User talk:Defender1031/Archive Year 6

From Homestar Runner Wiki

Contents 1 Doomy Tales of the Macabre 2 WINNA! 3 SBCG4AP 4 Potential Article 5 Talkfront 6 I just wanted to say, thanks. 7 Analysis of Homsar's Speech Patterns 8 Mouseover Text 9 Recent edit to Blatant Lies 10 Script Transcribing 11 Edits

[edit] Doomy Tales of the Macabre

You mind if I ask where you heard about all of Strong Sad's stories in that toon coming true? I have trouble believing that so many characters would die just because Strong Sad wrote some gruesome poems, and I don't recall seeing anything in the toon's article or discussion page that says that. BBG 14:31, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

To what are you referring? — Defender1031*Talk 23:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

I remember you once saying that Onion Bubs became a Made-Up Real Thing in "Doomy Tales of the Macabre" [link], but then I said, "Appearing in a fictional book hardly counts as evidence that you're real" [link], but then you said, "It's pretty much accepted that those events actually happened in a halloweeny sort of 'strong sad's book controls the universe' sort of way" [link]. I know this discussion occurred so long ago, and I should probably forget about it (especially since two sysops agreed with me about the poems not being real [link, link, link?]), but maybe the sight of Onion Bubs in the Featured Article box made me think of this. My inability to simply forget this might also have to do with the fact that before "Doomy Tales of the Macabre", I tried to edit Onion Bubs' entry down to the time he appeared in Strong Bad's imagination and the first time he appeared in h*r reality [link], but then you reverted it and said I did a "stupid" thing by shortening the entry like that without explicitly saying why I considered the rest of the appearances fluff. You didn't even give a good reason for article listing all of Onion Bubs' post-becoming real appearances, you just said, "shortening it on principal is stupid" [link]. BBG 01:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• I added links to all the points above. Links are proper context. Copying and pasting edit summaries (which Google doesn't index, by the way; I had to search the database directly) is not proper context.
• A sysop's word carries no more weight than a regular user's with regard to matters of content. The arguments, not the person, are what make the difference.
• Any substantive discussion on this subject should be on Talk:Made-up Real Things.
• DeFender: You meant "principle".

It's dot com 02:12, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The discussion about Onion Bubs was resolved quite a long time ago, but I still feel kind of down that DeFender said I did something stupid even though I thought I had perfectly good reasons for doing it. (Granted, it would probably have helped if I said my reasons, but I thought people would get them either way.) BBG 02:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Dot Com, yes, I did mean "principle". Thanks for catching that after TWO YEARS.

BBG:

1. I wasn't calling you stupid. I was calling the principle of keeping entries on pages the same length, when there's more to be said about one and less to be said about another.
2. If you have reasons for an edit that are good reasons, don't give stupid ones and expect that "people will get them either way". They won't. Say what you mean.
3. I STILL am of the opinion that Doomy Tales was a real thing that happened that Halloween (people die and come back all the time in cartoons... Homestar didn't stay trapped for eternity, did he?) but I'm not going to harp on about it all this time later.
4. The most recent of those edits of mine you refer to was on the 17th of February, 2010. If after a year and eight months you're still "kinda down" about an edit that someone made on a wiki about a cartoon about dumb animal characters, I'm not certified to help you.

— Defender1031*Talk 11:54, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Well actually, I don't remember feeling down about it this year until I decided to re-check who made a certain edit about Stinkoman in that page, so I guess we wouldn't be having this discussion if I hadn't bothered to return to this site. I don't even remember why I did so anymore. I don't know if what I did still needs explaining now that it got brought up again, but I really didn't see any need to say anything else about Onion Bubs. Strong Bad made up a story about an onion with Bubs' face drawn on it becoming the new owner of the Concession Stand, then eventually he found a real onion with Bubs' face buried in Marzipan's garden. I thought it seemed like enough evidence that he became real.

I'd like to let you resume your usual Wiki business now, unless you still have something to say about how that doesn't sound like enough (but then we'll have to go to another talk page). BBG 13:31, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

By the way, my reasons for regretting my return don't have as much to do with my stupid desire to question an old edit I otherwise forgot about as much as it does the fact I have more important things to do. BBG 14:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

[edit] WINNA!

You get this box!

:D This user has solved a Cheergly Challenge.

[edit] SBCG4AP

Just out of curiosity, did you ever get around to playing it? If you say "yes", (raising right hand) I promise not to ask if it affected your opinion on moldy old debates, nor will I call your opinion stupid if it differs from the ones I had back in 2008. BBG 18:30, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

But if you say "no", he will definitely call your opinion stupid, especially if it differs from the ones BBG had back in 2008. -132.183.4.6 20:58, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep. Played all of em. To which debates are you referring? — Defender1031*Talk 21:44, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I can't think of any that still bother me. BBG 01:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Potential Article

None of the mods have read User:Bad Bad Guy/Awesome yet, so could I please ask your opinion on how to improve it? (It's not an archived version of the deleted article; I started it over from scratch.) I would especially like answers to the questions asked in the section, "As Part of An Original Word". BBG 18:17, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

IMO, combining gags that don't fit into miscellaneous would be a good idea. Otherwise, it looks like a decent article. I'd keep the uses of part of another word as is, since it's done quite a lot, it seems to be a running joke, despite having had prior, non-HR use. — Defender1031*Talk 20:46, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

[edit] Talkfront

See User talk:LikeLakers2#Signature policy. WP:LikeLakers2 (WP:talk) 12:36, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Also, if you are wondering why it says "Talkfront", its a reference to the way that Wikipedia uses talkbacks. WP:LikeLakers2 (WP:talk) 12:38, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

[edit] I just wanted to say, thanks.

