- 1 Mass Effect 2
- 2 Your Page
- 3 Thanks
- 4 Raistlin page
- 5 Alien Legacy
- 6 Grammar
- 7 Quick note
- 8 A barnstar for you!
- 9 Tracy Hickman
- 10 Your opinion?
- 11 November 2012
- 12 Brandon Sanderson
- 13 Isometric
- 14 Disambiguation link notification for April 8
- 15 Rachel Maddow Show, Edit 22 June 2013
- 16 BitTorrent article
- 17 Reckoners series
- 18 A bowl of strawberries for you!
- 19 Osha - Game of thrones
- 20 I welcomed and left message for user you reverted
Mass Effect 2
As I was reading it, I noticed that you have a spelling error. You might want to change 'extend' to 'extent' (on the last line). By the way, I think you are doing very well with your edits to The Way of Kings; admittedly I haven't done any major edits either, so I am not really one to talk, but they seem good. Layona1 (talk) 00:17, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
thanks for finding a source for the music section in the Raistlin Majere page. I thought it was cool (as with the comic reference, I wish I could find a source for it), but I'm going to be trying to get the article up to GA soon, and it needed to be sourced. So thank you for finding that and putting it back in. Vyselink (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for fixing my reference mistakes. I'm never sure how to properly cite things. I'm glad you like the edits. I'll probably end up doing more sometime soon. Thanks again! Vyselink (talk) 17:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
Hello again. I have once again made some heavy edits to the page (specifically I split the "Test and mercenary work" section into two different sections "The Test" and "Mercenary work" and re-wrote "The Test" section completely. I was wondering if you'd look and tell me what you think? Thanks. Vyselink (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)
I think "the last" in that context reads "the final." Not supported by the novels. "The latest" is accurate, and since there are other members of his house alive who could potentially sit the throne, it is IMO preferable. But I'm not going to argue about this fictional universe too much. Cheers, Kaisershatner (talk) 19:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. Civility is less common here than it once was, believe it or not. It's not a big deal, but I think my version is unambiguous, whereas the current is probably ok. I will continue to make some edits there. Mostly, though, I appreciate your considerate reply. Regards, Kaisershatner (talk) 17:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)
Hi there, Caidh. Just an FYI for future reference, this user already had a final warning; the proper next step would be reporting them to WP:AIV (which I've done). Thanks, Swarm 05:17, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
A barnstar for you!
|The Original Barnstar|
|Congratulations, Caidh, you recently made your 1,000th edit to articles on English Wikipedia!|
Hey Caidh, your input would be appreciated on the Rachel Maddow talk section again. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 19:38, 9 September 2012 (UTC) Sorry, I forgot to sign this. Please take a look when you get the chance. Sirvice626 (talk) 04:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, including your edits to Martin Van Buren High School, but we cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Gtwfan52 (talk) 05:11, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
I understand why you removed my modified article, but I think all the old information was just not relevant, and you can't just copy the backcover because of copyright issues. The new article is just more concise and clear. I hope you understand this, because the previous version was really bad, if I may say. The spreninformation was not relevant, as was the prophecy on the back of the book. Look again on the page like it is now for a second. Greetings, J.A.R. Huygebaert (talk) 09:27, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Read the article Isometric graphics in video games and pixel art. If it is too technical, take particular note of the this illustration. The first example is very similar to Wasteland 2, whereas the second is proper isometric, like, say, Diablo.
It's unfair to say I disagree with the term as it's applied to video games, because I think what I am doing is trying to keep the Wasteland 2 article consistent with how the term is applied in the rest of wikipedia. If you look at the category of games with isometric graphics, they all meet my definition, not yours. I think I'm just not explaining it well enough. Frogacuda (talk) 22:07, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Look, this somehow manages not to be a conflict for any other page on wikipedia. I can find just as many references to Diablo III being called isometric, but the wikipedia page doesn't because there's some common sense cooperation on the part of the people working on that page to make an accurate article. Niemti is just trying to troll people (across multiple pages, by the way) but I'm not really sure your angle here or why you'd help him. Frogacuda (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- The goal is not really to remove any information, but just to phrase it in a way that is more descriptive (I would say "more accurate," but at the very least less ambiguous." I don't think anyone is contesting that this game uses a 3/4 overhead view 3D camera, and the only disagreement is over whether or not the term "isometric" can be applied to any such game. If there's a less controversial way to say it, then why not say it that way?Frogacuda (talk) 23:18, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- Let me tell you: because the developers as well as all the reliable sources in the media just don't think it's being any "controversial" and the whole 'controversy' appears to be some original research by a Wikipedia user. Which can't be applied to any article where there's a clear total consensus in literally all reliable sources. --Niemti (talk) 23:28, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's not OR, it's just vocabulary. Like I said, at some point, common sense needs to take over. We all know some people CALL it isometric, and we all know it ISN'T isometric, so why not just write it in a way that makes sense with both of those things? I have no problem with saying it's "billed as isometric" but I have a big problem with it being included in the category of isometric games, because it messes up that entire category and all the well-sourced information on the isometric graphics page.Frogacuda (talk) 00:34, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Might & Magic X: Legacy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DRM (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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.
