User talk:Kynde

Hi, please do not remove the Cueball references here. He is a standard character. The category Category:Comics featuring Cueball gives just an overview about all comics showing this stick figure. And just one is him, not defined by Randall but by us. --Dgbrt (talk) 21:10, 8 May 2014 (UTC)

But who should define who Cueball is? You? I could see him as both here. And somebody did. You have just corrected back so that the Cueball in the explain is switched to the other charachter in the transcript. At least one of these should then be changed to match the other. It is thus also clear that people have different views of what Cueball stands for. Is he the one trolling, or is he the one who knows which movie Blade Runner is? Kynde (talk) 07:35, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

By the way - I did not remove the reference to the chategory - but only in the text as described above. Kynde (talk) 07:38, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Also, a minor concern, but please be more sparing in your use of "minor" tags on edits. Addition of 1200 characters (e.g. . . m Talk:1496: Art Project‎; 20:04 . . (+1,240)‎ . . ‎Kynde, or . . m 1497: New Products‎; 19:12 . . (-419)‎ . . ‎Kynde →‎Explanation: It does not fit into category four! See new test. I also deleted a lot of text, that already was written below, and was basically the same as the one stille) is NOT minor. Djbrasier (talk) 21:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

When adding a new comment to the talk page I newer see this as a major change. This i a discussion not a change to the explanation!. I do not believe it was a big change removing the text you wrote, when all of it basically was written below. Try and read your version, and see that it was more or less double. Also I had already once removed the reference to the fourth category. If the guy has signed up he have no problems with this company. Also it is mentioned that the fourth category is not a company he is afraid off, but just someone they do not like. --Kynde (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you

I like what you did at 1402: Harpoons. Thank you. 173.245.54.153

Your welcome - I did it based on you comment Kynde (talk) 03:41, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Merge Cueball & Rob

You seem to have changed some comics in which formerly more than one cueball appeared to make it such that none were called cueball (e.g. Orb Hammer). But many persist, see transcripts in: http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/1405:_Meteor http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/192:_Working_for_Google http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/525:_I_Know_You%27re_Listening http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/187:_The_Familiar http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/79:_Iambic_Pentameter http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/65:_Banter

We should probably seek broader consensus before rewriting all these transcripts. There seems to me to be a general trend to name one "Cueball" and call the others "Friend" or somesuch in these cases and I'm concerned that you seem to want to singlehandedly rewrite all that convention. Djbrasier (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

It is typically the first who writes the transcript who decides who of the Cueballs (or Megans) he feel represents the real Cueball. However, there is no real behavior of Cueball. So who should decide. I could also change these transcripts so it becomes the other character who becomes Cueball, because I think the first transcripter did it wrong. This was exactly what happened with the two Megan-like comics. First it was Megan and Danish. Then unidentified girl and Megan. Then Megan and unidentified girl, then two Megan like girls with short and long hair and finally you reverted it to my first ide: Unidentified girl and Megan. So thanks for showing me these six double Cueball comics. I will change asap. And as I answered your comment on 1496: Art Project Rob is already listed as part of the category for Comics featuring Cueball: http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Category:Comics_featuring_Rob and this is listed as the first entry when going to the page for Category:Comics featuring Cueball: http://www.explainxkcd.com/wiki/index.php/Category:Comics_featuring_Cueball Thus he should not be merged--Kynde (talk) 21:21, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Can you please add this discussion here [1]. I have refrained from making these sort of substantial changes and want to seek a broader consensus. Please use the community forum to seek such consensus before making major unilateral changes like that. Djbrasier (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Done with interests --Kynde (talk) 22:02, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

there are dozens of multiple-Cueball comments. Please don't change them to "man 1", "man 2" until we can reach a braoder consensus. I will not be changing them to "Rob" without consensus. This is not something to be done all at once and making that many changes will prompt me to request that an admin freeze your account. Djbrasier (talk) 21:27, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I was about to write this before your comment no. two. So this was a reply to your previous comment: "I can post it there, but these changes has been underway a long time for almost a year. But it is hard to find these comics as I do not go through them just to find incidences. How long have you been active in xkcd. I can see your page has been created today, but maybe you were active long before that?"--Kynde (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

This is a comment to your next comment: "It is very hard to threaten someone like that already. I have been making these changes before, and by the way never to man 1 or man 2. I have been one of the top contributers for more than a year. I hope this is not just because I reverted one of your contributions to Mondays comic? --Kynde (talk) 21:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I didn't want to threaten. I think consistent style is important, and general style I see is in multi-Cueball comics, one is ID'd as Cueball and others are "Friend", etc. Anyone unilaterally changing an established style should seek consensus first.

Additionally, I think your undo on my edit actually improved the explanation.

Finally, if you know how to solicit more opinions on the matter at hand, please let me know (or do it). Thanks! Djbrasier (talk) 23:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

My only point is we need to wait until consensus is reached before undoing years of precedent in Cueball naming. Djbrasier (talk) 22:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)