:Maybe (hopefully) one day, your site will become a big resource for all JSR fans the world over, and then it will definitely deserve a link. :)
:Maybe (hopefully) one day, your site will become a big resource for all JSR fans the world over, and then it will definitely deserve a link. :)
:If you'd like more information on what kind of external links are appropriate, have a look at our [[WP:EL|external links policy]], and if you have any questions at all, feel free to ask me, alright mate? --[[User:Dreaded Walrus|Dreaded Walrus]] <sup> [[User talk:Dreaded Walrus|t]] [[Special:Contributions/Dreaded Walrus|c]]</sup> 19:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
:If you'd like more information on what kind of external links are appropriate, have a look at our [[WP:EL|external links policy]], and if you have any questions at all, feel free to ask me, alright mate? --[[User:Dreaded Walrus|Dreaded Walrus]] <sup> [[User talk:Dreaded Walrus|t]] [[Special:Contributions/Dreaded Walrus|c]]</sup> 19:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
== Not blocked? ==
So if i'm not actually blocked, can i remove the tag from my profile that says i am? [[User:Atraxus|Atraxus]] 00:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Revision as of 00:16, 19 August 2007
If you leave a message for me: I will respond here. Either add this page to your watchlist or ask me to notify you of a response on your talk page.
If I leave a message for you: Respond on your talk page. I will add it to my watchlist, so you don't need to notify me.
This prevents the same discussion occurring in multiple stages on multiple pages.
Dreaded Walrus, Fun fact, eBaumsworld DOES infact steal things from other websites to use on their own for profit. Maybe if you did research and weren't such a prick by calling it nonsense and actually looking into things, you would have noticed the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildarms7000 (talk • contribs)
Hello! Thanks for the kind comment! To be completely honest with you, I do not like eBaum's World myself, and I know that they have taken things from, say, YTMND in the past without giving credit. But this is an encyclopedia, and if you turned to any page in a real encyclopedia, you wouldn't expect to see comments (poorly formatted) suggesting that they engage in anal sex with dogs.
If you spend time actually reading the article, you will see that it mentions that they have used things from other websites without permission, and without giving credit. We feel, as a community, that portraying the facts in cases like this often is a much better way of conveying what a website/person/idea is about than simply getting rid of everything on a page and putting the letters "NEDM". --Dreaded Walrus04:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dreaded, just wandered over from YTMND, and thus via eBaum to your page; I'd like to salute your dedication to Wikipedian policy. I don't like eBaum either, but at least we can keep it to the facts.--Unnatural2002:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Thank you for the (genuinely) kind comment! Like I say, on subjects like this, Adolf Hitler and Jack Thompson, it is best to merely list the facts, and they will often speak for themselves. It almost beyond logic that someone who hates something that deserves hating so much, that they would get rid of all the facts on those pages and replace it with, for example, "hitler sucks cocks". DAMNING indictment there!
But seriously, thanks for the compliment, it looks like you've been doing some vandal fighting too, so have a big pat on the back from me. And another reason I like you? The contribution you made before this one was to Mother 3, so have a high five for that. :) --Dreaded Walrus06:10, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
d'oh.
Hey sorry about the accidental vandalism! Bad form on my part - I'm new to the whole wiki thing and didn't do my homework well enough it seems. The content of the part of the article I deleted is incorrect. Since it can't be edited or deleted, can it be disputed? :)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ghostgirl (talk • contribs)
Don't worry about being new, everyone's new at some part, and I made mistakes back then too. The thing with that section is that it can't really be "disputed", as it can instantly be proven or disproven. What needs to be discussed is what part of that section you feel is incorrect, and in what way it is incorrect. Feel free to discuss this on the talk page of the Oblivion page. In fact, I'll give you a bit of help here. Click this link and you're all ready to start typing. And don't forget to sign all your messages on talk pages with four tildes (~~~~), as that will automatically change to say who wrote that bit, and when they wrote it. Thank you. :) --Dreaded Walrus10:36, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
About the camera in BIA3, it is a camera placed inside a 3rd person character. I know there are other games where you can see your feet, but they are not really there. They are attached to the camera as well as the gun and what you see is different to everyone else. The level of detail on the gun you see through the camera is a lot more detailed than what others see when they look at you, say in multi-player. Some games when you reload, you see your hands and pulling the clip out, but when others look at you, its a low res gun and the clip doesn't even move. Gearbox has said their idea is new and called "first-person actor" so it's worth having the info there. X36007:26, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, no problem mate. I have your page on my watchlist from back when you did the Football Manager templates, and I just happened to see it, that's all. :) --Dreaded Walrus06:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see the original request when I first posted and only spotted it later, I was reading up on the info in the original request when your message arrived. Would the best course be to remove my request or just mark it as being a mistaken multiple request? - X20113:48, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd probably just leave it there, to be honest. We'll see what they'll do. It might just make the urgency of the matter clear. As most of the vandals seem to be either IP or new, semi-protection will probably be what they'll choose, but either one is probably necessary, I'd say.--Dreaded Walrus13:54, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for removing your comment from my talk page, but I had to revert back to get rid of Fluence's insane Keane powertrip. I wouldn't worry about what he thinks of you, if you're not in Keane then you're just a tiny-faced insignificance to him. Mr. Scare09:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's alright. I was trying to look through Wikipedia policy, because I know there's a policy against editing others comments, let alone other people's comments on that person's talk page in response to someone entirely unrelated to the editor. Poor Fluence, he only wants to help (Wikipedia to have poor English articles on every aspect of Keane's lives). --Dreaded Walrus09:18, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I was just looking through his contribs, and saw that. He also said something on the Talk:Rush Limbaugh page, but I'm not really involved in that debate, and I don't want to get involved, so I'll just leave that there for now. I did leave a warning on his page though, just a template. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dreaded Walrus (talk • contribs).
How to put a reference properly:
In order to read this properly open the edit function and then show preview.
...(text of the article)...[1]...(article continues)...
at the end of the article your text ...(what should be listed as your reference)... gets automatically listed below the following command:
Thank you for that. I just felt it was important to add it to the article, hoping that someone else would be able to change it to a proper reference, rather than just an external link. So thanks. :)--Dreaded Walrus20:26, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Gitaroo Man
Hiya!
What's up? Do you like Gitaroo Man? Or did you just write the article? By the way, It's REALLY awesome! Thankz for the info cuz now I have the game!! Woot!
While I can't claim that I wrote the article (I didn't - most of my edits have been minor changes, or reverts), I can say that I am a fan of the game, and I have been for a couple of years now. You don't need to thank me personally for the information, because again I didn't write it, but I appreciate the kudos all the same. :P
Also, just as a guideline, remember to add ~~~~ to the end of the post, and it will expand to your real signature, which will include a clickable version of your name. Just helps for future readers, you know? Anyway, if you ever have any questions about Wikipedia, feel free to ask. :) --Dreaded Walrus20:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey bro
Thanks for trying to help out with the article in my sandbox. However, the reason I put <nowiki> for that stuff was so that 1) the Fair Use Image would not be displayed in my Userspace, which is against Wikipedia policy, and 2) so that the code for inclusion of this article into various categories could be retained without actually putting a dead article into them. If you don't mind, I'd like to keep it that way for now. Sorry if I seem like I'm stepping on your toes; I appreciate your help. —Lantoka( talk | contrib)10:50, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict, in response to first post) - No problem whatsoever, I hadn't thought of it like that. I reverted my own edit. Also, remember to remind your friends over at Genmay to sign their talk page comments (if they would sign up for an account too, that would be even better), as it helps keep track of who said what, and respond appropriately, e.t.c. --Dreaded Walrus10:55, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know the funny thing bro? My account over there is broken. I haven't posted there in years! Your comment on the discussion page should do the trick though. ;) Thanks again for your help. —Lantoka( talk | contrib)10:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, I've added it to my watchlist, so that I can keep an eye on things, and in the rare possibility of vandalism, revert it e.t.c.
