User talk:Codemonkey

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Codemonkey, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If 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. Again, welcome! Karmafist 12:14, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WinAPI compiler support

Since you want to "check the compiler support section for facts and add references" anyway, let me warn you that currently it's much (not to say completely) erroneous. Not only is WinAPI 100% language-independent and can be used from Delphi or PowerBasic or assembly language or whatever, it has zero relationship with C++, and even IDL support isn't necessary.

Probably you'd like to rewrite that section from scratch, rather than trying to fix it. --tyomitch 14:15, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VWN en WCN

Beste allemaal Al enige tijd is er een Nederlandstalig chapter in oprichting, te vinden op http://nl.wikimedia.org . Dit wordt de Vereniging Wikimedia Nederland (VWN). Je kunt je interesse om lid te worden van deze vereniging hier aangeven.

Deze vereniging gaat eind augustus/begin september een Wikimedia Conferentie in Nederland (WCN) houden, volgend op Wikimania in Boston, gedeeltelijk erop inspelend middels een aantal discussiegroepen. Om iets dergelijks te organiseren is imput erg gewenst. Dus als je wilt meehelpen, of als je interesse hebt om bij een dergelijk evenement aanwezig te zijn, geef dat dan aan op nl.wikimedia. Ik hoop daar snel je imput tegemoet te zien! Met vriendelijke groet, Effeietsanders 25 feb 2006 12:27 (CET)

just curious

are you the codemonkey I think you are? [1]

If so, glad to see you here. :) Kasreyn 21:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, the handle I tend to go by was already taken on Wikipedia. Still, nice to meet you. :) --Codemonkey 21:47, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FF:CC for Wii

Last I checked, it was still a launch title. Has the date changed? Ladlergo 13:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I've looked, but I just could not find a source for FF:CC being a launch title. If you can, feel free to add the launch title references back to the Final Fantasy Crystal Chronicles: The Crystal Bearers article, with a source cite. --Codemonkey 13:04, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added the reference to the FFCC page and added the game back to the launch list. Ladlergo 13:15, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:PlayStation 3

Please don't take offense if you see a revert above your edit in the history of Talk:PlayStation 3, I was reverting 208.190.100.113's vandalism, not your edit... SCHZMO ✍ 19:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I won't. --Codemonkey 19:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert about controller on PS3

Blah. The reason I added that stuff about Sony being considered to have ripped off of Nintendo is because the PS3 article is very much lacking a neutral point of view. I see virtually none of the criticisms listed in the article and I know there are many to be had. Many people in the gaming community do consider Sony's controller to be a cheap move, and I tried my best to base it with statistics and sources as to avoid the whole "many people dislike the PS3's controller" comment that has no basis. What exactly SHOULD I use if not a Gamefaqs poll? There's hardly any other way to give a number to the statement to support it, and to leave the critism out altogether isn't proper.--SeizureDog 04:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Gamefaqs poll tells you what a certain subsection of Gamefaqs readers think. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't find that particularly noteworthy, and don't think it needs special mention in the PS3 article. Trying to use it to justify broader statements about a general feeling of outrage is, I feel, disingenuous.

And NPOV does not mean having criticism for criticism sake. Where relevant, where notable, where verifiable, one can, even needs, to include points of critism. But to list every point of critism that can be made is, I feel, giving undue weight. Which is in itself a very subtle, but insiduous breaking of NPOV. While I don't mean to patronize, I'd like to point to WP:NPOV#Undue_weight as justification for my points. --Codemonkey 09:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But my point is that it isn't a "very small minority opinion", and the poll reflects that. At the very least, it qualifies as a "significant minority" as stated in the link you provided. And to brush aside the results of the poll as merely "what a certain subsection of Gamefaqs readers think" is asinine. ANY poll is only what "a certain section" thinks, as it is impossible to get everyone's opinion. However, a GameFAQs poll is fairly unbias as far as polls go. It's not as if it suffers from a specific audience that would skew the poll one direction or another. Now if that poll was found on "Nintendofanboy.com" or something, then yes, it would be a terrible representation. But as it is, GameFAQs polls are about as good as you're going to see in terms of a fair representation of the community at large, and it shows that a fair amount of people don't approve what Sony is doing. Just as the Wii article deserves some talk on the unpopularity of its name, the PS3 article deserves a blurb on the unpopularity of its controller (and pricing) decisions. --SeizureDog 20:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Wii article uses a Forbes article to do so, though. A fair step up from a GameFAQs poll. Anyway, as for the 'undue weight' part, if it indeed is a "prominent minority" opinion, it should, as the link states, "be easy to name prominent adherents". If it is something more than that, it should be easy to "substantiate with commonly accepted reference texts". If you feel it needs adding, the burden of evidence is on you.

As for polls in general; real polls, conducted by actual polling bureaus, are easy enough to misuse already, and Wikipedia guidelines state that they should be used "with the utmost care".

And last, if you can't find anything better than a GameFAQs poll, as you seem to suggest, it might not deserve a mention in the article. It is not about what you feel 'deserves' to be in the article. We are not about truth in Wikipedia. We are about what is verifiable. It it isn't verifiable, it doesn't belong. --Codemonkey 20:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say that Forbes is much of a step up from GameFAQs. While it is an established magazine, it's subject matter isn't video games at all (the fact the Wii thing got mentioned is a fluke) and if you noticed, Forbes itself was basing its reaction on message boards, which, I would use as a source myself if I didn't already know there's no way that'd hold up as a valid reference. I suppose all of this arguement has been good for something though, as I just found [this article] stating that a major employee of Nintendo is mad about the controller as well. Happy?--SeizureDog 21:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, yes. That is so much better. And I hope I haven't come across as to hostile in my replies. If so, my apologies. --Codemonkey 21:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize as well if I came off that way. In any case, it worked out for the best for all of us. Would you mind being the one to work this information though? You'd probably do a better job wording it than me, and would save that extra step of you rewriting whatever I put down ;) --SeizureDog 21:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Just give me a minute. :) --Codemonkey 21:14, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your changes in AR4 not visible ??

hi, I see in the change history you have added a comment to my last remark but I see neither in the text of the thread. I tried refreshing in two different browsers but I dont get the last two entries that do show in the history.

Can you explain why that should be. Is it local?

The last line I see the talk page is:

"I would not wish to load this entry..."

thx —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.144.113.77 (talk) 19:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Replied on the user's talk page. --Codemonkey 20:01, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Swordbird

There is definite value to people knowing the methods that the publisher is taken to publicize the novel, even to the point where they pass themselves off as independent readers. This is duplicitous and unacceptable in a literary context. Please stop reverting me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.237.109.12 (talk) 20:07, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Replied on the user's talk page. --Codemonkey 20:16, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what a meat puppet or a sock puppet is, but what I do know is that in no way have I replaced the entire article. In fact, I believe you were the one that deleted the reviews section out of the article. I am not vandalizing, this is legitimate knowledge that should be available to people when researching this novel and deciding what publishers to support. Go ahead and block me, but you are clearly violating the three revert rule and, more importantly, this is my last day at this IP address anyway.

Replied on the user's talk page. --Codemonkey 20:59, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Voices in the Dark.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Voices in the Dark.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. Yamla (talk) 22:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:B5-TLT.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:B5-TLT.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation 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. Yamla (talk) 22:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oriflame

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Oriflame, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add {{db-author}} to the top of Oriflame. Argyriou (talk) 17:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:08, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]