In the Punkbuster article you made a specific claim that people were getting banned from games, due to strings embedded in images on Internet forums. Theres a lot of controversy and hearsay surrounding software like Punkbuster and this claim is unsubstantiated. Also people tend to be somewhat technically ignorant and attribute their problems to the wrong things so there needs to be a source other than hearsay. I added a fact tag and I'm just letting you know so you can do that if you wish, before it gets deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.83.71.178 (talk) 13:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was not the one who added that claim, though I may have edited the paragraph where it appeared. Please do a little more digging into the article history to notify the correct person. IIRC there was a source provided for that claim, and it may have been removed for some reason. Actually, the source is still attached to that sentence, so the claim is not OR as you seemed to be suggesting. If you have a problem with the source, you should bring it up on the article's talk page to see if other editors agree. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, i can understand why you would remove the CerealKillaz link, even though it is the most active site about the game not sponsored by Wizards, but why remove the puremtgo links and other link that have been there for years with no issues? Meuslix (talk) 18:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Except that there were issues, as evidenced by the fact that this is the second time someone has warned you about it. The fact that you continually re-add them does not mean there are no issues. As to the "why", I already stated the reasons in my edit summary. They do not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for external links. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:23, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

except that the first warning was only about the Cerealkillaz link, and except for the fact that some of those links are vital to the community that play magic online. i am attempting to solve this dispute without requesting a mediator. but, you should know that some of those links will be returning. If i get blocked from editing Wikipedia over adding non-spam links, then, fine, i will simply have the thousands of people that are at my disposal across the internet to put them back each time. as a matter of fact, the only two links that i EVER ADDED to the EL section were the CerealKillaz.org link and the MyMtgo.com link, so please get your facts straight. please let me know if we need to request Arbitration on this issue, as it is obvious to me from many of your edits and many parts of your talk page concerning the said article that you are not connected to the community of players that play this game, then please let me know. Meuslix (talk) 02:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, please call a moderator. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:10, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think these two pages are relative to Mingw, Why did you remove them? Ollydbg (talk) 11:48, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They don't seem to meet the external link guidelines WP:EL, and I don't really see the value of having those links in the article. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:54, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that a virtual economy was part of Wizards' original design. Use of tickets are currency appears to have been a player invention. If this is incorrect, provide proof. Also, MTGO is now referred to by its owner as a Trading Card Game. Therefore, collectibility is inapplicable. If you have proof that Wizards intended the cards to be collectible (in the sense of having monetary value), please provide it. --BentFranklin BentFranklin (talk) 16:27, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have added sources for the claim made in the article which provide first-party statements of the intention for players to collect cards. Note also that a virtual economy does not require tickets or currency. If you claim that it does, provide proof of your theory. "Collectibility" is an English word, not a trademark; the cards are collectible regardless of whether the product is called a CCG or TCG, as both "collecting" and "trading" are advertised features of the game. Note also that collectibles need not be intended to have monetary value. If you claim otherwise, provide proof of your theory. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collectible is different from collectable. The first sense includes postage stamps, coins, art, and other things that have monetary value. The second means only able-to-be-collected, like Pogs. A virtual economy includes several facets as discussed in the Wiki page to which you link. See "5. Property Rights: ­ The world must record which goods and services belong to which user identity, and the code must allow that user to dispose of the good or service according to whim." The MTGO code does not allow users to dispose of the goods at whim. Trading is not disposal - that is covered by the preceding point "4. Trade: ­ Users must be able to transfer goods and services to and from other users." Therefore, by Wikipedia's own standard, MTGO is not a virtual economy in the same sense of Second Life (with Linden Dollars) or WoW (with Station Exchange).BentFranklin (talk) 15:35, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collectible vs collectable are merely different spellings, as noted in the article with sources from a dictionary. If you claim that the two words have distinct meanings, provide proof of this usage. For "disposal" of goods according to "whim", it means the ability to give away goods according to the desire of the user, as opposed to the desire of the manufacturer. If you claim that a person must be able to "throw away" virtual goods in order for the system to qualify as a virtual economy, provide proof of this theory. Point 4 says that users must be "able" to trade, not that trades are guaranteed to occur. Your conclusion is therefore invalid. Ham Pastrami (talk) 15:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, you are quoting an unsourced portion of the article. I have replaced it with a sourced definition, and it makes no such restrictions. Ham Pastrami (talk) 17:37, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand "disposal on a whim." It means the property owners can sell the objects whenever they wish without getting anyone else's permission. Users cannot sell their objects *for money* without violating the vendor's stated policies. Therefore, the vendor does not offer a virtual economy - any virtual economy that exists emerged from the users and against the vendor's explicit warnings. Therefore it is inappropriate to have the very first sentence of this article refer to the virtual economy as if it were designed into the program. All that was designed within their system was trading among accounts. Your source for virtual economy states that not all of their criteria need apply, but surely trading objects for money or some sort of real value is necessary if not sufficient. 69.95.133.32 (talk) 14:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're making a tenuous distinction between legal ownership of the object and a freely transferable right to use such objects. The definition of "virtual property" does not make this distinction (and again, it is stated to be interpreted with flexibility). The fact is that the objects in an account can, in fact, be traded for real money, and this is not against the vendor's terms of use. Ham Pastrami (talk) 19:31, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction, while tenuous, is very much ingrained into the community of player's mindset while playing the game. Each time a user logs on, they must agree that the objects are not theirs. In short, Bent makes a very good point. Meuslix (talk) 02:15, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that some of the things I originally said are POV. However, it is a fact that the cost of redemption is baked into the purchase price of packs. Therefore, I believe removing "players feel that" is entirely justified. --BentFranklin

Well, no, the point is that it's not a fact (if it is, provide proof). It is a fact that some players feel that redemption is baked into the pack price. Ham Pastrami (talk) 09:19, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When you purchase packs there is a promise that you may redeem full sets at no additional cost, other than shipping and handling. Since there is no additional cost, that must must be included in the original purchcase price. No source is needed in lieu of simple logic. Nevertheless, I would refer you to the Terms of Service http://magiconlinestore.wizards.com/help/tos.htm if Wizards wasn't redirecting that page. Try this instead http://www.mtgnews.com/F/Pages/1078455887477/006.html.—Preceding unsigned comment added by BentFranklin (talk • contribs) 15:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bent, please review WP:V, which is a Wikipedia policy. All claims (but especially ones that may be controversial) made in Wikipedia articles must be verifiable. There is nothing in either the TOS or the article you linked to that suggests that redemption would be free or otherwise subsidized by any other cost of the game. The TOS in fact states "Wizards reserves the right...to limit or modify this exchange opportunity...by...charging additional fees for this service." How you interpret their pricing for this service is exactly that, an interpretation. You have not provided any evidence for the specific claim that you are making: that the cost of redemption is included with the purchase of cards from the store. This seems to be something that you inferred, perhaps from early sales pitches. If you can find an old copy of the TOS or official marketing material that does suggest this, then that could be used as evidence -- however, even if that is the case, you can only present the facts, not create an editorial around them. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, you have convinced me on the facts. I now agree that "players feel that" is best. You can stop quoting Wiki policies. I don't need to read them for it to be perfectly obvious what style is appropriate for encyclopedia content.

