This user page belongs to Havok, which is the alias of Dr. Kim Visnes (キム・ヴィースネース, kimu biisuneesu), addict of Wikipedia. Dr. Visnes is the only person in the world who has a Ph.D in Gaming culture as well as being a brilliant neurosurgeon. He is also an international spy and Billionaire.
Feel free to look around, not much to see though. You can push the text that says "Show" to show each section in the navigation menu.
I, Ifrit, hereby award you this barnstar for your active and dedicated work to improve all Video Game articles. I give this to you for your Contributions to Wikiproject Warcraft -Ed! I hereby award you this barnstar for a random act of kindness -- namely, a welcome. -P3net
External links are bad
You might be annoyed that I have removed an "External link" from an article, if that is the case I would like to point out something before you go writing your comment. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a link repository, and as such links should be of up most importance.
If the link has the same information as a link already there it should not be added.
If the link adds nothing to the article as a whole (meaning, there is nothing substantial or unique about it) it should not be added.
If the link is not to an English site, it should not be added, try and find an alternative.
If you own the site.
The site is commercial, trying to sell something or is in other ways considered an ad.
If none of these "points" where broken with the link I removed. Please feel free to correct me if you feel I removed something that should not have been and inform me on my talk page of my mistake. Thank you.
Crystal ball and news site syndrom
Crystal ball
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. What does this mean? Well, in short, it's when you add something to Wikipedia that is considered pure speculation. It might be a supposed release date for a game, the official title for a movie which is currently in production or just something which "everyone says on the net". It's important that Wikipedia strive for facts, and if there are no facts or verifiable source for any information, then it should not be added to the article. Some might find this strange, because who decides what is fact and what is speculation? That would be the owner/creator/official source etc. Only they can give official word on something, everything else is pure speculation, and not fact.
Please keep this in mind when you edit on Wikipedia.
Liars and the decline of Wikipedia
Flaws in Wikipedia? Let's talk about flaws; One person appoints something for deletion, and it is kept. The next time the result is no consensus, and the last and third time it's deleted. I would think that an article would be kept seeing as the first vote was keep, but no. In Wikipedias infinite wisdom, this is not the case. Because Wikipedia is a retarded and flawed. I have come to realize that all my edits have not been done to help people understand something, or enlighten them. It's been a stupid game where nobody wins all along.
If you want something gone from Wikipedia, you could just as well AfD it and continue to do so, regardless of how many time something is kept (well, we do have rules against how many times something can be AfDed). But the point stands, if the article is about something that is verifiable, but not that many people edit on it, it will be deleted. So there is actually a system that works contradictory to what the essence of this supposed encyclopedia is.
So yeah, a game, a stupid game where no rewards are given, where people argue and argue until someone gets their will. Nobody cares about being "told" about something or to learn from it, because they wouldn't be editing X article if they didn't think themselves that what they wrote is the absolute truth of the matter.
So, in my years on Wikipedia, what have I learned? That people are stupid, inconsiderate, idiots who are the same exact people that I would avoid like the plague in real life. The best thing that could happen at this point is the removal of Wikipedia. Close it down Jimbo, just put this experiment on human behavior down. Don't you know people are total ass hats on the internet?
Anyway, this is my last edit, I'm done with Wikipedia. It was a valid try, and I've had some fun times. But I could get just as much from reading a book, or playing a game as I do from this hell hole of a bugged game, I mean encyclopedia.
Good luck people.
Currently working on
Currently I am doing the following on Wikipedia:
Working on getting rules of what constitutes a game guide and not when it comes to games. You can read the proposed guideline/policy at Wikipedia:Game guide.
As a result of discussion on the village pump and mailing list, bots are now allowed to edit up to 15 times per minute. The following is the new text regarding bot edit rates from Wikipedia:Bot Policy:
Until new bots are accepted they should wait 30-60 seconds between edits, so as to not clog the recent changes list and user watchlists. After being accepted and a bureaucrat has marked them as a bot, they can edit at a much faster pace. Bots doing non-urgent tasks should edit approximately once every ten seconds, while bots who would benefit from faster editing may edit approximately once every every four seconds.
Also, to eliminate the need to spam the bot talk pages, please add Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard to your watchlist. Future messages which affect bot owners will be posted there. Thank you. --Mets501 05:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
.png){kind=small}
.png){kind=small}
