User talk:RobJ1981/Archive 13

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

WikiProject Films December 2007 Newsletter

The December 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

RE:Frank West merge

Thanks for the head up. I'll keep an eye on things too. ♣ Klptyzm ^{Chat wit' me § Contributions} ♣ 23:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I remind you that coordinating attempts to preserve a favored version of an article, or your opinion in a disputed merge or other discussion, is known as a Tag Team, and is generally considered unacceptable behavior. DGG (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 23:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

sock case opened

The following discussion is an archived debate of the case of suspected sockpuppetry. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page. All edits should go to the talk page of this case. If you are seeing this page as a result of an attempt to open a new case of sockpuppetry of the same user, read this for detailed instructions.

User:RobJ1981

Suspected sockpuppeteer

RobJ1981 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Suspected sockpuppets

JB196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Eyrian (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Dannycali (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
JohnEMcClure (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)
Burntsauce (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log)

Report submission by

Jasdhf1981 (talk) 13:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Evidence

I'm a regular editor and need to avoid on-wikipedia harassment from possible socks or proxy editors. I hope that it is useful so taking this route so admins can see if this merits investigating/action. I've found this editor to be borderline attacking others, making accusations against users. I wish to remain anonymous and feel someone should pay attention to the case.

User:JB196 primary editing/deletions related to wrestling articles. RobJ1981 has parallel assumptions of bad faith and anti-"in popular culture" edits shared by suspected meat puppets and engages in numerous wrestling deletionism that seem to match JB196, in fact he has hundreds if not 1000s of wrestling related removals, deletions, AfD nominations and a interest in editor TJ Spike, whom JB196 also disagrees with (the first post is from JB196): [1]

It may be worth checking to see to what extent the known JB196 socks argued with TJ Spike; numerous RobJ1981 anti-TJ Spike edits.[2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], [25], [26].

RobJ1981 has continued doing so recently (notice also the rivalry with TJ Spike): [27], [28], [29], [30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52], [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71], [72], [73], [74], [75], [76], [77], [78], [79], [80], [81].

Notice that part of that dispute involves an editor named 3bulletproof26. Now, notice JB196 problems with the same editor: [108], [109].

Additional evidence of a JB196/RobJ1981 versus 3bulletproof16 over wrestling articles:

JB196 versus 3bulletproof16: [110], [111], [112], [113], [114], [115], [116], [117], [118], [119], [120], [121], [122], [123], [124], [125], [126], [127], [128], [129], [130], [131], [132], [133], [134], [135], [136], [137],

RobJ1981 versus 3bulletproof16: [138], [139], [140], [141], [142],

Notice as well the harassing accusations andANI similar to Dannycali (recently blocked as a JB196 sock puppet after checkuser), Eyrian (who admitted using the alternate account named JohnEMcClure to "test limits"), and RobJ1981 (who has strikingly similar edits and accusations as JB196, Eyrian, Dannycali, and JohnEMcClure). The above are sample of their (JB196 and RobJ1981's) edits on 3bulletproof16's talk page. There's, again, even more to this dispute in the similar dispute of JB196 and RobJ1981 with TJ Spike in reverting and ANI threads elsewhere. It may be worth seeing if any of the other determined or suspected socks or meats or proxies have also engaged in conflict with 3bulletproof16 and TJ Spike that strengthen the likelihood of a connection, or disruptive relationship.

So, JB196, an editor mostly interested in wrestling articles, has his main dispute toward the end of his editing life is with 2bulletproof16 (someone suspected as being a TJ Spike sock). RobJ1981â€™s main dispute in his edit history is also with TJ Spike/3bulletproof16. Moreover, JB196 finished editing in 2006 around the same summer that RobJ181 started.

