User talk:Consequentially

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

NOTICE: IF YOU START A NEW TOPIC ON THIS TALK PAGE, I WILL RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTION OR COMMENT HERE. PLEASE ADD THIS PAGE TO YOUR WATCHLIST IF YOU WISH TO SEE MY RESPONSES. THIS HELPS FUTURE READERS KEEP THINGS IN CONTEXT, AND INCREASE THE LONGEVITY OF MY CLICKING FINGER.

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Hello, Consequentially, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Thanks for dropping a note at Wikipedia:New user log. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, add a question to the Village pump, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

A note on process: Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome!     —ERcheck @ 13:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry

Aaron, before you set about writing an article on something that you really thought already should have had an article, you should check to make sure you were spelling it correctly.

You created dimethly sulfoxide; however, dimethyl sulfoxide already exists and goes into quite some detail. I've incorporated the content from yours into the main article and converted yours into a redirect as a not-implausible spelling.

No harm done; this is just so you don't waste the effort next time. DS 02:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ralf Hotchkiss

Hello. Unfortunately there is no grounds for immediate removal of advertising and nn websites and businesses, so we'll have to put up with it for 5 days until the prod expires, or if someone (the author) contests it, bring it to Afd and knock it off (5days also). Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC).

Well, in January when I first tried AfDs, I did the opposite and tried to slow-delete everything and got a bit of attention for listing obscene attack pages at AfD. Anyway, the Ralf Hotchkiss page has been disputed, so I have had to submit it to AfD. Regards, ßlηguγΣη | Have your say!!! - review me 04:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Queen

Thanks for the response on the Queen page. I too am fairly new to editing Wikipedia - less than a month. I know it's difficult to know how bold to be - and we're both still learning! Your edits to "Queen" at least made me go back and tidy up all the various "Queen" & "Queens" disambig. pages and hopefully add a bit more consistency and cross-referencing. I think the joint result of what we've both done is better than what was there before. Truth be known, I only learnt some of the things I mention because I went off and looked them up after seeing your edits, to check whether my gut instinct was right! So thanks for making me do that! TrevorD 11:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Can Someone With Experience Help Me Out Here?

While perusing the WP:MEA I came across a request for Ozark-St. Francis National Forest. Wikipedia has articles on Ozark National Forest and St. Francis National Forest, which, according to the US Parks website are the two component forests of Ozark-St. Francis. To be technically correct, I feel Wikipedia should have the article on Ozark-St. Francis as a whole, not its two components. Furthermore, both Ozark National Forest and St. Francis National Forest are small enough to be comfortably combined into one article.

That said, I have absolutely no idea how to go about merging the two into one article. I get the technical side of it from the merging tutorials, but is there any official policy for dealing with this kind of thing? Any help would be appreciated.

The I would go about it is:
  1. Make sure it's a good idea (maybe ask on a talk page, or just be confident that the change would be unopposed)
  2. Move the more substantial article to the new location. In this case, move Ozark National Forest to Ozark-St. Francis National Forest. We move, using the "move" button, so that the history remains with the article to maintain GFDL licensing req's.
  3. Copy and paste the info from St. Francis National Forest into Ozark-St. Francis National Forest, and redirect St. Francis National Forest to Ozark-St. Francis National Forest.
--Commander Keane 00:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Consequentially! My advice is to be BOLD. Your reasoning is sound, so i would just go ahead and merge both articles into one new one as described. You may also leave a note on the articles talk pages, explaining your reasoning, especially if there are other editors who have recently edited the articles. Should you need any specific assistance in doing this, let me know! Rockpocket (talk) 01:03, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
You are welcome. Its a very nice article, by the way - good work. I know what you mean re: WP:BOLD - it took me a while to pluck up the courage to take the plunge without reassurance also. With the sensible reasoning you show above, however, you should have no problems going with your gut in future. Rockpocket (talk) 03:57, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ozark-St. Francis National Forest

Hi! You should check out Wikipedia:WikiProject Protected areas. It's a whole big project on people who have done this before. When you're editing articles, look for a well written example of what you're trying to write such as the Featured articles at the bottom of the page. For your example, I'd recommend looking at the Shoshone National Forest article.

