User talk:Vanished user 8376539/archive2013
Do I have to go through this every time I want to make ANY change? edit
It feels so obstinate, man. And I feel like quitting Wikipedia already. I've been here for five years, but this is... *sigh*
Has they always been like this? Anthonydraco (talk) 11:59, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Don't quit, it's really useful to have people like you here. You noted changes that needed to be made to an article, and put steps in motion to do so. Unfortunately, the article in question is a hot topic, and there has been a massive amount of edit warring over the past few weeks as loads of newer editors make their changes. This is the time when procedure gets dragged out, and lots of disagreements happen, so hold tight. In the next month or so, it'll settle down, and you'd be able to make this sort of edit relatively easily. What can be a minor edit usually can be blown up into a massive open discussion that lasts days or weeks when it's on a popular and new-ish article.
- I've been here since 2007, and generally stick to editing topics that are not hot at the time. Now and again I'll branch out, as I did with Skyfall, and edit popular/hot topics, or create new articles, but then problems start occurring quite quickly. Everyone wants their say, and so every editor cracks down on the guidelines to ensure that nobody does anything untoward. When Apple released the iPad mini, I added a section to the iPad article, and in just over 4 hours, my additions had been edited 33 times. I was lucky, because I got in before anybody else, but as soon as the content was there, people added their opinions on what should be included. Needless to say, an array of arguments and discussions arose, but it's settled back down now, and the content's pretty stable. If I were to go in and edit the iPad article now, few would bat an eyelid. Looking at your list of contributions, you're by no means a small-time editor; you've contributed almost 3 times as often as me since joining. I've only become really active in the past two years.
- My advice would be to stick as much as possible to contributing to low-risk articles. If you want to add something to a high-profile article, go with WP:BRD from the offset. When I want to edit a high-profile article, I follow a few basic steps: First, I check the last few edits to make sure nothing too similar was reverted. Then, I check the talk page to see if similar edits are being discussed for inclusion. If I find anything in either of these cases, I'll steer clear of making my edit. I'll add something to an existing talk discussion, or create a new one, to cover my views that the article should be changed, and leave it at that for a while. For instance, that's how I came to enter the discussion on the Skyfall page; I wanted to do a bit of polishing to areas of the plot, and found your discussion. If there's no obvious discussion happening about my planned edit, and it's not something that's been recently reverted, then I'll make the change. I'll ensure that I write a good edit summary, in which I refer people to the talk page. Then, I create a discussion on the talk page, and list why I made the edits. If anyone reverts my contribution, I put a message on their talk page, and refer them to the discussion I created earlier. I admit it's quite laborious, but it allows me to cover all of the bases. I try never to undo a revert on my own contributions, instead asking the editor why they reverted, and explain why I put the content there. I find people respond better to that, and it makes them more likely to listen to my POV fairly and unbiased.
- As I said above, stick with it. It's not worth getting annoyed about. I'd suggest taking a step back from the Skyfall discussion for 48 hours or so; we'll see what the other editors have to say, and try and reach a consensus without it descending too much into politics. Looking at discussions I've taken part in on the Skyfall page, it seems to be a topic that gets quite a lot of people riled, so it's best let them fight it out. You've made your point as much as initially necessary, and it's now down to the semantics of fighting it out between people's favourite wordings. This can last for quite some time, so take a back seat, and ride it out. I guarantee you it'll make for a less stressful experience, and consensus will be reached just the same. Your point has been taken on by the other editors, so rest assured you're not going to come out of this without changing the article somehow, but it's the exact wording that is currently being deliberated. When this happens, it can be quite easy for discussions to descend into personal attacks - everyone likes their version best - so don't worry yourself over it. I hope this helps you. drewmunn (talk) 12:35, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
- Wow, long post. Thank you. It shows that you care. I should be happy after solely seeing your effort to type something this long. :D I've read them; don't worry. How would you deal with personal attacks, though. Some old timers think he's so perfect that when he's reminded of the rules, he gets pissed and starts handing out insults. Anthonydraco (talk) 06:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- That's fine, I just find it sad when good editors get disheartened. My general approach to personal attacks follows my same approach in real life; I pretend they didn't happen. I reply with something that attempts to get the discussion back on topic, and draws attention away from the editor who started the ranting. If that doesn't work, I'll try posting a separate messages on their talk page. I'll describe how I meant them no offence, and could they please look past it. If they still don't let up (some people can go a long way just to vent rage over something tiny), I'll post them another message. This one would explain that I don't feel their comments were necessary or constructive. I say that I believe their content to be in contravention of the fourth pillar of Wikipedia, as described in No Personal Attacks. I inform them that I am Disengaging from the discussion, and ask them to continue it with an administrator if they feel necessary. This generally stops them; most don't even think about what their doing until their reminded that it's wrong.
- Wow, long post. Thank you. It shows that you care. I should be happy after solely seeing your effort to type something this long. :D I've read them; don't worry. How would you deal with personal attacks, though. Some old timers think he's so perfect that when he's reminded of the rules, he gets pissed and starts handing out insults. Anthonydraco (talk) 06:28, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sometimes, they'll open a new discussion on your talk page, or reply to your post, to apologise. This generally helps the discussion move on further, and it's positively beneficial to the outcome. Now and again, they'll try to continue. If they do that, just ignore them completely. You've stated you're disengaging, and you have no reason to continue after that; let them vent. My most recent example of this was a discussion about the inclusion of something in the iPad page. We were having a healthy debate over our points of view, and he descended into a personal attack. You can read my closing statement here. Since then, the user in question has made no attempt to continue the discussion with anyone else, nor has he made any further attacks on me; in fact, he only started editing again 7 days ago, nearly a month after I posted the notice. I find this method works well because it doesn't generally anger the person any more. You simply state your reason for stopping your involvement, and then you leave. In the case of the iPad discussion, I continued it at a later date with different editors, and it's been much more constructive. It leaves the door open to discussion, but shows the offending user you're not afraid to take action to prevent personal attack. It can also shock older editors into reform, because they sometimes forget to check that they are not contravening any guidelines. This method gently reminds them of the rules, and closes the door to further attack at the same time; it gives them space to think rationally about whatever point they were trying to make in the first place. I hope this helps you. drewmunn (talk) 07:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your suggestion. I've read it again. Now I want to vent a bit about obstinacy. The same person who used personal attack against me tried something obstinate for the sake it it. Again. He asked me why I wanted to hurry and asked me to retract my words. But when he took the action into his own hands, there was suddenly no hurry, and nothing harm done. He made the damn edit I'd been asking to do. I raise those three points, and now I felt like I've been stolen credit. I want to spit. Anthonydraco (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sorry for the delay, I got distracted editing iTunes articles (geek). I'd just let people get on with being obstinate. If they are doing it because they don't like you, then give other people time to work them around. If they are against your change, ask for other editors' opinions. I find looking back over recent edits to the part of the article in question helpful; I find the most common editors, and the most recent, and ask them to join the discussion. That way, consensus can be reached, and one person's opinion is given less weight in the decision. If they make the edit you suggest, then just go with it. Some editors do this because they agree with you, and want to skip any hassle caused by further conversation, so just insert the changes. Others do it because they feel more seasoned in the article, and take your suggestion as an edit request, and insert the information. In the case of SchroCat, I believe he did it because he wanted your changes in the article, but knew that if you inserted them, one of the other contributors to the discussion may remove them. He put them in under the weight of his influence (he's a senior editor of 007 articles, most people accept what he puts in), thereby allowing your changes to fit into the article without the fuss of an edit war caused by other contributors who disagree. I'd be happy that he put it in, but I know how it can feel when someone takes your content and runs with it. The discussion on the talk page is notable enough that it'll be archived, however, so people will see that you suggested it to begin with. I've had to learn that as well, as it was hard to begin with when people used my ideas to improve an article themselves. I hope this helps. drewmunn (talk) 11:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I took your suggestion. I've been busy inserting ref. It's so tiresome! So many syntax, and sometimes I just can't see the text, LOL. Not that I'm complaining for being needy again. :P
- Sorry for the delay, I got distracted editing iTunes articles (geek). I'd just let people get on with being obstinate. If they are doing it because they don't like you, then give other people time to work them around. If they are against your change, ask for other editors' opinions. I find looking back over recent edits to the part of the article in question helpful; I find the most common editors, and the most recent, and ask them to join the discussion. That way, consensus can be reached, and one person's opinion is given less weight in the decision. If they make the edit you suggest, then just go with it. Some editors do this because they agree with you, and want to skip any hassle caused by further conversation, so just insert the changes. Others do it because they feel more seasoned in the article, and take your suggestion as an edit request, and insert the information. In the case of SchroCat, I believe he did it because he wanted your changes in the article, but knew that if you inserted them, one of the other contributors to the discussion may remove them. He put them in under the weight of his influence (he's a senior editor of 007 articles, most people accept what he puts in), thereby allowing your changes to fit into the article without the fuss of an edit war caused by other contributors who disagree. I'd be happy that he put it in, but I know how it can feel when someone takes your content and runs with it. The discussion on the talk page is notable enough that it'll be archived, however, so people will see that you suggested it to begin with. I've had to learn that as well, as it was hard to begin with when people used my ideas to improve an article themselves. I hope this helps. drewmunn (talk) 11:33, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Thank you for your suggestion. I've read it again. Now I want to vent a bit about obstinacy. The same person who used personal attack against me tried something obstinate for the sake it it. Again. He asked me why I wanted to hurry and asked me to retract my words. But when he took the action into his own hands, there was suddenly no hurry, and nothing harm done. He made the damn edit I'd been asking to do. I raise those three points, and now I felt like I've been stolen credit. I want to spit. Anthonydraco (talk) 11:52, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Sometimes, they'll open a new discussion on your talk page, or reply to your post, to apologise. This generally helps the discussion move on further, and it's positively beneficial to the outcome. Now and again, they'll try to continue. If they do that, just ignore them completely. You've stated you're disengaging, and you have no reason to continue after that; let them vent. My most recent example of this was a discussion about the inclusion of something in the iPad page. We were having a healthy debate over our points of view, and he descended into a personal attack. You can read my closing statement here. Since then, the user in question has made no attempt to continue the discussion with anyone else, nor has he made any further attacks on me; in fact, he only started editing again 7 days ago, nearly a month after I posted the notice. I find this method works well because it doesn't generally anger the person any more. You simply state your reason for stopping your involvement, and then you leave. In the case of the iPad discussion, I continued it at a later date with different editors, and it's been much more constructive. It leaves the door open to discussion, but shows the offending user you're not afraid to take action to prevent personal attack. It can also shock older editors into reform, because they sometimes forget to check that they are not contravening any guidelines. This method gently reminds them of the rules, and closes the door to further attack at the same time; it gives them space to think rationally about whatever point they were trying to make in the first place. I hope this helps you. drewmunn (talk) 07:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
- Anyway, have you watched The Matrix movie? If so, we're short on people over there. A movie like that should've been a good article ages ago. We could use another editor over there. Anthonydraco (talk) 21:15, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Certainly, it's one of my favourite non-Nolan films, I'll take a look at it tomorrow and see. In the meantime, have you tried the ProveIt tool? You can enable it from your Preferences page; it's what I've been using for references for a couple of weeks now, it's really good. drewmunn (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, yes, I'll definitely try that out. But I'm afraid you'll have to guide me through some steps of using it. >_< I've been making do with the original tools. And thank you for jacking into the Matrix with us. Anthonydraco (talk) 06:40, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
- Certainly, it's one of my favourite non-Nolan films, I'll take a look at it tomorrow and see. In the meantime, have you tried the ProveIt tool? You can enable it from your Preferences page; it's what I've been using for references for a couple of weeks now, it's really good. drewmunn (talk) 22:31, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Some concerns about first-party sources and self-published sources. edit
I am addressing some new concerns about the sources we're using in Skyfall article. As I feel that you're one of the main contributors, I would like to invite you to participate. Anthonydraco (talk) 06:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
Heya edit
In an attempt to get past the impasse that has been reached re the capitalisation of I in intro on the Star Trek into Darkness article, I have created two additional sub-sections where users can put their for/against argument comments in without getting caught up in Beating a dead horse. These sections are purely for providing reasons and not for arguing back and forth, although discussions are welcome to continue in the above section. If you could come and give your view that would be great. MisterShiney ✉ 21:19, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
Wow, how did you do it? I'm impressed! edit
