User talk:DragonHawk/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions with User:DragonHawk. 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.

Hello and thank you for your message. Unfortunately I will be unavailable for discussion at present, so feel free to remove the tag if you feel it is unwarranted. My adding of {{POV}} instead of {{POV-check}} must have been an oversight on my part. In any case, thanks for bringing it to my attention. Kind regards, Chris.B (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I was just searching for information regarding mechwarrior living legends after I saw that it was high ranking in the moddb mod of the year award.

Since microsoft does not wish to continue developing that particular intellectual property at this time, and has released all their intellectual property to modders to work with as long as no money is involved, living legends repressents the only recent development on the mechwarrior computer games scene since 2002.

I in particular was looking for it here on wikipedia, but could not find it because you deleted it, so I instead had to bash google with querries untill I got lucky; turns out, the mod changed name. One of those searches managed to turn up your talk page.

I hope you will reconsider your edit so other people taking notice of this topic will be able to find information on it without having to rely on some commercial entities search algorithm like I did.

If you are interested in mechwarrior, the computergame, for the pc, you are almost per definition also interested in knowing about any recent developments that carry the name and IP. This mod does, and so, corporate backing or not it's noteworthy.

Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mads Tejlgaard Olesen (talk • contribs) 01:02, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for tidying up, but wouldn't it have been better to fix the redlink _before_ deleting all that content? Andy Dingley (talk) 19:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. It would be nice to write the entire encyclopedia, too.  ;) I didn't have time to write even a stub article on a "plenum chamber". The content that was at plenum was basically three different ways to state the definition of a plenum chamber, along with an unsourced list of things that reportedly have plenum chambers. That's not very useful content in my opinion. If you think you can create a stub article from it, feel free to grab it out of the history.  :) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 20:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the information on adding citations! :) Elmmapleoakpine (talk) 23:38, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding this edit, which was made from the IP address you are using. Multiple issues:

• Wikipedia requires civility. Your edit summary is flagrantly inflammatory and uncivil. Continuing to engage in such behavior will lead to you being blocked from editing Wikipedia.
• The deletion discussion in question is considered completed. Hence the "No further edits should be made" notice at the top and bottom of the page. If you wish to further discuss the deletion discussion, please do so at the talk page for the deletion discussion.
• The stub article page "TV Tropes Wiki" was deleted because it failed to meet the Notability Guidedlines. If you wish to raise an objection to that guideline, the proper place would be at Wikipedia talk:Notability. You're not the only person to take issue with that guideline. However, your current behavior is counter-productive.
  • Avoid inflammatory rhetoric. Acting uncivil will lead to people dismissing your concerns.
  • I would suggest giving specific arguments. For example, if you think TV Tropes should have been kept, give specific reasons why, and also why those reasons should qualify as "notability". Ideally, compare and contrast to the existing notability guideline.

Thank you. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:19, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Are you a fucking imbecile? I think I've pointed it out perfectly clearly that I am in opposition to the way Wikipedia handles things. And yet, like a true ass, you've decided that somehow I would follow the system that I oppose? I am bitter because of the rules, because of the bureaucracy, because of the arbitration, and your answer is to try to SHOVE THAT SAME CRAP DOWN MY THROAT? I know those guidelines. Every fucking one of them. I've been through my share of Wikipedia retardation, and let me say "FUCK IT." I care little for your notions of civility; Wikipedia has already drained me of all my ability for sustained politeness, and so I shall be blunt: It fucking sucks. I don't give a damn that it's "not appropriate" as you phrased it because I felt it was worth saying so god damn it I said it, fucking deal with it. Your civility doesn't do much for you either. It's veiled contempt. The notability guidelines are also inherently retarded. The debate is ages old, notability is very fucking far from a unanimous policy, and it's the most meaningless drivel ever. Also, none of this changes the matter that the administrator in applying his own judgment completely overruled the utterly self-evident consensus there was to keep the article. The administrator should most certainly NOT be enforcing the rules at the detriment of consensus, that's a complete performative negation to WP:IAR, which stipulates that people can, if consensus exists, work against the rules for the greater good, and all the keep votes made certainly reflect the belief that TV Tropes is worthy of inclusion (and not merely from an inclusionist perspective) in spite of what the rules and guidelines say. I'd figure you'd at least have the sense look through my change log and maybe noticed that rant I posted on the essay about WP:IAR to see my opinions on Notability and crap. Granted, if I don't like Wikipedia, I shouldn't be editing here, and I have no real intention of doing so either, but at least let me have my fucking say in peace, you asshole.

