![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 |
The
December 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by
BrownBot (
talk)
21:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the head up. I'll keep an eye on things too. ♣ Klptyzm Chat wit' me § Contributions ♣ 23:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
You currently appear to be engaged in an
edit war. Note that the
three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the
three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be
blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a
consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue
dispute resolution.
Kyaa the Catlord (
talk)
23:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Just to let you know that I believe the user that has reported you is a sockpuppet of someone, and as a result, I have taken this to the Incidents noticeboard. Feel free to comment there. D.M.N. ( talk) 17:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but that really amuses me. "Please go away. You're not helping here". As I have said before; I'm not abusing anyone; I'll shout it: NOT abusing anyone. TTN isn't helping the article to heal from its surgery. He either doesn't know how to help a threatened article, or he doesn't care enough to do it, or for whatever reason, he has qualms against articles improving. But thousands of others disagree, for a mixture of fan-based and encyclopedially-interested reasons. Who am I going to side with? How am I going to stop him from causing another edit war? How would you stop him, then? Compared with what I would much rather have said - not just because we've had edges before; I'd be like this with any editor in opposition with me - that was as civil as I - or anyone - could ever be. But again, how would you have asked him to go somewhere else on the site? Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 07:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
According to Wikipedia:User page#Copies of other pages, "Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." If the page hasn't been touched in a long time, I usually ask the user for permission to delete. Typically, the user has forgotten about the page and doesn't have a problem with deletion. If the user refuses after being pointed to the above linked guideline, you can take it to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Pagra shtak 22:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
personaly i have no idea on what you are talking about but i do have it to save my pass and name on this computer other people have probably used it on this computer when i was not there i will fix problem if it continues its not my fault —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirrorofsauron ( talk • contribs) 15:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
also my discussion page just keeps me up to date on the latest jokes and music etc im not allowed to have a my space and for one thing my page is just my personal thing cause lots of friends like kupkake are from my school just friends i know and love —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirrorofsauron ( talk • contribs) 15:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
SIE SAUGEN HURE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirrorofsauron ( talk • contribs) 16:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Rob. Concerning your comment on my talk page, I tried that, but the template won’t expand, therefore it doesn’t show up in the speedy deletion category and will never be noticed. Thanks anyway — Travis talk 20:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
This [196] is never going to stop until we format all other Video Game articles. I am willing to assist you in doing this but it needs to be done as soon as possible if we want to prevent more lists from cluttering up articles. When do you think we should start? -- bulletproof 3:16 23:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, you're right. I should have explained why I removed the prod tag. I felt it should be a fairly uncontroversial keep, as it easily meets WP:FICTION. There's even a Category:Fictional locations by series. Still, your comment caused me to reread WP:PROD, and it does recommend an explanation. Ah well. Cheers, Feezo (Talk) 02:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
because thats what i think about you oh and you like marvel comics i do too i have 1st edition issue one of ghost rider and the invincible iron man in oroginal packaging —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirrorofsauron ( talk • contribs) 15:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello, yesterday I edited a wiki page on WWE SMACKDOWN VS RAW 2008.
I edited it with information that is widely regarded as correct and you claim that I am a vandal? I dont exactly know where you get off on such misinformed name calling but, in future, you should seriously consider your actions before you go pointing the finger of blame. Everything that I typed on that page is widely regarded as factual and I believe that banning me from editing would be an unfair punishment.
Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beastmix ( talk • contribs) 10:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok, the 'mouldy' comment was MAYBE slightly personal. I'll apologise for that. However the 'buff' remark I will not issue an apology for. Buff is a positive word, not negitive. As for the 'facts', it is of popular belief that WWE Smackdown vs. RAW 2008 is the worst game in the series. Maybe even one of the worst games ever. If people want to check on Smackdown Vs. Raw 208 in future(to see if it was any good) they are going to see your 'unbiased' view, buy the game, and be disappointed. How's that for constructive? I'm sorry, but I will not issue an apology for this either. I'm trying to be constructive here but I feel that i'm being unfairly targeted. From now on I will not publish my own opinions, only factual notes with references. ~Beastmix~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beastmix ( talk • contribs) 16:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Often I don't feel like doing so. I long ago gave up hope of reasoning with deletionists, so I tend to limit myself to simply registering my opinion in a brief manner. To do otherwise will lead to futile and often extended arguments about the nature of Wikipedia between people with diametrically opposed perspectives, as I have found through long experience. Everyking ( talk) 21:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
...the suggestion. I do make edits here and there though and I have made over 8,000 edits to Wikipedia that are not to my own page. I do not want to offend your opinion or you, but I will continue with my personal pleasures on my own page, as well as editing to other articles periodically. Clay4president2 ( talk) 23:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. It is the same concept as Eugene and Regal, Cena and Michaels, Wang Yang and Moore, Big Show and Kane, and others. iMat thew 00:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to be rude, but rather simply trying to make a point. If you think I'm overly obsessive, you're more than entitled to think so. That doesn't mean you have to call me obsessive. Would you rather I gave up this obsession and left the maintenance of the article in your hands? -- Cheesemeister3k ( talk) 17:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
for the support. It means a lot with users like Lifestroke420 out there in Wikiland. ArcAngel ( talk) 19:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
See outcome here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/RobJ1981 — Rlevse • Talk • 10:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll keep my eye on it. Might want to inform Nikki311 of the situation as well. -- bulletproof 3:16 06:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
His page thus far has been exactly a week-to-week recap of his WWE career. EXCUSE ME if I was adding to what was already there. Dahumorist ( talk) 18:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I noticed that you put up an {{unsourced}} template on this article. Can I ask why? That article is just listing and describing the enemies, there really isn't anything TO cite. -- Alpha Prime Talk|| Edits 17:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Port or not, the separate infobox for Bully: Scholarship Edition contains information specific to that version. Combining two infoboxes into one would mislead readers in believing that the two games are completely identical (unlike Resident Evil 4 which is designed to provide the same experience across all platforms). Besides, a number of ports have their own separate *articles* let alone an infobox within the parent article. Sillygostly ( talk) 00:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
If the "Seen briefly in cutscenes" characters are off that game's page, how come they have a similar character thing under the X-Men Legends game? Rtkat3 ( talk) 7:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Rob, although I agree that the conversation in the Virtual Console talk page had started to go off-topic, that is no reason to delete an entire section, especially considering there was legitimate information contained in the topic relevant to the article; please exhibit more prudent judgment in the future when trimming off-topic information, as it could be otherwise construed as vandalism. PeanutCheeseBar ( talk) 15:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Editors are permitted to remove content from their talkpages, without archiving if they wish. There is no requirement to add it back, as removing it indicates that the recipient has read the content. The use of uncivil edit summaries is not permitted, and I have notified Lamename3000 accordingly. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 20:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't propose the idea, someone else did and they brought it to my attention so I insisted using a table, but then a columnized list would be better. Wikipedia is suppose to be neat, and articles should read neatly. Come on now listing the roster in paragraph form is not that neat and may be confusing. In every paragraph there is a character listed that says that they are not on the DS version, now with the list, it is simple and to the point. You list on what brand they are on and then you put a simple note saying on what system they are available on.-- TrU Co 9311 21:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Hi RobJ. In regard to the discussion on Talk:WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008, it appears to have died down. So now might be a good time start switching the character list to prose. I still have the page on my watchlist and will keep it on for a while, so if things heat up again I'll help out. Worse comes to worse, post on the VG Project talk page again. ( Guyinblack25 talk 16:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC))
