User talk:96.248.124.68

Wow.

I mean... er...

Wow.

You're doing good work with the history articles, keep it up!

Except for a minor gripe: don't capitalise all the words in a title, just the first word and the proper nouns. :) Nitty 01:12, November 5, 2009 (UTC)

I think you should make an account, making some nice edits for an anon.... Onipix Horrigan 00:00, November 6, 2009 (UTC)

Wordiness
I certainly appreciate the work you are putting into a lot of articles, and I don't have any beef with the content. However, it seems that you are often choosing the wordiest way of phrasing things, even when it doesn't add any content. Is there some style convention you are trying to emulate? Why, to name one example, insist on spelling out United States when U.S. will do? Length is not a plus in and of itself.--Gothemasticator 04:00, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

On the contrary, longer and more formal phrases, as long as they are gramatically correct and intelligible, add to the gravitas, eloquence and flow of narrative articles, particularly in light of the omnipresent desire to shorten every possible thing ever written on-line. It is a stylistic choice of my own, and one I and many others find quite useful for history-oriented articles. Length is not a plus in and of itself, as you rightly point out, but neither is it detrimental in and of itself.

Okay, so where are you getting phraseology like this, from your recent edit: "The oil-rich states of the Middle East had raised crude oil prices to near confiscatory levels in light of the growing global petroleum shortage." Eloquence is all well and good, as long as it does not add factually inaccurate "color." If you've got a source, that's fine. If not, please refrain from adding inaccurate info while creating style. (PS You misspelled "grammataically." :) ) (and, ironically, so did I!)--Gothemasticator 04:16, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

That is an entirely different concern than "wordiness". I disagree that the term adds unacceptable flavor; no nation goes to war over a resource provided by another unless the price for that commodity reaches a level that is believed to be confiscatory by the aggrieved power--hence the use of the word. However, I have changed the entry to read "unacceptably high" which I believe should meet your legitimate concerns.


 * "Wordiness" is at the root of my legitimate concern. "No nation goes to war over a resource provided by another unless..." is extrapolation and speculative. History articles from a game are bound to be less complete than real-world articles, because of the lack of info. It would be better to stick to stating, even eloquently, the facts, and to "pass over in silence" that which cannot be shown to be true.--Gothemasticator 04:34, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Again I disagree. What you are describing is not "wordiness." You are arguing for a more strict interpretation of what constitutes fact, while I am slightly more moderate in that interpretation. For instance,"No nation goes to war over a resource provided by another unless...", etc., is not speculative, it is simply logic based on the actual situation that we know to exist in this case. I preferred the slightly more expansive interpretation, you did not. That is not "wordiness." That is choice of interpretation. Now, because I can see your point of view, I did change the wording to a stricter one that I believe is more in line with your interpretation in this case and is also acceptable to myself. However, I do not see my interpretation, in this specific case, as being any more or less legitimate than your own.


 * Here is an example of the type of edit I would encourage you not to make: original: "Found mainly in underground areas and sewers, these creatures can usually be found in fairly large groups." your edit: "Found mainly in underground areas and sewers of the various ruined cities across North America, these creatures can usually be found in fairly large groups." The original is informative about the areas in the game where these creatures can be found. You have [edit: I misspoke here, please pardon] added an empty phrase, which is not verifiable nor probably accurate. If we want to specify where in the world the creatures are found, there is no reason to stop at North America, is there? Please refrain from making edits like this one, which actually do some small bit of harm to the article.--Gothemasticator 04:30, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

Actually the sentence you are describing removed NONE of the informative phrases you just mentioned. Now the "various ruined cities" phrase is perhaps too broad as radroaches could conceivably be found in other underground areas outside of urban areas. As I see this point, I have altered the entry to remove this statement. Your point about North America I disagree with completely, as it is stating what is only a fact confirmed by the article itself, which is that radroaches are found on the East Coast, on the West Coast and in the American Midwest. To me, that is pretty much the width of North America; thus the statement is in no way factually inaccurate. You are arguing for a stylistic choice, not a factual one, and therefore I stand by that portion of the sentence. Ultimately, like any wiki contributor, I will make edits based on my own judgment and knowledge. Where I am factually in error, I will happily make changes, but where disagreements arise over style, I will continue to make the choices I feel are best.
 * Yep. I misspoke and edited out my mistake. Sorry about that.
 * And, yes, we clearly disagree about style. You keep doing what you like. I will, too.
 * Thanks once more for putting actual work into the articles. We don't get much of that.--Gothemasticator 05:44, November 8, 2009 (UTC)

GECK
Your recent edits have made changes to text that is taken directly from Fallout Bible 6 (please see the section: Life With The GECK). I realize you probably did not know this, since even the "Sources" section on the page does not make clear what material is directly quoted. I would suggest changing the text back to match the source and then adding clear indication that it is directly quoted. I mention this on your talk page, since I did not want to simply undo your edits wholesale.--Gothemasticator 04:14, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Where is the Life of Geck Section? Nevermind, found it. After comparing the two, my edit changed not one piece of the content originally copied from the Fallout Bible 6, except to actually make it match the correct grammar and style of the Bible more closely than the original text. Also the only sections that were affected in the edit were the ones marked "Appearance" and "Actual contents" and I will note this on the page as well as the location of the Life With The GECK section in the Fallout Bible#6.