Part of what led to JB196 troubles (as well as those confirmed alternate accounts) involved incivility, personal attacks, etc. again, consider the following warnings to RobJ1981 and disputes: [143], [144], [145], [146], [147], [148], [149], [150], [151], [152], [153], [154], [155], [156], [157], [158], [159], [160], [161], [162], [163], [164], [165], [166], [167], [168], [169], [170], [171], [172], [173], (notice that JB196 and RobJ1981 had problems with TJ Spike and the one to protect TJ Spike talk page is Alkivar),

[174], [175], [176], [177], [178], [179], [180], [181], [182],

RobJ1981 is also edit warring/conflict with other users: [183], [184], [185], [186], [187], [188], [189], [190], [191], [192], [193].

So:
1) RobJ1981 has had issues with 3bulletproof16, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles and TJ Spike, just as JB196 did;
2) Dannycali, who has accused users of stalking, was recently blocked as a JB196 sock or meat after a check user and RobJ1981 has offered similar accusations against the same editors that Dannycali did;
3) RobJ1981 has a history of persistent and determined claims of harassment against editors, even if told to let it drop. And RobJ1981 even disagreed to an offer at mediation in one of the disputes. Notice JzGâ comment to RobJ1981 compelling: "Having proven beyond reasonable doubt that they are separate accounts, creating a second sockpuppetry case against them looks a lot like harassment. I have deleted it. Do not pursue that line again." His aggressiveness towards others even after well-established admins told him otherwise.

Also, RobJ1981 has AFD articles that Eyrian originally nominated: Eyrian:[194], RobJ1981:[195]

Comments

Similar opinions doesn't always mean it's the same person. I think you are just trying to cause trouble, which is bad faith and unnecessary. You claim you are a regular editor, yet your account only has edits on today's date. So to make this clear: you make a new name, just to accuse others of being sockpuppets? That's a bit hypocritical. Have them do a check user on me, it will prove I'm innocent and you are just assuming bad faith/causing trouble. Also I want to point out, all those links aren't even relevant. I didn't have time to go through them all, but here's some examples to explain my edits. 28: I removed the wrong year category, as it's the original release year that is the only category listed for video games (the video game project has mentioned this many times on their talk page when the issue has been brought up). I also added a relevant category for the game console it's for. 29: I removed cruft from the article. The heights and so on aren't useful for the encyclopedia. Check any other wrestling game article, all that information is never listed. 67: I removed a dead link from the article. 74: this was a matter of category cleanup, and removing a wrong template. Many of those articles listed I wasn't even reverting TJ, so the heading of "notice also the rivalry with TJ Spyke" doesn't exist in every edit. It's wrong to just group all those together, when many don't even involve him. In my view, this user is just trying to find anything I removed from wrestling articles. It's called cleaning up the article. I don't have a grudge against wrestling articles. You might as well throw in all my other edits into this, and claim I have something against all subjects I edited, because I've removed things from those as well. Give me a break, this claim is just stupid and full of nonsense. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:09, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I've commented at AN/I. Some of the diffs do seem to be the wrong edit , and I dont think the departed Eyrian has anything to do with this. The general pattern does seem to raise some concern./ I unfortunately am not able now to properly look through all the evidence, DGG (talk) 19:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Conclusions

I don't need all these diff to solve this. Note the submitter's name pattern on a keyboard. This SSP case is also his one and only edit. Note the last four accounts are indef blocked already, and JB196 hasn't edited since 2006. RobJ1981 seems a constructive editor. The submitter is obviously a sock of someone trying to get at RobJ1981. I've blocked the submitter indef. What I don't know of whom the submitter is a sock but a CU would tell us. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Re

Just to let you know that I believe the user that has reported you is a sockpuppet of someone, and as a result, I have taken this to the Incidents noticeboard. Feel free to comment there. D.M.N. (talk) 17:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Haha, you're silly.

