User talk:Iftekharahmed96

Articles you recently created, The Ninja Kids and Draft:Wild Western (video game), do not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from reliable, independent sources. (?) Information that can't be referenced should be removed (verifiability is of central importance on Wikipedia). I've moved your draft to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Wikipedia's general notability guideline and thus is ready for mainspace, please follow the prompts on the Articles for Creation template atop the page. czar 15:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:The Ninja Kids Arcade.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:46, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Wild Western Arcade.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 the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:52, 16 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing—Sega 3D Classics Collection—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Jotamide (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My concern with this item is that it's not important enough to be in the article - it's one thing to have an actual Scottish Fold in a work of art, but this is only a character that is based on a Scottish Fold - it's one step removed, so to speak. But why don't you ask about it in the talk page of the article itself, so others can chime in? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 21:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC) Because Scottish Fold's in Popular Culture are few and far between, and the fact that the creator of the creature intentionally based it off the Scottish Fold does make it viable for the article. A lot of other editors are fine with the inclusion of Chirithy in the Scottish Fold page. Thanks for the response though, I appreciate it.Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 10:58, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Hi, I have added a maintenance tag to this article to flag the In popular culture section and especially your questionable addition of Chirithy. You may not assume 'a lot of other editors are fine with the inclusion', without now discussing it on the article talk page as suggested. This is how Wikipedia tradition, policies and culture work. At this time, since the article is tagged, the content has to be resolved as stated on the tag / and / or discussed on the talk page, to reach a community solution, before the concerns tag may be removed. Thanks, Fylbecatulous talk 15:36, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there Fylbecatulous, the phrase "A lot of editors are fine with the inclusion" was used in the context that, it was not edited out from other editors of the Scottish Fold page. However, I am new to the "tradition" of Wikipedia talk pages, if the majority of the Wikipedia community feels as though the inclusion of Chirithy is not required then that's fine. I just gave my reasons as to why I believe it's worth being on the page in the first place. Thanks for the heads up though. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 18:21, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi back :) Please just leave your addition for Chirithy. Obviously you care because you have stated your reasons in several pages. I wish to apologise for getting this involved and I am going now to remove the tag from Scottish Fold. I wish you the best and happy editing. Fylbecatulous talk 20:38, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there again Fylbecatulous, don't worry, I never took any of this the wrong way or negatively. You were just doing your job. I understand that. As far as my reasons to keep my addition of Chirithy, I just provided evidence of the Scottish Fold resemblance to DavidWBrooks so that he understood as to what exactly the creature was. :) Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 10:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Visual Works, Iftekharahmed96!

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

Nicely laid out new article

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

Learn more about page curation.

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give a page a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut-and-paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page (the tab may be hidden in a dropdown menu for you). This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Requests for history merge. Thank you. -- GB fan 14:14, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The company is no longer registered as Index Corporation as a business nor in the Tokyo Stock Exchange. The renaming was necessary as the company did not become defunct nor did it get absorbed into another company. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're right that iXIT is the same company as the Index Corporation founded in 2014; basically just a name change. Your approach would have been perfect if there hadn't been before other Index Corporation. The problem is that "Index Corporation" was used by two other companies that have have nothing to do with iXIT. The infobox in its curent state can be used for "Index Corporation" but not for "iXIT Corporation". IXIT certainly has nothing to do with the company founded in 1995. IXIT also has nothing to do with the company that was founded as Sega Dream and is now known as Atlus. The only link between iXIT and Index lies in the company founded in April 2014.

The Japanese Wikipedia has created seperate articles for all three Index Corporation companies. The English Wikipedia lumps them all together in one single article. As per Wikipedia:COMMONNAME, I think that the article should be renamed Index Corporation because this is the name that most people outside of Japan know the company and most non-Japaneses couldn't care less about iXIT. Obiously, there would still be mentions of iXIT on proses, but the article iself is probably best being moved back to the name of Index Corporation as this is the name that represents all three companies. IXIT applies to only one of the three companies.

Another approach you could take is create a new article called Index Corporation that would be for the original company that existed from 1995 to 2013 and leave the iXIT Corporation article for the company created in April 2014. (The second Index Corporation company already has its own article called Sega Dream/Atlus).

It's not about whether people "will care about iXIT" or not, it's about giving an objective overview of the company (truth be told, people only cared about Index because they were the parent company of Atlus, but that changed when Sega split Atlus and Index). Objectively speaking, iXIT is Index Corporation. Yes, their business purpose has changed, however, it's still the same company. I understand that Index Corporation was dissolved and reformed again under Sega only to be reformed by Swanao Holdings, however, the brand and purpose of the company was never gone within the process of change. And besides, there's not enough content to make a separate article about iXIT Corporation. I'll edit the infobox later so that it's reflective of iXIT Corporation. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 10:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you edit the infobox so that it's reflective solely to iXIT Coporation, you would need to remove the Index logo from the infobox and limit the founding year solely to April 1, 2014. Personally I'm okay with the idea; the history of the two previous Index Corporation would still be present in text on the article anyway. This would be an article similar to Midway Games or Sega where the articles discusse about the companies and their predecessors but the infobox is limited strictly for the last legal companies.

