User talk:Anomie/Archives/2007

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Hi Anomie/Archives/2007, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thanks for joining the coolest online encyclopedia I know of. I hope you stick around. You'll probably find it easiest to start with a tutorial of how the wikipedia works, and you can test stuff for yourself in the sandbox. Check out the simplified ruleset. When you're contributing, you'll probably find the manual of style to be helpful, and you'll also want to remember a couple important guidelines.

  1. Write from a neutral point of view
  2. Be bold in editing pages
  3. Use wikiquette.

Those are probably the most important ones, and you can take a look at some others at the policies and guidelines page. You might also be interested in how to write a great article and possibly adding some images to your articles.

Be sure to get involved in the community – you can contact me on my talk page if you have any questions, and you can check out the village pump, where lots of wikipedians hang out and discuss things. If you're looking for something to do, check out the community portal. And whenever you ask a question or post something on a talk page, be sure to sign your name by typing 4 tildes like ~~~~. Always sign the talk page, never the articles.

Again, welcome! It's great to have you. Happy editing!--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91($ |-| r 3 $ |-| t |-|) 14:53, 8 November 2005 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Letter B

Quoted from the_undertow's talk page:
I just reverted an edit you made to B, which looks like should have gone to B&Q. Sorry about the edit summary. I suspect your VP program is not properly escaping ampersands, which is then terminating the 'title' URL variable early and thus directing the edit to the wrong article. Anomie 00:43, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

it wasnt a VP *ug, i really dislike the letter '*'. i have dedicated my life to ridding it from the alpha*et. if i sound *ad now, you should have seen me a year ago. i couldnt even look my *est friend *o* in the face. good catch. the_undertow talk 01:21, 12 April 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Good catch on the whole mebi/kibi bits/bytes thing. Alvis 06:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

And thank you for catching the error in the first place. 128 MiB, when the whole SNES address space is only 16 MiB, what was I thinking? BTW, we're having a discussion on the SNES talk page you might be able to contribute to. Anomie 19:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Took the CIC's picture.

Quoted from User talk:Taca2671 on commons:
Will you upload a close up image of the F411A chip, in the upper-right corner of Image:SNES-CPU-RGB01_01.jpg? This is the CIC region lockout chip. Thanks. Anomie 01:29, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi,Anomie. The CIC picture was uploaded. see the page. [[1]] [[2]] 02:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Yaca2671

Thanks! Anomie 17:45, 16 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SNES image request

Hi. I can make a similar picture for the PAL cartridge next week. Black or white background? –PJ 21:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks! FYI, I posted the same request this morning with a few more details to the wider group at Talk:Super Nintendo Entertainment System. Anomie 22:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've taken the picture as requested, you can find it on the commons here: [3]. —Pixel8 20:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry about posting that YouTube video

In reply to a {{uw-copyright-link}} warning:

Won't happen again. Promise.--Wassamatta 22:49, 26 May 2007 (UTC)WassamattaReply[reply]

Request for Third Opinion

template:History of Manchuria is suffering from extensive revert warring, and discussion is heading nowhere. A RfC was filed, but was only able to get one outside commentor[4]. Please provide a third opinion on whether template:History of Manchuria should be titled History of Manchuria[5] or History of Northeast China[6][7] to facilitate dispute resolution. Thank you. 08:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC) [This request was made by User:Cydevil38]

Generally, a third opinion request should be made on the WP:3O page following the instructions there. Even if your message does not fall afoul of WP:CANVAS, it would be more effective to post one message where all interested editors can see it rather than many messages on the talk pages of individual editors (who may not be knowledgeable or interested enough in this particular issue to effectively apply). Anomie 13:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was quite baffled myself that I couldn't find a public space to post this. I thought that case was provided as an example, not an actual dispute. Thank you for pointing that out, I'll do just that. Cydevil38 21:50, 4 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Feminists for Life