Sorry, but that really amuses me. "Please go away. You're not helping here". As I have said before; I'm not abusing anyone; I'll shout it: NOT abusing anyone. TTN isn't helping the article to heal from its surgery. He either doesn't know how to help a threatened article, or he doesn't care enough to do it, or for whatever reason, he has qualms against articles improving. But thousands of others disagree, for a mixture of fan-based and encyclopedially-interested reasons. Who am I going to side with? How am I going to stop him from causing another edit war? How would you stop him, then? Compared with what I would much rather have said - not just because we've had edges before; I'd be like this with any editor in opposition with me - that was as civil as I - or anyone - could ever be. But again, how would you have asked him to go somewhere else on the site? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 07:55, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Subpage question

According to Wikipedia:User page#Copies of other pages, "Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." If the page hasn't been touched in a long time, I usually ask the user for permission to delete. Typically, the user has forgotten about the page and doesn't have a problem with deletion. If the user refuses after being pointed to the above linked guideline, you can take it to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. Pagra shtak 22:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

???

personaly i have no idea on what you are talking about but i do have it to save my pass and name on this computer other people have probably used it on this computer when i was not there i will fix problem if it continues its not my fault —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirrorofsauron (talk • contribs) 15:52, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

p.s.

also my discussion page just keeps me up to date on the latest jokes and music etc im not allowed to have a my space and for one thing my page is just my personal thing cause lots of friends like kupkake are from my school just friends i know and love —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirrorofsauron (talk • contribs) 15:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

german to english

SIE SAUGEN HURE —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirrorofsauron (talk • contribs) 16:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: MfD

Hi Rob. Concerning your comment on my talk page, I tried that, but the template won’t expand, therefore it doesn’t show up in the speedy deletion category and will never be noticed. Thanks anyway —Travis ^talk 20:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

VG lists

This [196] is never going to stop until we format all other Video Game articles. I am willing to assist you in doing this but it needs to be done as soon as possible if we want to prevent more lists from cluttering up articles. When do you think we should start? -- bulletproof ^3:16 23:33, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Let me just finish making a few other edits and I'll be ready. -- bulletproof ^3:16 23:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I agree with you. However, even in an article of game with a limited roster, I believe a list can be condensed into a paragraph. -- bulletproof ^3:16 00:04, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on "in game arena" lists?-- bulletproof ^3:16 00:07, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. BTW, could you confirm that this IP's contribs are deliberate factual errors. I'm about to report this to Intervention Against Vandalism. -- bulletproof ^3:16 00:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

List of places in The Chronicles of Narnia

Yeah, you're right. I should have explained why I removed the prod tag. I felt it should be a fairly uncontroversial keep, as it easily meets WP:FICTION. There's even a Category:Fictional locations by series. Still, your comment caused me to reread WP:PROD, and it does recommend an explanation. Ah well. Cheers, Feezo (Talk) 02:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

RE:german

because thats what i think about you oh and you like marvel comics i do too i have 1st edition issue one of ghost rider and the invincible iron man in oroginal packaging —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirrorofsauron (talk • contribs) 15:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand why i've been warned?

Hello, yesterday I edited a wiki page on WWE SMACKDOWN VS RAW 2008.

I edited it with information that is widely regarded as correct and you claim that I am a vandal? I dont exactly know where you get off on such misinformed name calling but, in future, you should seriously consider your actions before you go pointing the finger of blame. Everything that I typed on that page is widely regarded as factual and I believe that banning me from editing would be an unfair punishment.

Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beastmix (talk • contribs) 10:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Beastmix, where do YOU get off saying adding terms like "Mouldy" and "Buff" are 'facts'? Rob was correct in saying it was vandalism. Now you owe him an apology. ArcAngel (talk) 21:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, the 'mouldy' comment was MAYBE slightly personal. I'll apologise for that. However the 'buff' remark I will not issue an apology for. Buff is a positive word, not negitive. As for the 'facts', it is of popular belief that WWE Smackdown vs. RAW 2008 is the worst game in the series. Maybe even one of the worst games ever. If people want to check on Smackdown Vs. Raw 208 in future(to see if it was any good) they are going to see your 'unbiased' view, buy the game, and be disappointed. How's that for constructive? I'm sorry, but I will not issue an apology for this either. I'm trying to be constructive here but I feel that i'm being unfairly targeted. From now on I will not publish my own opinions, only factual notes with references. ~Beastmix~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Beastmix (talk • contribs) 16:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