Your addition to File:Tetsuya Nomura.jpg has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

Also:

• File:Kazuma Kaneko.jpg
• File:Tetsuya Takahashi.jpg

MER-C 12:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I uploaded two images and you deleted them. I am confused, I cited and linked the sources and credited the original copyright holder. I did not intend to break copyright rules, you don't mind elaborating as to why I uploaded incorrectly? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 12:49, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

One of the great things about Wikipedia is that it and (most of) the images it contains may be copied and modified by anyone, for any purpose. Images you find randomly on the internet are generally copyright; their authors formally do not allow you to do this. Furthermore, it is plagiarism to tag an image that you did not create with "I, the copyright holder of this work...". See this policy (not Wikipedia, but the same ideas apply). MER-C 13:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for elaborating. I'll keep all of this in mind! I'll just stick to editing articles and have a more experienced user upload images of people Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi RHaworth. I saw that you recently speedily deleted the page Battle Gear under WP:A3 (no content). However, I looked at the article history just before it was deleted, and it looks like it was actually a longstanding redirect (since 2007) to Side by Side (game series) that had been blanked by the user just before they added the speedy deletion template. Speedy deletion should only be performed when all revisions of the page fall under the criteria, so shouldn't we have declined the speedy and reverted back to the redirect? — Mz7 (talk) 21:03, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Possibly Iftekharahmed96 (talk · contribs) was trying to clear the decks to do the move that I have done. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 21:21, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, gotcha. Thanks for clarifying. {{db-move}} or mentioning the move in {{db}} would have been a little more forthright, but no harm, no foul. Mz7 (talk) 21:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Hi there, thank you for your cooperation Mz7, RHaworth was completely correct with what I tried to do. I wanted to rename the page Side by Side to Battle Gear as oppose to keeping the re-direct as the franchise current name is Battle Gear. I do apologise for going about it the wrong way, I should have clarified a more logical reason for the deletion as oppose to stating that it's content free with my edit. — Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 21:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Iftekharahmed96. I figured there was a reason and was more curious than anything. At the end of the day, Wikipedia is improved. Mz7 (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Iftekharahmed96, I hope you noticed above that {{db-move}} (one of the G6 deletion reasons) was the tag you should have used. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 23:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So the next time I'm unable to move a page that should be moved, I should use {{db-move}}? yeah, I'll keep that in mind. Cheers! And thanks for being understanding Mz7. I appreciate it! Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 08:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're contradicting yourself with by including games you want but excluding a link to the list. There is no way one correct way of formatting an infobox so stop forcing your own opinion on the article. --The1337gamer (talk) 12:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You whined at me by saying I wasn't being representative by only listing Sonic the Hedgehog but now you're not being representative by only listing the games you want and ignoring the rest. You're the one being subjective about what is being included here. Linking to the product list that covers everything is more representative and provides the read with more useful and accurate information. Also stop citing your own examples as good, when you've been changing them purposefully to the way you want. There is no rule that every article should be written and styled identically. --The1337gamer (talk) 12:39, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not whining or complaining, I'm just questioning your editing. Look, I've created a talk page on the Sega page to see what's the best option for Infobox editing so we can come to your consensus. Your hostile approach to talking to me is unacceptable, and continuous use of this sort of behaviour will be reported. And if you look at the Atlus history, I was not the one that made the recent change on that particular article. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 13:06, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not being hostile at all. I'm explaining my reasoning just as you were. Your own edits contradict the argument you provided me. It seems to me you want to dictate what's listed in the infobox. You rejected what I considered as popular and replaced it with what you consider as popular. How is that fair? By linking to the list of all games, it is far more useful and representative of the company's work. --The1337gamer (talk) 13:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If I felt hostility with your response then I felt hostile. You don't dictate my emotional feelings to your response. You should try to phrase your response in a more civil manner next time. Look, You're completely mis-understood why I reverted your edit, it's nothing to do with "what I consider popular", it's "what is considered ideal formatting" for Wikipedia. We can't make the Sonic Team page stand out like a sore thumb because of your subjective preference. And by the way, the franchises listed there were decided by Dissident93 before you manipulated the Infobox. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't stick out like a sore thumb at all. What are you talking about? There is no one universal style on Wikipedia, so I'm not sure why you're so adamant on making trivial aspects of an article be the same. I'm not sure why you call my style subjective when yours is equally subjective. There are many articles that link to a list of product or list of subsidiaries in the infobox. Look at Ubisoft and Microsoft. Look at Rare (company), which is article that actually been reviewed and assessed as a good article. --The1337gamer (talk) 13:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it sticks out like a sore thumb because it's not stylised the same as the other Sega subsidiaries. Sonic Team is a Sega subsidiary and so the infobox should be reflective of that, The Rare example is invalid because their franchises are on Microsoft Studios. There is a Universal style as far as company infoboxes goes. Having each Sega subsidiary Infobox be drastically different is not a smart idea because it goes away from the common fact that they are all Sega subsidiaries for Sega Sammy Holdings. "My style" is not even "my style", it's the common style. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 13:42, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I does not have to stylised like the other Sega subisidiary articles. Style of articles does not have to be same across related articles. Where are you getting that from? Again, it seems like you're just forcing your own preference, which is ridiculous because one infobox parameter is such a minute part of article yet you make such a big deal over it. There are many video game franchises that have individual game articles written in different styles. Each article should be written in such a way that benefits the reader, not the way one editor prefers. There is no harm in linking to a list. I have provided good examples which do just that. In fact it is more beneficial to link to a list, especially for studios such as Atlus and Sega AM2 who have made many more games than those listed in the infobox. --The1337gamer (talk) 13:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh for goodness sake, I've seen this franchise list format before I even joined Wikipedia so stop calling it "my style". What benefits a reader is consistency, that's been objectively and scientifically proven. Actions speak louder than words, if you're so adamant that you're in the right, go right ahead and change the franchises of Atlus and see who reverts your edit (because it isn't going to be me: I can guarantee you that). You think the infobox format is minute, what if an editor was able to identify the number of people working at Sonic Team but can't do that because you got rid of that? you have to think of the bigger picture than your personal preference Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 14:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't get rid information like number of employees if it was reliably sourced, because that it useful to the reader. By linking to the list of games, I'm providing more useful information to the reader. It's not detrimental, so I'm not sure why you want to remove it and replace it with only the titles that you consider important. I already agreed with you about being more representative by not just listing Sonic the Hedgehog so I think linking to the list would be the most suitable option. I see no problem with doing that on the Atlus article either because their catalog extends far beyond those five series. --The1337gamer (talk) 14:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I still see no edit changes in Atlus or Take-Two Interactive. I can guarantee you that your edit will be reverted by someone else for the same reasons that I've stated. You can't just place for philosophy for the Sega company articles. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 14:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And likewise I've seen no one change Rare (company) or Ubisoft to a giant list of every franchise and game. My argument is that no every article has to be same, so stop trying to force that. I'll reiterate again the style on related articles does not have to be the same. The infobox on Sonic Team is fine as is currently so stop worrying about it. I'd like to continue working on more important things like writing useful content for readers. --The1337gamer (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the Rare franchise are on Microsoft Studios. And my argument is that all company infoboxes should be as similar as possible because it's silly not to. I'll see what LordTobi says about your changes before I go any further. If there are to be changes on Wikipedia pages, they should be unanimously agreed. Your changes have not been proven to be unanimously agreed. Iftekharahmed96 (talk)