Even though my Shut Up page is probably going to get, A-digga...a-digga...a-digga-digga...a-digga...a-diggity... DIGGITY DIGGITY DIGGITY DIGGITY A-DELETEEEEEED!!!!!! I just wanted to say thanks for standing up for it. SaintOlaf 02:31, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Analysis of Homsar's Speech Patterns

I'm asking for clarification. You said, "There's a reason it's not in the main namespace." As I understand it, that reason is that it was voted out of the mainspace by consensus. However, that doesn't seem to equate to not linking to the page from the mainspace. I was against said consensus, and I just wanted to know why you are treating the fact that the page is no longer in the mainspace as equal to it not deserving to be linked from the mainspace. Could you clear that up please? The Knights Who Say Ni 03:57, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

The fact that it's not in the main namespace means it's not an article the wiki considered up to par with that which we aim to document. As such, it was moved out of the knowledge base, and into user space as a nice compilation of supposition. Since it's not up to par, and not part of the actual knowledge base, it's not something that's appropriate to link to from the rest of the knowledge base. You should know, I didn't just remove them unilaterally, I had a bit of a discussion with a few other users on IRC (those who still actually go there.) — Defender1031*Talk 04:17, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Mouseover Text

Why wouldn't the mouseover of my edit on sugarbob work?? Does HRWiki even support this wiki markup?? BlockyCuzco 17:29, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Long story short, it didn't work. Why it didn't work is irrelevant; anyone can look at the edit and see that it failed. For the record, you can use the "Show Preview" option to see what something will look like without saving the page. --Jay (Talk) 18:19, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

But I took the code from Wikipedia. Could Hrwiki NOT support mouseover htmls? I used the <abbr> code. BlockyCuzco 15:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

It DOES support mouseover Mouse over this. it just doesn't support the abbr tag, which you were, incidentally, using incorrectly. Another thing, the way you were attempting to use mouseover text on sugarbob is not something we typically do on the wiki, so it's better left alone. — Defender1031*Talk 15:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edit to Blatant Lies

um... sorry for talking back to you like that. I was trying to think of at what age do children have bedtimes well before 5 in the afternoon such that this wouldn't be a blatant lie, and I came up with "babies who are too young to have a set bedtime because they wake up and fall asleep as they please". I don't think what I said came across like I wanted it to. Just curious, why did you say it wasn't blatant? The Knights Who Say Ni 02:49, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Script Transcribing

Regarding the Twitter picture transcribing edit I made, it seems pretty obvious and logical to me. There is clearly something after the y, and it would either be a comma or a period. Since the next letter is lower case, it would have to be a comma (plus make sense). And the 'w' is also pretty obvious.

But I guess there is a very remote chance that I could be wrong, so I'll not raise protest to your revert.

We'll just have to wait and see. When next we meet, 'twill be on the doughnut field of battle! --174.100.79.184 13:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, looking at it closely, it does look like there should be another comma and i can imagine the rest of a w. It also feels like the next letter should be an "e". In fact, it's quite easy to imagine the whole sentence is intended to be "Ah, Compay, we meet again." However, none of that is clearly indicated in the picture, so it's best not to transcribe unless we're absolutely certain. Since the (thing we think is a) comma, the (thing we think is a) w, and the (thing I think is an) e are less present than they are absent, and each only has a sliver visible, we can't be absolutely certain, despite the fact that it makes sense. More to the point, we're only transcribing what's visible, and it makes sense to draw the (in fact, rather literal) line at the point where the majority of a letter is off the screen.

As a side note, discussions such as these are better off on the talk page of the page in question, rather than on the talk page of a user who happened to make an edit. — Defender1031*Talk 19:29, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

Congratulations, DeFender on your 15,000th edit! Tenerence Love  15:00, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

• We're from the year two thousand twelve! (Uh, i think it says that in the edit summary) Well I didn't know that!
• Happy 15,000^th birthday, DeFender!
• Woo hoo, DeFender, woo hoo. I've almost caught up with you, I only have 12,000 more edits to go.
• Many combolations, Elizagerth. I hope you get all my... vuvuzelas.
• Well done, my fellow wiki editor! By the time you read this telegrammaparcel, I'll be another year older. Therefore, I've enclosed this blue ribbon herein. I bid you good tidings, and may you continue to flummox those less fortunate than you!

— The Knights Who Say Ni 05:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)