User talk:Fusionmix/Archive 2

Your request for rollback
Fusionmix, per your request on WP:RFR, I have enabled your account with the rollback feature. Please read documentation on the tool, and remember that it is to be used for the removal of vandalism only—it must not be used to aid edit warring.

If you have any queries, please do not hesitate to contact me at my talk page. AGK (contact) 20:17, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Sig
Do you mind if I steal your F u si o n mi  x  sig? Thanks, microchip08 (find my secret page!) 22:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC) [please reply on User talk:Microchip08 ]


 * Good job I asked, then.... can I take you up on your offer of a signature? Thanks ever so much! microchip08 (find my secret page!) 09:16, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Erm, something nice.... I'm not sure a) what is possible & b) what looks good.... Thanks ever so much! microchip08 (find my secret page!) 18:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Brilliant. Amazing. Thanks.  microchip08 Find my secret page!   Talk to me! I feel lonely!  19:52, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Tony_osullivan2003@yahoo.co.uk
Can you explain how this is "promotional", given that this appears to be a personal e-mail address rather than a business e-mail? —Random832 14:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA - Discospinster
Thank you so much for your support in my RfA, which was successful with a final count of 70/1/1! ... disco spinster   talk  23:38, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"Thanks
Thanks, im sorry if i was a bit turse bout the andrew symonds article but i hate vandels and get worked up on the blatant vandels......haha

how do i become an admin?, ive been fighting the vadel battle long enough i want to take it to the next level.

Cheers

--Prom3th3an (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism
I hope you don't mind me doing this. You might want to update that userbox... Basketball 110 21:29, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Did not delete it
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Convention on the Rights of the Child, without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. FusionMix 00:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I didn't delete it, I moved it to a different section Sweetmoose6 (talk) 00:23, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Re:
Check that link again (before I delete it) that's just an empty redirect... Am I missing something? Scarian Call me Pat 20:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Copy right violation ;-) - If it looks like the article has lots of POV and weasel words then it's a safe bet that it's stolen from somewhere. Just pop a sentence or two into a search engine and you'll see where it's come from. Deleted now. Thanks for bringing it to my attention! Scarian Call me Pat  20:42, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

New Messages At Mifter's talk page
--Mifter (talk) 14:24, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Talkpage
Do not make changes to my page thanks.

Martinez07 (talk) 9:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * My recent edit to your talk pages was regarding the removal of warning and block notices. Those are not to be deleted from talk pages unless they were bot-generated warnings made in error. Removing legitimate warnings can sometimes be seen as vandalism, or a deliberate attempt to hide previous unconstructive conduct or edits. Cheers, Fusion Mix 15:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Ask First, Play Nice
I know that there are many of you out there who feel it is your moral obligation to catch and revert all vandalism, but maybe if there is some question, you should ASK FIRST. My post on the user's page was in RESPONSE to THEIR post and was made to HELP HIM/HER. I am going to revert it so they can get the message. If you are unsure from now on, instead of being a Wikipedia Totalitarian Dictator, ask.

Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.125.17.231 (talk) 17:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Metroid Prime
Some page here in Wiki has a very good policy: If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it.'. You removed everything I changed (but an addition in Gameplay), without considering that some were necessary (fixing links - the section in Metroid (series) is now Story, and "Suits" isn't anymore in Samus Aran). I'm trying to make an article that goes straight to the point, written out-of-universe, without unnecessary detail and obvious text failures (two examples: the redundant "Samus enters a Chozo temple in Tallon Overworld, and discovers that the temple houses a seal to the meteor's impact crater. [...] During her exploration of Tallon IV Samus finds the keys to the Artifact Temple the Chose (sic) built to seal in the Phazon from the source.", and  "searches for enemy weaknesses, which can be seen in the Logbook and interfaces with certain mechanisms" - this implies the enemy weaknesses interacts with the mechanisms, not the Scan Log. if you find a right way to write about creating enemy logs, you can add it). That's how the Metroid Prime article got a star in it. I'm not trying to be arrogant or bossy, I'm just asking to not revert everything without seeing the changes. igordebraga ≠ 22:47, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your concerns about my Metroid Prime edits, and thanks for bringing it up with me, I appreciate it. However, I did not see a reason for the removal of some of the things you took out, so I placed them back in. It had nothing to do with the fact that I had made an edit before you, it was merely because some of the content was useful, even if it was a little awkwardly written. I see that most of your removals were link fixes and redundancy fixes. It seems to me that some of them contained information that could be useful, such as 'the story of MP3 Corruption tells us that Phazon originated on Phaaze'. Even though that sentence needs work, I don't think it should just be deleted. Without it, the sentences before it infer that Phazon did originate from the shattered pieces of Zebes. Again, thanks for explaining, and I'll look back over this. Cheers, Fusion Mix 15:16, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Interesting
As a member WikiProject Homeschooling, I thought you might want to look at this. K <font color="#CC5500">im <font color="#CC5500">u  16:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply
Unfortunately, a user was attempting to harass another user by drawing attention from a supposedly sympathetic audience (i.e. the entire membership of a WikiProject - ) to their comments on his own talk page. This is considered both canvassing and a form of harassment, and Wikipedia has a "shoot on sight" attitude to this kind of unproductive behaviour. Hence, all such edits were reverted and the user warned at their talk page. Orderinchaos 17:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No worries. :) Have a good rest of your Easter. Orderinchaos 17:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Ref desk
I knew that! That's why I did my "graceful" bow out. S e e   ! Just couldn't help funnin' around with a question like that. Thanks very much for your considerate message - others wouldn't have taken the time. ;-) --hydnjo talk 00:49, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Welcome back to you Fusionmix - you make me feel sorry that I gave my Jazzmaster to my son! --hydnjo talk 01:10, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't revert my edits without thinking
I do tire of wikipedia busybodies who revert edits and make comical accusations of vandalism. Why don't you actually compare edits and revisions prior to reverting.Polemicisto (talk) 18:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting vandalism on my userpage - You just beat me to it :P. Keep up the good work :) <font face="Verdana"> Stwalkerster [  talk  ]  13:10, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Awards Center Newsletter
I'm pleased to announce that the Awards Center will be getting its own newsletter shortly. If you want to receive the WP:AWC newsletter, put your name here. -- Shark face  217  20:53, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

RfA Thanks
<div class="NavFrame collapsed" style="border-style: solid ; text-align: left; border: blue solid 1px; -moz-border-radius: 10px; background: blue; padding: 5x;"> <div class="NavHead" style="border-style: solid; -moz-border-radius: 10px; background: blue ; text-align: center; border: blue solid 1px; padding: 10px; font-size: 150%;"><font face="helvetica" color="black">A message from Warthog  Demon.

Barnstar
Get me the diffs for the 50 AIV reports when you find the time. -- Shark face  217  02:22, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. -- Shark face  217  22:27, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Retirement
Don't read too much into it. Just my way of Rickrolling people, blame EVula :P (and Simm/Scissor/Masterrolling people). I didn't contribute for most of yesterday because I was ill all day. After the Radio Times citing, I stayed in bed until 4am this morning, only moving up to support Hmwith's joke RFA. Besides, I liked the pranks. Sceptre (talk) 11:55, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry
I will stop. --24.93.173.71 (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and sorry again. --24.93.173.71 (talk) 20:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Spam pages
''With most of these users, their edits seem to be to their own userspace; they haven't vandalised at all. Might want to give them some more time.''
 * A quick read of this and this may prove educational. Hint: In the first one,"G" stands for "General". --Calton | Talk 13:56, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Keep your cool
My appologies. I thought i was being tame! lol. wont happen again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jepetto (talk • contribs) 18:12, 3 Apr 2008