The net effect of IPA as prizes is *identical* to selling the packs, not just similar. Packs in circulation (opened and unopened) that would have been from current standard sets are instead IPA and the amount of money spent on the game is the same, if not more (due to the lure of IPA in tournaments). Also, this paragraph needs some sort of conclusion statement about the impact of this on collectibility. --BentFranklin

Nowhere near as many IPA packs are distributed as prizes, as the amount that would be if they were on sale at the store. So the net effect is not identical, because the volume is much lower. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at by talking about other sets; I am only talking about the effect on IPA itself. The rest, at any rate, is more conjecture on your part. Again, you need to provide proof if you want to present it as fact. The paragraph does not "need" a conclusion that is not supportable with evidence, and that would be in violation of several content policies. It is not Wikipedia's job to publish opinions. Ham Pastrami (talk) 09:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The net effect per pack *is* identical. For the same amount of revenue collected by WotC, packs in circulation that would otherwise be from standard sets are instead IPA packs. Consider two scenarios: (a) current situation where, for discussion purposes, WotC gives out 100 IPA packs are prizes and sells 100 packs of standard at the store and (b) same situation but instead, the prizes are standard packs and WotC sells 100 IPA packs at the store. The two outcomes are identical, so it's not a matter of opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BentFranklin (talk • contribs) 15:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per-pack effect is not net effect. That's why they're two different things. Yes, having one pack given out as a prize is the same as receiving one pack from any other source. This is obvious, and doesn't really say anything. That's also not the claim you made in the article. The claim you made was that the net effect of giving out IPA prizes was the same as if the packs were on sale at the store. This claim is saying that IPA prices now are the same as they would be if packs were on sale. If you insist that it's true, then it would also follow that actually putting them on sale would have no effect at all on the current market (since, by your argument, giving them out as prizes is the exact same thing). I don't think you will find any other person who can agree with that, much less actual evidence that such is the case. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:32, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WotC said they would not sell IPA packs again. If they would then make even only 100 packs available at the store, that would be breaking their promise. But giving 100 packs as prizes has exactly the same outcome as selling them at the store (WotC has money and packs are in circulation). Perhaps we could agree on the following wording: "...so the net effect was the same as if they had sold that many packs at the store." —Preceding unsigned comment added by BentFranklin (talk • contribs) 15:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But what that really says is "opening 100 packs from a tournament produces the same amount of cards as opening 100 packs from the store", which borders on stating the obvious because it's true of all sets, not just IPA. I don't see that it contributes anything meaningful to that section of the article. Ham Pastrami (talk) 17:39, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's meaningful because Wizards stated they would never sell the cards again, yet they did essentially just that. Just because it was not a huge number of cards is not relevant. To the extent that they sold additional IPA cards, they took that value from the collections of their customers. The fact that they would make this kind of end run around a promise is very significant. It is a precedent. It shows that they are willing to break their promises. Breaking a promise is a very bad thing for a vendor of digital objects to do. It is a black mark on their record and it should be recorded as such. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.245.187.52 (talk) 03:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They said they would never sell cards out of print again. You took it to mean "No more objects of this type will ever be created". What they say and what you heard are not the same. WoTC is not responsible for your misunderstanding. 67.187.27.29 (talk) 17:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, so what you actually want to say is that WotC has broken promises; that is the claim that you should be making in the article, and trying to find evidence for. It doesn't do any good to argue the point if you can't verify it with documentation. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Do we agree that WotC made that promise or do I have to document that? Do we agree that WotC broke that promise or do I have to document that? Do we agree that keeping promises is important for digital object vendors or do I have to document that also? Keep in mind that if I feel I have to document obvious or well-known facts or logical lines of reasoning, I may apply that same standard to anything else written in this article

Ideally, you should try to document every claim. Stop thinking of it as a burden. That is entirely the wrong attitude to have for an encyclopedia. If you want to a place to vent about your personal dissatisfaction, there are many places on the internet where you may do so. Wikipedia simply isn't one of them. You absolutely must document claims that are challenged. You may challenge any other unsourced claim you wish in the article, but be sure you are not editing to make a point or otherwise disrupting the article in bad faith. In other words, don't try to game the wiki. We have guidelines for that. Ham Pastrami (talk) 19:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Warhammer Armies Orcs & Goblins cover.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. BetacommandBot 14:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Reversing secrets of reverse engineering cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 20:53, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Warhammer Armies Orcs & Goblins cover2.jpeg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:02, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Apache James

If you think you can write a properly-sourced article--and it appears you may have found sources--then you definitely should. I'll move the deleted content of Apache James to User:Ham Pastrami/Apache James and you can work on it there. When you've got it up to speed, drop me a line. If it looks good, I'll help you move it (if you need help). Cool? — Scientizzle 16:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, sounds good. Thanks. Ham Pastrami (talk) 16:43, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here are a couple other links that might be useful--I don't really know as the topic is a bit esoteric for me.

• [1]
• [2]

Keep up the good work. — Scientizzle 19:13, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Thanks for your improvements to this article, it's in much better shape thanks to your edits. Regarding this edit, the discussion referred to was this RFC: Talk:Baldur's Gate#Sorcerer's Place link. Regards. --Muchness (talk) 11:24, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've added a comment to that apge that says just that but it has no citation. Now I know wiki isn't really for this but where is this cracking link/method? I'd like to crack Chaos League: Sudden Death you see. Cheers. Stabby Joe (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More a matter for talk pages, but the reason I was somewhat snippy was due to your first line:

Looks like all the images in the article have conspicuous copyright notices, as if somebody is trying to tell us something.

I interpreted this as "these notices are clearly here thanks to WotC plants." Which would be, uh, me, apparently. Glad to see that apparently there was a misunderstanding somewhere? If you're willing to remove/strike this line, I'll certainly remove my comment as well. SnowFire (talk) 21:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was my initial suspicion that WotC was behind it, but I did not accuse you personally of being a WotC plant, and after lifebaka referenced the permission letter from WotC, which contained the instruction to include the copyright notices, I already revised that in my response indicating that fact. I see how you would feel that I was targeting you, but I knew nothing about who made those edits, which is why I asked about them. You're right though, I could have started on a different assumption and thereby avoided any chance to offend. And I also accept that this was a misunderstanding, with your initial response based on a hostile interpretation of my initial comment; I don't hold anything against you. This part of the conversation probably should have taken place on the same page as well, if you're concerned with how it looks to everyone else. Personally I don't consider it a big deal. You have my permission to strike that sentence if you wish. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But why wouldn't you also prod Lasagna code? -- Robocoder (t|c) 07:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who said I wouldn't? I didn't scan the entire list of pasta metaphors, I just came across the ravioli one. By all means, prod lasagna, I won't contest it. Ham Pastrami (talk) 17:41, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Is this article still under development or do you think it is good enough to go into the main article space now? I came across it while searching for an Apache James article in the main space. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 13:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking. I went ahead and moved the article back into the mainspace. Personally I think it could use just a tad more improvement to make sure it doesn't get deleted again, but I haven't had the time to work on it. Hopefully the community will make the effort now. Ham Pastrami (talk) 21:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I had a look through the article, and it seemed OK to me. I'll see if I can add anything to it. ~~ [Jam]^[talk] 21:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you comment on whether the problems at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Template:User_WikiProject_Early_computers are solved? If you think so, could you withdraw your nomination or explain why there are still problems so they can be solved? --Enric Naval (talk) 05:26, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have withdrawn the nomination. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:39, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Argh; sorry to stop by your talk page to disagree again... I haven't really been up for Wikipedia lately, and let me say first that I am glad you're taking an interest in the Magic articles, despite my disagreement with some of your edits - better for them to be tended by somebody, certainly.

