User talk:GameFreak

Welcome to the Creatures Wiki! :-) GreenReaper([ talk]) 01:23, 12 Feb 2005 (GMT)

GF, I'm not so sure that having an "inaccurate" template would be such a good idea - isn't it generally easier to edit an article and change the percieved inaccuracies? - Malkin


 * Well, I was mainly just playing with the template thingy to see if it would work...
 * The reason I didn't edit the article is it was a tutorial posted with permission, which means 1. I'm probably not LEGALLY supposed to edit it, and 2. altering it would kinda defeat the point of it being an article about a tutorial...
 * GameFreak 14:59, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Really? I read this: "Obviously, any prior experience in programming is going to be benificial here, but I'm pretty confident with my, terribble typos, enough feedback and revisions that this guide might prove pretty handy sometime." as saying that "Yes, this could do with additions and revisions - this article is a WIP." meaning that Jennie's nose wouldn't get bent out of joint if one *did* edit it. Everything in the wiki's under the Creatures Wiki:GNU Free Documentation License, so you are legally allowed to edit it. It might be polite, though, to sign every change you make, as it is currently written in a firstperson letter style, from Jennie herself. Secondly, it's not an article about a tutorial, it is a tutorial itself. Just saying that it's innaccurate, but not really telling Jennie, or even editing it properly yourself, could be considered to be bad etiquette. - Malkin 22:01, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, all that typos and revisions stuff I think is copied from the original site, so I didn't read it as 'this article needs revising'...
 * I mean, I could go ahead and edit the tutorial to be accurate, but it isn't mine to edit... I mean, in style or otherwise, so I posted in the discussion page about it, and put something on the article's page saying it was inaccurate...
 * GameFreak 22:51, 9 Aug 2005 (UTC)

GF, Jenny won't mind if you altered her tutorials - I asked a while back, before putting them here :) Liam

erm erm .... i deleted the comments that WEREN'T useful anymore - this was what i was meaning ... no harm i hope ... btw, are you still in the CCE? zareb


 * Yeah, I should really explain to everyone what's been going on...
 * I was with my mates for about 4 weeks, so haven't been on the computer, and this week was my first week back at college, so I'm very busy with that right now, it'll have calmed down in a week or 2, so I'll be back to help soon I hope.
 * GameFreak 21:15, 9 Sep 2005 (UTC)

Please stop making incorrect edits to CAOS command articles. Also, please stop duplicating the exact same content across many articles - we're looking at building an infobox template for CAOS commands which links to information about how the commands work, but 'for input' and 'for output' are nonsense and duplicating the same information about how rvalues and commands work across every single article isn't useful either (and I've discussed this just now with other editors). - Fuzzie 16:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Incorrect? Anything incorrect is due to my misreading or misunderstanding the CAOS docs, or remembering incorrectly, and I apologise.
 * I'm not sure what you mean when you say mentioning if the use of a command is to set something or get data is nonsense, but ok...
 * GameFreak 17:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, you've now edited two articles which were previously correct, and changed them to be at least partially incorrect (ABSV and ACCG). I can't help but see that as vandalism. And, mentioning the use of a command to set or get something is fine, but that's not 'input' or 'output'. 'command' and 'function' are generally the ways used to describe that, and I'm putting those terms in the infobox, unless you have a better idea? - Fuzzie 17:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, the edit to ABSV would seem to be because I remembered what the CAOS docs say incorrectly. As for ACCG, I really can't see how you class things like removing 'Antigravity!' and replacing it with something that makes more sense, and replacing some rather odd examples as vandalism... =/
 * As for 'Command' and 'Function', I have nothing against that, but there was -nothing- there to seperate the two uses.
 * GameFreak 17:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I wasn't really talking about the examples in ACCG (but the correct thing to do with the antigravity one would've been to describe it, not replace it with a useless one), but I meant the removing of the 'per tick'. But, really, Alex and I have been working hard to ensure that all our edits to the articles have been correct by checking them in DS, so if you think they're incorrect, please note this on the talk page rather than changing them to something you haven't checked. Thanks for the command/function thing, sorry, I wasn't meaning to say your edit was wrong, just that people have been confused by the 'input' and 'output' things, and I didn't think it was the right way to go. - Fuzzie 17:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Err, how is the anti-gravity example any better than the one I swapped it for? It seems to spend more time demonstating ENUM and NEGV than ACCG... Still, admins know best.
 * Did I not change it to 'per tick squared'? My bad... That was my intention, as 'per tick per tick' isn't the best way to put it.
 * GameFreak 17:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)