BTW: I will reiterate this about this edit you seem incapable of understanding. Editing the archived portion of the deletion page is what was expressly forbidden, I explicitly commented outside that section, and rare as it may be, it does fucking happen in Wikipedia that closed Deletion discussions gain ex-post-facto commentary. The violation is only when the original archival portion itself is tainted, which it was not.

Now do whatever the fuck you want to.[1] You get your happy last word. I'm out. -67.180.32.48 (talk) 13:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

[1]Note: IP banning would be a waste of time. (Yes lol your threat of blocking me. ZOMG.) Contrary to what you may believe, my IP is dynamic, and some other sucker will be on the receiving end of the ban, not me.

I agree with much of what you've said here, but I write in particular to offer my compliments on your noting more than once that the formulation of BLP-related policies is the province entirely of the community, at least until the Foundation or its designees should act to insert themselves into our discussions or firmly to countermand our decisions; there are many in the project who understand BLP as having been passed down from on high (the writing and adoption of BLP did follow from some discussions in which Jimbo was a vigorous participant, and so it is, I suppose, reasonable that there might be some misunderstanding, at least amongst newer editors who don't understand that almost nothing is immutable here and that our endeavor is community-driven) and who feel compelled to interpret it strictly out of fealty to some imperative of the WMF or to Jimbo (WP:JIMBOSAID notwithstanding), and it is ever useful for one to make clear that with respect to BLP we retain and maintain the right to set and direct our project's course. Good on ya! Cheers, Joe 05:19, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm glad somebody gets it.  :) I am concerned that WP:BLP is turning into something of a crusade (with all the worst implications of that word). While I very strongly believe that we need to guard the project against libel and slander, it appears that for some, that need is becoming all-consuming.  :-( That sort of absolute belief is blinding. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 20:58, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Please can I can call you "That"? Please? 19:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.145.131 (talk)

Only if you register an account and contribute a cited reference to an article needing one. Otherwise, I won't let you.  ;-) —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 22:00, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

DragonHawk, I would like to extend an offer to join the Wikipedia:WikiProject Nortel. Geek2003 (talk) 17:35, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dragonhawk, you reverted an edit I made to the article EON. My edit added "Empower Our Neighborhoods" to the list of organizations. There is no current article on wikipedia about Empower Our Neighborhoods, but if you need proof that it does in fact exist you can visit this webpage: http://www.empowernb.com/ I have edited the page again and ask that you not revert my edit this time. Thank you. PS: My orginal edit showed up as my IP address because I had forgotten to sign in before editing the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trackstar789 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I've just done a cleanup at Eon; that cleanup included removing the "Empower Our Neighborhoods" entry. The Eon page is what is called a Disambiguation page, or "dab page", at Wikipedia. Dab pages are created when a single term, like "Eon", can refer to multiple articles. The dab page serves as a sign post, to point people in the direction of the article they're trying to find. They are not intended to be a place to list every possible thing a term might refer to. Since there is no "Empower Our Neighborhoods" article, it doesn't belong on the Eon page. Whether or not the organization exists is irrelevant; what matters is that there's no article. For more information, see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). Thanks. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 01:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I have nominated User talk:DragonHawk/Archives (edit | subject | history | links | watch | logs) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Many otters • One hammer • HELP)} 04:09, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi there.

Thanks for cleaning this up. I'll be honest I didn't realise it had been already implemented in off the shelf commercial switches.

It's something I've been using on a local ISP for several years, and have been putting out onto other local projects with a lot of success, but I've never seen any mention of it on Wikipedia, so decided to make an article to raise awareness of (what I think) is a really really good feature.

Thanks for cleaning the article up!

