This is an archive of past discussions with User:McDoobAU93. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Wikiproject discussion
Just an FYI that a discussion is underway at WikiProject Amusement Parks, and your feedback would be appreciated. Thought I'd drop you a line in case the page isn't on your watchlist. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:56, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
WikiProject Amusement Parks Article Clean-Up
Recently, an issue has been brought up regarding the notability of many articles within WikiProject Amusement Parks. As a result, a page has been created regarding this issue as well as a possible solution (which will be on-going). In a nut-shell, certain articles will be picked to be reviewed in each stage and the WikiProject members (you) will decide if the article should be deleted or kept based on Wikipedia's notability guidelines.
I hoping this will work and if it doesn't, oh well...I tried.
Why are you removing it? Don't you see? "Gummi Bears", "Talespin", "Mickey Mouse Works", "House of Mouse", "DuckTales", and even "Jungle Cubs" are not aimed at preschoolers! --68.170.223.134 (talk) 22:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not saying it is or it isn't for preschoolers. Removing the ratings solves the problem of suggesting who the target audiences might be. Again, I encourage you to read this section for additional details. --McDoobAU9302:15, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Good-faith in this case refers to that I believe you meant well with your edit, but even so the edit was inappropriate. As I said in my edit summary, there's no citation of this reference, no mention of why this particular reference is notable and no reference stating that the producers actually intended to mimic Angry Birds. Without any of that, we're left with your personal opinion that that is what Annoying Orange was trying to parody. --McDoobAU9315:07, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
I think you think "good faith" means something other than what it does. It means that I don't think you were doing anything to harm the article, but that said the edit was not appropriate and was thus removed. Please read this section for more information. --McDoobAU9316:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
You seem to be adding template:linkrot to pages where this is not applicable, such as Charles Leno, Jr., while not adding that tag to pages where it would be helpful to do so, such as Giovanni Abate.
Your point is taken, but I do request you read this section before determining whether this notification is truly appropriate. To save some time, here's the key statement: "A full citation, in contrast, gives the author, title, publisher, publication, and date of the work. So, if the web site address changes, the additional information may assist in finding the new location. If the source is no longer available on the internet, then the additional information may assist in tracking down the source if it is in printed form, microfiche archives, article/paper collections, published as books, and the like." If you'll notice, these articles' citations are just URLs, which are indeed subject to link rot. Thanks. --McDoobAU9313:34, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Euhm, not to be pedantic, but the doc for the template has a definition of what constitutes bare URLs. Happy editing. Superp (talk) 22:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
After looking at the doc again, and looking at the cited article again, I honestly don't know what you're on about. From WP:BAREURLS:
"A bare URL is a URL cited as a reference for some information in an article without any accompanying information about the linked page. In other words, it is just the text out of the URL bar of your browser copied and pasted into the Wiki text, inserted between the <ref> tags or simply provided as an external link, without title, author, date, or any of the usual information necessary for a bibliographic citation."
Three of the four referenced links in the Charles Leno, Jr. article meet this criteria, thus the tag is correct since the article does indeed contain bare URLs. The tag does not say "all" the references are bare, although frankly that fourth one still needs more info to prevent link rot.
Apparently you can't accept a good-faith recommendation that something in the article needs to be fixed for the reason cited in the tag. If you feel the tags are in error, be bold and remove them, then, as you apparently did. I saw something wrong and I tagged it. If you feel it's incorrect or unwarranted, remove the tag and move along. Frankly, and constructively, you're reading the document wrong, and I have retagged the article accordingly along with an edit summary backing up my reasoning. --McDoobAU9323:44, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Well, no, none of those refs are bare URLs. Just trying to help you understand the tag you are using. Never mind, stay cool. Superp (talk) 07:03, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
How about instead of saying they aren't, how about proving they aren't? Explain how you're interpreting the policy. I've explained my side, and now it's your turn. --McDoobAU9312:55, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
Glad you ask! The four refs (no, not the four refs) at Charles Leno, Jr. (which, incidentally, I never edited before), all contain a title or other description. The docs in my view are pretty clear:
A bare URL is a URL cited as a reference for some information in an article without any accompanying information about the linked page. In other words, it is just the text out of the URL bar of your browser copied and pasted into the Wiki text, inserted between the <ref> tags or simply provided as an external link, without title, author, date, or any of the usual information necessary for a bibliographic citation.
