User talk:SNAAAAKE!!/Archive

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~, which will automatically produce your name and the date.
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome!

Disambiguation link notification for March 19
Hi. When you recently edited Soulcalibur V, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DLC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:06, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

March 2012
Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, without giving a 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. -- Doniago (talk) 13:35, 23 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, I see you removed a bunch of categories from redirect pages, without leaving any explanations in the edit summary. WP:Categorizing redirects explains when this is useful and allowable. Did you have a reason for those changes, please? – Fayenatic L (talk) 09:04, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As you are actively editing but didn't reply, I reverted those edits of yours.
 * Please would you consider making a habit of using the edit summary so that other editors will understand what you are trying to achieve with each edit? It's a mark of good faith and accountability. – Fayenatic L (talk) 22:06, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Kony 2012
You've been doing really good work with the article, but could you please respond on the talk page? Silver seren C 19:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I replied. Silver  seren C 20:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Re: Dead or Alive: Dimensions
I'm still working on it, but I might need some help on itSilentmanX (talk) 19:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Defaultsort template
I noticed that you removed from Ryoma Echizen. It is quite likely that later on this incorrect sort key will be put back by a bot. Instead, I recommend you to change such entries to so that the page is clearly and deliberately labelled to be sorted by the first name as the family name. – Fayenatic L (talk) 22:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Normal naming rules usually don't follow fictional characters. Here he is also usually referred to as "Ryoma", including through the article ("In the series, Ryoma is portrayed ... Ryoma has been fairly popular among readers ... Ryoma's character has been featured ...." and so on). --Niemti (talk) 22:29, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit summary
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to Soul Calibur V does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks! --Jtalledo (talk) 13:17, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Grimhild (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Burgundy


 * Ken St. Andre (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Power Trip


 * Synthetic Dimensions (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to AIM

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:45, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Soulcalibur V
I guess you're right. Thanks for the words of encouragement and happy editing. :) --Jtalledo (talk) 18:34, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Guy (Final Fight) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Red Earth


 * Team Ninja (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Dead or Alive


 * Tecmo Koei (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Dead or Alive


 * Wakana Yamazaki (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Interlude

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

WP:TRIVIA
Hi please don't add WP:TRIVIA to biographical articles, add it to the article about the programe - thanks p You  really  can  18:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * Night Warriors: Darkstalkers' Revenge (anime) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to Don Brown, Masao Maruyama and Paul Dobson


 * Darkstalkers (TV series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added links pointing to William Anderson and Richard Mueller


 * Rebelstar (series) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Line of sight


 * Saboteur (1985 video game) (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Mission: Impossible (video game)


 * Sonya Blade (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Texas Rangers

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Re: Mortal Kombat
Regarding Mortal Kombat (1992 video game), ports shouldn't be in there. See User talk:Wgungfu/archive 2 for the information. Also, you don't see ports in the featured articles Donkey Kong (video game) and Space Invaders either. --Jtalledo (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)


 * That's absurd, even the infobox image is from the port versions. Something on someone's private talk page? Come on. The featured article Donkey Kong (video game) actually has a long list of ports and even their release dates in the infobox. --Niemti (talk) 14:10, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

DYK for Kony 2012
Yngvadottir (talk) 16:08, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29
Hi. When you recently edited The Shadow Over Innsmouth, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Call of Cthulhu (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Russell
The problem is that there's no official statement confirming this. Sure, there's those Youtube videos, but that's subject to interpretation as being Russell, which we're not allowed to do. Also, for example, I could argue that the blurring that TMZ put on the video is actually fake blurring of nudity and he's actually wearing his underwear under it. As an encyclopedia, what we should be relying on is the official police statement and only that, not gossip sites. (Oh, and him being nude or not has nothing to do with there being only one caller reporting it, so that really should stay pointed out.) Silver  seren C 17:46, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Warsaw Ghetto Uprising
I thought you requested a copy edit of this page. Now we have an edit conflict. Please leave the page alone for 30 minutes while I make repairs. Thank you. -- Dianna (talk) 20:29, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm done, ust re-add my edits. --Niemti (talk) 20:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have done my best to reincorporate your edits. Please do not undo my formatting corrections such as where I removed series of dashes and replaced them with punctuation. I am going out now so the page will be available again for editing for a few hours. -- Dianna (talk) 20:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Longer periods

 * Seasons (WP:SEASON)
 * As the seasons are reversed in the northern and southern hemispheres—and areas near the equator tend to have just wet and dry seasons—neutral wording (in early 1990, in the second quarter of 2003, around September) is usually preferable to a "seasonal" reference (summer 1918, spring 1995). Even when the season reference is unambiguous (for instance when a particular location is clearly involved) a date or month may be preferable to a season name, unless there is a logical connection (the autumn harvest). Season names are preferable, however, when they refer to a phase of the natural yearly cycle (migration to higher latitudes typically starts in mid-spring). Seasons are normally spelled with a lower-case initial.

There's nothing about seasons there, it's about "fall" (it's early early, mid or fall - and these terms are NOT covered by WP:SEASON, which is a redirect to Manual of Style/Dates and numbers). And to think the producers' "fall" meant "Q4" is only your original research and guessing. --Niemti (talk) 06:57, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fall = Autumn. See: Fall and Fall (disambiguation) the try to tell me otherwise. -Oosh (talk) 07:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

And how is "autumn" being "Q4" in your alternate universe? --Niemti (talk) 07:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That argument is a strawman and not central to this 'debate', the use of a season for dating is inapproriate in this instance, if you disagree with the quarter selected use another one or another NEUTRAL term. Not the North American name for a season that is only valid for half the hemisphere. -Oosh (talk) 07:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't care about your imaginary rules and original research. But speaking of global terms, autumn (which is not "Q4" anyway, or at least in my region) is in an early season in some places of the globe, and not "fall" at all (so yes, I just "told you otherwise"). --Niemti (talk) 22:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and the "Q" style date is actually "Q3", and I think this should show you how silly your original research is (I strongly suggest you should read No original research and stop doing it). --Niemti (talk) 22:45, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Address the core issue first, that Fall should not be used, it is a Season that occurs at different times in different hemispheres. It is unacceptably ambiguous. -Oosh (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

No, the "corse issue" is that ORIGINAL RESEARCH CONTENT IS NEVER EVER ACCEPTABLE on Wikipedia (and especially when it results in disinformation, like your entirely false claim of "Q4"). It's so much "core issue" is that it's on of only three Wikipedia pillars. --Niemti (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

May 2012
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Bad Dudes Vs. DragonNinja, please cite a reliable source for your addition. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Otterathome (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Kony 2012 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Zhou Yu (talk) 03:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The Dictator
I'd like to talk over your edits like two responsible editors on The Dictator (2012 film) talk page. I have concerns, and the edit-warring notice above does add to them. If we could please cooperate and discuss two of your edits that appear to be violative of guidelines, I would be appreciative. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I see you're declining to discuss the WP:NOENG issue on the article talk page. You have reverted the edit in question twice. You are approaching WP:3RR. I see from the above you have a history of edit-warring.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing to discuss, because you're completely wrong: "Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, assuming English sources of equal quality and relevance are available. When citing a non-English source for information, it is not always necessary to provide a translation." I have no idea if English sources of equal quality and relevance are available, because I don't care. If you really need them, look for them. --Niemti (talk) 16:38, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "There's nothing to discuss, because you're completely wrong" is not the way to open a good-faith discussion. Not even the Pope is infallible, so your claim of infallibility shuts down discussion rather than engages in it. By your interpretation of the guideline, there is never any reason to translate a foreign-language source. When, may I ask, would you allow a foreign-language source to be translated?


 * Secondly, what possible rationale can there be for not having it translated and letting English-speaking users see what it actually says? Why obscure the information if it's valid? --Tenebrae (talk) 16:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * It's the responsibility of the editor who added this cite to do so. I don't speak Spanish, and machine translations are often inaccurate. --Tenebrae (talk) 16:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * " "The film 'The Dictator', the comedian Sacha Baron Cohen, who was filmed partially in Fuerteventura, ready for release around the world. " As I noted in my post above, that's not even a sentence. That said, it's better than nothing. If you want to insert this machine translation, I'm certainly fine with that. Thank you for being collaborative.--Tenebrae (talk) 16:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You have the weirdest problems. The translation is provided in the article: "Location shooting took place at a plaza in Seville and on the island of Fuerteventura, Spain". And did you even look if "English sources of equal quality and relevance are available"?

