User talk:Terminegen

WWE is reliable to cite what happens in kayfabe. But the real reasons for injuries, even if they are well-known, need a reliable third party source. WrestleScoop is not among them. That being said, there's nothing wrong with citing WWE itself for what happens within their own storylines. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 01:18, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

My point is that BOTH should be cited. One to explain that kayfabe explanation and one for the legit explanation. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 16:29, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

We have no option other than to leave the legit reason unsourced or not there until a reliable source presents itself. If you have a source from SLAM, WON, PWTorch or WrestleView, please add it. All of those "dirtsheet" sites pass both WP:RS and WP:V. A list of reliable sources for wrestling can be found here. Despite the fact that WrestleScoop has their facts straight, it can't be used, since it doesn't pass WP:RS and WP:V. Gavyn Sykes (talk) 18:54, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 18:33, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Contra Series

"His" is grammatically correct, since it's the default pronoun to use when a person's gender is unknown or ambiguous. "Their" is usually used in a plural sense, while "his or her" is too cumbersome to use. We're talking about an game series starring action film-inspired protagonists anyway (the occasional token women don't count that much). As for Contra stuff, I'm actually working to open a website, but its going to take awhile since most of the files I was working on are contained in the hard drive of a dead computer. I'll post contact info when I eventually the site. Jonny2x4 (talk) 05:24, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't have an active account in the Castlevania Dungeon forum right now, but I'll make one sometime during the week. Jonny2x4 (talk) 03:56, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

I've already did. Jonny2x4 (talk) 04:58, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

LCD Contra patents

Nope, but I found the patents, which is not exactly what you're looking for, but is more interesting in my opinion. It's ridiculously detailed (to the point that it describes how the player's inputs are translated by the game's programming). Jonny2x4 (talk) 04:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Please see WP:NPA which contains the obvious advice that editors are not permitted to attack other editors. Please stick to discussing actionable proposals regarding article content because campaigning against editors will result in blocks. Johnuniq (talk) 06:11, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on User talk:Johnuniq. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. NeilN ^{talk to me} 15:45, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at User talk:NeilN. Comment on content, not on fellow editors. NeilN ^{talk to me} 17:23, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 3 days for attempting to harass other users. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 17:36, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

WP:3O

Thank you for listing your dispute at Wikipedia:Third opinion. Your request did not follow the guidelines for listing disputes. These guidelines are in place because they make sure that the editor who writes the Third Opinion is not biased, and that (s)he can easily see what the dispute is about.

The description of the dispute should be concise and neutral, and you should sign with the timestamp only. A concise and neutral description means that only the subject matter of the dispute should be described, and not your (nor anyone else's) views on it. For example, in a dispute about reliable sources, do not write "He thinks this source is unreliable", but rather write "Dispute about the reliability of a source". To sign with only the timestamp, and without your username, use five tildes (~~~~~) instead of four.

Your request for a Third Opinion may have been edited by another editor to follow the guidelines - feel free to edit it again if necessary. If the dispute is of such a nature that it cannot follow the guidelines, another part of the dispute resolution process may be able to help you. For example, Wikipedia:Wikiquette alerts is a good place to alert others to a particular editor's behaviour. Thank you for opting to use the dispute resolution process.
A proper discussion of appropriate length must take place between two parties on the talk page of the article, before a third opinion can be given.
—Godsy^(TALK_CONT) 02:29, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

If you think you were anonymous you're wrong

Now I know that you are 70.51.38.110, and that you have already spammed too many insults (on my talk page), that were scrupulously deleted. You thought you were anymous, but this time you forget ot disconnect before trying to post your junk. Your attempt to delete it immediately still makes your account visible and linked now. And the history of your account here is clear. You are the same person, and you continue your abuses here. verdy_p (talk) 10:25, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Even the Admin notice board has noticed (even before me) that you attempted to continue you attacks. They also know you are the same person, you are complaining to them even when I do absolutely nothing, but they are seeing that you attack other persons as well, you are monitored even if I did not signal anything new (in fact you signaled yourself to them by issuing a bad comment agasint me. verdy_p (talk) 10:39, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

May 2015

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for attempting to harass other users. 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 first reading the guide to appealing blocks, then adding the following text below this notice: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}.  Yunshui ^雲_水 14:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

Re: Contra Adventure RFC

I'll post this reply both here and on your IP page, since you're blocked.

You said it yourself - your complaints are being ignored because you're being hostile and engaging in edit warring. You clearly recognize that your behavior is disruptive. Be civil, and people will listen to your complaints. I stand by my assertion that your behavior and the RFC itself are both inappropriate. Using an RFC to air the dirty laundry of an edit war in the hopes that someone will chastise the other user is completely contrary to the purpose of the system. To be frank, your hostile behavior is doing much more to damage the reputation and community of this site than the apparently incorrect, but relatively minor, changes the other editor is making. It sounds like the admins have their priorities straight.

Before you make any more edits, I very highly suggest you read the material available on Wikipedia etiquette and proper interactions with other users. Once you show that your behavior is proper for this community, it's very likely that your complaints about other users' behavior will be taken more seriously.

First and foremost, make sure that you Assume Good Faith of other editors. Also see WP:Etiquette, WP:WAR, WP:NEWBIES, WP:TALK, and WP:DDE. Arathald (talk) 06:37, 24 May 2015 (UTC)