User talk:FatalError

I reply on my own talk page. If you send me a message, consider watching this page. Likewise, if I send you a message, I will watch your page so we don't have to go back and forth.

Archives

1

How can you say Gopher is an unimportant feature? I think Flash and all those lousy screaming and singing web ads are much more unimportant than Gopher. Urvabara (talk) 09:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because no one uses Gopher. Everyone uses Flash. But either way, my point was that there is no reason to mention one unsupported feature without listing them all, which would be stupid. The fact that it does not support the protocol doesn't make it notable; no

WP:V. — ^FatalError 18:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I would say that the nightlies at http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-trunk/ are "preview releases". --85.90.148.140 (talk) 01:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's irrelevant...the numbers come from the source. Please don't change them again unless you have a more updated source. In the meantime, check out

Wikipedia's policies on verifiability. — ^FatalError 04:20, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

ThroughTheDarkness (talk) 21:44, 7 October 2008 (UTC)Hey man i was just wondering if you still on that issue?[reply]

Regrettably, FatalError has given up editing music articles, so I doubt he cares. But I'll let him answer the question, because I am also curious as to what's happening about that. I just thought this would be a good time to thank him for his contributions to A Day to Remember, an article he created. It's looking so much better now. He is missed. --Pwnage8 (talk) 22:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Pwnage8. ThroughTheDarkness, I'm not going to enter into any more debates about music-related articles, but I'd be happy to comment on something if you need it. Since I kind of started that debate in a way, I don't feel it's fair to say no, so feel free to ask me something if that's what you wanted. Just don't drag me back into that debate...I'd rather not. I feel it's a waste of time until Wikipedia's policies change. But it doesn't hurt to ask, does it? :) — ^FatalError 23:25, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

alright thanks man i was just wondering if you believed if a band's beliefs were christian than should they list themselves as and sing christian music...KillTheEnemy (talk) 22:37, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we should go by the sources. If they call a band "Christian rock", then list them as

original research. That's my two cents. — ^FatalError 23:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I dunno if you know this, but they took out the genre field from all artist and album articles. There is an ongoing discussion here. --Pwnage8 (talk) 23:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And now they put it back in. Either way, it won't solve the problem; the genres will still be in the articles, just in the body instead of the infobox. That proposal won't do anthing to stop genre disputes. — ^FatalError 05:09, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it doesn't have a constant Christian theme to it, it most likely ain't Christian. Carak the zombie (talk) 22:03, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, I did not see it covered and regardless of whether or not it is a reliable source, it works, i have used this precise method and am currently using it, I do not see how this is unreliable. Petiatil (talk) 00:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "regardless of whether or not it is a reliable source"? See

WP:RS. Blogs posts cannot be used as sources. Just because it works doesn't mean we should mention it. And it's already mentioned under the section "unofficial Chromium releases". — ^FatalError 00:27, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Well, to be honest, I mainly used the OR thing as an excuse to not write a long edit summary (I was really tired last night but didn't feel like going to bed). I totally agree with you. However, I removed it mainly because I don't think it should be there in the first place. I don't think the rate at which the space increases benefits the article in any way. It seems like

trivia to me. I think the sentence sounds just fine with the phrase, "continuously increasing free storage." I just think that it's not needed information, and no one really cares about the rate anyway. Thanks for not reverting it without explanation; I'm waiting to hear your feedback. — ^FatalError 02:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Hmm. Well, I disagree with you there; almost every article on Wiki has information that wouldn't be considered essential. Obviously someone cared about the information - in fact, several months back, there was a big talk page discussion on how to present the current storage, whether to present the rate, and how often to update the storage space. I am not one for trivia - lots of articles, especially regarding fictional characters or TV shows, have so much "trivia" that I think I'm reading IMDb. In this case, however, I don't think that this hurts the article in any way - i.e., it doesn't compromise its integrity or credibility - and I don't think it's that far-fetched to imagine that some people might find this useful or interesting. On that note, I'll leave it up to you to make the final inclusion decision! Oh, and maybe don't make lazy edit summaries anymore ;-)

Tan | 39 02:31, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Hah okay thanks for the advice. Well I guess you're right. I'll add it back in. I just thought it was redundant. But yeah, it wouldn't hurt the article, so you're right. — ^FatalError 02:47, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Saw your edits on Lastfm. If you have an account you should join the wikipedia group--Cassius 52 (talk) 03:14, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the merge tag from the article on

Fair enough. But the article does not currently establish the subject's notability, so I still think it ought to be deleted. — ^FatalError 04:29, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Erlang (programming language), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Erlang (programming language). Thank you. Fikusfail (talk) 04:38, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...why? — ^FatalError 03:54, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You added a tag for additional references in the LimeWire page. Can you describe which sections you feel are poorly referenced? Is the page still poorly referenced or could you replace these with citation needed for individual statements you feel are contentious? Maybe this was archived in the LimeWire talk pages. Thanks, Bpringlemeir (talk) 22:52, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Err, maybe it is that the references are not secondary sources? Bpringlemeir (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't me that added the tag... — ^FatalError 21:53, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, never mind, it was me. It was really long ago, but I'm guessing I added the tag because, at that point, the article had very few third-party sources; the majority of them were from LimeWire's website. The article seems to have improved since then; feel free to remove the tag if you feel the sources are fine now. — ^FatalError 04:47, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please take note I have included the link in "see also" in Ajax (programming) to prevent the inclusion of many links to frameworks. Macaldo (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it because we already have a link to

Ajax framework, which is close enough (and also links to List of Ajax frameworks), but you are right—many people on the Ajax page will probably be looking for a list of frameworks. I've added it back in. — ^FatalError 09:30, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]