No, it's not because they are part of Microsoft Studios. 343 Industries and The Coalition (company) are part of Microsoft Studios and don't link to lists. Each article does what is appropriate. If a developer has a large catalog of games, like Sonic Team, then it makes more sense to link to a list article. Look at the Sega article. What does the products field do? It links to list articles because it would ridiculous to write them all down. --The1337gamer (talk) 19:05, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

With that mindset, how in the world am I suppose to edit on Wikipedia then if one infobox can have a list of franchises and another have a select list? your logic is jarring at best and frustrating at worst. A lack of consistency creates edit wars. This conversation has gotten me fed up. Thank you for ruining Wikipedia for me. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 19:10, 20 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Iftekharahmed96. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The situation of Taito and Atlus is not the same at all.

1) Atlus really did stopped to exist as a company for 3 years and only returned legally in September 2013 and even then it wasn't yet called Atlus. Taito never ceased to exist as a legal entity and the name has only been passed on to three consecutive companies without any interruption.

2) Altus currently lists 2013 as its founding year. Taito still lists 1953 as its founding year in both its English and Japanese websites.

3) It has been well documented in many websites that Atlus was dissolved and merged into Index. Other than two obscure Square Enix official reports, sources about the exact structure of Taito is nonexistent. Taito itself makes no mention of it on either of its websites.

4) You don't need to teach me about the structure of Taito Corporation. I know it very well because I was the one that created in September 2015 that particular section on the Taito article and it was also me who brought those two Square Enix reports. And no offense intended, but I think that you're obsessing way too much about the structure of Taito and you need to let it go. The situation of Taito is not the same as Atlus. Hardly anyone (including Taito itself) care that Taito is the former ES1 Corporation. So please, let the exact structure of Taito stay in the Taito article where it belongs, stop pushing it on every article and stop comparing Taito to Atlus because this is apples and oranges. Thank you.