But see, adding "positive words" is POV according to WP:POV, that's why articles remain "unbiased".ArcAngel (talk) 17:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No thanks

Often I don't feel like doing so. I long ago gave up hope of reasoning with deletionists, so I tend to limit myself to simply registering my opinion in a brief manner. To do otherwise will lead to futile and often extended arguments about the nature of Wikipedia between people with diametrically opposed perspectives, as I have found through long experience. Everyking (talk) 21:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You insult me by pretending that I do not believe deletion debates are necessary. I have no interest in discussing these matters with you. Everyking (talk) 06:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate....

...the suggestion. I do make edits here and there though and I have made over 8,000 edits to Wikipedia that are not to my own page. I do not want to offend your opinion or you, but I will continue with my personal pleasures on my own page, as well as editing to other articles periodically. Clay4president2 (talk) 23:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Yesterday I restarted my goal to clean up the date pages. I haven't edited that "game" (in your words) in 3 days and I was intending to edit some more right this minute. So, you might reconsider. Clay4president2 (talk) 00:02, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I am going to try to move it, but it may take a while. I will try moving to this forum I know of first, and if that doesn't work I will try a bravehost site. No hard feelings. :) Clay4president2 (talk) 00:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: The Pit Bulls

Exactly. It is the same concept as Eugene and Regal, Cena and Michaels, Wang Yang and Moore, Big Show and Kane, and others. iMatthew 00:23, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree also with Idols and Stevens. I'll bring it up on WT:PW iMatthew 00:24, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

do you feel like nominating the Pit Bulls for AfD today? iMatthew 12:28, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

VC

I wasn't trying to be rude, but rather simply trying to make a point. If you think I'm overly obsessive, you're more than entitled to think so. That doesn't mean you have to call me obsessive. Would you rather I gave up this obsession and left the maintenance of the article in your hands? --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. --Cheesemeister3k (talk) 18:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

for the support. It means a lot with users like Lifestroke420 out there in Wikiland. ArcAngel (talk) 19:31, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

SSP

See outcome here: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/RobJ1981 — Rlevse • Talk • 10:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Reply

I'll keep my eye on it. Might want to inform Nikki311 of the situation as well. -- bulletproof ^3:16 06:02, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Colin Delaney

His page thus far has been exactly a week-to-week recap of his WWE career. EXCUSE ME if I was adding to what was already there. Dahumorist (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, I was only adding the Khali loss because Delaney's article WAS ALREADY going on a week-by-week recap. I, frankly don't care either way. I just was keeping it up-to-date. And the only reason I posted with an IP address was because I'm at work and didn't realize I hadn't logged in yet. Dahumorist (talk) 18:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Although the edits are against WP:PW guidlines, they are in no way vandalism as you stated in your edit summary here. It's only the truth they are writing in the article, they are in no way, shape, or form vandalising the article. You could easily put inthe edit summary "Removing week-by-week events as they are against WP:PW". I think accusing them of vandalism is a tad uncivil. D.M.N. (talk) 19:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Gex enemies

I noticed that you put up an {{unsourced}} template on this article. Can I ask why? That article is just listing and describing the enemies, there really isn't anything TO cite. -- Alpha Prime^Talk||Edits 17:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Bully (video game)

Port or not, the separate infobox for Bully: Scholarship Edition contains information specific to that version. Combining two infoboxes into one would mislead readers in believing that the two games are completely identical (unlike Resident Evil 4 which is designed to provide the same experience across all platforms). Besides, a number of ports have their own separate *articles* let alone an infobox within the parent article. Sillygostly (talk) 00:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

MUA-related

If the "Seen briefly in cutscenes" characters are off that game's page, how come they have a similar character thing under the X-Men Legends game? Rtkat3 (talk) 7:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

