User talk:Findstr
Welcome!
Hello, Findstr, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! RJFJR (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Posting on the Refdesk
[edit]I saw your post on the computing refdesk and just thought I'd say that absolutely anyone is allowed to answer questions on the desks so feel free to pop by any time, we can always use more volunteers. If you have more questions about how the desks operate check out the reference desk guidelines or drop a note on the reference desk talk page. Equisetum (talk | email | contributions) 18:33, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
- Ah great, always love to help out so this could be something interesting to do occasionally in my spare time :) Thanks for the info! Findstr (talk) 12:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Re:TF2
[edit]Then you didn't read the whole source. There's three pages of it on the site, its on the last page. Whether you think the source is too old and doesn't reflect current state or not is frankly irrelevant (sorry to be a bit blunt), it was made after release and merely relates developer views of the final design direction. -- Sabre (talk) 23:34, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
- It's not a matter of original research, it's a matter of the statement being demonstrably and reproducably wrong (by merely playing the game and seeing the maps). There is no doubt to be had that "[b]etween the bases there is a neutral space" is not true outside of traditional 5CP maps like Badlands and Granary, just look at Steel, Dustbowl, and Gravelpit. Stopwatch maps have been here since the beginning, I find it strange that the process seems to be that because the source is reliable you take what it says without question, instead of the process being that the source's reliability has been called into question, because it states things which are demonstrably not true. Findstr (talk) 05:07, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- But thats still your opinion, its not published material. Going through the game and relating what we ourselves see is original research. We go with what's verifiable in the secondary sources, not what we think is true from our own experiences. And we have a secondary source noting that this was the developers' intention with artistic design. The basic implication of what you are saying, whether you realise it or not, is that Valve themselves don't have a clue what they are talking about with their own work. Yes, there are some maps that don't conform to that, but that doesn't change the general point being made by Valve in the source. If you want to qualify the sentence to note that it only applies to most, not all maps, that's a different matter (ie "on maps where both teams possess bases, they are separated by a neutral space", etc etc), but its still a valid source and a valid point: wholesale removal of it isn't the way forward. -- Sabre (talk) 11:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Because its not false information: its simply information that isn't universally applicable anymore. The source and the point in the article are contemporary to the game's release. At that time, pretty much all but a few maps conformed to that design philosophy. Most still do. In three years since the source was past, things have changed via the updates, but all those original maps where it is applicable are still there; thus it merely needs clarification in the wording, not removal: I've just provided you with an alternate way of phrasing that information. And honestly, trying to prove that Valve employees talking about how they made the game are unreliable sources (based on your own original research of their work no less) is completely absurd. -- Sabre (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- I've got better things to do than to argue over one sentence in an article, especially if you're going to become self-righteous and start contextless comparisons with 400 year old sources. I'm sure you have better things to do as well. The source's claim of "The maps are usually made up of two enemy bases separated by a neutral space" is accurate; it doesn't, as you implicate, say "every map has a neutral space". I've made a change to the wording to reflect this, but at this point, I don't care if it satisfies you or not. I'm sorry this has become adversarial, but I just can't be bothered with this anymore. -- Sabre (talk) 22:35, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- Because its not false information: its simply information that isn't universally applicable anymore. The source and the point in the article are contemporary to the game's release. At that time, pretty much all but a few maps conformed to that design philosophy. Most still do. In three years since the source was past, things have changed via the updates, but all those original maps where it is applicable are still there; thus it merely needs clarification in the wording, not removal: I've just provided you with an alternate way of phrasing that information. And honestly, trying to prove that Valve employees talking about how they made the game are unreliable sources (based on your own original research of their work no less) is completely absurd. -- Sabre (talk) 12:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
- But thats still your opinion, its not published material. Going through the game and relating what we ourselves see is original research. We go with what's verifiable in the secondary sources, not what we think is true from our own experiences. And we have a secondary source noting that this was the developers' intention with artistic design. The basic implication of what you are saying, whether you realise it or not, is that Valve themselves don't have a clue what they are talking about with their own work. Yes, there are some maps that don't conform to that, but that doesn't change the general point being made by Valve in the source. If you want to qualify the sentence to note that it only applies to most, not all maps, that's a different matter (ie "on maps where both teams possess bases, they are separated by a neutral space", etc etc), but its still a valid source and a valid point: wholesale removal of it isn't the way forward. -- Sabre (talk) 11:43, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
Findstr has posted at WP:Help desk#Confusing administrative double-standards -- John of Reading (talk) 11:44, 19 June 2010 (UTC)
ANI
[edit]Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Claritas § 13:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)