User talk:Hbdragon88

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our

Concerns on FAC page have been addressed. David Fuchs ^(talk) 17:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I seem to have confused him with Cory Doctorow there somehow. --AVRS (talk) 14:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad to tell you that

Congratulation and welcome to adminship. As there are at least hundreds but possibly thousands of untagged images here, I am going after untagged images here with Untagged Images Tool. Whether you are going after untagged images or not, I hereby introduce you

User_talk:Howcheng/quickimgdelete.js#Installation to User:Jusjih/monobook.js, my subpage. Please feel free to ask me if you have questions about adminship while I administer 10 Wiki sites with a lot of experience.--Jusjih 04:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Congratulations! You will do good work. Tread lightly as you lead the way. Splash - tk 23:45, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

got a problem with ya, you deleited my band page the warriors of death, put it bak if you don't mind---Gangsta w----

I went and checked, and the book is self-published, which doesn't confer any notability, which leaves only the unverifiable claim of being a top-ten model. But you're quite right, this isn't precisely covered by the guidelines, so I'll take this to AfD for more opinions than mine. Thanks for bringing me into line on this, it deserves to be considered according to the rules. Accounting4Taste:talk 03:19, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You declined this speedy, stating that A7 doesn't apply to....But I didn't propose it under A7. --Brewcrewer 06:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a hard time understanding your response on my talkpage. It's not your fault, I'm not around for that long to be fluent in "Wikipedia language." But let me rephrase my question, and then maybe your response to the question will be more understandable to me. The way I understand the "no-criteria" template ({{|db|reason}})it that it's "common sense" template. And one just gives a reason and for the common sense speedy deletion of the article. It, therefore, seemed incorrect to me to deny the speedy becasue it does not comply with one of the other templates. All the best, --Brewcrewer 15:51, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me ask you a simple question, what is the purpose of {{|db|reason}}? When is one supposed to use that template?

You've delated my note about Dariusz Doliński, because it is "Biography that does not assert notability". But acually I think it does! He is the most known polish psychologist, especially in the foreign countries. So please, put back my note!

Nope, that seemed to have accomplished what was needed. Thank you.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 04:37, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm trying to move

Darla (Buffyverse) to "Angel (Buffy the Vampire Slayer)", etc. However, it's not working and Bignole advised me to ask you for help? Thanks.  Paul  730 21:07, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I actually use the term Buffyverse quite a lot myself, but Bignole convinced me it was innappropiate for an encyclopedia. I can't see any difference to the Darla article, but I wasn't overly familar with it. Anyway, thanks a lot for doing that. There might be some more articles I missed, so I might call on you again if that's okay? :)  Paul  730 23:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I totally agree with you. The Buffyverse articles are not very good, and I'm in the process of cleaning them up. The Places articles are just a bit further down my priority list. They do deserve to be on the Sunnydale article, I'm surprised the library even has any OOU info. Yeah, a "Sunnydale" article with info regarding the sets and the metaphors of the location might make a decent little article actually.  Paul  730 10:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any way to protect Faith (Buffy the Vampire Slayer) from being moved again? It keeps getting moved to fannish titles like her full name Faith Lehane (a name not in the TV series and barely known to anyone except fans) or Faith (Buffyverse).  Paul  730 18:55, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another user deleted the article, stating that it was just adveruising for Universal Studios Florida. I hope you'll understand that the article did have reasons for deletion by now.--5VH9 (talk) 03:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apprantly, now another user brought the page back--5VH9 (talk) 04:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks for the rational (and calm) petition on my talk page, I appreciate it. Tijuana Brass (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:5VH9 has opened an AfD for this: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disaster!: A Major Motion Picture Ride...Starring You!. Tijuana Brass (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing up my c&p on that article, I had completely forgotten that Giano II had made a couple of copy edits. Will keep this in mind for next time (or at least annoy someone who knows what they're doing). Cheers. Risker (talk) 04:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An uncontrollable couldn't-help-it moment. Won't do it again. Soz. Plutonium27 (talk) 02:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, I haven't played Three yet! I'm hoping to get it for Christmas. I've just been so broke lately.—Ｌｏｖｅはドコ？ (talk • contribs) 06:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do not move talk pages in order to archive. I had already archived the talk page. Additionally, you removed the GA review template I had put on there. I had just nominated it for GA. Please do not remove the template! --

It looks like some user has nominated this article without discussion even though he's made no contributions to the article. Basically, I'm not finished working on this article and know that it will get failed outright in its current state. I just urge the user to withdraw his nomination of the article. By the way, I've left some replies to your comments on the talk page. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 07:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, there's a User:Hdbdragon88 now. I don't know, is this mimicry allowed on Wikipedia? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 15:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This probably answers your question. [2] I may be back - we will see. Regards and good luck.

