Difference between revisions of "Talk:Random Event"

From NeoDex
Jump to: navigation, search
(I found ... something =S)
m (Reverted edits by 193.105.210.84 (talk) to last revision by Emeraldosprey)
 
(7 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
  
 
:I tried to re-trace the vandal's movements and went to the [http://pinkpt.com/neodex/index.php/Special:Undelete/Talk:Random_Event deletion history]. Seems that Lord Matt created this in November of 2005 and all subsequent edits were the vandal's doing. I don't know if Matt's edit was the only one before the vandal struck or not. --[[User:Dizzy|Dizzy]] 02:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 
:I tried to re-trace the vandal's movements and went to the [http://pinkpt.com/neodex/index.php/Special:Undelete/Talk:Random_Event deletion history]. Seems that Lord Matt created this in November of 2005 and all subsequent edits were the vandal's doing. I don't know if Matt's edit was the only one before the vandal struck or not. --[[User:Dizzy|Dizzy]] 02:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 +
 +
::To be honest, I don't think  this Talk page got much attention to begin with, so for all I know...he ''was'' the last to edit it. :o --[[User:Jacob|Jacob]] 08:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 +
 +
== Karma? ==
 +
 +
Personally, I think this karma thing is a lode of junk... there is no and has never been any reason to believe that it actually exists and I feel that doing anything other than mentioning the general belief in "Neopets Karma"... which I'm not even sure is around much any more... is all that is necessary... I mean, creating simple sample formulas??? It goes a bit far. 
 +
 +
And the same with the neopet happiness... this is an encyclopedia and we're essentially spreading rumors based on nothing.  ''It's believed keeping Neopets well fed''... by whom?  I've never in all my time on Neo heard this rumor.  Is there any reason that anyone can think of that these two sections shouldn't be either removed entirely or minimized and put in a new section called "speculation"?
 +
 +
''However, sometimes TNT reduces the chances of random events on these pages.'' - source?
 +
 +
Sorry if I sound upset, I just really find this sort of speculation completely out of place on something that is supposed to be based on facts unless it's strictly and carefully marked as being speculative... I should think that the fact that TNT has denied the existence of any sort of karma system in the past should be proof enough... -[[User:Cath|Cath]] 12:42, 19 August 2011 (CDT)
 +
 +
:Agreed.  I'm removing it now.  Good catch. - [[User:Emeraldosprey|Emerald Osprey]] 12:43, 19 August 2011 (CDT)

Latest revision as of 17:11, 12 March 2012

Cleared talk page?[edit]

Don't mind me. Just cleaning the double redirects out. Seems like this talk page was cleared too. Any way to get it back? --Jacob 10:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

I tried to re-trace the vandal's movements and went to the deletion history. Seems that Lord Matt created this in November of 2005 and all subsequent edits were the vandal's doing. I don't know if Matt's edit was the only one before the vandal struck or not. --Dizzy 02:28, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't think this Talk page got much attention to begin with, so for all I know...he was the last to edit it. :o --Jacob 08:57, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Karma?[edit]

Personally, I think this karma thing is a lode of junk... there is no and has never been any reason to believe that it actually exists and I feel that doing anything other than mentioning the general belief in "Neopets Karma"... which I'm not even sure is around much any more... is all that is necessary... I mean, creating simple sample formulas??? It goes a bit far.

And the same with the neopet happiness... this is an encyclopedia and we're essentially spreading rumors based on nothing. It's believed keeping Neopets well fed... by whom? I've never in all my time on Neo heard this rumor. Is there any reason that anyone can think of that these two sections shouldn't be either removed entirely or minimized and put in a new section called "speculation"?

However, sometimes TNT reduces the chances of random events on these pages. - source?

Sorry if I sound upset, I just really find this sort of speculation completely out of place on something that is supposed to be based on facts unless it's strictly and carefully marked as being speculative... I should think that the fact that TNT has denied the existence of any sort of karma system in the past should be proof enough... -Cath 12:42, 19 August 2011 (CDT)

Agreed. I'm removing it now. Good catch. - Emerald Osprey 12:43, 19 August 2011 (CDT)