And yes actually, I think "there is never any reason to translate a foreign-language source", because Google does it for me automatically in all major languages and also Catalan (lol) and I have no problem to read "that's not even a sentences". Furthermore, I've never seen a translated reference on Wikipedia. By anybody. Anywhere. So it must be new. But do you understand what this term "courtesy" means there ("However, if a question should arise as to whether the non-English original actually supports the information, relevant portions of the original and a translation should be given in a footnote, as a courtesy.")? It means such translations are totally optional, in specific cases, and that's the opposite of what you think it is. --Niemti (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Just because you, personally, don't know of any articles without translation doesn't mean they don't exist. And I'm certainly concerned by someone suggesting that courtesy is "optional."  If you disagree with the policy &mdash; which has been there for years &mdash; you can argue about it at the policy page. But none of us can unilaterally disregard policy and say "there is never any reason to translate a foreign-language source."


 * You have been on Wikipedia, according to this account's history, only since March. I understand the collaborative nature of Wikipedia takes some getting used to. Your contentious relationships with editors besides me, judging from your talk page, doesn't really show the collaborative spirit on which this encyclopedia is based. I hope it's not a wasted effort for me to say this, but I genuinely hope you work through your argumentative nature and become a productive member of Wikipedia, which entails working well with others. I don't know how old you are, and I assume from phrases like "You have the weirdest problems" that you're a teenager or a very young adult, so I do understand that certain aspects of this seem old-fashioned. That's why we have Etiquette. I hope you and I and other editors can work together constructively in the future. With regards, Tenebrae (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Bare URLs
A friendly request to please include a full cite rather than a bare URL, such as the Daily Show / Hollywood.com citation just given at The Dictator (2012 film). With thanks, --Tenebrae (talk) 17:28, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Look, I didn't even post it. Please stop bothering me. --Niemti (talk) 17:30, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit summaries are helpful
I don't see any in your last 50 edits. Is there a specific change you're making to categories across all of these articles? --Onorem♠Dil 09:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Separating video game characters from general characters by the year of introduction (in the style of comic book characters by the year of introduction), also removing a spam of scores/hundreds of minor Star Trek and Friends character redirects as I go by (for a better readbility when one wants to see actually notable characters in the categories, I just leave them to be in the Star Trek and Friends related categories). I also sometimes sort categories by alphabetical order, remove excessive (unrelated links) and such. --Niemti (talk) 09:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I do still think that using edit summaries is helpful, and I'm not sure how you're deciding what is or isn't a notable character, but I'll leave you to your business. I just had a page on my watchlist popup and couldn't figure out the reason for the changes. --Onorem♠Dil 09:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, like List of minor recurring characters in Star Trek: The Next Generation is not quite a notable character, isn't it? Notability is a policy for notability. I don't see a reason for all kinds of non-Star Trek categories to be spammed by every Klingon ever. --Niemti (talk) 09:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't say that they should be. I was just asking how you were determining which were and weren't notable ...and I don't need WP:N pointed out to me. (especially since it has absolutely nothing little to do with this.) Thanks for explaining though. --Onorem♠Dil 09:41, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Category removal
Please explain Why did you do this and remove these categories--they seem appropriate to me. Please respond on my talk if you're inclined. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Because the character is not notable, and as such it is just a redirect. Just imagine if every unotable character ever (millions of them, in various kinds of fiction) spammed various categories like that. --Niemti (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Right But redirects should be categorized. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:29, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

And so it is: "Category:Modern Family characters", and redirect categories, without any category spam. (There are thousands of new characters only in the TV series in United States every year, but luckily the TV character redirects were added to the various categories only for a few of them: Friends, Star Trek, and some more including a German soap opera that doesn't even have an English name(!), and so I easily cleaned it up for the period 1984-2011.) --Niemti (talk) 22:37, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Spam These aren't spam--they are legitimate search terms. What needs to be done is diffusing large categories, not emptying them out of process. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:40, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

What? Imagine if MILLIONS OF REDIRECTS were added as "legitimate search terms" like that. MILLIONS of other fictional characters, everywhere. Would anyone be able to find any notable characters in such sea of crap in this case? But luckly most users are not spamming around like that, mind you. But even then, I had to clean up spam to find the articles I was looking for more easily (I've been recatogorizing notable video game characters by year of introduction, see section above). --Niemti (talk) 22:44, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Spam Again, that's not spam. Most fictional characters wouldn't even rate a redirect, so they shouldn't have an entry, but for redirects which are plausible search terms, they should exist and be categorized. If such categories get too full, then diffuse them. This is how all categories work on Wikipedia. Simply put, I think you need to stop as you don't understand how this works on Wikipedia. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:57, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Huh? I can starting creating any number of brand new redirects right away, it's not problem at all. It's abolutely reverse of what you think - the articles get redirected when they are NOT notable (and/or unreferenced). Just some of my redirects from last few hours:. --Niemti (talk) 01:07, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

WP:AN post
'''Please see [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard&oldid=492792306#User_mass-removing_categories. here]''' This discussion is about your mass removal of categories and is not an attempt to block you or stop you from editing constructively but to have a centralized discussion about how to categorize redirects. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure Thanks for your respectful response. I see that you're new and I hope that this dispute won't keep you from wanting to contribute in the future. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:20, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Subcategories I think your idea of diffusing (e.g.) categories for video game characters by year is a good one. Let me know if you want my help--post on my talk. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Redirects Redirects about video game characters fit under the same criteria as all other redirects... —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? Why would video game characters articles be treated any differently than any other media? I don't see a compelling reason. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Consensus The simple fact that something has yet to be done on Wikipedia or applied to a certain subset of articles is not an argument in favor of keeping it that way and unspoken agreements are the inverse of consensus. Again, it's not clear to me why video games as a media are somehow exempt from the standards of other media. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:10, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Categorization A character like (e.g.) Superman has appeared in a number of media, so he could be in all manner of ancillary categories, but he's primarily known for being in comics, where he was introduced. Consequently, it's completely appropriate that a character like Sonic the Hedgehog only be in categories related to video games as the medium in which he was introduced and is best known is video games. Again, this isn't really relevant to categorizing redirects, though. WP:CATREDIRECT applies equally to all articles and I still don't see what a good reason is to ignore it for a subset of articles by medium of introduction. Why should video game characters be treated any differently than those from novels, films, television series, etc.? If you can give me a compelling answer to that question, then you can change my perspective. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Again "That's how it always was" is not a compelling reason. It used to be that video game characters weren't categorized by their year of introduction--that's how it always was. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:25, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Huh? I honestly don't even know what you are asking of me, but whether or not I do something on Wikipedia isn't contingent on someone asking me (although you certainly have done so politely), but whether or not it's based on a logical consensus. If you can provide me something other than "it's always been this way" and an "unspoken agreement" as a rationale for treating some articles differently than others, then I'm not going to be convinced. If I politely asked you to stop doing what you were doing simply because things had always been that way and there was a silent agreement about it, would you...? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Categorizing redirects You are correct that most redirects shouldn't be categorized with articles, but of course, most redirects are misspellings, unprintworthy, etc. See What links to Joseph Stalin or What links to Mario, etc. A redirect like Josef Stalin or Mario (video game character) could never be placed into categories intended for articles, whereas all kinds of categories which are part of the scheme for categorizing the article namespace exclusively have redirects (e.g. Category:The_Balham_Alligators_albums.) I only bring this up because you've continued this on my talk and it's evident that you really don't understand how redirects work on Wikipedia or why they exist. Categorizing them has a lot of value in terms of navigation (e.g. Neda Agha-Soltan is in Category:1983 births, but redirects to Death of Neda Agha-Soltan and it would be inappropriate to categorize that article in that way.) I don't want to come across as condescending, but I simply have to be pedantic in some measure to get you to realize that you have not understood the guideline in question and you're making demands upon me based on your misunderstanding. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikia is not Wikipedia
Your assertion 'Wikia is owned by the same people as Wikipedia' is incorrect; see: the bottom of this page. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 08:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * So I guess the Wikia article is misleading, because it claims it's also set up and owned by Wales & co (I didn't read it whole, just the lead paragraph, because it wasn't looking all that interesting). --Niemti (talk) 12:01, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is operated by the Wikimedia Foundation. The content is 'owned' by the authors. Please see About and Wikimedia Foundation. Regards, Ariconte (talk) 12:41, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't really think it's "owned by authors" :D. --Niemti (talk) 12:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Can't do it
The picture was uploaded with the rationale "to serve as the primary means of visual identification at the top of the article dedicated to the work in question" but in fact was not used for that purpose. We must be very protective of copyright here, and those pictures were not acceptable. -- Orange Mike |  Talk  16:47, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

