User talk:Fyrius: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:08, 28 October 2014

Please accept this editor's barnstar for your courageous purge of OR and speculation in the Xen entry -Jackel 15:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello Fyrius! welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for contributing. Here are a some recommended guidelines to facilitate your involvement. Best of luck. Have fun! --ElectricEye

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
Getting your info out there
Cite your sources Neutral Point of View Point of View Verifiability
Getting more Wikipedia rules
Policy Library

Getting Help
Where to ask a question Help Desk
Getting along
Wikiquette Civility Sign your posts Conflict resolution
Getting technical
Pages needing attention Peer review Utilities Village pump

Thanks for the welcome and the links. :) Some of them might prove useful in the future. Fyrius 20:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green bug?

I'm more concerned about the green hue it leaves on the rest of the discussion page. O_o You probably forgot to add a closing line of code or something. Do you know how to limit the hue to the welcome message? I'm not angry about this or anything, it just bugs me a bit. Other than that, thanks a lot for the welcome, ElectricEye. ^_^ I appreciate your intentions. Fyrius 20:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Fyrius! :) Thank you for the communications. I am not getting the same phenomenon on my computer so I am unaware of it. It could be I left out a closing tag in the code or something like that. Thank you for pointing this out to me, I'll debug it after I investigate the problem. I know it's a lot to ask, but if you could send a screenshot it would help me to figure out what is happening. Waikiki!!! --ElectricEye 20:50, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll upload a screenshot. On my comp it looks like this: http://img319.imageshack.us/img319/3426/screenshot8tv.jpg But I see you've found out what the problem was already. Whatever you did on my discussion page, it worked. :) Again, thanks for the welcome. Fyrius 20:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did the green hue go away? Please let me know Fyrius. Waikiki!!! ^_^ --ElectricEye 20:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it did. Thanks. :) And again, thanks for the welcome. Fyrius 20:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fyrius, thank you for helping me avoid a problem on many many people's talk pages. --ElectricEye 21:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And thank you for fixing it. Fyrius 21:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Ashtar_Sheran.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ashtar_Sheran.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Aspergian Wikipedians

Category:Aspergian Wikipedians which you have included on your user page has been proposed for deletion you can comment at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Wikipedians by mental condition. The is also a proposal to create an association to meet the needs of users with mental health conditions. --Salix alba (talk) 18:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xen

(note: I moved some of the following comments from 'Aspergian Wikipedians' for the sake of order. Only the last two comments were originally posted here. - Fyrius)

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages with blank content (as you did on Xen (Half-Life). Blank pages are harmful to Wikipedia because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please redirect it to an appropriate existing page. If the page has been vandalised, please revert it to the last legitimate version. If you feel that the content of a page is inappropriate, please edit the page and replace it with appropriate content. If you believe there is no hope for the page, please see the deletion policy for how to proceed. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia! Steve-o 11:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't wipe the entire article blank. It's still here. Your link doesn't work because you forgot the last bracket. ;)

I did delete large parts of the article, though, that's right. But I had a good reason for that. See the bottom of the talk page about it.

Ah, sorry man. Sometimes I get caught up in the VandalFighting! Happy editing! Steve-o 11:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. That's alright then. - Fyrius 11:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Jian.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Jian.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The source has been specified now. Fyrius 18:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your "random rants" section

Evolutionists often say that Creationists "just ignore what's right in front of their face, they don't know what they are talking about at all, etc, etc." Many base these ideas on the beliefs of the common Catholic, and put no research into the matter themselves. People interested in the scientific belief of Evolution do much research. They frequently expect Christians to do the same. Unfortunately, most Christians hardly know anything about what they believe, and what they do they received orally.

You can ask a person "do you believe in the battle at Normandy, D-day?" and they will say "of course, it really happened." But what if you asked them "What happened in that battle?" several might not be able to answer; only a person educated about it could. Some might be able to tell you "well, it had to do with these landing crafts that they used to invade these beaches" but that's all.

The same goes for Evolution and Creationism. Most everyone believes in one or the other. People on both sides can tell you a few lines like "Oh, the big bang, radiation, carbon dating, skeletons," or "Genesis that, John this." However, a person only versed in a few aspects of something can't possibly carry on an argument with someone who knows the full spectrum of that subject.

