User talk:Adam660@legacy41957735

???
So what, is it like your day off or something? You haven't been this active in quite a while. :P 20:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Onoz, Adam's not active! The world is coming to an end! :P 20:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Very funny guys, I'm allowed a life too y'know ;) It seems that lately the "free time" I have inbetween working (exploding servers, etc.) and sleeping (much more relaxing) has been getting ever shorter and more filled with other junk. But fear not, while I may have not been actively editing I've still stopped in from time to time to check this place was still here (check the patrol log if you need proof!) On a side note, one of my friends (who lives in a shared house) is going away for a few weeks and asked if I wouldn't mind babysitting his PS3 for him until he got back. Clearly, I couldn't refuse... so you'll know why I'm not around for the next while at least ;) But on a serious note, you'll know when I've actually abandoned this place for good, because the entire internet will actually come to an end, I'm just that important. If you'll excuse me, I'm off to inflate my ego now... 06:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am. 12:21, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I sense some overly-inflated egos here! It is to be expected. We all have this issue. (^¿^) 12:48, July 3, 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I couldn't hear you over the sound of how awesome I am. 13:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sig
Dude, did you just your sig on MARKOL's talk page? Because it sure looks like it copied the whole dang signature onto there (which kind of defeats the point of having small sigs!). 15:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Seriously man, are you stalking me? I get a message from you less than 5 minutes after I make a mistake - I feel violated :O
 * Just kidding - it took me a minute to piece together why it was happening (and I'd already wondered why Matt advised to create a \sig2 page to point back to \sig), before I realised that the new nickname field automatically adds SUBST. Anywho, fixed now so i'll get back to installing extensions and stuff. 15:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I was wondering if everyone fully understand how to use the nickname box yet. You know, how to make it so it does not substitute you entire sig's code. 15:45, July 12, 2008 (UTC)

Aw man. Ok then. I'll fix it in a second.


 * Ummm.... I think that this is a little too distracting. You might want to reconsider it. I'll already had to dull down mine once because it caught too much attention. 05:49, July 22, 2008 (UTC)


 * How about replacing the ? in the beginning with a ¿ That looks more like an "A". 05:57, July 22, 2008 (UTC)


 * Weird, again I have this feeling that you're watching me... Anyway, I took the colours off it. The change I made by adjusting the letters didn't contravene any of the rules, so I think we need to be careful to avoid adding too much personal judgement; if a signature contains only the basic elements, and a not-excessive amount of colour (and adheres to the other explicitly stated rules), it should be allowed. 06:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm just unable to sleep at this time. You might be able to put some color (a.k.a colour) back. I am not even certain what is acceptable, so you might want to check with Ando and see what he thinks. He was supposed to be coming back here really soon. At least, that is what he said. He was going to modify page histories to remove embarrassing vandalism from the history pages. He said that doing it now would be better than during the day, on US time that is. It is 1:00 AM here. It is 6:00 AM over there right? I don't actually know when you've got to leave to go to your job. 06:06, July 22, 2008 (UTC)


 * I have to leave in like 10 minutes so I'll be brief. And please don't poke fun at my language, it's been around a lot longer than yours ;) (joking) I was bored of those colours anyway, so I might recolour it at some point. One interesting thing that you've hit on is the display of the characters themselves. This is what you should see: [[image:mysig_adamcox82.jpg]]
 * This would indicate that you don't have the required language support on your machine to render all characters shown in the new editing character-box. Maybe you wanna do a screenshot of what you see, so it can be compared to the functional version? 06:17, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well then, that is that. I think I can get this a little bit fixed. But is there another way to update the language support besides going through Windows Update? Because the best that Microsoft has released for XP is does not cover all of what is available. Those of you with Vista can see a lot more than I can. The Unicode website rather conveniently neglects to mention how to actually update your Unicode support. I do not have SP2 installed. That is because of an error cause by another program. I will uninstall said program and see if that works. You're probably gone now. But I can wait. 06:28, July 22, 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah...the one time Vista doesn't crash and burn... 13:34, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, seems I've slightly misled you in what I said above. From what I've read, it would seem that the issue lies with a lack of proper unicode support within Firefox itself. I expect that if you were to view this page with IE, you'd see the characters in my signature rendered correctly. Apparently the issue is resolved in Firefox 3; let me know if you need any more help and I'll see what I can dig up :) 17:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Unicode Support
Since you asked, I'll tell you. There are some characters in the edit toolbox that do not show up on my PC. I'm assuming that if I click on them, they will still be added correctly and you'll be able to see them. But just in case, I'll add their locations.
 * Just after ¤ and before ฿
 * Just after ฿ and before ¢
 * Just after ƒ and before ₭
 * Just after ₧ and before £
 * Just after £ and before ₨
 * Just after ƒ and before ₭
 * Just after ₧ and before £
 * Just after £ and before ₨
 * Just after £ and before ₨
 * Just after £ and before ₨

