User talk:RobWill80

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Hello, welcome to Wikipedia!

Here are some tips:
 * Take a look at the Simplified Ruleset.
 * Read the Tutorial, How to edit a page and the Manual of Style.
 * Find out how to revert, move and merge pages.
 * Sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;).
 * Add yourself to the New user log and a regional notice board
 * Ask questions at the Village pump or Help desk.
 * Use the Show preview button
 * Provide an Edit summary
 * Add the correct image copyright tag to any images you upload
 * Create a User page
 * Be bold
 * Ignore all rules

If you feel a change is needed, feel free to make it yourself! Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone (yourself included) can edit any article by following the  link. Wikipedia convention is to be bold and not be afraid of making mistakes. If you're not sure how editing works, have a look at How to edit a page, or try out the Sandbox to test your editing skills.

If, for some reason, you are unable to fix a problem yourself, feel free to ask someone else to do it. Wikipedia has a vibrant community of contributors who have a wide range of skills and specialties, and many of them would be glad to help. As well as the wiki community pages there are IRC Channels, where you are more than welcome to ask for assistance.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me on my talk page. Thanks and happy editing, Alphax &tau;&epsilon;&chi; 07:05, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

What is wrong here?
Can you tell me why you have taken issue with some of my edits recently? Take your last revert of one of my edits: the small matter of the "www" in the Film4 article. The URL given in Channel 4's promotional material doesn't have the "www" attached either. Yet the article on Channel 4 has the whole address. I will assume that you do read that article, since you have edited it before. I will also assume you will be civil enough to give a response to a civil question: why the double standards? You mentioned that your Film4 link goes to a different webpage than mine. Who is to say that you gave the correct one, when channel4.com's redesigned film section does not link to your page? RobWill80 23:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've not taken any issue with any of your edits recently. Last week, I changed the link on the Film4 article as filmfour.com did not seem appropriate, as the channel is not called 'FilmFour' any more. Today, you changed it back to www.filmfour.com, pointing out that the relaunched Film4 has been using that URL onscreen. I completely agree, except the URL that they've been using onscreen is filmfour.com, not www.filmfour.com. Therefore I changed it to filmfour.com. And that's it. I really don't see what the problem is here. - Green Tentacle 00:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay. I apologize for thinking there was a problem, when there wasn't. I would ask that you at least consider that the link I gave has more information on channel content and features, rather than the promotional material and the "holding" FAQ (as the URL says) that the current link has. Seems more relevant now that the channel has launched. RobWill80 00:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The link should be to the offical site. I would say that it is the site physically located at http://www.channel4.com/film/ffchannel/ because that's where filmfour.com (the address given out by Channel 4) directs to and it is the site you get if you click the Film4 link in the top left corner of virtually every page on the Channel 4 site. At the moment, the article is definitely wrong because someone's changed one of the links on the Film4 article to the generic Channel 4 Film site, which is definitely not the Film4 site. - Green Tentacle 14:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't say that I agree with your choice, solely on what’s available on the page. The other link does look to be more informative on content, rather than promotion of the launch. On the other hand, I am not in a position to debate the point. As you quite rightly say, your link is the URL given in the adverts. In regards of the link being changed again, I'm sorry that I can't be of any help, but you'll have to take that up with the person responsible. RobWill80 15:54, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I never said that the most recent URL change was anything to do with you; I was just making an observation. I also never made any conscious choice about which page was better - I just changed it to the offical address being given out by Channel 4. If you think that it should point to another page, then change it. You don't need my permission. - Green Tentacle 18:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I wasn't trying to appear defensive in my last comment. I know that you were not accusing me of anything. You did mention GarryMc's edit, and my comment was literally meant as advice. Maybe the admins should find a way to add proper smileys to the talk pages. :) Anyway, the point I have is that I'm only trying to help the project. If there are differing views on accuracy, then it should be as useful to the reader as possible. A little like the ITV/ITV1 argument, really. Just my opinion, but I think the features in the "www" link would be more useful. RobWill80 19:05, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've changed the bottom link to the "www" redirect, and left the one in the infobox as it is. Doesn't harm to have both links. RobWill80 19:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's nothing like the ITV/ITV1 argument: the difference there was that we were right and they were wrong :-) - Green Tentacle 20:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Triming the MK infobox
I'm pushing for some of the fields in the MK character template to be removed. Since I've had numerous positive dealings with you on MK articles in the past, I'd really appreciate your feedback before I just up and do it, though; drop a line at Template talk:Mortal Kombat character if you could. Danke. EVula 20:19, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it's a good idea, and I've made a comment at the talk page. RobWill80 22:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Asking for your assistance in something
Hey dude, I know you have put a lot of seriousness into your MK edits, that's why I'm asking you and EVula to discuss a topic I have bought up on the Project Talk Page. The discussion can be found here. Any input from you would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, The Haunted Angel 13:11, 16 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the late reply. Anyway, the best that I can come up with is on the talk page. RobWill80 16:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

