User talk:MinorStoop/Archive

Talkback
MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  23:07, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Bump. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  23:23, 24 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Great job! And a merry merry Christmas to you, too. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  23:33, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 26
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Dresden Files organizations, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Changes and Ghost Story. 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:23, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

Talkback
MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  13:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)
 * bump. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  15:48, 26 December 2014 (UTC)

move from talk page
It's perfectly acceptable to copy a discussion from a user talk page to an article talk page, so long as the discussion is about the article. Just don't remove it from the original page, and add a note indicating that it was moved. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  15:11, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
 * It's what I thought, but then I got distracted and left it for later to ponder about. Thanks! MinorStoop (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Blank lines
I see you've been removing blank lines between headers of ascending levels. Just so you know, (and as far as I know) keeping those blank lines in preceding each header is one of the ways we keep the source of the page more easily readable. That way, it becomes fairly easy to to find a specific header, as all you have to read are those lines immediately above a blank line. Someone is bound to come along later and put them back in. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  19:28, 29 January 2015 (UTC)


 * Good to know - as a matter of personal taste, I've never liked them, but I've seen them inserted back often enough to start wondering what they meant. Thanks. MinorStoop (talk) 19:43, 29 January 2015 (UTC)
 * I like them, but then, I'm a programmer.

MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  20:12, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Talkback
MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  14:28, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Dresden Files references
My religious beliefs (if you look at my primary userpage, you'll see it's more accurate to say 'my lack of religious beliefs') are surprisingly robust, so wishing me a happy (or merry, or joyful) [insert holiday of your choice here] does nothing except express goodwill. So happy Easter to you, as well!

Regarding the first half of your post above... Are you referring to referencing the books as sources for the plot synopsis? If so, I wouldn't. Plot information is presumed to come from the work itself, and no reasonable person would conclude otherwise. The only cases in which you need to cite sources for plot information is when a work has not yet been released (but still is notable enough to warrant its own page) and one must rely on secondary sources for plot information.

Regarding the second half, I would leave the plot synopses alone, at least with regards to their length. I personally prefer detailed plot summaries that cover all of the relevant details, but TRPoD was correct that many of the plot summaries in the Dresden Files were too long several months ago. This is why I went through and re-wrote almost all of them (I think the only one I didn't do a complete re-write of was Changes) instead of arguing the point. That guy (or gal, I don't know) can be a royal pain in the ass sometimes, but not everybody can be reasonable, rational, civil and cooperative, and the lack of those doesn't always make someone wrong. Check out plots in articles about novels and writing about plots in general for some good information about how a plot summary should look. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  12:51, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Jade Court
It's not important at all (and no hard feelings on my end, I assure you!), but I thought you'd like to know:

I came this close to reverting your removal of their mention, before I recalled Butcher saying he had no plans to use them in the Dresden Files. The Jade Court might be notable among vampires in the DF universe (hence why I thought to revert), but being barely mentioned in the books, plus no plans to use them means they're probably not notable enough to mention in WP.

So why am I even mentioning it? Well, I think we should keep our ears peeled to the pulse on the ground (how's that for a metaphor potpourri?) for mention of them in the role-playing game or any expanded universe stuff, as their inclusion there might warrant bringing them back in. The way I see it, this article is about the fictional universe, not the book series alone. I seem to remember that Butcher has even said that the published material of the role playing game was canon, and I would assume he wouldn't give his permission to anyone else to write in his universe without granting that work canonical status, as well. MjolnirPants  Tell me all about it.  18:37, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
 * I wasn't aware they were mentioned in the groups page. That's fine enough for me, even if they become a major group in some tangential canon. Alas, I don't play the RPG, but the rule system it's based on (The fate system) can be downloaded for free at drivethrurpg.com the last time I checked. It's an interesting system, with no dice or math necessary. MjolnirPants   Tell me all about it.  06:53, 2 May 2015 (UTC)

Whip
Please stop being a WP:DICK about this, getting rid of unnecessary non-functional whitespace is a good thing. Your account is barely 6 months old, please don't assume you know better than long-time Wikipedians. BMK (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * You see, you didn't even know that editors can remove pretty much anything they want to from their user talk page, and if the editor who placed it edit wars to put it back they're in danger of being sanctioned for disruptive editing, not the editor whose talk page it is. Please stop restoring the unwarranted template you added to my talk page. BMK (talk) 17:32, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I also suggest you read and follow WP:BRD. BMK (talk) 17:33, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

User talk pages
Edits may remove content from their own user talk pages if they like. If a warning is given, they can remove it. The assumption is that by removing it, they are aware of the warning. See WP:UTP for more.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 17:30, 6 July 2015 (UTC)