Trying to AFD

For this edit. I just wish the list users feature was also a search: that way, you could type in "Acalamari" and see how many usernames have "Acalamari" in them, rather than the list starting from "Acalamari". At any rate, good idea for putting it in. :) As you saw, I have a nice little collection of spoofers there. Acalamari 23:53, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

why did you delete the arsenal page? i was not done creating it. nice going dipshit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.74.220.214 (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Be careful when moving pages and deleting their redirects. I cleaned up the Justice for All (disambiguation) changes by removing the now-invalid hatnote from Justice for All (game show) and undeleting Justice for All (disambiguation). The explicit (disambiguation) redirect is used for intentional links to the disambiguation page, such as from the ...And Justice for All (disambiguation) page. Cheers! -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: John Roberts, John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sandra Day O'Connor
This is a small matter. I don't understand the reasons for Sjrplscjnky's recent minor edits of articles about each of the Justices of the Supreme Court. After some time, there has been no response to inquiries posted on this editor's talk page nor has there been feedback from similar postings on the talk pages of each of the nine articles about a sitting Justice and the one about retired Justice O'Connor. Rather than simply reverting this "improvement," I thought it best to solicit comment from others who might be interested. I found your name amongst others at Talk:Supreme Court of the United States.

I'm persuaded that Sjrplscjnky's strategy of introducing academic honors in the first paragraph is unhelpful in this narrow set of articles -- that is, in Wikipedia articles about Justices of the Supreme Court. I think my reasoning might well extend as well to others on the Federal bench. In each instance, I would question adding this information only in the first paragraph -- not elsewhere in the article.

In support of my view that this edit should be reverted, please consider re-visiting articles written about the following pairs of jurists.

• A1.
  Benjamin Cardozo
• A2. Learned Hand

• B1. John Marshall Harlan
• B2. John Marshall Harlan II

The question becomes: Would the current version of the Wikipedia article about any one of them -- or either pair -- be improved by academic credentials in the introductory paragraph? I think not.

Perhaps it helps to repeat a wry argument Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law makes when she suggests that some on the Harvard Law faculty do wonder how Antonin Scalia avoided learning what others have managed to grasp about the processes of judging? I would hope this anecdote gently illustrates the point.

Less humorous, but an even stronger argument is the one Clarence Thomas makes when he mentions wanting to return his law degree to Yale.

As you can see, I'm questioning relatively trivial edit; but I hope you agree that this otherwise plausible "improvement" should be removed from introductory paragraphs of ten articles. If not, why not?

Would you care to offer a comment or observation? --

It's not an encyclopedia article and it's not going to be kept. You clearly agree since you proposed it for deletion yourself. It would be bureaucracy for bureaucracy's sake, but I'm willing to undelete it and waste people's time with an AfD if that's what you really want. Let me know. --Stormie (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK it's back. I have watchlisted it and will list it on AfD if anyone contests the proposed deletion. --Stormie (talk) 22:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we've ever met, but I found your page and started laughing when I read your crash course improvement. It is almost exactly what I do to quickly improve an article, and I was surprised to see it written down step-by-step. If I ever meet someone who wants to help but doesn't know how, your list is certainly a good place to start (depending on how new they are).--CM (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I replied to your comments there, but I'll copy paste my reply here too.