One of the things you'll notice is that there are infoboxes in the upper right corner of each page. This provides a quick reference for the page (as well as letting other Protected Areas project members know that the page has been worked on by another project member). If you don't know particular numbers, just leave them blank and the system will omit them.

Image:US grid.png is helpful in placing the location dot. If the forest is too big for the dot, put the dot on the headquarters.

I'll be glad to answer any other questions you may have. I've worked with MONGO on several of the National Wildlife Refuges; he's an even better source then I am! ClarkBHM 04:16, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject Iowa

Hello, I noticed that you edited an article related to, or expressed interest in Iowa. Therefore, I was wondering if you would be interested in joining (proposed) WikiProject Iowa? If so, please add your name to "Interested Wikipedians" at Proposed WikiProject Iowa --Tim4christ17 03:41, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Joshgiving Day

Mind if I change that speedy to a prod since it's in userspace now? I moved it to userspace rather then speedy it in an attempt to avoid biting the newbie. I was going to prod it anyway so that it'd be removed in 5 or so days, giving the creator a chance to save it elsewhere if he wanted. Anyway, do you mind? ~ ONUnicorn (Talk / Contribs) 04:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to the Deus Ex page

Hey, I just wanted to say thanks for all the work you have done on the Deus Ex page, especially in the Plot and Gameplay segments. It has vastly improved since you started adding to it. Keep up the good work. -- Grandpafootsoldier 01:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, Deus Ex is one of my favorites as well, I would have started on the plot, but I've been kind of busy (and to tell you the truth, I had kind of forgotten some of the plot details) ;)
I shouldn't worry too much about the length of the plot summary as Deus Ex is an unusually long game (by today's standards at least) with a very complicated plot. To compare, for instance the Half-Life 2#Story section is also quite long and that game's set up is quite simple in comparison.
Also, if you have any more suggestions about anything that should be done (aside from completion of the summary) before this article can be re-nominated for GA standing let me know. Thanks again. -- Grandpafootsoldier 01:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I totally know what your talking about with Firefox tabs, I use them pretty much whenever I edit on Wikipedia.
As far as images go, though I do have a copy of Deus Ex, and could do the whole sight-seeing play through to get images, it would take quite a while, and I don't really know if I have the time right now. Another solution might be to post a request for pics on some of the Deus Ex fan forums (like PlanetDeusEx or TTLG.com), though you would have to pretty specific on what you want, otherwise you'll get a bunch of crap images.
I'm in the same boat as you as far as the Multi-play and Mods sections are concerned. Though I played the PC version I didn't really dabble in either of them. Again forum requests for help might work for that (though admittedly its not very likely).
I agree with you about the versions section, but might be as simple as renaming it to something that encompases the topic better, or just puting some of the aspects in their own section by itself. There does seem to me to be a few too many sub-sections anyway.
Though that might well work, I'm not quite sure about moving those elements you mentioned into the "Settings" section as it already flows quite well into the plot summary, and the addition of those aspects would be kind of an abrubt explanation of slightly out of context elements. They are quite important sections, however, and I don't think putting them in their own section would be completely out of the question, perhaps called "Narration" or "Composition" or something like that.
Also it might be a good idea to move the "Open-ended Gameplay" section into the beginning "Gameplay" intro. Thanks for your insight. -- Grandpafootsoldier 03:07, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've done a bit of reorganization. Feel free to change my changes, but let me know what you think. -- Grandpafootsoldier 06:09, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alterations to Gameplay section

I do agree the guy does get kind of wordy with his additions (I haven't seen all of what he has added to the plot summary section because Wikipedia isn't working to well for me right now). However, there are are a couple small things he has added which I think are worth mentioning, specifically how the game rationalizes the nano-tech "power-up" elements with reality (though that probably should be moved to the "Role-Playing elements" section), and how both a stealthy and "tank" manner of gameplay are possible with the different skill sets. I think the best course is to shorten/reword what he has written as much as possible while still keeping any significant additions. That's just my two cents. -- Grandpafootsoldier 00:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Versalife

Why did you get rid of Versalife from the Deus Ex Template. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Exiledone (talk • contribs) .