Type 2 refs may sometimes need improvement, but should not be tagged as if they were type 1, just as you do not call the fire brigade when you want your windows cleaned (I hope). I think I understand what you are trying to flag: these are not canonical type 4 refs yet. But they are not bare URLs. Peace and happy editing. Superp (talk) 17:00, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
I did review the page again and saw what you were saying and am making better use of it going forward. Thanks for your input! --McDoobAU9319:17, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Glad we settled this in a productive way. Thanks for the star! Next time you do the smacking. Cheers! Superp (talk) 19:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Hey McDoobAU93, thanks for reviewing Marxent Labs! I actually have a couple of small requests that I posted at Talk:Marxent Labs. Although they're both small edits, I won't make any of the changes myself because I have a financial conflict of interest in regards to the article, as Marxent Labs hired me to draft it. If you have time, do you think you could take a look and, if the edits look okay, go ahead an implement them? Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 14:54, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
I am extremely suprised that you feel that this program is not notable. Con you please explain your reasoning to me? Nyth83 (talk) 13:48, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I'd be glad to. The concern I have is that there's very little information here suggesting why this speakers series is notable enough for an encyclopedia entry. It certainly exists, but the question is "What makes this one important?". Has anyone made significant speeches there (first major speech, last speech in public life, etc.)? I'm not saying the article should be deleted, but that it needs additional information to explain why it's important enough to merit an article. If it's as notable as your "extreme surprise" suggests, you should have no trouble finding additional sourcing, especially since just about every entry is from a single newspaper (not a single article, though). If you feel the tag is incorrect, feel free to remove it. My feelings won't be hurt; just thought the article could use more discussion of its notability. --McDoobAU9313:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
OK. I just spent a little time reading the article on notability and I can understand your concerns. My original interest in the subject came from the fact that the series has run continuously for 70 years and the fact that so many notable people and groups have all appeared there. 400 year old choirs, former heads of state, world famous explorers, etc, etc. The problem I am having with documenting the subject is that almost all the references are about the appearances and not the venue itself. I found a short video about the series from a Milwaukee TV station that was originally broadcasted over the air in 2012 that I would like to use as a reference but it is on their youtube channel so I don't know the proper way to cite that. I have some other independant contemporary web references that may be useful but again they tend to treat the subject as common knowledge. Nyth83 (talk) 15:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I did some of my own research regarding citing video, and it could be cited but copyright becomes a concern. As to the independent references, if it shows coverage, that shows notability. The visiting performers do have some notability and would (in a sense) lend it to the series, since they wouldn't go to just "any" series. I'd say be bold and add what you can find, as it's only going to help this start-up article become even better. --McDoobAU9315:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I can certainly do that. What's the article about? Have you started drafting it somewhere, such as your sandbox? --McDoobAU9318:52, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Well that's the thing, I don't know. I saw that you decided to be bold and make an article from a red link and I thought that it'd be fun to do the same. I'm trying to find a red link about something I'm familiar with.MirrorFreak18:59, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
Good idea. For what it's worth, it took me a while before I started an article. What would probably be better is working to improve articles that already exist by adding content and sources that support existing content. That's usually a lot easier than starting up a whole new article, but it can certainly be done. What you can do is start one in your sandbox; you should find a link for it up next to your username in the upper right corner when you're logged in. Then you can work on it without worrying about other users coming in and changing it; technically it is editable, but they have to find it first. --McDoobAU9319:11, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
As I suggested before, let's try an easier step first. How about finding an article in a subject with which you're familiar and expanding it? Adding something that isn't in the article already. Again, starting articles takes a fair amount of research and effort, so it would probably be a better place to start to improve an existing article. --McDoobAU9315:53, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
I certainly can! I found your edit at Parental controls to see what you did. First of all, you did good by taking out an HTML comment and replaced it with a new image. To move the image to the right, you simply add in the word "right" as another variable in the file name. In the same way you add pipes (this character -> |) to separate properties in a wikilink, you would add "|right|" (no quotes) to move the image. If you look at the text you removed, you'll see the previous image was in the desired spot with that same parameter in place. Try that and let me know if it works! --McDoobAU9313:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Liking this idea of letting questions flow into lessons, here's today's quest. As you can see, pictures do help explain the subject matter of the articles. However, we can't use just any picture. Wikipedia has policies regarding images, especially those that may be owned by someone else. In the case of those images, they can still be used as long as we have a proper claim of fair use. Below is a list of content types. Using the criteria for fair use, I want you to tell me if the picture is allowed, allowed under fair use, or not allowed at all.