Also, I will be able to respond to comments on the talk page that way, and add any unsigned templates that will almost certainly be needed from time to time. --Dreaded Walrus11:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again
Hey again!
Thanks 4 the advice- I'll be sure to do that soon! see- look! ^-^
Well, today is release day 1 of the PS3. I heard that some guy got shot for loitering. Do you think that the PS3 will be worth the wait? AOTS doesn't think so. They say that the Xbox 360 will kick it's ass. My friend says that there were a lot of people waiting there for it. I think they'll all be dissapointed with the results. I was watching the Tokyo Game Show last night and there are a lot of great games in Japan right now. What do you think? Personally, I think that the Wii is the dominator. They say it's gonna be casual to play, too.
You'll have to let me know what you think of the PS3, because I don't live in North America. I live in England, and it doesn't come out over here until March, at the earliest. :(
Hehe, I'm looking forward to the Wii though, and that is coming out over here in December, which isn't too long after the NA launch. Nintendo Loves Me. :P --Dreaded Walrus15:06, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've nominated Turkey Bowl for deletion [[1]], if you'd like to take part in the debate. Thanks for directing me to the AFD instructions, too. Héous18:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. I'll make my way over there in a little bit. One thing I should mention is you've got to be careful about leaving messages such as this on users' talk pages, as it may be regarded as soliciting votes, which is against policy. As I was involved in the talk page just moments earlier it's fine, especially as I had already mentioned that I, too, agree it should be deleted, but just as a general warning in future be a bit careful. :) --Dreaded Walrus18:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Walrus,
Just out of curiosity, other than the problem with the focus of the article being on the US, what did you think of the page military brat. I'm working on improving it, but don't know where/what needs to be improved. Unfortuantely I can't find anything on non-US brats right now... so what else can I do to improve it? I'll watch your page for a response.Balloonman16:32, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't read the whole article - I was just browsing Wikipedia, saw the template and a quick speed-read made me think that it deals with the US side of things, so I just swapped it for the correct, more precise template.
The problem is, I would say that the whole "military brat" thing is a lot more common in the US than elsewhere. They do exist elsewhere in the world, such as here in the UK, but it's nowhere near as common, and I don't think the same term is used. I suppose it's similar to soccer mom. Parents with similar kinds of ambitions for their children exist over here too (although very rarely), though the term soccer mom is rarely used, as we prefer the term football over here for the sport, and for the parent the terms mum, mam or even mother are used.
Going back to the whole military brat thing (sorry for the sidetrack, I often do that), I aren't too clued up on the military in general, though my brother is in the army, and I could ask him in a couple of weeks when I next see him. Until then, there's always google, when you select results only from the UK.
As for other ways the article may be improved, again I only had a quick scan through, but perhaps a section on references to the term in popular culture, or how the media uses the term, or links to similar terms, as in the article on Chavs.
thanks for the thoughts... I'm probably going to add another section to the article because I've been investigating this weakness... and apparently, most of the funding for research into military brats has been from the US military. So I'll probably add a section discussing the research funding and why it is US centric and why the conclusions may not apply to non-US brats. I've also been told that British service members live off base more and might move more while their families stay put...Balloonman19:08, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again, I went back an added a section on the research into Military Brats. My own experience (which is rather limited) is that the research had a heavy US bias and relatively recent (past 20 years.) While reading a compiliation of sociological studies, I came across two interesting facts:
Most research is relatively new as the subject has only been studied for the past 20 years.
Most of this reseach is sponsored by the US Armed Forces.
Currently there is extremely little done in other countries. I was wondering if, based on the bias within the research and the explanation in the article, would it be appropriate to remove the template? I won't do it because I'm biased, so I thought I'd have you take a look at it. PS respond here, I'm watching your page.Balloonman17:29, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I've done that now. I've also modified some of the references, as if you look at the references in the old version, some of them (such as reference two) end in the author, but don't have a space after the full stop (or period), which looks a bit bad on the eyes, so I added spaces to all of them, too. I've also added the page to my watchlist now, so I can track it for the next couple of days :) --Dreaded Walrus18:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I never even looked at the edit history. I was just browsing Wikipedia, as we do (a friend I was talking to online goes to Pinkerton Academy, it seems), and all I saw was a clearly POV alumni section. So firstly I just removed the clearly POV words (which looking at the history would have been a full revert of the previous edit, and nothing else), and then I saw that there were people there that did not have articles. Generally, most notable people in lists of notable people are links to articles that exist. I can't claim to have heard of any of these people bar Alan Shepard, not being from the US, so I just figured these people might be little-known TV personalities, you know? Either way, I'm sure you know more about the subject than I do, so feel free to re-add those people if you like, my edit was mainly for removing those POV words. :) --Dreaded Walrus04:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, sorry. I just figured that as there was a chance that some people might not know what those breeds of dog were, that there was at least a small level of relevancy there. Still, the secularism link was appropriate, right? :) --Dreaded Walrus17:48, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK
Sorry for that but I'm just fed up of people saying the same thing about Chaplin for months even though the page has been protected in the past. I won't do it again--Fluence01:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Health Wiki Research
A colleague and I are conducting a study on health wikis. We are looking at how wikis co-construct health information and create communities. We noticed that you are a frequent contributor to Wikipedia on health topics.
This research will help wikipedia and other wikis understand how health information is co-created and used.
We are from James Madison University in Harrisonburg, Virginia. The project was approved by our university research committee and members of the Wikipedia Foundation.
Sorry to hear that they don't come out until late:( It's a shame.... The PS3 seems.... well... I don't know. But the Wii seems to be making a comeback even though a lot of people at my school say that it sucks. Actually, my cousin just got a Wii on it's release day of Thanksgiving:) He's not going to get it until Christmas (his mom didn't know what it was, so he came with her...) Oh well. Truth is, I think that the Wii is much better... Have you seen the reviews of 'The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess'!? It looks like such a blast, even on the Gcube, but with the Wii, it's probably better.... What do you think?
I concur. The PS3 could be said to be the antithesis of the PS2. Instead of being full of great games like the PS2, it's just full of crap.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.254.86.180 (talk • contribs).
I removed the "WikiHalo" from your userpage because it was awarded illegitimately by User:AwarderofHalos, who went round adding Halos to random users. See here. The WP:HALO project is about awarding Halos to users who the community decides (via the voting process seen here) are worthy. As your Halo was awarded at random, and the proper processes were not gone through, it is not a legitimate Halo, and therefore having it on your userpage implies endorsement where there is none.
Due to the reasons provided in my first paragraph above, I shall be removing the Halo again. It is nothing personal against you, but the Halo is not there legally (for want of a better term).
So tell me, "Dreaded Walrus" (is that what your friends call you?); just how do you know that this wikihalo was wrongly awarded to me? Isn't that kind of an epistemological impossibility? I mean, how can you climb inside that user's head to determine that it was erroneously awarded?
My friends (outside of the internet, anyway) don't call me Dreaded Walrus, just as your real life friends don't call you ILike2BeAnonymous. But that is neither here nor there.
With regards to how I know that particular Halo is unwarranted, you will see above I linked to the nomination process for receiving a Wikihalo. The user that added the Wikihalo to you (and to many others within a very short period of time) did not put you up for nomination, he simply added the template to all of your userpages, with the exact same stock wording each time. He was blocked indefinitely for his actions, if I remember correctly.
Perhaps one day someone will nominate you for a Wikihalo, and you may well receive one then.
You will notice I didn't remove the Barnstar on your userpage, as that doesn't require a nomination process or any nonsense like that, and the user who gave it to you was not breaking any kind of rules themselves.