Naturally, then, a person moderately versed in Evolution will always come off the winner against the average Joe who is offended by the suggestion of Evolution. Just because one person who believes something loses an argument doesn't mean that what he believes in is wrong. And there are a lot more people who think Creation really happened than people who think Evolution did; and a lot more Creationists are unversed in their own teachings than Evolutionists in percentage.

That's obviously the reason why you can't find people to give a decent argument about Creationism. There are many out there who can, however, if you're still looking for a chat. Hmm, maybe it doesn't interest you, but you seem the type that enjoys a good philosophical debate. --Salty Morton 21:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, thanks for reacting. I really hadn't expected anyone to take the time to read this page and actually react, but I'm glad you did. :D

Coming to what you said: you're probably right about not all creationists being close-minded and unreasonable. And looking at it now, I think I was actually ranting against the notion that evolution and creationism are equally plausible scientific theories (and that both should be taught at schools and stuff), rather than that all people believing in Intelligent Design are unreasonable by nature.

You're saying that Creationist people often lose arguments because they know little of their own beliefs, whereas most people who believe in evolution know pretty well what that theory is about. Which makes sense, but is not really relevant to what I meant when I said they are bad at arguing. What I was annoyed about was that they seem prone to twist logic and ignore counterarguments just to avoid the risk of being wrong; that they enter a debate with the purpose of converting people rather than actually listening to what someone else thinks (sadly, this goes for many types of people, not just for those overzealous missionaries). People like that literally can't argue, because they aren't prepared to respect the rules of debate. Fyrius 22:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're absolutely right. Although, I would have to say that both sides of the argument demonstrate a frustrating degree of smugness and presumptuousness. But perhaps you couldn't really say those kind of people are on anyone's "side" as much as they are in their own little world :)--Salty Morton 07:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, it's not really a matter of sides at all, it's a matter of unreasonable individuals that could be on either side of the debate.

In the rant, though, I was reasoning that religious people are easier compelled to do anything to keep their own views, because religious beliefs are not supposed to be open for debate in the first place. Beliefs are by definiton unquestionable, and believers are generally very determined to keep their views. As opposed to scientists, whose job it is to question everything and constantly adapt their theories, and who would easily abandon them if they turn out ot be flawed.

However, the followers of science (i.e. the people who actually do the debating) aren't necessarily that flexible and open-minded either, and might in practice be just as unreasonable. And although I would expect any random Creationist to have more chance of being a close-minded missionary than any random Evolutionist, I can only speculate about that. Fyrius 13:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MA Userbox

Today, there was a merger of Category:Martial Artist Wikipedians into Category:Wikipedian martial artists. This resulted in a userbox {{User:TonyTheTiger/Userboxes/Martialartist}} being added to the category. This userbox is available to you. TonyTheTiger 20:29, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Cool. Fyrius 14:22, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Xen Interloper Birds Eye View.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Xen Interloper Birds Eye View.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 08:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EMINEM

rules —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.72.149.214 (talk) 14:11, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go back to the Cesspool, Mozart. Fyrius 12:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dreamworld

Hello, Fyrius,

I stumbled upon your page after noticing your contributions to the "Avatar the Last Airbender" project. Keep up the good work! On a side note, and completely unrelated to Wikipedia, I just wanted to ask you (after visiting your Dreamworld Encyclopaedia), how do you pronounce "Álàntúr" (as oppossed to Alantur)? As a World Tinker myself, I immensely enjoy visiting other people's worlds and see what they have created. I'm really impressed by your world. :)

Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 17:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. :) I'm glad you appreciate it.

Actually, Álàntúr and Alantur are pronounced in exactly the same way, only the one with the diacritics is the origin Fyrian spelling whereas the other is a simplified spelling. Using SAMPA, the pronunciation is /alAnty:r/, stress on the last syllable. I'd give you a description that you can understand at first sight, but it contains two vowels that don't seem to exist in English. Maybe it's best if the English-speaking world would just pronounce it "Ellantoor". Fyrius (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Fyrius,

thanks for your swift response. I seem to get it ... a bit (I'm not that good with languages). ... the two vowels not existant in English are maybe Umlaute (ä, ö, ü)? My native language is German and I speak French, so I thought the "á" and the "à" had something to do with French (like "è" and "é"). Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 19:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's good. As a speaker of German you should be familiar with those vowels. I'll try to explain them using French words. (I should use German words, but my German sucks.)