"do something about this guy"
I've contacted HJ, who blocked an editor who was doing largely the same thing (and who I think is the same person). I think he will probably block him per WP:DUCK. --Izno (talk) 03:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Two licenses
The screenshot one is enough; many times when files have more than one license, they wind up here or here. We hope (talk) 15:36, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

CCI Notice
Hello, Niemti. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Contributor copyright investigations concerning your contributions in relation to Wikipedia's copyrights policy. The listing can be found here. For some suggestions on responding, please see Responding to a CCI case. Thank you. MER-C 10:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0  20:58, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0  10:50, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Pimple, Rash and Zitz


A tag has been placed on Pimple, Rash and Zitz requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Prestonmag (talk) 13:21, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Removing Speedy at Pimple, Rash and Zitz
Hi Niemti, you recently removed a deletion tag from Pimple, Rash and Zitz. Because Wikipedia policy does not allow the creator of the page to remove speedy deletion tags, an automated program has replaced the tag. Although the deletion proposal may be incorrect, removing the tag is not the correct way for you to contest the deletion, even if you are more experienced than the nominator. Instead, please use the talk page to explain why the page should not be deleted. Remember to be patient, there is no harm in waiting for another experienced user to review the deletion and judge what the right course of action is. As you are involved, and therefore potentially biased, you should refrain from doing this yourself. Thank you, - SDPatrolBot (talk) 13:24, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: 86.164.61.33 ("rv v")
Yeah, and the edit warring is still going. I've reported him/her to the administrators already before but was ignored. :/ Cyan  Gardevoir  22:27, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Has been reported for sockpuppeting - see here. =) Cyan  Gardevoir  00:52, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

The only solution that I see is just protecting the affected pages. --Niemti (talk) 02:24, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the IP is following contribs; for he has just warred over Slimer which he doesn't even contribute to. Has been blocked for one week by an admin but I don't think that's enough. Cyan  Gardevoir  02:19, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

really?
Why? :) -- WhiteWriterspeaks 16:32, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Because it used to look like that (I don't think any comments are needed). --Niemti (talk) 16:34, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Tekken
Go to talk page. Left a discussion JTBX (talk) 23:35, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Category:Video game secret characters
How do most of the characters you have added to this category apply? Maybe if they were "secret" characters for most of their series, but being an Unlockable character in games like Super Smash Bros is a different thing then being a Secret character. Blake (Talk·Edits) 00:15, 3 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Just the ones from the article secret character that I've turned into a redirect for the reasons in Talk:Secret character. I have nothing against either changing the category's name to "unlockable" or excluding the non-secret characters or whatever. --Niemti (talk) 07:02, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Wasteland 2 vandalism
A disgruntled former Wasteland 2 fan who was banned from the Wasteland 2 forums is constantly vandalizing the game's Wikipedia article. Look at the edit history for more information. I'm not a Wikipedia expert, perhaps you can do something to protect the article from him? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.126.246.170 (talk) 22:47, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't even understand the problem between you two, never been to the forums. --Niemti (talk) 23:21, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This is a guy (he appears to be from Germany) who pledged a large sum of money to the Wasteland 2 Kickstarter, under the assumption that it would be a Fallout clone. To be specific, he assumed that the game would have one single player character, who would then recruit companions, with personalities, character arcs, relationships, etc - "Bioware-style". When he recently learned that the game would require you to generate 4 player characters (as in the original Wasteland), he absolutely FREAKED OUT. He concluded that the game's characters would be "MUTE, SOULLESS, AND ROBOT-LIKE" (he now considers this to be a "well-known and admitted fact" despite the fact that no member of inXile staff has ever said it) and he's been on a mad crusade to tell that to everybody ever since. I know it's the same guy since one of the forum moderators has confirmed they have the same IP. 77.126.246.170 (talk) 08:02, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

RE:The "rv v" problem
Yeah, I've requested indefinite semi-protection for Rabbids and Edward Carnby; I guess now we'll just have to request the rest of them.

Oh, and before I forget...

Cyan  Gardevoir  (used EDIT!) 11:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Yay! --Niemti (talk) 11:04, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Shang Tsung
Hi! Why did you revert my last edit to this article? Morgan Katarn (talk) 13:17, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Because "beart" is not real word, also it was pointless. --Niemti (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes but isn't it important to mention that Shang Tsung normally has a beard and that the actor of Shang Tsung doesn't have one? Morgan Katarn (talk) 13:23, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

He had no beard in Mortal Kombat II, which was released before the first film (only a small goatee). --Niemti (talk) 13:24, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

About the Sources
Hi, I'm the one who tried to keep the image updated from the Ryu Hayabusa page. You deleted for a very legit reason: unreliable sources. I'll accept that, but it frustrate me. That image is an official artwork from Tecmo but it's just that it's from a random site, possibly a person found it, save it in their computer and upload to the site so people can see it. When you say "Official Sources" in this situation, it will be going to the official Ninja Gaiden 3 site and grab a photo and post the link as reliable source. But the point is that sometimes official site will not post some images but they release them on other sites, some may be unreliable. I will find the same image with a more reliable link, and i'll make you keep it. Thank you for reading my concern. Nathan900130 (talk) 19:59, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

To link or not to link
I'd like another opinion re: this and the God of War articles. As with the God of War article, I don't believe there needs to be overlinking: in this case having a link to the List of God of War characters but then spelling it all out each individual page anyway. If any entries are missing, they can surely be added to the master list. Anything to avoid edit warring, as another user has had a knee jerk reaction and blindly reverted without just cause. Regards Bluerim (talk) 14:34, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Would be better to leave these links, as normally it's the Greek gods and not game characters. --Niemti (talk) 14:56, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually this is what I meant - (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=God_of_War_II&diff=497016582&oldid=497015834). I'm all for the link, but can't see the need to then have a list anyway as it is unecessary. Thoughts? Bluerim (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There's a difference between the list you've linked and the main list page. The list page lists their appearance throughout the series and categorizes them. The list that you pointed out (as well as the other games) only refers to their role in that game and who actually appears in that game. What would be unnecessary is having a blank section with one link, making readers leave the current page just to find out the characters (then have to read through each character on that page to find out which game(s) the characters were in). JDC808 (talk) 02:06, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Guys, discuss it elsewhere, I didn't even ever edit any of these articles. --Niemti (talk) 11:13, 12 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Which is probably why Bluerim sought your opinion. It's good to get outside opinions on things to see the situation from a different perspective. JDC808 (talk) 17:01, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

More Wasteland 2 article drama
See the article's talk page. I'm new here and I don't know how to deal with this guy without turning it into an edit war, as he's clearly obsessed. Melnorme1984 (talk) 11:09, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

MoO in progress
Hey. Work on the Master of Orion article is progressing. However, the ten days are up and the changes are not done. In part this is due to the exam and unlikely matters arising (having a water fight downtown on behalf of Amnesty International is not the least plausible one) and in part because I'm just horrible with deadlines. Sorry.

I hope that you're satisfied by the fact that I'm actively working on the matter. (If you're not, I can't really object, being in the wrong.) I look forward to finishing it.