I just wanted to thank you for your third opinion. I think you did a good job. Joie de Vivre 14:35, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you. I hope the other party agrees. Anomie 14:51, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I had hoped so too, but, apparently not. They have upped the ante with more bile at Talk:Feminists for Life. I understand if you don't want to get embroiled in this, but I would certainly appreciate any help you can give. If you dare...
Now, User: is angrily demanding that I get engaged with them about the content RIGHT NOW. I am not comfortable doing that at this stage, because I am not willing to sit through personally-directed garbage while discussing content. They don't seem to understand that they are destroying the possibility of fruitful discussion.
If nothing else; please tell me: What would you do? (What can I do?) Thanks for your help, Joie de Vivre 16:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, it depends on how much you care about the article. If Feminists for Life weren't particularly important to me, I would just say "screw it" and go edit other articles for a while. OTOH, if it were something I cared about, I would make one more attempt to work with the anon ("Let's start over"), and if that garnered continued incivility I would probably try Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Request comment on users. Anomie 19:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks like some other editors have joined in the discussion. Perhaps you can work with them and ignore the uncivil anon. Anomie 19:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your opinion on Loyola 2L controversy

Anomie, you provided an opinion before hearing both sides and are now beyond persuasion. That's why due process requires hearing both sides before coming to a conclusion. Your opinion is now tainted and you can't neutraly comment on the article. You clearly violated the third opinion rules, which I cited with a link. Please recuse yourself and let others share neutral opinions. --Updatethis12 19:28, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Whether or not you are correct, that does not give you any reason to delete my and others' comments on the talk page. I also believe you are mischaracterizing WP:3O's rules, and I note that all parties have left extensive edit summaries in the history. And FYI, I only skimmed the first editor's screed. Anomie 19:37, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The rules are quoted here. You were required to "Read the arguments of the disputants" before providing an opinion. You didn't do that. The rules also instructed you to "not provide third opinions recklessly." You were so impatient and reckless that you made a decision without even bothering to wait a few hours for the other side to talk. This isn't a misrepresentation as the rules are quoted word for word from
Your formed your opinion before listening to both sides of the dispute. You are not neutral and you made a mockery of this whole process. Imagine a courtroom where the judge makes a decision after listening to just one side and spends the rest of their trial defending their decision against the other side. --Updatethis12 19:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Go ahead and list another third opinion request, but don't be terribly surprised if it also doesn't go your way. Other than that, I have nothing left to say to you. Anomie 19:56, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It has little chance of going my way, now that you violated the rules to taint the third opinion process. That's the point. --Updatethis12 20:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Mark Kirk (convict)

I've just finished an extensive and detailed revision of Mark Kirk (convict) and would welcome any comments you cared to make, including your opinion of the neutrality of the article. Thanks for your time, previously and now. Accounting4Taste 01:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WOW! That is a huge improvement, congratulations! I do have a few critiques:
  • The first lead paragraph reads a bit stilted. The second could use a second sentence for balance, although I don't know what it would say.
  • The link to should be <ref>ed.
  • The 4 non-<ref> links in the reference section should probably be moved to an "External links" section.
  • Get rid of the {{US-crime-bio-stub}}, you've corrected that.
  • Consider using the Wikipedia:Citation templates to format your references, and use the name parameter to the <ref> to combine multiple references to the same source.
  • If you can find a reference for the claim from Danras's version that fire inspectors took bribes, it would be ok to include it. If the only reference is the claim itself, qualifying the statement with something like "Supporters claim" would be appropriate. If you can't find anything, of course leave it out.
Again, great job! Anomie 02:35, 10 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SNES pics

Quoted from User talk:Xihix:
While I appreciate your efforts, I have reverted most of your changes to Super Nintendo Entertainment System. My reasons:
Image:700px-SNES 800.png
Photographic images should generally be uploaded as JPEG, not PNG. The removal of a white background from the photograph doesn't strike me as important enough to scale down the original and increase the size by a factor of 4.25—while Wikipedia has enough disk space, there is no need to make visitors download the larger version. Also, you specified an incorrect license (your modified version cannot be {{PD-self}}, it must retain the original's {{GFDL}}) and you neglected to specify your source image; I fixed this for you.
Image:800px-Snes control.png
As above, the removal of a white background from the photograph doesn't strike me as important enough to scale down the original. Also, you specified an incorrect license and you neglected to specify your source image.
Image:SuperFamicom jr.png
As above, the removal of a white background from the photograph doesn't strike me as important enough to increase the size by a factor of 4.45. Also, you specified an incorrect license and you neglected to specify your source image.
Image:Super Nintendo Entertainment System-USA.png
As above, the removal of a white background from the photograph doesn't strike me as important enough to increase the size by a factor of 6.53. Also, you specified an incorrect license and you neglected to specify your source image.

