User talk:Botto/Archive 3

This page is an archive of APR 2012 to SEP 2013.

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q1 2012
MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 19:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

DOTA
DOTA 2 IS NOW FIGHTING — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bago Pilipinas ng Laban (talk • contribs) 11:24, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WOW! YOU DRUNK! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nacionalista PDP (talk • contribs) 11:48, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I'm sorry to see that you're both sock puppets. D arth B otto talk•cont 17:01, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * EAT THIS GAME! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apat ng GABRIELA (talk • contribs) 12:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * WOW! THE FIGHT IS NOT OVER! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Para sa PMP (talk • contribs) 10:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no fight; just a retarded editor with no life who's spamming me. D arth B otto talk•cont 00:03, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, look at this- Sockpuppet investigations/Dragon2016; it looks to me like the fight is over. Good luck without Wikipedia from now on. D arth B otto talk•cont 05:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * THE FIGHT IS "NOT OVER". THE FIGHT WILL BE SPOILED INTO RUSSIAN, TURKIC, AND OTHER WIKIPEDIAS. I WILL BE BACK SOON AS WARRIORS OF KAZAKH WIKIPEDIA AND TURKIC WIKIPEDIAS INVADE HERE. I am in a collision on the Selena Gomez related persecution. KAZAKHSTAN BLOOMS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sandali lang (talk • Special:Contributions/Sandali lang) 02:49, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the fight is over because there never was a fight, other than you fighting your own mental inadequacy. To concentrate one's full energy on creating stupid messages about "eating games" and "lasing ka"; it doesn't get much more pathetic and impotent than that. I don't care who you are, I don't know why you've decided to spam me stupid message, but I demand that you stop. D arth B otto talk•cont 04:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, there is no fight on Russian Wikipedia, Kazakh Wikipedia or other Turkic Wikipedias. Darth, look at them, they're members of a so called cross-wiki vandal group "Selena Gomez Fan". I demand that Dragon2016 should stop cross-wiki disruption. --S. Baltsamnaborj (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Still, I have not the faintest idea why this idiot's selected me to harass with his nonsense. D arth B otto talk•cont 06:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Соғысты бiтпейдi! Гоместiң селенi бейiмделудiң түзуi керiсiнше бұл жерде жоқ! Нұрсұлтан Назарбаев, Гурбангулы Бердымухамедов, Ислам Каримов, сiз Отанның Нұралары, және Қазақстан әлденеше қудаладыңыз! Сiз майдандарды жойдыңыз! Күн, Жеңiс бұл мен болады! Алға, Қазақстан! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kurat Warrior (talk • contribs) 02:42, 06 November 2012 (UTC)

"Vandalism"
–You'd best NEVER accuse me of vandalism again. I am not a vandal. Please do not comment on my talk page. -Bens Dream — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bens dream (talk • contribs) 22:11, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I asked you not to comment on my talk page, please stop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bens dream (talk • contribs) 22:18, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I apologise for getting angry at you, I overreacted. I was merely trying to help out on the page, and not vandalise it. I apologise for calling you an "idiot", and I hope we can put this behind us.

Re: PLDT - Dragon2016
Re your message: I am not a CheckUser, so I can not determine the IP address that editors are editing from. I recommend that you file an SPI on Dragon2016 and their latest accounts. The previous SPI investigation showed that a range block was not feasible, but you should file another SPI just in case they are editing on a different range. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 04:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your timely reply. It would appear as if this user cannot be effectively prevented as of now. The I.P. case is unfortunately something that has loopholes that have precisely given this user the ability to continue editing from his position. We can only hope that an alternative comes up that effectively provides us with the means of removing his editing capabilities permanently. D arth B otto talk•cont 04:45, 03 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
-- ferret (talk) 02:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q2 2012
MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 21:21, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Listed buildings in Sheffield S52
A tag has been placed on Listed buildings in Sheffield S52, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. – Wdchk (talk) 19:32, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It was a re-direct to a page with the purpose of providing an easier route. It seems that page has since been deleted, so, I don't care. D arth B otto talk•cont 00:18, 06 August 2012 (UTC)

