User talk:Thedarxide/Archive 2

Personal attack

I would appreciate it if you would please review this edit: [[1]] from Puzzle Master. Especially the closing threat " I'll tell you this and I don't regret saying it ... I'd love to have 10 minutes with you in a dark alley! You'd never ruin my work again." thanksSmatprt (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

new sockpuppet?

I expect this is Puzzle Master's latest incarnation: [[2]]. sigh. Smatprt (talk) 16:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Attacked again

Hi again, It appears that the user you banned is back. See [[3]]. He returned and immediately attacked me again - this time with an unfounded accusation of sockpuppetry, of all things. Can you take action? Thanks. Smatprt (talk) 15:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:BURDEN

From WP:BURDEN; "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation."

This page, offers information on citing sources to verify your claims. Alastairward (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

The information has been challenged, "watch the episode" has never been a valid citation for any other episode, why this one? Alastairward (talk) 07:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really sure how to explain it other than to say, the fact tag was added, so it was challenged. That I replaced the fact tag reinforces that. The "because I said so" method of citation hasn't really worked on here for me, so please cite that instead of simply removing the tag and not even bothering to explain the edit. Alastairward (talk) 11:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Darth Vader

Hi Thedarxide. You reverted my mention of Prowse and Jones in the Introduction. I was moved to do that by the fact that Ian McDiarmid, Jake Lloyd, and Hayden Christensen are all mentioned in the Introduction already. It seems obvious to me that either Prowse and Jones should be added, or the other three should be removed. Which do you prefer? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:53, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Further thoughts: Firstly, the WP:LEAD summarizes the article's important points, so the fact that something is mentioned further down is not a reason to exclude it from the Intro. Secondly, Sebastian Shaw should also be mentioned in the Intro. Maybe separate all the portrayals (including Prowse, Jones, Shaw, Lloyd and Christensen, but deleting McDiarmid) into a separate paragraph in the Intro? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive Editing

Hello Thedarxide. BentonComp is a username that was created for my High School Composition class to use in a project wherein they will create or edit a wikipedia article. It will allow me to track the changes they make, and monitor the quality of their content. I have done my best to inform them of Wikipedia's guidelines and standards, but some may still use the system clumsily and this should account for the excessive nature of BentonComp's edits. If this is in violation of any Wikipedia guideline, please let me know. Once the students have made their contributions, I will review each one and do my best to bring it up to Wikipedia's standards. Any articles that do not meet that standard will be deleted.BentonComp (talk) 20:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Project Aces

In regards to identifying the specific development team within Namco that developed Ace Combat 6, the "Project Aces" designation appears in the game itself upon startup, within the end credits, on varied promotional materials and is cited by various industry sources. I'm including several inks below for your reference..

http://www.acecombat.jp/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucfuY5osM_E

http://games.ign.com/objects/943/943681.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMIm7uaIP7c —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.126.234 (talk) 07:52, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

xXx: State of the Union

I flagged it for cleanup primarily for stylistic reasons (maybe there's a different tag for copy-editing; if there is, my apologies).

As an example: Later, Gibbons poses as Stone's lawyer and makes a deal with him in prison. Stone, who had been in prison for assaulting Deckert, makes a daring escape. Stone is later told to recover a hard drive from the NSA bunker, while trying to escape Agent Kyle at the same time, and is rescued by Gibbons' assistant, Toby Lee Shavers. Some time later, Gibbons appears to be attacked in his home and killed, with Deckert covering up the plot. Afterwards, Stone meets up with Gibbons' contact Charlie to get information and go to her safe house, but is framed so that it will appear that he murdered 3-Star General Pettibone, whom Cobb and Charlie actually killed.

A couple of things: (1) unless they're referring to Kyle Steele as "Agent Kyle" in the movie (which makes little sense), he should be referred to as "Agent Steele" or "Kyle." (2) Similarly, in this paragraph, it sounds like Steele is one of the bad guys--yet he receives an award at the end of the movie, which suggests he might be one of the good guys. Which is it? (3) A lot of the sentences are awkwardly phrased. For example, I don't understand how the murder of Pettibone fits into the plot. When was he killed? Where is the murder discovered? What exactly is Charlie's role (e.g., good guy, bad guy, double agent), if she and Cobb killed this general?

Normally, this is the sort of thing I might take up on my own, but I haven't seen the movie, and so I can't figure out what the sentences should say in the first place. Samer (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Gladiators

Stop reverting the Description... Why can't it stay. It is used on the official website? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.110.88 (talk) 23:01, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Royal Latin School

I'm going off the DCSF website, but sounds a bit unlikely. (I presume you are a member of staff?) Maybe another FOI request... ninety:one 15:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Well I hope someone responds this time, but I'll give it a try. According to governornet, the Secretary of State has to designate it as such. There'll be something about it somewhere in there ;) ninety:one 15:21, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The school seems to have a habit of not replying to Freedom of Information Act requests... ninety:one 15:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sadly not. But if they do it a few more times then it's off to the Information Commissioner's Office. ninety:one 15:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)