User talk:PurplePlatypus/Archive1

An archive of messages sent to my talk page on or before October 18, 2006

einstien etc. on Asperger's syndrome

Hi PurplePlatypus, I merged a lot of einstien/newton speculation in the "gift" section of Asperger's syndrome. What do you think? Do you think the speculation needs a seperate article? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 16:40, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

What I mean is should Einstein, Newton, and Autism be seperate? Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 16:59, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

civility

regarding your statement on User talk:JoeMele I can understand that you are angry with him but please remember to be civil. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 06:28, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

It isn't any less offensive, I just happened to see your comments on his talk page and thus decided to warn you about civility. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 06:42, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

I made some comments on joes page about your comment. Your anger was definately justified - the trouble is always expressing it... Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 06:53, 25 September 2005 (UTC) Also none of us are arguing that none of Joes comments went over the line - many, many of them did (probably some directed at me also :\) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 06:57, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

RfA comment

I just saw your comment on the RfA page about the polygamy dispute. My thought is that the arbitrators decided to merge to two RfA requests together and to treat them as one. I agree that it would be better to reject the one against Nereocystis and to keep the one against Researcher99. I hope that one of the arbitrators responds to your question, as I am interested too in their rationale for keeping the one against Nereocystis. Best, Kewp (t) 08:16, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Kewp. The arbitrators concluded that there was a problem, and decided to accept it and see who was right. I think that is the way the ArbCom handles cases where both parties claim to have been wronged. Robert McClenon 11:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I suspect that Kewp and McClenon are right as well. There is a comment by one of arbitrators in Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration#Just curious... that failed mediation leads to almost automatic acceptance of the case.

PurplePlatypus, thanks for your comments on the arbitration page. Dealing with Researcher99 has been a very frustrating experience. Nereocystis 15:52, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

RfC on Copperchair

There is already an RfC pending on this problem editor. Please feel free to add evidence or endorse one or more of the summaries of the dispute. Thanks.--chris.lawson 00:25, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Nice user nick..

Hello fellow monotreme-friend. After seeing your nick, I had to leave a message. Just so someone doesn't think I'm your sock-puppet or relation or something.

That said, platypi of all colors: Unite! :) --BluePlatypus 03:30, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Dragon Dice

You are right that Dragon Dice was licensed by TSR/WotC, but you seem to think that means it was automatically D&D-based. It is not; it is based on a completely different game, and does not say "Dungeons & Dragons" on it anywhere. It does not belong on a list of D&D-based games. PurplePlatypus 08:14, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

The Dragon Dice COMPUTER Game... not the dice based game has the Dungeons & Dragons logo clearly displayed on the cover of the box. as such it belongs on the list of dungeons & dragons computer and video games.  ALKIVAR™ 15:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

This is not the case on the pictures of it that I've seen, only the Dragon Dice logo. If it is there, are you sure it's not in a phrase such as "From the makers of..."? At any rate, I would still argue that it's not a D&D game any more than an adaptation of Magic: the Gathering would be, even given that this were true. PurplePlatypus 19:31, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Well my big issue is that if we're going to include the Star Wars games which are only on there because their based on D20 Rules (a very broad jump IMO) I see no reason this cant remain as well. Its not THAT big of a deal, just seemed very wrong for some reason.  ALKIVAR™ 13:34, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't see the analogy. The Star Wars games - which are clearly marked as not D&D, but only "of related interest" - use the same rules as current D&D games, more or less. D&D and the underlying ruleset of KotOR are about as different as any two different versions of Monopoly (many tweaks, but most of them are superficial and it's still recognizably the same game); D&D and Dragon Dice are as different as chess and poker (not even the same kind of game). PurplePlatypus 19:29, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Purple

Dear Purple, while I can understand your frustration when a vandal or POV warrior hits you/us, I friendly recommend you not to reward him/her with expresions like this. Remember, you are far better than the moron you're reverting, so please behave as such, k? Have a nice day! -- Phædriel ^shoot! 05:08, January 3, 2006 (UTC)

