Hello, InternetMeme, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Kingturtle (talk) 04:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on LiMo requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. EJF (talk) 12:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of LiMo Platform, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.limofoundation.org/what-is-the-platform.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 12:32, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I have tagged the claim that Eta Car is the most massive star in the observable universe, another user removed it, but do you have a reliable source for that claim so it might be added again? Thanks. ~AH1(TCU) 21:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A suggestion: is there a summary page for Mobile OS's? If so, you might want to discuss the native code issue there, in a subsection. If not, you seem like a thoroughly responsible and appropriate person to create one. I'd contribute as I get time. For that matter, how is a mobile OS being defined in your chart? (Btw - I'm now assuming that you created it, which gives you some extra moral authority..) If it's handheld devices, then why isn't eg the PSP or that open src Taiwanese thing listed? If it's phones, then why is maemo there? What do archos devices use? Umptious (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another user has already expressed concern about the current version, and not only does it go against Wikipedia's convention on navigation templates, it also causes large and ugly gaps on certain browsers when it interacts with in-page {{ambox}}es. For this reason I believe the navbox version should remain. Please explain why the benefits outweigh the drawbacks - so far as I can see, the only benefit is an apparent personal aesthetic appeal over the first draught of the navbox version. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 17:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have nominated Solar System for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please respect the discussion process. There is no consensus to support changing "Abuse" into anything at the moment—not into a term you prefer, not into a term I prefer. Until we (we as in everyone who is participating in the discussion) reach an agreement, please don't push change to the article's current wording. You're only laying the groundwork for an edit war. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Propofol. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:40, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles), you will be blocked from editing. From discussions on propofol article you know full well that off-label use is a specific designation of use within medicine, i.e. prescribing outside of guidelines etc. Please stop your POV vandalising and editing warring of highly important guidance articles on wikipedia.Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on WP:MEDMOS. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Literaturegeek | T@1k? 17:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When you moved TV ONE to TV One (New Zealand), and then redirected the old title to the disambiguation page TV One, you perhaps overlooked this guideline, which advises
that "it is strongly recommended that you modify all pages that link to the old title so they will link to the new title." You left several hundred pages about New Zealand television topics pointing to the disambiguation page. In future, if you wish to change the target of an existing title, please be sure to fix links as well. Thank you. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion as to the actual article title but copy-and-paste moves like that violate the GFDL, as we lose the article history. I've reverted it for that reason. Use the move function if you'd like. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:27, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since my talk page comments didn't catch your attention, I went ahead and reverted your rewrite of Primary color. If you think we need to change the definition, or call come uses incorrect, you'll need to provide sources to back up such a change. Dicklyon (talk) 08:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you created the above article, and was wondering if you had any additional sources for a couple of articles I'm helping to work on (Eyetech and Warp3D) --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 04:20, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Meme, sorry to harp on about Notability, but I don't think that a seperate article on Modplug Player can be justfied based on the current amount of coverage presented. Per WP:PRODUCT, the article should be merged to a broader topic. My hunt for issue 113 of Computer Music magazine continues, although it looks like that if I dip into any issue, I will find some information on one tracker or another. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 07:54, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! Heh, you sure keep a sharp eye out for edits. The reason I made a separate article for ModPlug Player was primarily to separate the content from the OpenMPT article. I'm not really bothered whether ModPlug Player has its own article or not, as long as the information isn't cluttering the OpenMPT article.
Having said that, the reference I provided for ModPlug Player states that it is a popular player for Windows. Isn't that proof of notability?
Another idea could be to have a separate article for the now deprecated ModPlug Tracker (which has been replaced by OpenMPT), and to include ModPlug Player in that.
Linux journal is fine for verification, I'm just not sure the overall coverage is enough. Looks like it might belong in a "list of..." article instead, but I'll leave it for now. Marasmusine (talk) 07:57, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi InternetMeme, it occured to me at this AfD that several users are upset at my recent shake-up of the tracker articles - which is understandable of any topic that has a strong community. I've proposed starting a new wiki (I suggested Wikia) dedicated to tracker software, as I don't think one currently exists. This can be a repository for all the tracker related topics that are unsuitable for Wikipedia. What do you think? Marasmusine (talk) 07:54, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds perfect to me. Let's do it. InternetMeme (talk) 14:02, 11 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. Why are you removing citations to createdigitalmusic.com and marking it as a minor edit, without an edit comment? Marasmusine (talk) 10:55, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I have "minor edit" on by default and forgot to change it.
All the other trackers listed in the table have either a link to an article, or a reference; but not both. So I moved the reference into the article. Does that seem good to you? InternetMeme (talk) 11:07, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks for the explanation. I didn't spot that it had its own article now. On a related note, the "Palm Sounds" blog doesn't meet WP:RS, so its possible that SunVox still isn't currently notable enough for a seperate article. But we'll se how it goes. Thanks, Marasmusine (talk) 12:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, InternetMeme. You have new messages at Talk:Brig (ship). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Please don't make contentious edits, such as moving Brig to Brig (ship) when such edits are under discussion. Shem (talk) 16:53, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Citations aren't required in lead sections, per Wikipedia guidelines. Its influence on BioShock is discussed, with references, in the Legacy section. Please try to avoid snap judgments next time. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 22:55, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference[edit]
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.
On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was true. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to false in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being minor in the usual way.
For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. With the script in place, you can continue with this functionality indefinitely (its use is governed by WP:MINOR). If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.
Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 18:54, 15 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you knew me, you'd know I don't assume good faith ever, but since I've not seen you in the creationist articles, I'll AGF for one revert. This edit completely changes the POV of the article from neutral to an anti-evolution bent. The school district wasn't sued (for the first time or ever) because of it's biology curriculum, but because they were trying to cram down the throats of the students a creationist dogma. Your edits made the Dover School District appear to be a bunch of innocents trying to teach a fake science. Further, among the many critical points about the lawsuit was that it was the first to attempt to block the teaching of Intelligent design as equivalent to evolution. Your original edits were regarding the date and location. It's there so many times as to blast you in the head. Your one line seemed like a throw in. So, I found it a tad disingenuous to describe your edit as moving around some dates and locations. It was much more than that, intentionally or unintentionally. OrangeMarlinTalk•Contributions 05:17, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the Orangeperson is blunt but does have a point, as indeed you had with the edit that's been reverted. Taking it to talk was good, I've had a look and made this change which responds to the issue you've raised. Trust all are now contented, or at least fairly contented :-/ . . dave souza, talk 18:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello InternetMeme, you are arguing here.NET Framework is a platform, comparable to java. Main focus is the language independence, unlike the java goal of platform independence. Platform difference to Java is the non-availability for multiple OS (linux, osx, bsd, etc), it is exclusively available for the windows platform (see article, even with the mono reimplementation it is debateable). Therefore I consider .net just a API or library extension to the windows api/platform (like directX) and not an platform by itself. cheers, Shaddim (talk) 11:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
push? please commentShaddim (talk) 20:40, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I believe .net is a platform comparable to Java. To be a Windows program, something must use Win32.
dot net uses the win32 api.... exclusively (unlike the java runtime engine which can run on other platforms/OSs too). Shaddim (talk) 09:55, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, yes, obviously. Ultimately, everything running on Windows uses Win32, doesn't it? I'm talking about programs that use it directly, as opposed to using it via some other API, such as Java, MS.Net, etc.
so the question is: Is dot net just a api extension to win32, like mfc or directX? i would say 'yes' for several reasons, all of them run (only) on top of win32 api, all of them are only available for the windows platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaddim (talk • contribs) 06:50, 10 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it's right to give special favour to an API just because the creator refuses to port it to other operating systems; we shouldn't exclude (for example) Java, just because the creators of Java made the extra effort to make a version for Mac, Linux, etc.
I am fine with adding to the list software that works with MS.Net, provided we also add software that works with Java, Flash, etc.
Also, DirectX is different from MS.Net, as certain hardware features depend on it to work; there are things that are inaccessible via Win32 without using DirectX.
exactly, thats the difference. java is careing about running on different OSs and hardware, therefore java can called a platform on it's own. dot net is not trying to be platform independend therefore it is only an extension to the win32 api for the windows platform. cheers 21:23, 12 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaddim (talk • contribs)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Apostrophe. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. It is a good idea to always use the "Show preview" button to check the results of your edits. We all make mistakes and preview is a good way to prevent saving such mistakes for all to see! —Coroboy (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This barnstar is awarded to everyone who - whatever their opinion - contributed to the discussion about Wikipedia and SOPA. Thank you for being a part of the discussion. Presented by the Wikimedia Foundation.
I'm contesting your move of Steven Wright and your subsequent cut/paste of Steven Wright (disambiguation) to Steven Wright. There are only 2 articles about people called Steven Wright. One is the comedian, the other the baseball player Steven Wright (baseball). In the last 90 days the comedian has had 72957 views while the baseball player has had just 389. I think this shows that the comedian is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Any move should be discussed using the WP:RM procedure. Thanks. Tassedethe (talk) 17:07, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That seems reasonable. I'm more concerned with the disambiguation between this and Stephen Wright, really. InternetMeme (talk) 17:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for June 28[edit]
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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) 14:16, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, articles should not be moved, as you did to Nexuiz (2005 video game), without good reason. They need to have a name that is both accurate and intuitive. Wikipedia has some guidelines in place to help with this. Generally, a page should only be moved to a new title if the current name doesn't follow these guidelines. Also, if a page move is being discussed, consensus needs to be reached before anybody moves the page. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. from Nexuiz - pls see my reasoning there about creation of DAB pages and moving primary articles. Also, next time you move things, please fix the links going to the DAB page.Widefox; talk 11:32, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop removing worthy information from the Lumia 920 article. The article is in no way advertising the product, it's even way less optimistic than the iPhone 5 or Samsung Galaxy S III articles. Why make this article less comprehensive than the others? Do you have any personal feelings against Nokia and/or Windows Phone? Wikipedia editors should not remove information without getting consensus to do so (WP:CRV). So please stop doing that or else I will report you to an administrator.
Thanks for your cooperation. --Lprd2007 (talk) 16:27, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "InternetMeme", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you.
I think this is neccesary because your username may appear to be slightly misleading. Thanks!
(Kevin12xd (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC))[reply]
Hi Internet Meme. I'm starting to share your concerns about Kevin12xd (in case you weren't aware, I was the admin who unblocked him the other day). His message to you above is perhaps a little pointy; I see no issue with your username (neither has anyone else in the last four years) and so I suggest you remove the comment entirely - I nearly did this myself, but it's your talkpage, after all. As regards his blanking of his own talkpage, it's acceptable (though not encouraged) under the talkpage guidelines (specifically WP:BLANKING) - whilst users aren't allowed to remove notices regarding a current block, once the block expires/is lifted, they are permitted to delete those templates.