A picture of a professional baseball player you took at a game you attended
A music video for a song
A screenshot from a computer program in an article about that program that already has images
A picture of a statue in an article about statues in general
A 15-second clip of a five-minute-long song in an article about the song
A picture of the moon taken by NASA
Artwork of a newly-announced roller coaster
A still picture from a silent movie made in 1918
Again, leave your answers below, numbered with your responses. Have fun!
Yes you can include a picture of a basketball player you took. You can do this because it is your own work.
This one depends on whether you use the whole music video or if you just use a snippet. According to the criteria for fair use. You may use a small clip (not exceeding ten percent of the video) to identify the band or singer.
Yes. Although Wikipedia recommends not going overboard with the amount of pictures presented in an article.
Yes you can use the statue picture as long as the owner gave permission for the image to be used freely.
Yes you can use the 15-second clip as it does not exceed 10% of the video
You can use the picture of the moon as long as NASA gave permission for the picture to be used freely.
No I don't think that you can use the artwork.
Yes you can use the still picture. A movie from 1918 is considered to be historical.
Y That is right. It's your work, and you're giving it to Wikipedia to use.
N Videos are almost always copyrighted, so we leave it to the users to find this on their own (there are tons of video services that are free that show full-length music videos). The criteria you mention is for audio clips ... more on that in a bit.
Y Basically right. The general consensus is no more than one screenshot per article, but exceptions do exist. You do mention keeping it to a minimum, which is correct.
YN Technically, newer works are copyrighted, even if you take the photograph, so the image would have a fair-use criteria to be used in an article on the statue. However, using the copyrighted work as a generic representation of a statue isn't permitted. That said, if the copyright holder (the artist) gives permission and that permission is documented, it would be allowed, although even then a generic free image would be better. So half and half here ...
Y Correct. Since it's less than 10% of the overall length, it's allowed, provided the rest of the criteria are met.
N You're right, but for the wrong reason. NASA is a government agency, and thus its works are public domain, meaning no permission is required. However, the image must come directly from NASA itself (such as from their website).
N Actually you can. Fair-use criteria allows for works published as part of a press kit to be used. However, when the ride is built and operational, it's expected that a picture taken by an individual would replace the copyrighted work.
Y Yes, because a work that old is considered to be public domain.
