User talk:MrBubbles/Archive1

Image copyright problem with Image:7479344e-0e32-4a21-a04f-f0aa6266175b.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:7479344e-0e32-4a21-a04f-f0aa6266175b.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright 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. 05:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:B00009P51G.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:B00009P51G.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright 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. 05:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Warning Removal
Your talk page is intended to serve as a place to discuss your contributions. It ends up being a sort of a history of the work you've done and the conflicts you've been in, or the praise you've received. It's alright to archive comments or warnings, but blanking your talk page is not considered acceptable, as it is not yours. Please read WP:USERPAGE and WP:TALK. Please instead contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, and please don't continue to blank other users' comments. -Kukini 03:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

User talk page etiquette
Regarding user talk pages, it is best to not delete notices on talk pages, but instead, to archive them. You will find how to do this here, under "When pages get too long." Actively erasing non-harassing personal messages is often interpreted as hostile. In the past, this kind of behavior has been viewed as uncivil. This can become an issue in arbitration or other formal proceedings. For this reason, if your deletion of notices and concerns on your user talk page is to keep the "clutter" down, I suggest that you instead create archives for these messages. I would be happy to help you do just that if you ask me to. -Kukini 03:23, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Editing Concerns

 * 1) Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. 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. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Kukini 03:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 2) This was vandalism in that you cannot blank notices on user talk pages. --Kukini 03:26, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I do not wish for my personal information to be released under my page
Please leave my page alone and stop pestering me. I am not openly vandalising Wikipedia and I would like to remove my past mistakes from my talk page. As for my IP page, I want it to be remain blank, I haven't done anything wrong with either of those two (other than silly mistakes done with wikipedia formatting).
 * The appropriate way to remove "past mistakes" is to archive, not delete. Your user talk page does not belong to you, but is a record of your interaction with all of us on wikipedia. Further blanking of notices, particularly those from administrators, will only highlight your work here in a negative manner. Kukini 03:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Would you please delete my user page if that's the case?--ChibiMrBubbles 03:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

sorry,
they werent up there when i checked my wiiDurinsBane87 03:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Link's image
The image you keep changing to does not have any source information. It cannot be used in any articles and will be deleted after a week if no source information is added. How it looks compared to the other image does not matter because of this. Jay32183 05:11, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

What did I miss?

 * "What is your problem Sparrow? More source is good and there is nothing wrong with me, stop trying to provoke me at everything I do."

I only changed the source because it seemed easier. Other then that, I did nothing. I think this is the first time that we meet even... JackSparrow Ninja 21:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Fahrenheit (video game), Ganon
Please stop forcing your own edits through on these 2 articles. They're both based on flawed logic. Ganon and Ganondorf are not mutually interchangeable and in the case of Fahrenheit all the completely arbitrary name changes even mess up the entire article. You probably noticed that yourself though, since you just undid your own edit. I you feel these edits have merit, please discuss them on the talk pages. Thanks.--Atlan (talk) 16:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Link's image
I never objected to any of the images, including the one you've added right now. I'm rather indifferent to the matter. The point was that you replaced the image with the SSBB Link image, which was going to be deleted in a day (it has now and for some reason I get the impression you blame me for that), just because you don't like the other image. You know, you could've just removed the deletion tag from the image and it wouldn't have been deleted at all. I guess that was too much work. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that your opinion equals consensus here on Wikipedia. It doesn't. This unilateral action will no doubt result in some other editor reverting the image again. I suggest you take the issue up on the talk page then, just like you suggested to other editors in your edit summary.--Atlan (talk) 23:20, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Alright, indulge me, what's so important on the talk page? You saying "I don't like this picture"? Gee, I guess I missed that overwhelming consensus to change the image. Besides, I responded to that, so I guess it's you who's ignoring the talk page. And what about the Ganon article (notice me NOT calling it the Ganondorf article, which doesn't exist)? How does that page having no image right now, have anything to do with you unilaterally changing images around? Keep up calling people fools though, that will no doubt always get you your way.--Atlan (talk) 23:40, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no. You where not trying to be polite. Calling people a fool and their edits redundant is not polite. Anyway, let's not fling insults over a minor matter. It's pointless and counter-productive. Like I said, this current image is fine by me and I'm not touching it. Peace.--Atlan (talk) 23:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, you could upload the SSBB image of Link again. The fact that it was deleted doesn't matter in this case.--Atlan (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:SSBBLink.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:SSBBLink.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Ace Attorney 4
It's no problem. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