I'll be keeping an eye on his edits, but if you see anything else untoward, please let me know. Yunshui雲水 08:38, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yunshui is correct. I have not been watching Kevin's account and actions but I am watching now. This message about username is not warranted. I do not understand people that do not want to help the project, then why edit at all? But I digress. We'll see what his behavior is going forward. -- Alexf(talk) 10:08, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I read your post to Yunshui's talkpage. I honestly had no idea that it was against the rules of Wikipedia to clear your talkpage. I am sorry about any inconvenience I may have caused towards you. I am currently trying to sort out the current issues I'm having with Wikipedia (it's not Wikipedia, rather I believe it's my behaviour.) Anyway, I am sorry that you considered my post to your talkpage to be vandalism. I can assure that it was in good faith. Thank you. KazLabz 00:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin12xd (talk • contribs)
Hi InternetMeme.
I posted the username warning template almost entirely as a test. I enjoy looking for templates to add, and so I decided to test one out (again, I am sorry). I found you by looking in random Talkpages of random Articles.
--KazLabz 22:31, 19 October 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin12xd (talk • contribs)
Stop Edit warring on this article, I've added two sources discussing her writing I can easily add half a dozen more and it won't change the fact that her writing is notable and has been covered extensively in high quality sources. Notability does not apply to article content, only to the existence of the article its self however your previous edits do breach guideline/policy(linking Oman breaches WP:Overlink "do not link large geographical areas" and redirecting London to London moves it from the appropriate article to a redirect to a disambiguation page.) If you are unwilling to discuss your proposed changes on the talk page, then the likely result is admin intervention and possible banning. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't provided any sources to suggest that her works are notable. If you can provide a link to a reliable source that establishes her as a notable author, then go ahead and add that occupation to the lead. As it stands, she is an actress who has attempted to become a respected author and not yet succeeded. InternetMeme (talk) 12:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the Independent and the Sunday Mirror as source, these are reliable sources. I can also add The Daily Mail, the Sunday Mail, The Charelston Mail, Another Independant Article, The Daily News (L.A.), The Rockhampton Morning Bulletin and others discussing her writing - what are you looking for a Pulitzer or Booker prize? Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in order to mention her being an author in the lead section, we need something that establishes the books as notable works, that have some merit beyond having been written by a famous actress. The fact that neither of her books have Wikipedia articles gives a hint as to their notability. InternetMeme (talk) 13:31, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. I noticed you retitled the generations of video games articles. Another user has changed it back, as would I have, had I gotten to it first. Please wait and find consensus before making lots of important changes like this. They were titled that way for a reason. If you want to discuss changing the title, I'd recommend starting up a discussion at a place like Wikiproject Video gamesfirst. Then make changes if there's a general agreement from the discussions. Thanks! Sergecross73msg me 20:27, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Um, it's been about 48 hours now, and it seems you haven't presented any sort of case yet. Have you had a change of heart? Sergecross73msg me 15:39, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I still think it's the right thing to do, it's just that I've come to realise that it's a matter of overall wiki title logic, and I'd be presenting my case to a bunch of video game geeks (I don't mean that disparagingly, I'm one too). Their interest lies in the details of video games, and they're not likely to have any regard for the kinds of reasons I believe exist for re-titling the articles. I'm having a look to see if there are any other places in Wikipedia that deal with editorial/language/titling issues rather than article subject content issues, as they're more likely to understand the kinds of things I'm talking about.
Or to put it another way, the video game folks couldn't care less if an article title is too long and unwieldy, of if there are no other history articles that have no accompanying parent article, or whether the current title was a result of random article evolution rather than logic. They just want things to stay the same, and instead deal with the questions of how many levels there really are in Pac-Man or whether the PS3 is selling better than the XBox 360 (worthy questions to be sure, but not the kind of sphere of knowledge I want to deal in).
Nevertheless, I'm very grateful for your time and help; without you I probably wouldn't have looked into the system enough to realise this, and would have embarked on a protracted and fruitless quest for title consistency and conciseness : p InternetMeme (talk) 15:53, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for November 29[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Einstein's Bridge (novel), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alternative history (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) 10:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you recently moved 'Alternate History' to 'Alternative history (genre)'. I do not see that this change was discussed anywhere. Article name changes without discussion are a problem because other users don't know the reason for the move, and may have compelling arguments for keeping the article under the old name. Dialectric (talk) 17:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have moved the page back to the previous title. If you want to propose the move again, please discuss it on that article's talk page. Dialectric (talk) 11:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Second Warning - Mass changes to video game generations articles[edit]
Hello again. I see you are once again making massive changes on the generations of video games articles again. I'm pretty sure I told you last time - when you're making massive changes to such over-arching topics, discuss the changes first.
The first time you did this, I can chalk it up to not knowing any better, but we've already been over this before. Gather consensusbefore major changes like this. I've shown you how to do this before, and I can tell you again if you like, but you've really got to stop doing this, or we may have to take this to WP:ANI. Sergecross73msg me 18:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What? I altered only one article, and I didn't move it. I simply made a new article with the appropriate name, and put the relevant stuff there. I took your concerns into consideration, and tried something different. This is just how Wikipedia works. I agree that the previous edits I made were large scale, and I was wrong to not seek agreement, but this was a pretty minor edit, and in the spirit of WP:BOLD, combined with the fact that it's not a controversial edit (Putting non-history information in a non-history article is pretty much common sense).