I've been snipping away information that's of little value to the casual reader and unnecessary to the reader who's played the game, rewritten some things here and there, and built up quite a few notes. The plan is to build up some steam and break down the lists in the gameplay section, preferably while identifying and retaining their good sides. This'll make changes to the section much easier. I plan to go over the whole section roughly, replace the section's opening, then make another pass through the section to bring it into a coherent whole. Oh, and to standardize what "player" means. When I came in, it was used to mean both "the only human player" and "every starfaring empire", and for some reason, that's incredibly annoying. I also found a good review, and mean to add it to the article and see if I can't find tips from the ways a better writer expressed many of the same things. Right now the plan is to go to sleep. --Kiz o r  01:28, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

There was never any deadline, do it anytime. --Niemti (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

June 2012
Your recent editing history at Civilization V shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. M ASEM (t) 05:35, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

That's OK, I finished. --Niemti (talk) 05:37, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Technically, that was #4, but I think the warning came at the same time. Please note that I also warned Oosh too; neither of you are correct in these actions. --M ASEM (t) 05:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Civ articles' changes
Don't take this as an endorsement of your attitude, which I still maintain stinks, but I will happily recognise the concerted effort you've made to improve the articles in question. Perhaps we needed a breath of jerk-air to break the stale-mate, or maybe it just sped things along. Regardless, please take this as a modest compliment. -Oosh (talk) 23:42, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

If you say so, I guess.
--Golbez (talk) 15:27, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Max Payne 3
I don't understand why you keep taking my article on the bugs and glitches down. Is it because i referenced the fans feelings towards these glitches? If so, i have removed that information. I found it important for people to know of these glitches, because i would have liked to known this information before i bought the game. Spiderliam (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

This is not a Wikipedia article content. --Niemti (talk) 15:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you be more specific? It's addressing factual information about the game, and that factual information is that the game was released with faults and glitches on all platforms, so why shouldn't people know about it? Spiderliam (talk) 16:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. --Niemti (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no information on that page which tells me that i may not add information about bugs and glitches found in games. So, please, in your own words, tell me what i am actually doing wrong, so that i may know for future reference.Spiderliam (talk) 16:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Which means you can't "add information about bugs and glitches found in games" indeed. --Niemti (talk) 16:19, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

No, i'm sorry, but your grasp of english might be a bit off. If there is no information telling me that i can't do something, how am i to know that i am not allowed to do it?Spiderliam (talk) 16:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Because people told you but you ignored them. Probably because your superior "grasp of english[sic]" that causes you to misunderstand messages such as "stop it" and "go away". Go away. --Niemti (talk) 16:32, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, i think i would have a superior grasp of English, seeing as I am actually English, it is my native tongue.

No one told me to stop it, my article was simply deleted. Would you not ask why something was not allowed if you didn't know why, and it wasn't explained to you? What would you do, if someone then sends you a link to the rules, expecting it to explain where you went wrong, yet you do not find this information? Would you not go back and question them, as I did with you about not finding the information which is not there? Your attitude stinks, and from what i've read on your talk page, many other people seem to agree.Spiderliam (talk) 16:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Try to get your ultimate superior grasp of English to good use: GO AWAY. --Niemti (talk) 16:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, i'm a sucker for grammar. It should be; "Go Away!". Capitalization does not represent annoyance, a simple exclamation mark is suffice.

It was you who misread my sentence and tried to turn it round to your advantage by saying;

"Which means you can't "add information about bugs and glitches found in games" indeed."

I bid you farewell, unhelpful, unknowledgeable wiki editor. Try talking to SQGibbon or Eik Corell for tips on how to be an informative and professional sounding editor. Spiderliam (talk) 16:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Friendly advice
Hello Niemti, my name is Acather96, and I just wanted to leave a quick message in regard to your manner of conversation when communicating with some editors. As you are probably aware, one of the key principles of Wikipedia is that all editors should assume good faith when entering into any discussion or communication, and it is important that we all assume that everyone on the project always edits as they do with their best intentions at heart. I'm speaking in regards to your conversation above with Spiderliam, who contacted me, as he was displeased with your behavior. While I understand that sometimes on-wiki discussion can be frustrating, there really is no need to talk to people like this, especially when they are newcomers to the project. See Don't bite the newbies - Wikipedia is currently in crisis with rapidly declining editor retention rates, and we really need to provide a welcoming environment for new editors, and also promote civil collaboration. I'd also advise you to read our policy on Civility. On a side note, I see that your work in other areas is honestly really good, great, and I think you'll make a great editor if you remember to keep a cool, calm and civil head when communicating with others. If I can ever be of any help, leave a message talk page, and I will endeavor to assist you as soon as possible, please heed my advice and happy editing :) Regards, Acather96 (talk) 19:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Civ Articles
I'm sorry, much of the information you removed from the Civ articles are under active discussion by the community and it is not up to you to decide to delete them. Also, your edditing violates Wiki's 3 edits rule and if you continue with your disruptive editing I will have to report you to a moderator.Flygongengar (talk) 15:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Looking at your talk page, I see you were already warned. I remind you the moderator stated, "To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors." As such, I feel right in reverting the page to something resembling what it was before your edits as that more accurately (as per the discussion on this pages archives and at the Video Game talk page's archives) represents a consensus among the editors and not just your consensus. If you revert the tables, I will re-report you. I also, only reverted the tables because I do not have to patience to sort through the rest of your edits so will hold off on judging them.Flygongengar (talk) 16:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

On a related note
I noticed you've been removing gameplay subsection titles and links to subsections, because sunsections are only allowed in order to divide single- and multiplayer. Could you link me to the reasons? This has bearing on my scheming. If I remember correctly I glanced at pages you mentioned in an edit summary, but didn't find anything.

The World Ends with You and Final Fantasy XII are featured video game articles with gameplay subsections, but of course, we're not terribly consistent. --Kiz o r  22:00, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Possibly because they were featured according to the now-outdated standards (like The World Ends with You still uses the now useless "input=" line in the infobox), maybe added later or even just recently, it doesn't really mean anything. A good paragraph-based prose will substitute for the unnecessary sub-sections that most articles don't use anyway. --Niemti (talk) 23:24, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Re your edit at Nathan Hale (Resistance)
Looks to me like the source material is properly licensed, although attribution needs to be fixed. Am I missing something?-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  17:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's a direct copy-paste from Wikia. And yes, completely unattributed (actually there is zero references or other sources). Also, completely not needed (un-notable subject). It's stolen from Wikia, it should also stay there. --Niemti (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's keep the issues separate. It may be non-notable, but the response to that is AfD, not a copyright violation claim.


 * It isn't properly attributed, but the solution to that problem is adding the editor to add an attribution.


 * "Stolen" isn't the right word for failure to properly attribute.


 * I thought perhaps you saw some reason why the license was improper, but you haven't claimed that.


 * Are you willing to take the next steps (either AfD, add attribution, or explain to the editor that attribution is needed?)


 * I notice you didn't notify the principle editor. I'll do it for you. Sorry, I see you used a non-standard notice so I missed it.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  01:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I think "stolen" is the right word here. I don't even know what "the license was improper" means in this case, because there was never any license there, and it even uses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Resistance_2_cover_art.png without licensing (also just quickly hijacked, but from the game article at Wikipedia). It's just a 1-minute-style quick copy-and-paste job, without attributing anything to anyone at all, and I think I've already spent more time tagging and discussing it than "the author" has spent "creating it". --Niemti (talk) 06:53, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Yoshimitsu Tekken.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Yoshimitsu Tekken.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, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yoshimitsu
Please stop reverting junk to this article. The Street Fighter x Tekken image has already been reverted by me and another user because the Street Fighter x Tekken game is not only made by Namco. It is mainly created by Capcom. And the reason why I added the Soulcalibur image is because Soulcalibur V is from Namco. It would be better if you would find a Tekken 6 image for Yoshimitsu. M0RG@N (talk) 13:35, 17 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you failed to convince me and I'll keep "reverting junk to this article". The Soulcalibur version of Yoshimitsu is a different (related) character, discussed elsewhere, and the SFxT model is prety much the same as in Tekken 3 (recolored). --Niemti (talk) 13:41, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I know that but the Street Fighter x Tekken image is from the Yoshimitsu character, developed mainly by Capcom and not by Namco although Yoshimitsu has a strong similarity to the Yoshimitsu from Tekken 3. So are there other suggestions? M0RG@N (talk) 13:44, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No, there are no "other suggestions". The Tekken 6 image ("Yoshimitsu_tekken6.png") was actually uploaded by someone once and then deleted, probably for violating copyrights and/or originating with from unreliable source, while my "junk" stays, because it's not "junk", contrary to what you think. Also inserting the same un-free image repeatedly is just stupid, and against the rules too (breaking the minimum use). Also stop hating on Capcom, it was Namco who have let them use and redesign the character in an official game. --Niemti (talk) 13:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Scorpion
Scoprion might be a boss character from the game MK Shaolin Monks but that doesn't match the other games. Otherwise, Scorpion would be a boss character like Shao Kahn, Goro, Kintaro and Shang Tsung, so isn't it a bit of a nonsense to mention that he's a boss character in the main article? You could add that he was a main character in MK Shaolin Monks. M0RG@N (talk) 18:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Just a friendly note
Since I found you're still reverting vandals by undoing them manually, I think getting rollback might make it easier and faster. You seem to have the required experience. :) Cyan  Gardevoir  (used EDIT!) 06:26, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