No personal attacks
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. &mdash; Malcolm (talk) 16:27, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Calling someone else's comment "retarded" is a personal attack. Please stop being uncivil. Also, I removed your comment because I saw it was uncivil and bordered trolling. &mdash; Malcolm (talk) 16:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Your comment was "I don't care. Thanks for wasting my time." and was not constructive, so I removed it. Mine warned you against making personal attacks. If you continue this behavior, you will be blocked. &mdash; Malcolm (talk) 16:43, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Third set, August 29, 20007
I made a mistake posting on your user page instead of your talk page. Fair enough, the two are almost identical, save for the archives, which I did not wander into. They are quite plainly the only thing on your talk page, which means you are vandalizing by reverting my comments, which are neither trolling nor vandalism. Talk pages are the primary method of communication between Wikipedians, and I have no motive other than to ask you to please be less antagonistic in your editing. No rambling, and how can I have a discussion when you insist on reverting any and all edits to your talk page? As has been made clear to you in the past, your talk page is not under your control. Anyone may edit or add to your talk page, and reverts are only appropriate in the case of vandalism, which I certainly hahttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ChibiMrBubbles&action=editve not done. Sarcasm and hyperbole are not proper ways of conveying your feelings to other Wikipedians. I have contacted an administrator to prevent you from further vandalism to your own talk page. Coreycubed 22:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Please note that users are free to remove whatever they want off their talk page. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:21, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want me to get your userpage deleted, I would be happy to do so. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 22:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes please, thank you very much. --ChibiMrBubbles 22:23, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Great, User:Majorly has deleted it. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 23:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Your Userpage
You have every right to not have a userpage, but should you wish not to, please redirect it to your talk page. This will make things easier for other users, and will stop your signatures appearing red. -- ChrisDHDR (&#xE503; • contrib's) 16:05, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Ganon...
...no. His argument was essentially that he didn't like that picture - it was representative of Ganon, as the green boar and blue pig forms are not that much different, and it was an earlier reached compromise. Consensus seemed to side with this view, so when I reverted the incorrect edits, I neglected to leave the lead image alone.KrytenKoro 23:26, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, I was under the impression we were at a truce. No main image because Ganon's portrayal is radically different as the main antagonist in Zelda games.--ChibiMrBubbles 23:30, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ...
 * If you actually read that, you'll see that you removed the pic, claiming that "there was no discussion". Since they're quite obviously was, I reverted your edit. At that time, I thought you were supporting the previous consensus, not that it was your own personal opinion that there should be no lead pic. At that point, two editors had agreed on the lead image being changed, and the one editor that disliked the pic had nominally withdrawn due to "lack of care" - ergo, the only two with a vocal opinion on the matter had supported the TP Ganon pic. I really don't see how that is not "a reasonable discussion" - especially since me and Ashnard Alex were pretty much the only ones who had not used thier own opinions in the dispute (I actually cited the appearance in each game, while others relied on their (incorrect) opinion over what was the most and most recently used form).
 * As for me "reinserting it against consensus" - again, I "merely argued for its being kept." Yes, I reverted your edit - because your reasoning (at that time) for removing it was quite simply wrong. Completely, totally wrong. And, I might add, quite caustic - you went so far as to bitch at me on my talk page, and you claimed I had "somehow missed out on the talk page".

