I changed it because manoeuverability isn't a word that is easily read at first try. I scanned through the sentence and put in "maneuvers at your pick" to make it easier to read, at least for me. Feel free to edit it back if you think otherwise.--Dan 13:18, 26 May 2006 (PDT)
Sorry for re-adding links
I thought that my edits just didn't end up getting saved, I didn't realize someone has removed them. Can you please epxlain to me how I make sub-pages though? I'd be more than happy to make them for Diablo II:Lord of Destruction if you tell me how.
-Azura
P.S. - Sorry If I'm doing this incorrectly. I think this is the proper way to reply, but I'm not sure.
- A better method of replying is just to reply in your own talk page, using a colon and space before your reply to indent it. :-) Another good thing to do is sign your messages, using the signature button in the edit toolbar. Your edits were saved fine, but I removed all the links. To make sub-pages, simply create links to them (e.g. Diablo II: Lord Of Destruction/Kashya), follow the links, and create the page as you would any other page. (Or you could go straight to the URL, but it's easier to make the link first.) I removed the links instead of changing them to sub-pages as I didn't know if – for example – you wanted Diablo II: Lord Of Destruction/Characters/Kashya, or Diablo II: Lord Of Destruction/Kashya — it all depends on how you want things organised, and that's not up to me. --DrBob 15:18, 29 May 2006 (PDT)
Why have a category for individual Days?
In wikipedia, you often link to the day and year of something just as a novelty, and you'll often have a category for movies released in 1999, etc. It's useful to look up games or movies by a specific year to observe trends and see what it's comparable to. But categorizing games by the days on which they were released just seems fairly ridiculous, and the overlap of April 2nd games for example is just likely to be meaningless.--BigCow 21:40, 16 June 2006 (PDT)
- As I'm told (I haven't verified it myself, but it came up in the discussion in community issues), if you link both the day and year of a date written like "April 1, 2006", MediaWiki will rearrange the date according to the user's date format preferences. Apparently this doesn't work if they're not linked. An upside of having a category of days when games were released is that you can look up (for example) what was released on your birthday. :-P --DrBob (Talk) 03:07, 17 June 2006 (PDT)
- The number of people who are going to look up a game released on their birthday seems extremely small, and besides you could accomplish that exact same task by going to April 2 and seeing what links there. Categories take up room at the bottom, and they should only be used for actual categories the article falls into. Days of the year should be links rather than categories in my opinion, that should accomplish both those purposes and leave the bottom less cluttered.--BigCow 09:35, 17 June 2006 (PDT)
- You should probably make these points in community issues. "The number of people who are going to look up a game released on their birthday seems extremely small" That was just an example, but I admit there aren't a great many uses. "Categories take up room at the bottom" There isn't a limit to the size of the bottom bar; it does stretch. "they should only be used for actual categories the article falls into" However much you argue that it's not worth it, a game will always fall into the category of its release date. --DrBob (Talk) 09:54, 17 June 2006 (PDT)
- The number of people who are going to look up a game released on their birthday seems extremely small, and besides you could accomplish that exact same task by going to April 2 and seeing what links there. Categories take up room at the bottom, and they should only be used for actual categories the article falls into. Days of the year should be links rather than categories in my opinion, that should accomplish both those purposes and leave the bottom less cluttered.--BigCow 09:35, 17 June 2006 (PDT)
I've promoted you to SysOp
Based on the amount of work you're doing here, especially of the organizational nature, I've decided that you should have administrative permissions to better be able to do things. (So long as you don't mind having it, that is.) I'll probably make a few more of the regulars administrators as well. Enjoy :-) echelon
11:42, 17 June 2006 (PDT)
Reconsider some deletions
I've included commentary on the talk pages of three soon to be deleted articles. (I deleted the rest). I think those three might not require deleting and function as navigational redirects (Wikipedia itself frequently does this). Let me know what your opinion is and then we'll proceed. echelon 22:00, 17 June 2006 (PDT)
- I think I was in a bit of a strict mood yesterday. All those three pages are staying. Thanks for pointing it out. :-) --DrBob (Talk) 23:52, 17 June 2006 (PDT)
ah
I see I am now a user that has been persuaded to join by you, which I sort of am. I said I wouldn't go on this but I might in future.
More licensing boxes
Wikipedia has a whole page of licensing boxes which people might like to put on their userpage. That way we could automatically sort everyone who agrees to release their content under CC for example, and then if a page was edited only by CC licensed editors, then the page changes to CC. Of course Public Domain editors would be included on that too. -- Mason11987 (Talk - Contributions) 00:51, 25 June 2006 (PDT)
Sigh
Read your blog and got dragged here (I have better things to do!) if only to comment on the license. Howdy (congrats) - Estel 04:33, 29 June 2006 (PDT)