I do like what you did to the logos, however you forgot to specify source information for Image:Sneslogo.png; I recreated it with sourcing and with a full alpha channel. You also spurred me to finally remove the color artifacts from Image:SuperNintendoLogo.png. Thanks! BTW, I don't see why you uploaded your transparent version to Image:SuperNintendoLogo1.png instead of replacing Image:SuperNintendoLogo.png yourself. Anomie 14:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem I guess. I usually see a lot of pics that are cropped in the background, so I thought I'd help do that with the SNES article. Oh well. Xihix 21:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Just a quick message to say thanks very much for fixing my Space Station template - much appreciated! :-) Colds7ream 06:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome! Anomie 11:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SNES region lockout

Couldn't you argue that Hardware and Physical are the same things? The shade of the catridge _is hardware_. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shardz (talkcontribs) 01:33, June 23, 2007 (UTC)

The shape of the cartridge is a physical matter. Hardware has to do with the chips and circuitry. Taking everything out of its casing would overcome the physical lockout without changing the hardware at all. Replacing all the hardware inside the cases would overcome the hardware lockout without affecting the physical shape of the case. Yes, it's a subtle distinction, but not that difficult. Anomie 02:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Context: User talk:White Cat/signature

Hi, Thank you for your comment. I replied to you on the page. This is the first time I am filing a 3O so I am uncertain the best way to present my case. I would haply work on that based on your instructions. Again, thank you. -- Cat chi? 04:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Calvin and Hobbes

Hi there. I'm sorry we were on opposite sides of the fence on that AfD, but I'm glad to see you're still contributing to the Calvin and Hobbes article. Cheers. Feezo (Talk) 02:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The article Super Nintendo Entertainment System you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.png, see Talk:Super Nintendo Entertainment System for eventual comments about the article. Well done! FunPika 23:29, 10 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


I have responded to your comments on the page. My main concerns are section organization and the apparent redundancy of the quick reference boxes (which also happen to break up the formatting of the article.) Madcoverboy 16:34, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

While I like the larger size, I have two issues with this image:

  1. You specified the source as, but I cannot find that image anywhere on that page. Please specify the actual URL where the image can be found.
  2. The black background is incredibly ugly. If you can provide the above mentioned URL, I will fix this issue myself.

Thanks. Anomie 18:36, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

my mistake, i originally accessed nintendo's main site looking for an image, which i listed, but reviewing back again i see that i followed an external link from the snes support page from there to this site:[8]. sorry for the confusion and i will keep better track of where i wander off to on the web from now on. thanks.heresthecasey | talk 18:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looking at that image, I think someone just created an image that somewhat resembles the official logo. Compare the shapes of the "S" in your image and in the official version, they're completely different. Anomie 19:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
yes, it does appear that is not the true logo. i guess i dont really have an eye for these things. i meant no misinformation or misrepresentation, and really the only reason i uploaded that other logo was because the ones on there now appear completely distorted and illegible to me. i dont know if this is just a problem with my computer or what. here is a screenshot of how the page currently looks to me when i bring it up [9]. i will leave this up to you and other editors on the page to deal with. thank you, and my apologies again for the bad logo. heresthecasey | talk 19:58, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is that IE6? I should have realized there might be problems, since IE6 doesn't handle transparent PNGs correctly. If you download the file and open it in a graphics editor, you should be able to see it correctly. I'll see what I can do to fix that. Anomie 20:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
i downloaded it and was able to view it fine, i guess it's time to upgrade my browser :) sorry for the confusion. heresthecasey | talk 20:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Context: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Super Nintendo Entertainment System, and a request for further comment.