That (

Dihydrogen Monoxide _(Review) 04:35, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for supporting my steward election having passed with 72-1-4-99%. Having not talked with you for some time, it seems that you are familiar with adminship here. Meanwhile, I am going after many very old untagged images here.Jusjih (talk) 03:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i appear to have misread the situation regarding the prod; my apologies. we were basically on the same page about it anyway, i think, so it's all good. cheers, tomasz. 08:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you've finally re-made your user page. By the way, I've removed a personal attack from this page. I've left a scathing edit summary for him to read...if he returns, that is. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 08:43, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, good point; I'll remember that.—Ketil Trout (^<><!) 00:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your comment at TPH, you might want to take a look at Q6 [ here]. DGG (talk) 10:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per the discussion now archived here:

Gosh; someone has a lot of time on their hands! Thanks, that's great :). I would give you a barnstar, but it looks rather complicated, and it's not like you have never received one before. Kind regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 17:05, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My request for adminship was successful at 64/1/2! Many thanks for your participation and I will endeavor to meet your expectations. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 08:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, something seems to have gone amiss—we've lost the actual dab page listing. Thanks! --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uh-oh. Can we recreate it? Do you remember who was the other Pat Ross? I know there was Pat Ross (businessman). hbdragon88 (talk) 05:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you able to restore the edits of Pat Ross (disambiguation) and then move them to Pat Ross? --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There aren't any edits there. Just my edit that i moved the page. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There must have been edits at Pat Ross (disambiguation) before the deletion, no? Anyway the other one is Pat Ross (American football). --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I moved the page, all the edits from the (disambiguation) page should have been moved to the regular Pat Ross page. But they've been lost – they don't show up in either location. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right! A

bug maybe? --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 05:43, 18 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

High schools place on dab's is subject to ongoing discussion. See

Why did you delete this page when the discussions are still onging? Unless you have an objection I intend to reinstate it shortly, its long term life being subject to consensus of course. Reply here pls.

Abtract (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Becuase I didn't check

WP:IAR that I thought it was redundant to the main dab page. If you would like it restored I can do that. hbdragon88 (talk) 22:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Problem with my browser. It told me that the edit had not gone through when in fact it had. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've edited my message and removed mention of a block, per your request. I don't know anything about this user... I just thought he should stop posting on Guy's talk for the time being. Perhaps my wording was too harsh, so that's why I toned it down (though I'm not an admin anyways so it really couldn't be viewed as a threat). I hope that it ends here. ATren (talk) 07:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the message you left on User talk:Dethzone; I'm pretty sure that the 'article' he's working on at User:Dethzone/SANDBOX isn't an article. It appears that he's just using the page as personal scratch space for an entirely fictional story he's writing. Since his arrival in early December, he's made only eighteen (almost entirely minor) edits to the mainspace; the vast bulk of his (nearly four hundred) edits is to his userspace, to projects unrelated to the encyclopedia.

Leaving all-caps messages begging for attention from JzG the same day Guy's father passes away shows an alarming lack of either maturity or awareness, and Dethzone should not be surprised if the community decides – soon – that his contributions are neither welcomed nor needed. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 14:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi can you please move this now , 4 in favour ,1 oppose ,2 neutral Gnevin (talk) 23:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...for coming to the libel rescue. -- Mwalcoff (talk) 04:50, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are no incoming links links except for user pages (and I suspect most of those links are from the CSD tag I put on the article). Also, the article was for the video game 2xtreme until someone hijacked it last month (diff). If you still don't want to delete it, that's fine, but I thought I'd point this information out. Precious Roy (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice on my talk page.

I believe you're referring to my redirect of "Icecream" to "Ice cream", which appears to have been changed into an article about a software package, and later renamed [3] to "Icecream (software)". Please feel free to AfD it, but please check the edit history in detail before assuming that the author of the first revision listed for a page is the author of the article in question. -- The Anome (talk) 02:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My effort to regain adminship was unsuccessful, and I'll do what I can to ensure your opinion of my suitability for adminship improves. Thank you for taking some time out of your day to voice your opinion.--MONGO 19:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

how dead men walking is not totable. Therew worse movie articles that have existed for a long time. and i cna't edit because

1: i can't watch that movey, i want to throw up all the time 2: i don't have it available to watch.--Cody6 (talk) 01:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You deleted my user page without consulting me. its says you did it by user request but I never asked you to delete my page. tell me why you did that?

