Yeah, specifically he is from a webcomic adaptation of The Masque of the Red Death. Its made by Wendy Pini and I'm always obliged to warn that it contains some rather sexually explicit scenes in case anyone decides to look it up.
Hey there, Doc. This is certainly a bit of a major request, but I would like to recruit your help in recording and collecting gifs for each of the unique kill animations in Dishonored 2... which also very well may be different depending on whether or not Corvo or Emily is used, although I am not sure. I hope to recruit any others capable of recording gifs towards this effort, but your help would be very much appreciated in this regard.
Hey, Teatime. Once again, thanks for taking the time out of your day to create and upload that video. I listen to it on loop for hours at a time. It's so pleasing to the ear. I was just wondering if there was any way the volume could be increased. The sound quality isn't really even an issue, especially with my headphones, but if the the overall volume could somehow be increased, it would be a most grand cherry on top.
If you place the punctuation out of the quotation marks anyway, whether it is part of the actual qoute or not (I thought that distinguishing was the whole point of British vs. American), then when exactly does the punctuation go inside the quotes again?
Edit: I think the point with Cecelia's and Callista's quotes here is that they are full quotes, not paraphrased ones. That is exactly what Cecelia (or the Heart in Callista's case) say.
I read up on it some more this morning and British punctuation is basically a bit finicky. You can never add punctuation that isn't part of the actual quote (which is what American lets you do) but that doesn't mean you always include the original punctuation either.
If you have a quote at the end of a sentence you put the period outside the quotation marks to avoid having to write it like this:
Unfortunately, "No one thought it was funny.".
Only having the period inside the quotation marks in this case would only denote the end of a sentence within the quote, not the end of the larger sentence.
You can have double punctuation if you're not repeating the same punctuation though, so
She asked, "Where is the cat?".
Would be a valid way to write things.
And if the quote stands on its own (like the quotes at the top of pages) it can simply be
"No one thought it was funny."
since you don't need a period outside the quotation marks to denote the end of a larger sentence.
I hope my explanation makes sense, I'm pretty sure I've got it right but if I've misunderstood something it would definitely be good to get it cleared up sooner rather than later.
Ahoy, Dr Tea! say...how do I add another reference to the list of Mortimer Ramsey's page? can you help me add this good looking guy's question and Harvey's answer that confirms this guard is indeed Mortimer Ramsey?
The MoS has a section on references, and if you open an article in source mode you can see exactly how people do them. Looking at how other people do things is a good way of figuring things out, at least that's how I learned most of my wiki editing skills.
But in this case you don't actually need to add a reference to that tweet, I asked the people in chat and we agreed that it's not necessary.
I've done at least three other renders that were done from an entirely different screenshot than the original and no one brought it up then.
And I would argue it's still a pity to make a new file cause while it may not be the same image throughout I still find it interesting to preserve the history of what images have been allowed as the first thing people see on an article. That may be a rather esoteric reason but I still think it's a valid one.
And if we are to make new uploads, please leave it to me. Given the work I put into those renders, I would really prefer to preserve my name on them.
I think the main reason most people don't notice is because if you just upload the pics, no one is alerted unless you are following that particular pic, even if the pic changed was in an article you are following.
As to changing the pics from different angles and such, is there some sort of reason that they are being changed? Has someone said something about them being wrong, or was this just for an aesthetic that appealed to you alone? Not trying to make a big deal about this, but the type of change(s) you're talking about seems unwarranted in certain cases. If you want to add new pics like say Essie or Piko does, that's fine. They do that all the time; but covering up another pic is something else.
This kinda follows into the next point you bring up. Yes, your name is taken off of that and I apologize if that upset you, but the path goes both ways then. You took it upon yourself to replace the Delilah render which was added to the page April 22, 2013 - that's 3 years.
Now the person who originally added that pic, has his/her name taken off of it as well as every other user whose pics you have uploaded new pics to. Was that taken into consideration before you loaded over them? Again, not trying to make a big deal out of this, but I think if we want to be treated one way, we should do the same for others involved, no?
When I reverted that first pic, I thought it would give the name of the original poster back, but it didn't. It now has mine. So, basically, the op's name is lost to that pic. :(
People are aware of the other three because I posted about them in the comments, and I got Essie's permission to replace two of them since they were her uploads. And the reason was just that the originals were lacking in some way, it's subjective, sure, but no one complained at the time and you can still see the originals under file history. Corvo, Morgan and Custis' renders if you're curious.
And I've mentioned this before re the replace vs new upload thing but replacing a picture directly lets you see all versions and uploader names under file history whereas reuploading can often mean that the original is marked for deletion. So preserving the other uploaders' names is exactly why I replace instead of reuploading.
I think you're misrepresenting my position here: I wasn't complaining about it, I just explained why I did it, and in a later post what my goal was - to put the original poster's name back on it. That obviously failed, so it became a bum situation.
As for the esoteric quality, that I do understand. For myself, I often like to go through the history of an article's creation process, seeing what was added, what was deleted, and why. Now let's take Delilah's page for example, if I go through the process back to April 22, 2013 to see what the page looked like back then, the pic I would get would not be the older version of Delilah, but the newer one which would (falsely) appear to be added way back then.
I guess it is a matter of perspective on this point - is your esoteric reasoning better or is mine? Neither is, I would say, as we each make valid points.
When I first made my message here, I was merely trying to explain what I did and why. I wasn't trying to cause a disagreement.
Hey tea, I recently uploaded another pre released image and last time I did so Essie asked me to source them, problem is, I have no idea where to put the template she sent me....can you help me please? :>
Click on the image and choose "more info" in the upper right corner. This will take you to the file's page, then you can just hit "edit" and add the template, just be sure you're in source mode when you do it.