User talk:Jhsounds/Archive 1
Welcome to Wikipedia!![edit]
|
Image Tagging for Image:Thomasbangalter.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading Image:Thomasbangalter.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 20:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Your recent edit to Wii (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 21:15, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
RE: Your edit revert[edit]
I agree that the main paragraph does allow for some redundancy, but what I edited out (especially RE launching with Zelda and the Wii Sports pack-in) is not information so important that it deserves a place in the first-section summary. The Zelda comment might deserve a small place on the TP page, but it's not vital info. If you wish to debate this further, please can we use the [talk page]?
Wii - "is the name of"?[edit]
Is that really that important?
| “ | Wii' [...] is the name of Nintendo's seventh-generation video game console. Its official project code name was Revolution. | ” |
To my understanding, "Wii is Nintendo's seventh generation video game console" is as effective, with less words, than "Wii is the name of Nintendo's seventh generation video game console."
Just because we had to write papers with 500 words or more, does it mean this has to be done on Wikipedia too? —Shanesan (contribs) (Talk) 21:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
- Makes enough sense I suppose. Sorry if I "bit" you! —Shanesan (contribs) (Talk) 22:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
LOVE - Compilation?[edit]
Which sources are you referring to, exactly? Each refers to the album as just that, an album. Why are you calling it a compilation when it's being officially promoted as a Beatles album? -CapitalQ 02:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- I'm well aware no new music was recorded for the album, but a compilation album generally compiles recordings in their original format, just with a fresh track listing. How can you consider an album consisting of only remixed material a compilation? Having it listed as such is very misleading, in addition to it being incorrect. The official Beatles press release for the album refers to it as a new album, whereas they referred to the 1 compilation a few years back as a new compilation/collection. -CapitalQ 02:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Also, the article does not state specifically that no new music was recorded for the album...I'm pretty sure the orchestral arrangement on While My Guitar Gently Weeps, among other things, is a brand new recording. -CapitalQ 03:18, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- LOVE is another Beatle compilation and one of MANY Beatle compilations. PLEASE stick to the complete discography link. Steelbeard1 17:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
- Your rating of the article was correct, and I'm glad you changed it back. Hopefully those interested in the article will use the album review links I provided to improve the article overall. LuciferMorgan 00:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Ref tags[edit]
Not sure if you realize this, but in this set of edits [1] you left two open ref tags, which did odd things to the article. All tags, including refs, should be closed either by using a corresponding </tag> or by putting the slash in the end of a single tag, as <tag />. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 13:18, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
- Errr, or was it just one? Well, you know... -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 13:19, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
Wii[edit]
Nice working with you on the Wii article. Thanks for your constructive edits Hongshi 19:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Why did you revert my edit in the Wii article? [2] Did you even bother to read the discussion about whether or not we should use the nickname "Wiimote"? Dionyseus 17:35, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- Well there's no concensus on including it. Dionyseus 17:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
- That's not how it works, for something to be included it in the article it requires concensus. Dionyseus 17:50, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Why did you revert the Swedish pricing? It isn't important enough? I don't see any reason for it not to be there! Lord Metroid 18:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
- No need to explain... Lord Metroid 19:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Hi. SOrry if I'm being a little dumb but where exactly is the discussion about a recall/replacement in the Wii talk page you mentioned when you reverted my last edit? Just couldn't find it.BigHairRef | Talk 19:03, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Please explian why this was taken off and it "non encylcopedic"???
You still haven't explained you first reason for removing it "unencyclopedic section". Please explian why you think that this section was "unencyclopedic".
You then chnaged your reason from removing it to it being specific to the Remote, then should you have not added to Wii Remote page? rather then just removing it all together.
Also, removing a section, then changing your reason for doing so smacks of someone who didn't have a vaid reason other then just not liking it, and then was thinking if reason to do jusitfy it. This is very bad and its not "helpin" anyone.
