User talk:Sockatume/2006

NextGen Magazine

Hi! I saw that you were involved in discussion of NextGen Magazine. I was wondering if you had issue #50 (the gold one with Squall Leonhart on the cover) - this is a big favor, but could you please reproduce that issue's interview with Hironobu Sakaguchi (either through scanning the pages or typing it up); it's vital to what I'm working on for Wikipedia. PM if interested. Thanks! Tristam 22:09, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Alas, no. Sockatume 17:35, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Batman as villain

Right, so why can't I use the Batman comic books themselves as a source for discrepancy of Batman's "hero" statues? Why is wayne enterprises allowed to be called green and environmentally sound (as if it were a fact) when clearly it is not and characters within the Batman universe (Poison Ivy in particular) have even pointed out so much in the Batman DC comic book universe? I'm certain that there isn't any question about the dubious moral characteristics of some of Batman's/Bruce Wayne's actions, as some of the things he's involved with are criticized by those within his universe (Superman questions his tactics for example), beyond the ethics of mining and oil drilling (which on the Wayne Enterprises page doesn't stop the corporation from being called green and environmentally sound). At the very least some of the positive things should be edited OUT but balance should allowed in the form of allowing criticism that is presented even within the pages of the comic book. I think that many superficial fans do not realise the complexity of modern day comic books and this is a prime example. They only allow the good things that are said about the character, they add good things that aren't true, and they block users who cite criticism of the character. As for original research... mine is not -- it is the result of conversation but, since that is not enough, how many blogs would I have to cite. And which organizations would I have to point to that disagree with the morality of manufacturing and distributing hi-tech military weapons? Nihilozero 19:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't actually care about who Batman is. I am however interested in pulling the Wikipedia away from its current state as a mass of fans' opinions into a more objective piece. With this goal in mind could try citing a variety of blogs to discuss readers general impressions of the character. However for discussing the character himself, you should be referring to other people's analyses of the character ("While Batman is typically cast as Bruce Wayne's shadow side, Wayne himself is not cast a wholly ethical individual. Noted comic author Jonathan Q. Somebody observes(reference) that Waynecorp's misdemeanours were responsible for the creation of famous villain XYZ...") If you want to write your own analysis of the character, then more power to you, but alas the Wikipedia is not the place to present it. Treat it like a science literature review: reference everything.

Of course, there are far worse articles out there (most of the ones about the Matrix trilogy constitute original research and fan-wankery of the highest order) and you're far from the worst editor in this regard. However the point remains: they're annoyed because you're presenting a view they're unfamiliar with and which may not be grounded in the accepted concensus, making it likely to be original research. To collaborate on good, original research, you could give Wikibooks a shot. Maybe start up a Wikibook on comics character development? Sockatume 20:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Disrespectful

What the hell is up with you calling me a complete idiot? I made a mistake and didn't see that it was about the launch titles. Instead of name calling, you could of pointed out my mistake and left it at that. For someone who's been with the site since 2004, I would have expected a little more decency. People make mistakes, deal with it. Third Strike

I was drunk at the time, seemingly. I don't actually recall the edit. Apologies. Sockatume 12:17, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, it's cool. Sorry if I came off harsh. I was very tired when I added the info, so I wasn't thinking right. Third Strike

Hey, I called you an idiot, I was the one being harsh. Lesson: don't drink and Wiki. ;) Sockatume 23:38, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Autocunnilingus

The article has been on Wikipedia for two and a half years and has no sources. The reason isn't that nobody has bothered to look for them. The issue is that there are none to be found. --Dhartung | Talk 06:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually if the problem is that "nobody has bothered to look at them", doesn't that mean that some may or may not exist? I mean, if nobody's tried looking, we don't actually know either way. Also, as AfD is discussion rather than vote based, you'd be better of putting this on the AfD page than my own talk page Sockatume 15:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

User:Darkishblade

I am not a moderator, I simply follow rules here. Report him as an ip, Admins will probably band the sites he posted. MythSearcher^talk 07:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

OIC. Sorry, your name was down on the "ban" template on his talk page so I assumed you were the one who banned him. Sockatume 10:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Award

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		For helping to get rid of that damn MG forums vandal, although I am gonna loose alot of edits by reverting his crap, it's still good what you've done †he Bread 01:32, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't really take credit, I just reported him a couple of times and kept tabs. His blocks have expired and he has yet to return, so I think he's shut up for good. Sockatume 15:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Like, whats a Wikifractal?

Does it have something to do with infinite edit paradoxes?Ollie the Magic Skater 00:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well I think you can form a lot of them using an infinite series of edit wars. Sockatume 14:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't revert me.

Did you even read the highlighted change in the history? (Gregory House)--User:Johnnyfog, 7:34 December 1 2006

Yes. You added a whopping great Wikiproject Politics table to the page, presumably a slip-of-the-mouse, so I reverted that edit to your last sensible version. Sockatume 02:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops. Mortifying. User:Johnnyfog 1:20 2 December 2006

I've done it myself plenty of times. I think it might be a problem with the way Wikipedia handles session data, actually, as it seems to happen quite inexplicably when I'm editing multiple articles at the same time. That's always been my excuse, anyway. Sockatume 23:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Folding@home

• Object Personally, I find there's not enough detail on the process itself. It treats protein folding calculation as a "black box". This would be of great interest to the layperson, I suspect. Also there's no comment on similarities and differences to similar protein structure prediction projects and such. NB: the importance of the subject is not a a"featured article" criterion. Sockatume 17:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont know can you be bold and fix it for me, please? --Records 19:41, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Alas my knowledge of F@H is pretty limited, when it comes to potential energy surfaces I'm a gas-phase collisions kind of a guy. Sockatume 23:20, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Random shite from Records as he attempts to pimp the F@H article

== Updates ==

• Reference & Bibliography merged as per suggestion of User:Selmo --Records 01:39, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Added new section for Google Compute & F@H with more information. --Records 02:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Improved Lead. --Records 02:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Removed bulky quote as it is not encylopedic. --Records 02:20, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Removed See Also as links in article direct to See Also articles, besides FA articles don't have see also eg. todays one.--Records 02:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Removed BOINC section as they dont plan on releasing a BOINC client in the near future besides the stand alone is more easy for newbies.--Records 02:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

• Changed Progress to Participation. --Records 02:33, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

After this "explanation" I am totally opposed to this article being nominated. User continues to spam talk pages for his cause and has admitted personal gain motivations. pschemp | talk 03:09, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow. Agreed. Sockatume 06:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Metalgearsolid forums

I've had it blacklisted. -- Steel 17:13, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Really? I didn't think there'd be enough of a case with just a couple of IP users spamming it. That saves me some effort though, thanks. Sockatume 17:20, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Image:Consolevania-Legend.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Consolevania-Legend.JPG. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{Replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Chowbok ☠ 23:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Note

Please discuss large edits (deletions) on the talk page before actually making the change. You just deleted an entire Animatrix section without much of an explaination or supporting consensus. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 00:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Noted. However it had been tagged as Original Research for a while and had no references, and read like original research, so I assumed it was likely to be deletable. I tend to follow the BRD cycle: if it had been reverted I would've been happy to discuss, but I agree I may have been too bold on this occasion. Sockatume 17:25, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Image Request for Nintendo DS Browser

Can you take a picture like this one? http://www.cnet.com.au/games/portable/0,239029689,240091923,00.htm FullMetal Falcon 16:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I'll have a shot in the new year. I'll do one with just the cartridges as well as one with the DS, because I think it'd be a bit clearer. Sockatume 22:26, 29 December 2006 (UTC)