User talk:ScottSteiner/Archives/2011/March


CSD notification

Please don't forget to notify the creator of an article when you nominate for CSD, e.g. HSIM

(Congrats on the Barnstar, not bad you just got here) --SPhilbrickT 19:53, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Jackson Browne

"His first wife was actress/model Phyllis Major (1946–1976)" 1946-1976 is the year she was born and the year she died, that is typical wikipedia formatting. The parentheses in no way have anything to do with the length of their marriage. Their marriage lasted from 1975 to 1976 ("Major and Browne married in late 1975. He was devastated when she committed suicide by consuming an overdose of sleeping pills just a few months later, in March 1976") and the relationship from 1971 to 1976 ("The two began their relationship around 1971"). What is your contention that the date "(1973–1976)" represent? Unbelievable that you would accuse me of vandalism, did you even look at my editing history?Tstrobaugh (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is the first edit that changed Phyllis Major's birth date from 1946 to 1973 [1].Tstrobaugh (talk) 21:58, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Vandalism

Next time, before you accuse somebody of vandalism. Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism#How_to_respond_to_vandalism "If you see that a user has added vandalism you may also check the user's other contributions (click "User contributions" on the left sidebar of the screen)." Wikipedia:Vandalism#How_not_to_respond_to_vandalism "In particular, this word should not be used to refer to any contributor in good standing, or to any edits that might have been made in good faith" and Wikipedia:Vandalism#What_is_not_vandalism "Misinformation, accidental - A user who, in good faith, adds content to an article that is factually inaccurate but in the belief that it is accurate is trying to contribute to and improve Wikipedia, not vandalize it. If you believe inaccurate information has been added to an article in good faith, remove it once you are certain it is inaccurate, or discuss its factuality with the user who has added it. ". Tstrobaugh (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Valourous service

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar

The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
For Scott Steiner, fighting the good fight against the 4chan hordes. The Interior (Talk) 12:43, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: USCGC Northwind (WAGB-282) references you moved

I damned near had a fit, when I discovered the refences were gone. I was trying to figure out went wrong on the Northwind aricle by looking at my other 3 sucessful reference deployments. When I returned to Northwind article I was shocked. I was just working on it. Thanks for putting them in the Talk page. I worked very hard to assemble the refernces. Hoe did you do this so quickly ? Thank you for leaving me a message, it is my first from a Wikipeadian. I am very inexperienced at this. I find the "Wikicoplexities" difficult, and my frustation level is high now. I find the help pages strange and incomprehensible.Tjlynnjr (talk) 11:33, 19 March 2011 (UTC).

Thank you

Hi Scott, Sorry I do not know how to reply to your last message in the format you replied to mine. I looked at WP:CITE (?) and did not find it too helpful, too much Wiki-mumbo-jumbo for me. I did sucessful references on other articles using the "ref- subject-end ref" format, and even inserted the "Reflist", I learned this method by reading other edit pages and mimicking the edits, not through help pages. Something went wrong at the Northwind article, I could not find the problem so I erased the lot. I will read your reply and try again. I found your illustraions in reply more understandable than the help page. No need for you to reply to this, unless you wish. Best regardsTjlynnjr (talk) 12:16, 19 March 2011 (UTC).

No problem. As for the references, once you insert a ref tag with the source, it automatically adds it to the reference list. There is no need to add it manually at the end as well. ScottSteiner (talk) 15:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Very good. I just added a reference for South-Pole.com to Northwind intro, re: the postal cachet quote (which I neglected earlier) and included the end ref. Is that why the reference did not disappear into the reflist ? Tjlynnjr (talk) 15:46, 20 March 2011 (UTC).
That might be. It was an odd error since you had the reflist tag in there but it still wasn't showing up. Do you have a specific page on the south-pole.com website with the postal cachet that contains the quote? I don't see the 1988 postal cachet you referenced. ScottSteiner (talk) 17:53, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Here is the exact page for the postal cachet quote http://www.south-pole.com/northwind.htm

I am reluctant to reference the exact page for fear it will be changed (at site) and become a deadlink. If I quote the main source the chances of this are lessened. If a site moves most likely there will be a redirect. The interested person can alway search the site using the sites "search" feature. What I here describe occurs very frequently at the USCGHO site. Further, I do not know how to change a reference once it disappears into the "Reflist". (Please give me your view on my reckoning).Tjlynnjr (talk) 22:00, 20 March 2011 (UTC).