try not to edit when someone else is working on an article
It messes up the page order and it also smacks of tinkering. If you can't see what needs to be done. Don't start when someone who does, is already working. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.178.66 (talk) 18:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This ain't about edit warring, it's about making an article tight, formatted and understandable. After going back through the article history I see all that you have been doing is dabbling. The references were not formatted and none of the poor grammar of text was substantially altered to be more concise, logical and less dependent on tautology. I noticed you reverted and left in unformatted half refs: name, book, page (where's the publisher, the year, ISBN?). Wikipedia has rules on references and their formatting. All I want to do is help create better articles that are actually correct and informative for anyone who is interested in reading them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.180.88 (talk) 08:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Revert a good faith edit only after careful consideration
Hi, Niemti. Reverting the whole edit discourages other editors. If your reversion is not adequately supported as in this case then the reverted editor may find it difficult to assume good faith on your part. I noticed, you prefer to use Wikipedia's 'undo' feature rather than to modify any part of an edit which is problematic, as you did here. There's a number of guidelines devoted to this sort of thing including WP:RVV, WP:ROWN, WP:EMBARGO, etc. You're a prolific contributor with 12,302 edits since 2012-03-16, but remember, a reversion is a complete rejection of the work of another editor. In some cases a rollback (without any apparent explanation) is like a slap in the face, so please don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Poeticbent talk  23:52, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Oskar D.: Warsaw was for Dirlewanger not really different than his Belarusian countryside adventures (the only difference being a whole big city for him to rape), and what's maybe more important, Slovakia-Hungary-Germany was not Warsaw anyway (Dirlewanger's crimes in Slovakia are little known, like the Slovak uprising is in general). "Inception into NSDAP" is also strangely worded, and for most people Inception is a film. I used "World War I and the interwar period" instead. --Niemti (talk) 07:34, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your help. Focha is not in Wola, correct. On the other hand, none of us is in Dirlewanger's head. None of us can say, what was... and was not really different for him in his own head. I suggest, we concentrate on collaborative writing, not on lecturing each other, i.e. Inception (disambiguation). Poeticbent talk  15:14, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * What I meant is that placing such a strong emphasis on his rampage in Warsaw in particular is belittling his reign of terror in Belarus 1942-44, and Wikipedia is an English/international Wikipedia. --Niemti (talk) 15:19, 25 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I understand. But we have to follow what we can prove about his antics. The more sources we find online, the better. Poeticbent talk 15:52, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I noticed that you again reverted a good-faith edit wholesale here. I agree it wasn't the best edit, but it was constructive and made in good faith. In cases like that it's better to improve their edit rather than reverting it completely. Gigs (talk) 05:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * "Good faith" gibberish, and I don't even know if any of this was true because it was unsourced. --Niemti (talk) 06:09, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Category Dispute
Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. The reverted edit can be found here and here. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox--GoShow (...............) 14:51, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a very constructive edit, fictional demons are not immortal by default and films are not characters. --Niemti (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Please, look further to Immortality in fiction if need to further discussion, changes were made by administrators to add addition from the main default, such as angels, vampires, and demons, please do not disrupt any system as you have a period of warring with other users.--GoShow (...............) 15:17, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * There's no need to "discuss" anything in such a clear case. I'll just give you one example: the Cyberdemon. It was very mortal. I was shooting at it until it died. --Niemti (talk) 15:21, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Now you see, there are  video games, although, there are many spiritual demons categorized, however, this is one that can be used for game testing, that is all.--GoShow  (...............) 16:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not "a cyber game", just a video game. I have no idea what "that can be used for game testing" means. If "spiritual demons" are something different, and absolutely all of them are immortal, make a new category "fictional spiritual demons", place them in this category, and only then categorize them all as immortal characters. --Niemti (talk) 16:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Please discuss with me to Immortality in fiction I would be glad for you join and have a project to discuss what may be added to the article ;).--GoShow (...............) 16:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

There you go, we don't have to argue, let's work this together, and create edits about notable immortals on this s site immortality in fiction to see who are truly immortal thank you--GoShow (...............) 16:36, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Stop logging-in and loggin-out constantly. --Niemti (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Forgive us, about that just us users being busy, as usual, otherwise, I am starting to delete the category from many of the nonsense bullbeep articles which covered the Category:Fictional immortals. --GoShow  (...............) 16:57, 27 June 2012 (UTC)


 * W...what? --Niemti (talk) 17:01, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Mad Max 4
You have deleted information from the mad max page about a film that is actually IN PRODUCTION: http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/movies/charlize-theron-shaves-it-all-off-for-mad-max-4/story-e6frfmvr-1226393995976

Therefore I'm restoring the proper information to the article.

Your references supporting an "animated film" are GROSSLY outdated. The fourth Mad Max is releasing next year and the fifth film will soon follow.

Colliric (talk) 15:23, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

These are not "my references". All I did is cleanup (oh, and don't duplicate the material). --Niemti (talk) 15:24, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 28
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.


 * 36th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Matthew Cooper


 * Civilization V: Gods & Kings (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to The Verge

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:49, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

inFAMOUS
I think you're being a little harsh without reason. Please look at the edits I made.
 * 1. I didn't add the director credit, it was already there. I didn't touch it.
 * 2. Furthermore, I didn't capitalize random words, I capitalized the first letter of terms in the infobox (NOT in the article), as we're supposed to do. It doesn't make any sense having Action-adventure with capital "A", and open world with lower case "o". Punkalyptic (talk) 11:55, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Of course it makes sense, don't capitalize random words like that (", Open world") just because of a comma mark. --Niemti (talk) 12:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, if you're so obsessed with it, good luck with correcting the enormous amount of game articles that have infoboxes with capitalized terms ;)
 * Calma, my friend. Don't ignore all the editors efforts and improvements by attacking them over such things. You even accused me of doing things I never did. Calm down and don't be hasty. Like yourself, I've made thousands of edits in the last few weeks that have vastly improved articles, even if I've made a few mistakes. All I care about is consistency. A better approach and a little more respect would make discussions easier. Punkalyptic (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring


WP:Edit warring on a WP;BLP to add disputed and contentious content is a good way to get yourself blocked- please stop and move to discussion - please take this as a WP:3RR warning - thanks - You  really  can  17:06, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

Someone wants to bandalize the article to remove the well sourced NPOV content representing all the involved parties, of course I won't let it go. --Niemti (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Fine, cool - just move to discussion on the talkpage and stop reverting and its all good - regards - You  really  can  17:11, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * - for what its worth - I also oppose your desired addition - there is no evidence of masturbation and we can easily just not bother to report such rumor/allegations that came to nothing/WP:Undue You really  can  17:13, 30 June 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not "addition". Maybe you shoudl first check the article history, before saying stupid things like that. Now get off my talk page. --Niemti (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2012 (UTC)

American film category
Do not remove the American films category, as you did from 12 Monkeys. This cat. must remain in all American films, even if they are also listed in one of the many subcategories, as described on the category page. Thank you. ---  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive 13:17, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Strange, but okay. --Niemti (talk) 13:19, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Garrett (character)
Please keep the Linkrot tag on Garrett (character) until there are no bare URL's left. Thank you. --I dream of horses @ 10:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * There are no bare URLs there. --Niemti (talk) 10:13, 3 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Niemti, when I say "bare URLs", I mean "the inline citations are incorrectly formatted". It's totally okay to not know how to correctly format an inline citation in a way so as be up to date, say, a year from now, even if a website goes offline, but please let the template stay.
 * I'm not reverting until you understand what a bare URL is. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. @  10:22, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

These are just not bare URLs. But if you want to make the citations better, do it. Oh, and "if a website goes offline" you've got to use Internet Archive (using an URL to find it). --Niemti (talk) 10:24, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

If you read it, it was to match the others.
Well, let me say that is not how everybody else sees it:

"US or U.S. usually refers to the United States of America, a country in North America.