Sorry, but I am taking offence about the last part. You've made completely valid points before you assumed that I was "obsessive" about Taito's formation. I was just trying to be as objective as possible. Factually, I agree and respect your response about the differences with Atlus and Taito reformation with their parent company (because there's a lot of information I never came to realise), however, calling me obsessive is not warranted. Wikipedia is a community driven website, we need to act in consensus. I have no shame if I'm in the wrong with facts, please, prove me wrong if you are more factually right, I just don't like name-calling or labeling because it adds nothing but bitterness to the conversation. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 09:55, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't name-called you, just saying that you are giving the impression that you're obsessing about the structure of Taito. It may or may no be the reality but that's the impression that you gave which I why I specifically used the expression "I think that you're obsessing" (as opposed to just saying "you're obsessing" or, worse, saying "you're obsessive"). I apologize if I offended you and will be cautious about my choice of words when communicating with you in the future. But this wasn't calling you names, just commenting a behavior.

To return to the subsidiary infobox topic, Taito has been owned by Square Enix since September 2005. Whether the current Taito is the same or a different company from the one from 2005 is irrelevant to the fact that Taito has consistently been owned by Square Enix since 2005. The subsdiaries infobox section on the Square Enix article is not there to say whether the Taito of today is legally the same as the one from 5 or 10 years ago; for that, there's the Taito article. The infobox is just there to point out 1) a list of the companies that Square Enix owns 2) how long have they been owned by Square Enix.

And Taito, as an entity, has uninterruptedly been owned by Square Enix since 2005. Cheers and happy editing.

Thank you. I should have double checked what I read before I let my emotions get the better of me. Don't get me wrong, I'm not an emotional slowflake that gets easily triggered, it's just that it's disheartening to try and come to a consensus only to get perceived in a particular way when it comes to edits on Wikipedia. Thanks for clarifying why Taito never changed legally. I completely understand who the structure of that company works now. Happy editing back to you too. Your edits are always appreciated. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 15:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Taito did changed legally. It is officially not the same company from 2005. But in spite of this sea of legal mergers and dissolutions, at the end of the day, Taito has always been owned by Square Enix since 2005 which is what the "Subsidiaries" section should just limit itself to. The detailed legal stuff can go on the Taito article. And in all its incarnations, Taito has always been a registered legal company and never a name-only division like what happened with Atlus from 2010 to 2013. Cheers.

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Namco's X series. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Namco's X series redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Safiel (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Note Please be patient and let the above process continue to conclusion, which will be in less then a week. The redirect is not causing any problem and will be deleted soon. Please don't place another speedy deletion tag, it is not necessary. Safiel (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. I just felt as though that there wouldn't be enough contributors to really go against the decision of deletion because of how niche the navigational box is. The only reason as to why I requested the deletion in the first place is because the redirect has no function and that all the history of the navigational box has been transferred over to Bandai Namco X series. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have declined your speedy deletion of Template:Franchises owned by Bandai Namco Holdings which is currently a redirect. This template was transcluded by 72 different pages and ALL of them must be updated before this redirect can be deleted. Once all transclusions have been updated, then we can take the page to Redirects for Discussion, as we did with the other redirect that we discussed a few days ago. Safiel (talk) 18:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, I thought that discussion was just limited to the re-direct that was discussed before, thanks for the information. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 10:05, 24 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

1. When you place a speedy deletion tag on a template, it should be enclosed in <noinclude> tags. E.g. <noinclude>speedy tag</noinclude>. Otherwise, that speedy deletion tag is transcluded onto every page that the template is used on.
2. Don't move a template, then place a speedy deletion tag on the old page when it is still being transclused. As explained above, you need to update every article that the template is transcluded on.
3. There is a process for deleting and merging templates, WP:TFD. Don't merge templates at your own will and then nominate the merged templates from speedy deletion. Someone may contest your changes so use WP:TFD.

--The1337gamer (talk) 18:29, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But what if all the articles have been updated with the new template format name? I double checked that before placing a speedy deletion? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 18:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't check well enough. You removed the redirect and placed a speedy deletion tag on Template:Franchises owned by Sega Sammy Holdings. Look at this list: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Franchises owned by Sega Sammy Holdings. Every article here had the template replaced with the speedy deletion tag because you didn't update them. --18:37, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

My bad, I didn't know the process was a gradual one. I suppose I'll update them, truth be told though, some of those pages aren't really supposed to have that template in the first place. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:THQ Nordic has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Lordtobi (✉) 20:41, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not a brilliant example to be using. That article needs references. I agree the template isn't needed, but using Sunrise page as an example why is nit a good idea. What we should be doing is instead trying to source all these works.SephyTheThird (talk) 19:27, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Truth be told, I don't really edit anime companies so I wasn't aware of a good example, I used a similar article for comparison. The only reason as to why I did TMS Entertainment, was because, they're a Sega subsidiary so I wanted to present the article up to a high standard. But thanks for the feedback, I'll keep that in mind next time. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 19:31, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for uploading File:Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles - The Crystal Bearers.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Project FMF (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Iftekharahmed96. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "Wild Western".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. GamerPro64 18:04, 6 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Iftekharahmed96. It has been over six months since you last edited your Articles for Creation draft article submission, "The Ninja Kids".

