User talk:Svippong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Svip rocks my socks.[edit]

It's true. --Rotem.E 17:15, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Dyslexic Wikipedians[edit]

Category:Dyslexic Wikipedians which you have included on your user page has been proposed for deletion you can comment at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Wikipedians by mental condition. --Salix alba (talk) 16:41, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Has the user box been proposed for deletion? --Svippong 11:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Nephew[edit]

Thanks for getting an Nephew page back up after the usual crowd of know-nothing US rednecks deleted it while I was off on my holidays.:) Mvh Sjc 11:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Wikipedia_in_webcomics[edit]

Thanks for correcting (deleting) my entry. I misunderstood the section heading, taking it to mean "Webcomics (i.e. entire collections of strips) that were not about WIkipedia, but mentioned it in passing". Wdfarmer 06:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Comparison of massively multiplayer online role-playing games[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

An editor has nominated Comparison of massively multiplayer online role-playing games, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Comparison of massively multiplayer online role-playing games and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 17:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Infosphere link[edit]

I saw your edit on the Into the Wild Green Yonder article, that you changed the article link from an interwiki link to an external domain. I originally forgot to check the history and assumed that someone was tired of the old domain (futurama.overt-ops.com) I assume someone have precision'ed the link. However, since that was not the case, and I did not feel like making a "ninja" edit to explain that in a new summary, I am explaining myself here. While some of our content may non-free (such as images from the show), our text content are released under a Creative Commons license, something which an encouraged part of an interwiki link.

Remember that in order for our wiki even to become an interwiki link, it must fulfil some requirements (as described here and here). Since it went through that due to (A) it had content of relevance to the Wikimedia Foundation, (B) it was regularity updated and had a moderate amount of content, (C) had CC license and non-profit and (D) did not (and does not) contain anything illegal, it can be considered a useful Interwiki link for anything Futurama related. Your summary suggests that it is not a Wikimedia site, which is true, but so isn't Wikia, and they are linked to quite often (through interwiki links), among other sites.

Consider this my defence for "reverting" your edit. --Svippong 00:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

The wiki in question carries the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 2.5 license. By the Wikimedia Foundation's standards, this is a non-free license (because it prohibits use of the work for commercial purposes).
Incidentally, I also have argued against interwiki linking (in articles) to Wikia wikis and all other non-Wikimedia sites. It just so happens that this case is more straightforward (due to the non-free license). —David Levy 18:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Where on Wikipedia does it say that it won't use interwiki links to non-free material? Where in the entire Wikimedia foundation is interwiking to non-free material against the rules? I have not seen these rules, and if these rules exist somewhere, I'd like to see them. Even if they are only guidelines. --Svippong 18:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any formal rules. But whenever the subject of interwiki linking to non-Wikimedia sites in articles is raised, the "supporting free content" argument is the commonly cited rationale for doing it (and even that lacks consensus). —David Levy 18:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

question[edit]

hey, you said you have access to the data for all the cars in gta4. i was wondering if you could somehow search that data and tell me if a car exists called an "e109". in a stategy guide it mentions that one of the girlfriends prefers this car, though at gtaforums.com no one has heard of it. please reply here. thanks! 202.156.66.110 (talk) 15:04, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you try this list: http://www.gta4.net/vehicles/. That list is generated from that specific file, if that car is not listed there, then the strategy guide is wrong. Sorry. --Svippong 20:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello[edit]

Hello svip. Tr00st (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Stop spamming Wikipedia!!!! --Svippong 23:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:The Infosphere logo.png[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:The Infosphere logo.png. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 14:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Niko's nationality[edit]

Just a friendly note - I agree with you at GTA IV but you should hand the next revert off to someone else. –xeno talk 15:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

'kay, but a revert requires a revert. But I suppose I should avoid any kind of warring. --Svippong 15:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Indeed. I personally wouldn't block you for this, but some administrators take the impartial approach of blocking both editors involved in an edit war, even when consensus supports one by a landslide. I've left a message at the new user's talk page, hopefully he will concede. –xeno talk 15:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
if he reverts again today then he breaks the 3rr which means you should report him in violation of this and plus when he does dont revert it yourself let someone else to do it. Pro66 (talk) 15:32, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
In my defence, I have only done it thrice now. However, the other editor seems to have put his game behind him. --Svippong 15:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Yep, you're still in compliance, I just thought I should let you know. Wouldn't want a good faith editor to get blocked when consensus is on their side. –xeno talk 15:39, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Suggested WikiProjects[edit]

If editing articles on video games interests you, consider joining the Video games WikiProject and/or one or more of these platform specific projects: WikiProject Xbox, WikiProject PlayStation, Nintendo task force. Cheers, –xeno talk 15:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but I consider myself a "casual" Wikipedia editor, I have my own wiki to see to. --Svippong 15:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

GTA IV PS3 720p Correction[edit]

Great work in noticing my correction to the GTA IV page, It's good to know that now when people wiki this game that they will see for sure that the 640p rumour was mearly a Xbox 360 Fanboy overhyped lie to damage the PS3 market. If you google GTA IV PS3 640p for the previous week you still sadly see people mumbling it on forums and other websites.