US, U.S. or us may also refer to:"

More importantly, most of Europe, and this is a European film, refers to it as US rather than U.S. Try to remember that non-US articles will use non-US terminology, spelling etc.

What sort of figure did you want me to make myself into? Using phrases that no-one else understands outside the US is not going to really get us anywhere - especially when used at the beginning of a sentence. Perhaps you can explain it to me, or use some other phrase that makes more sense? Chaosdruid (talk) 01:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)


 * And even more importantly, most of Wikipedia, and this is Wikipedia, refers to it as U.S. rather than US (see also: President of the United States). --Niemti (talk) 07:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Category:Fictional angels. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. TheIrishWarden - Irish and proud (talk) 18:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. I noticed your recent edit to The Road (2009 film) does not have an edit summary. Please provide one before saving your changes to an article, as the summaries are quite helpful to people browsing an article's history. Thanks!  RepublicanJacobite  TheFortyFive  16:44, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

List of James Bond villains
I've asked you to take it to the talk page: do not revert without doing so or I'll slap a edit warring tag on you. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 07:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Then discuss your problems on the talk page; do not revert without doing so or I'll slap a[n] edit warring tag on you. --Niemti (talk) 07:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you try and pick pointless fights with people, or are you incapable of trying reasoned dialogue? Have a look at WP:BRD. Your Bold edit was reverted. You should have gone to the talk page, not reverted again, especially when you were asked to do so. Not to do so just aggravates people and it utterly unhelpful. Your edits go against MOS:HEAD and the apostrophes are unnecessary. Self-revert for Christ's sake and next time think before trying to edit war. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 07:31, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Can you cite the revelant part of Manual of Style? --Niemti (talk) 07:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I have. MOS:HEAD Also read WP:BRD very, very carefully. -  SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 07:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

OK. Can you cite the relevant part of Manual of Style? --Niemti (talk) 07:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * FFS - which bit are you struggling to understand? For a start the word novels should not be in there. It's in the heading and therefore doesn't need to be repeated. Secondly because it's in a section enetitled novels, the sub-categories listing the authors are self explanatory and therefore the apostrophe isn't needed: it's simple Engllish and common sense. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 07:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The part that you think is relevant. I don't know which one it is. Can you, you know, just cite it? Instead of your own prose. --Niemti (talk) 07:53, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Seriously? If you can't understand a simple section, how are you deciding when to revert other people's work?! Do you also not understand WP:BRD? - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 07:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Seriously. Please cite the part that you think is relevant, instead of your own interpetations. I can "understand a simple section", but let's see if you can. --Niemti (talk) 07:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Why don't you read it properly instead of getting other people to spoon feed you? If you're too lazy to click on the link, or cannot understand the basics, you shouldn't be so aggressive in your reverts. Just to spoon feed you like you mum must do: "Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings". Just to make it clearer, so that even you can understand: it means that repeating the word "NOVEL" in a section already contining the word "NOVEL" is a no-no. Do you nderstand, or do you need it selled out in even more basic terms? - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 08:02, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I'll also ask the question again: have you read and do you understand WP:BRD? - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 08:07, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I did read it properly and it does not "refer redundantly to the subject of the article" at all (if you still believe strongly that it does, ask a third party to either confirm or deny your feelings). But the listing the authors in the article "List of James Bond villains" like that, as the sub-sections in the parent sections "Main villains" and "Novel villains", may indicate that they (the authors) are those "James Bond villains" that the article is about, especially just for the reader who only glances for a few seconds (like only looking at the table of contents). --Niemti (talk) 08:11, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Firstly, yes it does and only an utter moron would look at the article and be confused by those headings. Secondly, I'll also ask the question again: have you read and do you understand WP:BRD? - 08:13, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Firstly, nope. And yes, people of all kind use Wikipedia, including anyone you want to use some ableist slur against. That's why everything must be written as clearly as it is possible, not leaving anything to misunderstand like that. I did read and do you understand BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. We're discussing aren't we? And I disagree with your thesis and interpretations. --Niemti (talk) 08:18, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * If you understand BRD, can you explain why you did not go to the talk page after the reversion of your edit? Especially when you were asked to? Are you above following this sort of pathway, or do you have some form of dispensation that allows you to just ignore anyone else's wishes. Secondly, have you really understood MOS:HEAD? I suggest that you either don't understand it well enough to follow it, or secondly you now do understand it, but don't want to be seen to back down? Either way I couldn't give a monkeys, I'll put it back into its correct form shortly. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 08:22, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Let me repeat: your arguments failed to convince me, and we didn't reach a consensus. I still believe you're misguided, and I don't agree with your plans to use an incorrect form, and this is why I told you to ask someone else to also tell you how wrong you are. --Niemti (talk) 08:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * FFS - read BRD. If there isn't a consensus then the original stands until there is a change. The original is that version before your edits incorporated the errors. Revert. - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 08:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * "The original" version was this: - and it wasn't "correct", these were just the links to the authors. It was not only confusing (making the authors look like those "villains" from the "list of villains"), but it was also actually against Manual of Style. Since this allegedly superior original version, I did a multitude of corrections, fixing dozens of instances of random capitalization and bolding, lack of punctuation, spelling errors, grammar errors, etc. I didn't "incorporate the errors", I removed them. --Niemti (talk) 08:38, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm not talking about reverting all your edits: 99% of them are completely correct and proper. The only thing you shouldn't have done was to change the text of the sub-headings, as per MOS:HEAD. The correct text is "Ian Fleming", not any of the several varients you've experimented with since, and it is those that need to be put back to a simple ====Ian Fleming==== - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 08:43, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

But I still think the other "1%" was also "completely correct and proper". And you can ask someone else and check if it's really incorrect, like on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (becuase you think "Headings should not refer redundantly to the subject of the article, or to higher-level headings" is releveant). --Niemti (talk) 08:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * FFS - why are you now taking things out of chronological order?


 * FFS - just removed three sections for the athors who have penned only one Bond novel. --Niemti (talk) 08:56, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * And opened a conversation on the talk page: keep it in chronological order - SchroCat ( ^  •  @ ) 08:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Ownership
Your posting today re- the above

Addressing the " someone is clearly usurping the control over the article." as User JT**, I presume ... am I correct? Your indenting brings me to this conclusion. Sincerely, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 08:58, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I meant RepublicanJacobite (always reverting on sight any changes to the Plot section made by various editors, telling them to "take it to the talk page"). --Niemti (talk) 09:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Do you not have any problem with JT's re-write? -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 15:54, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Just with RJ's ownership of the article. --Niemti (talk) 15:55, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Generally on Wikipedia, this issue is quite widespread, isn't it? I cannot see how it can be avoided.
 * The reason I asked you initially, is that I was experiencing similar ownership behaviour by JT on both The Godfather and The Godfather II films recently and supposed he was acting in the same way on The Road. -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I didn't have any problem with JT in this article, but RJ repeatedly reverted every attempt to rewrite the plot section (by several various users and for some time now. RJ often/always told everyone to "take it to the talk page" (apparently for his/her personal approval), and JT was just the first one who has actually did precisely this. So nope, no problem at all. --Niemti (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Gotcha! Thanks for the explanation.  Cheers!  -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 16:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
Hi Niemti. Thank you for your work on patrolling new pages and tagging for speedy deletion. I'm just letting you know that I declined your deletion request for a page that you tagged for speedy deletion,  because the criterion you used or the reason you gave does not cover this kind of page. Please take a moment to look at the suggested tasks for patrollers and review the criteria for speedy deletion. Particularly, the section covering non-criteria. Such pages are best tagged with proposed deletion, proposed deletion for biographies of living persons, or sent to the appropriate deletion discussion. In particular, I would encourage you to use the specific speedy deletion template (e.g., db-a7, db-r3) in the future as they help prevent inserting invalid criteria in the "reason" field and are more explicit. -- Selket Talk 15:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Chun-Li
No, I meant the entire appearances section needs to be summarized. All of them. It goes into excruciating detail in some cases (though oddly only briefly mentions others), and they could easily be condensed down to paragraphs. As for the comic image, I'm basing my removal of it on an earlier matter that came up with other articles I worked on: simply putting the image in the article without any need for it to be there when text can suffice doesn't fly, especially if you go for FA status later on. People don't need to be educated on what the comic book cover looks like nor do they need a detailed image of her Alpha outfit. It doesn't add anything in this case.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:41, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

"This image is from a comic strip, webcomic or from the cover or interior of a comic book. The copyright for this image is most likely owned by either the publisher of the comic or the writer(s) and/or artist(s) which produced the comic in question. It is believed that the use of low-resolution images of the cover of a comic book to illustrate: [...] the copyrighted character(s) or group(s) depicted on the excerpted panel in question; where no free alternative exists or can be created, on the English-language Wikipedia, hosted on servers in the United States by the non-profit Wikimedia Foundation, qualifies as fair use under United States copyright law."