I didn't say it did, and I wasn't wrong. I explained myself in the edit. The vast majority of the article was only animals, which nothing otherwise indicated, including the things that link to it. LieAfterLie (talk) 01:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
Rachel Maddow Show, Edit 22 June 2013
Your question is "How am I trying to be misleading? I specifically made sure that it is the two demographics mentioned that the show won in."
Your posting is: "On September 18, 2012, the show hit a new milestone with 2,040,000 viewers (with 703,000 in the 25–54 demographic),beating Fox News's The O'Reilly Factor in the demographic (and the 35-64 demographic) for the night."
First, this is not a well written sentence and it is wrong. Maddow did not beat O'Reilly in the 35-64 demographic. O'Reilly had 1446 and Maddow had 1023. The comparison to O'Reilly is misleading because they are in different time slots. Even with that comparison, limiting the article to a comparison of one show in one demographic to another show in a different time slot is, on it's face, a false comparison. If you want to leave the reader with the correct impression, the paragraph is incomplete without stating the Maddow did not win the slot, Hannity did on 18 Sep 2012, and she did not beat O'Reilly who had 40% more viewers that night. It is clear that you are not using Wikipedia to impart knowledge, but you are attempting to drive an agenda by misrepresenting the facts. Bottom line is Maddow only won one of the demographics and lost the overall comparison. With the number of edits you have made on this point, it is clear you are attempting to establish a fact that is not true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mott Black Coffee (talk • contribs) 11:29, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello my friend. I know the college is irrelevant to the article, but as you can see in almost all rich articles (such as Google, Baidu and ... ) there is always a sign of where the creators have studied at. I will add the college part to the second paragraph. Please don't remove it.--Arsi Warrior (talk) 21:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your fixes to the article Reckoners series. But why do you think the series' name is "Reckoners" and not "Stealheart"? Amazon calls the series "Steelheart", and Brandon Sanderson refers to the second book as "Firefight (Steelheart Book 2)" on the front of http://brandonsanderson.com/ . I know I can find a few random websites which calls the series "Reckoners", and I do think that name for the series would make more logical sense, but Amazon and Sanderson's own webpage has to be more authorative sources for the series name when in doubt. Thue (talk) 13:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
A bowl of strawberries for you!
|Thanks for the reference at Reckoners series! Much appreciated! Bananasoldier (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2014 (UTC)|
Osha - Game of thrones
If you wouldn't mind once more.
Thanks 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
I welcomed and left message for user you reverted
I came across your edit here  and to be honest, I didn't think you handled it in the best possible way (wasn't there anything that could have been incorporated into the article, instead of just reverting over 12,000 bytes of text from a new user?), particularly since it seemed unnecessarily bitey. However, I then noticed the revert was definitely necessary but for a completely different reason: they had copied and pasted the text from the main A Game of Thrones article. (Which makes my above question moot, but since you gave "too much detail" as the reason for reverting, I think it's still a relevant question.)
Well, I waited a bit but it didn't seem like you were about to post a message on their talk page (I noticed you were using Twinkle, so it would be relatively automated and if you've set the preference will automatically bring you to the page and present the template options, so I figured if you were going to do it then you probably would have right away) so I decided to go ahead and do so. I then spent about an hour looking for the template (Why are such things so hard to find if you don't already know where they are?) to go with that sort of mistake and then tweaking it to include a welcome and anon IP message.
Anyway, the user is likely to be confused if they read your edit summary and see my message, so I wanted to let you know, since IMHO I think the right thing to do would be for you to leave a message also, and let them know you reverted and you can explain your reasoning (it's not my place to do that) and also remind them there was the additional issue of copying the text that was noticed. Of course, you don't have to do anything, but even though I disagree with how you went about it I'm sure you were acting in good faith to maintain the article, so I decided to let you know so you weren't left with a maze to work out if the user came to you with questions/comments but mysteriously referred to "a message" that you didn't leave. I hope this hasn't come across as insulting or anything; I honestly didn't mean it that way - like you, I'm just here to try to help improve Wikipedia. Have a good day! Paranoid Android 2600! (talk) 16:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)