I also did find a reliable source detailing an accurate and fair test of Raw-Material recordings of both Console versions (Xbox 360 & PS3), both output 720p as thier Native standard, as Rockstar confirmed and as written on the Back of the Blu-Ray Box for the PS3 version. (Although the PS3 version states it can run upto 1080p which has also been proven, but it is not the games native resolution, the Game becomes 'Upscaled' to 1080p)

Although a link within the reliable thread was removed for no apparant reason (Other than the possibility of too many Xbox Owners who want to have the GTA series to themselves) the information in the source was by far reliable enough to allow realisation of its True 720p Native resolution. http://www.vgchartz.com/forum/thread.php?id=25637 The changes made by IP address 94.192.253.233 were the changes I made, although I did not have an account until midnight.

Hopefully thanks to smart reasonable people like you, we will hope to see this previously large rumour become extinct within a few months, unless our change to the Wikipedia information causes a catalyst on various websites still claiming it to be 640p and thus more confused console owners for a while.

Rockstar would never and have never lied to Consumers (unless you count 1080p output on PS3 which is 'Upscaled' to 1080p from its True native resolution of 720p a Technicality in that respect)

Plus they would have been sued for lying on product packaging by various individuals or marketing authorities for stating 720p and it actually being the over-hoaxed 640p.


Keep up the Good Wikipedia work! =)

XCosmoX
The Cosmo

My original mistrust in this case was largely due to the fact that it would not make sense to use 640p rather than 720p, since 720p is an industry standard and 640p is not, you would actually have to go through some upscaling with using 640p rather than 720p, and thus 640p in many cases makes no sense, when Rockstar and everyone are pretty well aware that the PS3 can handle 720p and 1080p just fine.
I am not entirely sure Rockstar have never lied, but that is another story, I don't think they'd lie about this, mainly because it wouldn't make sense for it not to be true. --Svippong 11:32, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


XCosmoX
Precisely. Many people are easily swayed from facts, usually because they prefer the rumours.
--- The Cosmo

Break[edit]

Resolutions written on the back of the boxes (PS3 & Xbox 360 games alike) are not the native ones. If you take Call of Duty (4 or MW2), you'll see "720p, 1080i, 1080p" but Infinity Ward officially admitted the games run at 600p (1024x600) on both consoles to run at 60 FPS. They are just the supported ones, native resolution is never shown.

And 720p is not an "industry standard" in video games, there are many "sub-HD" games (also on Xbox if you're worried about Xbox fanboyism, and maybe even more than PS3) like Halo, Alan Wake (while using 720p effects, but you can cleary see while playing that the global image is not rendered at 720p), Splinter Cell Conviction, PS3 version of Ghostbusters, etc.

As for the "accurate and fair test of Raw-Material recordings of both Console versions", GamesRadar did it. They don't always do this kind of stuff and they did it wrong. Quaz of Beyond3D forum is used to do the pixel counting and has been always reliable. Besides, Eurogamer did the counting (which is the source of the article) and they found 640p for the PS3 version of GTA IV. They didn't pick the information from a forum, they have their own professional tech team Digital Foundry to do it.--PhantomT1412 (talk) 22:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

This is also why I did not revert your edit, because I decided to take a good look at the article, and decided it was reliable enough. It had a good amount of fact checking and well rounded in arguments as well. Unfortunately, this very source was not provided initially, and thus we could not trust it. The original article provided as a source linked back to a forum post, this does not. Forum posts are not regarded as 'reliable sources' on Wikipedia. So thank you for your contributions. --Svippong 10:44, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

Why of Fry episode number?[edit]

hey, i changed the episode text to reflect the fact that it's the 10th episode of the 4th season (which it is), and you undid the changes? I'm new to wikipedia, but I thought what I did was correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.241.40.42 (talk) 16:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Response at Talk:The Why of Fry#Episode number?.

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference[edit]

Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 19:37, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Futurama broadcast order[edit]

This debate is re-emerging at Talk:Futurama (season 6). Just thought I should warn you Thegreyanomaly (talk) 08:18, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks. I have given up on Wikipedia's handling of Futurama. There are plenty of articles I would love to help be improved on Wikipedia, but Futurama-related articles are not one of them. Anymore. As long as they provide links to the Infosphere, then users are at least presented a better alternative for Futurama. --Svippong 10:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

I hope you would reconsider. There are two of us on each side, and they keep bringing up the pointless argument that people keep getting confused by broadcast order...

Thegreyanomaly (talk) 07:37, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 29[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Single market, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Integration (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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)