Nope, no harm, no foul. You have to understand I'm a bit irritated, as you're only one of about 3 editors the last couple days who's been doing this kind of meta-editing on either my user page or my talk page. +ILike2BeAnonymous21:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Adding Gamevideos links
I'm new to linking and editing to Wiki and looking more at the guidelines you sent over I can see I was skipping some steps sorry! I'll add to the talk page instead. Thanks for taking the time to explain.
Hi, thanks for the info about ~~~~ I will do that, I thought I had added my sign but did it a different way to ~~~~ and obviouslly didnt work. Thanks, Chris Kicken1816:19, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again for correcting my < no wiki > bits, i just saw how to do it and came back but you had done it already :) Kicken1812:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. That was something I considered doing at the time (it certainly would have been easier, both for myself, and in the case that anyone decided to re-add it with sources in future when the previous version was too deeply buried in the history), yet in the end I ended up going the commenting out route, because to my eyes at least, the nowiki version looked quite unwieldy on the eye. If you'd prefer, it wouldn't be too much of a problem for me to change it to the nowiki mention. :) --Dreaded Walrus18:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I may have missed something here, but I removed the speedy from this article. He looks very notable and encyclopedic to me. Take it to AfD if you aren't convinced, or tell me if I have missed something obvious. If you reply here, please notify me on my talk page. J Milburn13:04, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
look b4 u leap
Please do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page or replace them with inappropriate content. Removing or altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. You are welcome to archive your talk page. Thanks. Dreaded Walrustc02:15, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reading his discussion page, it is filled with people accusing him of insults, and ad hominem attacks. As well as (from the little i looked) one person accusing him of hiding behind an IP adress to disguise his identity. Seems familiar.
Maybe, but until we have proof, it is not disastrous, as he is not using it to pretend that it is an entirely different person in cases where it would matter, such as deletion debates. Until then, accusing people (especially established users such as Batman2005) of things can cause needless disruptions to what we are all really here to do: Improve Wikipedia. --Dreaded Walrustc08:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did archive the comments, Batman2005 remove the archive and said that was against the rules, guess not. DO you have a link to the rule where it says that's allowed.Drsmoo16:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Chelsea wins issue
Thanks for your messages on my talk page and the error report- I knew I was right, I just wasn't sure why. I knew I would say 'Chelsea win', but also knew that it should say 'Chelsea Football Club wins'. J Milburn21:41, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. I wasn't certain whether I should chip in on another user's talk page, I always feel a bit of an intruder doing that, but I just figured I'd offer my take on things (whether it was a well-founded take or not). I'm glad I could be of help. :) --Dreaded Walrustc21:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, this is quite a bizarre and rare coincidence. I see from your userpage that you live in Ireleth. I grew up most of my secondary school years living in Askam (I went to Dowdales), up the housing estate. Also, in secondary school, for my work experience, I did a placement at Ireleth St. Peter's school. I no longer live in Askam, having moved to Barrow when I was 16 years old, and I still live there now (5 years on). --Dreaded Walrustc22:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Brian Crecente
Ok then, you like to follow me around so much, how about you second nominate Brian Crecente for deletion as well as Kotaku. The Crecente page is more of a fanpage/tribute to the guy other than being encyclopedic. As for kotaku, apparently Brian Crecente himself is editing the page, can't get more biased than that. Both are in need of a major cleanup or simply deletion. 70.48.35.19115:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Firstly, I didn't "follow you around", I always make a habit of checking the contributions of people I revert (in this case, it was you, on the Kotaku page), incase they have made similar edits elsewhere. And that's how I found your edits on the other pages. I don't really have the time right now to nominate the Brian Crecente article for deletion. If you like, you could register (takes a minute or two, at most), then follow the instructions here. You will note how I didn't revert your changes to the Brian Crecente article, and infact, I agree with you so much on that one that I added a template that suggests it looks more like a CV/resumé than an article.
However, I feel that Kotaku is notable enough for an article, and that the templates you added to that page don't reflect the article in its current state. Have a read through the project pages for the templates you added, at WP:FAN, WP:NOT, and WP:NOT#SOAPBOX (for the advert tag), and you will see that they don't really apply to the Kotaku article.
If you need additional help, or aren't willing/able to register to Wikipedia to nominate the Crecente article for deletion yourself, just reply here telling me the exact reason you feel the page will be deleted, and I will nominate the article for deletion on your behalf, later today. Thanks. --Dreaded Walrustc17:41, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and as for Crecente editing the Kotaku article, this is discouraged on Wikipedia, but not against policy. There are numerous other people who have edited articles relating to them, including Jack Thompson and Jimmy Wales. As long as they don't try to hide that it is them and pretend that they are a neutral outsider, then we generally assume good faith. :) --Dreaded Walrustc17:46, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See this is what worries me, supposedly crecente (or imposter) comes on to take out a negative mention of the site. See 4 edits ago Even in the discussion there is question to their motive, and though that is suspect, it didn't take him long to come on and revert the changes. I have high doubts anything negative could make it into this article without the guard dogs reverting it. 64.231.253.10901:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... Here's the thing... You're right in saying that the article doesn't really have anything negative in it... but to me, the particular information you referred to does seem a bit one-sided, and poorly referenced (the references are mostly to Kotaku articles that are negative about Sony. The same could easily be done to find articles negative about Microsoft, or Nintendo). In order for the article to properly claim that Kotaku is biased in its reporting, we would need to find references from an independent source that specifically state that Kotaku is biased. I didn't get the chance to do this, but to be honest, I probably would have removed that particular paragraph, too, for the reasons staded.
Still, have you made a decision on what you would like to do with regards to the Crecente article? Let me know if you need any help there. :) --Dreaded Walrustc01:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't actually saying the edit was fair in the first place. I was just trying to point out how quickly it was reverted :P 69.158.170.13500:50, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ya I can admit I was being a smart ass there. I've been looking at the Jennifer Ann Crecente article right now, to be honest it seems like another one for deletion as well as the charity named after her. In many ways it seems inappropriate to nominate it based on what I have previously nominated and the user who was even editing that article. I know that you're a veteran wikipedia user, so I'm just curious, what are your thoughts? Should I wait, go ahead with it, or does it seem unfounded to you? 64.231.248.8706:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm... I agree that if you were to nominate Brian Crecente, Jennifer Ann Crecente and Jennifer Ann's Group for deletion all in one go, it might come across as a bit suspect, or like you had a vendetta against the family, which I'm sure is not the case. Perhaps the best thing to do in this situation would be to read through the talk page of Jennifer Ann's Group, which has discussion relevant to what you are thinking of, and you would do well to note, also, that there has already been an AfD on Jennifer Ann Crecente back in November 2006, which ended with the decision to move the page into Drew's user space. It was moved back to mainspace again on 16 Feb 07, presumably due to the improvements made in that time.
What I would say is, read through the article, make sure that they either pass or do not pass their relevant notability guidelines (for example, WP:BIO for Jennifer Ann Crecente), because if they do pass these guidelines, and you were to nominate them, your reasoning could be seen as you simply not liking the pages. As for my personal thoughts on the matter, I don't really have one. I disagreed with you that the Kotaku article was biased, agreed with you on Brian Crecente, and if I came across the article on Jennifer Ann's Group back when it was in the condition it was when it was listed for AfD, I would have suggested deleting/userfying it.