Oh, I didn't realize that you were awaiting a reply. I have no further objections. You have a more finely honed sense of sourcing than I do; I'm just a "NEVER USE THEM" person, but Wikipedia does sanction their use of them, and you are using htem wisely. hbdragon88 22:47, 19 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you, it mainly comes from necessity in dealing with the hard-to-source parts of this article. I even went to the extent of writing an essay on the matter. Since FA promotion depends on consensus, don't forget to change your "vote" to comment or support on the FAC page. Anomie 01:21, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey, congratulations on getting this through to FA! Great job, and it was fun working with you on it. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 22:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Image:SNES logo.svg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:SNES logo.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Ejfetters 10:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Result: Kept

SNES edits

Context: [1] [2]

Good call on the two face buttons on the SNES controller, it was kinda confusing before. Grazfather 13:33, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Glad to clarify it. Anomie 13:51, 3 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks - spelling corrections to C

Quoted from User talk:Wenli:
I have reverted your spelling correction to C, as given the context the spelling "sence" was probably intentional there. Anomie 13:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thank you for correcting my mistake; I should have seen it and not have inconvenienced you. — Wenli (contribs) 23:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

My SNES edit:

Quoted from User talk:Hasek is the best:
I'm guessing you use a high-resolution display, since you stated you are "removing space" in this edit. However, I ask you to reconsider your edit for two reasons:
  1. The list of selected home game consoles doesn't actually belong in the references section. They are actually cross-references to related articles, which typically go in the "See also" section.
  2. On a low-resolution display, placing the list there squishes the references and results in much more unused space beneath the box. Resize your browser to 800x600 to see what I mean.

Thanks. Anomie 16:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ok, I had a feeling someone was going to tell me something about that template. Well, only if the See also was not just above the references, and I prefer to leave out huge gaps on articles; it looks messy. (Btw, I won't be responding for an other three hours or so, because I'm going golfing. Sit tight, I'll be back. --Hasek is the best 16:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

SNES#See also is not actually just above the references, we have SNES#Content notes in between. As for gaps, as I mentioned we can apparently either have a relatively small gap above the references or have the references themselves squished into narrow columns with unused space to the right. Anomie 18:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, well the second option would be nice, but is there any way to briefen the source info? The only thing the reader really needs to know is the url, date and title. --Hasek is the best 20:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you're talking about "briefening" the references to include minimal information, that would be against WP:CITE. Anomie 20:13, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
But however, if you look at Dominik Hasek's article, there are only a few references that exceed one line. And it doesn't matter if the template stays in the ref heading or not, because as long as the sources are there, it's fine with me. --Hasek is the best 20:18, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh yeah, if all else fails, we'll use a scroll box for the sources, 75 sources should be enough for one. --Hasek is the best 20:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually, I think moving it up to the Market share heading, because the template is inside the see also there. I'll do it now. --Hasek is the best 20:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

(←) The references in Dominik Hasek all take up several lines on my display. Scrollboxes for references are ugly, unnecessary, and interfere with printing. Moving the box up to content sections is even worse than moving it down to the References. It's "See also" type of content, it should go in "See also". I've undone all the random moving you did, and instead left-aligned the portal link and removed the {{clear}}, which should hopefully take care of the issue. Anomie 00:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yeah, I looked at it and that will do great. I thought portal templates couldn't go to the left, but now I learned something. --Hasek is the best 00:49, 18 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Context: [10] [11]

You will never stop the invasion! Mwuwahaha!!!Silver seren 16:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sure I will. Anomie 16:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We shall see...we shall see... Silver seren 16:28, 19 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Table alignment

Context: [12]

Thank you so much; you're a gem !! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:42, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. Anomie 21:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Anomie, there are some places where the article text is running to close to the table; is there a way to increase the padding or margin or whatever-you-call-it a tad (not too much)? It's almost ready to go to the article; do you see anything else needing attention? You can add comments to the bottom of the sandbox. User:SandyGeorgia/Sandbox2#Table. Thanks again, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Margin is what you need.[13] If that's too big, you could use decimals (e.g. .5em) or just choose a specific pixel size. Anomie 01:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Beautiful, thanks again! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Stub non-transclusion