But you said in a recent edit to the MTGO article "no more unnecessary notes please." I'm not sure if you disagreed with my notes in particular or if footnotes in general, but at risk of pointing out the obvious, "additional commentary" is precisely what footnotes are for. See, for example, Inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre and several other Featured Articles that feature simply explanatory footnotes that cover corner cases. Removing this kind of information outright strikes me as a bad idea, since the fact that it is a license is important but would distract the flow of the writing if written out and is generally irrelevant for most people. There are lots of explanatory footnotes in the main MTG article, too, which serve the fairly important purpose of making sure people don't add long-winded "corrections" to statements that are 98% correct. As an example, I seem to recall anonymous editors listing out every possible win/loss condition in that article when really only two are relevant and the others can be mentioned in a footnote. SnowFire (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My disagreement is with using footnotes to A)present facts that could just as easily be part of the main body (and in most cases, I did move them to the main body), and B)as a way of inserting commentary (that is, OR/POV) that is not derived from a source, as you would then have to provide a reference for the footnote (i.e. a footnote for the footnote). Perhaps it would make more sense if I had tagged each line in question with {{fact}}. In your example of Inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre, the notes are being used to relay passages from a referenced work -- it would do even better to use a citation with quote, and I don't think the editors there would disagree if someone made that change. For the specific edit that you linked, that footnote was left out because it is redundant with content already in the article: Technically any transfer of cards in the game is not considered a "sale" because, for legal reasons, the digital objects are not actually owned by the collector, but rather Wizards of the Coast themselves.^[11] If you believe that this fact should be more prominent, by all means, make it so by moving it to the lead or wherever else it may be appropriate. In conclusion though, for this article and these comments I don't see any compelling reason why footnotes were necessary or preferable, and they were in fact being used to insert unsourced commentary. I haven't examined the Magic: The Gathering article in depth. I may do so at a later time. Ham Pastrami (talk) 18:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
If you add defamatory content once again, as you did to Fairlight (group), you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Please ensure that you cite reliable sources when adding controversial material or criminal information about living people. See WP:BLP for more information. Toddst1 (talk) 22:03, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me? Do you have an issue with the source that was provided? Why is this considered defamatory? It is presented as a neutral fact. Whether you consider association with any particular group defamatory is your own POV. Aside from that you seem to be having quite a strong knee-jerk reaction. Try using some civility. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Raw Story is an WP:RS????? Gimme a fucking break. You linked to a fucking agenda blog that doesn't even link/cite any sources of its own, doing a hit piece / smear job / libel on someone. That's a clear violation of WP:BLP.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.205.2 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 7 May 2008

If so, that discussion should have taken place prior to appealing to higher powers. The fact is that you (or whoever it is I'm talking to behind all these IP addresses) made no attempt whatsoever to assume good faith. You instead left uncivil editing remarks in response to not one but two attempts by two different editors to add the information to the article. You did not try to open a dialog to get a mutual understanding of why the source was not sufficient for verification. Even so, there does not appear to be anything on The Raw Story that would immediately indicate that it fails WP:RS. Which is why discussion is important. As I see it, your aggressive removal and expedient involvement of administrator action exposes a non-neutral interest on your part. Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

uh. no. BLP is BLP. Toddst1 (talk) 04:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BLP states that contentious material should be removed if sources do not meet standards specified in WP:V. There was neither a determination nor a notice of that issue prior to uncivil comments being left by the anon editor and a hostile warning left by you. Had either of you simply left a notice explaining why the edits were reverted, that would have been sufficient. This is regardless of how the article was handled. Your attitude and subsequent actions were excessive and make a poor example for Wikipedia admins. Period. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:43, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found your recent edit of Micromanagement (gameplay) thought-provoking (see below), and I notice the appreciation you've received in some earlier postings on this page.

Re the Strider business:

• I completely agree with you that Toddst1 was heavy-handed and violated WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL, and that 76.30.205.2 grossly violated WP:CIVIL. IMO they should have presented their case as I am now going to do.
• Your identification of Strider as a currently active politician could get Wikipedia into deep doo-doo. The article you cited says the ultimate source is an anonymous e-mail, and such e-mails have been used for smear campaigns. It would be wiser to check the Web at intervals to see how the story plays out. Wikipedia is not in the business of investigative journalism.
• Your comment "It is presented as a neutral fact" is inaccurate. I know the following will appear legalistic and I apologise in advance for that, but unfortunately we're into legal territory here. If you had written "Article X reported an anonymous email that alleges that ...", that would have been neutral fact, although personally I would not have used it at such an early stage in the affair - we're not trying to sell newspapers here so we don't need scoops. There's a policy somewhere (I can never remember all the WP: alphabetti spaghetti, I only look closely at it if someone starts a fight) that in subjects that are contentious, including BLP, editors should write "On date X, Y said that Z" rather than just "Z".

I look forward to discussing Micromanagement (gameplay) with you. Philcha (talk) 11:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to Micromanagement (gameplay) are interesting as they raise some aspects that the previous version did not cover. Unfortunately at the same time they also hide the distinction between combat and economic micro, which is a significant topic on games forums that I've seen. When I started think about how to incorporate both the "twitch-based" / "policy-based" distinction and the "combat" / "economic" distinction I realised there were other aspects the article should cover, and that we probably need to discuss a wider range of game models. I've set out my thoughts at Talk:Micromanagement (gameplay) - please respond there. Philcha (talk) 10:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to be a pain, but you did not follow the recommended procedure Help:Merging and moving pages - you should have put a tag on the page "proposed move - please discuss" and waited for about a month. One consequence of moving without disussion is that it will set some people's vandalism sensors to brightest red with klaxons blaring, and you already know how some people can over-react. In this case I think the move you made was reasonable, although I would not have done it. But Revision history of Dinosaur for 12 May 2008 shows how an important article was moved by a vandal and quick action was necessary. Philcha (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see that note in the guideline you linked. Of course if you object to the rename you may revert and we can discuss that part of my edit as well. Ham Pastrami (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't say exactly what I said, but it does advise putting up a proposal and allowing time for discussion. As I said, I'm not upset about Micromanagement (gameplay) but doing it unilaterally on some other article might get you some needless hassle. Philcha (talk) 21:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your edit summary, "(its a bit silly to put all these requests on a STUB article -- please write the article before asking for assistance in cleaning it up)". That article was just turned into a stub a few minutes ago, after nearly half was deleted in a cleanup effort. Just thought I'd let you know. Thank you. --SWJS: The All Knowing Destroy All Humans! Nerd(Cortex Scan) 06:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I just realized that in my most recent edit, and apologize for not being aware of this fact earlier. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:49, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite alright. We all make mistakes, after all, were not robots, heh. --SWJS: The All Knowing Destroy All Humans! Nerd(Cortex Scan) 06:51, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits to the FD article are not attributed so probably can be accused of being WP:OR. Furthermore, they are somewhat cumulative and perhaps better placed elsewhere in the article (e.g. move the Zip stuff to the Zip section)or not at all. I'm about to make a major cut to the Recent Usage section, but thought I'd give u a chance to speak before I cut. Tom94022 (talk) 17:11, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and make your cuts, and I'll comment afterward if I have issues with it. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Darkstalkers3 boxshot.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) 00:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Darkstalkers boxshot.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) 00:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a proposal for a intergrated banner for the project here . I invite you for your valuable comments in the discussion. You are receiving this note since I thought that you might be interested.. Thanks -- Tinu Cherian - 11:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a proposal for a integrated banner for the WikiProject Computer science here -- Tinu Cherian - 02:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

