User talk:Duhman0009

It was NOT personal opinion, the video was GENUINELY NONSENSE. Plus the advertising in the video is OBVIOUS (which isnt allowed on wikipedia anyway).

--Purpleone 18:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the Talk:Computer vision syndrome page and follow up with some genuine refs if you want to help, instead of adding questionable EL to a one guy's view. Dicklyon 16:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody seemed to have a problem with the paragraph as it was in

Keep in mind that I'm not the one who wrote all that; the info was on the Mother Brain page long before I copied it over. I just copied it because it was better worded about the whole situation.

That said, I believe the e-manga makes it pretty clear that Mother Brain was originally a Chozo creation, though the timeline is open for debate. The other sources, I'm assuming, would be various game intros and manuals, but I really don't recall any blatant disagreement offhand (to be fair, it's been forever since I read most of the manuals). If you disagree with all this, feel free to bring it up on Mother Brain's

talk page, as I'm sure people would agree that it needs to be changed with legit arguments. Arrowned 19:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Why the heck are you accussing me of fanboyism? You should read WP:Civility before editing yourself. I didn't removed the sentence because of fanboyism, but rather because during editing, I cut the sentence and forgot to paste it again. Besides, I actually consider the fact that it doesn't have any touch screen nonsense to be a plus. And I do acknowledge other negative points of the game such as the changed continuity, the fact that the two new main characters don't add anything, lack of 2-Player mode in Classic Contra and the "Gryzor" mistake in Museum mode. Jonny2x4 (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"I added back the criticism of this game that you removed. Do not remove it again, fanboyism will not be tolerated."

I don't quite understand? First off, I've never even played the game before in my life or know anyone who has it either. It's not very nice or polite to accuse strangers of fanboyism. Or fangirlism in any case.

Secondly, I'm sure I removed it because it looked unprofessional. Here it is again:

This game makes no usage of any of the Nintendo DS' unique features (touch screen, Wi-Fi, microphone) other than using the top screen to show dialog and the dungeon floor map.

1) "This game" - Saying "this game" instead of "the game" or "Izuna: Legend of the Unemployed Ninja" sounds really, really horrid. I mean, it sounds almost as if some pissed off person got frustrated with the game and just wrote it out of anger.

2) Nintendo DS' unique features - Again, this is insult to injury. I'm talking about the "unique" part.

3) "other than using the top screen to show dialog and the dungeon floor map." - Since when was having one screen showing a map and the other screen showing dialogue (yes, it's spelled dialogue unless this was a typo) unique? As far as I know, countless countless countless games have that. Examples: Super Mario 64, Metroid Prime, LostMagic, etc.

And last but not least...

Why is this in the -Gameplay- section? You said "I added back the criticism". If it is critism, what is it doing in the gameplay section in the first place? Shouldn't it be in the reception? What do you think? Aileza (talk) 09:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, also can I have your permission to rewrite it and put it in the reception section then? It's not as if you're an administrator or anything, but if it's okay with you. Aileza (talk) 09:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All done..thank you! Aileza (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't want your contributions deleted then don't add useless unsourced trivia to WP. Pretty simple. Deiz talk 10:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia by readding unsourced trivia after removal according to

WP:V, an official policy, and continue being rude into the bargain, you will be blocked. Deiz talk 09:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

24hr block for continued disregard of policy (

WP:V) plus incivility. Please ensure your contributions are sourced, please do not take exception to having to follow the rules, and please do not "dare" administrators to block you. Because they will. Deiz talk 06:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

You have my sympathy, Duhman0009. I find there is a lot of bullying by admins around here. Linkboyz (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I hope I can bring justice to this case. I won't bother banning other proxy servers since it was only 24 hours, but first thing tomorrow, I'll have a lot of things to post regarding this, everything is already written, ready to be pasted. Duhman0009 (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, there is no big conspiracy to keep out a reference to Rush Hour 2 from the 7-11 article. It was an ordinary

"conspiracy to keep out a reference to Rush Hour 2 from the 7-11 article" - I don't think I'm the only one who finds that that sounds quite silly. If by "challenge his authority" you mean taunt him to block you then yes, you did. You may wish to see

this essay. It isn't specifically about situations like this, but it still applies. Just becasue he did not remove the entire section does not mean that he has some sort of anti-Rush Hour POV. Are you suggesting that you would not have reverted if he did remove the entire section? If so, why did you not take the high road and remove the entire section yourself? You made an edit, he reverted, you reverted, he reverted, etc. That is the definition of an edit war. Admins have no special authority over the content of articles, its a user access level with additional tools. Except for the blocking, which has been decided was inappropriate, everything he did was as an editor, not an admin. Mr.Z-man 04:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

You are more than welcome to pursue

civil (comment on edits, not editors), and be open to compromise. Mr.Z-man 05:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

The article history, to any outside observer, is evidence of an ordinary content dispute, which is why your last post to

WP:AN was closed - content disputes don't need admin intervention, just discussion. If you added multiple things and he only removed one, that could be evidence, but what happened is more like a cop not pulling over everyone who is speeding. Any user can enforce the rules. If you get reverted, then you discuss. You may wish to read Wikipedia:Administrators - admins have no special authority in content matters. Mr.Z-man 06:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

here and here.Master Bigode (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, after following your thread, I just wanted to suggest you read this: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. As you will see, it does not preclude sources that are not on the web. In fact, you'll find over time that most peer-reviewed, scholarly material (the best reliable source) is not freely available on the web. For instance, most peer-reviewed scientific articles supply free abstracts online, but one must pay for the detailed material. When it comes to topics have historical details, often there is no online details, but books are the source etc. etc.

In Wikipedia, editors usually assume good faith so that citations are not necessarily challenged even if they are not linkable. That said, an editor who provide said citations should be able to respond to a good faith query. This is why I took a little effort to scan some documents. I was never asked for evidence, but I had it handy just in case. That was probably overkill for Wikipedia, but I'm that kind of a writer. Mattnad (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh it's 3 now, well I guess I'll need to ask more friends to help me out here. Also, I hope you warned the others or I might have to shout favoritism. Duhman0009 (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are the only one who has indeed violated the

3RR. Do not revert anymore, or you probably will be blocked. Please discuss disputed information with the involved user(s). - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:25, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Gee, I'm so sorry to announce that you're a little late for your "Wiki Power Trip Ego", I found a solution hours ago and it seems that people are pleased since no one touched it. Duhman0009 (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you don't realize that you could have been blocked already. I thought I'd be nice and give you one more chance to stop. - Rjd0060 (talk) 19:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ya, you're doing this to help me and not to add another trophy on your personal Wiki page (roll eyes) Duhman0009 (talk) 19:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it would be better if you focused on making your case on substance, rather than

Dancter (talk) 19:36, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Like I told your friend above, I already fixed the problem hours ago. Also, I don't believe that people do jump on band wagons for shits & giggles, there's always an alignment somewhere, the only difference is that I'm the only one with the balls to come out and say it. Duhman0009 (talk) 19:43, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, calm down there. "Don't be a douche, it's a remake or a port, but it's Chrono Trigger. We beat you to it, now accept your defeat."? Wikipedia isn't a place where editors battle it out. There is no "defeat". Please watch your wording in the future. Thanks! --Eruhildo (talk) 05:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bite me

Duhman0009 (talk) 11:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current