This one was a bit harder, I know, but don't sweat it. It's OK to make mistakes, since you learn more from them than you do from getting everything right. In my view, doing your homework and learning from it is more important. --McDoobAU9315:35, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Expanding articles
Hey McDoob(If its alright if I call you that) I took your advice and expanded on this weeks article for improvement, Jazz band. I already got two thanks from other editors. Check out my work!MirrorFreak15:41, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
That abbreviation is just fine with me. As to your edits, I like what you're adding. Only tweak I'd make is to make sure the instrument name is wikilinked so readers who may have never heard of a clarinet can look it up. That's an important tenet about how we should be writing articles: assume the reader has no idea what you're talking about and is looking to you to learn what the subject is. In fact, here's your next quest ... there's nothing to grade or score here, so this is something I'm more interested in you seeing than actually doing (unless you want to be bold and try it). Get a look at Simple Wikipedia, which is in English but with a very restricted vocabulary. It's mainly for users who are just learning English (you may have thought it hard in school, but imagine trying to learn it as a second language!). It's a challenge to write articles there since your word choice is very limited. Compare articles on both (for example, one on the clarinet) and see the differences. --McDoobAU9315:54, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I didn't have to make wikilinks, there was already links in the beginning of the article. I made anyways though.MirrorFreak19:19, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia Simple
Hey McDoob. So I went to have a look at the Simple Wikipedia, and I had to make an account there to edit without it showing as an IP address. What do I do to let people know that I'm not a Sockpuppet?MirrorFreak19:29, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
You can use what's called a "unified login". That means your English Wikipedia account login will become your login on all other Wikimedia Foundation sites. For information, go here. Incidentally, sockpuppetry really applies on a single project and if you're using them for unconstructive activities. For example, if you were using MirrorFreak to do your normal edits and FreakMirror to vandalize the project for fun, that would be sockpuppetry. Another case that would be sockpuppetry would be when you are discussing a topic as MirrorFreak and then log in as FreakMirror and say how much you agree with MirrorFreak in order to make it appear that others support your stance. However, if you're using MirrorFreak on English Wikipedia and FreakMirror on Simple Wikipedia, and both are being used constructively, it wouldn't be a problem. All that said, the unified login is what you'd really want. --McDoobAU9319:39, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I did it. I made my username, MirrorFreak a unified account. Is this discussion going to be merged into a quest also?MirrorFreak19:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Not yet ... the whole thing with Simple was about seeing some of the other projects and about how we write for the readers, not for ourselves. I'll have something else soon. :) --McDoobAU9319:51, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
UserPage
Hey McDoob, I was wanting to know whether you would help me make my Userpage more creative. For example, you have a status icon on your userpage and User:Matty.007 User page is fantastic. Could you help me out? Thanks, MirrorFreak13:17, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Just going off wiki for a bit, but I'll reply later. Thanks, Matty.007 13:20, 25 July 2014 (UTC) Probably best to leave to McDoob if (s)he's mentoring. Thanks, Matty.00715:34, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Well, the blue background was originally from Pratya I think, but three or four people have copied it from my userpage (that I know about). If you desire a colour and a font, copy the <div style="background: #9fddf2; padding: 10px; border-top: 3px solid #1F75FE; border-left: 3px solid #1F75FE; border-right: 3px solid #1F75FE; border-bottom: 3px solid #1F75FE; {{border-radius|10px}} 8px; font-size: 100%; font-family:Comic Sans MS; text-align: left;">, the #1A23BC (for example) is a colour, just play around with it and the font if fairly obvious. The navbar, located here, is quite nice as it means I only have to put {{User:Matty.007/Navigation}} and the template appears without being copied and making a mess. That's the major features, though I'm happy to explain any of the smaller bits if you want. One last thing, if you do use a major component from my userpage, please can you add a hidden comment (<!-- Comment -->) saying you got it from me? Thanks, Matty.00715:47, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
re: this
Please add a talk page note or inline citations justifying why you feel there is insufficient documentation. USGS maps are rather authoritative. Otherwise remove the tag and do something useful in the project--like add content. // FrankB15:48, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm going to wave off the obvious lack of assumption of good faith, because it appears you're taking this constructive criticism personally, which is not the way to approach this project. I've compiled a list of the components of the article that are unsourced and would not be proven by a USGS map:
Does the USGS map indicate why this area is "historically important"?
Does the USGS map indicate that "from ca. 1792 on, enabled the earliest mines of the southern Anthracite region at Summit Hill, Pennsylvania to be conveyed to the water transport available on the Lehigh River at what is now Packerton, Pennsylvania"?
Does the USGS map indicate that "A number of early pack mule routes traveled in part along the north faces of the mountain's long ridgeline (12.5 miles (20.1 km)) from Summit Hill and points west"?
