User talk:GW-Carmine

I moved your page to the correct name, User:Carmine. Welcome to the wiki :) &mdash; Skuld 16:22, 3 October 2006 (CDT)

Haha, way to go, me... Thanks! Carmine 16:25, 3 October 2006 (CDT)

Acquisition
Notes on when the boss spawns go in the boss article, not the skill article. --Fyren 06:12, 8 January 2007 (CST)

Passage scrolls
Do not drop in normal mode as far as I know.. &mdash; Skuld 13:14, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
 * The page for passage scrolls already says they do, and my party received one just a couple days ago.--Carmine 13:16, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
 * To my knowledge, they do not drop in NM. Readem (talk *contribs ) 14:00, 31 May 2007 (CDT)
 * And now I have proof: [[Media:Carmine-NM-PassageScroll.jpg]].--Carmine 13:29, 2 June 2007 (CDT)

Spelling Error Correction
Thank you for correcting my spelling errors. (: Cookieaddictedmonster 15:35, 25 June 2007 (CDT)
 * Wow, your a real stickler on grammer, huh?--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 15:32, 21 September 2007 (CDT)
 * Too Bad he can't be bothered to check if his grammar facts are correct. "It's" can be used as "it is" or (in my case) "it has". If you're going to criticize someone on their grammar at least do a proper job of it. Personally, I just think you need to get a life instead of checking grammar on User Pages of a Game Wiki.--Thor79•[[Image:User-thor79.png]]•Talk 19:05, 21 September 2007 (CDT)
 * That basically represents the same thing. I almost exclusively cleanup articles, and my comments regarding grammar were to be helpful, not to criticize.  I'm sorry that wasn't clear.--Carmine 21:20, 21 September 2007 (CDT)
 * If you're going to be helpful...link to the page where people make the mistake...don't assume they can read your mind. Your helpful comments were apparently about another page that I edited besides my userpage, but I have no idea which page that is so I had to assume you meant my user page. I still have no clue what page you are talking about.--Thor79•[[Image:User-thor79.png]]•Talk 23:37, 22 September 2007 (CDT)
 * After digging through your contributions I finally found the page I assume you were talking about: Slavers' Exile. You can see from the reactions you get to your "helpful advice" that people take it as criticism most of the time (from reading your contributions). Do us a favor and only comment on the talk pages of people who commit this terrible crime more than once. If they show repeated use of improper grammar then perhaps they need to be reminded, otherwise just correct it and move on. Thank You.--Thor79•[[Image:User-thor79.png]]•Talk 23:54, 22 September 2007 (CDT)

I think you should both drop this issue. We do care about spelling here, as evidenced by Misspellings, but seriously - who's benefitting here? Just your egos? No one needs to prove to anyone else that "It's" is correct or not in its usage, no pun intended. If it's such a big issue that you need to dig through user contribs, use sarcasm, look it up on official grammar sites, etc. then this is blown a bit out of proportion. It is just spelling and grammar after all, and content is more important than that.

Carmine - I understand that you're trying to help the Wiki's articles, but remember that the Userpage is, well, the Userpage. It's theirs to do what they want with, and it's not really other users' place to point out spelling and grammar mistakes; it may seem helpful advice from you but it is not always taken that way. (ie. someone calling you "grammar police" or a "stickler" is an issue.) Like Thor said: if someone consistently repeats the same grammar or spelling mistake, a friendly reminder may be in order. Otherwise it's not really worth pointing out to them...

Thor - I can understand that you might be pissed over someone criticizing how you write on your personal Userpage. But when it gets to the point that such things as "You need to get a life" and "Do us a favor..." are said, that should be a signal that it's developing into a needless and pointless argument. There was no irreparable damage done and Carmine has apologized to you already. In my opinion, that is good enough; I'm not sure what else you hope to achieve. (T/C) 00:19, 23 September 2007 (CDT)

lol
"LF FOW FROGMASTER GROPE" The Paintballer (T/C) 04:13, 13 October 2007 (UTC) I think I have actually seen someone shouting "WTB CAP SIGS" a long time ago. Kudoz2u 17:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

wtf
You vandalised a page? What's going on?-- (Talk) (Contr.) 21:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like someone removed the evidence that I even vandalized. It wasn't really a vandalism, just the first 100% inane comment on the game updates talk page.  Hey, it was Sunday morning, I was bored and procrastinating...  >.>  --Carmine 22:52, 2 December 2007 (UTC)