recent accusations

 * At this point, you have accused me of ignoring consensus, acting against consensus, and acting in bad faith. However, unless I am very much mistaken, I have done none of these things - I have attempted to reach a compromise that best served the reader, I reverted an edit made with plainly faulty reasoning, explained that a discussion had in fact occured, and calmly asked that you "look into things next time before complaining" about them.
 * If I might add, you also ignored the Wikipedia is not a democracy guideline, and demanded a vote when consensus is all that is ever required. I obliged, because it didn't seem to be reasonable to start an argument over bureaucracy (Plus, the last vote was not no image - actually an admin made that decision to stop the debate). I know this will sound facetious, but I'm really having trouble seeing where I have acted "in bad faith" and "arrogantly", and instead I am seeing you making accusations and blaming me for decisions I only obliged.KrytenKoro 18:03, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * 1) Consensus had been reached - of the three editors who had participated in the discussion for about two weeks, two of them were for the image, and one of them decided he didn't care anymore. That is consensus - there's little to no reason I should put up a vote (when a vote wasn't done for earlier pictures, to my knowledge) when the only people who disagree don't care enough to participate.
 * 2) Again, I added nothing. I reverted an edit you had made, because you stated that there had been no discussion (and you went to my talk page and accused me of ignoring the discussion, even though I had explained that there was in fact, a discussion). Reverting what is, for all intents and purposes, vandalism, is nothing like adding contentious items to an article.
 * 3) If you're entire accusation of bad faith is centered around whether I technically added the image myself, then as it is said: "before you criticize the splinter in someone's eye, remove the log from your own". Because I am seriously getting tired of being accused of being "bitter", "bad faith", and "vandalism", when I had to give up my own desire in order to facilitate compromise - though I have mostly the same opinion as the anon, and probably you guys, I've actually taken a step back and realized that I do not own the article, and that it's there for the reader - I've put my own desires aside in order to improve the article. Even if you disagree that the image helps the reader, I would ask you to make this about them, and not about your little spat with me.KrytenKoro 23:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * 4) By the way, the actual claim responded to with "I just argued for its being kept" was:
 * "Nevermind the fact that the instant one person said that they were done with the discussion, you took it upon yourself to insert your choice of a lead picture."
 * Which, as you know, is patently wrong - my choice was the Oracle Ganon, and I wasn't the one who inserted the picture when discussion ended.KrytenKoro 23:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Again - Ashnard Alex inserted the picture (and Ashnard defended it the first time)- I did nothing until you removed it, and at that point, I reverted it because your reason for deleting it was wrong.
 * At the point the image was added, it was not opinionated - two (actually three, apparently) editors were for, one had become ambivalent. That is not "opinionated" in the least.
 * As for consensus never being reached:
 * "   You're not making sense.
 * "A lead picture is useless" is not a valid reason for the removal of the picture. In fact the lack of a lead picture can actually hinder an article.
 * "What is to ask a person to scroll a couple of inches to get what they want?" shows that you are more concerned about the other pictures in the article than the lead picture.
 * To be honest I'm confused at exactly what you oppose. The logic of "Most recent picture" is to illustrate the currently most recognised form of Ganon (new players who started with TP would not recognise the other Ganons and they are the most likely people to read the article because they want to know more about this character). Then when a newer picture comes along we move the current one into the body of the article and put the newer one on like some of the other articles do. What exactly do you oppose about it? .:Alex:. 21:59, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm making this my last post because I'm sick of talking about this crap. I never said that a lead picture is bad in general; I said a lead picture is bad if it's a character like Ganon where he is in one form for one game and then in an entirely different one in another. The thing I oppose about this picture is that it pales in comparison to the oracle one simply because this one is a form of Ganon seen only once while the oracle had that form 6 times with the exception of skin color changing. There is no point in saying anything else; I've been repeating the same crap over and over. My problem with this picture has been pretty clear; it's in all my posts. It is not very recognizable even by today's standards because there are 6 other games depicting another form. Also, no I'm not more concerned about a bunch of pictures than the lead one. I don't care about the pictures as they are all fine, but a lead picture does not do anything for this article. Too many forms, too many arguments; what the hell is the big deal in just not having one? Someone who plays Twilight will already be introduced to that form. So having the oracle one is better because it immediately introduces the viewer to a more common form and not one that they already know exists. I'm done; I've said my opinion, over and over again. You guys can do what you want.-Darknessofheart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.34.186 (talk) 06:19, August 25, 2007 (UTC)"
 * For the talk page bit - just go there and read it this time.
 * "Did you somehow miss out on the talk page for Ganon?"
 * "I find it very annoying that people add things like that without discussing it first. --ChibiMrBubbles 23:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)"
 * You can try and claim that the "annoying" statement wasn't aimed at me all you want, but that won't make it believable. You directly implied that I had ignored the talk page, and that I had not attempted to discuss it first. You were wrong, and you learned you were wrong the second you entered the discussion. It is sad that you are still clinging to that belief, because there is not a shred of truth to it.
 * "That leaves us" with this:
 * "You put it back without any sort of reasonable discussion here (a dead discussion with no outcome does not mean feel free to do what you want) and acted on bad faith when I took it off."
 * Would you care to point out the part of that that is at all accurate?KrytenKoro 00:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Disagreeing with (and explaining why I do) is not the same as "ignoring your comments". I think the quite large bit above shows that I am not ignoring you. As for mutual ground - what do you mean, the Ganon talk page? That is an inappropriate place for non-article discussions between two users. Unless you meant a mediation page, this is as mutual as it gets.KrytenKoro 00:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
 * "I have never been on your talk page so by all means, indulge us all on these attacks. And notify Durin, if there is something wrong, by all means get more people to help this project, don't act as if you have the 'upper hand' here. And Ashard, I found your 'breather' comment overly rude and obnoxious. But we'll try to keep it down.--ChibiMrBubbles 22:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)"KrytenKoro 01:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for even more personal attacks
At which point did I lie about you? I've backed up everything I've said with links or explanations. You, on the other hand, have just kept accusing me (now I'm a "troll" apparently, for not taking kindly to the original accusations). At this point, it's gotten ridiculous - either back up your accusations, or apologize. Accusing someone and then claiming that backing it up would be "petty" is just a bit assinine.KrytenKoro 03:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Would you like to explain how these quotes do not indicate that you're claiming that you haven't been on my talk page?
 * Unless of course you do have proof of me violating some of those rules at that point? That would be fantastic....ChibiMrBubbles 17:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You have made personal attacks against me, which I can copy from my talk page if you want. ...KrytenKoro 18:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I have never been on your talk page so by all means, indulge us all on these attacks....--ChibiMrBubbles 22:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yoshi
No problem, I try to keep the lead image for the Smash Bros. characters' articles to non-Smash Bros. images these days, it's just that I had forgotten about Yoshi, apparently. Just because the Brawl images are "ooooh shiny" doesn't mean they're the best representation of the character, but you obviously know that. D i saster K i rbyTalk 01:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:YoshiIslandDS.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:YoshiIslandDS.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 orphaned, meaning that it is 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).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sephiroth BCR ( Converse ) 00:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Well this was taken care of, we decided to use Mario Party 4 as the image. --ChibiMrBubbles 00:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Re:Image
Could you indicate you wish it deleted in the image summary? If so, I can attach a CSD G7 tag, and an administrator can delete it. Much appreciated. Sephiroth BCR ( Converse ) 00:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Already done, no problem. --ChibiMrBubbles 00:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Current accusations
...how did I use a strawman on the Ganon article? Nothing I did there fits that definition.
 * As for personal attacks - (Which is all I ever said you did: "You have made personal attacks against me, which I can copy from my talk page if you want.")


