`  == Question ==  Would you be happy if nobody else contributed to the Spore aticle?  (|)  :No. Other people have contributed. This isn't about contribution.    ::I know, but a lot of your posts on the talk page go something like this: :::Editor #1: I think the article should say this. ::::You: No. :::Editor #2: I think the article should say that. ::::You: NO NO NO! [refer to something that supports your view on what the article should say] Period. End of discussion. :::Editor #2: But... ::::You: I don't want to hear it. You're WRONG. ::Now granted, not all of your posts are like that, but there are so many that have that kind of tone that I think it's likely to scare away a lot of would-be contributors.  (|)  :::It may seem that way now.    ::::It has seemed like that for a while. You disagree with a majority of people, and it's getting a bit disruptive in my view. Don't claim ownership on the article JAF, others are free to edit it. Your opinion doesn't control it.    :::::Why don't you check the other articles I created - I don't interfere that much. Spore is just an article that people want to add wrong information to. And it isn't my opinion. I've already backed up what I've said with tons and tons of facts and citations. Things will change when the game comes out, because a lot of the article will disappear (ie. the phases will be clearer instead of what was just based on what was told to us.)     ==Head Coach 09== Do you know if it actually is going to be on PC? All I've seen is 360 and PS3 so far.  /  :I believe it states so on the official site. Looks like there's no announced Windows version.    ::Which would suck, because I'm a PC-only gamer. However, the picture of the case on IGN certainly looks like a PC-style case, and somebody else was saying EA forgot to announce a PC version of a game before. So I'll hold out hope, because it looks to be a good game.  /  :::Well, there's always Front Office Football, but I like a graphic coat of paint sometimes. Fortunately, I own a 360.     The removal was intentional, and a comment was left. Thank you. ( )  —Preceding comment was added at    ==Series finale==  I actually happen not to dislike most of the shows I removed (I very much like several of them). If the ``Fresh Prince`` one is, indeed, somehow ``notable,`` the ``Friends`` one is certainly not: it's just the end of a popular show  as run-of-the-mill as finales get. There's nothing very noteworthy about ``Xena``: the finale's events might be large in the world of the program, but they're not in any way important in the realm of television or media. ``Frasier``'s last episode was great, but, again, why does it deserve any sort of mention? These are just relatively new, popular shows, who're mentioned because they have a fan base; their last episodes really aren't very ``notable`` (unlike, say, those of ``Newhart`` or the show where it turns out the autistic kid dreamt everything [I can't recall the program's title]). :Friends had a highly anticipated finale that got massive coverage, so it qualifies.     ( )  —Preceding comment was added at    == Mediation Cabal case ==  *Hi, I see you are a party in the MedCab case regarding the Spore (video game) article. I have offered myself as a mediator for this case, and am asking whether you accept me as a mediator. Just drop a message on my talk page. Thanks.    :Sure. I will be travelling to Los Angeles tomorrow, so I won't be available, really, til Wednesday.     *Fair enough, I will have to wait for a response from all parties though. You're the first.    :Here's the problem - I've done everything I can - I've proven the facts via articles, press releases, etc, and even made small concessions. They keep arguing the same stuff, and even when I prove it according to THEIR standards (ie. Danisman who told me what his/her definition of a spinoff was - and I supplied evidence towards THEIR definition.  :It's tiring. They simply won't listen to what I say - they basically dismiss it out of hand.    *Well, please note, as a mediator, i cannot make binding decisions, however, verifiable claims will be taken into consideration more than unverifiable claims. Thats not bias, thats just policy    :I know. It's just annoying.     *Just a note, I've accepted the case, and am waiting for opening ``statements`` by each party. Just in case you were unaware.     Stop laughing at everyone! It's rude!  (|)   ==RP== I've replied on the project discussion page. Sorry for my initial statement about it not being an official rating. I didn't mean it to come across like that. What I meant was not official in the sense that the ESRB don't list RP in their database along with the other ratings. -    :They don't, but companies DO.    ::Oh, yeah? Prove it. Besides, why would a company pay to use a symbol that's not even an official rating (or even particularly useful)?    :::Go to the ESRB website, for one. Jerry Bonner is a writer at my website (GameStooge.com), for another.    ::::Not answering my question... as usual.    :::::They have to pay to get their game rated, and are not allowed to put the RP badge until they do. Use some common sense.    ::::::Prove it. Yes, I know game companies pay to get their games rated, but why the hell would they pay to use a non-functional symbol?    :::::::ESRB themselves, 1Up Retronauts Podcast, 3/13/08, etc. Furthermore, the RP badge is copyrighted. Companies can NOt, repeat, can NOT post the badge without paying first.    ::::::::Oh, really? You seem to be forgetting the concept of fair use. Do gaming websites or television companies have to pay to use ratings logos? The RP symbol is just that. A symbol, not an actual rating. What's wrong with just waiting for the finalized rating (e.g. E, T 