Context: [14]

Thank you so much for the reply at the tech village pump. I was "brain locked" and was trying to do it almost in reverse :( The second I saw the change to the article part I realized where I was spinning my wheels - and your fix to the template did the trick! Now on to a few other "by years" categories with the same problem. SkierRMH 05:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No problem. Anomie 11:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Help with complex template

(cross-posted from the Help desk)

Hello, Anomie. I've been working with two three other users on a complex template for a while, and we've reached the point where we've given up. The template is a proposed ANI collapsible archival template that needs to appear on the ANI page, but not on the ANI IncidentArchive pages. So far, we've made the templates User:Arknascar44/Ani-top and User:Arknascar44/Ani-bottom, which transclude (although apparently not) the templates User:Arknascar44/ANI top and User:Arknascar44/ANI bottom onto ANI only, and no other subpages. Any help getting the templates to properly transclude would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, Arky ¡Hablar! 14:42, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It appears the apostrophe in the title was being output by {{PAGENAME}} as &#39; instead of just ', so the comparison was failing. I've replaced it with {{FULLPAGENAMEE}} and adjusted the comparison text accordingly. Anomie 15:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It works! It works! Thanks, Anomie! Arky ¡Hablar! 15:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You're welcome! Anomie 15:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, it doesn't need the {{PAGENAME}} at the end, since it messes up the #ifeq function in the original. Thanks again! Arky ¡Hablar! 15:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply] it doesn't work. It worked perfectly before with the revision I restored before, and with the magic word it said that {{{1}}} was the name of the page, not the name of the header as it should be. Cheers, Arky ¡Hablar! 15:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Current event image

I left a response for you at Wikipedia talk:Template standardisation#Image right.

--David Göthberg 07:20, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, I didn't know you were waiting for a response. Your version looks good, and you're right that that clock does match better. Anomie 13:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Quoted from User talk:bse3:
I came here to comment about this edit: What you did doesn't do what it seems you thought it would. Rather than "add project pages rather than talk pages", your change will only change the sorting of non-mainspace pages. For example, if the template were on Category talk:Nintendo articles by quality, the entry will now be sorted under "C" (for "Category") instead of "N" (for "Nintendo"); it will not make Category:Nintendo articles by quality actually show up in the category.

In checking your contributions prior to writing the above, I notice you've been going around nominating things for deletion and commenting on talk pages "This should be deleted". As was mentioned by SMcCandlish here, it would be better if you brought these deletions up at WT:NES. Anomie 13:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I now see that my edit did not do what I thought it would. I am kinda new around here and am still trying to see how things work. I probably shouldn't be experimenting like that and for that I am sorry. It seems that you understand what I was trying to do; maybe you know the correct way to do it?

As for my deletion addiction, I am just trying to make Wikipedia a little less bloated; I find it hard to get to the pages I am looking for as it is. Judging by the members list you don't seem to be a part of WikiProject Nintendo, and may not be able to help me. I was just wondering if there is some kind of "code of conduct" for WikiProject Nintendo or maybe for all WikiProjects or even all of Wikipedia in general. Do all matters have to go through some sort of voting process or is there someone in charge? I never know if I have the right to edit certain articles and don't want to mess anything up. --bse3 20:38, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Unfortunately, there is no way to add an article to a category by placing something on the talk page. For a "code of conduct", it's just generally to be polite and ask for opinions if you're going to make major changes to something, nothing terribly formal.
For editing articles, Wikipedia encourages you to be bold, but not reckless, so go ahead and edit any article where you have useful information to contribute. At worst, someone will revert you and you can discuss the matter on an appropriate talk page. If you're unsure about something, or again if you're going to make major changes to a high-profile article, ask for feedback on the article's talk page before doing it. It also helps to be familiar with the manual of style. And don't forget to cite reliable sources for new information you add, especially when it's likely to be challenged or when adding information to articles that already have good sourcing. Welcome to Wikipedia! Anomie 20:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


thx : i purged all my caches... + can you please read my latest comment on the pump? i can see some images but not "the one" kernitou talk 11:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re: Please check your edits when using AWB

Quoted from User talk:The-G-Unit-Boss:
I have partially reverted this AWB edit you made, as it seems extremely unlikely that the German digraph "pf" has anything to do with the abbreviation for picofarads. Anomie 03:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Sorry for that edit. I used AWB on it without knowing, in detail, about the article. -- The-G-Unit-฿oss  Talk 16:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Oh, all powerful one...

