User talk:Miqademus

About World in Conflict

Hey, Welcome to Wikipedia. About your question World in Conflict is not RTT it is an RTS. You can see here and here. You see they say that world in conflict is a RTS. :)--SkyWalker 19:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Risk/reward cycle

Hi - this article was deleted because it was merely a definition of a rarely-used term ([1]) and would be better covered in Turn-based tactics. Thanks, BLACKKITE 01:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is also used in stock investing and other business models than gaming. If your article focuses on it as a math concept it is more notable and may survive deletion. Or maybe not...Alatari (talk) 10:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Ultima Logo.png

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Ultima Logo.png. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 00:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Logo ultima.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Logo ultima.gif. 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) 08:27, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your addition of this template to the Ultima series articles has created a major issue -- it has pushed the articles' contents quite a long distance down, to the point where no text appears at all! This is quite unacceptable, and I'm surprised that any editor would feel that this is a useful improvement to the encyclopedia. Because of this, I've disabled the sidebar altogether on every article save for Ultima VIII, where I moved it down a ways in the article as an example of an alternate approach. This won't work on shorter articles, however.

Please, also consider merging the sidebar content with the navigation box at the bottom. Two separate navigation systems for one subject matter makes for a terribly cluttered article; there is already a fair amount of overlap in their purpose. Thanks. -/- Warren 00:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Ultima-Mini

Template:Ultima-Mini has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you.

TfD nomination of Template:Inaccurate

Template:Inaccurate has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Orlady (talk) 20:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rtfm

Since when is Robert T. Morris sometimes referred to as "rtfm"? Do you have a cite? Neilc (talk) 01:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the nickname is in more common use, I don't think it should be included (and certainly not in the lead paragraph, with the connotation that it is "sometimes" used). Morris is now a tenured prof at MIT, so I doubt very much that is he "sometimes" called a derogatory nickname very often nowadays. Neilc (talk) 06:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Myth The Fallen Lords screenshot.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Myth The Fallen Lords screenshot.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) 05:21, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:Conform to template

Template:Conform to template has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for deletion page. Thank you. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 18:25, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fields of Glory

I asked for a third opinion on the classification of the article above. To cut to the chase, we're both wrong! But check the talk page for the actual 3O, let me know how you want to proceed. Alastairward (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping-back. I replied on the FoG discussion page. If you will allow me some time to formulate my answers (I have a full-time job, which consumes much time) I will put forward some thoughts regarding the WP policies, especially regarding sources, and how they apply to computer games, and perhaps we can both contribute to fleshing out the guidelines regarding video and computer games. Miqademus (talk) 14:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit concerned about your response on the FoG page. The crux of the issue is (as always) verifiability, not our own personal opinions.

As per the third opinion, it appears that either both or neither category is supported by the cites at hand. So either we include both categories or neither. Alastairward (talk) 15:20, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiquette notice

Hello, Miqademus. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Section here. Alastairward (talk) 18:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have added to the original thread [2] since I too have had some dealings with this user and agree with the points being made. -OberRanks (talk) 02:17, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The finding was "no evidence of incivility has been presented, so I'm marking NWQA. Gerardw (talk) 23:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)"

Miqademus (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The response to the accusations on the Wikiquette board was this; "Okay, having reviewed Butters' Bottom Bitch, I'm not seeing sufficient evidence of incivility that I think Alastairward should be sanctioned. He's been willing to follow dispute resolution -- bringing in a third opinion, inviting Peter to move to report him to the appropriate notice board et. al. While editor's are encouraged to settle differences between themselves, after a couple back and forths if agreement isn't reached it's time to get other opinions. If a third opinion supports an editor's position, why wouldn't he keep doing the same thing? Describing that as a "weapon" seems off." Are you going to talk about that? Alastairward (talk) 11:45, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is about your alert, not the counter-suit you raised against me, which this thread is about. I will reply in the original wikiquette thread. Miqademus (talk) 15:49, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

backup copy of wquette Miqademus (talk) 20:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I got those two mixed up sorry, but it was interesting to note your closing argument in mine; "Alastairward, plenty of incivility has been found, but too few editors have chipped in for an admin to take a definite stance". I don't think that's how it works. The alert was on display for all to see, only two unrelated users weighed in and they couldn't see anything wrong. Don't you want to move on now? Alastairward (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alastairward, in the infinite labyrinth that is WP, that anyone really finds anything is a miracle. I don't think many people follows your edit history, most who've been your victims would probably rather try to forget about you as soon as possible, perhaps leave wikipedia, and seek to fill their lives with meaningful and rewarding things instead. If we who argued in the wikiquette had been of the inclination and gone out seeking commentators, pointing to and directing them there, I wouldn't have been surprised to seen quite a few more. Also, people are lazy, and it takes energy and time to invest in processes like that. So that only a few commented does not mean few people care. You might even argue that anyone commented at all is a rather strong indication of the resentment you cause. You never cease to amaze me with how self-serving your interpretations of whatever was being said is.

Anyway, I would be more than happy to move on, but we have to come to an agreement on a few points. Of rather, you have to come to agreement with a lot of wikipedia editors about how to cooperate, becuase as it has been, it has been close to impossible to reason with you because you don't listen, you reflectively deny everything being said to you, and you don't care about other editors. At least, this is what it seems like. And it creates an impossible environment for collaboration and cooperation. Also, you have to understand that your interpretation of WP:V is far beyond what was ever intended by the principle, and not beneficial for Wikipedia. Regards, Miqademus (talk) 21:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just to add, the one thing AW said that is true and correct is that the wikiquette thread is closed and completed. If AW does wish to continue these habits, the next logical step is WP:RFC. I would contribute if so asked. A very important point also is that no one is "out to get" AW. This is actually meant to help, believe it not. Sorry to encroach on the talk page, but this was an important point. -OberRanks (talk) 21:47, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"If we who argued in the wikiquette had been of the inclination and gone out seeking commentators, pointing to and directing them there, I wouldn't have been surprised to seen quite a few more", you mean canvassing for opinion? Wouldn't you know, there's a WP policy to guide and warn us on that one. No, it's a notice board that is patrolled by the relevant people. I think the lack of overall response is valid enough reason to move on, never mind that nothing harmful was spotted (in either case).

"you don't listen, you reflectively deny everything being said to you, and you don't care about other editors", show me an example, really. Show me and say specifically what I should have done. Let's just get that out in the open and be done with it.

I could say the same about you, this quote for example; "The information you tagged should not be, because they do not fall under WP:V; they have all been non-controversial, non-synthetic, non-analytic, and immediately evident from primary sources for any lay reader".

Nowhere in WP:V does is say that anything is exempt. All material that is challenged must be cited or it may be removed. Non-synthetic material is that which does not rely on an editor linking A and B to get C. Like saying (Fields of Glory for example) is RTT because it looks like RTT games you have seen yourself. And nothing should be taken from primary sources at all. BTW, it doesn't have to be an out and out controversy, just challenged, which I have done, many times.

Simply assuming many incorrect things does not make you right. As long as you refuse to take on board the things that set Wikipedia aside from any other fan site or Wiki, there can't be agreement between us.

OberRanks, thank you, further dispute resolution is open to everyone, even if Miqademus spurns it. Alastairward (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ryan kirkpatrick

Sorry I didn't get back to you sooner. Could you specify which IPs made which edits? Any evidence (preferrably using diffs) that makes you believe that the 2 users are the same? Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:52, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for File:Cytron Masters screenshot.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Cytron Masters screenshot.png. 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 tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. J Milburn (talk) 16:00, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:40, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]