VersaLife has been merged to Deus Ex, and is now a redirect to the Deus Ex page. Leaving it on the template would only lead to confusion, as anyone clicking it would end up back at Deus Ex and not necessarily know why. Consequentially 01:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah but why the hell did you merge the article into the main page.? Exiledone 13:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Any discussion of VersaLife is directly related to DeusEx -- the only reason that word exists in the computer gaming world is because it was in this game. The article was nothing more than plot summary, explaining how the company interacted with the story, and since that information is now presented in-context within the main article, a sub-page about the corporation was unneccesary and redundant. Consequentially 02:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My views on the issues with A Man In Black

Since you are a relative newcomer to the ongoing drama on the Deus Ex page, and from your replies on the talk page you seem to be a very level-headed, fair, and articulate person, I thought you might be someone good to talk with about this issue.

Your statement on the talk page about "two ships passing each other at night" is more right then you may know, as it has seemingly been AMIB vs. every other editor on the Deus Ex related page for at least the past six months, with issue after issue growing into full-blown yelling matches.

Now, taking my experiences with him out of this, and looking at his edits from a completely outside perspective, I would completely agree with you. All (or nearly all) of what he has done has probably been completely within the rules, and can be seen as attempts to make Wikipedia more encyclopedic, etc.

However, it is the manner which he goes about doing this which has been so erksome to me, and many others (as someone said on the talkpage the "how" versus the "why"). As far as I can tell, he has not once actually added anything to the main Deus Ex page, or any of its sub-pages. Not one bit of text, picture, citation, nothing. All he has done is either add an ever increasing number of criticism tags (some of which I believe he has created himself for whatever purpose he needs), or just deleted whole swaths of writing, or even entire articles which don't exactly conform with Wikipedia's (or maybe just his) standards in every minute detail at that particular time. This is especially annoying as he also seems to hold a double standard with this behavior, as he never provides this treatment to other game page sections with a simillar article situation (such as Final Fantasy, or Half-Life 2) and has even cited some of them as examples to be followed. As silly as it sounds, it is almost as if AMIB has a personal vendetta against this particular game, and is using all the rules of Wikipedia he can muster to make adding to it as hard as possible.

It is this abrasive, delete and merge as much as possible, manner of business which is the main source of the never-ending conflict on these pages, in my opinion. Sorry, to take so long with this, but this has been bugging me for months and your opinion would be greatly valued. Thanks. -- Grandpafootsoldier 09:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] by-nc-sa

You do realize that this license is fundamentally incompatible with wikipedia, right?--Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 17:36, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

How so? I know I don't have the best understanding of copyleft licensing, but I didn't see anything that would make the two conflict. Consequentially 17:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Noncommercial sharealike means it's only usable noncommercially. The whole point of wikipedia is that our content can be used by anyone, nonprofit or commercial. People like answers.com, who mirror our content and put ads on the side, are encouraged, because they get it out to more people. Same for something like selling a CD of great articles or a poster of a great image. You agree to license under the GFDL by clicking save page anyway. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah. I didn't interpret the non-commericial provision in that way, because Answers.com and other mirrors don't charge their users a fee to access the information. It appears to be a non-issue, though. If all Wikipedia content is licensed under GFDL by default, the inclusion of public domain and Creative Commons userboxes seems asinine.Consequentially 19:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Images aren't, just textual content, which is why we have image copyright tags. The dual-license userboxes are so your content can be reused on projects like wikitravel and wikinews, that use a different license. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 20:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I see. Thanks for clarifying that for me. I suppose I'll pull down the userbox, and find something else to stuff up there. Consequentially 20:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good...another one is strong in the Dark Side