Out of interest, do you know some commercial switches with this ready built in?

Sam —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shunt010 (talk • contribs) 10:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw it at Cabletron (now Enterasys); they called it "MDU mode" (MDU = Multiple Dwelling Unit, i.e., apartment building, condo, etc.). Some work with Google finds Cisco calls it "private VLAN", and HP ProCurve may do it, also. I suspect it's only available in medium- to high-end models. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 05:39, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Just to let you know that humour wasn't the motivation behind editing the hatnote, although as I can see the irony in the edit, I can well appreciate why you might have wondered that (grin).

I had been trying to find out how to use the Otheruses template, without luck. I couldn't see anything on the disambiguation page to indicate what I was looking for, and when I tried WP:OTHER, I found the Alternative outlets, with no "other use" indication that would help (oh, the irony!). When I did eventually find out what I needed was a hatnote, I reasoned that others might make the same mistake and so edited the hatnote accordingly. My mistake was not explaining what a hat note was in the hat note (the irony just keeps on mounting!) so I have reverted to my original edit, and added a bit of clarification for the benefit of anyone who might be looking for it.

If you think that it still isn't needed, then feel free to revert; but I would ask you to consider that there might be others out there who are having trouble finding the "other use" instructions who don't know what they are really called. Stephen! ^Coming... 11:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I added List of films in development hell to this AFD. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:40, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thank you very much. I'll do that from now on. SD 03:08, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

... for the barnstar! I savor it all the more for being a Working Man's barnstar — the best kind for those of us who bleed proletarian red. —Aetheling (talk) 04:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC).

Let me know if he returns again after his week's vacation. Cheers ~ mazca ^talk 22:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

My main point of contention in regards to the GM disambig page was that it kept being changed from "a United States based automaker" to "a multi-national automaker" or something of that sort. This stirred my patriotism. That's the only reason I was editing it. I don't care as long as it either says American or nothing at all. Avisron (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Neon Genesis Evangelion glossary. When removing text, 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 text 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.

The other edits you made were in good faith, so I'm going to assume that it was accidental. Hellbus (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

D'oh! Yes, that was accidental. My apologies. Thanks for the save. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 18:32, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The template wasn't intended as an insult, just shorthand. In retrospect, it does seem a bit disingenuous. Hellbus (talk) 18:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I just noticed this statement: Pointing to a list and saying "This shows that..." is original research, and is prohibited on Wikipedia

I'm sorry, but that is absolutely not OR. Making an argument based on highly referenced facts involves no "original" or "research", and the claim in question is on a talk page where discussions of opinions are perfectly valid, and encouraged. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello DragonHawk, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Long Z. Liu has been removed. It was removed by 69.237.158.42 with the following edit summary '(no edit summary)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with 69.237.158.42 before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

The article was prodded and deprodded all the way back in 2006, so for procedural reasons I removed the prod. The phrase is in use in reliable sources to refer to an erase and reinstall of an operating system, so it has some level of notability:[1]. A merge to Disk formatting might be a good solution. Fences&Windows 18:06, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

User talk:Jerzy#Disambiguation Your message got answered

Hello, DragonHawk. There is a response from me, below the message you left in the "Disambiguation" section of my talk page. --Jerzy•t 02:07, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your great work cleaning up the CMM page.

In one of your last edit comments, you mention not being able to find DEA. It's http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_Electronic_Automation http://www.dea.it It's owned by Hexagon Metrology.

I don't know enough about DEA to make more then a stub of a page.

Let me know if you have any suggestions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Creuzerm (talk • contribs) 15:52, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, but I haven't done much.  :) And thanks for the link to DEA. I've added them as a brand of Hexagon. And, sheesh, it appears they own Brown & Sharp and Sheffield now, too. Unfortunately, I know almost nothing of the field (the reason I hit the CMM article was to find out what a CMM was!), or I'd start a stub on Hexagon.—DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I'm so glad you dropped by WP:Citation needed. After pouring many hours of my blissful unemployment into streamlining the text, I was simply mortified to see it turned into a list of policies!