The two vowels that don't exist in English are the first Á and the Ú. The first vowel in the name, Á, is like the last vowel in "voilá". The second, À, is as in the first syllable of "danser". The third, Ú, is as the U in the last syllable of the French word "chaussure". I hope that clears it up.

I also think the á/à diacritic system I use here is the exact same as what the French use to differentiate between the two possible pronunciations of a vowel. I based it on the diacritics that the Dutch often use to clarify which pronunciation should be used, and I wouldn't be surprised if they (we) got that idea from the French. Fyrius (talk) 12:12, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, now I get it. And I also understand how it's pronounced now. (The "ú" is very similar to "ü", I guess.) Thanks for the clarification and keep up the good work. Best regards, --Plumcouch ^Talk2Me 00:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. :) And I will. Fyrius (talk) 11:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Chi eekway.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Chi eekway.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 01:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hello, Fyrius. :) Quarkde (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello.

Excuse me, have we met? - Fyrius (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am a user from a debating site that is currently down, that you used as well. I made my wiki account and asked you about adding userboxes to my page, remember? Quarkde (talk) 18:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do remember that, plus the health template. But now I'm hurting my brain trying to remember to which user all of that applied again.

tries to figure it out from your user page

Atheist... interested in physics and psychology... native speaker of English... speaks Serbian at level four... (Darn, you'd say I should be able to figure it out with so many clues.)

...I will ponder this. Unless you intend to tell me before I figure it out. - Fyrius (talk) 20:58, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I do intend to tell you, for the sake of your aching brain. The problem lies in the fact that you use the same user name on wiki and on the said debating site, while I do not. Unfortunately, I don't want to give away my name on the site, but I will give you a clue that is sure to let you know who I am. My name there contains a word that means, a type of ammunition that is put into guns. You must know it! Quarkde (talk) 10:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. I see. So that was you. Thanks for clearing that up and relieving me of my cerebral achings. :)

Do you really speak Serbian? I didn't know. It seems such an odd language to be the only secondary one an English speaker knows. Do you have family there? - Fyrius (talk) 18:33, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, I speak Serbian. I'm actually Serbian and Hungarian, and I learned Serbian and English when I was a child. However, because I went to English schools, I speak English at a native level but Serbian not quite. Quarkde (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A remark w.r.t. our discussion on the Asthar Command talk page

Heh, I have no problem with you saying any of that. Perhaps I worded it badly. I didn't mean that I become infuriated, just that I always take criticism on board and always attempt todo something about it, even if I don't show it in the debate at hand. Thanks for the comments though, sorry If i came off as preaching perfectionism. - Jimmi Hugh (talk) 13:38, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File source problem with File:Ashtar_Sheran.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Ashtar_Sheran.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sherool (talk) 19:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Blog

Hello Flyrius. It's Quarkde again. I've made a post on my blog concerning oligarchies and would really like to receive some input on it. So if you want to, read it and feel free to post any comments! http://quarkde.blogspot.com/2009/03/oligarchies.html Quarkde (talk) 01:45, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Azumanga Daioh Good Article Reassessment

As a major contributor to Azumanga Daioh, I thought you'd want to know that that article is currently under going a Good Article Reassessment as part of the GA Sweeps. The article currently fails the good article criteria, as detailed at Talk:Azumanga Daioh/GA1. Its reassessment is on hold for seven days to allow time for the issues to be addressed. Thanks. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:00, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Popotan edits

I partially reverted your recent edit. The line which you described the three sisters reason for traveling. As the anime clearly states that the name for the items are "Popotan" and the reviewers at most comment that they appear to be dandelions says they are searching for dandelions and not "popotan" would be sythesis.陣内 _Jinnai 23:48, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Persecution complex

The funny thing about this is that the "persecution complex" accusation could be applied by either side to their opponents. Powers ^T 15:07, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that you mention it, you're right. I hadn't thought of that. (Of course, that doesn't make it any less inappropriate.) Fyrius (talk) 18:28, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gamergate controversy

