User talk:DivineShadow218/January 2006 - May 2006

LEXX vs Lexx
Please use LEXX when refering to the show. (For example, "I Worship His Shadow (Lexx Movie)" should be "I Worship His Shadow (LEXX Movie)". Please see Talk:LEXX for the reasoning behind this. Thanks. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 21:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Hello, I don't understand some of your pagemoves, especially the recent "Bobfee" and blanking. You've been temporarily blocked pending investigation. -- Curps 21:22, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

As others have correctly pointed out, the naming standard on Wikipedia uses lowercase "episode" and "movie" within disambiguation parentheses, not the capitalized versions. I'm not sure why you insisted on moving these pages multiple times in the face of opposition by more than one user. I don't understand either why you moved the Mantrid episode page to the nonsensical title "Bobfee" and then blanked that page; that's simply vandalism. Please don't do such things in the future. -- Curps 21:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

See Where No Man Has Gone Before (TOS episode) and Casa Bonita (South Park episode); see also King Arthur (film) and King Kong (1933 film) and King Kong (2005 film), and hundreds of other examples. Lowercase "episode" and "film" is settled Wikipedia naming practice.

Moving a page to a nonsensical title (and blanking it at the same time) raises a red flag, and it's standard procedure to apply a temporary block to prevent possible further damage while investigating. -- Curps 23:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I left the above message just as you were leaving your latest message. You can look at Naming conventions for more information. -- Curps 23:07, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Lexx
What episodes list page? Adam Bishop 02:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball.
In regard to listing Nintendo Revolution as a rumored console in the Resident Evil 5 infobox, please read What Wikipedia is not. Jonny2x4 06:16, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Rev Images
If you look at the article, there are 5 images. The pictures for Prototype and realness are ok. But it's that the last picture, is standing in the wrong corner, if it's moved to the middle it will be alright.

But since you deleted that other prototype picture, it's cool
 * &gt;x&lt;ino 07:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Nintendo Revolution pics
Why have you tagged Image:Rev2.jpg, Image:Rev3.jpg, Image:Rev4.jpg, Image:Rev5.jpg as being free use, when the source website clearly states otherwise? ed g2s &bull; talk 19:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Wii protection
Sorry I forgot to list it. But I protected it originally because it was being moved back and forth repeatedly. The page will be unprotected when the dispute is over on the discussion page. It will probably be unprotected by tomorrow if not before. Jedi6 -(need help?)  23:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:BackCatalog.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded, Image:BackCatalog.jpg, has been listed at Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 19:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

3RR warning
Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. K1Bond007 05:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Nintendo Wii 4.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Nintendo Wii 4.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 04:07, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Key first-party titles
Hey, would you mind giving your opinion on the Wii talk page? I posted my reasons why I don't think it's needed. Ladlergo 18:32, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding reversions made on May 20 2006 (UTC) to Wii

 * Re your mail - if everyone were allowed an opt-out just cos they thought it was vandalism, the rule would be toothless William M. Connolley 20:29, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Re your next mail - I'd rather discuss it in public here. Symmetry is good. You got a longer block because you had previous blocks. William M. Connolley 21:33, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I should have not gotten block in the first place, as you can see from my reverts. I reverted because of vandalism. If you block me you should also block every one else that reverts because of vandalism, and let the vandals do what ever they want with the pages. As you can see from the history of the Wii article, that User:72.130.21.164 kept deleting an external link, ThieWiire.com, that was one of the three primary sources of the article, the other two being Gamespot.com and IGN.com. TheWiire.com is a site with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in the wii article. So therefor deleting it for no purpose is indeed vandalism. This comes straight from the Wikipedia:External links article. that is why I kept reverting. exept for the last revert where User:64.12.116.71 vandalised the page as well.

As far as my sentence of 24 hours. I think that is completely unfair, just because I have been blocked twice about 5 months ago. But still, that's not the point, I should not be band at all unless you ban every one who reverts because of vandalism, which we know if you do revert b/c of vandalism, it does not count towards the 3RR. --DivineShadow218 21:50, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I've done vandalism, above. There seems no point in repeating myself William M. Connolley 21:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * it was revert of simple vandalism, which is excluded in the 3rr. Unblock me or I will post my reasoning under Administrative probation because you are being ridicules. It was clear vandalism and User:72.130.21.164 was bias against thewiire.com, while User:64.12.116.71 just vandalised the page --DivineShadow218 22:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I wouldn't count it as "simple vandalism". More like the opposite of linkspam--it appears as though some anons are repeatedly removing links to a website. I'm not going to say whether that link belongs, but at least it has some non-official news. The anon who removed your link makes a good point but has been blocked as well. I'll get back to you on this later. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 00:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * And you did violate the 3RR rule; please keep that in mind. Oh yeah: please don't get mad because others disagree with your views. And also, please don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a WP:POINT. I've re-added your link for now, but if there is a general consensus to remove it I will not oppose. --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 00:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * My only problem now is that I got blocked for 24 hrs. The other user only got 3 hrs. How does me getting blocked 5 months ago, one of which was withdrawn fair. So basically I only had one offence towards me. To me it seems that User:William M. Connolley has a vendetta toward either me or people that had an offence a while ago. To me that is not justice and would like him to be on Admin probation for it. And besides... I did not get any sort of warning for going over the 3rr.


 * all I am stating is that the reason I reverted was b/c of the removing of a major link from an article, to me that is vandalism. I did not get any warning or chance to state my case prior to the blocking and find it unfair to get 24 hours, while the other user just gets 3, just b/c I have an offence 5 months ago. --DivineShadow218 00:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I am blocked still for more then the 24 hour max time.... WWWWEEEEEEE.... Thanks William M. Connolley your such a great guy who follows the rules and treating all sides equally.--DivineShadow218 06:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Blocked still.... going on 30 hours, 10 times the amount of the other equal party. DivineShadow218 09:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * So what's the first thing you do when you get unblocked? You go and re-add the link again without even bothering to talk to anyone.  Look at the discussion.  There are people debating whether or not links to IGN and Gamespot belong, and yet you feel somehow, that your sie belongs MORE than all others?  Follow the rules of civil discussion.  Leave the link off until there's a consensus that it belongs and do not re-add it until that point.72.130.21.164 00:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

You're not very good at counting time, are you? You were blocked at 10:48, 20 May 2006; your last timestamp is 09:12, 21 May 2006. William M. Connolley 09:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


 * so then why was my time supposed to be up at 05:48 utc...--DivineShadow218 14:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome! (even though you've been here a while)
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --M1ss1ontomars2k4 | T | C | @ 00:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style