sorts of stuff that could warrant a GA. I hope this make sense. Ottava Rima (talk) 20:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd say feel free to work on an article in your user space to see if something workable can be created from what you've got. Make sure to separate reviews properly, though. A review of a video game with the Blood Angels is not the same as a review of the Blood Angels themselves. There will be some overlap, of course, but keep that in mind. The original Blood Angels article was overly filled with in-universe writing. If you start from that you'll need to cut it down severely. Pagrashtak 16:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to know what sources that information comes from. I see that there are books, comics, and video games, so I assume there are different plots. Do you have enough knowledge? If I can't find anyone, I'll risk chopping out what I can't verify or track down (plot summaries on Amazon seem to help a little). Ottava Rima (talk) 05:05, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't, sorry. You could try asking at Wikipedia:WikiProject Warhammer 40,000. Pagrashtak 13:41, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Why did you move List of Forgotten Realms deities/Merge proposal?

The proposal goes here, it gets discussed here. Plus you left red links so no one can find it. I am moving it back. LA @ 14:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks like I was changing it back when you sent me your message about this. I still moved it back since the proposal is so long that it would be better to have the proposal on one page and the discussion on its talk page. A talk page doesn't have a talk page. So to keep the proposal "clear," it needs to be seperate from the discussion, IMO. LA @ 14:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

As the proposal is a sub-page of the main page, I did not see the harm of putting it there. As I said the proposal is rather long, so a seperate discussion page is needed to keep the proposal "clear." Any changes to the proposal should be discussed on a seperate page. As the proposal is so specific, I don't think that there is a general area in which this could be placed and have the same impact. If you think of a place, let me know; and I will move it there. LA (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 14:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Move to WikiProject Dungeons & Dragons done. Some links were outright changed, others left since the conversation continued prior to this. Please delete that page AND its talk page. LA (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 15:12, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the mess. LA (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 15:19, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

A small question

Why did you delete the Zafina article twice? What's your reason? Who agreed with that? Why didn't you delete this Zack (Dead or Alive)? Shrine Maiden (talk) 17:44, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't, I deleted it once. I deleted it under Wikipedia's Criteria for speedy deletion, specifically G4, recreation of deleted material. If you read the links I provided in my deletion comment, you'll see consensus to delete the article at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zafina and confirmation of that decision at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 February 8. If you have questions about that, feel free to ask the closing admin, Jerry (talk). If you feel that Zack (Dead or Alive) should also be deleted, please feel free to use either Wikipedia:Proposed deletion or Wikipedia:Articles for deletion to do so. Pagrashtak 21:03, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I can see the result was 4:4. Why was it deleted? Shrine Maiden (talk) 17:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion is not a vote. Jerry closed the AFD, not me, but I would assume that many of the keep statements were discounted. For example, the first keep statement, "Zafina is VERY notable, as she is a new character and deserves to be known about." does not mesh with Wikipedia:Notability. Being a new character does not mean she is notable. The next keep statement, "Every other character in the Tekken series has an article or an article that mentions them, describing them very well, so why shouldn't Zafina?" is a common argument that is referred to as other stuff exists and does not work in this case. I'll stop there, but that should give you the basic idea. Jerry elaborates a little more on why he closed as delete at the deletion review. Hope that answers your question. Pagrashtak 18:09, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Need my workpage deleted

You suggested that I create a workpage for the Space marine chapter list, which I did, and thank you. I didn't think to move the article, however, and to do so (and preserve the article's history), I need an administrator to first delete the existing page. If you could do that, I would appreciate it. Tealwisp 06:29, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Infobox VG

Could you change the code as the talk page shows. It fixes another problem as well. Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 15:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, MrKIA11 (talk) 16:05, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Pagrashtak 16:06, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I hate to bother you, but could you change the template again. The {{editprotected}} template doesn't seem to get much attention. MrKIA11 (talk) 19:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again, MrKIA11 (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. It's strange, I didn't think protected edit requests usually went that long without being implemented. Pagrashtak 19:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

co-noms for other General VG character subboxes

Fancy tacking the other unused templates in category:General VG character subboxes (such as {{Resident Evil character}}) onto the nomination for {{Virtua Fighter character}}? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:51, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I missed that one. Pagrashtak 15:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:FT Transclusion Methods

No, because FeaturedTopicSum is used in other places - rst20xx (talk) 16:16, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Premature barnstar

		The VG Barnstar
		For your janitorial work on the v0.7 workshop page and for beating me to transferring the oldids :) - Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 17:47, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Section protection

I'm just curious; is it possible for a section or info box to be protected, while leaving the rest of the page open? Tealwisp (talk) 01:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: links

Actually, full dates should always be linked as that allows the dates to appear in the user's preferred date style. That's also in that same guideline.-Jeff ^(talk) 13:01, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Call of Duty 4 main page request

There wasn't really that much of a chance for the article to begin with. I tried my best, anyhow! Maybe next year. Gary King (talk) 15:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Just noticed

Ahh...so it was you. Lol. I'll credit you appropriately now. :D --haha169 (talk) 03:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Matt Hazard

Do you think I should unpick it? - shouldn't be too difficult Nancy ^talk 14:29, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

All going so well - until I restored the original article (which according to the log has been done) but the revisions have disappeared in to the ether. Need to get some help..... Nancy ^talk 15:23, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

You've probably seen that they have reappeared - maybe a caching issue, maybe just slow servers or was it something you did? Anyway PHEW!. Thanks for the moral support! Nancy ^talk 15:28, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

I think you are right and it was a caching bug - looks like my edit to the article at 16:27 "fixed" it as immediately afterwards the history reappeared. Well, that's one to remember - I was in a slight panic for a moment there! Nancy ^talk 15:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

.07 Articles

I'll take a look, see what I can do :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2008 (UTC)