January 28th

Rob, although I agree that the conversation in the Virtual Console talk page had started to go off-topic, that is no reason to delete an entire section, especially considering there was legitimate information contained in the topic relevant to the article; please exhibit more prudent judgment in the future when trimming off-topic information, as it could be otherwise construed as vandalism. PeanutCheeseBar (talk) 15:08, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Give it a rest, Rob. You're not being very 'civil' (your favorite word, Commander) by continually making a pest of yourself over a user-talk edit. --LN3000 (talk) 18:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

re User talk:Lamename3000

Editors are permitted to remove content from their talkpages, without archiving if they wish. There is no requirement to add it back, as removing it indicates that the recipient has read the content. The use of uncivil edit summaries is not permitted, and I have notified Lamename3000 accordingly. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:SmackDown! vs RAW 2008

I didn't propose the idea, someone else did and they brought it to my attention so I insisted using a table, but then a columnized list would be better. Wikipedia is suppose to be neat, and articles should read neatly. Come on now listing the roster in paragraph form is not that neat and may be confusing. In every paragraph there is a character listed that says that they are not on the DS version, now with the list, it is simple and to the point. You list on what brand they are on and then you put a simple note saying on what system they are available on.--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 21:00, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi RobJ. In regard to the discussion on Talk:WWE SmackDown vs. Raw 2008, it appears to have died down. So now might be a good time start switching the character list to prose. I still have the page on my watchlist and will keep it on for a while, so if things heat up again I'll help out. Worse comes to worse, post on the VG Project talk page again. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 16:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC))

WikiProject Films January 2008 Newsletter

The January 2008 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have any suggestions for improvement or desire other topics to be covered, please leave a message on the talk page of one of the editors.Thank you. Nehrams2020 (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Kaiser

I did notice that he made a rude comment and then blanked his talk page. I don't particularly care for being called a Nazi, especially since my mother is Jewish. I'm going to block him for incivilty and to prevent future personal attacks. Per WP:PA#Consequences of personal attacks, we might need some arbitration. He seems to have a problem with admins and doesn't seem likely to start being civil. I think he wants to be banned anyway, so we might be doing him a favor. Nikki311 00:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Jeff Dahl/sandbox/Priestly

In !voting keep a moment ago, I noted that even I, an inveterate process addict, "would prefer that we be clueful [with respect to deleting a page that appears to have some constructive use even as it may be understood by some as inconsistent with the "private copies" language of WP:UP]". It occurs to me that I might be understood as intimating that your nomination is sans clue, and as someone who absolutely hates the presumptuous wielding of WP:CLUE that has occasion to occur with some frequency, I imagine I should observe that I meant the term generally, in reference to that which I believe ought to be our practice writ large (there have been a few MfDs that resulted in the deletion of subpages belonging to users who were [at least apparently] acting in good faith, and we have, IMHO, sometimes been to eager to delete user subpages in which article construction has been essayed, albeit, I concede, almost always when that construction appears to have been stopped); apologies, to be sure, for whatever may permit a contrary interpretation. Cheers, Joe 23:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

re Talk:List_of_Virtual_Console_games_(North_America)#February_11

Thanks for your message. From what I read it will only be a couple of days before TJ's announcement is proven correct or not. Providing there isn't too much chat produced it may be best to let things slide. If the chatting generally starts up again, following this or later, then let me know and I will drop a few gentle warnings on the editors talkpages. Editing WP is supposed to be fun, and we can't demand that there is no diversion from strictly talking about the article as opposed to the subject, but it musn't be allowed to become disruptive. I don't think it is disruptive yet but when it does, or if you disagree, let me know and I'll look over it again. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:30, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I would still counsel not doing anything until 12 February. If nothing happens per TJ's prediction then it would be legit to request TJ not to speculate. If they were right... well, that makes things more difficult.

