User talk:Avalongod

Hello Avalongod, and welcome to Wikipedia! The first thing you should know is that we encourage you to be bold. Feel free to edit and improve articles, by clicking any 'edit' link.

If you'd like to test what Wikipedia can do, check out the sandbox - just type and save the page and your text will appear. That's the beauty of a Wiki.

For more information check out some of the important links below. If you really need help, just type {{helpme}} on your user page. It's that easy!

If you'd like to get involved with current projects, have a look at the Community Portal. There are always tasks for users to do, ranging from copyediting to expanding stubs.

I hope you'll enjoy your time here, but be warned, it can become addictive! Feel free to message me, I'm more than happy to help. As an added tip, sign any message you post so users know that you've said it. To do so is delightfully simple, just use the wikicode ~~~~.

Once again, welcome! Jfing ers88 04:21, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trouble editing a new article

I responded to your question on the help desk. I hope it helps. — ApolloCreed ^{(comment) (talk)} 06:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad I could help. When you do get around to reading instructions, I recommend you take a look at these three articles: verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view. They are the policies governing what content is appropriate for wikipedia. If nothing else, read the introduction of each article. I suspect your article may go against no original research :-(. You should cite some sources in your article (as every article should). — ApolloCreed ^{(comment) (talk)} 06:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great job on the references! — ApolloCreed ^{(comment) (talk)} 16:59, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added internal wiki links to the media violence research article you created. I was going to add sections too, but I'm not sure the best way to go about it. It would make sense to have a "Criticism" heading before the sentence that starts with, "Criticisms of the media violence link focus..." The trouble I was having was in defining the lead section (introduction). The lead section should be no more than 3 paragraphs. I wasn't sure where to put, or what to call, the first section following the lead section. I was thinking "History", but I'll bet you can think of something better. I also changed the media violence article to be a redirect to the media violence research article, since it appeared to have the same content. — ApolloCreed ^{(comment) (talk)} 18:00, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} I've been trying to fix the redirect page "Media violence" to redirect to "Media violence research" instead of just "violence." I think to redirect directly to "media violence research" makes more sense as this is probably what the searcher is directly looking for (not violence more generally). I tried to make the change to the redirect page, but it's still redirecting to "violence"...what did I do wrong?

Thanx,

It redirects to Media violence research now. Someone seems to have fixed it. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps • HELP!)} 20:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you did that change, you seem to have it figured out apparently. If not, please say so and I will assist you further on how to do such things. Although I am not sure if that was a correct decision in this case... So#Why 20:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

Avalongod, I apologize for my brother's interaction with you. Only recently did I discover that he was the IP you were arguing with over at Social effects of pornography. You can see my talk page about my block for what happened, if you don't already know. Since you left me a comment at the article's talk page not that long ago, it seems you don't know what happened, even though the comment has come just in time of my being unblocked. I will try to help you with that article when I get a good chance to do so.

Again, my sincerest apologies. Flyer22 (talk) 21:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No, I had no idea! I'm a sporadic user at best, so don't tend to follow the politics. I'm sorry this has happened, and appreciate your note. Skimming through your comments and those of others, it might be good to take a break for a few weeks or month, but I do hope you'll come back. I always found your comments constructive even where we disagreed and I appreciate that. Avalongod (talk) 17:01, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, especially for trusting that I wouldn't have responded to you in that way and most assuredly not while pretending to be someone else (a male no less). I'm going to do what I can to make sure nothing like this happens again, even if it means contacting ArbCom as a fellow Wikipedian advised me to do through email. I used the words "even if" because I'm not going to lie about being bitter about the whole thing.

I've had a long enough break because this, getting right back up/in there, is the way I've almost always dealt with situations that have knocked the wind out of me. I just wanted to apologize because it was through me that this happened and it shouldn't have happened. He has obviously studied Wikipedia guidelines and policies through me and uses that to advance his points, even if wrongly. He saw us at Adolescence, was editing and commented on the talk page, and I guess he decided to put you on his enemy list. You were not a threat to my well-being, we didn't even disagree on much of anything, and so I find it completely offensive that he felt he had to "take care of you" to make my life easier. But I can't let myself get too worked up over this, especially not on Wikipedia.

Just thank you. I've said before that I feel that you are an asset to this project and I meant it. Flyer22 (talk) 01:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the kind words. I guess these kinds of things happen and I can understand being bitter about it. But honestly, I think it's a temporary bubble and people will see it for what it is. Best. Avalongod (talk) 14:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

for hours, with an associate<ref>State's Attorney for the Official District of Danbury. "[http://www.scribd.com/doc/187052598/Official-Sandy-Hook-Report." 26 November 2013.</ref>.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:08, 26 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting

The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting final report does not say that Adam Lanza "was most fond of non-violent video games such as Dance, Dance Revolution and Super Mario Brothers". It says that he "liked to play a game called "Dance Dance Revolution" and that "Super Mario Brothers" was "his favorite at one point". It is important to be accurate here, and to avoid giving personal interpretations of primary source material. The report should be quoted directly, rather than giving an interpretation of what it says. Also, the article should not attempt to play down the fact that Lanza did have some first person shooter games in his collection, even though they may not have been his favorites. The article has been careful to point out that investigators never said that video games were a factor in the motive; it was only the media and politicians who suggested this.--♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 06:29, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, you have decent points. Although it's fair as well to note the report focused mainly on Dance, Dance Revolution as well. Further, it's fair to keep the "initial rumors" about "thousands of dollars" of video games as that, in fact, was not what the investigators appeared to find. Looking at the report now, they list 12 games which, if we assume they were bought at full value around $60, would be around $720, not "thousands." Certainly don't mean to split hairs, but I think it's clear that the "initial rumors" of "thousands of dollars" of games was, at very least, a bit of an exaggeration. As you say, we should stick to what's in the report. :) Avalongod (talk) 04:23, 28 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]