User talk:S@bre/Archive 3
Discussion archive
Essex discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals
Maybe you could try Category:Wikipedians from Essex and also place notices e.g. at Wikipedia:WikiProject England. Simply south (talk) 19:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Re: StarCraft speciesSeems a good section, although you should fix the redirect for Emperor Zurg. As for my userpage image...huh? The Clawed One (talk) 05:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks for the InputI got your revision and I took your advice into consideration. I put the review under reception. Am I going to get into trouble the way I did it?? Thanks for your help. Kingston8 (talk) 23:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Numbers are evil?'Lo, can you tell me why you changed all the numbers from digits to words in The Orange Box? Standard accepted style (which I believe is reflected in MOSNUM) is that numbers from 0 to 9 inclusive (sometimes stretched to 19 inclusive) should be words (i.e. zero to nineteen) but anything ≥10 (or 20) should generally be written as digits (20, 50, 60, 1000, 65 536 etc.). It's not so much that having them as words is wrong, it's just that I was wondering why you particularly bothered to make the edit. 'A thousand' should also be 'one thousand'. Any particular reason you have for your hatred of all things numerical? —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξφ 12:46, 13 January 2008 (UTC) VortigauntsPlease tell me exactly why the article:
Thanks, and I'll leave it alone if you reply with this stuff. JTBX (talk) 20:07, 29 January 2008 (UTC) Re: RaynorWell I believe the original version was from the SCL transcript of the Lore Panel at Blizzcon, but that's gone, so with a tweak of the wording you can use this. The Clawed One (talk) 20:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC) [1]
"As for Raynor, while Robert Clotworthy (the original voice of Raynor) has said he’d love to do Raynor’s voice again, Metzen loves a new guy that has come in to the studio and read for Raynor. He says from his, a creative, perspective he wants to get the character right and that this new guy is much closer to what he had originally envisioned for the character. But he does realize that we, as fans, have an emotional attachment to the original voice and they haven’t quite decided what to do on that one" [2] —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Clawed One (talk • contribs) 20:10, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
THANKSFOR THE INFO! Is it safe to say the headcrab article resembles a fan site? It has stuff that is not understandable by non-fans. JTBX (talk) 21:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC) Fully updated, including all the sub-boxes. let me know if there are any problems. Chris Cunningham (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Just to make sure...It was all done in Photoshop. :P David Fuchs (talk) 21:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Re: Your opinion, pleaseI did some minor removal, but I do agree that you really can't compress the Starcraft/BW listings down. The only possible thing you could do is to remove the part about the psi emitters, and have it quickly go to how she was overrun... your call. Cortana has two paragraphs for the introductory appearance as well, so I don't think that's too bad. David Fuchs (talk) 12:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
KerriganUnfortunately my novel has scurried off, I'll try and find it and get the info back to you ASAP. Also, thanks for the new image for my user page, didn't even know the old one was gone. The Clawed One (talk) 21:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Starcraft iconYou want me to make you a better version than the gif you have now? David Fuchs (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC) How's this look? I can tweak it as much as needed. David Fuchs (talk) 23:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC) orange box = GA ?
didn't it pass? xenocidic (talk) 15:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
unrelated: "The boxed version still requires a Steam account to work" - gotcha, didn't know that. xenocidic (talk) 15:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC) FACAre you aware that a new editor submitted Characters of StarCraft to FAC? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
VG reviews templateActually MobyGames lists two review scores per game. The first is the one off their own site, which is the one the template uses. The second is a compiled rank from published reviews called MobyRank (up to at least 5 are needed to count) and is based solely off those, making it a different score and qualifying it for the compiled score section. Not second guessing you, just explaining myself and seeing if it should be put back with that reasoning or not.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:59, 15 March 2008 (UTC) TF2Why do you consider the exact value inappropriate here? [3] Also when reverting items like this please provide reasoning, having good faith edits reverted without cause is a little bit WP:BITE. -Ravedave (talk) 19:48, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Fragile AllegianceNot too long ago you left me some feedback regarding this article. I've done a lot more work on it and was wondering if you'd be able to look over it for me and give me some feedback. Thanks. -- Archangel Lucifer (talk) 06:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Re: FACThe new wording's fine. My problem was saying that the features hadn't been seen in a multiplayer game, when the sources didn't support this. This was stated as one person's view, but represented as a general fact when it was just one reviewer's comment. Ask me if you need further clarification. Ashnard Talk Contribs 16:53, 24 March 2008 (UTC) The Orange BoxHeh, I was in the process of making the same revert to the caption at the same time. Good work on the article though, nearly there! Gazimoff (talk) 09:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC) |