As for the ip's, it would be difficult to prove that they are using TJ's comments or whether they are getting the info from the same source as TJ. In any event just treat it like common goodfaith bad edits - remove it as being unsourced. The problem with open access encyclopedia's is that no article is ever going to be perfect at all times, it sort of goes with the territory. You can only try and clamp down on matters when it gets excessive. Currently it is manageable, IMO. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

SD vs RAW Rosters

What you did to them makes them look horrible! It doesn't even tell you what superstars are in the game. Next time you edit a roster try not to fuck it up okay? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Welshy1791 (talk • contribs)

SD vs RAW

I saw your edit to the roster section. While I agree that the list is not necessary, but u labeled it as vandalism. The list is not vandalism, if an admin saw that, you would be warned for non good faith edits. Just a lil heads up. Now the prose that you have included is messy, it is not neat nor organized nor a presentable prose. Consider revising...--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 20:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Rob, since your the only one who wants it as prose, and insist on reverting EVERYONE who thinks otherwise...why not work on it instead on worrying about who is reverting it. The way it looks now is pathetic. And by the way, why don't you be civil in your edit summaries instead of telling everyone "to go somewhere else". Considering you are the vast minority and teetering on being disruptive when it comes to this article, you might want to think twice about your attitude. It's your article now that everyone is sick of dealing with you, you get to fix it. As of right now, your edit has done more damage than good, much like every other list you turned to prose. And by the way your game guide reasoning is highly flawed. If you think anyone is falling for that, you are sorely mistaken.

Disruptive editing. The first bullet perfectly describes your behavior here. "continues editing an article or group of articles in pursuit of a certain point for an extended time despite opposition from one or more other editors".

Tendentious editing. On Wikipedia, the term also carries the connotation of repetitive attempts to insert or delete content which is resisted by multiple other editors. A single edit is unlikely to be a problem, but a pattern of edits displaying a bias is more likely to be an issue, and repeated biased edits to a single article or group of articles will be very unwelcome indeed. This last behaviour is generally characterised as POV pushing and is a common cause of blocking. It is usually an indication of strong opinions.

Don't even get me started on Forum Shopping. Angrymansr (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I beg you, please point me to the line in any of those two policies that even closely resembles anything that would forbid the listing of characters in a game, and explain how you intepret it to apply here. It's your agenda pushing this fight, not the policy. I have read the policies many times, and the reasoning you and guy have given in relation to the policies has a hole so large that you can drive a mack truck through it. 13:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angrymansr (talk • contribs)

Happy Valentine's Day!

A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Spore Creatures

Spore and Spore Creatures is a delicate matter. EA insists on lumping them together despite DS and mobile being different styles of games. Let's just keep it like this til the time comes when there's enough info to make Spore Creatures its own article, as well as Spore (mobile). Maybe sooner than later, but this needs to be approached carefully. JAF1970 (talk) 01:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment

"Slapnuts" isn't even a real word, it was made up by Jeff Jarrett (and doesn't have 1 meaning). I didn't see how anyone would be offended by me calling fake info bullshit when it is, maybe I will just go back to saying BS instead (means the same thing but people don't seem to be offended by that). I don't think I did anything offenseive last night, but thank you for contacting me about your concerns. TJ Spyke 00:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Comment

In case you aren't aware, I replied to your ridiculous comment on my talk page. c[197] ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you check back on the talk page for an update? ~NeonFire372~ (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Comment on SvR

I did not directly swear at you, I did not directly say F Rob, I was swearing in general terms as in F the voting, I meant forget about the voting. Cool?--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 20:47, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, I am not the one that is putting the list in the article, I just made it. But protecting it is good, see my other comments on the talk page for my proposal to solve this..--TrU Co ⁹31¹ 21:17, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Vicious & Delicious

I removed the PROD that you placed on the article because I could not find any justification at the time for that. The initial post on my user page did not actually link to the deletion debate, so I didn't know it existed. It said to 'see the discussion on the talk page', and seeing that there wasn't one, I decided I would just delete the tag. When I did that, another bot posted to my page linking me to the deletion debate, and so I've justified my actions there. I apologize for any misunderstandings. McJeff (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Orphan tags

Shall I post orphan tags on all non-licensed, original Xbox Live Arcade games? They have "few links", too. Oh, and Fable 2 and Xbox Live Arcade are "so-called" major articles? (chuckle) JAF1970 (talk) 20:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)