User talk:Evilc

Welcome...

Hello, Evilc, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like this place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! SpinningSpark 11:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed the problem you raised at talk:triangle wave. SpinningSpark 11:11, 3 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Your removal of my edit on Analog Controllers[edit]

There are actually controllers with square-shaped apertures, such as this one. That doesn't matter though - there is no technical reason why an analog stick cannot have a square aperture, it is simply what the manufacturers do. In fact I'm pretty sure it's a design choice by the manufacturers so no matter which direction it is facing, its maximum is always the same distance from the centre.

Also, what you added violates Wikipedia's no original research policy, that is, it is not backed up by outside sources and instead uses logical justifications or explanations of how a user may find it them self. Take this bit for example:

"Full range of motion in an analog gamepad is vary rare or maybe even nonexistant."

Apart from the language, this must be backed up by a reliable source that states it is the case, not simply asserted.

"Plug the controller into a PC and go to the calibration menu and you will notice that it is impossible to hit the four corners as the range of motion is a circle not a square."

This reads like you are trying to convince the user that it is the case, rather than providing proof/evidence (citation).

I am not saying that any of what you wrote is untrue, but that is not the point. Everything on Wikipedia needs a reliable third party source. The fact that the reading cannot reach 100% is not necessarily a bad thing either and it needs to be shown to be notable (the fact that it is the case is not enough; similarly, most sticks are some kind of grey colour, but it is fairly irrelevant so wouldn't be worthy of mention). Also, it needs to be written in a certain way (I can't think of the right word here, something like formal but not quite).

There may well be something of value in what you wrote, but as it stands it just isn't really encyclopaedia worthy. Bear in mind that the main issue is that it is original research, so if you can find a reliable source that backs up what you have said and shows that it is notable then its inclusion may be acceptable (although you'd need to completely re-write it).

Alphathon /'æl.f'æ.ðɒn/ ^(talk) 23:29, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]