Anomie, titan of programming, canst thou assist me? =P I'm having trouble with {{age for infant}}. I'm trying to add a parameter that will allow months, days, etc. to be abbreviated. For example, if {{{abbr}}} is set to "yes", then all instances of "months" become "mos.", "days" become "dys.", "year" becomes "yr.", etc, etc. I've tried playing around with an #ifeq function, and a #switch, but it's the weirdest thing; when I put them in the template, it messed up the whole switch function I have in there already. Any ideas? Cheers, ( arky ) 02:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Heh (: I've fulfilled your request, but it looks like you have done something else in the mean time. My version also has two additional changes:
  • Y|M|D parameter order instead of D|M|Y. Most date templates use Y|M|D, and D|M|Y will confuse those of us who live in places that use M/D/Y rather than D/M/Y in writing dates.
  • I've gotten rid of the "1 or over" parameter, instead actually calculating whether the age is 1 or over. I took the suggestion at Wikipedia:Requested templates#Infant age and used months+days for <1 year, years+months for <3 years, and just years for anything over.
It's also quite a bit smaller, since it pushes a lot of the work off onto other templates (like {{age}}). Feel free to copy it over if you like it (and be sure to fix the existing uses for the new order if so).
BTW, if you're curious, I had to fix bugs in {{plural}} and {{age in months}} to do this. ;) Anomie 21:25, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
BTW, I notice your template still has some bugs. For example, October 5 to October 6 gives "12 months 31 days" instead of "1 day", and September 3 to October 6 gives "0 months 33 days" instead of "1 month 3 days". Anomie 21:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
 Done all usages updated, template changed. Thanks again, Anomie :) ( arky ) 23:42, 6 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No problem, it was fun fixing all those other templates to get this to work (: Anomie 02:53, 7 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Age for infant template

I think you added a return at the end of the template so that it is impossible to use the template to create a (age 3 months 17 days) format because the closing paranethesis gets moved to a 2nd line.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:06, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, I simply changes a bunch of 1s to 3s and 3s to 1s. The extra space seems to have been added in this edit, with the addition of a linebreak between the </includeonly> and the <noinclude> at the very bottom. I've fixed it for you. Anomie 21:20, 5 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorites paradox

Thank you for introducing me to Sorites paradox. I'd never heard of it before. What a precisely applicable point to bring to the table in response to one of my arguments! Thanks for helping to bring the discussion to a consensus. Unschool 23:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You're welcome! List of paradoxes is a good starting point if you're interested in different type of paradox in general; Arrow's paradox is another one I find quite interesting, although it's not applicable to the VG discussion.
I really thought there would be more support for using "was" when I brought the discussion to WP:VG. It's almost anticlimactic. Anomie 01:24, 28 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I saw your comments re this new project and have added my own on its talk page. I have a great problem with its scope, and I think it's creator, whilst dedicated, is going to have great difficulties retaining it. I note he's the only member so far, which means he's setting himself a huge task. Let me know if you want to do anything about it before it gets too out of hand. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 17:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I see he's now speedied it himself as a test page. --Rodhullandemu (talk - contribs) 18:22, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Well somebody's gotta worry about server space! The job queue's about to hit 2 million. I blame user warning templates and Japanese animation fancruft.  :-) Bsherr 04:04, 15 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Quoted from User talk:TJ Spyke:
I noticed you recently used AWB to un-redirect a number of links and change various formatting on Talk:Super Nintendo Entertainment System/Archive 1; I have reverted these changes because WP:TALK recommends against doing so, especially since things like replacing [[Super Famicom]] with [[Super Nintendo Entertainment System|Super Famicom]] in the old discussion about merging Super Famicom with Super Nintendo Entertainment System changes the meaning of the comments. Please remember the AWB Rules of use. Thanks. Anomie 15:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Before reverting, do you have any alternate suggestions to eliminate redirects? Among other general cleaning up, I managed to get links to Famicom down to about 6 articles. Among those, the only I can't edit is at Dragon Ball Z (and that is only because an edit war among other users has that page fully protected, so only admins can edit it). I intend to move onto Nintendo's other systems when i'm done with the NES. TJ Spyke 03:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