On Sunday morning, someone on Digg commented that XKCD was posted here, and ever since then I've been defending the content tooth and nail. I'd greatly appreciate your help in taming the wild edits that have been swarming in.

Even though I think XKCD improves the explanatory power of the page, I care much more about the quality of the body text. If the comic proves to be (as we say in law) an Attractive nuisance (i.e. it attracts bad edits like moths to a flame), I could be convinced to get rid of it. (more time, I think, will tell.)

PS - I think it would be nice to move the page to Help:Citation needed, but that's another conversation.

Andrew Gradman ^talk/_WP:Hornbook 04:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I haven't looked at it yet. I imagine it has been discussed before, but could not find in the history. I moved a couple of articles from plural to singular, and so this is part of a rather long kinda sorting out of the whole lot. I don't mind if it goes against my opinion right now, I want consensus, and am keen to listen to others' views.

So, thanks for the notification. Best wishes Si Trew (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edit to WP:LAME includes a signature and a personal pronoun; did you mean for that to go onto the talk page, or the article itself? --moof (talk) 08:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Er, yes. Thanks!

You have sent a message to this page, and I'd like to inform you that this is a dynamic IP address, and it is likely that it couldn't reach the desired recipient (it is not me, I've never edited that page). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.36.143.220 (talk) 09:45, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If you're monitoring this page: I am aware of the limitations involved when trying to contact an anonymous editor. However, it's the only option available for such editors. If you want to avoid seeing messages for other people in the future, you can create an account. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 12:53, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi DragonHawk. You removed Sanitization (classified information) from Category:Euphemisms. Sanitization is a form of censorship (the words are sometimes used interchangeably). Euphemisms replace a harsh sounding term with one that is more positive. I wondered if you could expand on your rationale. I saw that you said it was jargon on your edit summary, but jargon and euphemisms often overlap. Thanks, Gobonobo ^{T C} 21:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

(Full disclosure: I work in the field.) Hmmm. I never really thought of sanitization as censorship, but I guess you can look at it that way. I tend to view sanitization as part of the process of releasing information or material, not restricting it. To me, the term is not a euphemism because it really is about cleaning up to be presentable. But if some hold the POV that sanitization is censorship, I'm not about to say that's wrong -- I believe in NPOV. Go ahead and put the category back. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 18:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Ben: You recently commented on my article about Managed Digital Allowance" and why it shouldn't be in Wikipedia. This is a new trend/business model that enterprises are starting to embrace - letting employees choose their own technology and reimburing them or providing them a digital allowance. It's part of the "consumerization of IT". It could have a major impact on how corporations procure pc's, netbooks, mobile phones, PDA's and etc going foreward. I see lots of articles like this in wikipedia - for example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IT_Cost_Transparency#IT_Cost_Transparency_Articles. Not sure why mine is being targeted.

Regards, Barbara —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bsclarkedc (talk • contribs) 18:01, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

You wrote, "It could have a major impact on how corporations procure [IT resources]". If it does, and once that has received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, then it deserves an encyclopedia article. Until and unless that happens, it's not appropriate in this encyclopedia, for all the reasons noted previously. You might try reading Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms again. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

See here, thanks! Plastikspork _―Œ^(talk) 05:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, DragonHawk. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

Comments were made by User:Fred the Oyster directed at you that concerned me and I started a discussion. - Stillwaterising (talk) 03:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi DragonHawk. You could be right that the wording on that template is not perfect. It is, however, wording that I have brought over from other essay templates, and has been around for a little while. The wording is an attempt to be helpful and to clarify the situation regarding the standing of the essays on which the template is placed. I have responded to your comments on the talkpage. I have restored the edit so that it is visible. I am aware this is not in line with the advice contained in Wikipedia:Reverting, and apologise if this offends you - it's that personal experience has shown that people are more willing to discuss changes when the change is up and active. A reverted change is a hidden change and so doesn't attract attention - and a discussion about such a change can sometimes languish unnoticed on a talkpage for months with nothing done. Regards SilkTork *^YES! 13:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Sure, we can let it sit for a while and give others a chance to comment. —DragonHawk (talk|hist) 23:05, 6 April 2010 (UTC)