User talk:Vegerot

Welcome to Halopedia!

Welcome, to Halopedia, the definitive source for Halo information!

Please read our introduction, where you'll find out what this site is and what we're trying to accomplish.

• Need help? Visit our help section where you can find how to add images and get assistance with editing.

• Sign your edits! We only sign our edits when posting on Talk pages; to do this, just put the following code after your post: -- ~~~~. Then, when you press the "Save Page" button, Halopedia will replace the code with your username and the time and date you posted! For more information on how to customize your signature visit our help page.

Interested in chatting with fellow users? Then check out our IRC channel!

500 Edit Milestone

Vegerot (talk) 16:44, 7 March 2011 (EST): It's weird, I just got the 500 edit Milestone yet it seems like I have done so much more!

Talk page edits don't count. Also, it would be preferable if you stopped Multi editing the same page so many blasted times in a row.DatrDeletr 01:21, 8 March 2011 (EST)

Vegerot (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2011 (EST): Did you see my reason? It's because, when I have a lot of reasons for doing something there is simply not enough room in the summary box. So then I have to edit multiple times so I can fit everything in! Just get one of the damn programmers to fix the summary box size!

You don't have to write a reason in the summary box EVERY SINGLE TIME. Summary boxes are meant for short quick explanations, longer ones belong the talk page. It's about fitting the summary to the edit, not the edit to summary. That's saying that you rather feed your dog 20 tiny meals a day rather than just two small ones because you'd rather feed the dog as soon as it gets a tiny bit hungry rather than just let it adjust to a meal time. Really, it's far less productive.

Also, put your sig at the end of your statements, not the front.Tuckerscreator^(stalk) 10:05, 8 March 2011 (EST)

Vegerot (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2011 (EST)O.K. The thing is is that normally I do summarize what I do pretty well. The only problem is is when I make A LOT of edits, then there's a lot of things to explain. And on something like "the list of inconsistencies" then I have to give an explanation for each thing I do(understandably).Vegerot (talk) 16:49, 8 March 2011 (EST)

We can take not having summaries. Most of the time, we can infer why it was changed by ourselves. Tuckerscreator^(stalk) 16:59, 8 March 2011 (EST)

Multiple edits

This is your first warning for making multiple edits in an article. For more information, please take this moment to read our rules and policies.- 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 22:17, May 18, 2010 (UTC)

This is your second warning for making multiple edits in an article... I would really suggest using the preview feature for future contributions. - 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 20:21, June 7, 2010 (UTC)

Is this where I Discuss it?

Is this the proper place to discuss my block or should I do this somewhere else?Thank you taking time to listen to my post! 02:30, June 9, 2010 (UTC)!

Speak. Keep your tone straight and your attitude in line or I'll disable this too. Smoke^{Sound off!} 02:44, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

*alines tongue in mouth to be as straight as a snake* What did I do, I was just saying that people tend to get angry when people remove things without giving reasons. I believe it EVEN SAYS ON THE EDITING PAGE ITSELF that you should give a reason. And if your are the one who undoes it then you should be the one to make the page about it. I wan't trying to be offensive, I was trying to tell you that it bothers me and it bothers other people and to please not do that.Thank you taking time to listen to my post! 02:53, June 9, 2010 (UTC)!!!!!!

If for some reason we don't give a reason, you contact the person who reverted the edit and you ask them why. The reason I undid your edit was because there were numerous grammatical errors, and the original wording conveyed the same meaning as your revision. There was no use in changing it. Also, spell check and proofreading your edit would help. Smoke^{Sound off!} 02:57, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

O.K. But the way it was phrased like it was in-game. It should be phased as if we were describing that Flood Form. So I changed it from unit, to species, or Flood. SO it wouldn't sound like the game. If we are gonna talk about it in a game sense then shouldn't we go to insertnamehere/gameplay section?Thank you taking time to listen to my post! 03:11, June 9, 2010 (UTC)!!!

