User talk:Aexus/Archive 1

High Five
Looks good, now I await the trashing of my work which is inevitable when WP:Dragoning. Alatari (talk) 23:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC) -- Aexus (talk) 23:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC) -- Aexus (talk) 00:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Better start preparing our 'KEEP arguments for the AfD nomination of the expansions article. Blowing off WP for the day.  Alatari (talk) 23:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * *jumps* aaand *clap* Yeah, that's a bunch of quite massive changes to the article. I hope they make sense for the people who check the History tomorrow. I'm going to have a closer look at the expansions article now. I don't like it yet.
 * On the expansion article's Talk page I've created a section for our arguments. I think it's best to collect everything there.

Just to let you know, adding or  to a page is only a means for an admin to notify users that a page is protected. This does not actually confer protection to the article. If you need help protecting a page, please contact an admin or request it. Thanks! VivioFa teFan  (Talk, Sandbox) 23:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC) -- Aexus (talk) 23:29, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Leaving the template in there was my fault. I didn't realize it when I transferred the expansions from the main into the seperate article. I wasn't trying to fake protection so to speak :)

tags
I used them to get the page format to work. Now the paragraph breaks are off and the right side text edges look bad. Alatari (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC) Now that I know why you added the tags in the first place I checked back a few revisions. Have a look at this: This is one of your revisions with tags. In this case it's a change to the Economy section. I've made screenshots of this revision with font sizes set to normal, smaller than normal and larger than normal. It doesn't make much difference whether we change the captions' format or not. I suggest we leave the vanilla captions - without tags, font size or other changes. What do you think? -- Aexus (talk) 23:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's an issue. Check this out: That's how the article with a captioned image looks for me in Firefox and Internet Explorer. Actually it's an extension that mimics Internet Explorer within Firefox; but anyways, that's how all articles look for me. I think it's natural that the right-side text edges are off in some cases are look perfectly fine in others. It's coincidence if the lines wrap nicely. After all, several variables determine how the lines break. It depends e.g. on my screen resolution and the font size I've selected. Remember the Firefox screenshot from above? Compare it to these two: the same section of the article with smaller-than-normal font size and with larger-than-normal font size. And that's with the same resolution of 1024 x 768 pixels. Imagine how unpredictably the lines break when you consider users with different resolutions.

AfD nomination of Spaceships of EVE Online
An editor has nominated Spaceships of EVE Online, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Category rename
You have proposed a move of Category:EVE Online → Category:Eve Online at move requests but as per instructions we do not deal with category renames. Can I direct you to categories for discussion for category renames. Keith D (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

-- Aexus (talk) 14:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi, Keith. I've now posted my request on the Categories for discussion page. Since the rename is about a capitalization change I have requested a speedy rename. I've also informed the authors responsible for creating and editing the category and I've left a note on the main article's Talk page, namely on the Eve Online Talk page. Thank you for your hint about where to request a category rename.

to do list
Fixed. It was just a cache issue. To fix something like this in the future do a Null edit on the talk page - click edit, then save, which will force an update of the cache. 199.125.109.80 (talk) 18:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much and thanks for the hint, too. Will do when this crops up again. -- Aexus (talk) 11:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Reply to talk
Yes, that is me, i have made no attempt to hide or mask my identity. My real phone number is on there too, i would actually love to talk with you if you would like to call me. My intention is to make the Eve Online page better, not to gain commercially from Wikipedia.

Seriously, call me.

Aaron Jones —Preceding unsigned comment added by AJTheSecond (talk • contribs) 04:29, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

-- Aexus (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oregon is on the other side of the planet from where I live. Technically a call is possible though Skype, Ventrilo and TeamSpeak are more feasible for me than a landline call. Do you have access to a TeamSpeak or Ventrilo server or do you have a Skype Name? I live in Germany which is currently on Central European Summer Time. It's a plus-nine-hour difference from Pacific Standard Time. Around or before noon of your time might be an option for a call - or sometime around midnight or 1 a.m. of your time.