Wow, I love you already. I can't believe you've just done that you did. 699 words on Dark Knight Rises article! I thought I'd cut a lot down, and would require several more days to reach 700 words. You beat me to it. Damn, I hate that, but I love you. :D Anthonydraco (talk) 11:32, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! I, urm... spend too much time watching the film! I thought you'd already done it when I saw the edit conflict page, but that was some random IP undoing all your work this morning, and adding some more stuff. drewmunn (talk
- BTW, Drew, I hope you don't my me standardizing chracters' names. We sometimes calling them by first and sometimes by last. Do you think some of the intimated ones like Selina or Bruce should be called by fist names? Right now, you've just called Wayne and Selina in the same sentence, when they should be called Bruce and Selina, IMO. Anthonydraco (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, wait. You've said something on the talk page. I didn't see that, but I have a bit to say. Please join! Anthonydraco (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Will do! drewmunn (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- You've reverted twice. This is not a reprimand, but I don't want you to violate 3RR before he does. I still have two more R's available. Let me do it next time. If you see it first, drop me a word, and I'll do it. If he keeps edit warring, we can keep the rules on our side. Anthonydraco (talk) 12:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- I'll also be sure to work on your edit ASAP, so he can't simply revert it. Anthonydraco (talk) 12:10, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks, I'm not planning on touching the article now, I've invited a couple of editors to the discussion, and I'll be involved with that, but leave it down to others to actually make edits. I don't want to sully changes by warring them, I just want the article to be good, so I'm going to trust you lot with that! It shouldn't be an issue though, because it seems that basically everyone in the past of the article agrees with the removal of the additions he's making, so I'll leave it down to consensus. Thanks again! drewmunn (talk) 12:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- BTW, I've just altered some parts. Minor, I hope you don't mind. The biggest one is that I have to say that Bane appears after Batman falls into the trap. Otherwise, the next sentence reads funny, because Bane reveals his plan to... nobody. Anthonydraco (talk) 12:21, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- You've reverted twice. This is not a reprimand, but I don't want you to violate 3RR before he does. I still have two more R's available. Let me do it next time. If you see it first, drop me a word, and I'll do it. If he keeps edit warring, we can keep the rules on our side. Anthonydraco (talk) 12:08, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Will do! drewmunn (talk) 11:45, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Oh, wait. You've said something on the talk page. I didn't see that, but I have a bit to say. Please join! Anthonydraco (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- BTW, Drew, I hope you don't my me standardizing chracters' names. We sometimes calling them by first and sometimes by last. Do you think some of the intimated ones like Selina or Bruce should be called by fist names? Right now, you've just called Wayne and Selina in the same sentence, when they should be called Bruce and Selina, IMO. Anthonydraco (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
Star Trek Into Darkness edit
I'm pretty new here. Let me know what I need to do. Thanks. SonOfThornhill (talk) 15:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for your comment. On the requested move, put in either Support or Oppose, and list any reasons you have either way. The amount of support and opposition is then counted to decide whether to make the move. Thanks again. drewmunn (talk) 15:29, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
- I added a comment to a discussion in the MOS Capital Letters article which seemed to have been sparked by your debate in the Into Darkness article. I followed up the comment with some observations and a proposal to amend the MOS. Not sure if anyone will put any further thought into it, but I thought someone from the Into Darkness debate pro-capitalization might be interested. My additions to the MOS:Capital Letters Talk page can be seen in this 'differences' link. (The thread itself is buried in the middle of the page, so linking to 'differences' seemed a good idea). — al-Shimoni (talk) 03:29, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
Great minds think alike. :) Erik (talk | contribs) 17:28, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Sorry, but I thought it was necessary edit
Apologies, but I’ve taken the liberty of editing a comment of yours on Talk:Star Trek Into Darkness, replacing a long string of underscores with ---- (a horizontal rule). I did this because that many non-breaking characters in a row forces horizontal scrolling if they don’t fit in the window. —Frungi (talk) 06:34, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
WikiProject Film edit
Hi, Drew! I've seen you in discussions regarding film articles recently, and I wanted to invite you to be part of WikiProject Film. As you may have seen, we have guidelines at MOS:FILM, and our talk page at WT:FILM is fairly active. I hope you'll consider joining! Erik (talk | contribs) 19:38, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
I'm going to wash my hands clean of the Star Trek manner, but I appreciated your clear-headed comments through all that. Hope to see you around! Let me know if you ever have any questions or want to collaborate on a topic. Erik (talk | contribs) 10:12, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
Your signature edit
Your signature is not in accordance with the wikipedia guidelines on signature color and font. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.169.208.182 (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Sorry, as far as I can tell, it's in accordance. If you have an issue, could you point out exactly where I'm going wrong? I'm not overusing colours, I have taken colour-blindness into account, and I don't change font sizes. drewmunn talk 17:56, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't worry about it. He said the same on my page. As a teacher I can say that it takes into consideration colour blindness and dyslexia and as such is not in violation. It is also within 2 lines of code. I think he is just jealous and too lazy to set up an account and personalise his own. MisterShiney ✉ 18:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I guessed as such. I too took into account colour choices etc. He's not edited anything else from his current IP, so I assume he's an xkcd arrival. drewmunn talk 18:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- I have left a note on his talk page. Not that we are likely to see them again. MisterShiney ✉ 20:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- Yeah, I guessed as such. I too took into account colour choices etc. He's not edited anything else from his current IP, so I assume he's an xkcd arrival. drewmunn talk 18:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
- I wouldn't worry about it. He said the same on my page. As a teacher I can say that it takes into consideration colour blindness and dyslexia and as such is not in violation. It is also within 2 lines of code. I think he is just jealous and too lazy to set up an account and personalise his own. MisterShiney ✉ 18:44, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Star Trek into Darkness edit
I just got home, and I was going to withdraw the request like you asked, but it looks like the powers that be have already taken care of that. Thanks anyway. DillonLarson (talk) 21:10, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
I would hate for you not to get what you were expecting... edit
|
Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly. |
;) MisterShiney ✉ 19:41, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- Things are getting somewhat beyond stupid now. I thought he'd agreed to let things go, and then things just got worse. I left it in the end; it's like bashing my head against brick wall. I preferred things when it was just "untitled Star Trek sequel". I'm off to watch some real murders, then some more intriguing fictional ones.drewmunn talk 20:38, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I know right? I am just staying away. Popping in every so often to look at the crazyness, shake my head and walk away lol. I am just watching Fringe, best series in a long time! MisterShiney ✉ 20:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've never got into Fringe, but I keep meaning to. Tonight's Death in Paradise was good; first one I haven't guessed in some time. My most recent Star Trek comment, pleading for less personal attacks, seems to have inflamed personal attacks. Maybe I should ask for everybody to rip each other to shreds, and see what that does. Reverse phycology! drewmunn talk 22:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- My My. You have had a busy day.... MisterShiney ✉ 18:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Not bad for a day I planned to spent mostly working on my service catalog; so far, I've done a lot of Wikipedia-ness, and only managed one photo shoot. drewmunn talk 18:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I was refering to Star Trek Into Darkness related discussions. I don't think I haven ever noticed that much activity on a talk page article before.... MisterShiney ✉ 18:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Not bad for a day I planned to spent mostly working on my service catalog; so far, I've done a lot of Wikipedia-ness, and only managed one photo shoot. drewmunn talk 18:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- My My. You have had a busy day.... MisterShiney ✉ 18:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I've never got into Fringe, but I keep meaning to. Tonight's Death in Paradise was good; first one I haven't guessed in some time. My most recent Star Trek comment, pleading for less personal attacks, seems to have inflamed personal attacks. Maybe I should ask for everybody to rip each other to shreds, and see what that does. Reverse phycology! drewmunn talk 22:08, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
- I know right? I am just staying away. Popping in every so often to look at the crazyness, shake my head and walk away lol. I am just watching Fringe, best series in a long time! MisterShiney ✉ 20:50, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Clarification. edit
I am reaching out to you because you seemed to be stepping in as an impartial moderator figure of sorts. I just wanted to clear something up about this conflict. There were multiple paragraphs. The first half met nearly universal consensus the second half could not be agreed upon. A little less than half of users supported it. There was no "compromise." It wasn't a "you can include the first paragraph, if you don't include the second" type situation. Nearly everyone agreed the first half went from bad to good, so I added it to the article. It wasn't bold, it was well agreed upon. Everyone disagreed over part two, so I rewrote it. You can go back and look at the conversation and it will back this up. (for reference, the first proposal was 4 bullets, so when people say "2 paragraphs" what they are referring to is my contribution that I placed in the article aka what you are referring to as the compromise.)
I collapsed all the quotes that support what I am saying, so they don't fill the page.
Extended content
|
|---|
|
This is what is happening here from my perspective. I proposed something. People objected. I continually modified the proposal to try and fix the criticisms. I propose a revised edition and everyone agrees the first half is good. Then I re-propose a rewritten second half and Scjessey and Rob Sinden take over the conversation. They claim there was some kind of compromise, this isn't true. Consensus was reached, the first half was appropriate, the second was still debated. If you go back and look at the conversation around the second and third revisions you will see the conversation is DOMINATED by those two users. The last time I proposed it Scjessey and Rob Sinden had already opposed it without reading it. They have put up a brick wall and refuse to cooperate or compromise in any way. Thy are opposing anything on principle without actually helping to work towards a compromise. They are discouraging anyone else from voicing an opinion by repeating the same two things over and over. Suddenly the post has the same wall of text as last time. So to say there was a compromise is completely inaccurate. To say I am the one being disruptive is somewhat unfair. I am causing problems. I asked them more than once to stop repeating their arguments and let other users have a say. This was the reply.
- If you make a proposal for the article, you don't get to decide who can or cannot oppose that proposal. Furthermore, it is only your opinion that I am "derailing" anything. My criticism is just as valid as anyone else's. -- Scjessey (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
My opinion on the validity of his points, and my perception that he is derailing the conversation are independent. I recognize he opposes. My point is, once they have voiced their opposition, they don't need to KEEP doing it, unless their opinion has changed. This situation would not have happened had they voiced their opposition once and not in repeat mode. I am not repeating the same proposal over and over. It has been comprehensibly rewritten. Compare the first second half to the the compromise and you will see it went from 13 sentences to 5. Can we collapse everything these users have said in my proposal so it doesn't take up the entire thing, or is this considered inappropriate or something? I am not trying to silence them, I am trying to prevent them from dominating the conversation. They come in within seconds and it is completely unnecessary to harass me like that. There is no reason to act like hungry dogs and scream the second I try and work towards a compromise. I have a real problem that they are watching like hawks and revert/close discussions/oppose without even reading the contribution or helping to make it better.(Sidenote: I also really have a problem with this "it is already sufficient, it isn't necessary" argument, but that's another story. Don't encyclopedias exist to provide people information, not a lack of it?) Thanks for being a place I can rant for a second without being flooded with responses. Xkcdreader (talk) 02:27, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- It's just people getting heated over their opinions. The proposal you have made was put through in part, which leaves the second part in limbo. It could be equally viewed as "no decision made", or "no consensus to add". Rewriting it may not solve the issue, as the opposing editors are opposing the concept of what is said in the second paragraph. Unfortunately, Wikipeda is the sort of place where some editors will argue for the sake of arguing; especially when they are arguing with an editor they find brash, or oppose their style of editing. In this case, it can be better to let them get on with life. It's. of looking good for your second addition at the moment, so I'd just leave it for now. If the other editors want to continue, let them. If not, then let things quieten down before moving forward with your proposal. You haven't really chosen a sedate article to join, and it's always to be expected they you'll meet with some friction when your bold as a new editor. As I've said previously, if you start contributing to other articles, let things quieten down at the Star Trek Into Darkness page, it's likely you'll get more respect, and your proposal may move forward somewhat faster, and in a more civil manner. Sticking around and fighting a cyclic battle is not going to do anything other than earn the wrath of other editors. We all say things we regret from time to time, and it's getting to the stage at Star Trek where that's beginning to show quite often. When that happens, holding the moral high ground and leaving the front line is the best thing. If you want, I'll invite an impartial admin along, and get them to take a look at everything in your absence, so you can return to a more level playing field, where impartial, helpful advice has been given on the situation. drewmunn talk 07:39, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I get the go work on other articles sentiment but I have no desire to experience this same type of thing in other places. This is a one and done type thing for this account. Even if I stick around and contribute more, it will be under a different account name, with this one left to die. I consistently fix typos and fix unclear sentences anyway when I use wikipedia as a source anyway. I just don't have that in my account history. I made this account so I could jump in and try and offer a compromise here between two groups of people. The following is my FIRST post on the matter, and was a rabbit hole I wish I had not jumped down.