In that instance, it was literally describing the Swarms as they were in-game, in Halo Wars, or rather describing tactics to deal with them; generally, tactics and all that are covered in one article. If you choose to do so, you can propose that tactics and the like (in-game behavior, etc.) are moved to a gameplay sub-page for each respective article. I unblocked you, by the way. Read the unblock message - and heed it. Do we have an understanding? Smoke^{Sound off!} 03:18, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

Another thing I should remind you: when you type your summary, do NOT spam it with exclamation marks and capital letters. It should be civilized and easy to read. Understand? --File:Brigadier Grade One.png  General5 7    talk    contribs    email   03:13, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

She has a point. I interpreted that as you yelling at me. I don't take kindly to that, at all. Smoke^{Sound off!} 03:21, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

K.K.K. WAIT! WHAT?! (Red vs. Blue reference) General is a she?! And I understand your. But I have a suggestion that might work really well. So we should make a Flood/Gameplay section where we have ALL of the Flood forms and list tactics for them. And we do the same to all the other enemies. What I mean by that is we take all the stuff from the Zealot section that talks about gameplay and we move that to the Sangeheli/gameplay section. We take all the stuff from the Kig-Yar Sniper section that has to do with gameplay and we move it to the Kig-Yar/Gameplay section, etc.

O.K> But with the Spell Check, when I right click the red word in RIch Text editing, the only thing that comes up is the Rich Text options!Thank you taking time to listen to my post! 03:16, June 9, 2010 (UTC)!

Disable Rich Text Editor. That thing fails epically. You can do so by heading to Special:Preferences, click editing tab and check "Enable/Disable Rich Text Editor".- Sketch^ist 03:25, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

And yes, I am a girl ;) --File:Brigadier Grade One.png  General5 7    talk    contribs    email   14:16, June 9, 2010 (UTC)

Second Warning

Please cease "exclamation spamming" on your summaries. They make you look like an idiot.-- Forerunner 14:59, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Your Block

We have warned you plenty of times to stop spamming the summary box. Take the time to calm down. If you come back and continue, you will be blocked longer. --File:Brigadier Grade One.png  General5 7    talk    contribs    email   15:32, June 10, 2010 (UTC)

Replacement parts

Please do not make assumptions.-- Forerunner 14:16, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

I forgot where I read it (maybe b.net) but I remember something saying that it could make parts of the Installation if the Installation ran out of something to make that parts itself.Thank you taking time to listen to my post! 14:19, June 14, 2010 (UTC)!

Ok. But remember that you need to source things. Also: don't make multiple edits! I had to revert your edits on that page because, although some changes were decent, you made others that were not so good - such as the assumption and the changes to the template field. -- Forerunner 14:29, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

I thought that the change to the template field was good! Because how could Mendicant be there?Thank you taking time to listen to my post! 14:30, June 14, 2010 (UTC)!

It's suggested that the second Forerunner AI (seen in the terminals arguing with Guilty Spark) present on the Ark is Mendicant Bias. Observe:

"And so here at the end of my life, I do once again betray a former master. The path ahead is fraught with peril. But I will do all I can to keep it stable - keep you safe. I'm not so foolish to think this will absolve me of my sins. One life hardly balances billions. But I would have my masters know that I have changed. And you shall be my example.

"

— Forerunner AI to John

-- Forerunner 14:34, June 14, 2010 (UTC)

Edit war on HCE article

Please don't start an edit war. Proceed to the article's talk page or the user talk page and discuss about it. Please consider this before editing in the near future... >.> - 5əb'7aŋk^(7alk) 16:46, 5 January 2011 (EST)

/Gameplay articles

Regarding the /Gameplay sub-pages you made for Type-28 Troop Carrier and Type-52 Troop Carrier: I've said it before, and I'll say it again: there's no need to create a separate /gameplay page if the gameplay information is not cluttering the article in any way. Species articles such as Sangheili are so full of content they needed to be split; this is not the case with the T25 or T52 TC. I realize you're trying to make a distinction between in-universe and gameplay information, and I agree that it needs to be made clear, but any reader can tell the difference between a section about gameplay when it's titled as such. There's no need to create a separate page most people aren't probably going to find anyways, unless it's absolutely necessary for the sake of the article's length and readability. --Jugus (Talk | Contribs) 18:40, 18 January 2011 (EST)

Another multiple edit warning

Learn to not make multiple edits. Gather everything you know and make one huge edit... everyone here in Halopedia is not in a hurry. As Tony said in your message board, take a chill pill when editing. >.> — subtank 12:12, 21 February 2011 (EST)

Renaming an article

In the future, make a proposal before carrying out the act. Start the proposal on the talk page first and let the community provide their opinion. It avoids problem. — subtank 20:02, 27 February 2011 (EST)

When you disagree with an edit...

Please use the talk page of the article and place your arguments/disagreements there. We do watch all changes that is going on in the wiki and will reply to discussions when we have the time to do so. Don't add speculation simply because it makes simple sense without any supporting sources.

Additionally, place don't add unnecessary exclamation marks in your signature simply to show that you care about canon. — subtank 07:50, 3 March 2011 (EST)