 * And the Pokeball Asuran Scan article? :P --- [[Image:VipermagiSig.JPG]] -- (s)talkpage 22:53, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It deserved that!!1--Carmine 00:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. And where was my page vandalised?--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 00:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I left you a hint on your talk page ; )  --Carmine 01:01, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * srsly, just tell me cuz i dont see it anywhere.--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 01:05, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You're so close to finding it!--Carmine 01:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Doubt that. Just tell me.--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 01:12, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Shadowcrest was spot on: "I think its that as soon as he logs in, he'll get this message, and then be afraid and immediately check his userpage. Although you and I have obviously ruined this =) --Shadowcrest 23:34, 2 December 2007 (UTC)"  --Carmine 01:19, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I checked the history of my userpage. No changes. God, just tell me, you're not entertaining me.--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 01:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Right. I didn't actually do anything other than comment on your talk page. : )  --Carmine 01:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Evil cow
That page is to be kept deleted, as it serves as the red link to show new users what uncreated pages look like. Please refrain from making it blue. - Auron 03:40, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Aw, that's why it's funny.--Carmine 03:41, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Chef
Should wield either ladles or cooking books, perhaps both. Calamari Elite Divine Flavor Cooking Ritual 15e 3c 25r Summon a level 1..23 Sliced up Squid at your location, its attacks deal 1..30 damage and deal double damage against foes suffering from hunger. --igathrash Talk^Cont 04:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
 * This is a fantastic idea. I've added that, and expanded the attribute description.  I'm thinking of doing something interesting with the ladle.  I might have a "ladle" that is essentially a skinned wand, but I definitely want to separate out a distinctive one-hand "weapon" that "whisks" allies and spirits/consumables, though it cannot target foes!  The whisking should, I think, have various benefits, depending on what skills in Flavor of the Gods are used (e.g., spices for extending durations of consumables on allies or buffing spirits, and concoctions like "baking soda" to reduce durations of conditions or hexes.  Maybe the ladle should similarly have modifications, like chili powder to increase conditions on foes, or flour to cause cripple if foe is suffering from a water hex...  ><  --Carmine 04:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