The only problem is that all the video game people can't see the forest due to the trees, and haven't spent any time organizing the larger article group structures properly, because they're too busy with article content. You're welcome to revert things like this if you disagree, but you shouldn't complain when people make bold edits from time to time. As I said, I was wrong to move a whole lot of articles at once, but in this case, making a single new article, with an appropriate name, didn't seem like a big deal. The video game people just want to maintain the status quo, whether it's right or wrong (and I'm pretty sure it's wrong).
No wonder the articles are such a mess. The information in those articles is so disorganized that I doubt any reader could find any information they might want to know. I could really help with that, but you won't let me.
(edit conflict)You are correct in the respect that the first time, it was renaming, where this time, it's about moving. Otherwise, everything else I've told you before applies. I told you before, things were set up for a reason, and you should discuss with others to understand those reasons before making big changes. If you're going to revamp some random, obscure, inactive game article, go for it and be bold, but when your dealing with something that spans a ton of content, like 5+ years worth of different company's video games consoles, you discuss it first. A ton of different articles link to it, so you can mess a lot of other stuff up when you split it like that.
It's very simple. If it's as "common sense" as you say it is, then it will be very easy to discuss and find consensus to support it. But as it is now, there is clear opposition to your edits, through User:Arkhandar reverting your edits, and my comments on the talk page. So again, discuss before moving further. Sergecross73msg me 02:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean this offensively, but I don't think any of you know/care much about article structure or large-scale article group arrangement. In fact, all of you seem opposed to good practice in these areas. So what a trained editor would consider "commin sense" might seem completely unreasonable to you guys. Even if this isn't true, let's think hypothetically for a second:
Let's say that due to their common nature, all of the video game people didn't know much about those things, and were therefore opposed to fixing the articles. And a lone editor who happened to have some education in that area came to fix things (and kept getting reverted by the video game people who didn't know any better). What would be the solution? Are there any other teams of editors who are expert at general article layour and title structure? Who should he talk to? (I do accept that I may be wrong, of course, but even so, just for the sake of hypothesis, what would be the solution?). InternetMeme (talk) 02:52, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You open an WP:RFC on an appropriate talk page to draw attention. But you certainly don't say "my way is best, you are all wrong" and make unilateral changes. (In fact, I would argue you are very wrong. All the generation articles are sub articles of "History of video game consoles" broke out be generation, as opposed what you are doing in calling the parents as "Video game consoles (x generation)" with the "History" article as the subarticle. The latter is definitely something to be avoided per WP:SS. ) --MASEM (t) 03:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean it as personally as that. I'm not trying to say "my way is best, you are all wrong". I'm trying to say that the current state of the article arrangement was a result of random evolution rather than calculated organization, and that the reason the video game people want it to stay the same is due to them being comfortable with the status quo, and not having the expertise or interest to see any reason to change things. The fact is that the article is a mess, and part of the problem is that the title is too specific. That fact is made clear by looking at certain sentences, in which the writer has strained unnecessarily to present the information in a historical context, just to fit the title of the article. There is a great deal of information about each generation of consoles that is not hisory related, and there are currently no articles to put it in, so it is shoehorned into the current, inappropriate articles. InternetMeme (talk) 03:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That reasoning makes it sound like you had the self-awareness that the idea may be opposed, making it all the more wrong that you decided to go about doing it without discussion. But none the less, now you know you have to discuss it further before proceeding. There's the respective articles talk page (which you started, just failed to wait for any sort of discussion to occur first.), WP:VG's talk page, or starting up an WP:RFC. You seem to have no problem discussing it at length on yours or my talk page, so it really shouldn't be any different at these other avenues... Sergecross73msg me 14:17, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't sound like that at all to me. Previously, you guys seemed to be unhappy mainly about my editing multiple articles at once, and renaming them. So I thought you might not mind if I stuck to just one article, and refrained from renaming it (I made another article instead). That way there are no problems with redirects, for instance. Never mind, I have another idea. I think the basis of the current layout stems from the fact that the generational articles are all linked from the "History" section of the "Video game console" article; this kind of forces them into the context of being named "History" articles themselves, even though that's not what they are (they are general articles with specifications, lists of console, and a history section). I plan to add a "Generations" section to the "Video game console" article, with a table listing each of the generations, and also the main consoles that are part of them. This will give some context for the hopeful later addition of general purpose "Video game console (X generation)" articles linked from there.
Anyway, thanks very much for taking the time to explain the point of view of the video game people, and listening to what I have to say. I do actually appreciate it, even though our conversation can sometimes be terse : )
Like I said before, just make sure to discuss these future plans before implementing them. Not only is it how it should be done, but when working on such high profile, large scope articles, if you don't discuss before hand, your changes will likely just get reverted again, like your prior attempts, because of the high visibility of the articles. Sergecross73msg me 14:44, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for editing at Pisces. I think what you have done gives the article the balance it needed. I made some changes since then, a little formatting and organizing. - s t a r c a r (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for December 14[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Exploding Girl, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Independent (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) 11:43, 14 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Dear Esther. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please try to reach a consensus on the talk page.