Anybody that hangs those hated in-your-face tags unnecessarily isn't much of an editor, nor exercising good faith in my humble opinion, but instead acting contrary to the good name and interests of the project.
Try reading about Jim Thorpe, PA (in the lee of the hill summit), the Lehigh Coal & Navigation Company and the second US railroad which followed those mule paths. Since you have the time to worry about such in a two para article YOU ADD the cites. Only fair, I took the time to write the paras about the mountain and process the map etc. // FrankB05:22, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Adding tags has nothing to do with good faith, nor anything to do with how good an editor someone is, and is a necessary part of wikipedia, to ensure that unsubstantiated factoids are provided with support, or deleted as not having any support.
If you hate them so much, add the references and no-one will add the tags. It is MUCH easier to do this when you are actually compiling your references (assuming you have any) and writing rather than after the fact, and someone else who comes along probably won't have the same references available, so it is incumbent on the original editor to do so. Wikipedia policy holds that if you add it, be prepared to support it or it can be deleted.NiD.29 (talk) 05:55, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Robin Hood (1973 film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Farthing. 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.
Hai I am Duryodanan.
Don't you remember me?
I asked a question at Teahouse.
Pls look on Teahouse Q&A board.
Could you please help me?
I have two doubts.
How can we change our username on Wikipedia?
How can I find my friends who are in Wikipedia?
Can you also help me to create a cool user page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DURYODANAN (talk • contribs) 12:43, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
I am from Kerala,India.
I know Malayalam,English,Spanish,Russian,Tamil and Kannada.
Are these qualities enough to qualify me as your friend?
Bye, my dear friend. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DURYODANAN (talk • contribs) 12:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)
DYK for EA Access
On 13 August 2014, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article EA Access, which you recently created or substantially expanded. The fact was ... that shares of GameStop fell over five percent after the announcement of EA Access? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/EA Access. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, live views, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Hey MirrorFreak, time for your next quest. Today we're going to discuss a major problem here on the project, that of vandalism. Since Wikipedia is the encyclopedia that anyone can edit, a lot of people log on and make changes to articles. Many are constructive, but some are not. However, there's a difference between vandalism (simply wanting to cause trouble) and someone who's making edits that don't fit, but otherwise mean well. This is where one of the biggest tenets of editing comes into play: the assumption of good faith. We need to give editors, especially new ones, the benefit of the doubt. But even that has limits.
Your assignment: below are a list of diffs from random articles across the project that were later reverted. Looking only at the diffs (that is, no selecting "next edit"), I want you to determine if the edit was vandalism or something else. Place the answer just after each link.
So here's my answers (It took so long for me to reply cause I had to get a new computer.)
I'm pretty sure that this one is a good faith edit. YYou're right, it is meant in good faith. The reason it was undone was because it's a rumor, and Wikipedia doesn't deal in rumors or speculation.
I'm not for this one, as the editor was adding a picture.
This ones childish vandalism, The word was already spelled right and someone made it spelled wrong. NThis is where WP:AGF comes in. Yes it was changed, but it also may have been an editing test. If they had done this repeatedly, then yes, it would be vandalism.
I think this one is vandalism? NThis is a good-faith edit for sure. However, these details are assumptions and interpretations of the editor, not backed up by reliable sources.
The edits on this one don't make since. I'm gonna guess vandal. NYou're right that the edits seem to be causing problems. However, on first blush we would assume good faith. However, this particular editor has done this a few times, at which point it does become non-constructive at best, vandalism at worst.
