User talk:Cjwright79/archive1

Please note that I do not neccessarily put every witty reply here, for eternity. Please see the history of this page for more of my past mistakes. Chris 17:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with the page Eric Clapton on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Patman2648 08:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with the page Beef on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Dina 22:28, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused. It seems as if half of the stuff you contribute is POV or nonsense, but you also make some constructive posts. Are you familiar with Wikipedia's NPOV principle? --π! 01:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes I am familar with the NPOV hype. I am not a big proponent of the POV-NPOV dichotomy. All judgement is ultimately POV, and there's no way around that. Your point is well taken though, and I do apologize for any distress I may have caused. Thanks for your patience and concern. Chris 16:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove legitimate warnings from your talk page or replace them with inappropriate content. Removing or maliciously altering warnings from your talk page will not remove them from the page history. You're welcome to archive your talk page, but be sure to provide a link to any deleted legitimate comments. If you continue to remove or vandalize legitimate warnings from your talk page, you will lose your privilege of editing your talk page. Thanks. --π! 07:21, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

No such thing as airwashing
Your edits to the Clothing article were pure mischief. Not funny. Please don't do this again. Zora 09:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Pure mischief? I suppose I should take that as a compliment.


 * Regardless, I suggest that you wash your clothes in air more frequently than water. Just my 2 cents. Chris 15:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits, such as those you made to Bible, are considered vandalism. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the hard work of others. Thanks. Orayzio 22:07, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Warning
Regarding your edit to Talk:Literary criticism: Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- Rbellin|Talk 16:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to Justice
Hi. Your additions to the start of this article seem either mistaken (justice is fairness on some controversial theories, but not on all) or out of place (why put a comment about Nuremburg trials right at the start? If it belongs anywhere, it belongs in the Institutions section). So, I've cut them, but I'm happy to discuss at Talk:Justice if you disagree. Cheers, Sam Clark 18:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to Morality. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Skenmy(talk) 19:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism of my user page
Please stop targeting one or more user's pages or talk pages for abuse or insults, unwarranted doctoring or blanking, as you did with User:Orayzio. It can be seen as vandalism and may get you blocked from editing Wikipedia. -Orayzio 23:47, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, and I assure you that it will not happen again. Chris 23:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Chris, why did you edit the Betrayal at Krondor article a 100 times in a row?. Haven't you ever heard of using the Preview button?. It looks like you're new to Wikipedia and over the last few days have caused a lot of trouble. All you've done now is spam the History page of BaK. Please learn how to edit or I'll report you, as it seems many other people have done. -Obeejw 09:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You are absolutely right, I will try to minimize the number of small edits I make, and use the preview button more often. My bad. Chris 16:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Chris, consider relevancy when editing pages. Here's a useful test-- when adding something to the "See Also" section, consider how many equally important additions you could have made. For example, you recently added Ultima 7 to the See Also list in the Betrayal at Krondor page. But Ultima 7 is not by far the only renowned early 1990s RPG. You could have added many other possibilities like Realms of Arkania, Underworld, etc. If there are many equally important additions you can make, consider that the edit you are making is not relevant enough to the topic. Ultima 7 and Betrayal are both renowned classic RPGs but this in itself is not sufficient for relevancy in this case because the category of "renowned classic RPGs" is gigantic. You need more selectivity, eg if the games shared the same gameplay (they don't), if the games had the same designer (they didn't), etc. Besides relevancy, always check your edits to see if they contain unnecessary "fluff" or "filler", which is "information" that does not add anything to the article that is not already known, and therefore not really information. Your recent edits to the CRPG page are examples of this-- it was already mentioned in the article that CRPGs tend to feature fantasy settings, so that comment was not necessary. Regarding mundanity, there is virtually no game genre that involves mundane tasks (I can only think of simulation games but they are not focusing on the mundane aspect of a particular task usually). So to say that the CRPG genre lacks "mundane" tasks is not information. The RTS genre lacks "mundane" tasks. So does FPS. So does adventure. Why would it be important to note this specifically in the CRPG article. Do you understand what I'm getting at? -- Solberg 04:32, 7 October 2006 (UTC)Solberg


 * Yes I do. Chris 22:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)


 * However Krondor and Ultima VII are the two most popular, commerically-successfully, critically-renowned CPRGs from that era. So it's not as irrelevant as you purport, clearly. Chris 23:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