Evidence= http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User:5dsddddd

Thank You,

5dsddddd (talk) 17:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hbdragon88! Thank-you for your support in my RfA (91/1/1). I take all the comments to heart and hope I can fulfil the role of being an admin to the high standard that the community deserves. Seraphim♥ Whipp 18:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll go ahead and tag it. Before it was deleted a couple of users who voted delete asked that it be userfied so they could work on it, so I went ahead and did it for them. I guess they forgot about it like I did. Since I never planned to work on it anyway I have no heartache with its deletion. Thanks for reminding me to trash this thing :P. Peace, SexySeaBass 01:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Al Siebert, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Siebert. Thank you. B. Wolterding (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I assume you were not referring to me on WPFF's talkpage? I've always strongly recommend featured article review as a last resort (mainly because Sandy, Tony, myself, and others were spread thin on FAC/FAR as it already was, and having an obviously personal connection to a few of the recent ones doesn't help to get things done); I don't think my comment was worthy of a NPA-deleted comment :), so I take it you meant someone else? — Deckiller 15:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have done what you asked, and given the plot section a fairly serious pruning. I have no objection to brevity, but I felt that the basic structure of the "original" version was fine.

Please un-delete my page!!

5dsddddd (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The list of participants of the Pokémon WikiProject is quite sizable, however, there is no way to determine which of whom are active contributors to that project. All participants in the list have been moved to Inactive. If you consider yourself to be an active member of the Pokémon WikiProject, please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon#Participants and move your username to the Active section. Thank you. Useight (talk) 22:34, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

THE SO SO GLOS DESERVE TO BE ON WIKIPEDIA. WHO ARE YOU TO DECIDE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by The so so glos (talk • contribs) 21:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC) PRESS IS UP ABOUT THE SO SO GLOS. LET'S GET THAT PAGE PUBLISHED ALREADY. P.S. DO YOUR RESEARCH. HURRY UP! LEGIT BAND, THIS IS NONSENSE. EXTRA, EXTRA, READ THE PRESS BABAY!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by The so so glos (talk • contribs) 22:22, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The batsuit used on the Onstar commercials is clearly the George Clooney batsuit from Batman & Robin (film). It is NOT the Val Kilmer suit from "Batman Forever". Here is a pic of the Clooney suit, and here is the suit from the OnStar commercials. The only difference is that the yellow was added to the chest symbol. Here is a pic of the Kilmer 'panther' suit. You be the judge. I would really like to keep the info on the page because I truly believe my information is fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.119.224 (talk) 07:30, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dragon, Came about your page and seeing that you have made some edits to the Missing Wikipedians page thought you might add

I believe there is a tram that connects the two hotels (does taking a tram count as being outside?), but I've never done it myself so don't know for sure. --Sesameball^Talk 08:10, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I consider taking a tram to have to go outside, yes. I just went to Las Vegas and I walked through a shopping area that connected me from the Mandalay Bay to the Luxor, but I can't see a way to do the same for Luxor to Excalibur other than going outside. And the Luxor sucks. They use reflective white material and they had no benches outside the tram! It was hot! hbdragon88 (talk) 23:08, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, thanks for the welcome back. I didn't even know that I was listed as a Missing Wikipedian. I had to take care of things in real life, and I didn't know how long it would take. Now that you point out that list to me, there are far more familiar names than I expected. How very sad. Anyway, I'm glad to be back and at semi-active. All the best, --Kyoko 16:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply... thanks for maintaining such a list. It's regrettable that there is an apparent need for such a list (due to people leaving/disappearing for various reasons) but at least future Wikipedians will be able to learn about their predecessors. I hope that makes sense. --Kyoko 16:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for further reverting the additional NPOV info on the

Well, actually it was a whole article for this (non-sense) information. I merged it all in order to avoid the loss of content, but I agree with you that the list of all guests and jokes is needless. --Lord Opeth (talk) 12:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support in my