If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. In particular, editors should be aware of the three-revert rule, which says that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, breaking the three-revert rule is very likely to lead to a block. Thank you.--McGeddon (talk) 15:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. It's not really an edit war, it's just some random anonymous IP user being a pain. For the record, Dear Esther is not generally accepted as a video game (I should probably provide some more sources). InternetMeme (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An edit war is an edit war, even if one person finds the other a pain. And IPs are people too! I agree Dear Esther is a grey area, but digging up and discussing sources is always the best way to forward if you encounter resistance from those who support the status quo. --McGeddon (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By do you say "by talk" in this edit? It wasn't discussed on the talk pege anywhere. Also, please don't add unsourced information. Where does any source say it's a dance (let alone that it is performed in public places)? The article is not about a dance (see the article title). (If you still wish to discuss it, start a discussion on the talk page. I don't think it's a good idea to discuss it here.) --Moscow Connection (talk) 19:21, 24 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:QuickShot FlightGrip.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 15:02, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, InternetMeme. You have new messages at Talk:Jars of Clay discography. Message added 14:20, 11 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
I am not sure what the best term is, but piped links to a section are not fake. What you did is an improvement though. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you tried to give Creative ZEN a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is legally required for attribution. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.
In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Sorry for the templated text, but needed to make sure I gave you all the proper information - appreciate you already know how to do a standard move but cut and pastes are problematic please tag any others you've carried out for repair.Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 06:22, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, my old friend and adversary : ) Thanks for the tip. I think I ran into a name conflict at some point, and it made things a little difficult. If there's a better way to go about this, do let me know! InternetMeme (talk) 05:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning this edit: it is called an optical disc, and either 'digital distribution' or 'download', 'digital download' is redundant. Thanks, and happy editing. --Soetermans. T / C 15:10, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
> Concerning this edit: it is called an optical disc, and either 'digital distribution' or 'download', 'digital download' is redundant. Thanks, and happy editing.
Hi there,
I think you've got things a little muddled. Here are some synonyms:
Digital disc, optical disc, digital optical disc.
Digital download, online download, digital online download.
So as you can see, the word that is universally redundant is 'digital'; all of these forms of data are digital. You may be running into a common error, mistaking the word "digital" for "electronic". An optical disc is not electronic, but it is digital (I've completed several papers on digital (and analogue) electronics, so I am quite confident in this assertion). InternetMeme (talk) 15:45, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Let's try to keep this conversation in one place, please use the Talkback template!
Look, I'm just an editor with a more-than-average interest in video game articles. As far as I know the common termis optical disc. It has an article on Wikipedia, digital disc doesn't. Digital download is a disambig page, and makes a distinction between (to) download, as a proces, and digital distribution, as a method of distribution, which, in the case of Portal 2, is the right way of calling it. --Soetermans. T / C 16:31, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But online distribution works just fine of course :) --Soetermans. T / C 16:34, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, that's cool. I appreciate your input! If you're interested in precise terminology for these things, with a specific example of antonyms, here are a few topical examples:
Physical 1 (such as a disc or an envelope) as opposed to Electronic (such as an http web request or a phone call).
Physical 2 (such as a brick-and-mortar retail store) as opposed to Online (such as a web site).
Digital (such as the data on a disc or data transferred online) as opposed to Analog (such as a drawing on a piece of paper or a recording on an audio cassette).
As you can imagine, these terms can get very intermingled and confused, and the distictions are often lost to lay-people such as reporters or the Wikipedia editors who named the articles you mentioned.
The reason it is wrong (but not incorrect) to refer to Portal 2's online distribution as "digital" distribution is not because it is not digital, but because all of its forms of distribution are digital; the word is redundant. We could equally correctly (but wrongly) refer to it as "digital binary software data disribution". But the disc version can be equally accurately described as a "digital binary software data disc". So if you omit all of the redundant words (that apply to all of the ways it is distributed), you're left with only "distribution" or "disc".
Just for your interest, here is the Britannica article on digital discs:
Ah, now I get your point, it is the word 'digital' that bothers you. Is is it okay if we Wikipedia keeps using it, even though it is wrong to use it? If not, you can always ask for moving articles and such.
Actually, I'm not too bothered whether or we use the word or not, provided we're consistent, in order to avoid confusion. So, wherever we use the term "digital download" to describe a download, we should ensure that we use te term "digital disc" to describe the equivalent disc. Overall, though, it probably makes sense to not use the term at all, as it is always redundant (as everything on pretty much every computer in the world is entirely digital. Using the term unnecessarily will lead to confusion about that type of thing. InternetMeme (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
And concerning the talkback template, it's real easy to use. Just write {{talkback|'your username here'}} at another user's talk page. {{talkback|Soetermans}} shows up as
. --Soetermans. T / C 20:22, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that! It might be an idea to correct the "Talkback Template" article, as it is formatted incorrectly there: Template:Talkback#Example. InternetMeme (talk) 21:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my goodness. InternetMeme has touched so eloquently upon one of the most grotesquely obvious faux pas of the modern age. HOW did this logical travesty ever happen, let alone become so ubiquitously entrenched? I guess it's a clearer type of download, not like ye olden days of scratchy, hissy, analog downloads anymore. — Smuckola(Email)(Talk) 16:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for June 19[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Josef Mengele, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sterilization (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) 11:01, 19 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, I reverted your improper cut-and-paste page move of NCSOFT. I find no discussion of so-called "dude to" bug on the article's talk page. Dicklyon (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, just letting you know I reverted this edit since I believe the definition of the word putative [1] fits better the sentence. Just