 * 1) Arrogant ("You then reverted my edit for no adequately explained reason and told me to 'look into things'. All I got was arrogance from those specific edits, some of which are showing at this point by denying the claims of your past edits.")
 * 2) Liar (I don't need to tell you where you've said this, as you keep saying it without backing it up)
 * 3) And the very first, which is not a name, but is a personal attack - you accused me of ignoring the discussion and consensus, and repeatedly said that I had acted on bad faith even though I explained why that was not so.
 * Starting the trolling:
 * "I'm trying to assume good faith, Kryten, but your argument now seems like bitter spite because your opinion is currently a minority."...King Zeal.
 * I responded to this, was attacked again, responded and explained, and then you stepped in, decrying "arrogance" and "bad faith".
 * Now, I'm really having trouble seeing how any of your accusations hold water, and yet you accuse me of trolling when I defend myself. This is a bit absurd, and this kind of behavior is not tolerable on wikipedia - I have tried to be polite, at most defending myself against accusations (what you are supposed to do, unless they are correct, in which case you apologize), and have been consistently attacked and called a liar and a troll. Either back up your accusations, apologize, or I'll have to take this up with mediation — just because this isn't face to face doesn't mean you can act like this.KrytenKoro 03:35, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't complain about my removal of your unneeded closed discussion remarks.
?? I didn't complain that you removed my comment. I merely disagreed that I was "trying to seek attention" - I was concerned, since you had threatened me with an admin. As for removing your comment - I did that because I had summarized it above, as you had not only placed it on the wrong section of my talk page, but also neglected the request at its top. It's a bit of an odd complaint for you to make, especially concerning your talk-page habits and how others have complained about them.
 * "don't carry the discussion over when it's finished"
 * I haven't. It's not finished, since you have yet to either


 * 1) Stop making accusations/threats
 * 2) Back up your accusations
 * 3) Apologize for wrongful accusations
 * "consider your past actions harassing and I could not locate an administrator for assistance, and seeing as the discussion itself was over I did not need for an administrator to intervene."
 * For one, the fact that you're trying to involve an admin defines it as non-childish, whether it was before or not.
 * For two, here. It's not an admin, but it's the step you're supposed to take before going to admins, and it usually solves most disputes.


 * PS - the reason I didn't respond earlier was because it was Labor Day weekend and I was home with my family.KrytenKoro 16:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see you've added another accusation
So, "Wikistalking", is it?

Well, let's follow the link you so generously provided.

"Wikistalking refers to the act of following an editor to another article to continue disruption."