And that's exactly what it does. --Niemti (talk) 04:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Problem is the copyrighted character is already illustrated.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:47, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing about such "problem" in the automatic licensing tag. The comics have very relaxed rules, to be used simply "to illustrate" any related content - unlike for example film screenshots that need to be used "for critical commentary and discussion of the film and its contents". --Niemti (talk) 04:51, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Just trust me: bring it up on WT:VG and see what they say on the matter.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 04:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

I can read well. This so-relaxed Template:Non-free comic (just "to illustrate the issue of the comic book in question; the periodical comic book series of which this issue is a part; or the copyrighted comic book character(s) or group(s) on the cover of the issue in question;") is an exact opposite of the very strict Template:Non-free film screenshot (these are not for illustration, only "for critical commentary and discussion of the film and its contents"). And yes, I was surprised too. --Niemti (talk) 04:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The point I ran into a problem with using an image to just illustrate an article actually came about when working on Necrid, specifically when trying to get it to featured-article status (which it still hasn't, sadly). That's why I'm saying it might be a good idea to have this discussed by others on the videogame project so it doesn't become an issue later.
 * Regarding her article, I've gone through and condensed the video game appearances to give an idea of what I meant. It retains the same information without going into extreme detail, and avoids namedropping characters that while significant at some point, are not constantly so (Bison is central to her character, but Urien and Ryu not so much). Keeping it simple in that regard allows people to not have to read so many other articles just to grasp the concept of the single character.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 05:11, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Template:Wasteland Series
Hello I'm MegaCyanide666. I don't mean to cause any trouble or any type of vandalism but you are undoing my edit on wasteland series again and again due to which i have to edit it every day. My edit was correct because as you can see Meantime is a cancelled game and Wasteland is the only game of the series that has been published till now. Wasteland 2 is going to be released in 2013. Therefore I think, Meantime should be in a separate category since it was cancelled or should be in the related category and not with Wasteland or Wasteland 2. I'm not going to edit the template again at least till you reply. Although if i will edit after that depends on your reply. I assure you I'm causing no vandalism. Thank you and feel free to talk. (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it's clearly marked as canceled and making 3 categories for just 5 articles is an overkill. Even at Template:Fallout series I'm not sure why Nuka Break can't be just in "Miscellaneous" (it's now). --Niemti (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Well yes i believe it will be a lot of clutter on one small template.I think instead it should be in the related section along with fountain of dreams and fallout series. This will create no clutter and the articles will still be organised in a proper manner? What are you're views about it? And please write in formal language. Wikipedia is not a social network it's a prestigious free online encyclopedia. Also you should know that i helped stop the edit warring on castlevania series template and completely reupdated and reorganised it according to latest information thus what i am doing is completely constructive editing and no vandalism you can be assured of that. (talk) 15:24, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't understand you. Could you write it again but in more comprehensible way? --Niemti (talk) 15:38, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

What?You are the one that's writing in a horrible way. What I mean that meantime should be put in the Related category of the template along with fountain of dreams and fallout series. And you are the one whould should talk in a comprehensible way. Stop picking fights and causing vandalism or or you will be blocked. Yes,this is a warning.You think this is funny. Now please what are your views? Should i put Meantime in the related category or not. (talk) 15:40, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

LOL. --Niemti (talk) 15:49, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

The template has been edited any way.Meantime has been added in the related section of the template. Learn some manners and do not edit it again. (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Kid, you don't even know how to sign your own comments. --Niemti (talk) 00:02, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Cannon Fodder
Please just bear with me. The article I just moved to "series" was at simply "Cannon Fodder" for several years and was just recently, and erroneously IMO, moved to the "video game" page. As I read it, it's a series article, just not very well developed. I'm confident that before long I'll have well-developed articles on all 3 games plus the series article. Just give me several days. I asked about this some time ago at the WP:VG talk page about how to proceed, got no response, so I'm doing it my preferred way. Thanks bridies (talk) 08:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Quick note: the first step of proposing a merger is supposed to be to actually make a proposal on the talk page, stating from, to and why. You might also use edit summaries a bit more. Thanks, bridies (talk) 11:47, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

OBVIOUSLY, because it's all about the first game, and not the series. (I wrote much of this.) --Niemti (talk) 11:49, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There are obvious reasons against merging though -such as the fact that a series article has a broader scope, and the precedent for having series articles in addition to individual game articles as well as (I would respectfully argue) the limited value of the content currently in the series article- which is why it's normal to have a link to a discussion where I might state those reasons. Again, not huge deal, I'm just sayin'. If you wrote the article to be about the first game, I'm confused as to why the first sentence has stated the article is about the series, as well as having the sequel in bold, for quite some time. While there's s large overlap in right-this-minute content, the scope is broader and I'm actively adding content; again, I'd like some time. Thanks again, bridies (talk) 12:30, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It's not about the series, only the first game. --Niemti (talk) 13:23, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We're talking about the article which begins: "Cannon Fodder is a series of war (and later science fiction) themed action games developed by Sensible Software, initially released for the Commodore Amiga", right? bridies (talk) 15:07, 18 July 2012 (UTC)


 * No, we're talking about the sections that I've tagged. Of course. --Niemti (talk) 15:09, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Thirty Seconds over Tokyo
Feel free to change any content that is not attributed properly, but Simpsons fancruft is what was coming across; their cultural impact is much diminished from their heyday on television. FWiW, I did find a cite but I was tossing that torpedo back to you?! Bzuk (talk) 22:12, 18 July 2012 (UTC).

Adding nonsense
Hello. that line has nothing to do with Street Fighter. Please read WP:RS, WP:BURDEN, and WP:SOAPBOX. Thanks. Smoortsixe (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

You really know a lot about Wikipedia for an account created yesterday with no other edits. --Niemti (talk) 05:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Antonipieter
And so he did. He won't be a problem anymore. Daniel Case (talk) 16:02, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Re:
 Tide  rolls  12:29, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Simon "Ghost" Riley
Ok its a fair point, me just jumping to stuff without considering some other elements. Regards.--RedBullWarrior (talk) 00:56, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Template: Wasteland Series
What is going on over here? You people don't even know how to respect guidelines of a talk page. Who the hell gave you those stars you have on your profiles? You don't deserve it because you're totally senseless. If you think this template is a waste of time then think and just go away from here but I'm going to stick by it and maintain it. It's people like us who keep wikipedia clean unlike you and Euchrid who just don't want to separate a cancelled game from the published ones just because it's a single game and creates clutter. You don't deserve to be an editor. oh and for you're information I did play fallout 1 and 2 and wasteland so stop judging without proof. Just because you've been on Wikipedia for longer doesn't mean you're the boss. --MegaCyanide666 (talk) 07:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Cool personal attack. --Niemti (talk) 09:15, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This account has been blocked indefinitely from editing, because it is a sockpuppet account created in order to evade a block. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal the block on your original account, but simply ignoring the block and creating another account is not an acceptable procedure. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:54, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't even remember a password to the original account. It was over 4 years ago.

Basically eveything I wanted to write, I did already. Now you might either consider it or not (I would). --Niemti (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI Notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.