saying "disputed" isn't clear because it doesn't explain what is being disputed. If you feel this merits a larger discussion, please open a new section at the talk page of that article and I'll be happy to comment. Regards. Gaba(talk) 14:08, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for October 22[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Journey to the Center of the Earth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Snæfell (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) 11:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there! Just as a note redarding the latest edits / reverts on Sandy Bridge article, FinFET redirect page was broken, and I've corrected it by using an explicit anchor. As we know, Wikipedia:NOTBROKEN suggests that redirects should be used. I'm more than happy to discuss it further, if required. — Dsimic (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since when has Wikipedia changed policy on wikilinks? The practice of links appearing with different text than the actual link is commonplace and required. There are many cases where using link names as they exist would be disruptive in text. Tarl.Neustaedter (talk) 14:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the policy has changed, I think that it has always been to use piped links to match the given grammar constraints of a sentence. I don't think Wikipedia's policy has ever been to use piped links as a substitute for footnotes, which is what had happened here. InternetMeme (talk) 14:21, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Castle Bravo. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.There is clearly not consensus for your proposed changes. If you have concerns with how Wiki piped links work on tablets, I suggest WP:VP/T.VQuakr (talk) 21:23, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over your contributions, it appears that you have been attempting the mass removal of piped links. Please stop immediately, as there is clearly no consensus for these removals. VQuakr (talk) 21:28, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm afraid I don't understand why you changed the name of the Human Rights Now! article to omit the exclamation point. It is part of the name, in Amnesty International's own use at the time (see the tour booklet image), in their subsequent use, in media use at the time, in media use since then, and so forth. The "stylization" issue that you seem to think this is about refers to more unorthodox, unpronounceable spellings, such as locating articles at Kesha instead of Ke$ha or at Pink (singer) instead of P!nk. But exclamation points at the end of a word or phrase represent normal English usage, spelling, and pronunciation, and are always included in WP titles. See for example Wham!, Oklahoma!, Help! (song), Help! (album), Airplane!, Tora! Tora! Tora!, and many others. The article name should be moved back. Thanks. Wasted Time R (talk) 11:44, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Title's shouldn't include exclamation points without including quotation marks. Those other titles you listed are also incorrect; feel free to fix them too if you have time, as I'll be busy for the next day or two. InternetMeme (talk) 12:21, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
On what WP guideline do you base your belief? WP:TSC doesn't say anything about this. WP:NCTR doesn't say anything about this either, and indeed gives Are We Not Men? We Are Devo! as an example of a properly located article. WP:MOS#Article titles says "The final visible character should not be a punctuation mark unless it is part of a name", and in all these cases, the exclamation point is part of a name. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:23, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Seems to have a point. Clearly there is a MOS policy with regard to punctuation that does permit its use at the end of some article titles without the use of quotation marks— otherwise the statement above would not exist. Unless there are significant examples that can be shown where such a punctuation mark was deliberately excluded from a similar article title (pref. one that is the title of an org of some kind) in adherence to the general policy of not adding them in, it looks to me like Human Rights Now! should stand as the title of this article.
Hi, I noticed you recently undid my edit to the article on Satin weave in which I had turned the article into a redirect to the one on Satin, stating that they seemed to duplicate each other. You stated in your edit that the articles do not duplicate each other at all. Can we discuss this? Both of the articles make use of the same b&w image of a satin weave, and both discuss the way the fabric is made. Both reference the same articles on twill weave and plain weave, and both discuss the different materials out of which the fabric can be made. The article on satin even begins with the sentence "Satin is a weave that typically has a glossy surface and a dull back..." If satin is a weave, then I am not sure I understand why we need to have an article on "satin" and another on "satin weave." If you feel my redirect was hasty, would you be opposed to a merger that eventually results in such a redirect? Do you think that the article on satin could pretty much cover the content of the one on satin weave? Or can you explain to me why you think it is important that we have separate articles on each? Thanks. KDS4444Talk 07:38, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. Within the "Satin" article I just did a page search for a few phrases from the "Satin weave" article, and noticed that not all of them were there, and so concluded that not all information was duplicated. I also noted that there was no "Satin weave" section heading in the "Satin" article, which would be necessary if the articles were merged.
Based on those two things, I figured that you'd probably made some minor error, or just been in a rush, so I thought that in the mean time it'd be safer to revert it, as there are probably a large number of users coming to the article in order to find out what a satin weave is, and in the previous state, the article did not serve them.
Feel free to merge the articles again, but keep in mind that I'm pretty certain it's necessary to include a specific "Satin weave" section which includes all content from the respective article.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. KJclick here 16:32, 4 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
'There was never any suggestion that she confirmed Sweeney's presence aboard.'
"Amy and Betty were trying to, RELAY information so ... as I was talking to her [Sweeney] she would, y'know she would ask Betty: "Did you, see this?" or... y'know, so they were kind of working in TANDEM, to get the information - out."
~ American Airlines' manager Michael Woodward ' Last Hour of Flight 11 '.
Thanks for the research! It's good to know what that was about. I was meaning to say that there was never any suggestion in the article that she confirmed Sweeney's presence aboard. If the article is to state that she didn't confirm a particular fact, the article must also state the supposed fact itself, in order for the reference to make sense.
Do you think this information (in addition to the previous statement) should be added to the article? Is it relevant enough to include?
I'd like to include it, but I doubt that 'Documentacus' is/would be deemed reliable (though it clearly features Woodward's account in person).
Inexplicably, in the numerous sources I've read, and after having had the question viewed over 1,500 times(http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=22459); the woman who discourses with Ong in the audio file, remains hitherto unidentified.
Plus, a cleaner of Flight 11 (Wayne Kirk) claimed that he had boarded the plane (as the SkyChefs caterers were leaving), approximately 40 minutes before the arrival time given by the last pilot Lynn Howland; who was 'sure' it had connected to gate B33 rather than B32.