(If I am wrong about the following being your doing, please let me know. But, in reading the history of the GECK page, I'm pretty sure it is you.) I refer you to this paragraph from the Fallout Bible 6:
 * The GECK isn't really a replicator. It contains a fertilizer system, with a variety of food seeds, soil supplements, and chemicals that could fertilize arid wasteland (and possibly selected sections of the moon's surface pre-conditioned to accept the GECK) into supporting farming. The GECK is intended to be "disassembled" over the course of its use to help build communities (for example, the cold fusion power source is intended to be used for main city power production), and so on. Anything else people needed, they could simply consult the How To Books/Library of Congress/Encyclopedias in the GECK holodisk library for more knowledge. The pen flashlight was just a bonus.

And your edit (most of your additions bolded):
 * The GECK isn't really a replicator in the sense of a machine that can refashion unformed raw materials into new molecular combinations that create original items and substances as seen in the universe of Star Trek. Instead, it contains a fertilizer system filled with a variety of food seeds, soil supplements, and chemicals that could turn arid, irradiated wasteland (and possibly selected sections of the Moon's surface pre-conditioned to accept the GECK) into fertile soil perfect for farming. The GECK is intended to be "disassembled" over the course of its use to help build new communities (for example, the cold fusion power source is intended to be used for primary power production in a new city), and so on. For anything else from the pre-War society people needed, they could simply consult the How To Books/complete Library of Congress collection/Encyclopedias contained in the GECK's extensive holodisk library for more knowledge. The pen flashlight included in the Kit was just a bonus.

Don't edit original sources for style. Please edit it back to the original.--24.145.220.146 05:32, November 9, 2009 (UTC)It is, of course, me. I forgot to log in first.--Gothemasticator 05:37, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Revision made as requested. However, this is foolish. Original sources SHOULD ALWAYS be edited for style, especially when they are drawn from such sources as the Fallout Bible, which is very far from a properly edited document. The changes only enhanced the article's readability and understandability without changing ANY of the content as outlined in the Fallout Bible or the graphic depiction of the GECK in the article. This is even more foolish when it is realized that a link to the Bible was included on the article with an addendum pointing to the exact section of the Bible#6 concerning the GECK, provided by myself. To simply replicate content wholesale in two places on the same wiki is unnecessary and serves no purpose.
 * Duplication of content on a wiki is unavoidable and not entirely undesirable. There are different ways to handle it. For example, Porter has begun using a function called "transducesection" in some places, which actually replicates pieces of content that appear in a larger article--pieces which also are fitting in a shorter article covering a subsection of the larger article, but perhaps in greater detail.
 * In the case of this GECK article, I agree that the current situation--which incorporates material from an original source alongside new user-created material--is clumsy. I'm thinking of a way to make it better. I'm sure you could figure out a good way, too.
 * However, original sources should not be edited for style. They should be left intact and notated clearly (as is not done on this page), or they should be wholesale rephrased and simply referenced or linked to (much like in high school research papers).
 * In addition, no one disagrees that the Fallout Bibles are informally written and do not meet a high standard of grammar, etc. However, they remain valuable and rare original sources of information regarding these games, and, as such, should be preserved as written, warts and all.--Gothemasticator 06:07, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Well I continue to disagree with the idea of pasting poorly written material, regardless of provenance, wholesale into a document that is aiming to be clear and understandable. To do so simply degrades our entire effort. However, in the case of the GECK article, I would argue that the solution lies with your suggestion above, i.e.,"they should be wholesale rephrased and simply referenced or linked to..." While I am satisfied with the GECK article as is, in future I would suggest that in a similar situation, one should paraphrase the text wholly and then provide a link to the original source of the information, if available (and particularly in reference to the Fallout Bible, which is just unbelievably difficult to read coherently). This would avoid the entire issue in the first place.

Rich Text Editor vs. Wiki Text
I notice that some of your edits are generating errors (extra spaces and &nbps thingies) that are the result of bugs in the rich text editor. These errors can be avoided by always clicking the wiki text button on the upper right-hand corner of the editing screen.--Gothemasticator 06:36, November 9, 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, that was becoming irritating.


 * I'm doing a lot of removing extra spaces from the pages your are editing. Are you having trouble with the wiki text editing? If you prefer to use the rte, you can use the "Preview" button before you save, and if you see lots of extra empty space in the article, then you can click on the wiki text button to allow for easy removal of the spaces.--Gothemasticator 09:49, November 11, 2009 (UTC)

Layout
There are a few layout-related issues I would like to bring to your attention: Happy editing!--Gothemasticator 08:52, November 9, 2009 (UTC)
 * In articles of 3 or more headed sections, the Contents box will automatically generate above the first subsection. It is partly for this reason that Vault guidelines specify that the opening of articles be short (one or two sentences).
 * The "Appearances" section is for one piece of info only: which games the pagename appears in.
 * Now that you are using the Wiki Text editor, you're probably beginning to pick up the proper formatting for things like "Main Article: Blah Blah Blah," etc. If you ever have a question, Porter or Kingclyde are helpful and knowledgeable guys to ask.
 * And one more thing: The "Behind the scenes" sections... We try especially hard to keep legitimate entries as brief as possible, substituting informative links for prose whenever possible. Since the subject matter of this section isn't germane to the article content itself, we don't flesh out the entries in the same way as we do in the main article. Simply pointing toward the info is enough.--Gothemasticator 09:00, November 9, 2009 (UTC)