If anything I say is quoteworthy, feel free to use. In fact, feel free to copy anything you like from my pages. I'm still developing my screeds on Deletionism -- I start by getting all my vitriol out and then slowly calming them down until I'm left with something (semi) professsional. I'm glad people seem to like my firebrand-style attitude. Happy editing, and man, I'm behind on wikifying. --Elaragirl ||||||Talk|Count 04:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Of all the tasks I've dabbled with, Project Wikify has to be the most depressing. NewPage patrol brings a similar amount of crap, but most of it is blantantly worthless. The pages that end up in the queue for wikification are subtly worthless. I can't blame anyone who gets fed up with that work. Thanks for letting me use your quotes. I'll be sure to share any insightful deletionist rants with you. I'm weighing two different slogans so far; "If it might be notable tomorrow, I'm deleting it today," and "Keep and Expand: Slightly less ignorant than 'I'll just pull out'." Consequentially 19:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
Sometimes, wikification shows you stuff that is great, just not formatted correctly, too, though. I must admit NPP exposes you to some of the most mind-damaging shit in the Wikipedia....but hey. Thems the breaks. --Elaragirl ||||||Talk|Count 19:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
That's true. I've decided WP:WIKIFY is my favorite way to learn new things on the encyclopedia. But I don't think I've ever found an article who's only problem was formatting. Unsourced, innacurate information is pretty pervasive on even the most promising of wikify-taged articles, and that's just as damaging to our efforts as Poke-stubs, schoolcruft, and so on. Still, we're both right on one thing: it's orders of magnitude better than NPP. Consequentially 20:43, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thought you'd like to know

My closing of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CAT1-X Hyperion Gundam series is up for review at DRV. —Doug Bell talk 21:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Eww. I was afraid that this would happen, but things appear to be going well enough so far. That was anything but an easy close, and I think you did an excellent job considering the wide variety of arguments, sources, and opinions. Consequentially 02:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Canon fancruft vs non-canon fancruft?

I was re-reading that Star Trek JAG AfD when I came across this post of yours:

Pft. A quick Google search for "'Starfleet Judge Advocate General' -wikipedia" gives 63 hits. The first page gives us
...
canon fancruft,
non-canon fancruft
...
Consequentially 00:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm just curious what terminology you're using to define those two links. "Canon" is material that is officially presented within the work of fiction, so I don't see how you could have such a thing as "canon fancruft". If someone's making up junk, it's nowhere near canon.

The "artificial brain" page is interesting - due to my uni research, I'm especially intrigued by the critical thinking presented in the "Moral and Ethical Considerations" section. My personal interests aside, if something like that appeared in a reputable publication, fully referenced, it'd make an excellent reference for a Wikipedia article. In Wikipedia terms, of course, it's OR, and can't be posted here directly. But it's quality is too high to be called fancruft.

The "ranks" page, OTOH, is trash. I could have pulled better ranks out of my... what the hell are Gravity Scouts and Adjutant Brigadiers? And half the ranks insignia that are copied from the show are mislabelled - e.g. it's named all the ST:VOY Maquis ranks as "Rangers & Marines". It makes up its own stuff, directly contradicts canon, and should never even be used as a reference. It is, in the end, a truly excellent example of fancruft. Gravity Scout Quack, signing off. :-p Quack 688 09:54, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You know . . I'm not quite sure what I was thinking there. Looking at it now, I'm certain I wouldn't label that as canon on purpose. Either I copied the wrong link to the wrong section, or I should drink less when arguing about Star Trek. If you're looking for deeper meaning, I'm afraid I can't help you much. That one's pretty much just a goof. Consequentially 04:53, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
"I should drink less when arguing about Star Trek"
So... do you grab the bottle before or after Star Trek articles appear on your screen? LOL, just kidding! I guess the point I just wanted to make is that there's a wide range of independent material out there - some could conceivably be used as a critical reference if properly sourced and published, while some is pure and utter fancruft. Cheers for your frankness - put a beer on my tab. Quack 688 16:39, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh before, for sure. Some people take a Wikibreak when the stress builds, some people take a shot. It doesn't really matter which article I'm working on or arguing about, when the going gets tought, the tough get a highball. I understand your point, and even agree with it in certain circumstances. Consequentially 19:25, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Oh man, if I started downing shots every time I got frustrated here, I'd probably wake up with a five-star hangover and a lifetime ban. Don't tempt me :-p Quack 688 23:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/n/User_talk%7EConsequentially_2751.html"