Archives

Sep 06 - Feb 07 Feb 07 - Aug 07

Hello, I'm a Mac, and you're probably a PC.

Hello Oicumayberight! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Happy Editing! --Nishkid64 23:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Conflict resolution Getting technical Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Thanks for your suggestion on the Motion Graphic/Motion Graphics page duplication. Who do I direct the request to? Scaatt (talk) 20:21, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just follow the WP:AFD procedures. Oicumayberight (talk) 22:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's all :)

What is the photo you have up? Dndn1011 23:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for what? BTW, photo is Rush Oicumayberight 05:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Template:User Design requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section T3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a deprecated or orphaned template. After seven days, if it is still unused and the speedy deletion tag has not been removed, the template will be deleted.

If the template is intended to be substituted, please feel free to remove the speedy deletion tag and please consider putting a note on the template's page indicating that it is substituted so as to avoid any future mistakes (<noinclude>{{transclusionless}}</noinclude>).

Thanks. --MZMcBride (talk) 22:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think that Creative license should redirect to creative director - would you mind explaining to me why it should? I believe a more logical redirect would be to creative commons license - thanks for reading this message, please respond in my talk page.--Kiyarrllston 04:12, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith. First read, discuss and if that doesn't work refert. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:24, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to experiment, use the WP:Sandbox. Oicumayberight (talk) 19:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again you make no sense. I am just improving the articles.

I would ask you to comment on the talk pages instead of starting an editwar. Deliberate engagement in edit warring instead of discussion is a breach of Wikiquette and may cause user blocks from editing. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 19:43, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already commented on the talk page. You could have used the WP:Sandbox to make your point. Your the one who started the edit war. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Making one remark on a talk page doesn't give you the right to start an edit war. I have explained myself on the talk pages of the two articles and so far you haven't even considered what I said. If you want to contribute to Wikipedia, start acting like that instead of your blind referts. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 20:49, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've made it difficult for me to assume good faith. I've made several remarks on the talk pages and with every edit in the comments. I already stated why your edits were unacceptable. You have yet to dispute anything I've said with anything that resembles logic. And you have yet to get any buy-in for your megabytes of changes and removal of content that was well accepted as it was on wikipedia for years. It's you who's unwilling to discuss. I know exactly what you are doing. Your edits lack WP:NPOV and over-simplify a broad multidisciplinary subject to technology, making it difficult for the less technically skilled to feel qualified to even have an opinion on the subject. I know your type. I've worked with them. You are not fooling me. It simply your way of trying to monopolize the terminology and make the field of software development an exclusive club where software engineers have the final say if not the only say. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After blindly referting my work, you start a personal attack. This doesn't help. -- Marcel Douwe Dekker (talk) 21:16, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not even disputing what I said about your intentions. This is beyond personal. This is professionals. This is your attack on other legitimate profession. And you've said nothing to disprove or even dispute it. You're just gaming the system by trying to appear diplomatic, but you haven't considered the validity of a single thing that I've said. Oicumayberight (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Continuing thread here from Talk:Typeface#No, No, No!) The case should have been made to Apple, Microsoft, and other software makers 20+ years ago. If it was, they ignored it. So we've had the ubiquitous Font menu in nearly every word-processing app (and lots of other apps) on the planet. This has turned "font" into a household word and blurred its meaning even among the rest of us. Regarding your point about electronic display, you could be right but I suspect it's more the origins of a given document than the media we view it on that counts. In any case, your original point is well taken, and as long verifiable sources make the distinction, WP should make it too. Cheers, Rivertorch (talk) 18:07, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no harm but it also is not an accurate description of this manual of style. Garion96 (talk) 21:26, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask: What is inaccurate about it? Oicumayberight (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For starters wp:npov really was a bad edit summary. [1]. Plus it softens the point of this guideline, which is to stop overflagging. (or overiconing if that's a word). Garion96 (talk) 23:58, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. WP:NPOV is very relevant in this case. Especially when there's a dispute and you use judgmental words like "bad" without saying why.
2. The summary itself is not enough of a reason to revert the change.
3. Softening the point, was the point. It's unfair to overuse a guide to prevent overuse of icons.
4. There is no reason to suppress important facts in this case. Oicumayberight (talk) 00:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know that there is a Wikipedia:WikiProject Arts. Feel free to join and contribute! Voyaging^(talk) 16:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the invite. I just might do that when my current struggles end on the Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (icons). Most of the members on the Wikipedia:WikiProject Graphic design are MIA. Oicumayberight (talk) 20:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:Manual of Style (icons). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Aspects (talk) 19:45, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]