 * Hi, Niemti. There's been some discussion regarding what's the procedure for getting your ban lifted from 2008. Since it was a community ban from a discussion at ANI, the way to get the ban lifted is through a community un-ban discussion. If you would like to prepare a statement discussing why you think you are ready to have your ban lifted and how you propose to avoid the problematic behaviour that got you banned way back in 2008. Then someone can copy it over there for you and get a discussion underway. Just post here when you're ready and someone will copy it over for you. Good luck -- Dianna (talk) 05:39, 28 July 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion has now been moved to Administrators' noticeboard/Archive238. -- Dianna (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

A statement
You crafting a statement would be really helpful at this point in the discussion, basically requesting the ban be overturned, apologizing for past things, ect. I can copy it over to AN if you post it here on this page. Silver seren C 07:34, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi, I've already stated pretty much all I wanted at and I'd rather not start writing any kind of a tl;dr rant about it. Regarding past, I don't even quite remember what had happened 4 years ago and don't really want to recall (it was probably some embarrassing Internet drama that would make me roll my eyes about it nowadays). I don't have any emotional or other attachment to the old account, it's like an ancient history to me, and I'd rather rather talk about my current activity which is more relevant I think.


 * Also the truth is I actually wanted (want) to take some kind of a vacation from Wikipedia anyway, like to post an inactive tag here and log off, log in infrequently. I'm wasting way too much time, it's like an addiction; also, like Klimov once said about his films, I did pretty much everything that I wanted to, at this moment anyway. Minus the stuff that I didn't even want to touch, because it's just too much work. (And so the only thing I'd immediately do it would be to revert back a bunch of totally ridicalous reverts "identified as vandalism" by a "brony" who has retaliated this way for my removal of his non-notable My Little Pony crossover fanfiction story during my cleanup of the Fallout series article.) For example I realized that I almost don't even play video games anymore, I just write about them on Wikipedia, not to mention personal life and work. So I'm not even all that mad about it. --Niemti (talk) 23:09, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Unblocked
Per the discussion on WP:AN, and after talking to the original blocking admin., who approved the unblock, I have unblocked you. Please remember to abide by policies and guidelines, and best of luck in your wiki-future. — Ched : ?  08:55, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. --Niemti (talk) 09:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Jennifer Hale
Because I'm not convinced the convention is a reliable source. If Hale had listed that role in her list of credits it'd be one thing, but this looks like a case of "common knowledge" and if something does look unreliable, it's better to assume it is until something can verify it. And IMDB shouldn't be used to back up *anything*: they used to list a Final Fight cartoon as existing, complete with cast credits.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

You know what? I'll just ask her. --Niemti (talk) 21:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Teahouse talkback: you've got messages!
Hi Niemti. I have provided yet another response to your Teahouse post. It's a tool that I believe does just about exactly what you described in your post. Please see Teahouse/Questions. Cheers.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 22:53, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

ANI discussion
Hello. There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Darth Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 02:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have asked Sjones to stop responding to you on the ANI thread, and I would like to request that you stop responding to him. Both of you are being moderately abusive to each other right now and it is not helping calm the situation down.
 * Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 03:21, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

OK. Thanks. --Niemti (talk) 03:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Hey. Just really really try to chill out for awhile in terms of getting frustrated with people. Just keep reminding yourself that there will always be nonsense on Wikipedia and it is neither your job, nor in your power, to remove it all. When it starts getting weird (and yes, people will try to bait you), just walk away. You're too good of a contributor to get tripped up over some stupid teenage drama. Volunteer Marek 03:38, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Welcome back. Since you're kind of in the Wiki doghouse, best strategy is to totally ignore Sjones23 on AN & ANI and be excruciatingly polite in any interactions with anyone in article space. If you get dragged to back to drama board (WQA, AN, ANI), don't respond to the original poster but wait for third party editors to comment, and respond to them as appropriate. Nobody Ent 19:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Reply: Do you care about Darkstalkers characters?
Not really. I'm not even really a fan of Darkstalkers to begin with. The only one I've played is Darkstalkers Chronicle: The Chaos Tower.

And speaking of character articles, have you looked for any other reception for Jun Kazama? It seems that people want her split from the character list article. And do you know if Fighter's Generation would be considered a reliable source? I don't think it is. Kokoro20 (talk) 15:06, 1 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It's "an independent fan site with no direct affiliation to any particular company". --Niemti (talk) 20:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * He's also not a reliable source. The site is practically a blog.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to make you happy: Scientific theme
Hello, Niemti

Look, I am sorry for what happened back at Talk:Final Fantasy VII Advent Children. I did not mean to be pig, I just tried to play a devil's advocate but did not know you are not in the mood. So, allow me to give you a hint for the discussion: There is indeed a science fiction theme in the film.

The scientific aspect of the film, which is far beyond the conceived science of today, is Geostigma. Geostigma is caused by super-evolved microorganisms that once formed a super-collective whole called Jenova. So, yes, the film is indeed Science Fantasy.

Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:07, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * P.S. Sjones23 has closed the discussion. I'd revert him (because a reasonable amount of time should pass before concluding that the discussion has ended) but I am out of reverts for today. So, ... Best regards, Codename Lisa (talk) 00:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * It was really just bickering about nothing. (But no, you were no "pig".) --Niemti (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Turtleback tb hopiakuta    Thank You,   DonFphrnqTaub  Persina. 06:30, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

UFO: Enemy Unknown
What kind of assessment are you looking for (GA-Class or A-Class)? JDC808 (talk) 18:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure. --Niemti (talk) 18:48, 3 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, well since it's a B-Class, the next level is GA then A. The assessment page is the wrong place for GAN, instead, nominate it here - WP:GAN. Once it's become GA-Class, you can relist it at the assessment page for A-Class. JDC808 (talk) 18:56, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

God of War
Since you've helped out with Kratos, maybe you can help out with List of God of War characters. If not so much for the help, another opinion would be nice, most recently here and the overall article. JDC808 (talk) 06:26, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

De-bold the names? Rid of the red links. The "sympathetic antihero" thing again - most sources rather describe him as a total bastard (which he is, also literally). --Niemti (talk) 09:29, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay. As for the "sympathetic antihero", that wasn't my idea. Bluerim insisted it be there. JDC808 (talk) 17:23, 4 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Also (aside from the "sympathetic antihero"), what is your opinion on the lead? I'm more inclined to the Third Opinion compromise by SGCM with the couple of small tweaks I made, which Bluerim said "It [still] needed some tweaking". You can find the compromised version in the same section under "Response to third opinion request:" JDC808 (talk) 17:35, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Your edits
are unconstructive. and stop accusing people of things just because you keep adding spam to articles, and it gets removed. Street Kombat (talk) 15:17, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012
You have been blocked temporarily from editing for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Beeblebrox (talk) 15:43, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, Niemti! In which articles did you edit war? I did not see anything, and the blocking admin did not provide any links or diffs. Next time you should not report anything on WP:ANI and especially on WP:AN, even if you are right, but seek an advice from an individual administrator. Otherwise, any administrator who did not like the way you was recently unblocked, can block you again. It also might be a good idea to edit completely different subjects. Unfortunately, I will be out of town for a couple of weeks and will not be able to watch. Please take it easy, My very best wishes (talk) 18:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have seen you a few times recently giving very bad advice to other users. You do realize that you are asking this user to assume bad faith on my part? If you are going to make an accusation like that you best be prepared to support it with evidence. Niemti knows very well where they edit warred as they reported the other users they were edit warring with. I blocked them indefinitely as obvious socks, and Niemti for two days for edit warring. There's nothing unfair about that. If I was hell-bent on re-instating the previous block I would have just done so. The community has decided to give this user another chance and I respect that but it does not absolve them from blame in an edit war. Anyone who engages in an edit war is automatically wrong. Of course Niemti is free to appeal the block in the normal manner as they see fit. I would encourage them to ignore the bad-faith-assuming advice given by best wishes. Beeblebrox (talk) 20:16, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

I guess http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smoortsixe / http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Street_Kombat --Niemti (talk) 04:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I would advise Niemti not be involved in any discussions that make other users unhappy. Explain your content edits if asked. This is all. My very best wishes (talk) 13:58, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that was just a set of 2 socks specifically created by someone for the sole purpose of harrassing me (they served no other purpose) and yet I was somehow punished for making these throwaway socks (that got banned) "unhappy". That was STRANGE, but hey. --Niemti (talk) 14:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Ignore edits like this. Who cares? My very best wishes (talk) 14:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Next time when you are going to post anything of this nature on ANI, could you please seek an advice from someone prior to the posting? If you do not want to ask an administrator, please ask me. My very best wishes (talk) 14:41, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Sakura Legends.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Sakura Legends.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) 04:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)