That still would not be enough, in my humble opinion. I don't know what CRPGs you've played so maybe my analogy isn't going to work but this is like saying Fallout and Baldur's Gate are both excellent and well regarded CRPGs from the late 90s, therefore let's mention the other in each article despite the two not really have anything to do with each other (totally different setting, different design philosophy, different mechanics, different modes (TB vs RT implemented in TB), etc). In fact they only share Interplay as some sort of tenuous conection. It does not make sense to mention both Ultima VII and BaK in the same breath just because they were both famous RPGs of a certain small arbitrary year span. When a person looks at an encyclopedia article, they want concise, detailed, relevant information. If they're looking at BaK or U7 articles, they want to know instead about Return to Krondor or U6 or U Online or Underworld, etc on the appropriate pages. They don't want to have another RPG mentioned just because it was also famous if it's not related for other significant reasons, i.e. same gameplay. If they wanted to find other famous RPGs of the same period, all they have to do is look here anyway: Chronology of computer role-playing games. By the way, it's usually customary to reply on the other person's talk page, especially if you're going to delete your talk page's contents regularly. -- Solberg 02:55, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Solberg


 * Reply to your reply on my talk page: With all due respect, are you joking? The section above isn't long at all.  Is English your second language?  I will summarize tomorrow (I'm busy at the moment) if you really can't read it but otherwise I think that was just very rude of you.  If you don't want to hear my advice, that's fine, and you can tell me now.  I don't mind.  I was just trying to help you out since it seems you're genuinely interested in improving Wikipedia but are frustrated because people don't like your edits and you don't understand why.  -- Solberg 05:27, 10 October 2006 (UTC)Solberg

I was hardly being snarky, the only snarky person is you. I spend some time making a substantial reply trying to help you and you just simply reply "Summarize" when it wasn't longer than a standard paragraph. Your talk page shows you get complaints all the time, don't you think this might have something to do with the way you edit Wikipedia and interact with the rest of the editors? I'm guessing you don't care? -- Solberg 19:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)Solberg


 * You may or may not have noticed -- I now have a 'Does not give a fuck' tag up on my user page. So no, I don't particularly care. Cheers! Chris 17:31, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Italic textHeya, some issues with Betrayal at Krondor and Ultima VII

Look, I know you're trying your best with these articles, but please do not overuse glowing words and hyping how much these games rule. I've played these games. I know they rule. To me, Ultima VII is the best game ever, Betrayal at Krondor approximately 3rd best. (can't for life of me remember what's the 2nd.) But Wikipedia strives to be neutral, and that means we shouldn't try to praise (or condemn) things, just report things how they are, and if we report some people think some things are really cool, we should have sources for that, not just vague assertions that "people think" or is "commonly believed" or like. (see avoid weasel words.)

Also, the "comparison to other games"; I think this is dangerously close to original research. It's one thing to state that an expert or a journalist lists these games as best of the era, and another to state so yourself. I think it would be skating on thin ice even if you set down the period of time, compared reviews from a huge score aggregator, and declared results. And one might question the point of that too - we're here not to recommend good games, really, just tell about the games as they are.

Also, please don't make tons of smaller edits - try to cover as much ground as possible with one big edit, rather than making lots of smaller ones. It helps other people comprehending what has changed in the article. Also, please use the edit summary box to explain the changes. (I usually think "if the change is small enough that it's not worth the trouble to type in the summary, then it's just too small change for the day" =)

I'll try to clean up the articles to meet the policy. Don't worry. =)

Just some good suggestions. I hope these help. =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 19:31, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your contribution, but we are trying to write an encyclopedia here, so please keep your edits factual and neutral. Some readers looking for a serious article might not find them amusing. Remember, millions of people read Wikipedia, so we have to take what we do a bit seriously here. If you'd like to experiment with editing, use the Sandbox to get started. I hope you can help us out! -- Scientizzle 23:07, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I deleted it. Please be aware of our policy against disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Thank you. Chick Bowen 23:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. -- ✎ Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Wikipedia) 23:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I've reverted your addition to Rolling Stone, just as I reverted your addition to Mark Knopfler, because it was unsourced. If you're going to add such clearly POV statements to articles, at least have the courtesy to cite a reliable source that backs up your assertion. If you're just looking for a forum to vent your opinions, start a blog or join a usenet group... -- Scientizzle 23:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edits
Just a friendly note to say that your edits aare being discussed on WP:AN/I THis is usually a precursor to a warning or even blocking. Beware.--Light current 04:33, 8 November 2006 (UTC)