If by "eliminate redirects" you mean that you're going to propose Famicom for deletion, I'd say that is a useful redirect from an alternate name for the system and should be kept. If you're just trying to replace links to redirect pages, keep in mind WP:R#Do not change links to redirects that are not broken. In either case, I can't say I see any reason to change all these links (but except for the one case I mentioned above, I see no particular reason to change them back either). Is there a reason I'm missing? Anomie 03:25, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am not suggesting any of the redirects be deleted. I just think that something like [[Nintendo Entertainmen System|Famicom]] should be used instead of Famicom by itself. It's not like I am editing pages just to fix redirects, I also do general cleanup with AWB at the same time. I know it's not recommended, but it's not forbidden either and it's not changing how the page looks to readers (since they still see just "Famicom"). TJ Spyke 03:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can't see any reason for it, but I'm not going to go around changing things back either except if I notice something like the talk page archive I reverted in the first place. Whenever I'm doing a replacement like that (e.g. when I SVGized Image:FF project logo.png a while back), I ignore uses in talk page comments and individual user pages. Anomie 03:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I actually talked with a user about the redirects on their userpage, and they were cool with me fixing them. There was another user who objected, but he was wrong (he had Game Boy Color linked as Game Boy Colour, even though Nintendo NEVER spelled it like thay anywhere in the world). I still think archives should be fixed (even if it's just using the no-wiki tags), but I don't feel like making a big deal out of this. If someone reverts my change to an archive page, I won't change it back. TJ Spyke 03:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Cleanup code for vgproj

Do you want me to add the cleanup changes to the {{vgproj}}? What is the exact change that needs to be made? JACOPLANE • 2007-12-2 17:13

As explained at Template talk:Vgproj#Cleanup department parameter, the diff showing the exact additions requested is here, and you should be able to just copy-paste this version to do so. Thanks. Anomie 01:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On WT:VG, you previously wrote that the intent of my WP:GAMECRUFT proposal was good, but the wording was vague. I would like invite you to make the changes you would like to see to the page itself, as I trust I agree with them. In fact, on a related note, it is good to see someone else on WP:VG who takes a kind of middle ground in the gamecruft discussions. User:Krator (t c) 20:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Done. I appreciate the comment, it's hard to remain reasonable when there are so many who irrationally want to delete everything, especially when they feel their end justifies any means. Oddly, I find the people who irrationally want to keep everything easier to deal with. Anomie 02:00, 13 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear Anomie

Context: In reply to a NPOV warning, which was regarding this edit.

My point in changing the SNES page was that it was already very biased towards the SNES. It only briefly mentioned the slower processor, but none of the other negative points the SNES has compared to the Mega Drive. My addition made it more neutral. Kind regards, Zebbe (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

You go right on believing that. Anomie 02:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Please explain that further. It seems like you want to hide the parts of the truth you don't like. There is no such bias on the Mega Drive page. I also think you are missing the good-faith policy of Wikipedia. Zebbe (talk) 13:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Context: This series of edits which prompted this warning.