 * yes sir. also, ive been waiting for a reply from admin j.smith for a while now to discuss his deletion of the longpen article, in hopes to write one myself and not have it deleted in like fashion to the previous article, but alas no reply. do you know if he is an active admin, or could you point me in the direction of someone else to figure out what went wrong. merci —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jepetto (talk • contribs) 18:22, 3 Apr 2008

Ya, i know how to sign, just doing a million and one things at work, and somehow didnt hit shift or notice. in a related note, im awesome. lol. moving along to longpen, as i wrote to j.smith the company is very small (~dozen employees), myself being included. as such, it is very unlikely that the article was in fact some form of advertising, especially without me knowing about it. Which is where my concern comes in, for if someone not involved with the product was accused of blatant advertising, how can i hope to write an article on this very neat piece of technology without my bias coming through? thanks again.Jepetto (talk) 18:48, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Fanboi
I really don't know why you insist on keep adding this "scrin OPd" section to Kane's Wrath. You're either a GDI or Nod Fanboi because the basis of these claims are nowhere near the actuality of the gameplay. In reality, Fanatics need a major buff and nothing of the scrin or their subfactions need any changing. (Havoc1310 (talk) 16:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC))

Double Standards
Fusion, did you show the same concern to Starfire and his friends when Novangelis and his supporters labeled whatever they did as vandalism? What's with your double standards? And please don't tell the obvious and talk down to me. Many users get upset when you belittle them and pretend to know more than them. Fair?Examineroftruth (talk) 10:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Ironically, the one continuing the fight is you by having reverted the edit for not logical reason. Like Wikipedia's rules require, reference your reason for doing something; your personal feelings are not a reference.

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia without explaining the valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. references a specific articleExamineroftruth (talk) 10:37, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Evidence of Novangelis' Harassment
As I said, Starfire was being harassed. Second, since when does merely banning a user mean that what they did was vandalism? Do you have any evidence to support that logic? You don't find it strange that Starfire's contributions have been blanked out completely? No discussion history, not profile history, no nothing. Is that the usual treatment of a "vandals"?

Can you explain any logical reason as to why Novangelis removed this part from the open pollination edit made by Starfire?:

Starfire: An example of an edible plant grown using open pollination is the heirloom tomato.

Novangelis: Popular examples of plants produced by open pollination include the heirloom tomato. Removed by Novangelis: "The opposite of open pollination is hand pollination." and reinstated by him was the nonsensical references to "hybrids" which Starfire correctly identified as a nonsensical contrast, hence why he made that statement. Hybridization is not the opposite of open pollination since part of open pollination's main feature is that it results in hybrids, the reason being, that beens and win do not selectively look for the same plant to cross pollinate. Humans however, using hand pollination often take special car NOT to allow hybridization since in often leads to undesirable offspring, which in fact the edit before Starfire altered stated.

Look at what the edit said before Starfire changed it:

"Open pollination increases biodiversity" in other words results in hybrids.

It then says, "but results in some plants less suitable for their environment or intended human use." (like I said, often results in undesirables).

Now here is the nonsensical part: "This is in contrast with hybrid pollination". What in contrast? It appears as if the user Rkitko is contrasting open pollination with hybridization which he just said RESULTS in hybridization (which he apparently forgot or didn't realize since he said "increases biodiversity". For him to make that mistake by the way is an indication he didn't have anything close to expertise on that subject.

And if you want evidence of how Novangelis was trailing various users to muddy what they did, see for yourself: http://www.mininova.org/tor/1264745

It's been seen by at least 300 people.

But for another quick example of how Novangelis attempts to one up users that he personally does not like, and for promoting Christianity as he seems to perceive, here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arthur_C._Clarke&diff=201156057&oldid=201146780

Now, look to see who first came to the page on Arthur C Clarke, and who edited it first: Starefire, or Novangelis? What did Novangelis say as his reason for removing Starfire's edit? So, you've got it backwards Fusion, you're helping a troll as the others have before you. Just a coincidence, a conspiracy? No: it's common on Wikipedia for users without training in logical thinking or a solid understanding in what evidence means to make careless judgments like you have, no offense.