Unverified tag on Asperger's Syndrome

This was only added due to something about Steven Spielberg. --Sunfazer 11:45, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikimedia Canada

Hi there! I'd like to invite you to explore Wikimedia Canada, and create a list of people interested in forming a local chapter for our nation. A local chapter will help promote and improve the organization, within our great nation. We'd also like to encourage everyone to suggest projects for our national chapter to participate in. Hope to see you there! -- user:zanimum

Pink Floyd

Hi from Vancouver. I've noticed you're a pretty regular editor to the Pink Floyd page, and I wanted to let you know that I've listed the article as a candidate for Featured Article. I've recieved some feedback and critiques trying to bring the article up to snuff, and if there's anything you have to contribute and you have the time, I'd really appreciate any help you have to offer. If not, no worries, just wanted to let you know. - dharmabum 01:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the incorrect change; I obviously read the section too quickly and assumed the sentence was referring to Gilmour rather than Wright. InTheFlesh? 00:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Sorry if my edit summary was a little sharply worded; it wasn't meant to be. We're all in this together and we all make mistakes. PurplePlatypus 01:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work so far on the article; assuming you have Mason's book (and it's shameful I don't), any chance on that page number for a ref for "Tea Set" as opposed to "T-Set"? Any page which even has the word on it is enough; having that bad bit of research by Schaffner (who, sadly, also uses "Bob Close" instead of "Bob Klose"; I know the guy's a legend in rock music bios, but sloppy research is frustrating) is bugging me. If you don't have a copy of Mason's book handy, don't sweat it. - dharmabum 08:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

As of an hour ago, Pink Floyd is now a featured article! Thanks a ton for all your great work to help get it through, I had no idea what I was getting into. - dharmabum 22:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for cleaning the 'soap opera' out of the Pink Floyd article. Hopefuly it sticks. Anger22 02:57, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Just a comment: I recommend not writing negative edit summaries with profanity. Deckiller 19:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop

I have just done a massive refactoring of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop, in order to

• remove personal attacks, irrelevant comments, and bickering
• make the page readable and usable for the arbcom, as at its previous size of 183KB, it was not.

As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them. Wearily yours, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Roger Waters

Well, it was intended as a vandalism reversion. The fact is that, for lack of attention, I didn't notice the changes in the text -- only the blanking of the tour dates, and the removal of one equal sign on one side of a heading. Sorry for my mistake. Rotring 18:16, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

You beat me to it

Thanks for the quick reverts on the RW page. It's been bombed over the last few days with edits that read better backward than forwards. 90% of the music articles on wiki read like junior high book reports. Hopefully the Floyd pages can maintain some amount of dignity. CHEERS! and Take Care. Anger22 21:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Roger Waters as lead guitar

This is actually the evolution of that entry, as I understand it; Roger was actually lead guitar in the early days, when Wright was mostly a wind instrument player and Barrett hadn't joined, and the article has reflected that for months. A week or two back, someone added that he did bass guitar as well in that period, which I'm not even entirely sure is true at that point in time, but I wasn't sure enough to revert. Yesterday, someone eliminated the "lead guitar" part of the article.

I honestly think that the proper entry there is that he did lead, and not bass at all; that specific sentence is about the instuments the members played when the band was still the Abdabs and before Barrett came on board, before Waters became basically exclusively bass. I mentioned the lead guitar on later albums just to try to make the point, and that was probably a mistake. - dharmabum 08:35, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't keeping the context in mind (the very early Tea Set lineup); I'll leave that bit alone, at least until I've had another look at Mason and/or Schaffner. If true, such a shift wouldn't be that unusual at the time (Paul McCartney got "demoted" from lead to rhythm to bass over the course of the Beatles' early days, for instance). However, assuming you're correct, I think the later changes in Waters' role should be mentioned somewhere. PurplePlatypus 08:41, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I think Waters as lead guitar was even pre-Tea Set. Maybe the easiest comprimise would be just to say "guitarists Bob Klose and Roger Waters", without getting more specific - I mean, in the Abdabs days they were basically just in little garage bands anyways, and from my own teen experiences, I'd never claim anything so grand as "lead" or "bass", just whatever guitar I could manage. :) - dharmabum 09:26, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 09:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Deathrocker/Leyasu RfAr