In accordance with our policy that Articles for Creation is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}} or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:13, 7 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Creative Assembly Sofia.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) 17:08, 14 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Just wanted to let you know that a user by the name of NamcoKid43 created an unnecessary template called {{Franchises by Taito Corporation}} despite being fully aware that all Taito franchises are stored under {{Square Enix franchises}} I've provided a speedy deletion to the Franchises by Taito Corporation template, not only because it's a duplicate that came later than the Square Enix franchise template, but the fact that all the entries that are in the Taito Corporation, which are not in Square Enix franchise templates section of Taito are standalone games to begin with. Would you be able to keep an eye out on his activity, he also had a tendency to add standalone games to the {{Bandai Namco franchises}} template too, and I'm concerned that he may unintentionally go into spam territory with activity like this. Regards. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 20:06, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iftekharahmed96, please stop FORUMSHOPPING. There are ways to go about changing/deleting/modifying a template, and asking everybody you can think of to cut corners for you is not how to do it. Primefac (talk) 20:23, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its nominated for deletion, so it looks like things are being pursued correctly now. I'll recuse myself from commenting there, to alleviate any concerns about FORUMSHOPPING or WP:CANVASSING, but Iftekharahmed96, know that, if you're not getting much input at the nomination, you can notify WP:VG with a quick request for others to weigh in, though you have to do it neutrally - You wouldn't be able to say "Hey WP:VG guys, please help me get rid of this unnecessary template", it'd have to be more like "I'm looking for more input on this matter. Please add your input to the discussion" or something along those lines. Sergecross73 msg me 16:12, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never knew that ForumShopping was a thing until I got notified that I was doing it. I just really felt as though that the template was so unwarranted that I wanted to get rid of it as soon as possible, because a pre-existing template already did that job better. I apologise that I went about the process the wrong way and very selfishly. I'll take your particular piece of advice from here, next time I get in a similar situation like this Sergecross73. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 19:53, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Its no problem if it was an accident. Just basically, don't ask the same question in multiple places when you've already been rejected in another main area. That being said, I usually personally tell people that, if they disagree with my decision when they come to me for help, that they're welcome to try WP:ANI or other places. But that's more just if you're dealing with just me at first. Sergecross73 msg me 20:14, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Where was this consensus reached? ViperSnake151  Talk  20:41, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox company says to use the full legal name for the parent parameter. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"If the article's subject is a subsidiary of a holding company or parent company, list the full, legal name of the parent company, correctly reproducing punctuation and abbreviations or lack thereof". Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Interchannel, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Division. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:40, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I have a query. Somebody provided an edit in which they deleted the owner section of a company infobox because their justification was that it's "legally impossible to have one company as owner and a different company as parent". Naturally, I followed suit at first because I thought it made sense. Now I was wondering, is that correct? I only mention this because the standard company template provides both a section for the owner of a company and the parent. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 12:20, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure. What companies/edits are we talking about? Sergecross73 msg me 12:30, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Read Template:Infobox company. The owner field is essentially only for privately held independent companies, to denote investor or individual ownership. It is not used by subsidiaries and divisions (They use the parent field), nor is it used for publicly traded companies. There are several editors who incorrectly use these fields on a regular basis, and what they tend to do is put the subsidiary's reporting division as parent, and the legal owner as owner. That's incorrect. Example here: [1]. I've had to revert this editor so many times despite numerous warnings that I've lost count. -- ferret (talk) 12:58, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification Ferret, I read what it said on the page itself and I finally understand. I suppose the next best thing to do is to try and re-iterate this fact to as many editors as possible seeing as this mis-interpretation of the owner field is so widespread. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 16:01, 11 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Power Pro Kun Pocket series. Since you had some involvement with the Power Pro Kun Pocket series redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jikkyō Powerful Pro Yakyū series. Since you had some involvement with the Jikkyō Powerful Pro Yakyū series redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing Big Hero 6 (film) from Template:Big Hero 6. I have accepted your version even though I disagree with it. But the film needs to be included in the navbox regardless. If you won't let me add it, add it yourself. It belongs in the navbox. Reach Out to the Truth 16:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought you were the one that wanted to remove Big Hero 6 (film). I suppose I didn't look into the reverts clearly enough to realise that I was making the error that I ironically accused you of. Don't worry, I've got it all sorted out. Sorry if I made things difficult buddy. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 16:59, 14 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! A while ago I started putting together this draft article but fell behind with it unfortunately. Now I would like to get it done before the next release (Guilty Gear Xrd Revelator 2) is out. I've left this message on your talk page since you have recently participated in the Guilty Gear Xrd article. Hope you can give me a hand. Thanks in advance. :) Jotamide (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This is a top quality article, you don't need to add any more edits to it anymore. Go ahead and submit it. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Power Pro Kun Pocket series. Since you had some involvement with the Power Pro Kun Pocket series redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ~ GB fan a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 13:05, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jikkyō Powerful Pro Yakyū series. Since you had some involvement with the Jikkyō Powerful Pro Yakyū series redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ~ GB fan a "frantic, furious ball of anger" 13:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining why I reverted some of your edits in case you're wondering.

