User talk:TaerkastUA/Archives/2010/December

WP:FILM November 2010 Newsletter
The November 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:58, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Killzone 2
Hi Tartkast. I will be looking at your Killzone 2 userpage soon. Also, in the future, have some patience on a comment and not repeating a question. GamerPro64 (talk) 00:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry. Thanks though. I shouldn't have expected a reply so soon. I don't usually do that.-- The Taerkasten ([[User talk:TaerkastUA|talk]] ) 12:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
In response to your copy edit request, I will be more than happy to copy edit your article. --Skamecrazy123 (talk) 13:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! (re: peerage edits)
Thanks for cleaning-up behind some of Somewhatdazed's well-meaning (I hope) copy edits... although the mass-quantity involved would usually indicate someone with an agenda. Guess we'll see. I try to WP:AGF, but this user's edits make no sense. (I've never heard anyone say "Walter Raleigh" when referring to "Sir Walter Raleigh"! Nice to find someone with knowledge of "peerage" protocol. (Esp. in regards to such examples as Lord Sugar.) &mdash; DennisDallas (talk) 16:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * No probs, always try to help out when I can.-- TÆRkast  ( Communicate ) 17:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi TÆRkast, thanks for your message. I'd like to apologise from the start for any inconvenience that I may have caused.

As for the edits... The UK honours system is just that - it's in the UK. An online encyclopedia such as Wikipedia is universal. Intended for use and enjoyment for all peoples from all nations throughout the world.

(I've used fellow user Choess's words here in inverted comma's)

"If you're pursuing some sort of personal agenda with regards to the validity and credibility of the UK honours system, be aware that Wikipedia is not the place to campaign or agitate for change." But I'm not pursuing any agenda. I did not, and have no intention of, changing any actual details/life/history of the persons. Even if I did have a personal agenda, I know I would not get very far!

"It is an encyclopedia, and tries to record the way the world is (rather than how some people may think it should be)". Well, take the title of a Wikipedia article on a peer - why is the title the persons NAME? And not just their title? Take, for example (as of 11th December 2010): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Sugar Why is the title just 'Alan Sugar' and not 'Lord Sugar'? I thought you're meant to record the way the world is. As a British peer, if 'Lord Sugar' is how he should be addressed, why are you not recording the way THIS is meant to be? Yes, you can say Wikipedia goes along with whatever is accepted in common parlance - so why not also do this with the title of the article? Why only the name?

Because the name is the most important element, their title is secondary. As is the case of all Wikipedia titles. Now, am I wrong? I mean, having their actual name as the first thing is a simple case of informing us of who that person is.

"It is an encyclopedia, and tries to record the way the world is..." I'm sorry, but I'm sure you're intelligent enough to realise this is not true. Even you have to admit that there is a certain bias when it comes to "recording the way the world is". Not that I'm complaining about it, I'm just aware of it, that's all. Wikipedia is a USA based website, so naturally there will be a slant in the bias, would you not agree? As long as impartiality, fairness and a healthy dose of neutrality is prevalent, I guess this is what matters most (despite the bias).

I'm not trying to be belligerent. I understand that the numerous helpers of this encyclopedia are here to improve Wikipedia, by said means of fairness and impartiality. This is all that I am doing, trying to be impartial. Of course, I'm not trying to be disrespectful, I still want their titles to be retained - I've not deleted 'Baron', or 'Sir', they are still there, just not bold. The bold part is the most important part of that person - their name. The titles are still there though!

But if you feel my thinking is wrong, then that's fine. I love Wikipedia and find it a great tool for knowledge of this age. I don't want to cause any hassle or unnecessary disruption.

Thank you. Somewhatdazed (talk) 18:22, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the reply, and I didn't think it was your intention to cause problems. Your points of view are quite valid. Hope you stay well and good on Wikipedia. Cheers, -- TÆRkast  ( Communicate ) 18:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Killzone 2 cleanup
O.K now. I am currently making some changes to the Killzone 2 userspace page. While I was changing some parts of it, I wanna know, have you ever made a major re-working to a video game article before? GamerPro64 (talk) 23:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * A while ago, to Age of Empires (video game), but it didn't work out too well. I also started on Star Wars: Empire at War, quite some time ago as well, but it just fell through. I don't tend to work on video game articles in a major way. I've kept mostly to film articles. That's why I decided to create a userspace instead, rather than working on the actual article. And thanks for your help.-- TÆRkast  ( Communicate ) 12:29, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Bad editing
You undid the timeline in "Cradle of civilization" by saying that the links in the templates does not exist, but I can see that all the links do exist indeed. So you are most likely deleting unnecessarily. Now will you give some other reason for it,say, the links are unreliable, original research, etc to substantiate it or keep quite because you want only your edits to remain. What even your reasons may be, the time and effort that we put is simply waste due to such acts. Thanks for that!!!. 27.61.170.202 (talk) 04:47, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Please assume good faith, and you are quite free to restore that version. I did not do it deliberately to only have "my edits" in. Everybody is free to edit, and I apologise if I caused any inconvenience. I can make mistakes. -- TÆRkast  ( Communicate ) 11:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, what I meant was, that when you click on the links they take you to pages which don't exist. Once that is solved, I'm perfectly happy for it to be in the article. Cheers, -- TÆRkast  ( Communicate ) 11:51, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

consensus with the proposed edit
Please take a look at the edits I made on the List of conspiracy theories article to see if you agree with the edit or do not agree with the edit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories The comments are here http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&action=history More info on the subject is on my channel here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:64.120.47.10 The start of all this was to correct a untruth here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conspiracy_theories#Water_fluoridation Where the article says have found no association with adverse effects. The 2 sources I cited that challenge that are http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11571#toc and http://ncseonline.org/NLE/CRSreports/08Mar/RL33280.pdf Please post on my channel if you agree and are in consensus with the proposed edit or not in consensus. The proposed edit is this. The 2006 National Research Council's report Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Scientific Review of EPA's Standards and the 2008 CRS Report for Congress Fluoride in Drinking Water: A Review of Fluoridation and Regulation Issues did find associations to adverse health effects with fluoride in drinking water.[54] [55] This can be seen here in the water fluoridation section.http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_conspiracy_theories&oldid=40471025  Please disregard claims that may arise that I am blocked in this effort to seek consensus with the proposed edit as I am not blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.120.47.10 (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2010 (UTC)