I had checked most of the links, but not very carefully; usually, I'd just look at the diffs long enough to figure out, "Ok, he's referring to that edit". After having examined those diffs in more detail, it looks like only a few of them said what Leyasu was claiming they did. Since I was involved in Leyasu's first RfAr and have seen him around since he started editing here, I knew to check every link he gave me. Probably the same for Deathrocker, given how often he brings up Leyasu's revert parole and generally personally attacks Leyasu.

Regarding, specifically, the accusations about anons, Mike, and Deathrocker, I'd want to see what a CheckUser said about those. The anons may or may not have been sockpuppets of Deathrocker since they were reverting Leyasu back and forth on Children of Bodom, but they may not have been, given that anons have a long history editing that article (the article's been around here a lot longer than Leyasu has, if my memory is correct). I do think that Leyasu's placing a "last warning" template on an anon's talk page was overdoing it; since content disputes (which is was the Children of Bodom dispute has always been) are not vandalism, despite the terms Leyasu and Deathrocker are both using frequently (it doesn't look like Deathrocker has since he came back, so at least that is good), the anon was not vandalizing. And the anon edit in itself gave no proof that that was a sockpuppet of either Mike or Deathrocker. I think the CheckUser result, if/when it comes, will help the arbitrators and the others who are watching the case determine which one of the two is more believable.

Thanks for pointing those things out.

--Idont Havaname (Talk) 02:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought it was within striking distance of obvious, and I'm glad to see I was correct. I just thought I'd mention it on the off-chance it wasn't. At the time I didn't realize how much of an ongoing problem this was. As for DeathRocker, I admit I haven't checked up on his side of the story in as much detail, and I wouldn't be surprised if his side were nearly as fishy. From what little I've seen both of them get my goat, but Leyasu somewhat more than DR. PurplePlatypus 04:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Dungeons & Dragons

I notice that you left GenCon and Origins links in the article. These conventions are not specific to Dungeons & Dragons. In my opinion, they are appropriate links in an article about gaming conventions, but not in the Dungeons & Dragons article. Axl 06:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I certainly admit there's wiggle room there, but they've both played important roles in the game's history, so I left them in. I certainly would not call either one an "advertising link", as you did - that seems completely unwarranted. PurplePlatypus 07:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Pink Floyd WikiProject

Hi! I've seen you around on Pink Floyd articles... Would you consider becoming a member of WikiProject Pink Floyd, a WikiProject which aims to expand and improve coverage of Pink Floyd on Wikipedia? Please feel free to join us. - dharmabum 08:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops

Sorry for the mistake on the Aspergers page, thought I saw a spelling mistake and fixed it before I really read anything. ---Jowan2005

Spring Forth, my Burly Protector...

In reference to this... Huh. I always heard it referring to Kaervek's Spite; various google searches and articles on MTG.com have backed me up. I'm not going to start an edit war, but I still have to voice my concern. From all I've heard, there was a game between a guy called Altran and Scott Seville-- and as he used Demonic Consultation to get his lone Spite, he spoke this line. The MTG.com link agrees with me. Anyway. I'll leave it to you to decide what to do. -SkTwMn

You seem to know a bit about geneology

Maybe you could help us improve The Batheroy page and add a GOOD family tree many people would enjoy this you seem to be the best person for the job! John Doe or Jane Doe 09:07, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. I neither know nor have any interest in the subject, sorry. I can't imagine what edit of mine would have led you to think that. PurplePlatypus 03:50, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh! I'm sorry it was your "sock puppet" maybe he/she could help, actually never mind you probably prefer to "discuss" rather than "contribute", your history speaks volumes. Forgive my presumptuousness, I'll stop wasting your time, I see that you have some ongoing arbitrations to deal with. John Doe or Jane Doe 09:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

User:BluePlatypus