I haven't marked #2 yet, because I want you to look at more than just the changes at the top of the diff. Look at what was actually added and then answer; that may give you a clue as to what I'm looking for. --McDoobAU9315:29, 6 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry for the late response. I do see what you mean. If I ever get into the CVU style of Wikipedia, I'll be sure to look for that. Any new quests for me? I need something to do to keep me busy.MirrorFreak13:54, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I do need to come up with something. Like the last two, it'll probably come to me while I'm editing. Shouldn't be long. :) --McDoobAU9319:02, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
Barnstars
Hey McDoob, I've seen recently that people have created their own barnstars for things, (such as Solaras guestbook barnstar0 Do you know what i'm talking about. I wanted to create my own guestbook and barnstar and was wondering whether you could help out? Thanks,MirrorFreak12:59, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Personally I don't know about creating barnstars, but like you, I've seen others do it and certainly have no objections to it. As with anything one sees on user pages, to me the best way to do that is to ask the person directly. That establishes the camaraderie among editors that really helps the project grow. The VAST majority of editors will gladly respond to a friendly note on their talk page when their schedules on- and off-Wiki permit. If you want, provide a link to the page you're interested in and I'll take a look. --McDoobAU9313:43, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
I made it myself! All I did was go into my sandbox and copy and pasted the template of Solarra's barnstar and mess around with it! I think I might be able to make the guestpage, but I'm pretty sure I'll need your help if your up for it.MirrorFreak22:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey User:McDoobAU93(sorry for cluttering your talk page). I was wondering whether we could do a lesson on hosting at the teahouse(If that's possible.) If not could we do a lesson on formatting? Thanks,MirrorFreak16:22, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
Translator
Hey McDoob! Look at this! go all the way to the bottom of this user's talk page and look at what I did! I was able to a sort-of translator and was able to get the block removed for this User(I think). Turns out Spanish class actually paid off! I'll admit I was a jerk in the beginning though.MirrorFreak13:45, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Very cool! There are actually some userboxes where you can list any languages with which you are familiar. They also allow you to rank your abilities, so you can tell people if you know a little Spanish, or are pretty fluent or if it's your native language. --McDoobAU9313:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
It can be, but I guess I'm trying to determine what the difference is between the two. What is the purpose of a second account for school? --McDoobAU9314:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, when I'm at school and try to use Wikipedia, most of the IP address's there have been blocked because kids think their being funny by vandalizing. So now I have an account that I'd be able to use. MirrorFreak14:39, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Even if an IP address is blocked, users can still sign in if they have accounts. Did you try and log in as your standard account and it would not let you? --McDoobAU9314:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Nevermind about the Barnstar,(I shouldn't ask for them). I retired the other account. Also I signed up the August elimination blitz. It starts this sunday. MirrorFreak15:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
You can simply not use it. You don't need to retire it. There are rules about multiple accounts, and while I don't feel you'd be using this one in an inappropriate way, there's really no need for it.I was writing this and got distracted at work, then saw your most recent comment above, so striking part of it.
Your second point actually brings up something worth discussing ... why we are here.
For many people, like myself, we are here to share knowledge with others. I enjoy writing articles about things with which I am familiar. I also enjoy researching things with which I am not familiar. I've stumbled across articles that needed work and I've improved them after reading up on the subject, even learning a few things in the process. I've started a few articles about individuals that were part of the Tuskegee Airmen simply because I saw their obituaries in the newspaper; I researched their lives and found out there was more about them than just being part of the first African-American air corps. Barnstars and userboxes are cool, but that's not the reason why I edit. So we're going to make this an essay quest ... tell me about why you're here. What attracted you to Wikipedia ... what you hope to accomplish ... do you see yourself still working on Wikipedia articles in a year, in three years? Things like that. There are no points and no scoring. Just seeing how you think. :) --McDoobAU9315:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
Well, If you want the truth. My computer use to have parental controls where I couldn't go to a website without having my parents put in a password to allow to website. So I thought of just using Wikipedia as it is an online encyclopedia. I had thought it'd be cool to make an account so I made one. After I signed up it opened my eyes to what the Wiki really is. It's an online place where people can join together to learn and teach. I hope to accomplish making my own articles and I see myself even still working on articles in 3 or more years. MirrorFreak15:23, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
I'm nominating for this barnstar to be a standard guestbook barnstar. What do you think of it?