Generally it's best to link to the exact page and use WebCite if you are worried about link rot. I may have just missed it, but I don't see it on there. I do see its cachet and I was able to find one with that quote on ebay, but not on any verifiable site. I would use the ebay image, but it isn't free and doesn't conform to the Wikipedia free image guidelines.
To change a reference once it goes into the ref list, you modify the reference itself (what is in the ref tags). ScottSteiner (talk) 22:07, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, wrong site. I have a photo of cover. Do not recall where it came from. Will search more. I may even have the cachet myself. What to do ? Tjlynnjr (talk) 22:30, 20 March 2011 (UTC).
If you have the cachet your self, I'd recommend taking a picture of it and uploading it to the Commons so that it can be used in the article. I just did a major overhaul of the article, using some points from the peer reviewer, and ended up removing that section anyway since it was more editorializing than encyclopedic. It might make a good addition as an image though (in the Decommissioning section). I also worked on the lead paragraph amongst other things, so it should be a bit less top-heavy and more organized. ScottSteiner (talk) 22:33, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
Well...Turns out I do have the cachet, good idea to photograph it...but...ahh...it is beyond my scope of practise. I saw the article, and was absolutely astounded and thrilled. I recently found out that our (ie: the family's) grandchildren and great-grandchildren in elementary school are using Wikipedia in class. They now have something wonderful to "show and tell".

BTW, I have 3rd and 4th cousins in RI. Thank you for your generous assistance in further preserving the history of the U.S. Coast Guard. Semper Paratus. Tjlynnjr (talk) 23:37, 20 March 2011 (UTC).

List of video games notable for negative reception

Yo I don't really know where to talk to you about this but why did you revert my previous edits? I know my citations are incorrect but instead of reverting my edits why not help me instead? This is really uncool behavior bro. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.111.123 (talk) 00:48, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Your citations don't show that Dragon Age 2 meets the requirements of Wikipedia:Notability for inclusion in that list. ScottSteiner (talk) 00:57, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Dragon Age 2 development prefix

Hey, just wanted to clarify that the additon of a pre-prefix (awkward) to the "development" in DA2 was fully intentional and not vandalism. If you check the source of the section, the guy left BioWare in the 2008-2009 fiscal year, quite a while before any actual development on the game took place, so during pre-development if anything. Otherwise, good work on the article. :) --Rogington (talk) 01:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah, I saw your other edits so I assumed you had just accidentally reintroduced some old vandalism while editing. Thanks for the clarification and thanks for the improvements you made to the article. ScottSteiner (talk) 02:15, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

The Mystery of the Druids

Hey ScottSteiner. Checked out your expansion of the article. If you are into it, it qualifies to be nominated for the Did You Know? section of the main page under the "5x expansion rule". It'll get 6 to 8 hours on the Big Time. You can nominate it yourself here T:TDYK, or I can do it for you (much better option cause then I get credit too). Anyways, answer back if you're interested. The Interior (Talk) 21:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If you'd like to nominate it, that'd be great. Thanks ScottSteiner (talk) 23:05, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
Done. [2] If you have a better "hook", please feel free to change mine or add an Alternate. One criticism I can forsee in the review: No description of gameplay. Do you have a source for details on the gameplay? i.e. format, quality of rendering, playing style? Would be nice to have a small section on that. Also, just a bonus, but if you have access to the game, our Fair-Use policy allows us to use screencaps of the game itself. Would be a cool visual for the article. I'll keep you updated on the nom. Best, The Interior (Talk) 02:16, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
I've never actually played the game, but I got there somehow through random wikilinks and decided to expand what I could. Unfortunately I don't have a copy, nor does anybody I know who does. I could try and adapt some of the reviews to be more generalized rather than being a copy/paste job. Regarding the screenshots, there are plenty of screenshots on the GameSpot review. Would I need to contact GameSpot or the developers (who seem to have disbanded) to get permission for fair use usage of those images? ScottSteiner (talk) 02:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I've never played it either. A vandal once replaced my user page with the cover photo. Freaked me right out. I think your review section is great as is. We just need to add a bit more "meat". Medieval Mayhem is a good example to emulate. As for the screencap, I'll look into it. I'm not sure it matters where we get it, just that we do up a fair-use rationale like on File:Up 'n Down (1984) (Sega) 4.png. I might ask at the Media messageboard. Permission might not come into it. The Interior (Talk) 03:59, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
Hey, if you check the noms page, we got a review. I can help you out with some section expansion tomorrow. Cool screnshot. The Interior (Talk) 04:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I noticed the review after somebody tagged one of the lines with [citation needed]. I'm working on the links right now, but having some trouble with the USK.de one. I can search for it but can't get a specific link to the result and webcite can't capture it either. 8 and 17 (now 8 and 18) are archive links, are those not valid? ScottSteiner (talk) 04:44, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Those guys

You're in pretty deep over there, I really just pick up on the end of those /v/ attacks. Is that you posting in the thread? If there's any serious drama here then quick RFPP and it's over, the admins know the trolls when they see them. Looks like the list is protected too. I really have very little idea what goes on over there (4chan), it's just too wild. I'd template the IP's for disruptive editing, looks like you have enough evidence. That way there'll at be least a warning in the page history. Wild West dude. The Interior (Talk) 05:46, 25 March 2011 (UTC)