TheWizardOfAhz

Welcome!

Hello, TheWizardOfAhz, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Geniac (talk) 20:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

How to edit on wikipedia? 135.0.149.204 (talk) 02:57, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Wargaming

Any particular reason why you're wanting retain the info on CDGs in the card wargame setion? Note, that that section is meant to be dedicated to card games that can be considered to be wargames. CDGs are board games to my way of thinking. The cards may control the action, but they aren't the entirety of the game, which is the general feature of card games. (Admittedly, the board game section's a mess. I keep hoping that I'll finish my draft of a board wargame article, and then I'll go clean up that section.... Anyway, thanks for your time! --Rindis (talk) 23:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

It was a mistake, which I've corrected. I meant to click undo on an article that is on my watchlist directly beneath your edit. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 00:32, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah. :P Still, nice to know Wargaming's on your watchlist. ;) --Rindis (talk) 16:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced material

Thanks. I removed his link and was working out how much of the rest to remove and how much to leave. --GraemeL ^(talk) 03:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that. Sorry to confuse. I was mixed up with his edits to Pregnancy fetishism. --GraemeL ^(talk) 03:35, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

It's okay. =)

Trainz

Since I've been around since 2004, and you 2008, suggest you read WP:IAR, and I was cleaning it up. Your edit series is ridiculous, so I'm not even going to try to follow it. Try spending some time actually editing a page, not going off like some kid without common sense. //FrankB 22:01, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I Lied,looking it over:

• How can something licensed NOT BE PROPRIATARY. Generally, the idea of articles is to expose knowledge. Do you mean I've been wrong all these years. Certainly a bit much for a intro, but drawing the parrallel to the simpler flight simulators is apt, as is The Rail Driver mode under the heading.

I do btw agree with some of your tightening, but others miss the point. Describing how the physics model behaved differently was not improved by your edit-- the one or 2nd preceding that last link. Regards, //FrankB 22:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Your knowledge of Trainz is completely irrelevant to the editing of the article - that is not how Wikipedia operates.

This is looking like an edit war, and I do not wish to see it de-evolve into that state of affairs. Let's both discuss this on the page's Talk section. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 22:34, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

HOW IS THIS AN EDIT WAR WHEN WE'RE TALKING. Run to mommy. Nice! Me too! I'll discuss this sort of bot editing with various bureaucrats, if you like.

Thanks for Yet another edit conflict, which was/is the answer to your edit summary on reasons. I don't like reverts, that's at most my 15th or so, but that awful list was just too much to take after hours of intense editing. I'm rather tired, and the MOS can stay where the sun don't shine. THE MISSION is to put out correct information and to inform... NOT CONFORM to assine styles which can't possibly cover every need an article may have. You need to read and realize WP:IAR, one of the oldest policy pages trumps your petty little BLOATED overdone MOS.

• I'm also visually impaired, so fly your bot if you must, but I'm still incorporating new material (see below). That was a two days edit you just reverted. I'll get back and tidy up per your edit stream but you BOT operators aren't careful enough. BTW, How can anyone respect you as an editor if you don't even have a user page initialized???

====Trainz 1.0====
Trainz Community Edition was released in December 2001.
Service packs 1 (April), 2 (June) and 3 (November) were each released in 2002, these progressively updated the 'Community Edition, Trainz 1.0'  to versions 1.1, 1.2, and 1.3 successively. Two base Retail code builds (retail versions releases) existed; 0010, and 0019, with the English/USA version commonly known as Trainz 1.0. An installation with all Service packs up to SP3 is Trainz 1.3; Coden Build versions 0263 and 0277, the last of which was for the non-English versions only.

Nicely reworded revision...

• I don't have time for talk page chit chat right now, I'm not that fast a typist. I've got concurrent edits open on six pages between wikibooks and the N3V wiki and here. Roll that back and I'll work through your nit-picks and incorporate what I agree with in the next couple of days. I'll let you know when I'm done. OK? I'm really too tired today to press anything but closing things up. // FrankB 23:30, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Please do not talk down to me like that. I have zero idea what 'bot' you are talking about, and I do not see the significance of the Trainz 1.0 snippet you just gave me.

You are not discussing your rationale for keeping your edits - you are just asserting that because you have Original Research on your side that your edits should stay - but Original Research violates Wiki guidelines. That is why this smacked of an Edit War to me - I didn't say that it actually was.

And using WP:IAR as a catch-all to fly in the face of all guidelines isn't correct either: You have yet to give details on exactly why the edits fail to fall within the guidelines and therefore should stay.

You edits are wordy, full of unneeded technical information and jargon, and are detrimental to the article.

Wikipedia is not about the truth - it's about putting information into articles, in a neutral manner, which also have respectable citations to back them up. Your edits had little, if any, actual citations - and in two instances you actually yourself as the source to back the information up - this can NEVER be done. I gave you good resources on how to write a good article, but so far I am see little evidence that you have availed yourself of them.

Well, I see what you just posted, and I can see you are not open to listening at all. I will have to open this up to mediation with a volunteer. "incorporate what I agree with in the next couple of days" is a clear statement that you fully intend to keep adding OR material, as well as unsourced material, right back into the article.TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 23:38, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

No actually, I've pretty much concluded most aren't worth wiping my arse with them. You think I'm verbose! Look at the MOS!