MOBA
Hi DarthBotto,

Thanks for your contributions. I noticed your edits on the subject of action real-time strategy multiplayer online battle arena, great work. One thing however, please don't abbreviate it to MOBA. WP:TITLEFORMAT states that unless a term is generally known by its abbreviation it is usually not suitable. For example, I, as a frequent editor of video game articles, make sure that FPS is written out as first-person shooter. Sorry to bother you with this :) Thanks, and happy editing! --Soetermans. T / C 09:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I was of course referring to the infobox, not the article body itself :) --Soetermans. T / C 11:51, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Red Links
I see that you removed a red link from the 0x10c article on Wikipedia.

I'd like you to at least read Red link and explain perhaps to me why it was wrong to have a link to Carl Manneh. If you are saying that he will never have an article written about him, fine, I'll accept that. There is a point to having red links in articles though, and the rationale to remove such links simply because the article doesn't exist yet isn't good enough. It is also contrary to Wikipedia policy. --Robert Horning (talk) 22:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm familiar with the Wikipedia policy for red links. However, I have been seeing a red link to Carl Manneh be there for quite some time and I have ignored it, because I've had faith that somebody had the full intention of creating an article. But after so much time of not following up on the red link, I believe that it's an incentive that was abandoned. If there is to be an article about Carl Manneh, then I'd be all for linking it up and what-not. The long and short of it is that I did not see the initiative to create an article, which is why I unlinked it for the time being.


 * I admit that I would like for there to be an article about him, but as it so happens, I'm friends with Carl and it would raise flags, so far as a conflict of interest is concerned. D arth B otto talk•cont 22:27, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Except that isn't policy or the point of a red link. Yes, it is perhaps a sort of irritant that an article should be written, but the fact that one hasn't been written yet over the course of a year or so isn't a rationale for why the link needs to be removed.  Saying he is not notable and will never get an article written is a valid reason for removing the link, which is my point in raising this issue at all.


 * I'm sort of annoyed about this practice of removing red links anyway, as far too many of them have been removed from Wikipedia for sort of the reasons you are using. It isn't declaring that an article would be written or that they simply haven't been able to get around to the act, but that it is an article that at least should get some review by somebody at some future time and perhaps write that article.  Your response here sort of seems like you don't "get it" in terms of why red links are even used at all.


 * Regardless, I don't want to get into an edit war over this. It is just irritating that somehow there is a viewpoint that redlinks need to be deleted, and something that is repeatedly called against when the issue is raised in the Village Pump and elsewhere.  I understand about a conflict of interest in terms of writing such an article too.  I'll just drop it for now, but you did sort of hit a pet peeve of mine about some editorial practices on Wikipedia that are very different from when I first started on this project.  --Robert Horning (talk) 22:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If this is your "pet peeve", then you've blown this way out of proportion. I don't care if you don't think I "get it". D arth B otto talk•cont 22:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It is more than just a pet peeve though. It is also that I think you understand a basic philosophy and concept about what Wikipedia actually is, where it is intended to never be finished (hence the missing puzzle piece in the logo).  I don't think I've blown this out of proportion, so far as you don't even perceive that anybody might have a problem with this action, or that you consider me some sort of extremist on this point.  So be it.  But thanks for at least responding.  --Robert Horning (talk) 15:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Official portrait of Andreas Thorstensson.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Official portrait of Andreas Thorstensson.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add OTRS pending to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at File copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in [ your upload log]. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. VernoWhitney (talk) 05:36, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Dota73-loading-screen.png)
Thanks for uploading File:Dota73-loading-screen.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:09, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q3 2012
MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 15:37, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