merged per your suggestion samj (talk) 13:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An anon has removed your prod nomination of NimbleX. If you feel it should be deleted, then you'll need to take it to AfD. That's why I never bother with prods. Corvus cornix_talk 21:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You put that template saying that articles should be deleted as non-notable on dozens of articles with apparently very little justification. What were you thinking ? For example, the Novell Open Enterprise Server is a well known platform, and the almost 3-year old article has many refs to secondary sources to establish it's notability, and a simple Google search finds 478,000 hits. It's quite clear to me that you put almost no effort into determining if these articles were notable before slapping the "delete in 5 days" template on all of them (many of those templates were added within a minute of each other). Therefore, I'm going to remove those templates. Please do some research and actually read the articles before doing this type of thing again. StuRat (talk) 22:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slightly hypocritical, isn't it, that you're going to remove all the templates, apparently without regard to the state of the articles? If you object to any specific articles being deleted, that's exactly why the templates are removable. They're designed to be removed if someone objects to the proposed deletion. Blindly removing the templates is, at best, a lateral move. What you apparently are not aware of are all the articles that I did NOT tag. If you're uncertain of the cause for these articles to be tagged, please ask before having a knee-jerk reaction again. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You want credit for not tagging every article in Wikipedia for deletion ? Just what was your justification for trying to delete the Novell Open Enterprise Server article ? Your stated reasons that it contained no secondary refs to establish notability appear to be total BS. StuRat (talk) 23:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, there isn't a single citation in the article. Five of the seven print references given are published by Novell. Ok granted, the article lists 2 print references that are apparently third-party, but again neither of them are cited. If you think that's bs and this makes a well-referenced article, I concede the point and I don't have a fundamental objection to your removal of the prod tag. So now tell me what's your justification for keeping Mythbuntu and Archie? Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I get 1,240,000 Google hits for "Mythbuntu" and 690,000 for "Archie Linux". They are clearly notable. Your reasoning seems to be that they should be deleted solely because there is no proof of their notability included in the article. Using that justification an article on Winston Churchill should be deleted if it lacks refs. If the article lacks refs, do a little basic research to establish whether or not it is actually a notable topic before you try to delete it for not being notable. To just assume everything is not notable and should therefore be deleted is irresponsible. StuRat (talk) 23:32, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Popularity is not notability, and a ghit count does not establish either. If your belief is that these subjects are notable, all you have to do is add one reliable source and I will fully agree that the article should stay. I'm not able to find such a source, however. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you claiming that you actually looked ? Remember, we know you spent less than a minute between placing tags on many of those articles, so it's hard to imagine that you did any research in that time. StuRat (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that you don't actually know anything. In fact, you're assuming everything other than the one thing you should: good faith. Not only did I look at these articles days before, I posted a request for an expert to assist at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linux. You can confirm that with the timestamp and page history. And in case it didn't occur to you: you can postpone doing stuff to a group of articles until you know which articles you want to include, and then make edits to them all at once. Just because you act out of reflex doesn't mean other editors do. Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you're claiming that you carefully researched Novell Open Enterprise Server and decided that it wasn't a notable topic when anyone in the field would know that it's a very common platform ? And, in spite of the third party links included in the article that clearly showed it's notability ? And, in spite being able to find many links showing it's notability with a simple Google search ? I'm finding it very difficult to believe anything you say. Just why you want to delete all these articles is a mystery to me. You must be a type of vandal I haven't encountered before. StuRat (talk) 00:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't I already conceded the point with Novell? Are you fixated on this because it's the only article that you have an argument for? Calling me a vandal is a nice touch but I'm not sure what else to do with it. Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at your post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Linux, it looks like you didn't list the articles in question, didn't say that you wanted to delete them all, and didn't get any response. Yet somehow you use that as justification to go ahead with your plans to delete them all ? StuRat (talk) 00:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't list the articles because A)I hadn't looked at all of them yet, and B)I was asking for that project to look at the full list and decide for themselves which articles might be nominated. As you point out, there was no response. So since they weren't willing to do the work, yes, I went ahead and did the nominations myself. That is what I'd consider a logical follow-up, though if you say it may not have been the best one, I won't dispute that either. Granted, some of the nominations might be disagreeable, which is what discussions like this are for (you seem to think that your disagreement with the nomination makes me wrong to have even nominated it). You can keep accusing me of imaginary crimes but I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by that. Unless you're going to offer something constructive there's really no point in continuing here. Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If they weren't willing to do the work of checking each of those articles for notability (which, of course, would have been quite impossible, since you failed to provide the list), that in no way excuses you from your responsibility to check them for notability before tagging them as articles in need of deletion due to a lack of notability. This would, at the very least, involve checking out all of the included links and doing a basic Google search. Several of those articles had such links and many, perhaps all, have support for notability that can be found with a basic Google search. I only choose that particlular article as an example since it's the most agregious case. When you put that tag on them, and now when you submit them to the AfD process, you are stating your belief that those articles are not notable. If you haven't actually checked them, and despite your claims I see absolutley no evidence that you have, this statement that you have determined that they aren't notable is simply a lie. StuRat (talk) 03:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean I failed to provide the list? I referred them to the two list articles, i.e. the list of all distros on Wikipedia. That's about as complete a list as can be reasonably expected (every article I nominated came from that list). Since you're failing to grasp even the most basic concepts here I am feeling increasingly less motivated to pursue any discussion with you in the hopes that it might be productive. Yes, I believe that the distros that were templated may be non-notable, which does not mean that I think they must be deleted. Of course that's why I nominated them. Are you now reduced to stating the obvious? Many of the articles had existing {{notability}} templates on them, so I'm clearly not the only person who questions their notability, but even so you saw fit to remove those prods, without doing anything like reading the actual article to determine its actual merit or addressing the concern stated in the prod. At the very least, I looked at these articles in comparison to the full list of distros (and if you care to observe, most of the distros on the list were not prodded). You didn't even bother to do that. You just took a blanket course of action without regard to anything other than your objection to a single article. So you'll excuse me if I dismiss your comments as being self-righteous and hypocritical. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is providing a list of every known Linux distribution, with links to some 160 Linux distribution articles, and asking the project members to check them all for notability in a few days, or face deletion, your idea of a joke ? How could they possibly have done that ? I'd say a detailed check should take about an hour for each article. And, again, it's not their responsibility to do that, but the responsibilioty of the person who wants to delete them for non-notability. That would be you. StuRat (talk) 04:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you forgot already: there was no response to the request. Nobody said "sure, I'll take a look". Nobody said, "give us a few days". It was just me and the crickets. Had anyone spoken up, or demonstrated action on the articles, I would gladly have waited for them to finish the job. As is, the entire thing was left to me. I completely disagree that I would be obligated to spend an hour on each article doing research to back them up. That, in fact, would be the job of the persons who created them. They failed to provide verification, a cursory examination showed no evidence of notability, and that's perfectly justifiable for a nomination to delete. Instead of wasting all this time on my talk page, you could be doing that research yourself. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The authors did, in many cases, provide links that proved the notability of the articles, but that didn't seem to be enough for you. In cases where they didn't provide those links, that's no reason to conclude that they aren't notable, that means you should do some research to determine if they are (before stating that you've determined that they aren't notable and should be deleted). StuRat (talk) 04:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, the links weren't enough for me, or for WP:N, which is why the articles were prodded, obviously. As stated before, I did as much research as is reasonable for a deletion nomination. And I never stated that they "aren't notable". From the beginning I have stated that they lack sources to verify notability, and that their notability is uncertain or questionable. If you disagree with that assessment, then go ahead and make a statement right now that you consider distros like Satux to be unquestionably notable. Otherwise, admit that the nominations were justified. Ham Pastrami (talk) 05:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, your position was that you don't know if they are notable, aren't willing to do the work to determine if they are, but would nonetheless have deleted dozens of articles unless others happen to stumble upon those articles and prove to your satisfaction that they are notable within 5 days ? (I say "stumble" because you failed to notify anyone of those articles you tagged). I find that approach unacceptable. Had you actually recorded why you thought they weren't notable ("the above provided sources were from their own web site, while the following provided sources are unreliable because..."), then there might have been something worthy of a response. Instead, you put the same text on every prod tag, regardless of the sources provided, which shows very little effort on your part. StuRat (talk) 12:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reindenting. You avoided answering my previous comment, which I take as silent admission that your mass delisting was unfounded. What you consider little effort on my part is apparently still more effort than anyone else has thus far cared to put into sourcing the articles. It was also more effort than you put into your blanket delisting. How's your research and sourcing effort coming along btw? I've also now noticed from your user page that you are also an unabashed inclusionist. There's clearly no amount of justification that will satisfy you since your objection isn't based on merit at all, but your own aversion to seeing things get deleted. I think your claims to the contrary, such as with the Novell article, are actually just convenient excuses for you to engage in the behavior that you wanted to and would have engaged in, regardless. As evidence, according to your edit history, the Novell article was one you ran into in the middle of your blanket edits. You had already begun mass removal of prods prior to running across that article. Thus your initial comment that you would remove the prods from all articles because of the apparent incorrectness of the Novell nomination was just smoke and mirrors. You have been dishonest and disingenuous from the start and have no leg to stand on. Have a nice day. Ham Pastrami (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with StuRat. Many of those templates were added without any knowlage about their notability. As an example the Slax article had the template added while the distro ranks higher than red hat on distrowatch in the past 6 months and It even has a category of dirivitve distrobutions. I do not think that adding a 5 day expration date for many articles that are about notable topics like: Linux Mint‎ or Ark Linux is helpful in any sense. As StuRat stated do some research before declaring many things not notable. 24.105.229.99 (talk) 23:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also saw these tagged articles. We do not delete articles for being unsourced, just for being unsourcable. Most of these articles would probably make it if work were done on them, and if you are going to proceed further with them, it would be useful to give some indication of how a you searched, when you determined there were no sources for notability. Such mass tagging can indeed be viewed as disruptive, and in my opinion as an admin, StuRat did quite correctly. I see one of them is at AfD now, and I commented there that I hope you do not make any similar mass AfD nominations. DGG (talk) 23:26, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DGG, you are fairly well-known as an inclusionist (I'm not sure what your admin status has to do with anything), so I'm hardly surprised at this. Respectfully, I'll ask that you rate each nomination on its merits and not on the total number of articles that are nominated. I wasn't aware that there were quotas for deletion. If there are 5 or 500 articles that are possibly delete-worthy, then they will be nominated for deletion, and I hope you can set aside your own predilections to base comments on policy rather than ideology. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"ideology"? I speedy about a dozen articles a day, far more than I save--that makes me a deletionist on balance in a very practical sense. Only about 10% of admins do more. I made the comment I did because I do not see how you or anyone can decide on what is delete worthy in 60 seconds, and working in such a manner is not conducive to rational deletion. The quality of the ones you did make, as commented on above my those who know the subject far better than I, tends to show that. I have said frequently, and so have others, that mass deletion nomination via any method are disruptive because they prevent proper consideration of the individual articles. Therefore, the other eds. removal of them was fully justified. I hesitated before saying 'admin" in the sentence, and only did so because it seemed that you were blaming others for improper procedure, which is not the case. DGG (talk) 04:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not seriously suggesting that speedy-deleting articles that are bad enough to be speedied in the first place actually balances you out, do you? Your own user page proclaims that you lean towards being inclusionist; this is hardly a question of debate. If you bother to read my replies to Stu and your AfD comment, you would know that I did not make decisions in 60 seconds, I made edits in 60 seconds. I'm not aware of any blanket guideline on how many articles is a good number to nominate for deletion -- if there is one, please link it. Otherwise, I will stand by my opinion that removing prods without even looking at the individual merit of each nomination is at best lazy and at worst obstructionist. I also disagree with the negative characterization of a "mass deletion" which to me implies a blanket nomination on a category of articles, which I most certainly did not perform -- the large majority of Linux distro articles were untouched by me. This is all covered above in my discussions with Stu. Each article that was selected for nomination was chosen from a much bigger list. Each nomination has merit, whether you would ultimately agree to delete or not. But please, let's not repeat the entire exchange that I had with Stu, and let's not pretend that I haven't seen your !vote history at VG and elsewhere. Ham Pastrami (talk) 06:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• well, I thought being in the top 10% of admins for removing articles showed my objectivity.:) At AfD my !votes are about 30% delete. They could be 80% if I bothered adding to the pileup on the obvious ones. What you seem to object to is that i defend articles when i think they are defensible. True, I have a bias towards keeping what is reasonably possible to become a decent article, but hat exactly is what is specified by WP:Deletion policy. Anyone who prefers to delete when dubious is going against the letter and spirit of it. In any case I never use admin powers to keep an article against consensus, or take admin action with respect to overdeletors otherwise--I can't recall blocking a single one of them. DGG (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  I'm not faulting you for any performance of your duties as admin. What I'm saying is, deleting articles as part of that duty, when the articles have already been nominated, debated, and selected for deletion by consensus and/or policy, that does not represent your personal leanings. Which is actually a very good thing, that your personal leanings don't interfere with you performing your admin duties. I'm glad, and I certainly hope, that you don't punish users who have done nothing wrong other than being on the other side of a deletion issue. That's why I'm saying your being an admin should be a non-issue. Technically, it should also be a non-issue that you're an inclusionist. Neither of these things should matter, except for the fact that you've come here to argue against the course of action that I took, and to endorse the course of action that another editor (who, as I discovered, is also an inclusionist) took, based apparently on nothing more than your personal preference, and a questionable reference to your being an admin to give that personal preference more weight. I will respect the fact that you disagree with the nominations and you are welcome to !vote either way, just as every other editor, admin or otherwise, inclusionist or otherwise, is welcome to do the same. But I don't agree that the nominations were fundamentally incorrect, and I haven't seen any evidence that they were. I am satisfied to simply agree to disagree. This is quite clearly a debate over personal leanings, and I don't think that's going to be a productive discussion. Ham Pastrami (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, i'm biased as the maintainer so I'm not writing on BLAG's "Articles for Deletion" page but doesn't the fact that the man (Stallman) who defined "Free Software" and wrote the GPL recommends my distro make it relevant enough for a few bytes on wikipedia? It's listed as one of the few distros the Free Software Foundation explicitly recommends due to it's commitment to Free Software. It seems to meet the criteria of "WikiProject Free Software". Granted the article could use some work, but I don't think deletion is the answer. :P Jebba (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem to me is that the FSF made this recommendation based solely on the software's commitment to the FSF's philosophy, rather than an objective review of the software that you would expect from a reliable critic. I don't think the FSF qualifies as a reliable source in this case, and their endorsement alone doesn't make the software notable, any more so than an obscure athlete being sponsored by a famous company. However, that is what the AfD is to determine. Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:23, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well you may not agree with their "endorsement" but that's not relevant. They aren't trying to be critics or reviewers, that's a straw man. You think the FSF isn't a reliable source? Pfft. I'm not sure how to even respond to that. What is your criteria for notable software anyway?

