User talk:Nczempin/Archive 2

Wii Australia Release
I undid your undo of my change, that page on wiki is the only page with that release date. Not to mention it doesn't even make sense that Australia would have gotten the wii more than a year before anywhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.192.154 (talk) 07:42, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Unsigned comment.
Pleased to meet you.

You left the following message.


 * Hi. I've noticed that you like to add ~ ~ ~ ~ to your edit summaries. I'm not sure what motivates you to do that, but the four tildes are not particularly useful in an edit summary. They are used on Talk pages, where they get replaced by a link to your user page, one to your talk page, and a timestamp (see the end of this message). In edit summaries they serve no function. They are a little distracting/annoying. If possible, please invest the time to learn how to use them properly. Thanks. Or at least you could explain why you are adding them, there might very well be something I've missed.

I was told to do that by other users that complained that I was not signing my summaries. I cannot provide a reason. Those requests were rude and I removed them from my talk page after my edits were mangled by other users. Some articles contain outrageous falsehoods that are vigorously defended with much expression of negative emotion after I make corrections.

Regret any difficulties that this may have caused.

If you suggest an alternate approach then I will do that from now on.

I hope this finds you well.

Best regards.Nanoatzin (talk) 07:45, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure where those rude requests on your talk page are; they do not seem to show up in the history. In any case, here's what you are supposed to do (as it says in the welcome message, but I'm sure there is room for confusion in those messages): You are meant to _provide_ an edit summary. I. e. not just leave it blank, but describe what you did and/or why you did it. This is particularly important in changes that may be viewed as controversial. However, you're not supposed to _sign_ edit summaries. Whoever might have told you that was wrong; it doesn't make any sense. Instead, what you are supposed to do is sign your name in comments on _Talk_pages_ such as this one (a _user_ talk page), as you correctly did here.
 * That welcome message on your own talk page provides a number of links to very useful guidelines. While no-one expects you to have read them all in detail, if you are aware of them you will have an easier time on Wikipedia, get into fewer pointless discussions, and so on. One guideline that (I'm just guessing here, based on your background; I have no idea if this happened to you) "people like you" (for lack of better words) tend to run into is the principle of reliable sources: Even when you are an expert in the field covered by a particular article, other Wikipedia editors who don't know the first thing about the subject are free to revert/remove the changes you have made. Sometimes this even means that something remains in the article that is blatantly false from your point of view. Then you are of course free to remove that information, with an edit summary such as "false and unsourced". Note the second part, which is crucial. Experienced editors will usually not contest such deletions (although there are also "friendlier" ways to point out inaccuracies and/or missing sources, for example this or this (and others).
 * Okay, I got a little carried away here :-) Anyway, I usually try to provide useful edit summaries on article pages (I consider them less important on talk pages since it is usually necessary to read the actual comment and you usually don't want or need to repeat the comment in the summary), sign with the tildes on talk pages, try to assume good faith, provide (or ask for) reliable sources. Among other things. -- Nczempin (talk) 08:20, 11 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Then what does this mean: " Sign your posts on talk pages: ~ ~ ~ ~ Cite your sources: < /ref > "?
 * That notice seems to show up on every page I edit.
 * Best regards.Nanoatzin (talk)
 * Sign the posts, but not in the edit summary. I. e. after the text you have written (like apparently you did here). Nczempin (talk) 10:35, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Strom Thurmond
Hi! Wrt Legacy: puffery; not only is it completely irrelevant to the institute which vice president was present at the opening ceremony, but: "ground breaking"; really??--that's a reference to the groundbreaking ceremony. Bush's presence was a big deal to Clemson. Regards, Yopienso (talk) 16:12, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Okay, so I misunderstood the groundbreaking part (wikilink would have been useful; I'm sure I'm not the only person who is more familiar with the idiomatic use), but just because it was significant to Clemson it doesn't mean it's significant to Wikipedia. We don't learn anything significant about Strom Thurmond from the fact that the VP was present. Nczempin (talk) 16:24, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Article Feedback Tool update
Hey Nczempin. I'm contacting you because you're involved in the Article Feedback Tool in some way, either as a previous newsletter recipient or as an active user of the system. As you might have heard, a user recently anonymously disabled the feedback tool on 2,000 pages. We were unable to track or prevent this due to the lack of logging feature in AFT5. We're deeply sorry for this, as we know that quite a few users found the software very useful, and were using it on their articles.