• Firstly, you cut-and-pasted moved two articles. You shouldn't does this as it splits the page histories, which means the text on the article isn't attributed to original author. (Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, WP:CUTPASTE) In future, you should use the Move button in the top right. If it doesn't let you move then make a request at Wikipedia:Requested moves.
• Secondly, the Darksiders (series) article was deleted two weeks ago: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darksiders (series). I don't think it should have been recreated just because a third game was announced. It's still premature and the series article still has the same issues as before. If it shouldn't exist, then it shouldn't take the primary title of Darksiders.
• Thirdly, there are guidelines for the naming of video game articles here: WP:VGNC. The general guideline is that series articles take the primary name if the series possesses a minimum of 3 video game articles as well as at least one other unrelated video game or related media item. Darksiders doesn't have at least one other unrelated video game or related media item so the first video should take the primary name. Even so, series page moves should be discussed first so that we can determine whether the game or the series is the primary topic. A number of series page moves with 3 games have been contested in past, e.g: TimeSplitters (series), BioShock (series), Myst (series), which is why a discussion should be opened first.

--The1337gamer (talk) 18:58, 3 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

They all seem to be justifiable reasons, thanks for letting me know. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 10:45, 4 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

As it seems, you are attempting to start another edit war, as you did ay back when we had our first interactions, and you know that you should not. Regardless if you were actively trying to pursue one or not, your claim is false. The source states clearly: "As a result, the Company has regrettably decided to withdraw from the business of IO INTERACTIVE A/S"—"decided to withdraw" not "withdrawn", they have an action planned and not executed yet. Further down comes: "As a result of this the Company ["the Company" is Square Enix] started discussions with potential new investors and is currently in negotiations to secure this investment", aka. they are trying to sell IO Interactive. The source does not say that IO Interactive is now independent, but quite the opposite. And from a logical standpoint, if IO was independent, how come Square Enix is trying to sell an independent company? Note that I am no going to revert your edits to remain WP:STATUSQUO, and do not edit war, please. If you feel like there is a misunderstanding, discuss. Cheers! Lordtobi (✉) 12:27, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Look, fact of the matter is, one of two things is definitely going to happen. (1) IO Interactive will be subsidized into another company, or (2) they will be dissolved. You can make the argument that I am crystal balling the situation, however, there is no alternate situation that is going to occur with IO Interactive as stated in the pdf. It's not as if Square Enix is all of a sudden going to say "We have changed our mind and wish to keep IO Interactive", either option 1 or option 2 is going to occur, and both of those options mean that Square Enix will no longer own IO Interactive. Therefore, there is no purpose in maintaining IO Interactive in the "current subsidiaries section" of Square Enix. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

While this might very well be the way things are going to go down, we don't know that or how it will. Maybe, at the fraction of a chance, they want to keep it, but WP:CRYSTALBALL applies, as you stated. To that comes that we do not know how long it will still stay a subsidiary; maybe days, maybe months. We should leave it as-is until there is an actual change rather than just an announcement.