The January 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have any suggestions for improvement or desire other topics to be covered, please leave a message on the talk page of one of the editors.Thank you. Nehrams2020 ( talk) 02:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
I did notice that he made a rude comment and then blanked his talk page. I don't particularly care for being called a Nazi, especially since my mother is Jewish. I'm going to block him for incivilty and to prevent future personal attacks. Per WP:PA#Consequences of personal attacks, we might need some arbitration. He seems to have a problem with admins and doesn't seem likely to start being civil. I think he wants to be banned anyway, so we might be doing him a favor. Nikki 311 00:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
In !voting keep a moment ago, I noted that even I, an inveterate process addict, "would prefer that we be clueful [with respect to deleting a page that appears to have some constructive use even as it may be understood by some as inconsistent with the "private copies" language of WP:UP]". It occurs to me that I might be understood as intimating that your nomination is sans clue, and as someone who absolutely hates the presumptuous wielding of WP:CLUE that has occasion to occur with some frequency, I imagine I should observe that I meant the term generally, in reference to that which I believe ought to be our practice writ large (there have been a few MfDs that resulted in the deletion of subpages belonging to users who were [at least apparently] acting in good faith, and we have, IMHO, sometimes been to eager to delete user subpages in which article construction has been essayed, albeit, I concede, almost always when that construction appears to have been stopped); apologies, to be sure, for whatever may permit a contrary interpretation. Cheers, Joe 23:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your message. From what I read it will only be a couple of days before TJ's announcement is proven correct or not. Providing there isn't too much chat produced it may be best to let things slide. If the chatting generally starts up again, following this or later, then let me know and I will drop a few gentle warnings on the editors talkpages. Editing WP is supposed to be fun, and we can't demand that there is no diversion from strictly talking about the article as opposed to the subject, but it musn't be allowed to become disruptive. I don't think it is disruptive yet but when it does, or if you disagree, let me know and I'll look over it again. Cheers. LessHeard vanU ( talk) 09:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
What you did to them makes them look horrible! It doesn't even tell you what superstars are in the game. Next time you edit a roster try not to fuck it up okay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Welshy1791 ( talk • contribs)
I saw your edit to the roster section. While I agree that the list is not necessary, but u labeled it as vandalism. The list is not vandalism, if an admin saw that, you would be warned for non good faith edits. Just a lil heads up. Now the prose that you have included is messy, it is not neat nor organized nor a presentable prose. Consider revising...-- TrU Co 9311 20:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! Wilhelmina Will ( talk) 03:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Spore and Spore Creatures is a delicate matter. EA insists on lumping them together despite DS and mobile being different styles of games. Let's just keep it like this til the time comes when there's enough info to make Spore Creatures its own article, as well as Spore (mobile). Maybe sooner than later, but this needs to be approached carefully. JAF1970 ( talk) 01:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
"Slapnuts" isn't even a real word, it was made up by Jeff Jarrett (and doesn't have 1 meaning). I didn't see how anyone would be offended by me calling fake info bullshit when it is, maybe I will just go back to saying BS instead (means the same thing but people don't seem to be offended by that). I don't think I did anything offenseive last night, but thank you for contacting me about your concerns. TJ Spyke 00:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
In case you aren't aware, I replied to your ridiculous comment on my talk page. c [197] ~NeonFire372~ ( talk) 19:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I did not directly swear at you, I did not directly say F Rob, I was swearing in general terms as in F the voting, I meant forget about the voting. Cool?-- TrU Co 9311 20:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I removed the PROD that you placed on the article because I could not find any justification at the time for that. The initial post on my user page did not actually link to the deletion debate, so I didn't know it existed. It said to 'see the discussion on the talk page', and seeing that there wasn't one, I decided I would just delete the tag. When I did that, another bot posted to my page linking me to the deletion debate, and so I've justified my actions there. I apologize for any misunderstandings. McJeff ( talk) 18:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Shall I post orphan tags on all non-licensed, original Xbox Live Arcade games? They have "few links", too. Oh, and Fable 2 and Xbox Live Arcade are "so-called" major articles? (chuckle) JAF1970 ( talk) 20:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)