RE "RVL Numbering Scheme?"[edit]
'Just64helpin', please sign your posts when you leave me messages on my talk page. I know you know how because you sign your posts here. I asked you to stop pretending you were in charge because you told us to 'get back on topic' when we were discussing the topic. No big deal.--Thaddius
- You seem to think I went 'off topic' for some reason, but the guy asked about the validity of the project names and I answered that question. Please stop leaving posts on my talk page, please stop hounding users on wikipedia, and please stop wandering around wikipedia pretending to be in charge. Do not bother me on this subject again or I will be contacting moderators of the site. --Thaddius 03:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- I've asked you to stop contacting me. Doing so had nothing to do with moderators. Again, LEAVE ME ALONE. You made a mistake. I've talked to you about it. you won't do it again. Now get over it and STOP CONTACTING ME. This is the second time I've asked you. You may not feel that harrassment is covered in the wiki rules, but it is. --Thaddius 17:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've contacted wikipedia. --Thaddius 17:33, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- I've asked you to stop contacting me. Doing so had nothing to do with moderators. Again, LEAVE ME ALONE. You made a mistake. I've talked to you about it. you won't do it again. Now get over it and STOP CONTACTING ME. This is the second time I've asked you. You may not feel that harrassment is covered in the wiki rules, but it is. --Thaddius 17:15, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Nunchuk edit[edit]
I'm aware of the merge but the link is to a redirect page which goes to the link that you've put already. It looks better that the link at the top of the Nunchaku page appears to link to the nunchuk rather than another article with a hash. I'm quite sure there's no misdirection and quite frankly it looks better whilst getting to the same place.BigHairRef | Talk 23:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Wii[edit]
I can't do it right now, but could you change North America back to United States in the infobox? That number is from the NPD and only covers the US. TJ Spyke 04:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
WiiConnect24[edit]
Don't get me wrong, I think it is a cool feature, I just haven't seen reliable sources talking about it a great deal, so it seems strange to have it in the introduction, which implies that it is a feature for which the console is particularly important. It all comes down to what are the reliable sources taken with: WiiConnect24, Virtual Console, GameCube compatibility, the controllers, free online services? Which of these should we mention in the opening paragraphs, where space is limited?
P.S. "Very little electrical power" needs a reference, and is probably a little POV. Also, The current wording states that it is "another among the console's internal features", which is less POV than the previous "distinguishing" and "notable", but we haven't talked about any internal features before that statement, so "another" is a little weird. --Lethargy 21:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Removing comment[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Wii, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Chris Griswold (☎☓) 03:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Wii launch[edit]
An article that you have been involved in editing, Wii launch, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wii launch. Thank you. BigHairRef | Talk 22:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
hello[edit]
i want to know about fr 202 it is a famicom from nintendo that i had play when i am a boy i want s ome in formation about fr 202 Do you have some? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Encyclopedia a-z (talk • contribs)
Prod[edit]
You removed a template stating that it is a mode accessed through GS. You removed the template with the argument that it's in-game codes. I fixed it. It's a new prod with no argument attacking it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Wii availability[edit]
I understand the idea of original research, which is why I added the {fact} tag to the text I reentered. This information is perfectly relevant to the page, but does need to be verified - which is why I felt it was best to leave the text on the page and ask for it to be verified by a reference. Tim (Xevious) 17:40, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I can't see where it's covered in the remainder of the Wii article? I've just had a quick look, and these seem to be reliable sources confirming what had been posted: [3] [4] [5] [6] [7]. I'm happy to go with what you decide, though - I'm just happy it was given some consideration and not just Spyked! Tim (Xevious) 17:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
Daft Punk Logo[edit]
The logo belongs there, just so you know. Please check pages such as AC/DC. Brandt is correct .// 3R1C 02:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes it does states that, if you look at artist pages, only if that artist or band are signed in one or two labels, they're seperated by commas (e.g. Mariah Carey). However if they specialise in three or more, I suppose its advisable to seperate them with line breaks. So, for Daft Punk, I think we can just seperate them with commas. I'm on it! (SUDUSER)85 12:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I am using a script that automatically does this. If you have an issue please feel free to edit the script and fix it. Thank you, -- Darkest Hour 17:38, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
DP logo[edit]
Look here, if you look at many artist and band pages, they tend to ignore the rule in WP:LOGOS and add the logo in the infoboxes. My point is that if we don't use Image:DaftPunkLogo.png in any Daft Punk-related articles, it's gonna be orphaned and soon under criteria for speedy deletion. So, if it's alright with you, I'm going to put it in the infobox. Contact me regarding any conflicts. (SUDUSER)85 06:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Apology[edit]
While I still think that the AfD was a clear merge consensus based on the closing statements of the admin and that it should be allowed to be merged, I should have both conducted myself better in the dispute and discussed it more than I did, as well as not reverting. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Re: French Connections verification[edit]
Hello! I was able to purchase the book from Amazon - here's a link to purchase the book. I've been currently reading it and it provides a lot of information about the evolution of French music from disco to the current French touch music. Douglasr007 18:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Number of copies sold[edit]
Hey! If you've seen the interview of Daft Punk in Japan, you've probably noticed that Thomas mentioned that Homework sold more than 2 million copies. Do you have any link which reference this statement. It says that it was certified Gold in the RIAA website. If you could, please mention it on the page. I'm currently working on it to expand it because it's a stub. Please reply on my talk page and Thanks!(SUDUSER)85 06:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)