The Arenas problem
anynews about the arenas? are the arenas 40 or more or less please answer guys —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.76.46.1 (talk • contribs)


 * If you mean MK: Armageddon, I've read that there are only 17 arenas (link). RobWill80 19:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Feedback needed (yes, again)
I've submitted a logo for the Mortal Kombat WikiProject. As usual, I want your feedback on it. Head on over to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mortal Kombat and feed my ego feel free let me know what you think. ;) EVula 04:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I think they're very good! You've got my vote. RobWill80 14:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

pfft
Don't worry about it. The talk page shouldn't have been used as a forum in the first place. ;) EVula 17:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I appreciate the support. Thanks for that. :) RobWill80 18:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey fellow
Hey how can i join the mortal kombat project? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armageddon Fan (talk • contribs)


 * All the info you need is on the main project page. RobWill80 13:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

MK: Armageddon discussion page
Don't worry about taking up my time. I'm here to help in any way I can. If you ever run into any more problems again, feel free to ask. And if I do not know the answer, I'll do my best to find out. As far as Armageddon Fan, I suggest placing a warning on his talk page. If that doesn't work, and he is still using talk pages as forums, then we hay have to involve an Admin. - Saturn Yoshi  THE VOICES 00:31, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your help. EVula has already given him an advisory warning on his talk page, but I'll have to look up the procedure before I could issue one myself. We'll see how it goes. :) RobWill80 02:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:WARN is your friend. ;-) EVula 17:26, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, there they are. Thanks. :) RobWill80 17:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)


 * He seems to have given up. Maybe it's for the best.  - Saturn  Yoshi  THE VOICES 06:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

And for your continuous help on all MK articles...

 * Hey, thank you very much! :D RobWill80 09:44, 28 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Congratulations!... I'm jealous.  ;)  - Saturn  Yoshi  THE VOICES 22:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ha! Thanks! :) RobWill80 20:14, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Three-revert rule
A minor point, but I'd like to make it: you implied in an edit summary of digital terrestrial television in the United Kingdom that I had broken WP:3RR. I did not, though Briantist did. I'm always very civil about these things. Frankly, I don't like being dragged into these things, but I just don't understand why Brianist keeps changing the article to imply that BBC Radios 1-4 are on a PSB multiplex when they are not. (I also think the Ofcom report says that there will be three PSB multiplexes and three commercial multiplexes after the switchover, but I'm willing to let this go.) Anyway, I'm rambling. Sorry :-) - Green Tentacle 18:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right that you didn't break WP:3RR, so I apologise. When I wrote that, my interpretation of it was that three attempts to revert an article within 24-hours violates Wikipedia policy. I must have missed the part that said "more than three reversions". You did come close, though. If an earlier revert of yours came just 2 hours later, it would be 4 reverts. So be careful. :)


 * Anyway, WP:3RR wasn't my top concern, because neither of you were trying to intentionally damage the article - you both believe that your own arguments are correct. In my own stubbornness, I've broken it a few times myself, believing that. What I didn't like was the fact that this was disruptive behaviour (no matter who is right or wrong). I thought the two of you needed to stop, gather your evidence, and discuss the matter without disrupting the article (we have both done this over the national name of ITV1, remember? I still say we were right!).


 * Regarding the subject of the reverts, my understanding is that you are correct... but I don't claim to be an expert. That's why I think it is important that you both hear what each other has to say, and clear this up. RobWill80 20:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

mortal kombat
why did you put up mortal kombat destroyer for deletion —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jebusreaper (talk • contribs)


 * You haven't provided any sources for your info. RobWill80 16:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for the barnstar. I really appreciate it. :) MarphyBlack 22:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome! :) RobWill80 22:30, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Mokap
Look, I'm a user who accepts the Wikipedia rules and it's really not my aim to vandalize pages but why did you revert this change to Mokap? I really swear that I've seen Mokap in the Conquest Mode-Chaosrealm in Mortal Kombat: Deception. It's a little bit difficult to find evidences for that but I'd say that you should play Chaosrealm in MKD-Conquest-mode several times to find him. Morris Munroe 14:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I know that Mokap is in MK: Deception's Konquest mode. However, there was a small problem with the sentence that you changed. It begins with "Originally introduced in Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance as a secret character...". Adding "and Mortal Kombat: Deception" into the middle of that part made it untrue. Mokap wasn't "introduced in" MK: Deception "as a secret character". Apart from that, his appearance in the Konquest mode is already mentioned in the trivia section. RobWill80 16:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok, if you know that then there is no problem. So I won't add MKD to Mokap any more. Greetings! Morris Munroe 17:41, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