 * Thats fine, I actually call Germany at least once a week :) - if you want to discuss this, go ahead and just add me in game and we can chat it out - my character name is Wolfien and I generally play 0300-0900 GMT. AJTheSecond (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I currently don't play EVE. Is either TeamSpeak, Ventrilo or Skype an option for you? And so that I'm prepared, what would you like to talk about? -- Aexus (talk) 22:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I would be more than happy to get on teamspeak, if you wanted to discuss this, that would be great - I feel like you attacked a bit without any real reason (being that what you are removing is not at all against the rules, or harmful to the community in any way) - I would quite like to discuss the matter because you seem to be very against my putting the affiliate link on the website, when there is no rule against it or really any very good argument against it, considering that i substantially contributed to the section.


 * Send me TS info and i would be happy to keep it open so that we can discuss it - I felt a bit attacked with your first post so i figured i would open it up for you to contact me in person, since you spent the time to track down my (intentionally) personal information. If you want to make the affiliate link a personal issue, then i think we should have a real discussion about it, because i truly believe that i am in the right here, or else i wouldn't be spending my time discussing this matter.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AJTheSecond (talk • contribs) 22:34, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * When it comes down to it, i really would like to keep that link up on the page; My wife and I are struggling to pay for college and the extra boost is great. I was not kidding when i said that i was going to donate 1/3 of the proceeds to wikipedia.  I understand that YOU are of the opinion that the linking is wrong.  However I have searched and there are no rules banning or discouraging the practice.  As Wikipedia completely allows this form of linking, I am reinstating the original link.  Please, if you feel the need to change it back, find a policy that specifically discourages an "affiliated" link, and then take it down - i am putting the burden of proof on you because every wikipedia policy i have read has encouraged users to be bold in their writing - I gave very good information on that section and I would like to share the credit with wikipedia for it.  If you feel like this is a bad practice, please show me a policy to back up your belief.  Again, if you would like to discuss this, i have TeamSpeak loaded and ready, please give me the opportunity to defend my position before changing a link that has every right to be there.  Also, i will leave the link as a reference, not as an inline linkAJTheSecond (talk) 04:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Me asking about your TeamSpeak access was a little mistakable. I meant that I don't have access to either a TeamSpeak or a Ventrilo server. If you prefer these over Skype then I depend on your server for us to use. If Skype is an option we can just chat away.


 * As for the affiliate link, it looks like there is no guideline or policy that talks about affiliate links. I haven't found one either. A way that might help reach a consensus is the so-called policy village pump. The five village pumps help editors get opinions on topics that aren't clearly discussed in a guideline or policy yet. I've asked: Are affiliate links appropriate?

-- Aexus (talk) 11:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * As for our call, do you have access to a TeamSpeak or Ventrilo server, or is Skype the way to go for us?


 * Skype is fine - I will be out all of today though (finals week) - so we can do it morning your time or morning my time tomorrow —Preceding unsigned comment added by AJTheSecond (talk • contribs) 16:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My Skype Name is x1alpha. I'll hit the hay in a bit and post when I go online in a few hours. -- Aexus (talk) 00:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm online now. I'll probably play games for the evening and I'll keep Skype active. If you call today and while I'm in-game I'll hear it. It'll just take a few seconds to Alt-Tab out of the game and answer the call. -- Aexus (talk) 18:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm just giving up on this - I still think that i am in the right because wikipedia doesnt say anything against this, but enough people are pissed off at me for daring to add an affiliated link to a section i wrote that i am just dropping it. I am really disappointed that the community is so harsh and aggressive about stuff that is not even specified in the rules.  At least you were willing to open discussion about it - Peace out.  Also, since you are not an eve online player, i would suggest that you try the trial before editing the Eve Online page more, you can find the trial here -> [spam removed]  —Preceding unsigned comment added by AJTheSecond (talk • contribs) 20:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright. -- Aexus (talk) 01:26, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Those images
Sorry I meant to do this earlier, but well... I'm lazy haha. I've put a few shots up here:, but I'm not really satisfied with anything at the moment. All the screenshots are 1280x1024, I just resized them for that quick page. In game we've recently joined a new alliance out in 0.0 somewhere, which should provide a lot better opportunities for bigger fleet battles and stuff, but I'm busy with exams in rl atm... What do you think? cncplyr (talk) 20:31, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, plyr! I checked our discussion so I actually know what images were needed. The discussion was archived on Tuesday and moved to Archive 15. I've revided it so that we can continue on the Eve Online Talk page. New images we were looking for were
 * The pod for the Death section
 * Concord ships for the Security index system section
 * The fleet battle for the Combat section
 * The market browser screenshot for the Economy section
 * The Catalyst to illustrate the Background section
 * As for the Concord image, the second Concord image on your page looks best in my opinion. Here's the current Concord image for comparison. Your second one not only looks better than the other Concord image on your page; it also looks better than the one in the article. I especially like the reddish background in the system you've chosen. Also four ships and the billboard mix up the image nicely. One thing you can improve is the number of objects that draw the viewer's attention. The way you've taken the screenshot both the stargate's energy stream and the sun draw attention away from the Concord ships. It may look cleaner with only one element other than the ships - only the sun or only the stargate. Other than that I pick the second Concord image over the first one. Let alone the article's.