Correct, they're not acting as critics or reviewers, or journalists of any sort. No, it's not a straw man, because I'm saying that is precisely the problem with attempting to use them as a source for notability. The FSF doesn't tell us anything about the software other than that it meets the FSF's own standards for "free"... and? You're arguing that this, in and of itself, makes the software notable? The definition (not my definition) of "notable software" is the same as it is for everything else, as given by WP:N: significant coverage by reliable, secondary sources. The FSF coverage is neither significant nor reliable. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's been deleted. It's not just FSF, but has been covered in a number of reviews since starting in 2002, all new releases at lwn.net since 2003, various interviews, etc. Distrowatch has covered our releases 26 times, including a full review of one release. Anyway, you got it deleted. As a side note, recently I've built a offline version of wikipedia for BLAG--I'm not aware of this available in any other distro (except OLPC). Jebba (talk) 23:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, and was already aware of hits from google, etc. The quantity of blurbs is not the issue, the reliability and significance (depth) of those blurbs is. If there was even a single (1) article of significant coverage from a source that met reliability guidelines, that would be sufficient. Having any number of unreliable or shallow sources is not helpful, as none of them can be used to write a Wikipedia article. If BLAG is worthy of an article, one or more good sources may eventually come up. This has nothing to do with BLAG as a piece of software, what features it has, whether it is good or bad, etc. We need good sources from which to draw information, and the presence or lack of such sources tells us whether there should be an article at all. It's nothing personal. Ham Pastrami (talk) 23:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right in that it should be covered by reliable sources. In the field of linux, what is more reliable than lwn.net? In the field of linux distros what is more authoritative than distrowatch? FYI, I'm not "lobbying" to have blag re-included or anything, I'm just seeing WTF the standard should be if those two don't count. Jebba (talk) 19:03, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, part of the issue is that the only sources being provided for many of the fringe distro articles is that they are coming solely from websites that are dedicated to the topic of Linux, and these websites haven't gained any recognition outside that community. Take a front-running Linux distro such as Red Hat or Ubuntu and look at their sources. In addition to articles from community sites, they are also well-documented in the mainstream press: print magazines ranging across domains such as tech and business, national newspapers, etc. I'm satisfied even with websites like Ars Technica and PC World, which are at least general computing sites and reflect that these Linux distros have achieved recognition outside of the Linux microcosm. This kind of coverage is preferable because we have some semblance of journalistic standard in approaching and including a subject. Proof of notability is not merely proof of existence, and distros like Ubuntu clearly met the higher standard, whereas all the distros that were nominated for deletion did not. Community sites like distrowatch and lwn tend to represent a specific viewpoint and focus (that of in-the-trenches Linux users) -- arguably their very aim is to document every distro no matter how insignificant -- and that's good for them, but that's not what we do under Wikipedia's guidelines. These sites can be construed as Linux directories, which is explicitly something that WP is not. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reset tabs. Which in NOTDIR applies here? The entry wasn't #1, a list of anything. Nor #2, Genealogical or phonebook entry. Nor was it #3 a directory/schedule such as a tv guide/yellowpages. #4 nor sales catelog/price guide. And lastly not #5: Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations, such as "People from ethnic/cultural/religious group X employed by organization Y", which is basically another "don't do lists" type of prohibition. Anyway, you cited NOTDIR, which #? :P Jebba (talk) 15:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was #3, which applies to "Directories, directory entries". Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From NOTDIR:

"3. Directories, directory entries, electronic program guide, or a resource for conducting business. For example, an article on a radio station generally should not list upcoming events, current promotions, phone numbers, current schedules, et cetera, although mention of major events, promotions or historically significant programme lists and schedules (such as the annual United States network television schedules) may be acceptable. Furthermore, the Talk pages associated with an article are for talking about the article, not for conducting the business of the topic of the article. Wikipedia is not the yellow pages."

Just because something could be put in a directory doesn't mean it's a only directory entry. #3 applies more to things like "List of $foo" or schedules. The entry wasn't anything like that. Jebba (talk) 16:07, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But if the only source for something is a directory, then yes, it is a directory entry, as evidenced by the lack of content that the article suffered from. The bulk of the paragraph you quoted is an example for the last qualification ("resource for conducting business"). Whether it is simply a directory/directory entry is plain enough in English. In any case, this is only one additional reason why the article was not appropriate -- either way it still failed notability guidelines, as decided in the AfD. And yes, here $foo would be "Linux distributions" and BLAG would be an entry as such with no apparent coverage elsewhere. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Blindly removing the templates is, at best, a lateral move." -- StuRat did right to your blindly adding the templates (which I at best can describe as a stupidity paroxysm). And just for the record: if "The FSF coverage is neither significant nor reliable" then your personal opinion is even less significant or reliable. I didn't hear of your existence (still not sure of it), and definitely don't trust your objectiveness or reliability. And quite a few people above seem to share my stance at that. Think of that in your spare time before wasting someone else's. Gvy (talk) 22:36, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has all been addressed in replies to Stu. You're welcome to vent but you add nothing of substance to views already expressed. You don't have to trust me, I'm not being used as a source. Come to think of it, I've never heard of you either, so how do I know you're real? You can see this goes nowhere real fast, I wish you'd base comments on something more substantial than your personal feelings on the issue. Also I'd add that fully half of the AfDs resulted in deletion. So if this about a popularity contest, you should know that the wiki community at large sees the merit in the nominations. Ham Pastrami (talk) 17:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be using the term "procedural nomination" in a very odd context without any justification or reasoning behind it - usually it indicates the person nominating has no opinion of the article themselves but are doing is because that's the due process (e.g. via WP:DRV or incomplete nominations). You seem to be using it in a different way to indicate a prod taken to AFD, which isn't "procedural" at all. -Halo (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify, are you saying that a prod is not procedural, or that taking a nomination from prod to AfD is not procedural? I nominated the articles because they currently don't meet standards for inclusion, but I'm not insisting that they be deleted. I'm nominating articles strictly for policy reasons, and I'm not endorsing one course of action or another, I would just like to see a decision reached on merit. That was my understanding of what "procedural" means. This could have been done with the earlier prods, except that they were all removed based on an inclusionist stance without examination of the articles, hence defeating my purpose. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:09, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that going from prod to AFD isn't regarded as procedural since it isn't required by procedure. -Halo (talk) 17:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, I have removed the phrase from all the AfDs, as I don't think it really affects the discussion either way, and I prefer to have people concentrate on the articles rather than the technicalities of the nomination. I assume this will satisfactorily address your concern. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:31, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that you've done a few edits on real-time strategy. A few of us at the VG wikiproject are trying to put together a team to push this article to GA status. (We're also considering the same thing for first-person shooter.) Either way, maybe you'd want to check in at our discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#GCOTW_.2F_video_game_genres? No pressure. Only if you have the time/enthusiasm. Randomran (talk) 03:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you tag the plot section of The Legend of Dragoon as being too long. I was curious, is it the setting or the story that needs help? Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 06:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it was either-or I would say the setting section. Ideally I think any relevant information should be carried in the plot, otherwise it is a universe exposition/guide. If the plot itself can be pared down to be more concise, that would be fine too, but as yet not entirely necessary. Ham Pastrami (talk) 14:07, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it. Larrythefunkyferret (talk) 03:15, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I'm currently reviewing First-person shooter for GA status, and noticed you've contributed to the article in the past.

I wondered if you might have time to look over the article, and help improve it towards the GA goal?

Thanks,

--  Chzz  ►  16:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On 2008-07-21T06:47:05, you tagged Character creation as needing Gamecleanup (so to say). Could you please elaborate on this a bit and explain in a few sentences (on the article's talk page) what exactly should be cleaned up? (Verifyability? Gameplay instructions? Excessive detail? Anything else? All of this?) That would be a great help in modifying the article so the tag can be removed again. — TowerDragon (talk) 00:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments added to article talk. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:15, 19 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you very much. Sometimes it is difficult to notice such things from an “inside” persepective. — TowerDragon (talk) 01:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Hector ruiz.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 04:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it for you, you just missed the tag. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 04:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The CC-BY-SA 2.0 license wasn't listed as an option in the Upload form (only the 3.0 version). I thought the Permission field would have been good enough, but I guess not... I'll keep this in mind next time I upload. Ham Pastrami (talk) 04:32, 20 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Dexplorer 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) 05:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The CVG Barnstar
		Ham Pastrami has been award the CVG Star for his tireless contributions to, protection of, and augmentation of the Game testing article. — Frecklefσσt | Talk

So you're saying that a picture that can't be seen on different PCs (dafferent browsers, different ISPs, different house - hell, different towns - I went to my fathers and looked at it there) isn't a problem because some people can say it, and the problem only effects others? Do you not thinkk seeing a red cross pic on a page looks "unprofessional" to a visitor?Darkson (BOOM! An interception!) 16:29, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that there doesn't appear to be anything that is actually wrong with the image, and that it should not be removed without determining the cause for it not showing up on certain computers. If the problem with the image is due to buggy or outdated browser software, or censoring software, for example, Wikipedia can't be held responsible for that. So far, you're the only person who reports having this problem. So, we have little basis to remove the image for technical reasons when only one person is reporting that there is a technical problem. Ham Pastrami (talk) 22:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why remove all the additional true and useful information i added on the HOMM 2 article? even more the link to the special editions of HOMM? whats bad about it?

whats your problem... revert please or fix it if you dont think it reads well. nuking doesnt solve anything