Therefore, there's the serious possibility, that there were two different planes oO(need one cite the: absence of choking Mace in Sweeney's report, and a bomb in Ong's; 'Flight 12' & doctor discrepancies?).Beingsshepherd (talk) 03:36, 24 February 2014 (UTC)Beingsshepherd[reply]
Hi InternetMeme! I just wanted to drop by and explain why I reverted on Project Steve. As I'm sure you know, we don't want easter eggs in the article, where a word is linked to a totally different page. However, that doesn't mean that links have to be exactly the same words as the article title we point to. Your most recent edit puts brackets around words in the article prose, which is certainly undesirable. Your first edit was better, but as I noted in my edit summary, changing "common ancestry" so just "common" is linked also makes things less than obvious. "Common ancestry" is the idea we're trying to link, and it's ok that the word "ancestry" doesn't appear in the article title. Linking just "common" makes it appear as though we're pointing to Common, which would be strange! Does all that make sense? Let me know if you have any questions! Thanks! — Jess· Δ♥ 05:20, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, hi,
I gave the discussion my full thoughts. Many of your comments echoed my feelings, as did a few others (Just Bill). I hope I clarified my original and helped find words that help future readers, yet satisfy the others.... Regards, -- Steve -- (talk) 02:44, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Path tracing may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
is the key principle behind the [[Bidirectional reflectance distribution function]] (BRDF)]. This direction dependence was a focus of research resulting in the [[Rendering (computer graphics)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Microcar may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
For the performance oriented, who prefer more than two wheels and a roof, the scaling laws )elaborated in [[There's Plenty of Room at the Bottom]]) show that one need not give up acceleration until the curb weight comes down to around the driver'
To me the usage of "Deb" for "Débutante" does not constitute "an intentional inside joke, hidden message, or feature". But then I was around when the last debutantes were presented at court. Chapter 12 of Anne de Courcy's 2007 book "Debs at War: 1939-1945" is specifically about those who served at Bletchley Park. This is not worth an edit war, but you might like to look it up.--TedColes (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently to continue from the note just above this one, and in particular that above entitled "Castle Bravo", it is not apparent to me in Operation Plumbbob how exactly the code:
which is grammatical nonsense. I think we'll leave it the way it was, as there is no hidden meaning or inside joke, or even much jargon, involved. I'm aware you dislike piped links, but all I can suggest is to get over it. SkoreKeep (talk) 17:01, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, now you've changed it again with the explanation "(WP:EASTEREGG (you're mistaken: this has nothing to do with hidden meanings or inside jokes).)", to:
That change I can support; it actually makes grammatical sense, and it didn't change the meaning of the sentence very much. It certainly isn't the change you first essayed. However, I'm somewhat flumoxed by your interpretation of "Effects of nuclear explosions#Thermal radiation|thermal pulse" as an Easteregg, which seems to be defined as a "piped link [used] to create 'easter egg links', that require the reader to follow them before understanding what's going on". First, I don't see how it applies, and second, you didn't remove the piped link, all you did is replace "thermal radiation" for "thermal pulse", leaving the piped link as it was. I could agree and won't argue with the edit but your explanation this time is odd. But, nevermind, don't try to explain, you've confused me quite enough. SkoreKeep (talk) 19:18, 25 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You need to not be making mass title changes to articles where you neither have consensus, had your changes reverted repeatedly, and been told to stop, even so far as this being brought up for discussion and still doing it after no decision was made. The video game Generation pages are being moved back until a clear discussion has been made on this. Please do not move these pages again. BcRIPster (talk) 18:45, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a week. I've already warned you twice not to make huge changes to the generations of video games without discussing or finding consensus first, because they are high traffic articles that link to a large volume of other articles. Once again, you've ignored that, and riled up a bunch of editors. When you come back from your block, please discuss before changes, and only make changes if there is consensus to do so.