Do not use a "Gamergate wiki" as a source for anything on Wikipedia. The current lede is neutral, despite what those in the Gamergate movement, like yourself obviously, believe. Before you perform any other edits like what you've done to the article, bring it up on the article talk page first.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I should hope a proponent website can be treated as a reliable source about **what proponents say**. And like hell it's neutral, it's blatantly taking sides. Which I'm not. Are you pretending to be neutral and unbiased, while going around accusing people like this at the drop of a hat? Fyrius (talk) 00:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's set up like someone's blog and it claims to be a wiki. Neither of those pass WP:RS. And it only "takes a side" because that's how the media presents the situation, as there's extremely little out there to define anything positive about Gamergate. Again, there are discussions on the artcle's talk page all about this.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 00:41, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The entire point of this controversy is that the media are alleged to be corrupt, would you trust them to represent their adversaries reliably if they can just bullshit their way out of a tight spot? Did you know there are as many as five citations from Kotaku, one of the 'news sites' being criticised? This article is taking sides like nobody's business and you bloody well know it. Fyrius (talk) 00:59, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged but not proven. And most of what's on Kotaku on the article is their own statements on the matter. Now stop removing their citation in the lede for their statement that they found no corruption regarding the Quinn/Grayson accusations. It is not the only citation being used to source the fact that no one found any corruption at Kotaku over Depression Quest, Nathan Grayson, or Zoe Quinn. If you have any actual issues, bring them up on the article's talk page like a sane person.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:27, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Now look at the Kotaku citations instead of just counting them and crying bias:

Do you see a problem with any of these in their use in the article or are you just raging at Kotaku for existing as a video games website that doesn't like Gamergate?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:33, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If there's other sources, surely you don't need Kotaku as a source. Surely you can limit yourself to the ones that aren't absolutely guaranteed to be biased in favour of the POV you're pushing. All I'm doing is trying to keep you from throwing Wikipedia's hard-earned credibility to the wind.

And if you really want to descend to that level, I'm also starting to believe you are not a reliable source on what a sane person is like. You're grabbing at any straw you can to keep pushing this POV while hypocritically accusing anyone who gets in your way of not being neutral — that's absolutely unacceptable behaviour. I'm currently looking for a way to hold you accountable for this. Fyrius (talk) 01:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Two of the sources are simply used in the background information. Kotaku's statements on itself are also relevant for the discussion in the article. Removing the citation to Kotaku in the introduction section does not serve any purpose. If you have other issues with the content of the article, you are urged to start or participate in an existing thread on the article's talk page rather than continue to disrupt the article against consensus.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 01:56, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The page reporting Ryulong for edit warring can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Ryulong_reported_by_User:Tutelary_.28Result:_Stale.29 Note that this "reporting" in any sense that it means the admins will do anything about it, simply a report that other editors have issues with Ryolong's edit warring. Also note that Ryulong is not an admin, though s/he behaves towards other editors as if they were. Iamcuriousblue (talk) 02:42, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Please read this notification carefully:
A community decision has authorised the use of general sanctions for pages related to the Gamergate controversy.
The details of these sanctions are described here.

General sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimise disruption in controversial topic areas. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to these topics that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behaviour, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. An editor can only be sanctioned after he or she has been made aware that general sanctions are in effect. This notification is meant to inform you that sanctions are authorised in these topic areas, which you have been editing. It is only effective if it is logged here. Before continuing to edit pages in these topic areas, please familiarise yourself with the general sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

This message is informational only and does not imply misconduct regarding your contributions to date. Dreadstar ☥ 01:37, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

72-hour Blocked

I have blocked you for 72 hours for contentious edit warring to remove sources from the Gamergate controversy article. Nandesuka (talk) 03:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 251: / Line 251: @@
 | Commons-emblem-notice.svg
 | icon size = 50px}}
+== 72-hour Blocked ==
+I have blocked you for 72 hours for contentious edit warring to remove sources from the [[Gamergate controversy]] article.  [[User:Nandesuka|Nandesuka]] ([[User talk:Nandesuka|talk]]) 03:08, 28 October 2014 (UTC)