As always, if you need any help with anything, feel free to come to me, I'll try my best. And again, if you come to the decision that you would like to nominate an article for deletion, you will obviously not be able to complete the process yourself (unregistered users are not allowed to create new pages), so you are welcome to ask me to complete the process for you, provided you let me know what your rationale would be. :) --Dreaded Walrustc07:26, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ya, I've been looking at it and the previous nomination for a while, I'm going to atleast wait until the Brian Crecente afd is decided upon. I'd rather have someone who disagrees with me than asking someone with the same opinions. Thanks again for the advice. 70.48.37.5603:20, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just as background, the person who's been following me around and nominating anything with my last name for deletion, was a commenter on Kotaku who was banned for his inappropriate behavior. Apparently, he's found this to be the best way to react to that decision. Brian Crecente14:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
John B Keane
Hi Walrus, why did you revert my changes to Keane dude? I think I have a valid point in keeping names of people called Keane from that page, if we have one then we have to have them all and that would be messy and make the Keane (surname) article redundant, Roy should be the only exception to the rule.Murphy Inc23:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I agree entirely. I saw Roy's name there, and didn't notice that there was a separate disambig page for surnames. I meant to revert myself, but forgot. Sorry! I have reverted myself, just now. :) --Dreaded Walrustc00:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my comment to you on the Tal Ben Haim talk page. I have no objection to mention his name in Arabic as well-but please see my notes there.
Best --Gilisa10:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. --Atlan (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FM 2007
Do you own FM 2007 and play it or is it just something that you know about?
You seem like a "guru" wiith all the edits, I was thinking if people on game articles all have links to the game with some kind of unwritten law saying you have to play on it to be knowledgeable but aside from wikipedia how the hell do you do well in a league I find it impossible Krummy209:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you support West Brom? I might get round to finding time to to the Tutorial I have been too busy lately, for my first proper edit I want to spend time getting it correct. Krummy209:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do support West Brom, but in Football Manager, I usually manage Lancaster City F.C.. though obviously I won't be able to do that in the next one, what with them being relegated out of the Conference North.
Wikipedia probably isn't the place to give videogames advice, so if you're having trouble winning matches, you could do a lot worse than go here. Particularly, thesetwo threads should get you started.
As for Wikipedia, most people start off making small edits, and end up doing more and more as they learn more of the procedures, policies and guidelines. Some people (like me) just spend most of their time making small edits like reverts, grammar/spelling/typo fixes, and redirect/disambiguation bypasses.
No matter what you decide to do, you'll almost certainly be of benefit to Wikipedia, so don't hold off making an edit if you see something that needs changing, alright? And if you ever need any help with things, feel free to come to me. :) --Dreaded Walrustc13:04, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks muchly. I often make that kind of mistake, especially with that particular link. Thanks again for pointing it out, I changed the post now. :) --Dreaded Walrustc13:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't have the time to look up how much everyone had contributed, I just asked the opinions of anyone that had edited the page since early 2007 since I assumed those people might have an interest in commenting since the article had been of some interest or another. If you read the debate it is quite simple. One user is disregarding the facts and trying to mask them and keeps removing an image and denying sourced statements, you don't have to know about the area or have been here, he has not either. As for NPOV "crummiest commute" is not in violation of NPOV. Caltrans (the California Department of Transportation) compiles an annual list of the most congested freeways in California, they themselves call it the "Crummiest Commutes" and it is a direct quote from the San Francisco Chronicle. I thought it was notable that this city has the worst commute in the Bay Area and has had it for the last 7 years, therefore the edit warring has continued as many people readd this image and caption while one sole user continues to remove it. As for solicitation well, I don't care if it seems that way it isn't and even if it were, frowned upon is harly a wikipedia policy so i can do so at any time, now I would never just hit up friends or people with like opinions to back me up however wikipedia isnt run by straw polls for this very reason and policy is what wins and should. Anything else? Thanks for taking the time to comment it's greatly appreciated I just wanted further opinions, I think i found the right place to make a request for comments at this point also. Have a great one and sorry for writing so much I have a.d.d. and sometimes I just go on a roll, Cheers!Cholga is a SUPERSTAR¡Talk2Cholga!Sexy Contribs03:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just like to point out, for the sake of accuracy, that Caltrans made no such characterization of the congestion in this area: the only place this even appears in the referenced article is in the headline, so it was obviously the work of the headline editor at the S.F. Chronicle, not Caltrans. (Still arguably "unencyclopedic", I'd say.) +ILike2BeAnonymous05:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Now, a proper response. Firstly, like I said in the page, I have no problem with what you did (the cross-posting to talk pages), and it wasn't against the rules. It isn't a policy, but it is a guideline (see Wikipedia:Canvassing). Your messages in this instance were not given to a specific group, or owt like that. So I just provided a general kind of friendly warning to be careful, because doing it for WP:XfD, or if you cross-posted only to people who you KNEW would agree with you, and that kind of thing IS against policy. I just couldn't find it at the time :P. I actually heavily recommend you read that page on canvassing, as you seem to have been (rightly or wrongly) given a more negative warning in the past. As for writing so much, it's no problem at all. It gives me something to read, and you haven't been aggressive, or offensive or anything. :)
Now to the point of the image itself. Like I said on the talk page, I think the image (which is of Interstate 80) is probably more appropriate for inclusion in the article on Interstate 80. As for the caption on the image, my main point is this:
Saying that it is one of the "crummiest commutes" is not encyclopedic language, as "crummy" is barely formal. It also probably isn't a word that most of the world's speakers of the English language could understand. Hell, even here in England some people would not get it. I would have nothing against it being described as "one of the most congested freeways in California", as long as it was backed up with reliable sources, as that is encyclopedic language. But even then, that is more appropriate for the article on Interstate 80 than it is for the article on Richmond, California. Do you see my point on this?
As for the actual straw poll itself, the reason I voted neutral is not only because I didn't want to get into the debate and spend my time reading through it, but also because I don't really have that strong an opinion either way. Still, if you ever have any questions about anything, feel free to come to me, I'll respond when I get chance. :) --Dreaded Walrustc04:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
vandalism on Richmond, ca
ILike2BeAnonymous has vandalized the page by removing large amount of content on Richmond, ca. He disguised his edit as to revert vandalism and revert that highway picture when he is actually removing other content in the crime section. Cholga already reported him. I am just informing you that. Chris!my talk23:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, You might be interested that me and ILike2BeAnonymous have had a run in in the past. See here. But yes, his inability to be civil about some things is a bit worrying. --Dreaded Walrustc23:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing that out. I remember when she had been living in England, but it was later I knew she "was" from Australia. But who knows anymore. However, I didn't know she spoke Hindi. Well, it's pretty obvious Victoria Eleanor's daughter is not dead--Fluence01:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. No problem. It is pretty sad, that she (assuming the user is female) needed the attention so badly as to fake her own death, and use a sockpuppet to act as a concerned friend. If I was depressed, I might leave the project, sure, but I would never try to convince my online friends that I had died. It would be an awful thing to do, as they would worry immensely, as you clearly did. Maybe she will explain at one point, why she did it. But like you say, the user hasn't really edited since 25 June. Still, even though me and you have occasionally disagreed on things (usually Keane-related) in the past, I hope you can get over this episode quickly, and carry on your work on the Wikipedias. --Dreaded Walrustc01:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As for her and The Vines, she appeared to add Craig Nicholls to her userpage on 11 May 2006, when she also removed the information about her education and the languages she speaks. --Dreaded Walrustc01:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thanks for your assistance in getting this mess all straightened out then. It's a shame this was done, but better that Victoria Eleanor . . . whoever he/she is . . . is still alive and unharmed. Thanks again. Arundhati lejeune03:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't really do anything to be fair. It's User:DragonflySixtyseven that brought this to light. I just kinda observed from the sidelines (having been involved with Fluence in the past, and venturing to the other talk pages from there after Jade's messages to him). All I did really, was just point out that according to "Victoria"'s story, she moved to Australia in December, rather than still living in England. Of course, none of that is actually true, rather just a fabrication. And of course, it's good that someone who has obviously made some good edits to Wikipedia in the past is still alive, though I will be interested to see if s/he decides to return after explaining explaining herself, return under a new account name, or simply not edit here anymore. --Dreaded Walrustc03:10, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not a crime. She may have her reasons. Odd but we're all a bit odd by being part of Wikipedia. I still consider her a friend, even though after what she's done. I hope we to someday really know what happened. And, if she somehow did actually die, to rest in peace.--Fluence03:36, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IP 70.186.172.75
This IP belongs to User Arundhati Lejeune . . . I have added that to the IP user page. I think i get logged out after a certain period of time, and sometimes I forgot to log back in. Sorry. Arundhati lejeune03:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, it's no problem. It's just I saw that someone left a warning on your IP's talk page for "removing other people's comments", when one of the comments was by yourself, just logged in.