- " I agree with you in that it should be included. As dumb as the whole issue is, it spilled over into pop culture and the journalism realm. The fight is now history in the most literal sense. The correct title of the movie itself was the subject of the xkcd comic, thus mentioning the comic and the dailydot article would be appropriate. THAT SAID, it needs to be rewritten in its current form. The whole subtitle part should be removed completely, (see my section above for why the subtitle debate was irrelevant in the first place.) Secondly, the "some editors" comes off as a personal attack and could be written better. See my suggestion below. 07:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC) "
- " The correct capitalization of the word 'Into' in the movie title became a matter of some debate on Wikipedia and was subsequently mocked by xkcd author Randall Munroe. In a comic titled 'Star Trek into Darkness' he lampooned the fact that over forty thousand words of debate had been produced on the issue. Daily Dot writer Kevin Morris noted the debate spanned over two months. Morris also recognized director J.J. Abrams' propensity for clever marketing tactics and speculated that "perhaps Abrams knew what he was getting into when he gave his film such a grammatically bizarre title." Guy Keleny, The Independent's top grammarian, compared it to David Garnett's novel Lady Into Fox (incidentally, Wikipedia use a lowercase 'i' for this title as well), noting that a quick internet search indicated that most publishers used a capital 'I'. 07:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC) "
- Then it ballooned to the somewhat less neutral: " The Daily Dot writer Kevin Morris noted the debate over the title's semantic interpretation spanned months and had become "a swirling maelstrom of anal retention from which no common sense can escape." Morris recognized director J.J. Abrams' propensity for clever marketing tactics and speculated that "perhaps Abrams knew what he was getting into when he gave his film such a grammatically bizarre title." 04:34, 3 February 2013 (UTC)"
- Now it reads: In reference to a webcomic lampooning a lengthy debate over the title's orthography[1], The Daily Dot writer Kevin Morris characterized the situation as "a swirling maelstrom" and recognized director J.J. Abrams' propensity for clever marketing tactics, speculating that "perhaps Abrams knew what he was getting into when he gave his film such a grammatically bizarre title."
- I think the way it is written now provides the correct context (the web comic) while still remaining deft, neutral, tactful, and brief. Would you agree I worked to improve it so it read in a fashion that is more appropriate for an encyclopedia?
- The real issue here is my terrible habit of pressing save as I work on things and then proofreading. I should be using preview about 10x to save. It's a reflex though, I don't even realize I have pressed save until the page is loaded. (partially because save page is bold and show preview isnt. I am working hard to break/undo this habbit. See how I posted all this in only one edit? Progress! Xkcdreader (talk) 08:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- This article is fairly unique in its massive array of conflicting opinions (I only come across such behaviour on 1/50 pages I contribute to, but this is the most vicious), so it's unlikely you'd be met with quite as much hostility elsewhere. I agree you have worked on your proposal, but it's literally just that people don't want it in any form, not that the current form isn't perfect. It's possible that it may be included later, when the rest of the article is padded out. At the moment, however, it would still make up a sizable percentage of the page's content, and it's fairly trivial. And I agree, well done for not multi-saving! I have only just successfully lowered my edit count (although saying that, you've made nearly half the number edits as I have, and I joined in 2007). Then again, it's generally pot luck whether my finger hits preview or save on my iPad. drewmunn talk 09:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I decided to write my opinion once instead of repeating it everywhere. Now I can just link to this paragraph. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Trek_Into_Darkness#Summary_of_Argument) It should hopefully fix a lot of the circular debate. I think I have made it pretty clear that WP:SUBJECT does not apply. The only two undecided issues, in my mind, are WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:UNDUE. I feel like WP:UNDUE is being used to overrule WP:TOO_LONG!#Content_removal - Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length and is being misused to keep something out people personally find uninteresting. WP:UNDUE says It should be easy to name prominent adherents., and by putting KEVIN's name in the article, I have named a prominent adherent. The Daily Dot is not a blog, they do cover web topics, but they have full editorial oversight. Lest me remind you, we are arguing that FIVE sentences is too much to discuss how confusing the title is. How much time did the talk page spend debating, without a clear conclusion? Xkcdreader (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- UNDUE is not being used to shorten the article, it's about sorting the chaff. For now, adding it would make it too much of the proportion of the article. The point is, we'd be making a bigger thing of the title than we are of the fact that it's a massive release. Take into account that there was a debate regarding The Dark Knight Rises, and whether the film's article should include information on the shooting, and how much. That was massive news compared to the title, yet still it was debatable how much should be in the article. For a long time, it was only mention in a small section about 4-5 sentences long. I'm not too sure that SUBJECT has much relevance, but it's possible that it may be argued. Putting all of your opinions in one place is fine, but don't assume that it's going to solve the cyclical debate. Parties on one or both sides need to step back for that to happen. As it seems you're not planning on stepping back, and it's unlikely that the other editors will, as no consensus has been reached, the debate will continue. I'm continuing to read all the content on the talk page, but will only step in on occasion. Things will not end until someone concedes or steps back, and popular opinion is stacked against consensus, thereby locking the article in its current state; if no consensus can be reached, the article is not changed. By continuing this argument, you'll be locking your own change out. If you step back and end your proposal for now, allow it to be archived, and wait for things to settle, then it's possible consensus will be on your side. Until then, everyone's too busy locking horns to allow for any change. drewmunn talk 10:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I understand UNDUE. Do you understand my point that it is absurd to not even address the verb/colon issue? This is an encyclopedia, and you default to NOTHING over something. "The proportion of the article" The article is devoid of ANY useful content. It's all gibberish and stupid quotes. I propose one insightful thing, and five sentences on the verb being confusing is undue weight, purely because the rest of the article is empty. It is a catch-22 and in my opinion a nonsense reason to not include valuable information that may help people. This is EXACTLY why Ignore All Rules exists, the rule is getting in way of providing people with relevant, interesting, and insightful content. Does my position at least make sense, even if you think I am wrong? Xkcdreader (talk) 10:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Your position makes a little sense, but Ignore All Rules is not void of responsibility. The community in general (who have taken part in this conversation from the beginning) are divided, which means it's not added. Even if we were a democracy, there'd be more votes against your proposition than for it (from a quick check back to the earliest proposition by someone else). The reason we have division means no action is to stop this kind of scenario; we don't want to go around in circles until the cows come home with nobody budging, and no consensus being reached. If this conversation continues, that's all that'll happen. We need to break the cycle, give the conversation time to gather dust, and return to it. Time out is time spent resolving conflicts, time arguing is time spent damaging yourself and others. drewmunn talk 10:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- It would not be fair to use all the objections from the beginning. The majority of them have been addressed. Nsign's position changed from "Oppose This is a joke" to "Much better. I'd delete the final sentence of the first paragraph but otherwise I think that's acceptable. For the record, I'd still rather it wasn't in the article at all but if it has to be then I'd say this is fine." Nsign doesn't want it in the article because it makes wikipedia look WP:LAME. I don't think that is a valid opposition, and he acknowledged that elsewhere. I hope you understand I am not trying to misrepresent people to have my way. I am trying to stay as objective as possible given my position. The only fair thing to do would be to have a third party read every objection, and see if a) it still applied to the current draft, and b) if the persons opinion changed c) if it was an objection to the content, or my conduct. (PS Rob Sinden is borderline harassing me on my talk page, I asked him to stop talking to me a couple times. If it continues, where do I report that type of stuff?) Xkcdreader (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Having looked through all objections in detail (this goes back further than your first request), there are still more unsolved oppositions than supports for the inclusion of the currently disputed content. I understand that you want to represent people objectively, but there are still outright objections standing. The fact that much of these objections are rooted in guideline usually makes them more weighty in the eyes of and impartial adjudicator as well, so you're running backwards on an treadmill at the moment. If you've already written a polite request for him to stop, and tried adding a request of the same type on his talk page, you can ask an impartial admin to interject; you'll find them at the relevant Administrators' noticeboard. drewmunn talk 11:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- It would not be fair to use all the objections from the beginning. The majority of them have been addressed. Nsign's position changed from "Oppose This is a joke" to "Much better. I'd delete the final sentence of the first paragraph but otherwise I think that's acceptable. For the record, I'd still rather it wasn't in the article at all but if it has to be then I'd say this is fine." Nsign doesn't want it in the article because it makes wikipedia look WP:LAME. I don't think that is a valid opposition, and he acknowledged that elsewhere. I hope you understand I am not trying to misrepresent people to have my way. I am trying to stay as objective as possible given my position. The only fair thing to do would be to have a third party read every objection, and see if a) it still applied to the current draft, and b) if the persons opinion changed c) if it was an objection to the content, or my conduct. (PS Rob Sinden is borderline harassing me on my talk page, I asked him to stop talking to me a couple times. If it continues, where do I report that type of stuff?) Xkcdreader (talk) 11:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Your position makes a little sense, but Ignore All Rules is not void of responsibility. The community in general (who have taken part in this conversation from the beginning) are divided, which means it's not added. Even if we were a democracy, there'd be more votes against your proposition than for it (from a quick check back to the earliest proposition by someone else). The reason we have division means no action is to stop this kind of scenario; we don't want to go around in circles until the cows come home with nobody budging, and no consensus being reached. If this conversation continues, that's all that'll happen. We need to break the cycle, give the conversation time to gather dust, and return to it. Time out is time spent resolving conflicts, time arguing is time spent damaging yourself and others. drewmunn talk 10:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I understand UNDUE. Do you understand my point that it is absurd to not even address the verb/colon issue? This is an encyclopedia, and you default to NOTHING over something. "The proportion of the article" The article is devoid of ANY useful content. It's all gibberish and stupid quotes. I propose one insightful thing, and five sentences on the verb being confusing is undue weight, purely because the rest of the article is empty. It is a catch-22 and in my opinion a nonsense reason to not include valuable information that may help people. This is EXACTLY why Ignore All Rules exists, the rule is getting in way of providing people with relevant, interesting, and insightful content. Does my position at least make sense, even if you think I am wrong? Xkcdreader (talk) 10:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- UNDUE is not being used to shorten the article, it's about sorting the chaff. For now, adding it would make it too much of the proportion of the article. The point is, we'd be making a bigger thing of the title than we are of the fact that it's a massive release. Take into account that there was a debate regarding The Dark Knight Rises, and whether the film's article should include information on the shooting, and how much. That was massive news compared to the title, yet still it was debatable how much should be in the article. For a long time, it was only mention in a small section about 4-5 sentences long. I'm not too sure that SUBJECT has much relevance, but it's possible that it may be argued. Putting all of your opinions in one place is fine, but don't assume that it's going to solve the cyclical debate. Parties on one or both sides need to step back for that to happen. As it seems you're not planning on stepping back, and it's unlikely that the other editors will, as no consensus has been reached, the debate will continue. I'm continuing to read all the content on the talk page, but will only step in on occasion. Things will not end until someone concedes or steps back, and popular opinion is stacked against consensus, thereby locking the article in its current state; if no consensus can be reached, the article is not changed. By continuing this argument, you'll be locking your own change out. If you step back and end your proposal for now, allow it to be archived, and wait for things to settle, then it's possible consensus will be on your side. Until then, everyone's too busy locking horns to allow for any change. drewmunn talk 10:11, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I decided to write my opinion once instead of repeating it everywhere. Now I can just link to this paragraph. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Star_Trek_Into_Darkness#Summary_of_Argument) It should hopefully fix a lot of the circular debate. I think I have made it pretty clear that WP:SUBJECT does not apply. The only two undecided issues, in my mind, are WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:UNDUE. I feel like WP:UNDUE is being used to overrule WP:TOO_LONG!#Content_removal - Content should not be removed from articles simply to reduce length and is being misused to keep something out people personally find uninteresting. WP:UNDUE says It should be easy to name prominent adherents., and by putting KEVIN's name in the article, I have named a prominent adherent. The Daily Dot is not a blog, they do cover web topics, but they have full editorial oversight. Lest me remind you, we are arguing that FIVE sentences is too much to discuss how confusing the title is. How much time did the talk page spend debating, without a clear conclusion? Xkcdreader (talk) 09:47, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- This article is fairly unique in its massive array of conflicting opinions (I only come across such behaviour on 1/50 pages I contribute to, but this is the most vicious), so it's unlikely you'd be met with quite as much hostility elsewhere. I agree you have worked on your proposal, but it's literally just that people don't want it in any form, not that the current form isn't perfect. It's possible that it may be included later, when the rest of the article is padded out. At the moment, however, it would still make up a sizable percentage of the page's content, and it's fairly trivial. And I agree, well done for not multi-saving! I have only just successfully lowered my edit count (although saying that, you've made nearly half the number edits as I have, and I joined in 2007). Then again, it's generally pot luck whether my finger hits preview or save on my iPad. drewmunn talk 09:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Am I still allowed to talk to you or is this unblock conditional on silence here too? Hopefully this last comment doesn't get me reblocked. I just have an actual policy question. Xkcdreader (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- As far as the block removal details look, you can't discuss the Star Trek article at all anywhere. Better be safe than sorry, although you could ask the admin who blocked you for clarification if you want to. drewmunn talk 14:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'll risk it. It's about the bigger picture and how Wikipedia works, not Star Trek. It just sort of uses the situation as an example. I just want your thoughts and then Ill drop it. No more replies. You said to me "I already discussed the reason for the original reversion, and it came under BRD." WP:BRD is information, not policy. So it is kind of a middle ground right? It reflects consensus, but it's more of a gentlemans agreement? PER the policy WP:BURO, "A procedural error in a new contribution is not grounds for reverting it." I'm kind of stuck where information fits between policy, rule, guideline, essay etc. Logistically speaking, I had not read WP:BRD well, and made a procedural mistake when I contributed content. TECHNICALLY, I would believe, policy WP:BURO take precedent over the information page WP:BRD? Am I completely lost and misguided? In a strictly technical world, (I am thinking about this like a chess match...) shouldn't the content I submitted without any consensus in either direction be up until consensus is established to remove it. I really thought I had checkmated those guys. It kind of turned into a game in my head. So my question is, in a normal circumstance (not this one that got out of hand), WP:BURO and "procedural errors in new contributions are not grounds for reverting it" should trump WP:BRD, right? I am not even trying to win the argument anymore, I just wanted to know if I was on to something or not. Technicalities like this could be useful in the future for other people when this type of blocking stuff happens. The reason my technicality worked so well is because I kept proposing new drafts, but only submitted it to the page once AND because consensus was divided, not swinging in either direction. I feel like this could be a useful tactic/move in the future for other users who are stuck in similar situations. (If that got off topic, the crux of my question is how you rectify policy like WP:BURO and whatever WP:BRD is (I don't understand WP:BRD that well if you can't tell.) Xkcdreader (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- BRD is generally used in most situations over the top of anything else, because it helps maintain Wikipedia core purpose. Give me half an hour or so, and I'll explain in more detail, I've just got to speak to a client... drewmunn talk 15:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Personally, it felt like the instant revert was more of a violation of BRD than my BOLD movie (which had roughly half support at the end.) Would you agree every one of us was moving too fast without listening to each other? It just seems to me like we completely skipped the R stage. Here are the steps I don't remember (condensed because it looks pretty.)