 * Next up is the Combat section. The current fleet battle image has too much noise in my opinion. Since Wikipedia caters for the average reader I think we can improve the Eve Online article with a fleet battle image along the lines of your third battle screenshot. It's a good mix of the core information ("this is how a battle may look") and aesthetic aspects like composition, colour and contrast. It also has a boom in the background and a yellow and red overview. I like that. And it's still very readable.


 * You've also taken a screenshot of a Brutix. The Brutix image has at least two advantages over the current image of a Catalyst. It has great contrast and there's nothing in the background that distracts the viewer from the ship. In that way I find it better than your Brutix image on eve-wiki.net, too. As for popularity, on the one hand the Raven is a popular ship and according to Dr.EyjoG the Brutix isn't even among the ten most popular ships. But on the other hand the Catalyst we currently have isn't all that popular either. You currently don't fly a Raven - fair enough. Your Brutix image looks great!


 * As for the Moros, Thanatos, the girls-girls-girls or other images I don't like them that much.


 * Then there's the market browser and the pod image left. As a solution for the Economy section I favour the plain market browser over the alternatives we've discussed, like a Jita 4-4 screenshot or a graph from one of the Quaterly Economic Newsletters. The market browser may not be the fanciest representation of Eve Online's economy but it does the job well for me. A friend of mine has kindly provided me with this market browser screenshot. It updates the graphics from the old screenshot and that's enough for me. As for the pod, the same friend has also provided me with this image of a floating pod.

-- Aexus (talk) 23:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
 * What do you think?

About the merging of EVE spaceshits
Just as an point of interest - editors don't have to have a discussion about merging of pages - they can just do it - it's a normal editorial process that can occur with no debate. The debate only needs to occur, if someone objects and un-merges the article. Obviously it's nice if someone starts a discussion before they do it, but it's not actually required. (note: I'm not taking any side on if that particular article needed to be merged) --Allemandtando (talk) 18:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I actually wasn't aware of that. Thanks for pointing that out. -- Aexus (talk) 12:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Eve Online CSm
Re my not adding a link to the news that the nominations are now open for CSM2 I couldn't as there was no link when I added the info! I knew it was today from a personal email from Xhagen I had received; at that time afaiaa it wasn't on the EVE website, so many thanks for adding it later! ;-P --AlisonW (talk) 01:56, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I jumped to the wrong conclusion there. -- Aexus (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry
The edit summary you left indicated that you had delibverately used the language, that you had, in effect, selected to be "offensive". Accordingly I did as I thought best, and granted you the right to your opinion (that the language was appropriate), and reverted the change. As I understand it (Wiki process), you need only then go to an admin to have the revert overturned, and at that point discussion becomes moot. Unless you are, of course, a member of the WikiCabal, in which case your own view is paramount and you simply Wiki-ban me -- Simon Cursitor (talk) 07:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright, I get you. Then we're cool, right?! :) -- Aexus (talk) 15:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

This man is vigilant!
You're doing a good job, as much as it pains me to say. although i do wish that you wouldnt use my name :)

AJTheSecond (talk) 04:09, 10 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I won't use your name again. -- Aexus (talk) 17:50, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Expansions of Eve Online for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Expansions of Eve Online is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Expansions of Eve Online until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 13:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Gameplay of Eve Online for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Gameplay of Eve Online is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Gameplay of Eve Online until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Ardenter (talk) 04:11, 11 July 2021 (UTC)