I'm not seeing how "responding to personal attacks & accusation's on the offending member's talk page" counts as "following you to another article in order to troll". Seeing as, well, I have yet to do anything you didn't do first (if even that - responding to attacks != accusing someone of bad faith, anti-consensus edits).KrytenKoro 15:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Cabal
So do you want me to set the thing up, so we can discuss this without getting back into personal attacks? Because if we can come to a friendly resolution, we probably won't repeat this disaster in the future.KrytenKoro 16:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I honestly have no reason for why you're hellbent on having a discussion over something that's old as the Ganon incident (do recall that I have added new discussions on the same page), but I'm letting you know here and now that I have no intention of carrying this by myself to any other place. Take whatever action you want. I have absolutely nothing to hide. And if I do say so myself, it sounded as if you were taken back by the lack of an administrator, something that most would object to if a situation cannot be dissolved, so whatever you were expecting for an Administrator did not occur (though I fail to see the distinction from legal threats to seeking guidance from administrators, I will not debate this matter as I don't care enough).

Anyway, I'm not going to archive this because I'm tired. You do whatever the hell pleases you, I have no reason to contact your talk page (unless there's an edit clash), so whatever dispute you have with me has been discussed in the past and I'm not going to participate in any commotions of sort you attend due to lack of reasoning or dispute that does not exist.--ChibiMrBubbles 16:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I meant over the behavioral dispute we had gotten into - this stopped being about the image a long time ago.
 * For the "lack of an administrator" bit - could you please explain what you mean with that sentence? 'cause I honestly can't figure it out.KrytenKoro 17:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You were taken back by me threatening to call an administrator over our behavior during the little debate, so when you were somewhat 'angered' by it it seemed that an administrator not coming here here pissed you off more than the threat itself. Of course, this is my observation and I'm not looking for a bout.--ChibiMrBubbles 12:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I wasn't angry about the admin - I just though that if you were threatening an admin that it would be unwise to ignore you. But oh well, since I guess no admin is coming anyway.KrytenKoro 17:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

It was my mistake, do not talk down to other users, and it was not vandalisation. Even if the topic has nothing to do with me I have the right to edit/comment on it because I am on Wikipedia where EVERYONE can edit. Sorry for singling you out, but you where the one who made a attack. Thank you. Atomic Religione 18:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, ok.--MrBubbles 20:14, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Wii's hardware WiiConnect 24 issue
I find it an odd assertion that GameSpot and IGN are the only reliable sources for information, and I'm not sure how you conclude from information being in the article that any editors are "gloating". I find the information relevant, and IGN seemed to think it important as well; I'm actually a bit disappointed the other articles you mentioned don't contain similar information. I'm still unclear as to your concerns about the router information, especially since Nintendo thinks it relevant enough to address at their own site.

But this isn't really something that the two of us have to, or even should, decide between the two of us, so I'm going to start at topic at Talk:Wii about it. Please reply there. --Maxamegalon2000 13:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Wii Firmware Updates Move
Since you also feel that the Wii Firmware Updates should be moved from Wii Menu to Wii, would you mind posting a comment in the discussion section of the Wii Menu talk page stating that you support the move? It is third from the bottom. Thanks! Zomic_13 21:27, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Mario Kart Wii
Please, try to AGF there. &mdash; Malcolm (talk) 01:34, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I do apologize for sounding rude, but if you look at the history, this page has been repeated edited with false speculative information like the 16 player thing. They also used original research by saying it will come out in Europe this year to compensate for the lack of Brawl in Europe. I have made all attempts to find the rationale behind those edits, including making it clear on the talk page that the 16 player and release dates (at that point) were ill-informed or were speculation. I even contacted several of the people who after I deliberately stated not to put up speculation or the 16 player bit decided to go ahead and again it again. I am not going to remove your edit as well, you did source it. I have no qualms about that. --MrBubbles 01:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that type of thing gets annoying. I've been WP:BITEing a little, too, out of the sheer frustration of fake release dates, blatant cruft, etc. (though I'm going to try to calm down some). Do as I say, not as I do. :) &mdash; Malcolm (talk) 01:58, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Please be more careful, twice this month you have removed the image from the article while removing the vandalism. SNS 19:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm referring to this & this. The first time someone placed the image back a day later but no one seemed to noticed the second time (I added the image back myself). SNS 19:32, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

um, ok.$$--~Insert formula here$$--MrBubbles 20:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:SpecialBrawl.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:SpecialBrawl.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 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BetacommandBot 02:00, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

October 10th
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. --Onorem♠Dil 13:52, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

SSBB
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. &mdash; Malcolm (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)