Extended content
|
|---|
|
- I think I am really stuck on WHY inclusion needs consensus and not exclusion. If you include it, you will get more eyes (people who don't read the talk page on a regular basis) and hopefully more eyes to decide if its appropriate. The whole things seems backwards to me. What is the downside to erring on the side of slightly controversial content, instead of no content at all? How can you get unbiased eyes (random wiki passerbyers, not wiki regulars?) The process seems intentionally designed to favor the status quo and the elder users, cliques, bureaucracy, and due process over just giving up and allowing a little extra content. I think my other big conundrum is "is there a difference between no consensus and consensus against?" Because right after my bold action, the narrative on the talk page seemed to suggest I violated consensus instead of a lack of one. Is there a difference? And when we say "controversial" do we mean to a few loud voices, or to the majority of people. Of all the opposes, only a handful seemed to care that much. Xkcdreader (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm back (sorry, long half hour, I know. Anyone would think I actually work or something)! Anyway, BRD is a guide informing editors how to deal with potentially controversial additions. It's designed to help keep wikipedia content within the other guidelines, whilst allow a forum for new additions. In the case of your edit, however, older precedence also had play. A similar addition was added at some point in the not-too-distant past, and it was removed under BRD. It was discussed, and no consensus reached. Therefore, there was precedent in the case of your addition for revert. It may seem like established editors being overprotective, and to a small extent, it is. However, this is because the more established editors were around for the entire discussion, and knew of the older case. As per that precedent, your edit was subject to BRD. The discussion took of on a slightly strange footing, however, because tensions were already high; inferred lack of consensus on part of your first proposal meant that your edit wasn't agreed as part of the original forum, and precedent suggested removal. You were a new editor, and we get quite a lot of trouble-makers who simply add in removed content, in some cases even if there are notes inline with the text explicitly telling them not to. Everybody had their shackles up, and the debate got out of hand fairly quickly (that's when I made myself scarce). BRD is used to protect the main article from this kind of debate, and so when you reinstated your text, it was seen by some as an example of your attitude towards due process, which just inflamed the situation further. Basically, BRD is generally accepted as a firewall; BURO is a warning. BURO doesn't really count here, because the revert wasn't made simply out of procedure. If you'd put something in that contained a slight slip in procedure (you'd added some personal info, for instance), then BURO says we should not revert it. Instead, and editor should clean out the part that broke the guideline, and leave the rest be. BURO is meant to protect content that is innocent but caught up in a guideline controversy, it's not meant to say we can't revert changes under BRD. Your content wasn't reverted because of guidelines, it was reverted to allow due process to take place in the background, rather than start an edit war. Neither BURO nor BRD trump each other as such, they both cover different eventualities, although this can be confusing to editors. We can revert edits based if they're breaking guidelines, but only if that doesn't remove any other good information added. That's how we deal with vandalism, libel, etc. If there is content added that's controversial, and due process could iron out the bugs (or precedence suggests it should not be included), then BRD allows for its removal. It's then discussed, and we can gauge how to, if any way, add it back. All of this is fairly confusing, so it's understandable that you're puzzled. In the case in hand, it's exacerbated by the tension running through the talk page, which has existed since long before you were an editor. An unfortunate situation made worse by unfortunate circumstances, I'm afraid. drewmunn talk 16:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- To be honest I am still lost. This step of BRD was completely skipped. "Rather than reverting, try to respond with your own BOLD edit if you can: If you disagree with an edit but can see a way to modify it rather than reverting it, do so." Shouldn't just the controversial lines have been removed, and not the whole addition? Shouldnt the person who initially reverted, instead have read it, and tried to fix it first? That's where I see due process failing. It was reverted as a whole, instead of first removing the most controversial parts. Buuut, this conversation has run its course, so ... cheers! For what it's worth, you seem to do a pretty good job of staying neutral and hearing both sides. Xkcdreader (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- That fine! As far as as countering with a bold edit goes, it was glossed over because of precedence with the same subject. drewmunn talk 17:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- hrmph. That still frustrates me. A lot. It's the fact that I have to spend days learning wtf is even going on here that leads people to never come back. WP:BITE should be enforced with serious spankings or something as punishment for violations. (As a note to anyone with power who ever reads this, policy should encourage users to be rash to include content, and careful to remove it.) [Also, if you wouldn't mind adding a disclaimer to your line "It's more that it was decided not to include it yesterday, and that was a compromise", saying that isn't really true or misleading or something, I'd feel a lot better when one of the top comments didn't misrepresent the situation completely. That would be your call if something like that is appropriate, I still don't understand talk pages that well.] Chiao!!Xkcdreader (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I do agree that more could be done to make joining a smoother transition; however, I don't know what's involved nowadays. In my day, I created an account, and that was that. It was hacked (no, correction, I left it logged in on a public machine), and I didn't know what to do. Someone undid the edits, but I never knew how to apologise or anything. Anyway, I read quite a bit, and got involved with a range of projects, and learned the hard way; I sat through many thousands of words worth of discussions, and finally got to grips with the system enough to be bold. Anyway, I know the teahouse exists nowadays, and it's apparently quite useful, so that might be worth a try. Other than that, it's pretty hard to know where to start. drewmunn talk 17:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Thanks for the offer but I'll have to respectfully pass. Once was enough. I'll let my legacy be a stupid amount of archive, and five (hopefully ten) sentence ownership of the title section of that movie I shouldn't mention. Xkcdreader (talk) 17:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- Well, feel free to come back in the future (new account if you feel that's necessary), and set to work with some different contributions! As far as disclaimer, I'll read through again. However, I'm not promising anything, as I do believe is was somewhat against consensus; no consensus was inferred. That will not matter in the future though, as consensus changes, so any future discussions outside of the immediate time frame will start from scratch (besides precedent, but that's a whole other matter, and my adding a disclaimer won't change anything). drewmunn talk 17:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't do a very good job of describing my problems with this place. First is the software. It is great for articles, and terrible for communication. If wikipedia were to adopt a reddit style messageboard for talk pages, I would consider it. Users need to be able to collapse and expand threads at will, within their browser without refreshing the page. You need to be able to edit messages without refreshing the page. Real time previews? The community needs to be able to downvote/report the annoying people to the bottom. Second is the top down bureaucracy. The dispute channels are immense. Fuck that, binding decisions? No thanks. I would much prefer to participate at wikia, where if I don't like a group I can start my own competing team (again, similar to reddit and subreddits.) http://en.wikipedia.org/org/xkcdreader/Star_Trek_Into_Darkness. If wikipedia was more like git, and I could fork an article and start my own competing encyclopedia I would be happy. Have a master database, and diff each teams articles to save on storage. Factions and governments would form on their own, and each team could run their encyclopedia their own way. My biggest issue is with democracy. Democracy gives equal voice to very different qualities of argument. It leads to rhetoric and campaigning, lying and cheating. If the voting population is stupid, the consensus becomes stupid. Again, I want to be able to break away and do my own thing, with my own team of editors. So, give me a call if Wikipedia turns into git+reddit+wikia and allows me to fork my own governing body the way I want, with the team I want of like-minded editors. It is the same argument against government and for privatization. The presence of opponents forces the factions to COMPETE, and focus on their product and not stale behind the scenes arguments. If your wikiteam was falling into second place, you would work harder to improve the content. A single monolithic government will inevitably stagnate and collapse under its own weight. Maybe someday in the far future, somebody will stumble upon this and get rich. They should give me credit, and maybe some stock. Even if I stayed here, I would get sucked into one of these dumb things every couple years, and it's not worth the stress. I would rather just go start my own wikia or subreddit and not deal with crap and red tape. Any site that makes adding five fairly well constructed sentences to its article this hard and lengthily, needs to sort out its own daemons before it starts attracting new users. (And develop a modern communication system like reddit, with threads. It's 2013.) As it stands there are just too many hands in the proverbial honey pot. Mediocrity prevails because it is safe and non-controversial. I just find it to be a compromised product that is more about ego than making the world a better place. And that is why I don't bother contributing, except to copyedit bad sentences. If a FRACTION of the time we spent debating this was put into including it and editing it down, this would have been done days ago. That is how it works here, in theory, but definitely not in practice.Xkcdreader (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I'm in a state of delirium currently, and the only thing I got out of the above was the word 'honey'. I'm really hungry... drewmunn talk 18:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- tldr: software sucks for communication, community uses it backwards. Put the contribution in first, whittle it down over the course of weeks. "There is no rush" should apply to removal and copyediting not including. Pages should not be treated as final drafts of documents. Everything is backwards. Xkcdreader (talk) 18:22, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but I'm in a state of delirium currently, and the only thing I got out of the above was the word 'honey'. I'm really hungry... drewmunn talk 18:18, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I didn't do a very good job of describing my problems with this place. First is the software. It is great for articles, and terrible for communication. If wikipedia were to adopt a reddit style messageboard for talk pages, I would consider it. Users need to be able to collapse and expand threads at will, within their browser without refreshing the page. You need to be able to edit messages without refreshing the page. Real time previews? The community needs to be able to downvote/report the annoying people to the bottom. Second is the top down bureaucracy. The dispute channels are immense. Fuck that, binding decisions? No thanks. I would much prefer to participate at wikia, where if I don't like a group I can start my own competing team (again, similar to reddit and subreddits.) http://en.wikipedia.org/org/xkcdreader/Star_Trek_Into_Darkness. If wikipedia was more like git, and I could fork an article and start my own competing encyclopedia I would be happy. Have a master database, and diff each teams articles to save on storage. Factions and governments would form on their own, and each team could run their encyclopedia their own way. My biggest issue is with democracy. Democracy gives equal voice to very different qualities of argument. It leads to rhetoric and campaigning, lying and cheating. If the voting population is stupid, the consensus becomes stupid. Again, I want to be able to break away and do my own thing, with my own team of editors. So, give me a call if Wikipedia turns into git+reddit+wikia and allows me to fork my own governing body the way