(talk page watcher) I haven't looked at the article. If IO Interactive is still owned by Square Enix then it shold stay as a subsidiary until such time as it is either sold or dissolved. ~ GB fan 12:44, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the revert is valid if negotiations do go on longer for a day. The way that the pdf presented itself indicated that everything was expected to get sorted out within a day. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 13:06, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how the document would have presented it that way, you wish everything was so easy in business, haha. Lordtobi (✉) 14:34, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I never implied that anything was easy, that was just an assumption on your part mate. Well, whatever happens ✉, your edit would have to be reverted anyway because either IO Interactive will find a new parent company or they'll be dissolved. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 15:37, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:B.B. Studio.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) 17:07, 4 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Darius series 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) 17:20, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Thunder Force 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) 19:09, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Activision Blizzard has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Codename Lisa (talk) 06:23, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I need 100% clarification on this, if a company has had more than one parent, do you just display the present parent company or all the parent companies of the subsidiary? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Iftekharahmed96: Best to ask at Template Talk:Infobox company for a wider view. I can't say I have a strong opinion, but the current documentation says "The name(s) of the current and former parent companies." This would suggest a historical listing is allowed, but in many cases people feel that Infoboxes should convey the pertinent information of the current state. I.e. list the current (or last) parent, and let the prose cover the rest. In most cases, I just focus on cleaning up misuse of owner/parent, only one of which should be used at a time, as they are mutually exclusive in purpose. -- ferret (talk) 12:59, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A secondary thought though, the template documentation just says "The name(s)" and the example is a single name. No example or direction is given on how to show date ranges or sequence of parents. -- ferret (talk) 13:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding almost immediately. This has really helped me out! Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 13:03, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Sammy 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) 17:54, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Heavy Iron Studios 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) 17:27, 4 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:.hack G.U. 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. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:39, 10 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:CSK Group.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. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:36, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. You seem to know a lot about Namco / Bandai Namco, so I'm wondering if you could help me out with cleaning up and editing Portal:Bandai Namco. It needs quite a bit of work and it would be harder to do it myself. Any help or feedback would be appreciated. Namcokid47 (talk) 03:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, this is really impressive stuff. Props to you for taking your time to create this. You've really improved your contribution skills to Wikipedia. I'll be forwarding this to as many Wikipedia staff as possible so that they are aware of this. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 13:18, 17 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:IXIT Corporation.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) 17:13, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't act as a proxy for blocked users, especially long term abuse accounts like Tripple-ddd. -- ferret (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't intentionally acting as a proxy, I just felt that the information provided was relevant for the article hence why it was on the talk page. Again, I don't know this individual nor do I have any affiliations with him. I was completely unaware that he was a long term account abuser. Nor was I aware that he was a troll. I'm just an individual that takes things at face value. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 19:46, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Weren't you the editor who originally got offended because people accused you of being Tripple-ddd? I thought that was our first interaction? Dissident93 reported you to me thinking you were him. Or am I mistaken? Sergecross73 msg me 19:58, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I remember that scenaio. I recently started editing at Wikipedia and I was updating all the infobox images of the Sega subsidiaries. Because it was the first time I was being evaluated for being a sockpuppet, I was rather hostile and took things personally. Rest assured, I'm not this Tripple-dd guy. Matter of fact, I can send you copies of all the emails that he's been sending me. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, it appears you had just forgot his name then. That's fine. Just checking. Sergecross73 msg me 20:21, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I had a valid reason for it at the time due to the many sockpuppets he was using with the same articles being edited. Is ban evading a permanent user ban? If I remember right, he was doing edits in good faith, but was being disruptive by failing to follow consensus and constantly reverting articles back to his preferred versions. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:24, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

For what its worth, yes, that is correct. Tripple ddd only received like 2 short blocks for editing against consensus. It was the subsequent 40+ accounts of block evasion that got him blocked into oblivion. But anyways, I apologize, I wasn't trying to reignite that tension, I was merely confirming that I had the right person, because Iftekharahmed said he had never heard of Tripple, and I felt that was false due to the very incident we're talking about. But he doesn't deny that anymore, and still doesn't seem like he's Tripple, so we don't have to go any further into this. Sergecross73 msg me 21:13, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

How about fixing a problem you disagree with instead of removing it all from the navbox huh? What about the books, you didn't remove that despite it not being an imprint genius.★Trekker (talk) 22:50, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No need to take it personally and hurl names. Wikipedia is a collaborative site. If I'm wrong, provide evidence for my errors. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you change the header to a warning to someone else, what is your problem? Also, I have already pointe doubt why your edits are dumb as hell several times.★Trekker (talk) 16:25, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let the Wikipedia moderators deal with your behaviour. In the meantime, happy editing. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 16:46, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, maybe think over your own behaviour now?★Trekker (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Are you still trying to take this personally? just move on already. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 17:23, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No more than you. Have a nice day.★Trekker (talk) 17:26, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, you too mate. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 17:31, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Iftekharahmed96, you need to notify any editor you discuss at ANI like this with a talk page message. You'll likely find yourself in hot water yourself if you forget to do this in the future. Please keep it in mind. Sergecross73 msg me 16:37, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for handling this Sergecross. So in the future, I should notify said person who is being reported that I may report them before actually reporting them, right? Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You can either write a message on their talk page, or just add a "{{ani}} ~~~~" which gives a template and your signature on their talk page. Sergecross73 msg me 16:44, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Iftekharahmed96: You don't need to warn them that you may report them, but you do need to inform them once you report them. 331dot (talk) 16:55, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for clarifying 331dot, I'll keep that in mind next time. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 17:04, 26 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Iftekharahmed96. Marvel Music (imprint), an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you know. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may request an unblock by first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

The full report is at the edit warring noticeboard. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 15:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Cadence Industries 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) 17:03, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Bubble Bobble Plus!.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) 17:47, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Rainbow Islands Towering Adventure!.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) 17:50, 4 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Bubble Bobble Plus!.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) 17:09, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:TALKNO. What you did with this edit is not acceptable. You can reference what was said, but you can't copy paste over the material, acting as if we said that in that new discussion. A new ping/notice was necessary. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 04:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying a lot of things that I was unaware of. At the end of the day, this Marvel Music merging discussion was really being dragged in the mud, and I was getting really exhausted with arguing with the state of the Marvel Music article and I suppose that got the better of me. I apologise. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 10:20, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing along these same lines, the person who opens a merge discussion cannot be the one to declare it closed! That's an obvious conflict of interest. Merge discussions are closed by disinterested, uninvolved third parties — generally an admin.