...
Why did you edit Readem's userpage? - Auron 04:41, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * It clearly wasn't written by readem, and the commentary on the quotation doesn't make the least big of sense. I can't imagine readem wanted that there...  If I'm wrong on that, it's easy to revert anyway, and I apologize for the mistake and for wasting your time and readem's time on nonsense.--Carmine 04:45, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh---I see what happened: I thought the edit was by the anon, missing readem's edit in the history. It still doesn't make any sense that readem would write that though, as a fellow grammaricalizer.  "people and there theories"?  /headdesk   It's just not quite sacrasmic enough to be reademesque lulzy.--Carmine 04:48, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It's funny that people that call themselves "grammar police" aren't actually correcting grammar--they're correcting spelling. The chances of a native speaker making a grammatical mistake (other than editing artifacts) in their own language is extremely low. Kokuou 05:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In typical written "conversation," most corrected errors are indeed spelling, but most of the mistakes I fix on the wiki are truly grammar mistakes, from basic dropped serial commas and sentence fragment issues to the more complex parallel structure problems and so on. So, yes, the indicated issue above was not truly a grammaricalismic mistake, but the point I was making was that people who are aware of the grammar they are using---not just that it is correct, but what it is, structurally---generally do not mistake "there" and "their," not via a spelling obsession, but because they recognize "their" as strictly a possessive, whereas "there" is never a possessive, and would never be used as such: this is a grammar obsession superceding any spelling difficulties.  And that was almost, but not quite, a run-on sentence.  XD --Carmine 06:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Also, FYI: you made a grammar mistake right there in putting a dash between two independent clauses. Two independent clauses may only be separated by a colon or semi-colon (or, of course, be in two separate sentences to begin with).  If you were a statistic, you'd be disproving your own point. ; )  --Carmine 06:17, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Speaking as a linguist who has been through four years of linguistics study at university, I'm well aware of possessives (more formally called the genitive case) and the like. I would hesitate to call the there/their/they're mistake a grammatical mistake, though. This is because all three assume the same physical manifestation (i.e. pronunciation), and therefore the offending typer is merely unsure of which spelling to use (but is well aware that the genitive form "their" is completely different in meaning from "there" in terms of concept).
 * As for my dashes, those are also not grammatical mistakes (btw, there is no such word as "grammaricalismic"), those are punctuation errors, which I used simply because there is no key for the em dash (—) and I'm simply too lazy too look up the keyboard ALT shortcut every time I want to use it. The em dash, by the way, is a perfectly appropriate substitution for a semicolon. Again, grammar pertains only to syntax, which is based on actual pronunciation, and so such punctuation errors do not fall under the realm of grammar.
 * You do realize that many of the "rules" published in so-called style guides are archaic and/or based on other languages such as Latin, right? For example, the "thou shalt not split an infinitive" rule is one such rule based on Latin. And it only exists because in Latin, infinitives are one word and cannot physically be split to begin with. (And yes, you can start a sentence with the word "and".)
 * As linguists, we're taught to be descriptivists (i.e. we describe how the general population uses the language) rather than prescriptivists, who try to enforce such archaic and silly rules on other people. Language change is inevitable, and a natural process of language evolution. After all, how much Chaucer can you read and understand? What do you think Old English speakers would think of English now if any were alive? Language change is attested in all recorded languages in history, so attempts to enforce rules to stabilize language and prevent change are, by and large, futile.
 * I know this will likely have no affect on your spelling- and punctuation-correcting ways, but I thought I'd give you linguistic low-down on the subject since I have it to offer. Cheers! :D Kokuou 09:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I find it amusing that those most likely to "correct errors" in other people's writing usually have a mediocre understanding of grammar and language in general. They helpfully correct actual errors in a lot of people's text, but they also unhelpfully "correct errors" in other people's text where they display their knowledge of the language to be inferior to the person they're "correcting".  For example, not understanding the usage of em dashes, or having a limited understanding of the various different definitions and usages of a word like "gender" (as witnessed by recent gratuitous edits to a certain page, where a perfectly correct usage of the term was replaced, presumably because Carmine knows one of the "correct" definitions, but it was one of the other usages of the term there, and was therefore mistakenly judged "incorrect").  --68.187.144.197 10:27, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * As for gender...no. I very much know multiple ways to think about definitions of sex and gender.  I had thought through the two likely reasons why it was labeled gender (indeed...I did this upon character creation myself...) and I made that change quite intentionally for a purpose, which I will now explain on the relevant page and we can discuss it there.--Carmine 05:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As a linguist, you are a descriptivist. Neither descriptivism nor historianesque anal-retentive syntax policing appeal to me.  As a mathematician, structures that are logically sound are what makes sense to me, which is why I find the serial comma absolutely essential, though I would have quite a lot of difficulty pointing out precisely why this follows a logical structure while dropping it does not.  It's an intuitive approach to logic, which seems semi-paradoxical.
 * What I was pointing out about a conscious "grammarian" was that such a person is *not* thinking about words phonetically. Many of the linguistic "experiments" show that almost everyone almost exclusively processes language orally---notably, even through reading and writing---but I suggest that certain people do not process words orally while writing.  This may, however, be a personal bias.  When I see "they're," it doesn't occur to me that this is a "homophone" to "their" or "there".  Partly this is because I naturally expand contractions wherever I see or hear them (I suspect that even when I pronounce "they're," there will be a distinct double-dipthongy (tripthong? haha!) transition before the "er" ending---but I've never thought of digging out my old phonetics software to test it).  However, there's also a distinctive cast to the way I hear "there" and "their".  Phonetically, maybe mildly akin to a dialect that uses "over thar'"---Irish?---but theoretically akin to Frege's "Uber Sinn Und Bedeutung," in the philosophy of language, in which Frege suggests an interpretation of words as symbolic denotations that access their "meaning" via their "sense".  The article (which as a linguist I'd imagine you've probably read or heard about) gets somewhat awkward and complicated in philosophical details, but its essence is reasonably basic and probably easily wikiable if my handwaving here didn't cover it.  Anyway...in short, I think you're right for most people, but my understanding and use of language is strongly colored by my peculiar nature and experiences with, e.g., Frege.
 * Fiiinally, I do see your point about the dash, when I checked a few references, though I think I wouldn't quite use it the way you might. I agree that a dash can be used to separate off an appositive, which is often an independent clause.  That being said, there's some grey area to what's an appositive---and hence dashable---and what's more of a semi-distinct thought, which would demand a more formal separation with a colon.
 * Oh, yeah, grammaricalismic is too a word. It's right in the dictionary next to gulliballistic. ; )   ...yeah, I like making up words by adding arbitrary suffixes.--Carmine 05:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Except the part where it was written by Readem? - Auron 09:23, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Read the second part of what I said above...--Carmine 04:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * You keep missing the point, so I'll make it painfully obvious. Do not edit anyone else's userpage without their permission. All of your edits are easy to revert, but that isn't a reason to violate policy. - Auron 00:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm yet again not missing the point in the least. Firstly, I've already responded to this, that I disagree with this policy.  Secondly, this wasn't brought up to me before I made that particular edit, which you have missed the point on: I thought it was written by someone who was. not. Readem. Moreover, someone who was anon---which could naturally be Readem not logged in, but that didn't occur to me since it was late and I had a rather evil headache.  I'll make it painfully obvious: These edits to userpages were made before I was aware of this policy.  I disagree with this policy, but that's irrelevant to the fact that I did not know this policy existed at the time.  That's why you're here, to point this out to me---though you didn't even mention it before Entropy pointed it out just last night.  Why are we still talking about this?--Carmine 00:39, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Correcting spelling on userpages
While I don't mind people correcting spelling on pages in the mainspace, I find it incredibly rude to make changes to people's userpages. It's like stopping someone mid-sentence and correcting them--not only do you understand perfectly what they are trying to say, regardless if their grammar is correct or not, it's disrupting and downright inconsiderate. Kokuou 11:14, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, while some users may find it useful and helpful (as I would), others, as the comment above, may find it to be rude and unecessary. I believe you should always ask a user if you can have permission to fix grammar/spelling on userpages before going out and doing it.--[[Image:Marcopolo47 signature new.jpg]] (Talk) (Contr.) 19:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Kokuo, I found your judgments incredibly rude, and I think that's more of an issue than fixing typos on userpages.--Carmine 04:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Editing other people's userpages can be done for the following reasons:


 * Removing or fixing redlinks, nonexistant categories, images etc. because they have been deleted
 * Removing blatant policy violations such as the notorious "You have new messages" banner
 * Removing obvious NPA violations
 * Removing copyvio images (and then flagging them for deletion)
 * Fixing a broken page which has bad formatting and makes the whole browser go funny
 * Removing something like a #REDIRECT Special:Random which is not allowed
 * ...That's about it, though. I don't think we should edit other people's userpages to fix spelling and grammar unless you get permission first. I know that it is helpful and generally benign, but it has no overall benefit for the Wiki (as the above actions do), and as you may note by looking at Misspellings, userpages are not included there. [[Image:Entropy Sig.jpg]] (T/C) 13:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * That goes against what I do. Fixing a random little typo is just an offhand thing.  Asking for permission makes an impromptu typo correction into an unnecessarily elaborate and semi-formalized affair.  That's excessive and unnecessary.  If people like having typos or blatant spelling/grammar errors on their page, they can wallow in delusion AND be mad at me, for all I care.  Again, for the few people who want to remain ignorant, they can manage to make the three clicks that revert the page, and frankly I don't care if that kind of person has to go out of their way to remain ignorant.  I'm as much a teacher as a learner by nature, so I will not make a judgment based on making mistakes or not knowing things...though I will make a judgment based on willfully wanton ignorance.--Carmine 20:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Not all people spell things wrong because they don't know how to spell them right. I misspell words occasionally as inside jokes to people, because I want to, and to create an internet accent.  I know how to spell write, I just choose not to, please respect my choices and make no spelling mistakes to my userpage, talkpage, or any of my talk edits, thank you.--[[Image:Gigathrash_sig_G.jpg]]igathrash  Talk^Cont 00:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)(All spelling mistakes are here simply for comedic value and to lampoon this whole post)
 * I definitely understand that, as I do it intentionally myself all the time...look around at many of my posts and you'll see intentionally mispellerings scattered all over the place.  I try to think about whether the mispelling is intentional before I change it, as I suggested in my response about the change I made on readem's page.  FYI: I'd never edit a talk page, whether a user or general wiki talk page, because that's editing what someone else is saying.  To me, a userpage is more of a "publication," which seems to me to be perfectly acceptable for editing suggestions...easily revertable if wrong, but generally helpful.  Commenting "Hey, you mispelled "there", do you mind if I change it?" seems ridiculously excessive, and I feel like that'd lead to so many userpages with crap all over them.  I make typos or random mistakes too, and I don't see why someone should have to ask about changing something...I get e-mailed if you change it, and if it wasn't something I wanted changed, I'll revert it with three clicks anyway.  It's not like that happens every 10 minutes...--Carmine 00:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Addendum: To clarify: I don't plan on violating this policy. However, I'm hardly known for following rules I find asinine.  A typo is a typo, and I'll correct that at will.  If there's something more significant than some trivial typo (e.g., "tirvial"), I'll keep this policy in mind.  I have *no* interest in correcting people, and I have little interest in correcting text: my purpose lies in halting the spread of ignorance, an objective tikkun olam.  As I hope I've shown above (though this hope is abysmally small, given recent experiences...), I'm happy to halt the spread of my own ignorance as well.  Approach me with well-reasoned criticism, and I'll likely be your friend forever.  Sugar-coat an arrow pointing to policy, and I'll be as stubborn as a mule, and possibly (though, again, I hope not) an ass about it as well.--Carmine 00:58, 7 December 2007 (UTC)