That makes no sense
I am not asking to change the MOBA-genre page from MOBA to ARTS. I am saying that you have a very RS calling DotA 2 an ARTS. Why is DotA 2 called a MOBA then ?! I am not taking offense at all, but isn't it WP policy to go by what is verifiable and backed by sources !? Twice, you reverted my sourced, valid edits. You say that the reason is that there is consensus that the genre is called MOBA, yet you forget that: 1- Consensus can change, and 2- Consensus is that both MOBA and ARTS are valid names for the genre, and also 3- I am not going against consensus by changing the Multiplayer online battle arena page, I am changing the DotA 2 page. Also, can we discuss this on the DotA 2 page, instead of on the MOBA page and user pages ?! It would be neater, and other editors can see both our reasoning. Thank you. Unflavoured (talk) 01:17, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Jay Pinkerton for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Jay Pinkerton is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Jay Pinkerton until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.--Vaypertrail (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I didn't create that article either, so go ahead, but please use more discretion that simply undoing tagging with no reason, and not trying to fix what the tag has asked for, as in this case, Valve employee articles, simply because you can't be bothered.--Vaypertrail (talk) 11:34, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

ITN for 2013 Houphouët-Boigny stampede
-- Spencer T♦ C 19:02, 1 January 2013 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter (4th Quarter 2012)
 The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter

Volume 5, No. 4 — 4th Quarter, 2012

Previous issue | Index | Next issue  Project At a Glance As of Q4 2012, the project has:


 * 150 Featured Articles
 * 50 Featured Lists
 * 6 Featured Topics
 * 3 Featured Pictures


 * 45 A-Class Articles
 * 555 Good Articles
 * 12 Good Topics

Content


 * Changes to Featured and Good content
 * News items and announcements


 * Feature: "Strengthening and utilizing WP:VGs inter-language links"
 * Interview: Khanassassin

Project Navigation

To receive future editions of this newsletter, click here to sign up on the distribution list. This newsletter was delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 03:01, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
 * VG Project Main pages
 * Main project – talk
 * Project category – talk
 * Portal – talk
 * VG Project Departments
 * Assessment – talk
 * Cleanup – talk
 * Peer review – talk
 * Reference library – talk
 * Newsletter – talk
 * Video game images – talk
 * Video game images – talk

large quasar group
Hi, i have a quick question about the new discovery on 1/11/13, aren't quasars of this nature suppose to be at the center of a galaxy? If so, then I have a follow-up question,,,,,,,thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, generally they are. However, the nature of this discovery is contradictory to the our very understanding of the nature of the universe and nobody has made any designation of there being a galactic cluster of any kind. Rather, this object is viewed as a single, massive, super-structure. As a note of the scale of this object, the Milky Way is 100,000 light-years wide, (many trillion miles), while this LQG is four billion light-years across, so you don't even want to imagine the number in miles. D arth B otto talk•cont 22:21, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

thanks for the reponse,,,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:39, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Guardians of Middle-earth.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Guardians of Middle-earth.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Pro gaming taskforce
DarthBotto, you've listed yourself as a member of the pro gaming taskforce of WP:VG. If you're still interested in creating and improving articles relating to electronic sports, I'd like to let you know that I'm planning on reorganizing, renaming, and reviving this project! If you're not interested, please remove your name from the list of participants. Thanks! —Entropy (talk) 04:15, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Question
I'm not particularly seeing much in the way of attacks, unless you mean. All I see is an editor insisting you're incorrect and pushing an "agenda", and the other editors point out that you're not. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 22:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I lump it into the category of "this guy's being a jerk, move on". Obviously that's a personal judgement, your mileage may vary. Unless they're cursing up a blue streak at you or whatnot it's really not worth dealing with. Don't let them get you down. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 02:17, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It just means you're doing something right. Just wait until you get your own ANI heading, you'll know you've graduated to the big leagues... :) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 02:32, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:HoN Gameplay.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:HoN Gameplay.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:21, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Zhoban


Hello DarthBotto, I notice you put a suspected sock tag on User:66.199.245.66. I found that this editor was editing Wikipedia from a web host, ezzi.net, so it is now blocked as an open proxy. See. I wonder if the use of proxies sheds any light on User:Zhoban who is presumably the common element behind all these accounts. Evidently he has a lot more ranges, judging from the IPs in. 67.202.* seems popular as well. That range seems to be operated by Steadfast Networks, which might also be a web host. If so, a block of might also be justified. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:30, 4 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Possibly, but I personally do not want to engage in any more interactions with this individual. Me tagging him and producing that long-term abuse case made me a personal target of his and I do not think the amount of stress from it is worth it on my end. You can do what you want, but I will not participate. D arth B otto talk•cont 06:56, 04 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Well, others must have realized the same thing since Elockid had blocked this range for a year as a web host. EdJohnston (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. The list of articles awaiting review is located at Special:PendingChanges. A full list of articles that have pending changes protection turned on will be at Special:StablePages.