I'm not against merging Marvel Music into Marvel Studios; it's probably a good idea that cuts down on repetitive material. But there's a bigger picture. It's hard enough operating with collegiality and accord as it is — but if we don't follow the basic rules, it means anarchy, which is never a good state in which to get anything done. If the merge is a good idea, the discussion will likely close in favor of one. But let's follow protocol. There is, after all, no deadline. --Tenebrae (talk) 22:04, 17 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Unless the discussion is contentious or the result is unclear, WP:MERGECLOSE says anyone can close a merge. If they should generally be done by an admin, then how would we ever get BOLD merges? Argento Surfer (talk) 14:29, 18 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

On 19 August 2017, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Marvel Music (imprint), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Marvel Comics briefly operated an imprint dedicated to comics about musicians? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Marvel Music (imprint). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Marvel Music (imprint)), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:32, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I ask you again, please let the process follow its course. I explain on the article talk pages the two points you violated. I don't want this to go to ANI, but I think any admin will see that you did not follow those two points of the process. Why rush and not let other editors speak?--Tenebrae (talk) 19:19, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because this discussion has gotten me fed up. That's why. You can go ahead and wait it for three days, but that makes my effort of suggesting such a merge pointless. I'm not happy with what you're doing right now. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 19:23, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Bubble Bobble Plus!.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) 17:07, 20 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Marvel Music.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) 17:38, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Visual Works logo.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) 17:58, 9 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Marvel Productions alternate logo.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) 18:10, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Capital Cities ABC, Inc. 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) 18:01, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Sports Interactive 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) 17:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I see you updated the Creative Assembly Sofia logo, very nice! Though I wasn't able to find the image through the link specified on in the rationale and as such temporarily removed it. Could you show me where the image is located, so I can verify? Lordtobi (✉) 19:47, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've updated the infoboxes for both Creative Assembly and Creative Assembly Sofia with the latest iteration of their logo's. However, I honestly think that the Creative Assembly Sofia article should merge with the Creative Assembly article. There's barely any information about the company. You can make it look like Disney Consumer Products and Interactive Media or Marvel Entertainment in which the two infoboxes highlight the two different companies. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 20:00, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CA Sofia has a vastly different background than CA itself, and its current form is acceptable, even if not perfect; a merge would not be beneficial. Lordtobi (✉)

Yeah, but in it's current iteration, it's a dedicated regional development subsidiary to Creative Assembly. Again, with the Marvel Entertainment article, you have Marvel Entertainment (the current Marvel, a merger between Toy Biz and Marvel Entertainment Group) and Marvel Entertainment Group. Marvel Entertainment Group is legally unaffiliated with Marvel Entertainment. The only reason why it's in the same article is because the business operations were transferred to the newly created Marvel Enterprises. Personally, I think there should be a discussion as to whether Creative Assembly and Creative Assembly Sofia should be merged. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 20:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey,

There's no need to delete the existing version of a logo in order to update a new, transparent version. On the image page there's a link to upload a new version. Not only is it much quicker to get the new version up, but there's no need to go to the article and change the link to the image, as the new version will automatically appear on the page (though you may have to purge your browser's cache to see it). So that is why I removed the speedy tag at File:The Muppets Studio logo.png, as deletion is simply not necessary at all. oknazevad (talk) 13:10, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Too late, I've already done it my way. Trust me, it's preferable this way as the previous version is not part of The Muppets Studio logo's history. It's also more convenient for Google searches too as the previous iteration of the logo will no longer be linked with Wikipedia. Iftekharahmed96 (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Kaiko 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) 17:51, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Gradius 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) 17:27, 15 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I undid both of your edits as there is no firm connection presented that the Sky series is directly connected to the Darius Series. If you wish to offer a reason to change it back, please see the Template talk:Darius series. I assume your edits were in good faith like mine. Devilmanozzy (talk) 05:33, 4 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that our manual of style dictates that trademarks should be formatted within articles in a manner that reflects standard English capitalization and formatting rules—avoiding the use of unusual capitalisation (such as letters being capitalized if they are not an acronym), special characters (including trademark symbols and other irregular characters) and unpronounced punctuation, and the most common formatting of the mark used by reliable sources independent of the subject. Deviating from this style disturbs uniformity among articles, and may make the article appear promotional.

If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia. Thank you. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:05, 14 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!