I want, with the team I want of like-minded editors. It is the same argument against government and for privatization. The presence of opponents forces the factions to COMPETE, and focus on their product and not stale behind the scenes arguments. If your wikiteam was falling into second place, you would work harder to improve the content. A single monolithic government will inevitably stagnate and collapse under its own weight. Maybe someday in the far future, somebody will stumble upon this and get rich. They should give me credit, and maybe some stock. Even if I stayed here, I would get sucked into one of these dumb things every couple years, and it's not worth the stress. I would rather just go start my own wikia or subreddit and not deal with crap and red tape. Any site that makes adding five fairly well constructed sentences to its article this hard and lengthily, needs to sort out its own daemons before it starts attracting new users. (And develop a modern communication system like reddit, with threads. It's 2013.) As it stands there are just too many hands in the proverbial honey pot. Mediocrity prevails because it is safe and non-controversial. I just find it to be a compromised product that is more about ego than making the world a better place. And that is why I don't bother contributing, except to copyedit bad sentences. If a FRACTION of the time we spent debating this was put into including it and editing it down, this would have been done days ago. That is how it works here, in theory, but definitely not in practice.Xkcdreader (talk) 18:05, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I do agree that more could be done to make joining a smoother transition; however, I don't know what's involved nowadays. In my day, I created an account, and that was that. It was hacked (no, correction, I left it logged in on a public machine), and I didn't know what to do. Someone undid the edits, but I never knew how to apologise or anything. Anyway, I read quite a bit, and got involved with a range of projects, and learned the hard way; I sat through many thousands of words worth of discussions, and finally got to grips with the system enough to be bold. Anyway, I know the teahouse exists nowadays, and it's apparently quite useful, so that might be worth a try. Other than that, it's pretty hard to know where to start. drewmunn talk 17:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- hrmph. That still frustrates me. A lot. It's the fact that I have to spend days learning wtf is even going on here that leads people to never come back. WP:BITE should be enforced with serious spankings or something as punishment for violations. (As a note to anyone with power who ever reads this, policy should encourage users to be rash to include content, and careful to remove it.) [Also, if you wouldn't mind adding a disclaimer to your line "It's more that it was decided not to include it yesterday, and that was a compromise", saying that isn't really true or misleading or something, I'd feel a lot better when one of the top comments didn't misrepresent the situation completely. That would be your call if something like that is appropriate, I still don't understand talk pages that well.] Chiao!!Xkcdreader (talk) 17:19, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- That fine! As far as as countering with a bold edit goes, it was glossed over because of precedence with the same subject. drewmunn talk 17:15, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- To be honest I am still lost. This step of BRD was completely skipped. "Rather than reverting, try to respond with your own BOLD edit if you can: If you disagree with an edit but can see a way to modify it rather than reverting it, do so." Shouldn't just the controversial lines have been removed, and not the whole addition? Shouldnt the person who initially reverted, instead have read it, and tried to fix it first? That's where I see due process failing. It was reverted as a whole, instead of first removing the most controversial parts. Buuut, this conversation has run its course, so ... cheers! For what it's worth, you seem to do a pretty good job of staying neutral and hearing both sides. Xkcdreader (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I'm back (sorry, long half hour, I know. Anyone would think I actually work or something)! Anyway, BRD is a guide informing editors how to deal with potentially controversial additions. It's designed to help keep wikipedia content within the other guidelines, whilst allow a forum for new additions. In the case of your edit, however, older precedence also had play. A similar addition was added at some point in the not-too-distant past, and it was removed under BRD. It was discussed, and no consensus reached. Therefore, there was precedent in the case of your addition for revert. It may seem like established editors being overprotective, and to a small extent, it is. However, this is because the more established editors were around for the entire discussion, and knew of the older case. As per that precedent, your edit was subject to BRD. The discussion took of on a slightly strange footing, however, because tensions were already high; inferred lack of consensus on part of your first proposal meant that your edit wasn't agreed as part of the original forum, and precedent suggested removal. You were a new editor, and we get quite a lot of trouble-makers who simply add in removed content, in some cases even if there are notes inline with the text explicitly telling them not to. Everybody had their shackles up, and the debate got out of hand fairly quickly (that's when I made myself scarce). BRD is used to protect the main article from this kind of debate, and so when you reinstated your text, it was seen by some as an example of your attitude towards due process, which just inflamed the situation further. Basically, BRD is generally accepted as a firewall; BURO is a warning. BURO doesn't really count here, because the revert wasn't made simply out of procedure. If you'd put something in that contained a slight slip in procedure (you'd added some personal info, for instance), then BURO says we should not revert it. Instead, and editor should clean out the part that broke the guideline, and leave the rest be. BURO is meant to protect content that is innocent but caught up in a guideline controversy, it's not meant to say we can't revert changes under BRD. Your content wasn't reverted because of guidelines, it was reverted to allow due process to take place in the background, rather than start an edit war. Neither BURO nor BRD trump each other as such, they both cover different eventualities, although this can be confusing to editors. We can revert edits based if they're breaking guidelines, but only if that doesn't remove any other good information added. That's how we deal with vandalism, libel, etc. If there is content added that's controversial, and due process could iron out the bugs (or precedence suggests it should not be included), then BRD allows for its removal. It's then discussed, and we can gauge how to, if any way, add it back. All of this is fairly confusing, so it's understandable that you're puzzled. In the case in hand, it's exacerbated by the tension running through the talk page, which has existed since long before you were an editor. An unfortunate situation made worse by unfortunate circumstances, I'm afraid. drewmunn talk 16:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- I think I am really stuck on WHY inclusion needs consensus and not exclusion. If you include it, you will get more eyes (people who don't read the talk page on a regular basis) and hopefully more eyes to decide if its appropriate. The whole things seems backwards to me. What is the downside to erring on the side of slightly controversial content, instead of no content at all? How can you get unbiased eyes (random wiki passerbyers, not wiki regulars?) The process seems intentionally designed to favor the status quo and the elder users, cliques, bureaucracy, and due process over just giving up and allowing a little extra content. I think my other big conundrum is "is there a difference between no consensus and consensus against?" Because right after my bold action, the narrative on the talk page seemed to suggest I violated consensus instead of a lack of one. Is there a difference? And when we say "controversial" do we mean to a few loud voices, or to the majority of people. Of all the opposes, only a handful seemed to care that much. Xkcdreader (talk) 15:24, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Although the software isn't perfect, I'd have to disagree with your surmise that it doesn't work the right way. It's not geared towards long and arduous talking, agreed, but it's not designed for that. As far as the speed of editing, I think copyediting should be faster; it only takes 1 spelling mistake on a page to lose a massive audience. Keeping content encyclopaedic is the primary reason (beside vandal-hunting) for reverting, and many more pages would appear cluttered or rambling without swift copyediting, and long-term decisionmaking afterwards. drewmunn talk 18:34, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I had a brainstorm and synthesized what I am getting at through all these semi-rhetorical questions. Thanks for letting me ramble on your page. My REAL question is, "is Wikipedia more concerned with keeping its ruling class happy and settling for the least controversial decisions possible, as oppose to putting out the best possible product and hurting a few feelings along the way?" Because if that is true, I don't understand why people even bother. (I noticed the first conversation on your talk page is a person with the same sentiment.) If this is true it hurts me inside. Finding out Wikipedia cares more about its stewards and their feelings than its product is like finding out Santa Clause isn't real. Xkcdreader (talk) 15:46, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
- That's fine! Now just to work on getting that edit count down... The first conversation is fairly similar, in fact! The other editor was getting reverted, but then wanted some fairly good changes instated, so he had a debate on the Skyfall talk. People took badly to his editing technique, and the situation escalated. He took some time out of the discussion at my suggestion, and we had the matter resolved (with his suggested changes instated) in a matter of days. Procedure can get caught up sometimes. drewmunn talk 16:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Archiving edit
Drew, I wanted to let you know you can set up automatic archiving. You can insert code at the top of your talk page. For example, this is my code:
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 26
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = User talk:Erik/Archive %(counter)d
}}
It means that when the discussion is 14 days old, the bot will archive it. "26" means I am at User talk:Erik/Archive 26 now. When the archive page hits 100K, the bot will change the counter and create a new page for archiving. If you want to do this, I think this is the code for you:
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 100K
|counter = 1
|algo = old(14d)
|archive = User talk:Sonicdrewdriver/Archive %(counter)d
}}
You can change "algo" to archive after 7 days or however long you want. I recommend sticking with a basic counter (Archive 1, Archive 2, etc.) to make it easier for the bot. Let me know if you have any questions! Erik (talk | contribs) 17:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 15 edit
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Doctor Who, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Time Lady (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
notification of current state of work title capitalization rules discussion over at WT:MoS edit
Hi. As you're one of those folks who contributed to the work title capitalization rules discussion over at WT:MoS but then seemed to tune out (and therefore – as opposed to the "MoS regulars" – probably didn't follow it any further), I just briefly wanted to point you towards my latest post there (beginning with "As there has been little progress"), which might well be the last overall: I'm phasing out, and since there hasn't been much input by other users lately, it's likely that over the next few days, the thread'll die (i.e., disappear into the archives) without there having been made any changes to the MoS. So I'd be much obliged if you took the time to stake your support for or opposition to my proposal (should I also have put an RfC tag there?) and – unless it's accepted (I'm not holding my breath...) – maybe even considered keeping the debate going. Thanks. (I'm aware of the unsolicited nature of this message, so if you feel molested by it, I apologize.) – ὁ οἶστρος (talk) 14:28, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Wikidata edit
Please be sure to check if all the links are present in the Wikidata item before removing the interwiki links from Wikipedia. With this edit you missed out two language links gnwiki and be-x-oldwiki. I've corrected it on the Wikidata item now. Thanks. Del♉sion23 (talk) 00:05, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
Notice of Dispute resolution discussion edit
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Microsoft Office 2013".
Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 11:53, 24 February 2013 (UTC) Although his edit is unsourced, and has been reverted (not by me) it is not vandalism, just incompetence. I am watching him. Please also continue to do so, because I am just now going to bed! --Anthony Bradbury"talk" 21:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC) Thanks editMany thanks for the barnstar and for the withdrawal. My best, Cavarrone (talk) 18:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
DRN case editHello Sonicdrewdrive, the DRN case that you are involved in has now been opened. We need your participation to be able to resolve the dispute. Zaminamina Eh Eh Waka Waka Eh Eh 17:49, 1 March 2013 (UTC) Thank you! editBut no apology necessary. With all the variants on that title, including the episode title itself, it's an easy mistake to make. However, I do plan to enjoy the cookie with a cup of tea! --Drmargi (talk) 16:30, 9 March 2013 (UTC) Welcome. editThe official name for Mac OS X v. 10.7 is OS X. if you don't believe, ask Apple. And, in the article A/UX, why it have Netscape(third party software) and you do not delete it and find a plain screenshot? Applist (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Question editThanks for telling me the explanation for the recent edit and I apologize for the misunderstanding our users have asked us why we weren't represented Wikipedia and I guess I did the wrong thing. One question is would our current user base be able to add the external link to the page? Thanks Zenpush (talk) 17:23, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
Tasm editYou might want to sign you're name on the discussion page. ;) Jhenderson 777 23:02, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
Quick word about 'Skyfall' editHi, just quickly saying thanks for the patience you showed to my stubborn attempt at changing the Skyfall page. Eventually I figured out you can click on 'talk' next to an edit, and found to my surprise, clear and reasonable reasons they were being reverted. Thanks also for labeling the attempts as 'good faith'. I'll get to know the guidelines a little better. Cheers! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.98.72.87 (talk) 16:12, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Pacific Rim editHello, there is currently a discussion in place re the title of "Pacfic Rim" on the Article Talk Page, that if you could swing by and provide some input that would be great. MisterShiney ✉ 12:41, 31 March 2013 (UTC) Wikipedia editIt's okay, I won't war with you over the talk page section name. Technically, your edit summary could apply either way, you know. It's equally as biased now as it was after I italicized it, only the other way. The discussion is about italicizing "Wikipedia" in its article. That's the only reason I italicized it, because that's what the discussion is supposed to be all about. Best to you and yours! – PAINE ELLSWORTH CLIMAX! 18:11, 6 April 2013 (UTC)
Skybliei editUndid edits editHi why did you undid my edit on ITunes version history Skybliei (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
User:Skybliei/sandbox editHi could you check User:Skybliei/sandbox because I have develop a cleaner look for ITunes version history and please edit it if you think it needs Improvement Skybliei (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
User:Skybliei The Original Barnstar editThanks for the The Original Barnstar Skybliei (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2013 (UTC) HPD edit
It should be Indo-European, not "Indio-European". Also, can it be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons? πr2 (t • c) 17:45, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Change ??? edit
Sonicdrewdriver editIm not trying to be rude but I just want to know what is your problem with me? I don't even know you, and you keep deleting my edits and threatening that you are going to report my edits so I can not review. There was nothing wrong with them, they were all correct and they had no errors. Bryce richey (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
Okay, sorry I just made a Wikipedia account (not with a school) and still trying to know the basics. I do not understand why you cant have the mini player on the page though. I understand about the Angry bird example, I was just trying to make a picture in your head if someone was reading it. last thing though what are the tildes for? Bryce richey (talk) 07:39, 25 April 2013 (UTC) I was also wounding if I fix the mini player I could put it back in the page (at the bottom :) Bryce richey (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC)
What that man done ??? edit
Patience editIs there a barnstar for showing extreme patience? --Rob Sinden (talk) 15:25, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Hav u watched edit
Your request for rollback edit Hi Sonicdrewdriver. After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:
If you no longer want rollback, contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some more information on how to use rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback (even though you're not an admin). I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, but feel free to leave me a message on my talk page if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Thank you for helping to reduce vandalism. Happy editing! Yunshui 雲水 08:42, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
So sad :-( edit
Google Search Page Alexa Rank issue editExcuse me Sir, I would like to redirect you to this link --> http://www.alexa.com/topsites It mentions Google at #2. Btw, ur reverting back deletes a citation link - this link that is. What do you think should the article page now read? Compfreak7 (talk) 14:53, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
Wotts dat ? editWhat is "Google Search Page Alexa Rank issue" ? Hav u edited anything ? HPD talk 12:05, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
Edit warring editI've initiated a discussion on the talkpage because of your edit warring along with SchroCat. Right now it's two on two, so there's no clear consensus, so please join. AmericanDad86 (talk) 07:27, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
U will surely get surprised. edit
Please comment on Talk:Dragon Ball editGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Dragon Ball. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:18, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
Isn't it Vandalism ???? edit
Please comment on Talk:United Bates of America editGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:United Bates of America. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 22 May 2013 (UTC) Congratulations.... edit
How is it ? editThe file, File:VLC 2.0.6 (remove this sentence).PNG, lucks odd. So, i have uploaded the same image in Wikipedia Commons with CC 3.0 Unported i.e, http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:VLC_2.0.6.png, after some time an user tagged it as it of low resolution n please upload in an higher image quality. So, just now i have uploaded an image of higher resolution and quality. Do u know i have assinged that image in many Wikipedian languages.PLS SEE THE IMAGE AND GIVE UR FEEDBACK COZ THIS WORK HAS DONE PARTIALLY ACORDING TO U. HPD talk 15:22, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Wott we shud tag ??? editPlzz Plzz help me wott there shud be tagged as the corect license ? If i wud asked it in talk page, it will be suddernly deleted (may be) wich i don't want. HPD talk 16:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Iron Man 3 editGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Iron Man 3. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2013 (UTC) IS IT ?? edit
Please comment on Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann editGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:16, 31 May 2013 (UTC) Can't use :( edit
Please comment on Talk:The Story of a Small Town editGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Story of a Small Town. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:15, 3 June 2013 (UTC) SuRPrIsE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1111 edit
Required ur attention editToday before 25-30 mins ago after visiting a website i.e, Windows 8.1 Full Features List, in Softpedia news page, i decided to edit and update the info. according to that website in Windows 8 article of English Wikipedia. So i did it, my editing lies in the "Windows 8.1" sub-section of "Updates" section OR here is the direct link to it, 8.1 (Windows). Now the question arises is every thing correct ? Or there is still something that needs to be improved ? If there is something U R PERMITED TO EDIT AND CORRECT THOSE MISTAKES.HPD talk 06:14, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Cmd + F not wrkng editU adviced me to run Cmd + F its not working mannnnnn..... :P :P :P :P :P :PHPD talk 10:02, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
A joke to blow up ur mind.. editExaminer- Tell the name of this bird by seeing her leg.... Common quick.. Student- I don't know, Sorry. Examinr- U failed in ur test, now tell me ur name. Student- (moved his leg upwards n said): U bitch, see my leg n write the name. :PHPD talk 10:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC) Reception of MBP editSo why should existing critique in the reception be removed? You bring as an argument "We are not a guide" ... we? Wikipedia? Where does it say it is against Wikipedia's rules to put the information on which display panel is fitted? Please cite them. Besides, if some bit of information is factually incorrect, cite it (I cited most of what I added), and correct it, why do you remove all of it? FelixAkk (talk) 09:44, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Users are becoming very jealous in Wikipedia.... Shitt editBy reviewing a screenshot which has been uploaded 5 months ago by me i.e, File:Google Chrome Windows 8 Mode.jpg, u said (in ur talk page) that "If an image can be made free easily, as is the case with the Google Chrome image you've recently uploaded, make it free. The entire Chrome interface is free, but the logos shown in the tab you've got open aren't. Web browsers usually show either a blank starting page, or the Wikipedia home page...." I'VE REALISED AND ADMITED IT. But do u know due to a F**K*NG USER NAMED ViperSnake151 my file has been deleted 14 days ago, and i can't do anything to it. :( :( :( :( IN RESPECT TO UR GUIDELINES, I THINK THE FILE THAT USER (ViperSnake151) UPLOADED i.e, File:Firefox 21 on Windows 8.PNG, HAS NOTHING OTHER THAN THE SAME MISTAKE WHICH I COMMITED {there must be blank starting page or Wikipedia home page (as per ur lines)}. I ALSO THINK HIS FILE MUST BE TAGGED FOR SPEEDY DELETION. I think that user (ViperSnake151) is very much jealous of me and my works, due to him my file i.e, File:Firefox in Windows 8.JPG, has also been deleted. Again another firefox image which i uploaded i.e, File:Firefox 21 on Windows.PNG, has gone useless due to him. I feel upset....... SHITTT.HPD talk 10:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Reply editYup, i haven't uploaded another image replacing the Google Chrome ones which was deleted. But wott r u doing at that time when u reviewd my screenshot ^-^, u cud also have uploaded another screenshot and replaced mine ones, u said in ur talk page that "I have Windows 8 dual installed on my MBP as well" So u have Windows 8, Google chrome, Snipping tools (defaultly-installed) etc, it cud b very very easy to take a screenshot n upload it replacing my file. Hence, u see i already told u 100+ times that U ARE COMPLETELY PERMITED TO OVERLOOK AND EDIT MY WORKS AND ALSO TO DELETE IT. Do u know i feel very happy when u moniter or edit my works in my request on anything i do. SO, PAST IS PAST NEVER THINK ON DAT...., NOW U PLEASE TAKE A SCREENSHOT OF GOOGLE CHROME IN WINDOWS 8 MODE AND POST IT IN WIKIPEDIA, THEN U CONTACT ME I WILL OVERLOOK IT, AND DEN I WILL USE IT IN EVERY WIKIPEDIA LANGUAGES. OK ????HPD talk 11:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
HPD talk 14:29, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
NEW SEX editCreated a nw sex. first tell will anything become wrong if i will view ur photos n videos in twitter coz i'm currently viewing all of those. Lastly u r caught dat u r also using Windows Vista by me - https://twitter.com/drewmunn/status/327521656476139520/photo/1 HPD talk 14:36, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Oh My GoD editWhy you users "Robsinden" and "Hammer67" are scolding me like i'm a shitt. What's gonna wrong with you guys ???
U - You Ok ?
HPD talk 10:45, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Time To Moniter edit20-25 mins before while i was listening to "You Want Me" a song of Justin Bieber, i decided to edit the article regarding this in Wikipedia. So, i've visited You Want Me article, there i found that there is no information except a redirecting tag to other page. SO NOW I'VE REMOVED THE REDIRECTING TAG AND ADDED SUFFICIENT INFORMATION THAT I KNOW. BUT AS U KNOW I NOTIFY U EVERYTHING I EDIT AND U OVERLOOK IT, SO HERE ALSO U MUST OVERLOOK AND EDIT THAT ARTICLE WHICH IS You Want Me.HPD talk 16:35, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television editGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Television. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC) Must See ?? editPlease take some time to see this pic - https://twitter.com/HimanisPinnu/status/343782505507336192/photo/1
HPD talk 17:36, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
New editDo u know, a beta version of iOS 7 has been leaked to the developers by the company Apple. But as u said u r a developer, why don't u try that OS ??HPD talk 10:48, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
TIME to MaKe A GrEaT EdITiNg editI feel proud of myself that i've found a great mistake in most reputed article named United States, do u know in that country English is not the only official language there is also the presence of Spanish. I derived the information from Languages of United States, i saw that there is 80% English and 20% Spanish working. BUT IN THE ARTICLE IT IS WRITTEN THAT ENGLISH WAS THE ONLY NATIONAL LANGUAGE. Some other informations are also found on other articles i.e, in Texas, New Mexico, El Paso etc there is more concentration of Spanish. So let us edit it, what about dat idea ??HPD talk 12:57, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
That doesn't really prove anything, and it's not notable enough for an include. As I've said before, changes to pre-release versions are common, and sometimes whole themes can disappear in nightly builds. Until it's officially announced by Microsoft, or evident on a public release, there isn't enough evidence to include it. drewmunn talk 09:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Terra Nova (TV series) editGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Terra Nova (TV series). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 15:15, 12 June 2013 (UTC) Your Attention Please... LOL editTo, Drew Munn Respctd bro, Dis iz 2 inform u dat i've recently disabled the redirectng tag of Plants vs. Zombies: Garden Warfare to Plants vs. Zombies and edited adding the sufficient known informatn. Coz EA announcd dat this game will also b d sequel 2 PVZ. Nd Plants vs. Zombies 2: It's about time is a sequel but it only for iOS. So, as u monitered dat PVZ 2: IAT article, its my heartly rqst to to u 2 moniter PVZ GW also. I sahll b highly obiligd if u do so. Ur affectnte HPD
HAAAHHHHHHAHAHHHHAAHHH... LOL HPD talk 12:08, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Pls Moniter editU HAV TOLD THE RI8 THING, WE MUST NOT GIVE OUR PASSWORD TO ANYONE EVEN IF WE TRUST THEM, I HAVN'T GAVE ANY PASSWORDS TILL NOW 2 ANYBODY. Hence, i've told u to moniter Plants vs. Zombies: Garden Warfare, but havn't. DO U KNOW BECAUSE OF SOME OF MY MITAKES I GOT DIS WARNING IN MY TALK PAGE, HERE IS THE MESSAGE " Disambiguation link notification for June 14 Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Plants vs. Zombies: Garden Warfare, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL Bot"
A barnstar for you! edit
A barnstar for you! edit
But Sonic isnt an admin.... -- MisterShiney ✉ 13:07, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
A barnstar for you! edit
A barnstar for you! edit
A barnstar for you! edit
Thanks editThank you for all the barnstars! I've removed the one that doesn't actually apply to me (I'm not an administrator). Barnstars were introduced as a way of thanking people for doing something useful or productive on Wikipedia, and each one is a way of thanking people for different things. The Admin's Barnstar is for administrators who have performed a certain task or made a difficult decision. The Original is for good work, the Anti-Vandalism for ensuring only useful content remains (usually in heavily or persistently vandalised articles), the Diligence for scrutiny and community service, and the Diplomacy for those who resolve conflicts. I'm not sure I'm all of them, and it's customary for a single one to be selected, but thanks all the same! drewmunn talk 10:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:Sega Genesis editGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sega Genesis. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 15 June 2013 (UTC) Your "leg"? editHello, Drew. Sometimes it is very difficult to understand HPD. Talk:IOS 7#Informations regarding Criticism says your leg has been pulled out! None of the metaphors that I know of applies to this case. The rest of the message seems to make sense at first, until I look at the article history and find no trace of what I understood from the message. Do you have any idea? Best regards, P.S. You have received an Admin Barnstar? Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 16 editHi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lake Placid 2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page John Schneider (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject. It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:56, 16 June 2013 (UTC) Thank you - "World's record" for the longest Table of content editHello. Thank you so much for your intervention for the "World's record" for the longest Table of content for an article here. Much appreciated. Thank you Please comment on Talk:Empire State Building editGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Empire State Building. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2013 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:Terra Nova (TV series) editGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Terra Nova (TV series). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 21 June 2013 (UTC) I'm Back from those busy days editHi. As i got admission in MPS BBSR as a college student of commerce, i will be busy in my studies, i have to slowdown editing Wikipedia articles and messaging you for a while. Of course! i may message you voraciously during my holidays.