Being granted reviewer rights neither grants you status nor changes how you can edit articles. If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time.

See also:
 * Reviewing, the guideline on reviewing
 * Pending changes, the summary of the use of pending changes
 * Protection policy, the policy determining which pages can be given pending changes protection by administrators. 18:45, 19 May 2013 (UTC)Beeblebrox (talk)

Talkback
smileguy91talk 15:28, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Notability tagging
hi, I've noticed you're tagging a lot of notable but lacking articles with this, I'm beginning to get tired of seeing automated talk page messages. Please consider finding sources yourself to source them. Look in and use  to draw up the citations.♦  Dr. ☠ Blofeld  12:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yeah, well if an article reads without an iota of significance as to why something is notable, I like to give it the benefit of the doubt by tagging it for notability, rather than giving it a speedy deletion. If it's an article you're watching, then my question is, shouldn't someone like you, who's familiar with the topic, be finding references, instead of me? I don't really have anything to say about you getting tired, since that's the nature of Wikipedia- useless articles bite it. D arth B otto talk•cont 06:19 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I have created around 95,000 articles, and have 1010 odd on my watch list, I've done more than my fair share of writing, why should I do the work for every article? Its a collaborative project. I'm not familiar with most of the articles I've started, that's the point...♦ Dr. ☠ Blofeld  20:20, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:The Hobbit - The Desolation of Smaug.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:The Hobbit - The Desolation of Smaug.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 05:07, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.
This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:American Dad!". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot  operator /  talk  13:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 11:11, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

The WikiProject Video Games Newsletter, Q2 2013
MuZemike delivered by MuZebot 15:35, 4 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Gza#Requested_move_3
I generally disagree with your closure of the RM. There was no explanation of why it wasn't needed to be moved. Did you properly weigh consensus against the correct policies? Insulam Simia (talk) 06:43, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh, please excuse me - you put it in the edit summary. Maybe it'll be best to explain it on the page next time. Sorry! Insulam Simia (talk) 06:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Indeed, I should have explained my reasoning on the talk page. Must have slipped my mind! D arth B otto talk•cont 09:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Miami hostage standoff


The article Miami hostage standoff has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * WP:NOTNEWS applies

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. red dog  six  (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Nomination of Miami hostage standoff for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Miami hostage standoff is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Miami hostage standoff until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. red dog  six  (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Existential question
I'm afraid you put me in a difficult position for a second time. I first noticed this back in 2011, a short time after its creation, but didn't say anything out of good faith. But taking into consideration the fact that you've asked for my opinion repeatedly on several issues (the last time was yesterday), which I greatly appreciate, I can't help but wonder why this contradicting behaviour? The hints on me offended me to be honest, I believe I didn't deserve that treatment. I know it's not personal, but it's certainly confusing me. Thank you. Hula Hup (talk) 14:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I answered you previously about you being offended from me mentioning you on the Yomiel sockpuppet's talk page, which was because I felt you were not using good judgment by playing her game. I believe that was the extent of what could be offensive. You should not be confused by me trusting you as a rational and critical editor, as you have shown yourself to be time and time again. I simply believed you had compromised your neutrality, which was causing difficulty in differentiating you and Yomiel apart in the sense of rationale, as there appeared to be on both sides of the dispute. On the subject of the joke page, however, I believe it is apparent that Fragments of Jade is the butt of the joke, with no nuance on your account. Even if you were a target on the joke page, that does not mean I would count you out as a sensible and rational editor in other instances. I hope you can put your resentment to rest. D arth B otto talk•cont 18:09, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * You mean all the implications on the joke page referred to Yomiel? Some phrases, like "The perpetrators fought honorably", "It mattered for some", and "the war would be still going on", could be taken both ways, which is the reason why I perceived them as insulting. If this is the case, then I sincerely apologise and am relieved to hear that. It would be advisable to ask editors involved in an edit war before including their case on this page to avoid misunderstandings and because such issues are very sensitive. Hula Hup (talk) 19:48, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I understand and I apologize for offending you. D arth B otto talk•cont 19:51, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I suppose the latest reply must be a confirmation of my fear that I was the person implied? I'm sad to hear that. But I know it wasn't done with bad intentions, but out of negligence. We are all prone to mistakes, I've had my share of them, too. :) I'll check the peer review very soon. :) Hula Hup (talk) 23:28, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * No, it is not a confirmation that you were a target. Simply put, I feel bad that you've felt resentment towards me about something that could have been inferred as an insult against you, which it wasn't, as Fragments of Jade/Yomiel was the target. Nonetheless, I had no idea you felt this towards me and regret it. D arth B otto talk•cont 23:44, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
 * I was quick to make a deduction, please excuse me. Now I just made a mistake. :( I see, this is easing for me because, to be honest, I've been occasionally thinking about this matter these 2 years. I'm happy this has been resolved. Good luck with the peer review. Hula Hup (talk) 01:31, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Re: Dota 2 PR
I'd lose it as currently written. Because it doesn't give absolute numbers being the most-played game, with a playerbase of the other games combined, doesn't really tell me anything. We use imprecise language when we absolutely have to--for instance using relative rankings for sales lists now that actual numbers have become harder to get--but we should avoid doing that in the lead. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 12:53, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

