User talk:Metalsonic89

Welcome!

Hello, Metalsonic89, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Alientraveller 19:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Dkj arcade.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Dkj arcade.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:43, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:MegaMan9PromoArt.JPG)[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:MegaMan9PromoArt.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) 05:16, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2019 election voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:09, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

August 2020[edit]

Stop adding Sega Retro as a source. It is a fansite and not a usable source on Wikipedia. I don’t object to your other sources, I just keep reverting them because you keep making so many changes in a single edit. Please stop, or your edits will just keep being undone by editors who know better. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 22:35, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but no one had a problem with this until you just now. I don't care what website the scans are on - Sonic Retro just so happens to try to provide proper sources to many release dates that Wikipedia often does not. If you want to reformat the references to cite the magazines themselves, so be it, but to fully revert into what is knowingly a sourceless, incorrect date (including the recent Zombies Ate My Neightbors revert, which tells me you did not even bother to read the other reference) is, frankly, appalling editing. Metalsonic89 (talk) 22:38, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So what? Just because I’m the only one calling you out doesn’t mean I’m wrong. Ask WT:VG. It’s not acceptable to source scans on a fansite. The fansites don’t have the legal right to host the magazine, and we don’t know whether or not these unreliable sources are trustworthy to replicate the scans without error or altercation. This is one of those times where you’ve got to ask yourself why no one else has already added these easily accessible sources for these mainstream games. There’s a reason. They’re not considered reliable. Sergecross73 msg me 22:46, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, if you want to rewrite the sources to cite the magazines themselves, go right ahead and do so. I will only say is that it's a pointless waste of time everyone's time to revert information you know is correct. Metalsonic89 (talk) 22:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You made these edits. The WP:BURDEN is on you to do it right. Fix your own mistakes. Sergecross73 msg me 22:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't have time for this, but fine, I'll do it later; in the meantime, for future reference, you don't have to hit the revert button when most of the edit itself is otherwise sound. To answer your question: it's hardly better when sites like GameFAQs and MobyGames are cited for release dates, because they themselves are often subject to user contributions, yet I notice a lot of editors tend to default to places like them anyway. Metalsonic89 (talk) 23:07, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All you have to do is not make so many changes in a single edit. Split them up into more smaller edits so they can be reverted individually. And regardless of what “other editors do”, it doesn’t make it right. You can go over the speed limit every day on the highway on the way to work and not get caught, but that still won’t help as a defense if the police pull you over one day for speeding. Same concept here. It’s only “okay” until you get caught. Sergecross73 msg me 23:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That personally looks annoying as it would flood the page history, but I digress. Before I proceed, can you point me to where exactly it says that scans are not referenceable? You cite verifiability, but to me, verifiability means having that source be a click away to future-proof against editors that wouldn't know any better. Many of these defunct, unprofitable magazines are already used for reception and review scores. Additionally, I take it from here that while fansites "usually" do not qualify as a reliable source, they may have certain content worth citing. I think I make it abundantly clear in my edits that I am primarily citing the magazines, not Sonic Retro themselves, so this seems more like a grey area unless I'm missing something. Metalsonic89 (talk) 15:59, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the problem is two-fold.

One is that fansites are not generally reliable, and the WP:BURDEN would be on you to prove that Sega Retro was some sort of exception to the rule. (And not by saying something like “they write good though!”. Generally you’d have to prove that they have the traits of a reliable source. Do they have an editorial team? Editorial policy? Writers with actual credentials relevant to writing/journalism? Writers who have written for other professional publications? The answer is generally going to be no, because fansites rarely employee professional writer. Their main “credentials” are usually “bring a lifelong video game fan” or something, which is not a valid credential in Wikipedia standards.)
The other problem is that it’s simply not their content to host. They did not create or own that magazine scan. They don’t have the legal right to host it. It’s not their info, so you shouldn’t be citing them. (Nor do we know if this unofficial source is accurately or completely replicating the info, especially because it’s just an amateur fansite.)

I’m more than happy to involve WP:VG in all this, but it would be a lot easier and less of a time sink if you’d just stop citing fansites and move on. Sergecross73 msg me 14:12, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, part of the reason I've been unavailable is because I've been too busy outside of Wikipedia, part of the reason is because I genuinely wanted to see an actual written rule so that this grievance doesn't come across as a judgment call on your part, which would be simple and done with if you can cite it. I sincerely think the concern you seem to have - that these uploaded scans are intentionally tampered with(?!?) - is wholly imagined, because you sincerely need to ask yourself, who in the right mind would benefit from a situation so ludicrous? Especially from the more obscure scans no one is putting to good use. Frankly, I would be very shocked if other editors are not resorting to online scans whether they are being transparent about it or not - they're certainly not splurging money on physical copies just to find review scores and release dates and whatnot for something they're editing out of their own free time. Again, at least I have done something that is verifiable - text that leads to nowhere observable doesn't do it for every reader. And once again, there is no need to completely revert perfectly valid information - 95% is still an "A", not an "F" - otherwise you only look like you're appealing to tradition. If you're more than happy to involve WP:VP, go right ahead, I'd prefer situations like this be considered and put into the record for future reference. Meanwhile, I have time to make the appropriate (apparently hard) adjustments. Also: I did "stop citing fansites" after this discussion was initiated. Metalsonic89 (talk) 18:20, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for making the changes. Sergecross73 msg me 19:51, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message[edit]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:33, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]