We've now re-released the software, with the addition of a logging feature and restrictions on the ability to disable. Obviously, we're not going to automatically re-enable it on each article—we don't want to create a situation where it was enabled by users who have now moved on, and feedback would sit there unattended—but if you're interested in enabling it for your articles, it's pretty simple to do. Just go to the article you want to enable it on, click the "request feedback" link in the toolbox in the sidebar, and AFT5 will be enabled for that article.

Again, we're very sorry about this issue; hopefully it'll be smooth sailing after this :). If you have any questions, just drop them at the talkpage. Thanks! Okeyes (WMF) 21:47, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

OR tags on Brian Reynolds page
Hi Ncz - I was just by the Brian Reynolds (game designer) page removing some vandalism and saw you'd added a couple of OR tags. How would you reconcile that with the statement right at the top of the main Civ2 article (Civilization_2) about Meier's non-involvement. Also the MobyGames credits are here -. I'm not an expert on OR but I was surprised you called attention here when the main Civ2 article was so definitive. Thx 69.255.242.86 (talk) 21:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, for starters, have you read the OR article that the tag links to? If the same statement is made in another article but not tagged, feel free to tag it. "x implies y" and a claim "z clearly borrows.." are classic examples of OR (and OR synthesis). I cannot explain it all here, we have pages. Briefly: Whether Credits imply something is a matter of opinion; if a reliable source (preferably several) has stated that opinion, it is not OR, if Wikipedia states it, it is. --Nczempin (talk) 22:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! That more or less clears it up - your brief explanation much appreciated. 69.255.242.86 (talk) 12:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

UFC Soundtrack
Do you think that EA Sports UFC will have their rock/metal focused on Precision (NHL) or Aggresion (WWE)? Jusgtr (talk) 12:30, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have absolutely no idea. --Nczempin (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Make your guess, meaning if Heaven's Basement will appear or Underoath. Jusgtr (talk) 01:12, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have no inclination whatsoever to start speculating on Wikipedia. Please keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a forum. --Nczempin (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

discontinued
I agree that discontinued isn't needed. The reason it was there, was to discourage people who don't read MOS:TENSE from changing the whole article to past tense. Note also the example: The PDP-10 is a discontinued mainframe computer family. But I agree with your change to 709. Gah4 (talk) 02:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Hm, if it says that at PDP-10 I guess I would change it too. I briefly thought about that, that perhaps numerous articles use that sort of wording. But I decided not to try and eradicate them all, but if I encounter them, I would probably change them --Nczempin (talk) 11:30, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I am slowly changing the articles in past tense to present. Note that it is the architecture, the design of the machine, and not individual implementations, that is described. It should be present tense even if no actual machines exist, or ever existed. But many articles are past tense, or more usual a mix of tense. Well, events, such as the actual designing or sale of the machine are still past tense. The PDP-10 addition to MOS:TENSE was added (by someone else) when I changed the article, while sitting next to a running PDP-10 a few years ago.  Gah4 (talk) 14:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It sounds like you've got it covered :-) --Nczempin (talk) 22:05, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I just read MOS:TENSE and now I understand the entirety of what you mean. --Nczempin (talk) 22:09, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Plus, I totally agree with your points on family vs. individual models. The vast majority of these (possibly all) should be in the present tense, especially in the definition. Usually some things will be in the present, some in the past. "The xy is a family of computers that was popular in the 70s". Any such statement would only make sense in the past tense if a) it was something, then became something else or b) it was something, then became not the something (which I guess includes a) --Nczempin (talk) 22:25, 29 December 2017 (UTC)