Subtank's board-to-board with ArchedThunder

Can't really agree on that, but I guess everyone can interpret that facial expression differently. But again, the current introductory image is more neutral than the previous.

*shrugs* I really don't know if we should restore it. Still a very grey area. Let's just wait till the end of the week (21st April sounds nice?). By then, we could say that the usage should constitute as fair use since it has been two weeks since the publication and that the period is a reasonable duration to share it with those who did not subscribe to the digital subscription.

The concept art? Yes. In-game screenshot? I believe that's still an exclusive content for digital subscribers. GamesRadar have posted these screenshots on their coverage of Halo 4 but it is likely that they've obtained permission; IGN and Gamespot has none. So do Xplay of G4TV and Wired (but the latter is a general tech magazine).

Because I have other stuff I have to attend to in real life. :|

Already saved that one into my computer.. :)

I can render it. If you can find one, please capture an image of it and link it. :)

The one showing the whole body is nicer. Could you perhaps get one without a weapon?

http://www.bungie.net/Stats/Reach/FileDetails.aspx?fid=24547267&player=ArchedThunder this or http://www.bungie.net/Stats/Reach/FileDetails.aspx?fid=24547279&player=ArchedThunder this Which ever you think should be used.

I think it is possible to get them in standing position, rather than combat position. Perhaps try capturing a screenshot of them while being in the Spirit/Phantom dropship?

That wasn't too hard, was it? All that is needed is specific details and others will understand. I've updated the file to something larger and clearer, since you've pointed out the details.

Also, please stop edit-warring on H:A's map articles and refer to this talk page to reach a consensus. The majority, for now, is of the opinion that it looks better without the section.

Oh, there's a reason why H3's Heretic deserve its own article; it has its own title. Reach's Beaver Creek on the other hand is simply a Forge variant, using H2's title as its own. Unless it has its own title, such as "Awesome remake 2.0", it stays not having its own section. I am more inclined to give it its own article if we have some actual information... but since there are none, the article should be reverted to the previous revision... with no section.

Regarding the AR rifle file, the reason why I reverted your file to the previous file is because the previous file is more brighter, allowing readers to see the rifle properly, and is larger in pixels. Do tell how the ammo counter is displayed incorrectly (the fact that it has fired 41 rounds already) or how the rifle is low poly (the fact that the image is 1600 pixels wide... better than your 800 pixel image). Other than the fact that the image itself is not of high quality, I don't see how your file is better than the previous file. I will proceed with reverting your file within 30 minutes unless something convinces me to do otherwise.

For a number of reasons:

1. You did not rename the files. It is always recommended to rename the files using simple descriptive keywords. This is a standard practice.
2. HA's version of Battle Creek does not require its own section in Battle Canyon article. Since the forge variant is an identical copy to the H2 version, a simple link would suffice.