User talk:Nydas
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
If you leave a message here, I will normally respond here as well, unless you request otherwise.
Contents |
[edit] Welcome
Hello, Nydas, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you very much for your contributions so far. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: *The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Editing tutorial
- Picture tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Naming conventions
- Manual of Style You might also want to
consider changing your username before you get too invested in your current one. Although you are allowed to use just about any name, many Wikipedians encourage others to use real names. I would suggest that you do this. I can certainly understand that you might be uncomfortable using your real name online, but, in this case, I recommend that you choose an alias that resembles a real name. For instance, my name is Nat Krause, but I could just as well have a username such as "Eli Miller" or "Abe Sokolov". If you are choosing a pseudonym, please do not use the names of famous people or fictional characters. An obscure literary reference is probably all right. As always, please avoid anything that could be considered offensive or inappropriate. Note that, on Wikipedia, you can use spaces and capital letters; for instance, "T. K. Truong" is possible, rather than simply "tktruong". I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! - Nat Krause(Talk!) 08:34, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind welcome. I have actually been visiting Wikipedia for many years, but have only recently registered. As for changing my username, I'll take it into consideration.--Nydas 17:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- Cool, thanks! - Nat Krause(Talk!) 21:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks for your vigilance on Income tax in the United States
Dear editor: Thanks for pointing out the problems in the article on "Income tax in the United States." The problem apparently resulted from a series of edits including an enormous text dump by a new user on 7 May 2006 -- an apparent copyright violation as well as violations of Verfiability and Neutral Point of View. The new user even identified his text dump as a "research report" or words to that effect. I reverted the edits. On a regular basis, Wikipedia gets very similar material dumped into various articles on taxation. Thanks for your vigilance. Yours, Famspear 18:56, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
- No problem, glad to help.--Nydas 19:39, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Reverend John Thomson
Hi Nydas, thanks for your message about the Rev. It's funny how these things work sometimes, but when I arrived at the Jock Tamson's Bairns AfD page, what stood out for me was all the great research you had done, flagging up the Rev in the process ... an article crying out to be created. As you say, all's well that ends well, and another jigsaw piece is placed. There's plenty more material in there to be exploited such as the link to curling, and the Jock Tamson's Bairns article needs to be expanded with more information on the source, the link to the Rev and cross references. Keep up the good work. --Cactus.man ✍ 19:18, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
- Nydas, just saw your "All's well that ends well" thoughts on Cactus Man's page and wanted to agree. It's amazing how these AfD discussions can lead to more research and general sharpening up of people's thoughts on "messy" topics. If I ever have the courage to nominate something for the AfD page, I'll have to remember it's worth doing whether or not people agree with me. And the article on JT is indeed a bonus. --HJMG 08:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] AfD
Hi Nydas, long story, see here. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] The Black Book (novel)
Good work! --Guinnog 19:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks. I re-read it, so I thought I'd give it a go. The number of plot points and supporting characters is... formidable. --Nydas 19:12, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
- And even more good work! I changed the link away from SNP; I don't think that was alleged in the book! --Guinnog 17:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Vanderhyde says "This was in the 1950s, an offshoot of the National Party." - I suppose this might be open to interpretation. In Mortal Causes, however, it is distinctly described as a splinter group of the SNP in chapter 10. --Nydas 19:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Then I do stand corrected; although the SNP of the 50s was a lot different from todays one I think! If it's referenced as you say in the book, I have no problem with you reinserting it. Actually, SoS has a lot more links with Ulster Loyalists, doesn't it? Or am I getting my books mixed up? --Guinnog 19:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- It does seem odd that a group of extreme Scottish nationalists would have links with Loyalists. After rereading both books, however, it's my opinion that SaS wanted to create a 'Greater Scotland' including Ulster - Dalriada. Although this is far from verifiable and certainly won't go into the articles.--Nydas 19:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Then I do stand corrected; although the SNP of the 50s was a lot different from todays one I think! If it's referenced as you say in the book, I have no problem with you reinserting it. Actually, SoS has a lot more links with Ulster Loyalists, doesn't it? Or am I getting my books mixed up? --Guinnog 19:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- Vanderhyde says "This was in the 1950s, an offshoot of the National Party." - I suppose this might be open to interpretation. In Mortal Causes, however, it is distinctly described as a splinter group of the SNP in chapter 10. --Nydas 19:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- And even more good work! I changed the link away from SNP; I don't think that was alleged in the book! --Guinnog 17:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hey Nydas
I see you've decided to start being rude. OK, your choice. It'll be fun. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 14:31, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- For the dispute, see Talk:Scottish people ('The extreme south-east'). --Nydas 14:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Your coment
Your coment was struck through as It added no value to the discussion and did not answer any direct question. This Is not a place to try and be funny It Is a serious debate about a page not a comic store.--Lucy-marie 14:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Nominators don't own their deletion discussions. It's as simple as that.--Nydas 14:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- I am not claiming to own the deletions just to keep the crap off the page and maintian a professional tone to the discussions.--Lucy-marie 14:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I will be reporting your behaviour to an admin. It is completely unacceptable to delete comments you don't like. --Nydas 15:11, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
-
[edit] Personal computer game
Hello, and thanks for your comments at the talk page for Personal computer game. I feel confident that I can deal with all of the issue that you raised, with the exception of the shift from MS DOS to Windows in the nineties, since I've been a Mac user all my life (and was only six or seven at the time).
Would you be able to add some information on the shift to the article? If you can at least put some skeleton information in place, I'd be able to fill it out later - but I'm too inexperienced to work with nothing.
Any help would be greatly appreciated. :) Daveydweeb (chat/patch) 22:24, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Wilcox-McCandlish law
I have restored this article which you nominated for deletion following a reasonable objection raised by the primary author. However I have relisted it at AFD in an attempt to reach a consensus. You may like to give your opinion. Cheers, Yomanganitalk 11:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Hello Again
So, getting right to business: The Metroidvania article.
I've realized, with your own proddings and that of others, that the article did indeed have a lot of OR. While I could argue that many of the things I'd written were indeed true and accurate, in my haste to defend the article I'd forgotten that Wikipedia doesn't necessarily document those things which are true, but those things which are verifiable. While no doubt I could draw from a thousand different sources to eventually cobble together the reputable opinion to support my writing I do realize now that it was 'my' writing.
As such, I've mercilessly trimmed the article. I think it's actually at about one third of the size.
If you've got the time and wouldn't mind, could you possibly go over the article and give me some insight into possible improvements I could make? I would like to see it improve but I also recognize that my job is not to do the research, but to chronicle the research of others.
Thanks, Lankybugger 23:36, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
- Replied on Talk:Metroidvania.--Nydas(Talk) 10:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)