(These articles are always going to have a lot of sets of eyes on them, so don't think you can just stealth-edit your changes to them like this.) Sergecross73msg me 13:05, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LiMo Platform until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ysangkok (talk) 18:21, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:45, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The shadow masking technique uses raster scan. I don't know of any vector displays that use a shadow mask, but also don't see why it would't work. I suspect that they do, or did, exist, but that they were too expensive, and never got as popular. Gah4 (talk) 18:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment! If you check the diff between my edit and the previous one, you'll notice that I didn't actually add any information: I actually removed information. So the sentence you mentioned is not by me, and I won't be at all offended if you wish to delete it ; InternetMeme (talk) 05:10, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and I was agreeing with your deletion. It would be interested to know of any actual examples. Thanks, Gah4 (talk) 05:50, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gianduia (software framework) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. MSJapan (talk) 03:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for July 15[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chicxulub crater, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Megaton. 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) 10:36, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear from this edit summary that you did not respond to this. Not replying to people who raise an issue on your talk page and then carrying on making numerous more edits of the same kind is a behavioural problem that may need to be followed up if you continue. SpinningSpark 13:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the edit was made before I received your message. I was in the middle of fixing the grammar. InternetMeme (talk) 13:45, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is a good idea to remove piped links en-masse as you did here. I have reverted that one, but I notice that you have been doing a great number of these. MOS:NOPIPE does not mean that piped links should never be used. Where removing a pipe changes the text of the article, particularly in technical articles, the results can be very bad, even changing the meaning of the text. For instance, you changed "graph", which will be widely understood by readers as a plotted curve, to "Line chart" which is somewhat more difficult to parse. Another example: you changed "optical imaging devices" to "optical transfer function" which is significantly less intelligible. Admittedly, those pipes were not the best target articles in the first place, but removing the original text makes it very difficult for a future editor to understand and correct. Also, leaving the link capital in place, as you did with Line chart and Curve fitting is just unprofessional. SpinningSpark 13:34, 18 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for October 4[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Andie MacDowell, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Antebellum. 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) 10:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for October 11[edit]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Midge, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dexter. 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) 10:58, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, InternetMeme. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello, InternetMeme. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Please check out RWBY#Development section, as that and the characters page explains the origin of the acronym name. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:13, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I'm Meters. I wanted to let you know that one or more of your recent contributions to Logan Paul have been undone because they did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. You cannot just add material in the middle of a direct quote, and your edit summary seemed fake.Meters (talk) 08:27, 10 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit stands unchallenged. I clicked on "thank" to thank you for the laugh. My writing (off-Wiki) has drawn its share of criticism, and my previous favorite critique came from a grad student who called my style "too flowery," over 20 years ago. She was right. "Tabloid style grammar" seems quite the opposite! I'm tempted to embrace it, and go full National Enquirer in my writing for a while. Off-Wiki, of course. :) Lwarrenwiki (talk) 17:31, 21 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Adolf Eichmann. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
If you are engaged in an article content dispute with another editor, please discuss the matter with the editor at their talk page, or the article's talk page, and seek consensus with them. Alternatively, you can read Wikipedia's dispute resolution page, and ask for independent help at one of the relevant notice boards.
If you are engaged in any other form of dispute that is not covered on the dispute resolution page, please seek assistance at Wikipedia's Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.
Please ensure you are familiar with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, and please do not continue to make edits that appear disruptive. Continual disruptive editing may result in loss of editing privileges. You are edit warring and calling something an easter egg that is not one. Please stop. Legacypac (talk) 00:59, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No I never called anything an "easter egg" you're misquoting me, and trying to creat an straw man. InternetMeme (talk) 01:10, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you don't understand or are acting like an idiot. Either way - Stop it. Legacypac (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello InternetMeme. I've seen you've been making a lot of edits changing piped links. Thanks for your efforts – these smaller improvements can really help usability. There are a few edits where I think you may have gone a bit beyond what is suggested by WP:EASTEREGG, which is how-to-guide, not a policy or guideline. The Mediawiki software includes piped links as a feature because in certain instances it is useful to have the link text not match the article name.
Two particular examples:
Adolf Eichmann, where I don't think the modified link is really any clearer.
Just wanted to make sure you consider that ultimately these are are guidelines intended to make pages more readable generally, and there will be many situations where they aren't really applicable. Imposing on the prose to make links work is generally where I'd start to ignore them. Prodegotalk 01:14, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there,
Thanks for your input! Regarding your first observation about the Adolf Eichmann article: The point was to make things *equally clear* while enhancing the adherence to WP:EASTEREGG.
Regarding your second observation, I think you've got a point. I'll amend the edit.
I've re-read Wikipedia:Piped link, and I think I've assimilated the information pretty thoroughly. What aspect of it do you think I'm getting wrong?
InternetMeme, please note that WP:EASTEREGG is neither a policy nor a guideline, so "adherence" is not a good word to use when describing your efforts, or a good way to think about it. I suggest that you choose your battles more carefully than you have in this case. Cullen328Let's discuss it 02:02, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, but WP:EASTEREGG is still far preferable to letting Wikipedia degenerate into a kind of disjointed arbitrarily-linked tangle along the lines of TV Tropes.
So I think it's best to follow WP:EASTEREGG unless there's a good reason to do otherwise. In the cases of my edits, nobody has provided a concrete reason to word things differently.
Concrete reason - the change makes the page harder to understand and has no benefits. It was not an EasterEgg. Now please agree to my offer at 3RR and quick because I foresee a block coming your way otherwise. Legacypac (talk) 02:20, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty dumb to assume that no one else has read WP:EASTEREGG or to suggest that we mean a dyed chicken egg when typing "easter egg" in this discussion. Legacypac (talk) 02:38, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]
If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.
After edit warring at Adolph Eichmann and being reported for it, you then proceeded to edit war at Controversial Reddit communities. That was a really bad idea and your behaviour shows that you are prepared to edit war whenever you want. That behavior is not allowed here, so abandon it now. Cullen328Let's discuss it 04:01, 31 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, InternetMeme. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 16:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, as you did to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles), you will be blocked from editing. From discussions on propofol article you know full well that off-label use is a specific designation of use within medicine, i.e. prescribing outside of guidelines etc. Please stop your POV vandalising and editing warring of highly important guidance articles on wikipedia. Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Apostrophe. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. It is a good idea to always use the "Show preview" button to check the results of your edits. We all make mistakes and preview is a good way to prevent saving such mistakes for all to see! —Coroboy (talk) 03:17, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "InternetMeme", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you.
I think this is neccesary because your username may appear to be slightly misleading. Thanks!
(Kevin12xd (talk) 22:04, 17 October 2012 (UTC))
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Adolf Eichmann. Your edits appear to be disruptive and have been or will be reverted.
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. The thread is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:InternetMeme reported by User:Legacypac (Result: ). Thank you. Legacypac (talk) 01:24, 31 March 2018 (UTC)