That is everything. I have had no luck installing SP2. It keeps on saying that I have a debug version of windows and not the retail. That, of course, is flat-out wrong. I bought it at Best Buy years ago. I really hope I don't have to re-install it. That is too much work. I know how of course. But it is just too tedious. 21:43, July 23, 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, it's not just you. I've got Service Pack 3 (got a new computer and down(up?)graded to XP :D) and I still can't see the ones that you've pointed out. What are you using, Adam? Nevermind, I just read that it's a Firefox issue. YUP YUP. 22:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Switch from Vista to XP? I would consider that an upgrade. :P. No, really. I would ! Those character don't show in Word, so I'm guessing that they are not in SP1. I do not know about SP2 or SP3 though. So, Ando,what is your new PC? (Laptop, sleek desktop, etc.) Its brand? (Dell, Gateway, etc.) If it is a laptop, does it have a button equivalent to the middle mouse button? 22:33, July 23, 2008 (UTC)

Issue
Here I am, adding my newly uploaded image to my page, and I get "Cannot make thumbnail. Something wrong with destination path." or something to that effect. Uh, wut? Can you please explain? s


 * No idea, something happened 'cause I was editing a page, tried to save it 20 times and got "Sorry! We could not process your edit due to a loss of session data" every time. Had to clear my cache and saved session data, uncheck "Show preview on first edit" in my Editing Preferences, log out and back in before it cleared! Could be server issues, but more likely Jason or someone else making some changes. Keep an eye on it and let me know if you see any other issues, ok? 21:13, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I've been having issues, too. I'm trying to make a new template and Firefox gives me that "the server connection was reset" thing over and over and I can't do anything about it. Let's see if it works this time! 21:16, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank goodness. I thought I was going crazy or something. So it wasn't just me. Could this be related to hack at ZU? I thought all the major repairs over there were already done? Well, I don't know for sure. 21:23, July 27, 2008 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: Jason be having problems with the server. 21:50, 27 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Error creating thumbnail: Unable to create destination directory <-- The error. 22:23, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

A Little Help
Since it was your idea, could you help with implementing the plan for the trivia section of Happy Mask Salesman. The plan you proposed here. The images are too dark on my end, and my brightness is calibrated to be in real-world colors ( What? it is faster to type "color" than "colour"!.:P ) So I might go and brighten them up a little. But I'm not exactly sure on where to go with the trivia section. 16:20, August 23, 2008 (UTC)


 * Seriously, they're too dark? On my monitor their brightness is way too high, so much so that I'm surprised at myself for not fixing it before I uploaded them. I think your need to consider adjusting your monitor if possible. Anyway, I added the section (thanks for reminding me), and I also flagged the entire article for improvement. In my opinion, the layout is quite poor ("intro" section is far too long and needs to be subdivided by game, and the current section headers and ordering are confusing and unprofessional). Anyway, I have most of this week's edits to patrol at some point, so I'll leave it to others to tinker with for the time being. 17:41, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Feature Image Nomination Question
The Phantom Hourglass Scene. What about this? I like that one better. We could crop it to look like option A. 20:34, August 24, 2008 (UTC)


 * Hold on, I can get a version of Option A without the logos! I'll work on it. 20:42, August 24, 2008 (UTC)

Can you give it the faded borders? it looked cool like that.

Maybe. A larger version of the Gamehiker one can be found here. 20:48, August 24, 2008 (UTC)

That looks good, if you can get it with the background without the logo, that would be great.


 * I wasn't able to get a satisfactory shadow effect. But I did get a equivalent version made without the logos. I'll leave the decision of whether or not to replace the currently nominated image with this one up to you, Adam. 06:37, August 25, 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm, not sure. One of the reasons I liked the one I selected was that it is hi-res, whereas this one seems like it's just been stretched to make it larger. In full view I can see too much distortion etc. What would be really nice would be if Markol would be so kind as to create a transparent-background png render of the white bg image you suggested. That would be a nice replacement for option B (I wouldn't wanna substitute out option A as some people have already voted for that image, and I find the logos to be quite inobtrusive). 08:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)