User talk:Mister Slimm
Signing warnings[edit]
Hi. Thanks for the vandal patrolling. It is really helpful to admins like myself when following up on WP:AIV reports if when folks leave u3, u4, and u4im messages like you did on User talk:Falcon9x5 that there be a signature with a timestamp (~~~~) after the warning so we can easily see when the last warning was left. This is especially important on IP editors. Otherwise we have to match the warning to the history and compare that to the last edit, with is about twice as complex. That being said, thanks for the warnings being issued. Most folks like you tend to use Twinkle to add such warnings. It almost automates the issuing of warnings and such, and it ensures that you sign. Check it out. Please keep up the great work. Toddst1 (talk) 00:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Ferrari Etc[edit]
Hi there. Please don't be so quick to issue a vandalism warning - I deleted the car and track lists as they are considered WP:GAMECRUFT and are unnecessary to the average wikipedia reader. Racing games should not list all the cars contained within them, else we'd have huge unwieldy articles for things like Forza 2 and Gran Turismo 4. If you still feel strongly about it, gimme a shout. Thanks! Fin©™ 07:46, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Pages such as Forza 2 and Gran Turismo 4 have happily had details of their contents for many years and it has been deemed appropriate for many years for a racing video game page to contain an accurate list of the items within it which are also listed on Wikipedia such as real-world cars and real-world tracks. I do not feel, nor has the Wikipedia community with the exception of you, that this accurate, detailed information fits into the description of "Specific point values, achievements and trophies, time-limits, levels, character moves, character weight classes, and so on." I do feel that it is covered by the dictum "articles should focus on the real-world elements of a topic."
- Both the pages you mention still include a list of tracks. So why have you left the list of tracks there and deleted it here? Also, the car list for Ferrari Challenge is important as for most of the cars it is the only simulation / video game representation of the car available.
- The 'average Wikipedia reader' only reads the first paragraph. So should we delete the rest of the article?
- The vandalism warning was issued because you keep doing this and seem to be unsupported in your actions. On a lot of the pages where you have wielded the Delete key, your revisions keep trying to get reverted.
- On Ferrari Challenge Trofeo Pirelli you don't even replace the section with an example of what you think is appropriate. You just delete it. The section you left on Ferrari Challenge makes little sense without the track list accompanying it and makes the section clearly incomplete. Removing the section on cars completely also removes the relevant information on the breadth of Ferrari's history available in the game, the games principle selling point. Also on Ferrari Challenge, why did you not remove the list of DLC tracks and cars.
- Hello again. Sorry, I was actually mistaken about Forza 2, that article's a bit of a mess. Gran Turismo 4 does not include a list of tracks, as you assert. You can't make a sweeping statement like "you're the only one on Wikipedia that doesn't want this information" and not expect me to take issue with it. Why should racing articles contains list of cars or tracks? Isn't that the same as listing the levels in an FPS? Sections on cars and tracks in racing articles should be confined to "there are X amount of cars, including Car A, Car B and Car C", any more detail is excessive for a wikipedia article. The vandalism warning may have been warranted the first time (seeing as you just saw a blind reversion), but the second one you just issued (with an assertion that I'll get blocked) certainly is not. Please be a bit more cautious with them in the future. As regards the removal (and not replacement) of material, that's just my editing style. If something is easily fixable, then I'll sort it out, but generally if I see unsuitable material, I'll just remove it. I didn't notice the DLC bits, I'll sort them out now. Thanks! Fin©™ 11:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Gran Turismo 4 refers to a list of tracks that cover all the games. Will you be deleting that article?
- If an FPS contains levels set in the real world, that should be noted, for example with Fallout 3. If a driving game contains a location that has an article on Wikipedia, I think it should be referenced.
- If you see unsuitable material and cannot replace it with a suitable edit, you are supposed to open a discussion on the talk page, not delete it, hence the warnings. Deleting somebody else's work should be the absolute last resort. Just because you can delete stuff on Wikipedia doesn't mean you should. You are not contributing to the content of Wikipedia when you do that, you are simply removing content. The vandalism warnings were appropriate because this manner of edit looks to be your modus operandi.Mister Slimm (talk) 11:51, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Gran Turismo 4 references a separate article containing a list of tracks for the series. It's comparable to the list of Smash Bros characters. It's more useful than a list of tracks that are contained in a single game only. If an FPS contains levels set in a real world, then certainly it should be noted, but those levels shouldn't be explicitly listed (which is the problem, that the cars and tracks were just listed). I'm not sure where you've gotten the idea that the removal of any material must be discussed on the talk page. Likewise, removing content is not improving the content of Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean it's not improving the flow of an article, the readability, the helpfulness, etcetcetc. Again, I made a note in my edit summaries of the policies I was enforcing, vandalism warnings should only be used when the vandalism is blatant. Thanks! Fin©™ 12:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Gran Turismo 4 still references a track list (and a detailed one at that). It even references a soundtrack list. With regard to level listing, perhaps I could make an example of Project Gotham Racing 4. There it would be appropriate to list the cities that the tracks are located in but not the hundreds of tracks themselves. In other racing games, I feel it would be appropriate to also list each location. This turns out to be a list of each track. Racing games and FPS games are not the same. Racing games are defined by their track and car list and little else. It is, for a racing game, critical information.
- Gran Turismo 4 references a separate article containing a list of tracks for the series. It's comparable to the list of Smash Bros characters. It's more useful than a list of tracks that are contained in a single game only. If an FPS contains levels set in a real world, then certainly it should be noted, but those levels shouldn't be explicitly listed (which is the problem, that the cars and tracks were just listed). I'm not sure where you've gotten the idea that the removal of any material must be discussed on the talk page. Likewise, removing content is not improving the content of Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean it's not improving the flow of an article, the readability, the helpfulness, etcetcetc. Again, I made a note in my edit summaries of the policies I was enforcing, vandalism warnings should only be used when the vandalism is blatant. Thanks! Fin©™ 12:00, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
- Hello again. Sorry, I was actually mistaken about Forza 2, that article's a bit of a mess. Gran Turismo 4 does not include a list of tracks, as you assert. You can't make a sweeping statement like "you're the only one on Wikipedia that doesn't want this information" and not expect me to take issue with it. Why should racing articles contains list of cars or tracks? Isn't that the same as listing the levels in an FPS? Sections on cars and tracks in racing articles should be confined to "there are X amount of cars, including Car A, Car B and Car C", any more detail is excessive for a wikipedia article. The vandalism warning may have been warranted the first time (seeing as you just saw a blind reversion), but the second one you just issued (with an assertion that I'll get blocked) certainly is not. Please be a bit more cautious with them in the future. As regards the removal (and not replacement) of material, that's just my editing style. If something is easily fixable, then I'll sort it out, but generally if I see unsuitable material, I'll just remove it. I didn't notice the DLC bits, I'll sort them out now. Thanks! Fin©™ 11:21, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Moving others' comments[edit]
Why did you move my comment on User_talk:Falcon9x5? Toddst1 (talk) 11:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for File:Superstars V8 cover.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Superstars V8 cover.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Polly (Parrot) 23:12, 4 July 2009 (UTC)