The Dark Knight Rises and kidnapping
Hello. At Talk: The Dark Knight Rises, I read and understood your vote that "Yes", Selina kidnapped the congressman. But that is merely what he and the police (MAY have) charged her with (they MAY have just as likely charged her with reckless endangerment; we are never told what the charge actually is). Does being charged with a specific crime (assuming she was) mean you necessarily did it? I didn't see any behavior of Selina's that corresponded with the definition of kidnapping. She didn't use force, drug him, force "copious" drink on him, restrain him, or demand a ransom. She seduced him and used him. If that's "kidnapping", I've been kidnapped many times! ;) I didn't realize I could go to the police about that! LOL. How about you?

Can I ask you to change your vote?

Sincerely, --Ben Culture (talk) 19:26, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent comment to my Talk page. Of course, I cannot argue with "We can have constructive discourse about working out an agreeable solution to the issue of the plot details for the film article without saying [the things I said]." And when you said "I admit, I was finding your arguments to have some reasonability to them before such resorts were taken", god, man, I wish you'd said so [before I took those resorts]. It'd have helped me calm down, is all I'm saying. Anyway, thank you for the part of that quote that's complimentary.

I'm starting to have a problem -- the kind that requires a long sabbatical from Wikipedia, or at least vastly reduced activity -- for this very reason: Stupidity exists. It's a reality: Almost half of all people have below-average minds (and that's not a profundity, just math). When I realize I'm debating an idiot (by my standards), I want to get out of it very quickly, before I find myself unable to resist speaking my mind about his mind. And since idiots can only function on Wikipedia in disguise (for example, by use of vocabulary beyond their true comprehension) I feel angered and betrayed when I finally learn the truth. I always feel compelled to make a final statement, though ("I'm afraid I cannot continue our discussion, due to your inadequate intellect.") This is considered unacceptable on Wikipedia, but it's natural. So I have to work out something with myself before I can really play by the rules. Right now, it just feels unfair that idiots can require me to constantly explain and re-explain the meaning of, say, "explicit", and make me field completely-inappropriate uses of "reading between the lines", or "synthesis" (an idiot armed with a purely-cosmetic knowledge of the use of "synthesis" can waste a LOT of someone's time) but I'M not allowed to shout "You're too stupid to be doing this!" in their faces. Right now that just seems wrong to me, so I clearly need a break.

Thanks for your time and attention.

--Ben Culture (talk) 07:45, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Updated Dota 2 image
Hi, apologies but I totally forgot about your request for a new gameplay image for Dota 2. Will take a look at getting a new one soon. Samwalton9 (talk) 10:36, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Dota 2 Game.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Dota 2 Game.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)