As for being logged out, I think there is a checkbox when logging in, that will allow you to choose to stay logged in permenantly. I use it, but if you are on a public computer, it's probably not beneficial. --Dreaded Walrustc03:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, wow. I never realised the released an analogue pad. I knew there was one for the Saturn (NiGHTS), but this is new to me. Thanks for pointing this out. So, does this mean that the game only allowed that multiplayer mode in Japan only, and only if you had that special controller? Or did it actually use the face buttons, and the author was mistaken? Or did it use the triggers in Japan, and face buttons elsewhere? It has been so long since I played Micro Machines 2 (probably about 10 years) that I can't remember really. Either way, I'd say the article should be changed to reflect this, probably. --Dreaded Walrustc20:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hold your breath, they were just labeled "trigger buttons". All Mega Drive/Genesis pads were digital. So much for that part of the story. Looking at the game, 4 pads, 8 people – this doesn't sound very comfortable at all. --32X19:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, I see that the face buttons were called "triggers" now, looking at the image close up, but interestingly, according to the section you just linked me to, there is this, also:
Significant 3rd Party Accessories
Analogue control pad (Incredibly rare Japan only mega drive pad with an analogue stick and triggers)
So unless an author decided to slip in some lies, and they weren't reverted, that's the first I've heard of an analogue Mega Drive pad. That's the bit I was talking about. --Dreaded Walrustc01:07, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
hi
i noticed that you use spell check with firefox, ive seen this done at my school but didnt know that you could set it up, do you know how? if so would you please tell me how to do this? thanks! also regarding Richmond, Califoria after losing the discussion ILikeToBeAnonymous insists on writing the traffic congestion portion his way. I think it cleary makes sense to state that the morning weekday commute to san francisco from richmond is along the most congested highway in the region, not say hercules or move to I-80. im my honest opinion the articles that state Hercules to the Bay Bridge clearly state that richmond has highly congested freeways in the same way the sentance states west of the mississippi are pretty' cleary states that california is pretty. could you please comment on this on discussion page whatever your feelings. also please let me know on my talk page when you have replied, thank you.Cholga is a SUPERSTAR¡Talk2Cholga!Sexy Contribs03:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I might be wrong here, but I think spell-checking was only introduced to Firefox with Firefox 2.0. I don't know if you're using the latest version of Firefox, but if not, or if you're not sure, you can always go here. After that, it should either be turned on automatically, or if not, just look on your options. I've shown where it is for you in this screenshot. Let me know how you get on with that. Like I say, if I were to contribute to that discussion, I would most likely be misguided. I have no knowledge of the area, and indeed, very little knowledge of anything west of Florida, having only been to Florida (3 times) and New Hampshire (once, going again later this year) in my life. It would be like if I asked you to weigh in with your opinion on a discussion about Newcastle or Liverpool. Sorry. --Dreaded Walrustc04:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I didn't put a warning on your page, as it's not like you did anything wrong. It was just a simple mistake, and we all do those. :) --Dreaded Walrustc05:20, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I'm kinda new to Wiki as you can tell, and I guess I forgot to edit the time I posted that message when I did so =P, but thanks for letting me know, I'm trying to figure all this stuff out as I go along anyways. Heh.
I posted a reply (I think) on my "my talk" page, but I don't think it alerts you with the new message? So, I will just post one here. Thanks for the cheatsheet link. Helps quite a bit. Um, how do I reply to someones message so that they know I replied?NastalgicCam05:11, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I added your talk page to my watchlist, so, when I click on that button at the top of every page that says "my watchlist", it shows me the current status of every page on my watchlist, and who made the most recent changes. That's how I saw that you needed help earlier. I would have responded to your most recent message sooner, but I was away from the computer. Rest assured, I will see any message you leave on your talk page, though. Likewise, if someone is waiting for a response from you on a page, they will probably have it on their own watchlist. :) --Dreaded Walrustc05:31, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, ok, cool. I'm used to a forum system really, so I usually have an inbox, as do others. It would be nice if a feature like that was added to Wikipedia. Nice way to sort out messages =) NastalgicCam21:57, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Bad form" isn't the name of any particular guideline. I meant it's bad form to copy and paste the same message to multiple users on multiple pages. As for that, please see our guidelines on canvassing. More appropriate to this particular case would be WP:MULTI. If you need more information, that section used to be an entire page, here. Have a read through those, especially those last two. :) --Dreaded Walrustc04:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, just make sure you explain to Fluence, as he was probably the most worried of everyone (and for obvious reasons). You should specify an email address at Special:Preferences, so that you two can talk about this in perhaps a bit more of a private manner than here on your talk pages.
Well Ok...and what's wrong with my talk page. It's getting deleted but then it comes back on again. Don't know it sounds kind of creepy. 59.183.132.14814:47, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shit man I did sign in. I was signed in when I wrote the above message. Is something wrong with Wikipedia?- Jade1984
Not that I'm aware of. Perhaps your session is expiring? Are you using a proxy to edit Wikipedia? Make sure that next time you log in, you tick the "remember me" box (that might not be the exact name). --Dreaded Walrustc11:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Help
I have finally decided to take up your offer of help, please can you help me to fix my little problem, not sure what this is going to look like
--Krummy212:54, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I must admit, tables and other such things are not specialities of mine, so I can't particularly help you there. What I can link you to, is {{User contrib}}, which is very similar to what you are looking for. Example:
If you wanted to customise it a bit, you could substitute it by using {{subst:usercontrib|50}}, and then work with that code, to see what you can make. --Dreaded Walrustc13:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, sorry to bother you again but I have another question for you. DOes Wikipedia use a standard HTML/CSS system as well? I was wondering if it is possible to add things like DIV to user profiles and pages. NastalgicCam13:55, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As above, coding isn't really a strong point of mine, but there is a rather comprehensive list of markup here, and maybe this could be of use to you. Let me know how you get on. --Dreaded Walrustc14:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Right-o. Thanks very much, you see, I can type HTML and CSS, but this Wiki-language is a bit strange.