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heroes_of_might_and_magic_ii

edit: ive also tracked more damages that you recently done in various Heroes of Might and Magic articles. please read the discussions and do the necessary changes.--LPCA (talk) 20:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I stand by my edits, and frankly you have yet to provide any actual basis for your complaints. My edits are well within policy and conventions of writing. If you find it so disagreeable, you should fix the issues that were raised instead of trying to give me orders. There is nothing "necessary" about the content or style changes that you are insisting upon, and in fact they were removed precisely because they detracted from the quality of the article. Ham Pastrami (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see your point. Thanks for the information, but should I find a clearer, higher resolution box art alternative? Like one that's higher-res, but is still generally low resolution. Linuxguy716 (talk) 20:22, 4 June 2009

Under fair use policy, we are limited to images more or less of the size they are displayed as in the article. VG infoboxes typically set the image width to 250px. The current box image is 288px wide. If you can find a higher-quality image that is reasonably close to 250px, go ahead and upload it. I can't guarantee anything about how it will be used, but it should at least be ok under technical guidelines. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Restored. Please let me know if any problems. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 02:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

— Ken g6 (talk) 21:11, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For better and faster discussion between WikiProject Software Members a IRC channel has been created: irc://irc.freenode.net/##WikiProject-Software. For instant access click here: http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=##WikiProject-Software. Please use your Wikipedia nickname. You are receiving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Software or one of its departments. - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 09:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Homm2 GBC box.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 '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 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) 08:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article DXGM (video codec) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Nothing links here, merged into DivX#DXGM, this exact name is not likely to be searched for.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PopMusicBuff ^talk 17:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Patterson. Just some advice. It isn't worth your time. You'll never get the last word. The only thing that will come out of it is that you will feel frustrated. Just say your piece and ignore repeated badgering. Obviously this is just a bit of advice, not a warning or anything like that. Protonk (talk) 00:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm familiar with the way A Nobody (or one of his previous titles, Grand something or other) conducts AfD discussions. I don't expect him to change his ways, nor do I assume the other editors pay that much regard to him. I'm not sure if getting frustrated is even possible, as I would have to take him seriously first. But it's good exercise. Thanks for the heads-up, though. I'll stop replying since it is hinging on derailing the discussion. Ham Pastrami (talk) 00:39, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I don't inhabit AfD as much as I used to, so I am without a good sense of who knows whom. Have a nice day. Protonk (talk) 01:06, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've just reverted some vandalism by User:UnrealCoopNet on your User page, and I was just wondering if you have any idea who this might be? It was his/her first edit with this account, so I'm suspecting a sock, considering you were their first target. DreamHaze (talk) 23:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your vigilance. This is a targeted attack with similar incidents in the past. It is basically retaliation for the removal of spam and self-promotion in the Unreal article. My guess is that it is one of the interested parties or sympathizers (which User:Smirftsch previously recruited from his website forum to vandalize Wikipedia). However, I cannot say with any certainty who User:UnrealCoopNet might be. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ham Pastrami, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to FinalBurn Alpha has been removed. It was removed by 130.113.126.223 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 130.113.126.223 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)[reply]

Dear WikiProject Video games member,

You are receiving this message because you have either Category:WikiProject Video games members or {{User WPVG}} somewhere in your userspace and you have edited Wikipedia in the recent months.

The Video games project has created a member list to provide a clearer picture of its active membership.

All members have currently been placed in the "Inactive" section by default. Please remove your username from the "Inactive" listing and place it under the "Active" listing if you plan on regularly:

• Editing video game-related pages in the Article namespace
• Participating in video game-related discussions in the Project namespace (WT:VG, WP:AfD, WP:GAN, etc.)

Ideally, members are encouraged to do both, but either one meets our criteria of inclusion. Members still listed inactive at the beginning of November 2009 may be removed. You may re-add yourself to the active list at any time. Thank you for your help, and we look forward to working with you.

—WikiProject Video games (delivery by xenobot 03:29, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, noticed your edit to this page. The list was made so that we can purge the category, I believe. More of an FYI. --Izno (talk) 17:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ham Pastrami, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to NeoRAGEx has been removed. It was removed by Itchyandscrathchy with the following edit summary '(I have improved the information supplied in this article, NeoRAGEx was an important development within Windows Neo-Geo emulation and so this article should not be deleted.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Itchyandscrathchy before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:48, 25 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)[reply]

The article DXGM (FourCC) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This article fails to meet Wikipedia notability guideline requirements as lacks significant coverage in reliable secondary sources.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Fleet Command (talk) 22:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I saw that you took up the debate about an unofficial patch to this game, and some self-promotion taking place on the article. Well, I thought I had removed the unofficial patch info, but recently came back to the article to find it re-added. I've responded to a an entry on the talk page on this issue, mentioning your earlier clarification, and I was wondering if you would be interested in chiming in on the issue once more...? Eik Corell (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated DXGM (FourCC), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DXGM (FourCC). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Fleet Command (talk) 06:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Check the history page - Fans of the game are trying to get their unofficial multiplayer server list on there and are ignoring everything I say. Eik Corell (talk) 12:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I made a comment on your nomination for that Game Genie article. Since an anon editor insisted it was correctly inserted, I referenced the sticker on the GG itself, which clearly states the cartridge should be inserted with the label facing away from the user. Is a rough Spanish-to-English translation acceptable when it comes to proof in Wikipedia's spectrum, if that translation is clear and nonvague? FluffyPug (talk) 08:33, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the sake of discussion it should be good enough since there is both the text and the visual geometry that the cart is supposed to go the other way. If someone wants to assert otherwise they have to come up with at least that much evidence to the contrary. So I wouldn't worry about it. You did well in finding and presenting evidence to back up the claims. Ham Pastrami (talk) 11:40, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey i replied on the Project page but thought id come here in case you werent watching. Heres a Street Fighter IV TE stick image, hopes it is what you were after. Salavat (talk) 03:21, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that all you do these days is changing back to an old version of that page. JuanJose (talk) 09:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now you can have your own version of the page where you can state that the last patch is 226f. JuanJose (talk) 09:08, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In substance all versions of the page are old, the only difference between them is whether or not they contain unverified information, self-promotion and advertising for a particular mod. I help keep the article free of the latter. If you have changes of substance that you would like to add to the article, and can attribute them to reliable sources, then please do so. Changing the page to contain biased information isn't really progress. And if you don't mind my saying so, all it seems you do anywhere on Wikipedia is revert war. So I'm not too worried about your opinion of me. Ham Pastrami (talk) 09:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've brought up a new discussion about this here. Since you were involved in the old one, I figured I should invite you over. Prime Blue (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately so much of that article does not its current reflection of the service and appears its turning into an Americanized version of Metaboli. Ive been doing some rewriting when I can but I am not even close to done yet. JasonHockeyGuy (talk) 07:44, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You participated in a discussion on the page Folk etymology as to whether it should be moved to False etymology. Despite the consensus on that discussion, the move was effected. I have requested that the move be reversed. I am notifying you as a party to that prior discussion. If you are interested, the current discussion is located here.μηδείς (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Mm3 automap.png. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. RJaguar3 | u | t 04:40, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Mm3 automap.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ham Pastrami,

Just so you know for the future, the burden of showing non-replaceability falls on the uploader, as per WP:NFCC#Enforcement: "Note that it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof." Further, the first WP:NFCC criterion allows non-free images to be used only "where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose." (emphasis added).

Let me know if you have any questions about our non-free content policy. Thanks, RJaguar3 | u | t 16:26, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What section border did you mean?199.126.224.245 (talk) 09:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's such an old edit there's really no way to be sure if the layout has changed with the newer wiki software or templates. If there's no problem with overlapping anymore then just go ahead and remove the clear template. Ham Pastrami (talk) 10:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're nothing more than a jackass on a power trip. Go fuck yourself. It's immediately obvious from this collection of bullshit (read: your talk page) that you have a psychological complex that requires you to flaunt your level of being a douche endlessly. Please get this checked out. We care.