About Template:Mortal Kombat characters
Hi, thanks for your feedback for Template:Mortal Kombat characters (as well, thanks for letting me stealing your design :D), but A Man In Black put it up to TFD, and I just commented. Can you weigh in there? Thanks. Master Spider 10:32, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem. I have a few things to take care of first, but I'll respond as soon as I can. :) RobWill80 17:26, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Sonya Blade
I don't know why you've reverted my edit to this article. The mention in the infobox is not enough. It needs to be described in full sentences. Il P@zzo 20:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * You do know why I reverted your edit, because you've repeated my reasons. The infobox is simple enough to understand, so tell me why does this particular piece of information need to be repeated and described in full sentences? More to the point, if you feel so strongly about it, why have you not done the same for other articles? RobWill80 22:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Elizabeth Malecki and Kerri Hoskins where the actors of Sonya. And it needs to be described in full sentences! I don't want to start an editwar with you. Just stop! Il P@zzo 08:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * ...done. Il P@zzo 08:18, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess the problem is solved. Next time I'd be happier if you were more friendly to me. Il P@zzo 08:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * More friendly? If I wasn't being friendly, then I wouldn't have bothered to respond to your questions about Jade's Desert in the arenas article, and I wouldn't be responding to you right now. What more do you want?


 * You don't need to tell me who has acted as Sonya, because I already know. You didn't explain why this would need to be "described in full sentences". It would make some sense if the info was needed to lead into another comment, but you simply repeated the info from the infobox, and nothing more. There doesn't seem to be any point in doing that. RobWill80 18:59, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, sorry, that was a misunderstanding. Hope you enjoy Wikipedia, Cheers! Il P@zzo 16:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. :) RobWill80 18:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

UNIKORIV REFERRI
Hi. Thank you very much, I was wondering what it meant and I thought of an anagram but couldn't figure out what it exactly meant. So yes, obviously it's the anagram for Vinikour Ferrier. But also, don't you think that the whole thing "unikoriv referri: sans power" must have some significance ? "Sans power" means "without energy" ; Unikor is a company that sells batteries... I mean, there must be a link, especially if you consider that the company was created in july 1995, short before the game was released. The whole thing is a pun. --Filouk 11:40, 30 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, I never heard of Unikor before you mentioned it in the articles. Having said that, if there is a link between the code and a battery company, I really don't think it is significant enough to put in the articles. Sorry. :) RobWill80 22:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Go to www.unikor.com -I didn't know about that company either. Nevertheless, "referri" does mean "to be brought back", and there is a pun : you can translate "UnikorIV to be brought back : no power". If it were only a matter of anagram, why use the expression "SANS POWER" where "sans" is a French word and is really weird here ? Having said that, I really don't care if it's not in the article. Thanks again for the anagram, I don't think many people know about this anagram. Those MK testers were probably a bit tired and didn't work much and it was an ironic allusion to that. Those MK programmers have a true sense of humour. --Filouk 23:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Digital terristal
if you do not liek the article naem and think it is not appiorate move the article to more appiorate name, the cotent you are trying to add has been discussed and should be removed sicne it not revelent to the main article as it makign the article larger than it needs to be, by all means update the new serparate article but do not put the content back in--Andrewcrawford (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Green Tentacle - There isn't much of a discussion there. And please, try to understand the subject before you make changes like that again. DTT and Freeview are not the same thing. RobWill80 (talk) 00:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:StarTrekComicConposter.jpg)
You've uploaded File:StarTrekComicConposter.jpg, and indicated that it's used under Wikipedia's rules for non-free images. However, it's not presently used in any articles. Wikipedia policy requires that non-free images be either used or deleted, so if this image isn't used in an article in the next week, it will be deleted.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 05:48, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Long time no see...
Hadn't seen your name pop up on my watchlist in forever. How ya been? EVula // talk // &#9775;  // 19:35, 15 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey there! I'm great, thanks. Hope you're doing OK. I've been busy with other things, so I didn't have quite so much time for editing. Still, I can just about remember how to do this! :D RobWill80 (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:MKAPS2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:MKAPS2.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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)