I used to be able to do a bit of HTML, when I was younger, but, without practice, it kinda faded. I should also tell you that much of the most commonly used markup appears either on the toolbar just above the edit window, or, if you scroll down, there is a clickable list of markup, that instantly inserts it where the cursor is. I find myself using both regularly. --Dreaded Walrustc14:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've been using that often myself. It's useful because Wiki seems to use commands instead of a markup, or at least a made-up markup. Eventually I will learn more about this crazy website and (hopefully) become an active contributor. =) NastalgicCam14:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then expect a billion questions! D= Heh. Is there a community on Wiki, or is it simply "professional", in the sense that people only discuss the topics and pages.NastalgicCam15:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(resetting indentation) Well, we have mailing lists, and IRC channels. Though I'm not at all active in either of them. If you've added your email address to your preferences, you can also email anyone else that has added their email address. There is a button on the left hand side, in the toolbox. This will reveal your email address to that user though, when your email arrives in their inbox. So don't start emailing someone who doesn't like you for whatever reason. :) --Dreaded Walrustc15:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
AHHHH!! IRC! RUN FOR YOUR LIFE! Bah, I always hated those =P. As for E-mail, that seems as if it would be the most obvious, ya? I might get to work on my Wiki User Page today, try to mess with CSS , maybe place a DIV over it =). NastalgicCam16:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've probably already pointed this out to you, but if you want somewhere to practice, you can always try things out at the sandbox, or you can even create your own personal sandbox in your userspace, if you want. To create a page in your userspace, just go to, for example, User:NastalgicCam/Sandbox, and edit. Be sure to remember to preface it with "User:NastalgicCam" though, case-sensitive, otherwise it will be created as a subpage of some other User's page, which would be bad. :) --Dreaded Walrustc16:10, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah yeah, I played with the sandbox earlier. I just made an image for the header of my user page which is now up, I just made my own template. Wasn't too difficult (as long as you have banner experience).` It's rather basic for now, but you can check it out if you want. NastalgicCam16:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not bad, though if all you want is an image to display, you don't need to create a template for that. Just type [[Image:Example.jpg]] (in your case, this would be Image:Qxz-ad-23153675347as.gif). Also, the template you created ({{Qxz-ad}}) is very similarly named to an existing template {{Qxz-ads}}, which is used by a lot of people (including me, on my page). This means that people who could be looking for {{Qxz-ads}} might accidentally type {{Qxz-ad}}, and get your template rather than the one they intended. With your permission, I'd like to change the template you created to redirect to the more established template. If you like, I could move your template to a new name if you like (such as {{NastalgicCam-header}}, as an example), though like I say, if all you are using it for is a single static image, then you don't need a template for it. It would be like creating a template to put the words "hello!". It's just a strain on the server :). As an aside, you have, on your user page, {{Qxz-ad#23153675347as}}. Everything after and including the hash symbol (#) isn't recognised in templates, and it is therefore useless as far as your template goes. You just need to use {{Qxz-ad}}. Let me know what your thoughts on all this are, and I'll act accordingly. :) --Dreaded Walrustc16:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doh! I feel stupid now =P. In that case, um, feel free to delete the template, for I will just use the code for the static image. See, I got confused thinking that it would be a thumbnail image with the caption, which is not what I wanted. So yeah, you can remove that template if you know how to, I will just make a static one.NastalgicCam16:48, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yea yea. I ended up putting a thumbnail image of myself in there with the caption "It's me!". I'm basically making it a profile like one that would be of a celebrity on Wiki or anyone who has a profile made for them.NastalgicCam17:21, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And
Thank you for your support on the Mademoiselle K page. It just seemed like all my typing hard work was going to go to waste. Thanks once again :-) Jade198415:00, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all. I must admit I'd never heard of her myself (I don't follow music), but a quick Google leads me to believe she may well be notable enough. This is where I usually say "If you have any questions or need any help, feel free to ask", but I you're probably more experienced than me when it comes to working on articles. :) --Dreaded Walrustc15:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no it's nothing like that really but thanks anyways :D! I actually heard of her last month, she's gaining popularity though. She sings in French, so maybe not many people know about her. Jade198406:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My new sign.
I made a sign for me, like others have, because I didn't like the basic one. I hope you don't mind that I used yours as a reference (for the "sup" tags really). I didn't copy any of your coding, just used it as a reference because when I tried using standard CSS on it, it said invalid *shrugs*. -CamT|C07:47, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem at all, it looks good. :)
Oh, and just as an aside, I saw you requested help on how to revert changes. You may be interested in reading Help:Reverting. Let me know if that helps you at all (you could try making a test edit to your own page, and then reverting it, to see if it worked. :) ) --Dreaded Walrustc08:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, a few minutes after making that help post I deleted it because I found that same page. Someone had put something stupid, like "PEEEEEEE POOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOP!!!!" on the main talk page but I didn't know how to fix it! =O -CamT|C08:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that. [4] It was reverted a minute later though anyway, so that's okay. Still, feel free to go ahead and revert any vandalism you see, and you'll be improving the encyclopedia. :) --Dreaded Walrustc08:24, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Makes me feel warm and fuzzy when I do it. =) Also, do I have permission to edit any page as need be? I see a lot of grammar problems I could change, but don't know if I will get a slap on the wrist and sent to the corner. -CamT|C08:30, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, thanks for making the edit to my E-mail adress yesterday, I just decided to make it a mailto link for now. I may remove it though. -CamT|C08:34, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Also, there are only a few pages that regular users aren't able to edit (the main page being one example), but if you see another page, any other page that needs anything changing, removing, added to it, we have one particular guideline, that is perhaps far more important for our newer users to remember than for our older ones, and that is, Be bold. To elaborate, if you see a change that needs doing, whether it's poor formatting, grammar errors, spelling errors, typos, do it! As long as it isn't blatant vandalism, then even if your changes were seen as bad and reverted, you probably won't get slapped with a warning or owt. Perhaps the main thing you should be aware of when making changes are American and British English differences. Remember that you shouldn't, for example, go through the article on American football, and change all spelling to British English, and you shouldn't go through the article on, say, Harry Potter, and change all spelling to American English. Apart from that, really do be bold. :) --Dreaded Walrustc08:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh ahh, ok, ok. I just have a lot of fear of screwing something up, even though it can be fixed, I don't want a reputation like that =/. -CamT|C08:45, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe thanks
Thanks for the comment, and the edit with the IMDB tag. You feel like my Wikipedia Big Brother =P. It's cool. -CamT|C07:33, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, no problem. I've just been checking your contributions every now and then, and I must say, your edits to actual articles have all been excellent. I can't see you getting any legitimate warnings on your talk page any time soon. And I'll let you into a little secret here: I've never actually created an article myself (apart from redirects to other articles, and talk pages, that kind of thing) , so at this rate, you'll soon be the one teaching me things. :P --Dreaded Walrustc07:38, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, I panicked at first not knowing how to really start the coding, so I borrowed some codes from other film pages (to make the table) -CamT|C07:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Um, also, I made a few pages so when people search something like "warcrat movie", "warcraft film", etc, they are redirected to that page. That's allowed right? I only made about three pages of what I thought would be "common" searches. I just didn't know if it puts too much of a strain on the servers? -CamT|C07:48, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should I both do you think? Considering that anyone who types in warcraft film will be taken there. Or is it an issue of the headline saying "Warcraft (film)" as instead of "Warcraft (movie)"? If so, I will change it.
Do you play World of Warcraft? I noticed some of your Blizzard edits and was just curious. I'm actually reactivating my account tomorrow after leaving Star Wars Galaxies for the second time. =P -CamT|C08:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
R.E. Dereck Poliink
Sorry I could not resist checking if he had left wikipedia or he had decided to keep his prying nose out of my affairs, the nonce, who the hell did he think he was, "I pridemyself on never vandalising any article on wikipedia" he had only been a member for two days! --Krummy208:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
External links confused with SEO
Greetings! My placing of Geocities link for a chocolate chip cookie RECIPE has no effect on its search engine ranking. Again, it is a recipe, and rare enough that warranted being hosted on Geocities. This is a Yahoo's-own-ads supported hosting out of which I have no reward. I have had other pages posted briefly, which provide significant, academic-encyclopedic info. They have been taken down by narrow-minded crusaders bearing the torch against anything identifiable as Geocities. I will not clamor, though.Have a great 4th of J Bo Basil20:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No user that is removing your links (as I last did one month ago) is under the impression that it is SEO. Wikipedia has used nofollow tags for a long time now. However, that doesn't affect the fact that some people add links to Wikipedia to increase traffic to their page, for whatever reason. Why add a link to your recipe for chocolate chip cookies on our article on chocolate chip? Shouldn't that be added to our page on chocolate chip cookies? However, on that page, we already have links to four recipes in the external links section (and four notable recipes at that), and also a link to a Wikibooks cookbook on them. So, the question is, why do we need yet another chocolate chip cookie recipe? --Dreaded Walrustc05:58, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Which part of the country do you live? Where I lived and came from, which is Midwest and Northeast, has always preferred Entennman's. It's not a flashy, fashion-associated brand. Their cookies are in such demand that they have undergone a lot of changes. As a result of the changes, the original, non-diet, non-reduced fat recipe is almost forgotten save for very few places on the web, mine included.