Sincerely,

- The Users

PS: We actually don't care. Just fuck off.

I have carefully considered your proposition and have elected to decline. Thank you for the offer. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you removed the following two sentences from the freeware article:

• Advertising-supported software and even malicious software is sometimes advertised as freeware. Terms of use for a freeware are usually defined in a unique software license and they may be very different for every single software.

Your explanation was: can be true of all software, not at all specific to freeware.

1. I don't think that you are right. Adware is usually advertised as freeware, not as a commercial software or open source software. (Please, give me an example, if you know about such advertisement.)

2. You are right that the "terms of use" for all types of software are usually defined in a software license. But in the case of "free software" the license is usually not unique for every single software and it usually uses one of universal licenses - such as GPL or BSD. By contrast, a freeware license is mostly unique. I think this information is useful and appropriate for the article.

3. You are right that every single software may have very different terms of use. But in the case of "free software" - if someone knows that a software uses GPL license, the terms of use are commonly known, clear and universal. By contrast, a freeware license is mostly unique and users must read it very carefully to understand the terms. I think this information is very useful and appropriate for the article.

Many people believe that "freeware" is only about the price and it can be used for any purpose and in any environment. This is not true, because many freeware licenses do not allow various types of usage. I think it is important to write about this in the first sentences of the freeware article. --89.173.67.199 (talk) 15:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are the one who wants to add these distinctions, the burden of evidence is upon you. You need to provide a reliable source that makes the assertions listed above. If you can do that, then I would have no contention. But it sounds exactly like you are inferring your own personal view or experience, which is not sufficient evidence for an article, much less in the definitive lead paragraph. But as a show of good faith, I will provide some examples. The infamous Antivirus XP is a commercial program that installs itself as adware that advertises itself as an antivirus, and asks users to buy it. It is part of an emerging class of rogue antivirus programs, which is malware that seeks to gain profit directly from its victims. My point regarding software licensing is not that GPL, BSD have fixed forms, but that any software program can release open source on its own terms. It does not have to use GPL or BSD, and in fact there are dozens of licenses listed at OSI precisely because many programs write their own license. Simply because they are templated and made available for re-use does not mean that open source programs must use them. Freeware's definition is "cost-free", as stated and sourced in the first sentence. Beyond that, any importance you are ascribing to the distinction between cost and other types of freedom is personal opinion and undue weight. It can be discussed, but needs appropriate and reliable sources to present as fact. Ham Pastrami (talk) 12:52, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Warhammer Armies Orcs & Goblins cover2.jpeg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude2 (talk) 06:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ham Pastrami, started a discussion about this topic here maybe you want to contribute. cheers Shaddim (talk) 09:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Night warriors boxshot.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 "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 images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 05:55, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You are a worthless piece of fecal matter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.92.243.205 (talk) 02:18, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:ASRock logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 09:51, 3 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

need help with a dilemma...searching all over the wiki about graphics hardware matters and U seem to know some...I´ve got a i5-2400, 4GB RAM on a GIGABYTE GA-H67MA-USB3-B3...I´m looking forward for a video card so I can play latest video games and run graphic design softwares like ArchiCAD or 3DMax...my budget can only look for a mid-high end card in both brands (ATI and NVIDIA)...would you advice me or tell me some one who can. p.s: sorry if my english isn´t that good, not my native language p.s: since I can´t search on internet for benchmarks, I´m betting for: AMD (HD5750, HD5770, HD5850, HD6790, HD6850) NVIDIA (GTX460, GTX550Ti, GTX560) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcap0000 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For buying advice I would recommend using a tech site's forum to ask questions or benchmarking charts to compare the products you are considering. For example, Tom's has both of these resources. Unfortunately I don't follow individual product releases or pricing trends so cannot give reliable spontaneous advice for purchases. Good luck with your search. Ham Pastrami (talk) 08:29, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please contribute to the poll on Talk:Windows RT. (You are being asked because you commented on MS Surface.) Tuntable (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ham Pastrami, I noticed that a few years ago you'd added 2 books to the Misc publishers section of the WP:VG Reference Library, but you didn't list yourself as a contact. I was wondering if you intended to be the contact for these sources or if they were just two books you knew of that weren't yet on the list. If you intended to be listed as a contact, then I'd like to add your name. If it's just two video game related books you know about, though, I'd prefer to move them to the talk page for now since the page is intended as a list of contact points more than it is a list of books. Does that sound reasonable? I know you haven't been editing very actively recently, but please let me know when you get a chance. Thanks. -Thibbs (talk) 11:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I misunderstood the purpose of the list. You can do what you like with those references. Ham Pastrami (talk) 09:06, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. I've made the move here and here. Thanks for shedding some light on this. Happy editing and hope to see you around the 'pedia. -Thibbs (talk) 21:41, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article VirusTotal is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/VirusTotal until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The Banner talk 13:08, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article Timeskip has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

We are not TV Tropes.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Don Cuan (talk) 17:08, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article List of Unreal characters has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A chaotic article without any reliable source. Fails every Wikipedia guideline.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Λeternus ^(talk) 10:48, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Unreal characters is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Unreal characters until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Λeternus ^(talk) 10:46, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

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) 17:30, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in the discussion at Template talk:Short pages monitor#Need to define and possibly rethink this template. —Anomalocaris (talk) 23:42, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Unreal characters is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Unreal characters (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 07:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of games with XInput support is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of games with XInput support until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. The1337gamer (talk) 11:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Cygames, Ham Pastrami!

Wikipedia editor Elliot321 just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Thank you for creating this useful article! You may want to split page content into more sections, instead of including all of the article text in the lead.

To reply, leave a comment on Elliot321's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Elliot321 (talk) 14:00, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The article Timeskip has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Per WP:NOTDIC. Does not meet WP:GNG; no RS found in Google, Books, News Archive or Scholar searches.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Miniapolis 18:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Cygames logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Might and Magic Trilogy box cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:30, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Form factors has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 17:07, 22 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Timeskip is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Timeskip until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Compsci. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Compsci redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. Magioladitis (talk) 12:03, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on First-person shooter (disambiguation) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G14 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a disambiguation page which either

• disambiguates only one extant Wikipedia page and whose title ends in "(disambiguation)" (i.e., there is a primary topic);
• disambiguates zero extant Wikipedia pages, regardless of its title; or
• is an orphaned redirect with a title ending in "(disambiguation)" that does not target a disambiguation page or page that has a disambiguation-like function.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such pages may be deleted at any time. Please see the disambiguation page guidelines for more information.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article Ultra ATX has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

This should not be a separate article. There aren't enough sources to establish the notability of Ultra ATX (can't find anything outside of the Soderstrom article currently on the page), and even if there were, that content should be collapsed into ATX instead.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. HyperAccelerated (talk) 18:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ham Pastrami, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

While your contributions are appreciated, I wanted to let you know that I've started a discussion about whether an article that you created, Ultra ATX, should be deleted, as I am not sure that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia in its current form. Your comments are welcome at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ultra ATX.

Deletion discussions usually run for seven days and are not votes. Our guide about effectively contributing to such discussions is worth a read. The most common issue in these discussions is notability, but it's not the only aspect that may be discussed; read the nomination and any other comments carefully before you contribute to the discussion. Last but not least, you are highly encouraged to continue improving the article; just be sure not to remove the tag about the deletion nomination from the top.

If you have any questions, please leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Aunva6}}. And don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ . Thanks!

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

-- Aunva6^{talk - contribs} 18:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Last June you reverted XMLHttpRequest after substantial deletions and additions by Timhowardriley. He reverted in turn a few days later and his changes have largely remained. There is now an edit war at the article regarding that content and other points of dispute with him. 2601:642:4600:D3B0:9111:FF68:B849:3D9B (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Category:Warhammer video games indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 08:09, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]