Also as u said u r running Chrome Canary, i decided to download it today and test it, i saw Google has packed a new feature with it, pls see the picture- https://twitter.com/HimanisPinnu/status/348335705916841984/photo/1 and update urs to get the most of it.HPD talk
THE COMPUTER PROGRAM THAT WILL MAKE YOU A MILLIONARE ! editYou had done a superb work by taking a screenshot of Visual Studio in Windows 8. Do u know the image which was originally posted by u i.e, File:Visual Studio 2012 EN.png, was currently assigned as main screenshot in infobox of Microsoft Visual Studio article. I have cropped, reduced the resolution of that image so that it will not violate any laws. NOW YOUR WORK IS TO TAKE A LOOK AND EDIT THE IMAGE IF SOME INFORMATION HAS BEEN MISSED-OUT BY ME.HPD talk
Anyways pls read this, it was assigned by stephan "Source Code[edit] License for the source code displayed (DotNetWikiBot Framework): DotNetWikiBot Framework 2.100 - bot framework based on Microsoft .NET Framework 2.0 for wiki projects Distributed under the terms of the MIT (X11) license: http://www.opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.php Copyright (c) Iaroslav Vassiliev (2006-2012) codedriller@gmail.com" LASTLY IF U AGREE, UR E-MAIL ADRESS MAY BE REQUIRED.HPD talk
Hello editI am surprised that you haven't set up and entire archive section for your new friend Drew. How you been? -- MisterShiney ✉ 08:43, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
Again, as i said that i will be busy with my studies, so i'm unable to reply to your message, yes the photos you have posted in twitter belongs to different licenses, but as u said me feel free, i searched most of those photos but i found most of them belongs to your personal experiment like Facebook images, Strawberry milkshake, how your home looks in autumn etc. You must post photos that are similar to that Visual Studio photo which i posted. Also, have you watched the final (India Vs. England) of the last 2013 ICC Champions Trophy which has gone live in Edgbaston stadium in Birmingham, England on 23rd June ?? I've watched the full match in Star Cricket HD, do you know that India won the last and the final ICC Champions Trophy by defeating England by 5 runs. Here is the score of both the countries
HPD talk
Please comment on Template talk:Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy editGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Template talk:Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2013 (UTC) Why ?? editWhen i visited Ludopedia's user page from ur talk page, i saw a new code that explains the time, date, no. of articles in English Wikipedia and the no. of users online. I planned to use this in both of our user pages. So, i did mine work, u may see here. Then when i added that in your user page, it was suddenly removed by u without reason. Why ?? Don't u like it, IT SEEMS VERY COOL. ;) :) HPD talk
What is MSDN ??? editDo u know Windows 8.1 is out now, but till now it is only available as an update in Windows store for the people those who run Windows 8/RT. As u already know that i'm using Windows 7, so i cant update like this way, i can only deploy that OS into my laptop if there is a ".ISO" file, but the file is not currently availablr in Microsoft's own site. Hence, i searched in torrents i found this link which has the file i.e - http://thepiratebay.sx/torrent/8617941/Windows_8.1_Preview_-_en_-_%28x86-x64%29 I remain confused, so i commented on that torrent that "Microsoft has not released the ".ISO" file for installation yet and this may be fake" Suddenly an user in that site tagged me and said "it is a MSDN iso" Now, i must ask u what is that ?? U may visit that site and read all cmnts, and yes my user name in that site is "maha609", read my comments and don't get confused, OK ?HPD talk
Please comment on Talk:Flickr editGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Flickr. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:15, 27 June 2013 (UTC) My Money, Time all gone in vain :( :'( editHi. As i said above i will download the OS from that torrent file, i have made it on the go, now it is stuck at 59.1% which is 1.57 GB completed out of 2.60 GB. Do u know, to complete upto this, it has taken 20 Hours 53 Minutes and 48 Seconds. Hence, i've controled it with my patience. But, today 6 mins ago i've visited the original Microsoft site which allows us to download the ISO file directly i.e - http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-8/preview-download Note: Before today perhaps, the site used to say "ISO files are not currently available and it will be acailable later" But now it allowed people to download the ISO file from that site (u please visit it now, u will also feel the same). I'M REALLY SHOCKED AND NOW PERHAPS I'M CRYING, COZ IN THE MICROSOFT SITE THE ISO FILE OF THE OS IN "English 32-bit (x86)" IS 2.8 GB, BUT THE FILE WHICH I'VE DOWNLOADED FROM THE TORRENT FILE IS 2.60 GB. ALAS! I HOPE I'VE LOST ALL MY TIME AND MAY BE MONEY COZ 1.57 GB MAY COST Rs. 200 ALL AOUND INDIA THROUGH RILIANCE LTD. PLEASE FIND SOME INFORMATION AND TELL. I'VE CURRENTLY LOST ALL MY HOPES. :( :( :( :( I THINK MSDN AND OTHER SHITTS ARE FOOLS COZ THE FILE IN TORRENT MAY NOT BE FALSE AS I'VE SEEN THE SIZE OF THE FILE IN THAT MSDN SITE WHICH IS ALSO 2.60 GB. HPD talk
Thank you editIm new to Wikipedia-Editing and like to be corrected. It's good, that you've revert it. Thank you. --Tcrosen (talk) 11:36, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:RetroArch editGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:RetroArch. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2013 (UTC) Talkback edit Message added 10:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. JetBlast (talk) 10:57, 1 July 2013 (UTC) Please Help Me :'( editFinally u came to know that i've already downloaded and installed Windows 8.1 Preview, I guarantee u that this also cud not save Microsoft from speedy declining. Anyways, everything looks fine but I'M IN A WORST SITUATION. AS U KNOW I'M USING 3G DONGLE FOR INTERNET WHICH IS INTEX 3.5G SPEED V7.2, IT DOESN'T SUPPORT IN WINDOWS 8.1, IT WAS ALSO NOT INSTALLED IN WINDOWS 8 "AS U KNOW MY BRO RUNS IT". I INSTALLED THOSE DRIVERS IN COMPATIBILITY MODE BY SELECTING "WINDOWS 7", THIS ALSO FAILED. I ALSO SEARCHED MORE 2-3 DAYS IN THE INTERNET REGARDING THIS MATTER BUT I CANT FIND ANY OF THEM USEFULL, I'M CURRENTLY IN CYBERCAFE. PLEASE HELP ME, I'M INGR8 DANGER NOW, I'VE TO COMPLETE MY ASSIGNMENT AND TILL NOW ITS NOT TOTALLY COMPLETED, THOSE ASSIGNMENT CARRIES MARKS AND OFFERS PROMOTION. I ALSO CAN'T EVEN SWITCH TO WINDOWS 7 OR ANY OTHER AS I DON'T HAVE THE BOOTING FILE OF THEM. PLEASE HELP ME.HPD talk
A DISASTER RECENTLY HAPPENED editDo u know when i set to edit Google Chrome article for assigning my new uploaded image i.e, File:Google Chrome Metro Mode.png, when i clicked on edit option, a disaster happened infront of my eyes. See the image and u'll automatically understand wott happened - https://twitter.com/HimanisPinnu/status/352331633375977472/photo/1
Please comment on Talk:List of magic museums editGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of magic museums. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Need Your Help editAs u know i'm currently a college student, today our teacher advised us to prepare a project on "The foundations of counting numbers", i literally have no idea, but i know that in brief the teacher had given us the question "in which country were those counting numbers like 1,2,3,4.... originated and who is the founder of those ?" Do u know nething else about these, or is there ne articles in Wikipedia ??HPD talk
Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Requests for Comment/Duplicate name in basic ASCII character set. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 18:15, 6 July 2013 (UTC) July 2013 edit To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. GB fan 23:47, 6 July 2013 (UTC)
I Need U editI need ur help, cud u please enlarge the resolution of this image - https://twitter.com/HimanisPinnu/status/353818262515109888/photo/1 ?? Wana make it as profile picture, i tried to enlarge it in Paint.Net but it says "Bicubic" will be used n if i confirm it, the image becomes blurred :( :( HPD talk
Request for Monitoring editU might be knowing that VLC v 2.0.7 has been released worldwide, as it was made available, users are going on assigning screenshot of the latest version by uploading new ones or replacing my ones. An user has recently replaced a new image on my uploaded image i.e, File:VLC 2.0.6.png, but it was soon reverted by another user (pls take sometime to see it). Another user has also uploaded a new image tagging it as it is completely his own work even if it contained copyright materials, it was soon reverted to the old ones by me in that article. I SILENTLY WATCHED THOSE KINDS OF ACTIVITIES. Finally, i decided to upload a new image playing a short clip from Tears of Steel (a Blender project) in Classic theme. So i did it, now as u know most of time i commit mistakes (especially in this), i request u to see it and add sufficient infos so that it will not be tagged as deletion. Anyways the image is in this link http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:VLC_Media_Payer_Screenshot.png HPD talk
Please comment on Talk:Batman Begins editGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Batman Begins. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 19:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC) Broadchurch Edits Deleted editI don't know what was wrong with my awards and nominations section for Broadchurch? You cited dodgy grammar/poor sources but looking at the historical entry I don't see anything wrong with it compared to other similar sections on various TV series pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.236 (talk) 13:49, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
I still don't quite understand because the online paper was just reviewing the film and predicting her for an award, it's not like a fact they have to verify, it's just a critical opinion? I also posted a link to Huffington Post, is that not legit? The Telegraph also predicts her to win here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/tv-and-radio-reviews/10011343/Broadchurch-final-episode-review.html And an online critic does so here too: http://www.cultbox.co.uk/reviews/episodes/6741-broadchurch-episode-8-review Maybe I could re-word it to say critics and bloggers? Also did the table need sources too then? From what I checked others generally don't use them... but any help would be great, thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.111.12.236 (talk) 22:58, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:The Dakota editGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Dakota. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 20:15, 12 July 2013 (UTC) I got an invitation. editToday i saw that i got an invitation to join WikiProject Microsoft, Please go to my talk page (here) and tell me what shall i do to join it. Also say wot responsibilities should i have to take ??HPD talk
Moody's additional question editHello drewmunn, thank you very much for addressing my requested edit on the Moody's Investors Service article recently. Just moments ago I have posted a single follow-up question (click here) about how best to conclude the pararaph. Please let me know when you have the time. Many thanks in advance, Mysidae (talk) 20:44, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Please comment on Talk:The NeverEnding Story (film) editGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The NeverEnding Story (film). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 15 July 2013 (UTC) Moody's Investors Service ??? What's it ??? editI saw u and an user Mysidae are discussing and editing an article by the name Moody's Investors Service, i hoped to helm u and Mysidae but i failed, as i don't know anything on that, what's that ???HPD talk Please comment on Talk:Kim Possible (character) editGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Kim Possible (character). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:15, 18 July 2013 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:Emily VanCamp editGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Emily VanCamp. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 21 July 2013 (UTC) I'm back! editSo, i got a leave from school for today only. Newez i decided to edit something after a long break, so i gone to iOS 7 article, there i saw that my uploaded image has been reverted to the Beta 1 image. U r right, the screenshot contained apps of other companies, so i searched for image which will respect the guidelines, i found this site giving the perfect image - http://i.ebayimg.com/00/s/MTYwMFgxMjAw/z/RDMAAMXQhpdRym53/$T2eC16R,!yUE9s6NFGibBRym52sQHg~~/iOS-7-Beta-UDID-Devices-Registration-Activation-Apple_57.jpg I've edited it and uploaded to Wikipedia, i.e, File:IOS 7 Home Screen.png, is it right ??HPD talk
Please comment on Talk:The Last of Us editGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:The Last of Us. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:15, 24 July 2013 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:List of Kim Possible characters editGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:List of Kim Possible characters. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:Direct-to-video editGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Direct-to-video. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 30 July 2013 (UTC) Please comment on Talk:Skyfall editGreetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Skyfall. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:15, 2 August 2013 (UTC) Windows 8 wording about desktop and apps editHello, Sonic. I was looking at this revert of yours and I wondered whether you did it by mistake. I might be wrong but your edit summary does give such an impression. So, we might have to have a little chat about this. The message that I and ViperSnake wanted to deliver is: In Windows 8, desktop is treat like a Windows Runtime app (I mean a Metro-style app). It can be snapped and switched to with Windows+Tab ↹. The catch, however, is that all desktop apps are also treated as part of the desktop itself: You can't just snap OpenOffice (desktop app) to one side and Reader (Metro-style) to another side. But if you open e.g. Skype, OpenOffice and File Explorer on the desktop and snap desktop to one side, the mentioned apps move along with it. How do you think we can best deliver this message? Best regards,
Is Windows 8.1 is a program ? What do you think ? editOne thing i must tell u Wikipedia is getting bored day-by-day for me. After a while when i opened my Wikipedia acount, i jst found a message, please read it http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Himanis_Das#File:Windows_8.1_Preview_Default_Start_Screen.png_listed_for_deletion here/ When i redirected to the page, i found that C said Windows 8.1 as a program, please read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2013_August_7#File:Windows_8.1_Preview_Default_Start_Screen.png here/ Also don't forget to read my message also.HPD talk
Skyfall edit editHi. I noticed that you reverted my latest contribution to the Skyfall article. I'm not quite sure what you mean about the one sentence being "bloaty." Basically, I added it because I didn't think that the two paragraphs were well linked with each other. At the end of the first, Bond is in England and only has the knowledge that Patrice is in Shanghai. But, then in the next paragraph, he is suddenly in Shanghai fighting with Patrice. I think that someone who hasn't seen this movie may be somewhat confused by the choice of sentence structure here. Is it possible, this could be reconsidered? I would love to hear any suggestions you might have on how I could improve the sentence I added. Thank you for taking the time to read this post. Sincerely 108.95.130.150 (talk) 10:33, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
Talkback edit Message added 19:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 19:30, 11 August 2013 (UTC) Talkback edit Message added 04:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. GSK ● ✉ ✓ 04:10, 12 August 2013 (UTC) Windows 8.1 RTM (File Explorer) screenshot editWaaah! Recently i saw a screenshot unveiling the File Explorer of Windows 8.1 RTM. It is really amazing! Please see the screenshot by clicking on this site - http://news.softpedia.com/newsImage/Check-Out-a-Windows-8-1-RTM-File-Explorer-Concept-2.png/ As per Microsoft it will be released within 2 weeks ahead, i'm eagerly waiting, aren't u ???HPD talk
Reply editHi. Earlier i used to have no idea about what are did in RTM. But when i saw a lot of changes from Windows 8 Release Preview to RTM, i realized and got a bit of idea. Currently u may be using Windows 8, do u know those new features that were currently different from Windows 7 and other subsequent previews were introduced to Windows 8 in the RTM stage only. The final stage (what were sold now-a-days in market) had only fixed bugs from RTM.