Thus, we are not talking about a link to a software download, to adult content, to an on-line commerce. It's chocolate cookies. What else is wrong with that? It's logical to think of Chocolate Chip, Cookies, Chocolate, and other related topic pages to place the recipe therein, within their external link sections.It's almost an act of public service! I am still interested in pursuing the matter in this amicable fashion (though the link enforcement affair starts looking hilarious).
This is the bit where I admit I'm not from the same country as you. I was born in Yorkshire, and currently live in the Northwest of England, though I was in New Hampshire for the second half of April, and plan on moving over there if not next year, then some time in the next two or three. Just another reason why it would be impractical for you to send me some cookies in the foreseeable future, though I'm sure I would love them almost infinitely more than the toothbreakingly-hard cookies I have to buy from supermarkets round here.
I am all for homemade recipes over the big-brand equivalent. My grandmother would make dandelion and burdock much nicer than that of Barr. She would make Yorkshire puddings of much higher quality than that of big brands or private label manufacturers.
However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a mere collection of recipes. Indeed, the only recipe in our article on Yorkshire puddings was removed on June 30, and I have to say that I am not against that change. We try to avoid having huge sections with quotations from one person or another because that's what Wikiquotes is for. We try to avoid having definitions of words, because that's what Wiktionary is for. And likewise, we try to avoid recipes on Wikipedia because that's what Wikibooks is for.
So please, take this as an invitation. Go to Chocolate Chip Cookies on Wikibooks, and include your recipe. The Wikibooks Cookbook is exactly that. It is a place for recipes. Sorry I took so long to respond to your message, I hope you haven't been waiting all this time. Feel free to respond here, and I will reply as soon as I get the chance. :) --Dreaded Walrustc09:05, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! I'm glad I could help, and I apologise if I took a while to get there. Don't hesitate to ask if you have any questions in the future. :) --Dreaded Walrustc20:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Me again
I'm sorry I do not know what you mean about editing other peoples comments, not guilty.
No problem, just be sure that you don't leave it logged in if you one day become ad admin, as then the bad stuff really happens. :P --Dreaded Walrustc12:29, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, someone moved the Warcraft movie page to redirect to the Warcraft universe page where there is only a tiny article on the movie. They haven't dont this for Transformers, Star Wars, Harry Potter, etc, they all had their own movie pages. Why would someone do that? I'm seriously pissed. Please get back to me soon. -CamT|C11:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(after edit conflict) I think the reason they did that is because of the reasons stated at WP:CRYSTAL. That is, there is not much known about the film yet other than that it's been announced. It was originally deleted around the same time this year. See here, and see also this one. I wouldn't take it as anything personal against, as you did a good job on the article. The problem is, that just not enough is know about it yet. Feel free to recreate the article, when more is known. Does this make sense? --Dreaded Walrustc11:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, firstly, there is enough of the article to confirm that it is being made and will be released which for a person who doesn't entirely know whether it will or not, can be reassuring to confirm that it will. Also, how can be consider this "Crystal Balling", yet there are pages that are predicting events 100 googol (100 to the 100th power) years away? It' doesn't make sense. If you are going to delete pages becuase people aren't sure what will/won't happen, then I say remove all the pages past the 21st century. -CamT|C11:53, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) The difference between the Warcraft film, and, say, Speed Racer, which you mention on another page, is that if you look at Speed Racer, there is a lot known about the film. There is a full list of the cast, with citations, there is an outline of the plot, with citations. There is a history of the project, and of the production, with citations. There is information on the marketing of the film, with citations. In total, there are 29 citations for the article, and links to the official site, among others.
There is, unfortunately, not as much known about the Warcraft film at the moment. I will be busy for the next 3+ hours, so you'll have to forgive me taking a while to respond. I'll try to help you more when I get back, but until then, don't revert his changes, alright? I'll respond to your newest message then. :) --Dreaded Walrustc11:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just a little furious at the moment is all. I don't why someone would even bother doing this. There thousands of pages with little information but no one edits them. -CamT|C12:07, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Walrus, I didn't see your request to centralize the discussion here. I already left a comment to Cam at the user's talk page, explaining my reasoning. Assuming good faith, I did some research and found some minor film coverage about script development, which I've included here. I'm not sure if Cam completely understands the application of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:CFORK to creating an article of a future film; Spider-Man 4 and the Superman Returns sequel don't have their own articles because there's no actual production yet. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 13:44, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He's my "mentor" =P. I go to him when I have problems, and he was helping to discuss why it was deleted. It's not an attack on him, trust me. -CamT|C14:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Because it had the potential to stir up emotions, and your comment had no potential (or intent) to actually contribute to the discussion. Saying that all Americans are "not cultured" is just as incorrect a stereotype as saying that all us British have bad teeth/ are butlers. Do you see? --Dreaded Walrustc19:50, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree but comeon they were just a tad un cultured weren't they, I know where most places are in the US and if they have sports teams and if I don't i would do a bit of research so that I wouldn't look a complete fool. I am new and I shall learn to not make such comments in the future--GOD11:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you had given a code for a table in a previous conversation, I took it upon myself to rip it to my user page but now it is not working, it only notes edits I have made to either my user page or a users talk page, do you know what is wrong?--GOD13:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, sorry. It was an edit counter given to user:krummy2 so I took the code, it was the one which looked a bit like (user contrib|50). Well, that edit counter counts all the edits which I make, with an edit summary or not, green and red respectively and it should show a table underneath saying where exactly you have edited BUT mine only shows the edits I have made to either my User Page or a talk page, not for discussions on articles, I have not edited on someone else's user page. Hope you can tell what is wrong, sorry for my bad grammar. --GOD08:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry that I took your talk page information box from your discussion page without saying anything, and this edit counter. --GOD08:59, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Trolls
Thanks for the revert. I appear to have been adopted by some small trolls of the "Andrew is gay" variety. They're not very amusing, but they're not very annoying either. Acroterion(talk)13:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing the grammar mistake in the custom template I ripped from your talk page :) I'm curious, how did you find out who was using it? --Android Mouse04:40, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're flattered? I'm the one that's flattered! :P
Yeah, but seriously, nice to see that I'm good at doing something other than reverting things here and there. As it happens though, I actually only noticed you had it by pure coincidence. I saw User:Anchor Link Bot going about its work a couple of weeks back, and was going to post a little message saying congratulations (when a few people were saying they couldn't see the point e.t.c.), but I got sidetracked. And I remembered about it today when seeing this edit, but when I got there, I found you had the template thing there. I was quite honoured, to say the least. :)
As for the others, I saw FM07GOD had taken it while I was responding to him one time, and Acroterion posted a message on my talk page at the time. The other two I found through Google. But yes, good work with the bots. :) --Dreaded Walrustc05:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For your hard work and efforts into reverting vandalism and trolls on Habbo Hotel, and helping to improve the article as a whole. Your work is greatly appreciated. Sebi[talk]04:37, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. I don't begrudge him or her the opportunity to try to start from a clean slate and it seems that he or she has done that admirably well. But I object to his or her continued actions related to that particular article. The opportunity to attempt to start over does not, IMHO, extend to ignoring the past when past behavior is continuing into the present. --ElKevbo01:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. I've been involved in that page for a short while, and while I don't have much of an opinion on whether he is or isn't the same person (though consensus from those that know better than me suggest he may be), I don't agree that we should edit other people's comments so that they reflect our own opinion. That's just madness. We would have anti-war websites with a direct quote from Churchill claiming he said "This was a waste of taxpayer's money". :) --Dreaded Walrustc02:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Somewhere in Indiana
Somewhere in Indiana, around midnight, a boy sticks an official-looking tag on my talk page. About five minutes later, a Walrus reverts it. Thanks to the Walrus, may he be dreaded in Indiana.