Intial change followed by 3 reverts. Close but no. Do you actualy have any counter arguments to my edits?Geni 14:01, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good for you, Wikilawyer. Go discuss it on the appropriate talk page, not here. Anomie 14:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hey, I appreciate the input on my recent Calvin and Hobbes edits. I don't mind in the least that you think I cut too heavily, and I'm glad you restored what you thought was important. I'm sure we basically agree on what parts really ought to have gone, and it's good to have a critic to keep me honest. :) BTW, I tried to rewrite the "Noodle Incident" section but all my attempts seemed to lead into OR territory. It's hard to say anything about it that isn't conjecture or else excessively-detailed verbatim quotes of the sort that I've been trying to reduce in the article. If you can come up with something that strikes the balance, I'd be very happy. Another paragraph I tried to rewrite but had trouble with was the second in the "Social criticisms" section. There again, if you can improve it where I could not, that would be great. Or maybe someone else will come along, who knows? Anyhow, thanks for the feedback and the continuing watchful eye over the article. alanyst /talk/ 16:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The following was copied from User talk:Alanyst/Archive 1#C&H:

I'm glad to see someone copyediting the article; sure it's featured, but all this would need to be done anyway if someone ever came along and decided to WP:FAR it. Better for us to get it done ahead of time. I would appreciate it if you would check my attempt at rewriting the section; I guarantee it has no OR, and it uses no direct quotes from the strip, but I'm not sure if the detail is excessive. I'd like to include some reference to the fan speculation about these topics, but I can't find anything in even halfway-reliable sources.

===The Noodle Incident and Hamster Huey===
Both the Noodle Incident and the book Hamster Huey and the Gooey Kablooie are mentioned several times in passing, but Watterson left the details to the reader's imagination "where [they're] sure to be more outrageous."[1] Noodles are first mentioned in connection with a report on the brain,[2] and later Calvin worries that Miss Wormwood told his mom about "the noodles",[3] but it is never stated whether these are related to each other or to the Incident. Even Santa's research department cannot discover the particulars of the Noodle Incident itself; only references to Calvin's denials are presented in the strip.[4]

More details are given regarding Hamster Huey and the Gooey Kablooie: it is a children's book written by Mabel Syrup, it has a sequel titled Commander Coriander Salamander and 'er Singlehander Bellylander, and it includes squeaky voices, gooshy sound effects, and the "Happy Hamster Hop". Nearly all references to the book show Calvin's dad's frustration at having to read the story to Calvin every evening.[5]

I'll watch here for replies. Anomie 02:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Brilliant! My only criticism is the "Even Santa's research department" bit, which at first seemed to me like a creative but odd and somewhat jarring bit of hyperbole, until I recalled the strip that showed Santa's elves trying to get to the bottom of the matter. I think to a person unfamiliar with the strip that bit will be even more confusing without some sort of context, so I'd either drop it or find some way to convey how Santa figures into the whole thing. Otherwise, I think you've done an outstanding job of making it informative without the OR. Tweak the Santa bit and then by all means drop it into the article. alanyst /talk/ 18:00, 28 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure how to adjust it, though, and it is cited (Watterson (2005), vol. 3, p. 477, originally published 1995-12-24). There's not much more to say: Santa says "Ohhh yes, the 'Noodle Incident' kid..." and the elf replies "That was a while ago, boss. He says he was framed, and we've had trouble verifying the particulars. Accounts seem to vary." And then they go on to discuss other things related to Calvin's behavior.[15] Anomie 00:50, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hmm, maybe this? "The strip even depicts Santa's research department having trouble discovering the particulars of the Noodle Incident, [ref here] and every mention of the incident brings forth vehement denials of involvement from Calvin." What do you think? alanyst /talk/ 01:28, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Looks good! I'm going to put it in the article now. Anomie 01:49, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

As the person who tagged that section, I thank you both for doing an extraordinary job rewriting that section. I wish more editors could respond as promptly and effectively as you have. ALTON .ıl 08:37, 29 December 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  1. ^ Watterson (1995), p. 200.
  2. ^ Watterson (2005), vol. 1, p. 260. Comic originally published 1987-04-22
  3. ^ Watterson (2005), vol. 2, p. 340. Comic originally published 1990-09-14
  4. ^ Watterson (2005), vol. 2, p. 377; vol. 3, pp. 17, 477. Comics originally published 1990-12-12, 1992-05-20, and 1995-12-24.
  5. ^ Watterson (2005), vol. 1, p. 459; vol. 2, pp. 44, 217, 274; vol. 3, pp. 84, 199. Comics originally published 1988-07-10, 1988-12-21, 1989-12-23, 1990-04-22, 1992-10-06, and 1993-06-25.