User talk:CapnZapp

Archive 1: User talk:CapnZapp/Archive1

Please leave me a message by adding a new section (the "+" button above) to this page. Thank you.

Edit Summaries

Hiya CapnZapp! Thanks for all the contributions you've made so far :). I just wanted to ask if you could please try and remember to put something in the edit summary box when you save a page, just to give us folks who watch the Recent Changes some idea of what you've done with an edit. It's not a huge deal, but it does help a bit when people are trying to sort things out through page histories and such, so I'd appreciate it! Thanks :). ⇠eshe^talk 20:03, 5 November 2012 (GMT)

Random Percentages

To respond to the removed post, there's nothing wrong with random percentages that run from 0-99, and in fact random number generators that go from 0 to (n-1) are quite common. What's wrong is that the ES programmers then routinely use conditions like <=25, which generates a random number from 0–25 inclusive, meaning there's actually a 26% chance when presumably a 25% chance was intended. What's worse is that there's also a function in the Skyrim code (Utility.RandomInt(), used on Mehrunes Razor, for instance) that generates random numbers from 0-100. That one's really special! – Robin Hood↝talk 20:42, 7 December 2012 (GMT)

Okay I understand you now. I still wouldn't have based only on that talk comment, so I've rewritten (and repositioned) my clarification. Thanks! CapnZapp (talk) 22:27, 7 December 2012 (GMT)

Yeah, re-reading my comment there, it wasn't entirely clear what my complaint was. Your addition makes it much more clear. Thanks! – Robin Hood↝talk 22:45, 7 December 2012 (GMT)

Re: Reverting Edits

Hi CapnZapp! I appreciate that you have reached out to Chezburgar rather than start an edit war, but I think you have misunderstood the implications behind another editor reverting your edits. As our guidelines state, all editors are encouraged to be bold when editing, and all editors should assume good faith with regard to other users' edits. Chezburgar reverted three of your edits not because he assumed you were trying to harm the site (as he said himself), but because it's a site-wide convention to list easter eggs only on the relevant game's Easter Eggs page. I know it can be frustrating when you add material in good faith only to see it reverted (trust me, it's happened to me a million times!), but you have to remember that other editors are just trying to improve the site too and learn to take it in stride when somebody hits the undo button on one of your edits.

In light of these policies, posts like this one (where you accused Chezburgar of treating you like a vandal and of being unfriendly) and this one (where you went on to accuse him of careless editing and ordered him to discontinue good-faith edits) are both inappropriate and rude. Chezburgar has done nothing wrong; in fact, he's correct in that we only list eggs on the relevant Eggs page. If that is something you'd like the community to consider changing, I'll go ahead and advise you ahead of time that you'll want to take it up on the Easter Eggs talk page; otherwise, you're likely to find other editors reverting your additions, since we've upheld this convention for quite a long time.

Again, it's great that you've decided to discuss the disagreement with Chezburgar yourself, but please remember to assume good faith in the future, and maybe give other editors a change to read and respond on their own talk pages before piling on further messages. Thanks! ⇠eshe^talk 15:04, 10 January 2013 (GMT)