I think I'll take AuburnPilot up on semi-protecting the userpage, though. Acroterion(talk)14:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I opened a checkuser here [5], if you're interested in the process - not that we'll know specifics, but the conclusions should be published. The troll's now stalking my edit history, so he's already modified the RFCU (and been reverted). Acroterion(talk)17:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These were all put for up for speedy because the notability critera arrived at by concensus for footballers is they must have played a first team game for a side in a fully professional league. This is something that none have these have achieved, nor do their articles assert to have met this. Nuttah6819:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. I am tired, and got confused between friendly matches and professional matches (I had not read the notability guidelines for people in quite a while). Feel free to re-add the tags. :) --Dreaded Walrustc19:42, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Thanks for that. It's also relieving to see that some headway might finally be made on this case as well. My mum was round the other day, and she kept asking me "who is The dreaded walrus prodigy? Is that you?". :) --Dreaded Walrustc00:50, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know that Mother Walrus takes an interest in you, but I bet your mum would visit more often if you were more like your sister Beloved Walrus ;) Acroterion(talk)02:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know, it's sad. My whole body has been messed up, I've been sick, and sleeping at weird times, but luckily I am getting back on schedule, so I will be awake for my early morning edits. =) I've also been playing lots of Warcraft, hehe. -CamT|C21:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think that people needs to know about the games; why do you always erase everything in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Macys123 (talk • contribs).
The reason why I keep making this change, is because Wikipedia is not a game guide. It is an encyclopedia, and it is not important to the reader of an encyclopedia article to know how many ovens the player can use, and how much they cost to the player. If you want to write these things somewhere, then go to GameFAQS or Wikibooks, because you must remember that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Just because anyone can edit here does not mean that we should include everything just because it is true.
If you are wondering about my other changes in that edit, which you keep indiscriminately reverting [7][8][9], the word "popular" is uncited, and is largely irrelevant anyway. It is certainly not as popular as many other casual games, and without a citation saying the game is popular, I figured I would remove it, in order to improve the quality of the article. I changed "Official Cake Mania Website" to "Official Cake Mania website" to fit in with our manual of style, and indeed, the English language itself. The word "website" should not be capitalised apart from, say, at the start of a sentence. The other, final change I made, was adding the stub tag, as unfortunately, the changes I made kind of made the article back into a stub. However, I feel that even as a stub, the overall quality of the article is higher now than it was before.
And finally, without meaning to put too fine a point on it, I find a few of your other changes have been quite curious. Replacing my entire old userpage with one character [12]? Moving my talk page into article space, inexplicably [13]?
You might be confused a bit. St47 isn't a checkuser (see the list of checkusers page. He was actually fairly recently promoted to admin (I remember, as I nominated him). Not sure who you were thinking of but anyway, thought I'd correct you. The user he was warning is still wrong to be trolling like that anyway. ⇒SWATJesterDenny Crane.14:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Confusion on my part. In the top-right corner of ST47's userpage, one of the images has a pop-up saying "this user is a checkuser clerk". My mind simply remembered that as "has checkuser privileges", which came across in the message on Fluence's talk page. Thanks for the reminder. :) --Dreaded Walrustc15:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jade comment
Yeah up to 1500 people on Wikipedia are admins so it is almost impossible for they to commit vandalism. I think ST47 is just overloading his job on deleting media without the FUR, maybe I'm wrong either but you're right however on that matter. Thanks.--Fluence23:23, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OUTRAGE!
OMG you edited my comment and corrected my obvious glaring error! Arrgh! I burn your embassies! lol - Thanks, I re-read what I'd written -twice- and didn't spot my stupid mistake lol. --Monotonehell14:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The cleanup page says "You may report confusing/messy articles below and explain why they need to be cleaned-up (grammar, spelling, formatting, order, copyright issues, confusion, etc.). Please do not add articles below simply because they are POV or are lacking sources." Nobody has specified which of these issues actually require attention, and the page has been significantly improved since the AfD was made.83.67.217.13513:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. The text you mention (which appears at Wikipedia:Cleanup) is referring to the manually-created list which appears on that page, as part of the small WikiProject dedicated solely to cleaning up Wikipedia. It is not referring to the automatically generated list that is created by listing all pages with {{cleanup}} on it, or its derivatives (which can be seen here). The page that you are looking for is actually here. It has a list of all the more specific cleanup templates, along with how to use them, e.t.c.
{{cleanup}} is just used for when an article needs general cleanup, as was indicated on the AfD, as even though the article has been improved (and almost certainly will be kept), it is still rather unencyclopedic in ways. --Dreaded Walrustc14:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that still leaves my original question. As the person who seems to be doing most of the (constructive) editing on the page, it seems perfectly fine to me. There's nothing wrong with the grammar, the factual claims are more or less all accompanied by citations where required (though the way things are going I fully expect someone to put a "citation needed" mark beside the subject's name), and it all seems relevant and fair. As yet, absolutely nobody has actually explained specifically what about it needs changing, something which the Cleanup page stipulates as preferred practice. "General cleanup" is singularly unhelpful...83.67.217.13516:00, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The link given quotes Campbell as saying this: ""There's certainly no randomness involved," he says. "At times it will throw you a jackpot to keep you interested but most of the time it has a pre-set block on what you can win that will be quite low."" At absolutely no point did FairPlay campaign against this feature, however. As is explicitly noted on their website, FairPlay campaigned solely against fixed "gambles". The block is entirely necessary to enable the machine to function correctly.83.67.217.13519:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, Campbell criticised the feature, which is what the sentence you keep removing states. --81.179.78.4
No he didn't. He stated it as a fact. There is nothing in the quote above which could be legitimately described as "criticism". And in any event it's difficult to see the relevance of the quote to the entry,83.67.217.13520:59, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The piece continues: "Over the years players could have lost tens of millions of pounds in prize money due to the hidden limits, said Mr Campbell".
Fruit machines are designed to make profit (ie to have their players lose money), and it is legal for them to do so. FairPlay never at any point suggested that this should not be the case, only that one very specific mechanism for doing this should be outlawed. Your quote above is simply another statement of fact.83.67.217.13521:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence in question didn't actually mention FairPlay, it specifically said the complaint was made by Campbell (albeit as a spokesman for FairPlay). Rather than try to second-guess what Campbell meant by his mention of pre-set blocks, it could be reworded to something like "Campbell made note of" rather than "Campbell criticised", although it almost certainly sounds like a criticism to me. --81.179.78.410:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
? (2)
I'm sorry about bothering you, but I have a question. Why are you interest on the article Cake Mania? I'm sorry and I'll leave you alone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Macys123 (talk • contribs).
Don't worry about bothering me, it really is no hassle. As for the answer to your question, I was browsing Special:Newpages when the article was created, and saw that there were a few changes I could make, which I did. I then added the page to my watchlist, as I often do when I edit new pages, as often these pages aren't watchlisted by many people. That's how I am interested in the page. :) --Dreaded Walrustc22:43, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, it's alright. It's just, we usually don't let people add links to sites they're affiliated with (in this case, you are a member of the forum, at the least). And the site you inserted a link to doesn't really seem that big. A forum with ~10 threads on, you know?
Maybe (hopefully) one day, your site will become a big resource for all JSR fans the world over, and then it will definitely deserve a link. :)
Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting changes, or rearranging of text without modifying content should be flagged as a 'minor edit.' Thank you. --Atlan (talk) 14:31, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