• I really don't have time nor energy for you right now. Where is there OR in reporting for example, build numbers from the computer registry, or if you read the citation you question, the count of assets readily verifiable by anyone. Basically, you're calling into question my veracity, and the ability to string together all that technical jargon as you called it should give you a clue that my information is hardly unsourced. How is that different than reading an web reference and interpreting for the citation justification. Same reasoning process. Comprehension+source. SO, I put in citations if and where needed. And not one more than necessary, they make editing too hard.
• Anyone can get a Trainz manual and check things, so now you are just being silly. These things are called "crystalized knowledge", like common topics in a text book, they don't need cites for the information is widely disseminated. You do know for example, the TRS2006 manual is published as is for all versions including TRS2012. Content Creation Manual has been modified by the N3V Wiki, is that official web site authority enough for you? All registered users, the whole million plus cut out on one sentence, can readily verify that number. The real one's are a quite a bit larger. How many Trainzers do you think can quibble with the facts I wrote. So, I think you miss the point. It's verifiable. I cited THE SOURCE, not me, the DLS and CM. That neutral enough? Christ on a crutch! You don't care about the mission, only the rules.
• Further... If you'd been a couple days later, there will be pics on the Wikimedia commons showing those numbers. I uploaded a Main Menu pic today as well, dig the link out of my contribs, since I have no way with you muddying the water to continue editing now and put it in. You also fail to comprehend IAR is the guideline, read it again. The mission is to educate, not split hairs over trivial style issues. I gather you won't roll back your crappy edits, so tell me how does your actions respect the time I put into the article... you know, the time for the 'users', not the MOS nor that cabal of juveniles who blessed it as if words from on high? (I was involved in some of those railroad jobs, were you?) It can't read nor learn. Enough eyestrain! These edit windows suck... Goodbye. // FrankB 00:27, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Basically, what I'm gathering from this is that you believe you are above established guidelines and respect. You admit that your editing style is problematic and lazy, and you refuse to do anything about it. You state that because you have been on Wiki longer than I have that somehow this magically imparts you with higher knowledge than me. There is no evidence to support any of this. I still own my original copy of the first version of Trainz, but that does not mean that I am any more correct than you are. This is why good citations are required.

Not optional: Required.

No, I will not just take it as a fact that you know more about this subject than everybody else merely because you can write overly-long, complex, articles with an unneccesarily-high reading comprehension level. A clear, easy-to-read article, with good citations to support it, that clearly explains to a total layman what Trainz is deserves to be more of a goal. The sheer weight of the article does not impart more truth to it - in fact, all those big words and technical information go opposite of clarity: They state that the authors cannot express the ideas behind the article with ease and simplicity. It's a language problem. A communication problem.

The three articles, which you have stated you will not read, are not 'Wikipedia rules', but are solid foundations on writing well-written articles. The same principles can be found in other works, such as the Chicago Manual of Style. This isn't something that was just pulled out of thin air.

As such, writing a two page section that gives intricate details on what the version numbers of Trainz represent does not enhance the article in any way. It is not the sort of thing that would appear in, say the encyclopedia Britannica. It needs to have citations from game magazine reviews and such - not poor sources that basically amount to the company's own website and another wiki.

You are basically saying that nobody should regard this encyclopedia as any source of reliable information, and that you have the right to create a huge article full of your own ideas and opinions - that we all should all just take your word as factual, and if we want to confirm anything you are saying then we need to go research the information ourselves.

This is incorrect: The burden of proof/evidence is on you, the article editor, as it is on every other editor. You are not better/above us.

This article needs citations as to how well it has sold, what reviewers have thought of it, etc. if you cannot take the time to properly do this, you need to stop editing this article.

My edits are justified: I stated the logic behind each one, and did them in small chunks to avoid any Edit Conflicts - this is a common practice that you called childish. Your edits are not justified for the simple reason of you have not explained or properly backed them up. You just say your eyes are strained, and that you have 'six concurrent edits opened up', or that you do not have the time.

Again: If you cannot do a decent job editing this article, then you need to step away from it! It's that simple. Either take the time to constructively add to it or move on.TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 01:44, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited World of Tanks, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MMO (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:09, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Chemtrail conspiracy theory". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 21:42, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It's Wikipedia Not your homepage

Trying to stop me from editing the page is against the spirit of Wikipedia and what it's made for.

Go to your homepage on your website and write there whatever you like

Trying to force me to stop editing is illegal and I will complain against you if you do it again TheXYWriter (talk) 07:10, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Sir, Your User talk page is the most contentious that I have ever seen. You seem to consider yourself some kind of self-appointed arbiter. I do not like your manner of dealing with other editors and their edits, particularly on issues involving controversy and/or conspiracy. I do not doubt that you could be some kind of paid government or corporate shill. I will be monitoring your activities closely and will not hesitate to communicate with other editors and administrators about both your words and actions, to bring attention to them.JGabbard (talk) 20:10, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

This is funny, you just made my day. LOL I'm a freelance artist who is also disabled, FYI. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 20:16, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

External links

• Wikipedia:External links

Read the above page and make your case.

But stop removing sites which educate about the topic, or are particularly related to the topic (such as the BBW magazine itself, the source of the name of the topic).

IDON'TWANTIT isn't an arguement. - jc37 00:01, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I was probably being overly-aggressive in curtailing the links. Upon a second look they dk seem to be valid. Good call. TheWizardOfAhz (talk) 03:51, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:40, 24 November 2015 (UTC)