"Examples" Guestbook Barnstar
This user signed "Example's guestbook! Be the next to sign!
McDoobAU93 don't do that again and stop editing again and again, Promise? Keep synopsis and other things away okay? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Medjca53 (talk • contribs) 19:52, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Disney, but the Uk version. I assume your american. CAn you adopt me? I need help with citations.EZRASExy (talk) 17:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Please don't post in my talk page again in a threatening manner. If you believe that the manner you were addressed in on a public matter was out of line even though your attitude and remarks were hardly of a different tone, take your problem to a higher authority.
I have a quesiton for you regarding the resolution/FPS part of Forza Horizon 2 Wiki-page..
I dont see any reason to include what FPS or resolution it runs as thats not important!
(Cooki31993 (talk) 21:02, 23 October 2014 (UTC))
You have some valid concerns. You are free to discuss that on the talk page for the article to see if others agree with you. Unless and until consensus says otherwise, the content can stay. --McDoobAU9321:08, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
But why would anyone else decide what info should be in for a specific thing?
Info should be nuetral which it isnt by including something stupid as that part i deleted..?
(Cooki31993 (talk) 21:19, 23 October 2014 (UTC))
Consensus is decided by editing and by discussion. If the content is left in place, it is considered consensus by editing. If an editor restores content you remove, the proper course of action is to go to the talk page and discuss your reasoning, to see if consensus agrees with you. If it does, the content is removed. I'm actually adding to the article a good reason why the frame rate should be there. I'm also curious as to why you think such technical details are "stupid". For the record, I own an Xbox One and Forza Horizon 2, not that that would have any bearing on the article or whose edits are better/worse than those of other users. --McDoobAU9321:26, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
The reason why i found it stupid is because no one should care about that as i thought people play games for fun which i sadly cant find anymore without hearing the words: "FPS" and "Resolution"
I want to be able to read info about the game without hearing about FPS or Resolution...
Gamers arent gamers anymore, those so-called gamers have so much extreme high stanard today that they are so spoiled for not being happy game companies even make games today!
(Cooki31993 (talk) 21:45, 23 October 2014 (UTC))
Some people do like the technical aspect of the game, especially when there is a reason for it. Personal distaste for a subject is not the basis for an edit on Wikipedia. For what it's worth, I agree with you and am not driven by frame-rate or resolution when deciding to purchase a game. However, I've added details as to why the programmers wanted to do it that way and that there was a reason for it. As the reviews have shown, the critics don't seem to care about it, either. So let the "gamers" make their noise while we tool around Southern Europe and have fun. :) --McDoobAU9321:57, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Mentioning you off-hand at ANI for your suggestion at the SPI re Beals. Also, I've reported the IP because, come on, he's obviously Beals. Ian.thomson (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
It's cool ... I saw the post at ANI and appreciate your assistance. I know ISPs have been contacted in the past for serial vandals, and thought it was high past time for the same thing here. The fact they have returned using IPs trying to dissuade that action suggest it would quite possibly work. --McDoobAU9317:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Heya there, while it's likely this user is up to no good, you should start with a normal level one warning and work your way up. 4im warnings are appropriate for severe vandalism and defamation only. See WP:VAND and WP:WARNVAND for more info. Thanks! — MusikAnimaltalk17:55, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
IP is static and long list of previous warnings against vandalism. Simple case of WP:DUCK, if you ask me. They've had enough gentle notices. --McDoobAU9318:03, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
It is static, but I disagree about the similarity in edits. I only approached you about this because at least at first the edits in questions appeared to be tests – something a little more innocent. I would have declined this report at AIV, but that's not say other admins would have as well. Anyhoo, I'm not here to give you a hard time. I'm all for any counter-vandalism efforts! Best — MusikAnimaltalk18:15, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Your points have been noted. In retrospect (and after a bite to eat), I do agree that the initial warning probably should have been lighter, but after that, they've had enough. --McDoobAU9318:32, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for December 12
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Virtual Console games for Nintendo 3DS (North America), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Natsume. 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.
