User talk:MAINEiac4434

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Playstation

Hi! I removed the bit you put in the PS3 article, but not because I think it is bad info or anything. I just don't think the lead is the best place for it. It is an FA so I think we should be extra careful what we add and where. While it is certainly verifiable some may say that we don't need to add these kinds of reviews at all as we will then have to choose who gets their review in and who dosent. IGN is pretty big though so I think it would make the cut. Maybe in the "Reception" section? Colincbn (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, I'll put it there.

USL Premier Development League Map

There we go mate updated the North America USL map.

talk) 01:21, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply
]

Re: Senator map

Hi MAINEiac4434, thanks for your note. I already updated Wisconsin earlier and in Connecticut Dodd was replaced with Blumenthal, who has stated support for SSM, so no need to adjust the map there. Best wishes Hekerui (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:UndeadNightmareSoundtrack.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:UndeadNightmareSoundtrack.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:06, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

W-Sahara's flag

talk) 23:28, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

AFD comments

Just a note to let you know that your comments on the talk page of 2011 First Flight High School protests and walkouts concerning the deletion that article has been moved to the AFD page.--RadioFan (talk) 19:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

IGN top 25

Hi. I have reverted your edits to various console articles about their placing in IGN's top 25 list. This is not because the info is bad, but more the manner in which it is used. Saying that a console as Xth on the list is not really enough to be notable (it needs more discussion as to why it is the case). Also, the lead (intro bit at the top of the page) is not the place to put it - it should go in the reception (or similar) section if it goes anywhere.

As an example of what I mean, for the PS3 one you wrote "In 2009, video game website IGN called the PS3 the 15th greatest video game console of all time, behind both the original PlayStation and PlayStation 2". This doesn't tell the reader anything about the console, only that IGN preferred the PS1 & PS2 (as well as 13 other consoles) to the PS3. In order to be notable, it would really need to say why it was on the top 25 list (things like "it helped Blu-ray win the HD video war" or "it has a great line up of both first and third party games") and possibly why it wasn't higher on the list (which doesn't seem to be mentioned on the page itself, but may be on some of the higher-up entries (something along the lines of "the Xbox 360 beat its rival the PS3 because…").

Anyway, I hope it's clear what I mean.

Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ (talk) 18:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

"You were very cordial and sincere in explaining why you were removing the IGN top 25 stuff…"
Thank you, I see no reason to do otherwise .
"…but I still question it."
Fair enough, everyone entitled to opinions etc. Lets see if we can get this sorted out
"I believe it's relevant as IGN is one of, if not the, premier gaming websites out there. If IGN chose the Intellivision, I consider that important, and I believe that it deserves to be mentioned."
It is relevant, I don't dispute that, it's just that on its own (i.e. just saying "X console is Y on IGN's list") it isn't really enough to justify inclusion. The article is about the PS3 (or whatever, I'll just use that as an example for now), and as such covers more than just its popularity.
A good rule of thumb is to look at similar things that are already in the article and try to follow the same form (where appropriate). Take this paragraph from PS3 → Reception → Original Model for example (which is about criticisms):
"The PS3 was given the number-eight spot on PC World magazine’s list of "The Top 21 Tech Screwups of 2006", where it was criticized for being "Late, Expensive and Incompatible". GamesRadar ranked the PS3 as the top item in a feature on game-related PR disasters, asking how Sony managed to "take one of the most anticipated game systems of all time and — within the space of a year — turn it into a hate object reviled by the entire internet", but added that despite its problems the system has "untapped potential". Business Week summed up the general opinion by stating that it was "more impressed with what [the PlayStation 3] could do than with what it currently does"."
Each sentence points out the opinion of the publication, followed by reasons. If the reasons are not included, the entire reception section could be removed and replaced with a list of people/publications that liked it and disliked it (or something to that effect). Doing so would be a bad idea though, as would not offer any critical analysis of the PS3. The point of the page is to provide information (in this case on the strengths and weaknesses of the system), not to provide a list of those who rated it well/poorly. Also it helps to put things in perspective - if loads of publications criticise for one main point, and others praise it for many varying ones it shows a broader range of opinion (and as such is likely to be closer to community opinion at large… fanboys aside of course). Naturally, if it were part of a list of awards etc (for an example, see the table on the right of Fallout: New Vegas#Reception), its inclusion simply as-is would be OK, but such a list is not in place (mainly due to the analysis, which is almost always preferable to a plain list… that and simple lists are rarely added to console articles).
If you're still not sure about anything, you can always contact me again and discuss it further. Cheers, Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ (talk) 20:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Plato Truman

Do you have a source for Truman running for office as a U.S. Labor Party member? I found a source which says he campaigned in 1986 as a member of "Labor for Maine", an unrelated party.   Will Beback  talk  01:57, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure there's a mix-up, so I'll go ahead and remove it. If you find a source that says Truman ran as a U.S. Labor Party (instead of Labor for Maine) member then we can add it back. 08:12, 2 April 2011 (UTC)
I'm guessing that I just misunderstood when I saw "Labor Party" on the Maine's 1st congressional district. I apologize. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 13:52, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the tip - I've fixed it in that article as well. There have been a number of "labor" parties in the US over the years. It's a bit confusing.   Will Beback  talk  19:54, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Problems with upload of File:Romney.png

Thanks for uploading File:Romney.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or provided a license tag. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, select the appropriate license tag from

this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you can't find a suitable license tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:07, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

DYK for Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2012