ETC Is that clear ? But currently there were no information regarding changes from Windows 8.1 Preview to 8.1 RTM.HPD talk
Whitworth University editHello, I do not know how to remove the white background and I also do not have Photoshop on my computer. Is there anyway you can do that for me please? The article is about Whitworth University — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jovan92 (talk • contribs) 09:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Lee editSorry its not clear at all! I click on the links you send but can't see ant edit button? What does it look like. If it's the pen icon I click on doesn't open a box for communication and for some reason GSK keeps coming up as a default else where and I've already annoyed him and have no idea how I even got to him? Even here you say leave a message below and there's not box to do so. Go Ness knows how I got where I have in writing this a I keep going round and round in circles before I can even write something! Thanks for trying to help. Its really frustrating and confusing and not sure why, is it because I am using a mobile and icons are hidden? Is there a link of a 'how to' for all of this? Cheers Lee Lee Moone (talk) 11:42, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Reply editSorry For Late, as i was suffering a lot due to my pc on those days. As u said earlier, i know that u r a developer but the situation is about what r the changes made from Release Preview to RTM of 8 not 8.1, anyways now it was clear that 8.1 RTM will not bring any heavy changes except fixed bugs, new design for start screen, more help tutorials. OK LEAVE IT
Days ago i asked my friend to give me GTA 4 (a game). So, when he copied that game from his hard disc (which was full of dangerous viruses), my PC started to operate like a tortoise, at that time i wat us nosing any antivirus (coz of 1 GB RAM). Actually Windows Defender detected it but my friend turned it off because of the crack. Hublea.f is a very dangerous virus that I've ever seen, once it enters the device, it suddenly spreads like Cancer and affects each and every software files that were present in one's PC. It also activates even if one changes his OS from one to other. So due to slow performance, i changed my OS into Windows 8. My God after installing all the drivers for the OS, even Windows 8 started to run like a tortoise, but within that i downloaded Quick Heal Total Security 2013 and also i was successful to install it. Just after i installed that, it pop-ed out a message Your system is affected by Hublea.f. Please perform a full scan after it. Did a full scan, it repaired all the software files in my pc, some software files were found to be deleted. But fucking virus was unable to delete even after installed Quick Heal. At last my antivirus promoted to run a Boot Time Scan, it was deleted forcefully by Quick Heal during Boot Time Scan.
As I've said countless times before, OS X is compatible only with Mac hardware. drewmunn talk 22:32, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
knightmare on wall street (deletion)/help editHi, I'm trying to improve this article and save it from deletion. What do I need to do? I think I already fix the problems that you mentioned. Thanks in advance. Martin CamposMartin raul campos (talk) 17:53, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
ANOTHER PROBLEM ARSED editYep, u r true, OS X only runs in Mac devices. But do u know, since i installed Quick Heal, my internet connection became slow than ever. Firstly, when i inserted Aircel Sim card, it indicated that the data was able to send but was unable to receive, but was running well in other devices except me. Next, i inserted BSNL Sim card, it allowed the internet to flow but as slower as compared to tortoise, i cant even access Facebook properly and as of Wikipedia, only Log in page along with ur talk page was getting to load forcefully, within that I'm typing. Please Help Me. Secondly, even i set my power plan to "High Performance", it is still becoming slow at time when i listen to songs while browsing internet or playing videos etc. What to do ?HPD talk
Merger of Small Town Story (song) was reverted. So I created another discussion. Feel free to comment in talk page. --George Ho (talk) 06:53, 26 August 2013 (UTC) Whitworth University again editHello, Thanks for changing the logo into a png with a tranparent background. Can you please do the same with the school image i posted at the bottom of the info section? Thanks 94.230.179.78 (talk) 11:04, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
from TORTOISE to WATER editWaaaah well done, ur personal suggestion was absolutely right. I made a clean installation of Windows 8 again by replacing the old ones. I downloaded the latest drivers of some hardware and installed it. Currently it is working smoothly and the internet is even fast enough. Thanks again for the suggestion.HPD talk
Jamoats of Tajikistan editHi. i created some article about Jamoats of Tajikistan by [www.untj.org/files/minutes/Food/List_of_Jamoats.xls this source]. but the list is giving a 404 error (Not Found) in past, i downloaded this list and i have it now. Can i upload this list in archives site and use it in wikipedia? This article created in some wikis, befor. Thanks Darafsh Kaviyani (Talk) 12:36, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in. edit This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Broadchurch#Miller family". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 21:31, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Licensing editToday i randomly went to OS X Mountain Lion article to check what's new going on there. Then i saw a new image has been tagged, saw it and lastly i found that it has been uploaded by u, File:Notification Center Mountain Lion.png, i took a look at the license, i found it unsatisfactory, so i updated the license which will not violate any copyright laws. Lastly, if a image contains any icons of copyright organization, add the section as "For other logos" in the Licensing section and add
David Frost editThis is NEWS to you? to remove Cameron and keep in some non notable nitwits comment? Please explain that?!(Lihaas (talk) 20:01, 1 September 2013 (UTC)).
Article Feedback Tool update editHey Sonicdrewdriver. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles. We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article. Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:48, 1 September 2013 (UTC) New barnstar found editBefore i used to think that there were only presence of those barnstars which were present in the "Wikilove" option. But, by googling randomly, i found this one too https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sohambanerjee1998/Autograph_Book Take a look over it. It might be violating wikilaws, isn't it ?HPD talk
The Dark Knight Rises, re: kidnapping or seduction? editDear Sir, Before you revert my latest edit restoring "Selina Kyle ... seduces a congressman" in place of "... kidnaps a congressman", I would like you to please look at that article's Talk page, where I've addressed you by name, and explained that, like Selina herself in the beginning of the film, the ground beneath you is slipping. You're running out of reasons to justify use of the term "kidnap": There was no force involved, nor were we ever shown any "copious amounts" of drink or drugs, nor was a ransom ever demanded. Selina slipped into the man's limo, and he couldn't have been happier about it! The man followed Selina around of his own free will, because she's a hot mysterious woman who knows how to turn men on. Put it this way: Selina wouldn't have had to drug ME to get me to follow her around and lend her my cell-phone . . . would YOU need to be drugged for that? If there's some scene I somehow missed (and I don't believe there is), in which we SEE the congressman being forced, cajoled, encouraged, etc., to do drugs and drink a lot, please just give me the DVD timing, and I'll check it out for myself! And God knows, if I'm wrong, I'll admit it and apologize! As I mentioned on the article's talk page "reading between the lines is NOT for Wikipedia." Please don't just keep mindlessly reverting my edits. Go to the article's Talk page, explain to me your latest "kidnapping" rationale (they sure seem to change a lot!) and we'll get some other people involved. No one user owns this article; no one user may single-handedly impose his imagination upon a clearly-written screenplay. Thanks for your time. --Ben Culture (talk) 19:00, 2 September 2013 (UTC) Reply editYep. U r right, there is no such thing as "Wikilwas". Also, the users can provide Wikilove according to their wish (as i read in that). Do u ever heard of the mobile phone and services company named Nokia ? I tell u, when i was of 3 years old, i found Nokia as the largest maker and seller of mobile phones in India, even world also. Today, that company faced so losses that it was bound to sell its entire division to Microsoft. What now ? As Microsoft is currently considered as collapsing and deteriorating company, Noika may save it, as hoped. I've added information along with correcting the sentences in that article Nokia.HPD talk
Apologies editYou know, I'm sorry for quite a few of the things I have said to you. Things that were unnecessary and insulting. I deleted some of them; I hope you don't mind my "re-writing history" that way, but I was ashamed. I also left some things in because I didn't want to disrupt the history that much. And I left some things in that you'd probably rather I hadn't, because I still do believe them. And I probably overlooked some things too. Not to re-start the fight, but I really don't understand why it is you won't just say, "Yeah, okay, that thing about 'copious drink or drugs' was just speculation on my part." What is so hard about that? I make mistakes and admit to stuff like that all the time. It's not a big deal. It's not like you're gonna get in trouble for it, or anything! As you might imagine, I'm not happy with the way the poll is going, because people are answering the question "Do Selina's actions amount to kidnap" by basing their answers on what the police do and say. I believe the question is phrased perfectly; I could not have asked for better wording -- yet they are not answering that question! These answers must be based on Selina's own behavior. Don't you think so? The poll is probably not going to go my way, when I know perfectly well that I'm right, because I just don't have the social grace required to lead. I have reached out to individual voters and tried, as nicely as I know how, to gently convince them to change their vote. My efforts were rewarded with, frankly, mind-numbing drivel like "The film itself says she's a kidnapper" and "If you are saying she was falsely accused, that is Original Research". I feel like I'm surrounded with . . . Wikizombies? Has anyone used that yet? You are probably a pretty reasonable person, and I thank you for not slapping me back harder, after some of the things I said. Things I am sorry for. You could have flamed me to ashes if you'd wanted to, and probably no one would bat an eye, but you haven't. Don't think for a moment I don't notice things like that! I'm not going to pretend I like or understand this Greg person -- as far as I'm concerned, he only confused the whole mess with a lot of links that were less than relevant -- but it was dumb, unnecessary, and wasteful for me to get hostile with you. You just didn't deserve it. I only wanted you to stop reverting my edit. I didn't want an All-Day War! So, again, I apologize for my part in it. As you can see, I have asked to either re-start the poll with stricter requirements, or else that answers based not on Selina's actions be stricken -- but I don't expect to get either of those things. Not to compare you to the most worthless U.S. President in history, but personally, I feel a lot like Al Gore in the election of 2000, right now. How little it means to be right; how worthless it is to be smart. And I'm sorry. Sincerely, --Ben Culture (talk) 23:20, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Invitation editComment something by supporting me in my RFC added in Nokia's talk page.HPD talk |
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.png&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
.PNG&action=edit&redlink=1){kind=link}
- ^ Munroe, Randall. "Star Trek into Darkness". webcomic. Retrieved 2 February 2013.