Fusion, I warned you, don't be quick / careless to judge again. Stop using your feelings as an excuse to make edits, that is really childish and you are being no better than Novangelis by behaving that way.Examineroftruth (talk)!

More Obvious Example Of Novangelis Trolling Starfire
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=History_of_atheism&diff=195077514&oldid=192145626

Guess who showed up first on that page? Guess what happened when Novangelis got there? So, how long do you think Wikipedia will sanction what Novangelis is doing? Does Novangelis reverting to a previous biased edit on History of Atheism, which can easily be determined is biased simply by going to Calvin's page and looking at the references, "seem" innocent to you too? Notice also how Novangelis' edits on the religion section of Arthur C Clarke was almost completely undone and how Starfire edit remains nearly the same, I'm not talking about the edit I just made to it last, but the one before it. Also notice how Starfire's reversion of Novangelis' reversion on Calvin remained? No one came to his defense on that, not that I can see, I didn't check because I'm very tired, but I don't see any citations like, "undid Starfire's edit, rv to Novanglis". So it's not simply Starfire noticing what he's doing.

Also, if what's in that mininova folder on him is too hard for you to believe, if you just can't believe an obvious troll on Yahoo Answers like him could possibly be helped by so many Wikipedia moderators (which you seem to have accidentally have done yourself), look what he admits right here:

http://answers.yahoo.com/answers2/frontend.php/question?qid=20080115222821AA8gHsO

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071030072329AAYjt30

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:zoEUmXtASwsJ:nz.answers.yahoo.com/question/index%3Fqid%3D20080405050150AALLykS+%2B%22novangelis%22+%2B%22chosen+by+grace%22&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us (notice how novangelis admits right there to believing that chosen by grace has been all over wikipedia and knows that he's been repeatedly banned?

Notice also that these atheists on that last link I posted above this sentence, are admitting to campaigning against questions made against atheists? Do you see novangelis objecting? Interestingly, that atheist is asking for his question NOT to be deleted. Also, ask yourself: how does novangelis know about these "30 accounts" on Yahoo Answers and 10+ on Wikipedia, UNLESS as can be seen on some of the pages I showed you, he's been stalking this user / users? Who i the world has time to compare the differences between 42 accounts unless that person has been devoting a huge amount of time to it? If his focus was on a variety of users of ANY religion of philosophy, then you could say he's simply someone who doesn't like trolling, but to obsess on a single user (do you see him complaining about any others?), and to repeatedly speak out against the Bible, does not show an even balanced view. Y

And guess which novangelis this is here?:

http://www.molecularstation.com/forum/dna-forum/1316-evolution-revolution-dna.html

Could it possibly be the same one from Yahoo Answers and Wikipedia? Does it take a genius to figure it out with that comment he left against taking Genesis literally? So, does it take a genius to figure out that Novangelis is POV pushing, harassing, and is biased against religion, and therefore has no business editing any pages on religion or evolution? What does it take, for him to come out and say, "I hate religion" or "I hate Christianity" for someone to finally put a stop to him editing? Do you think Dawkins or Hutchison would have any business editing the creationism or Christianity page on Wikipedia? Who but ignorants or hate mongers seriously thinks that neither of those two authors are biased against the the Bible?

You can see Novangelis has also taken great interest in the Wikipedia page on Yahoo! Answers, which big surprise, he showed up on AFTER his Yahoo! Answers friends were cited for harassing Christians, Calvinistic Christians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Examineroftruth (talk • contribs) 13:16, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

re:Thanks
You're welcome. Personally, if someone's going to vandalize, they should at least make it funny. :) <font color="#CC5500">RC-0722 <font color="#0000FF">247.5/<font color="#FF0000">1  01:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This guy vandalized my page like five times and I didn't know it until now! <font color="#CC5500">RC-0722 <font color="#0000FF">247.5/<font color="#FF0000">1  01:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)