User talk:Jonathan888

Ed

... Anyway glad to see you're here and editing away as well. Props to the finest mod on pOnju (along with Dedos and a few other of course). Edward Grefenstette 18:33, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category clarification

Sounds great but re the Wikipedia entry, don't (re)add "super" categories. "Planeteria" is under "Science Museums" which is under "Museums". Similarly, "Museums in Utah" is under "Utah". Look at the (valid) articles under Category:Museums and you should see what I mean. Good luck with the job anyway! — Jonathan Bowen 23:49, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clark Planetarium categories

Hello Prof. Bowen, I am wondering what criteria you are using to determine that certain categories are 'too high' for Clark Planetarium. Please elucidate, thanks. (note that Clark Planetarium was originally a small blurb as part of a series of articles about Utah and was thus categorized 'Utah') Jonathan888 17:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I note your comments about categorization on my user page, thanks. Please, in the future add comments to me to my talk page rather than to my user page so that I recieve a message that there is correspondence for me. Jonathan888 17:50, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Many apologies for editing the wrong page. In general, articles should be categorized under the most precise category unless they are very important. I added Category:Museums in Utah since this did not exist, most US States have a similar category, and I am sure Utah deserves one too. It would be great if you are knowledgable on museums in Utah and could add further entries. I may do so myself if I have the time. Many thanks for your contribution anyway. — Jonathan Bowen 18:08, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape Move

I've cleaned up those Runescape redirects, but please read up on double redirects. Thanks. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 22:15, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Move

Agggh. That's not how you move pages. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING)

Sorry, my fault, I misread your original message, I didn't see that you wanted it moved. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 23:26, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Done deal"

Certainly not. I responded to a request in-channel, and idiotically, forgot to check the talk page. It was completely out of order for me to make the move while there was an active discussion, so I'm reverting it now.

I do apologise. Rob Church ^Talk 15:22, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a problem. Feel free to haul me up if you ever need to. Incidentally; if you can show me evidence of persistent vandalism by any particular users, then I can do something about it. And if the article's undergoing a particularly nasty bout of it, I can temporarily protect it. Rob Church ^Talk 15:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nickname/Signature 'talk' test

Testing nickname 'talk' page addition. nickname (talk) 16:12, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Test #2.Jonathan888 (talk) 16:15, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Test #3; is the third time the charm? Jonathan888 (talk) 16:19, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
- Woot! apparently third time IS the charm. :)

broken, test4Jonathan888 [[User_talk:Jonathan888|(talk)]] 14:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
broken, test 5Jonathan888 User_talk:Jonathan888|(talk) 14:24, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
broken, test 6Jonathan888 (talk) 14:27, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
broken, test 7User:Jonathan888 (talk) 09:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
broken, test 8 Jonathan888 (talk) 19:07, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
broken, test 9 Jonathan888 (talk) 19:09, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape cheats article

As I stated, it is not copyright violation as in copying the information from another place, but instead, a violation of the RuneScape licence. If you want, I could rewrite the whole article, but it would become quite short as most information would become internal links. An AFD nomination would be used to determine whether other members of the Wikipedia community believe the contents fit Wikipedia or not.

Articles with technical information about something belong to a Wikibook, not to the Wikipedia. It is not a matter of popularity, but instead of whether it fits or not in the Wikipedia definition. And as I said, Wikipedia is not a collection of instruction manuals. The official policy says that articles that include instruction, advice (legal, medical or otherwise, in your case illegal), suggestions, or "how-to" like tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals and recipes should be created in Wikibook, not Wikipedia. And your article fits that definition. -- ReyBrujo 12:55, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My exact words in the RuneScape Talk Page were or maybe an AFD process due Vandalism (the information stated in the article vandalizes copyrighted work from a third party, which may bring problems to Wikipedia). Note that I talked in potential. The terms of services [1] state that You must not encourage, or attempt to trick other players into breaking our rules. Whether my interpretation that the sections Two person team trade scam, Clan trust test or loyalty test scam and [Alt + F4] scam, item duplication scam may break the rules is right or not, it is questionable and I admit it.

My comment about AFD. Understand this: I don't want to delete the article. But since my opinion is that the article should be transwikied, in such cases the article is nominated to deletion (see Instructions to Transwiki). -- ReyBrujo 03:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RuneScape cheats deletion?

Re your comment: I had a look at the talk page, but I don't see any apparent effort by the company to have the article removed, just some discussion between editors as to whether it should remain on Wikipedia, or be moved to WikiBooks. I would probably support any efforts to maintain the page against outright deletion, but moving the more technical content to WikiBooks sounds like a reasonable idea. If it does come to an AfD, do let me know and I'd be happy to vote. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 18:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment, there is a rather long 'vote for removal' section in the discussion page - it hasn't moved to the AfD phase yet. I shot off a whole slew of messages this morning to try to get some support and the editors replying to that call for help suggested moving parts of the article to book format which sounds ok to me.Jonathan888 (talk) 19:15, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. Melchoir 19:23, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up Jonathan. I voted keep on the VfD, if it helps. -- Saikiri 22:33, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for leaving me a message. I am opposed to the deletion of the article, unless it is made into a wikibook. At this stage I think it should be made into a wikibook, but I want to have another read of the entire article later today before voting. --23:47, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know that it's on AfD! I'll have a look at the voting page later this evening. Cheers. --PeruvianLlama^(spit) 01:07, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've already got my vote to keep. My suggestion is a friendly one: the parts of the article that are general to MMORPGs would get wider readership in a generic cheats article. Durova 01:18, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lighter than air

I have moved your comment to the end of my Talk page. I agree and had already done as you suggest. Please contribute to the discussion at Talk:Lighter than air. Thanks for your constructive suggestion. Paul Beardsell 00:23, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SS 433

I'd added the ref tag because there were no citations throughout the article. I also am usually looking through wikipedia while at work so don't have time to go through the ref to add the appropriate citations. I'll try at some point to add some sections Pnkrockr 16:48, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]