Would you mind taking another look at User:S@bre/StarCraft: Ghost, and give me some feedback on it? I've got most of the text in-place, except for the development section. Don't worry about the external links sitting in the references section, they're for my construction benefit only, and will be gone when the article is moved into mainspace. -- Sabre (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks I've moved it. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three things: firstly, be careful! I don't know what you were thinking, or if you even knew what you were doing, but you managed to remove an entire section that I'd added in the meantime. Secondly, there is nothing in the MoS that says you should refrain from making image size changes. It says it is not necessary, but also says "Image size is a matter of preference". The wording does not imply that either adding or not using a size is better than the alternative. Thirdly, it is impossible to see what is in some of the images at that size, which defeats the entire objective of having images - at 250px, you can clearly see what's going on in the briefing image, you can read the text and see the characters. At this size, it crushes it all, making it illegible and undiscernable. I'm not going to restore the sizes at current, but next time, at least make it consistent for all the images, you missed the two screenshots further down. -- Sabre (talk) 18:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, having re-read that, it sounds a bit angry. When you read this, don't take it as such. -- Sabre (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, do you have any comments on the rewrite itself? Does it tick the boxes for you? -- Sabre (talk) 11:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.3drealms.com/other/index.html

Scroll directly to the bottom and it will show the Kill-a-ton package, which includes all the 3DR authorized products in one package. Duke Caribbean wasn't out yet when that was put together, which is the reason it isn't included. Same for Nuclear Winter. None of the current packs on the wikipage are fan made or unathorized. Wizard Works was a subsidary of GT Interactive, which had the publishing rights to Duke 3D.

http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/duke-nuclear-winter http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/duke-caribbean-lifes-a-beach http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/duke-xtreme http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/dukezone http://www.mobygames.com/game/dos/dukezone-ii

etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie Wiederhold (talk • contribs) 01:36, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curious, I noticed that White Cat's Davenbelle link had gone cold, and noticed that you had done the deed. I mean, we have

Redirects should not be sharing the namespace with regular case names. I'm not fond of

talk) 02:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

What would you think about expanding the Reception to delve more into individual criticisms and praises? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:46, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any articles you're interested in featuring in the TGFT (besides Clubhouse Games, even though it'll never happen)? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:30, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I know a few people pretty fluent in Japanese. Give me development sources and I can try to get them translated. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:16, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, sorry about that!

My apologise, I've yet to read the books on the Bang Bang club (Going to soon), I've been using http://www.picturenet.co.za/gallery/keno/bio.html as a source. I'm pretty sure it's accurate, but the book is probably more accurate. Anyway, don't be a stranger, feel free to add more information to the Oosterbroek page. --Normal Phobic (talk) 17:22, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You should know he has come back to hack and chop Pokemon articles.

He changed his name from Vikrant Phadkay to Ultraviolet scissor flame, he has been blocked twice as a vandal for being a page blanker [Phadkay]. He also failed spectacularly when he tried to be a Wikipedia Admin Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Vikrant Phadkay. He is also a master sock puppeteer, Paerduug, [4] and then when he realised he had given himself away, he tried to cover it up [5]

See the Talk Page on the Paul McCartney article to see how fed up the editors are with him there. I hope you protect the Pokemon pages from him.

81.130.223.198 (talk) 13:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was just wondering if you wouldn't mind going to Portal:James Bond. I'd really appreciate any criticisms or support that you could provide for this Featured portal candidate. Thanks. Ultra! 23:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Bad dog, no biscuit. ^.^ JuJube (talk) 12:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want my old page back, this version:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:5dsddddd&oldid=169717773

ok, that version —Preceding unsigned comment added by 5dsddddd (talk • contribs) 18:24, 31 May 2008 (UTC) nvm[reply]

I will be working on wikipedia for a lot over the summer so

IM BACK!

5dsddddd (talk) 17:04, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BJBot (talk) 12:16, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per ruling of the arbcom here:

What, me jokey? ;) --Badger Drink (talk) 19:07, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" 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. BJBot (talk) 07:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I never said it was vandalism. I believe I left the original line intact. --GSK (talk) 16:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, you recently posted a quick prose-related comment at User:S@bre/Chris Metzen. I was hoping I could ask you to give it another quick and brief go-over now I've filled in the career section with something, just for prose errors and the like. I'd also like some feedback on the style of the section: at the moment its pretty much just a prose-ification of the list in the current version, but although I'm hoping I can get interesting tidbits to sprinkle throughout as is in Martin O'Donnell, I'm not that confident that such information will be forthcoming.

In its current approach, is it acceptable/passable, or is it likely to get hit by a "this looks like a resume" tag? If the latter is true, what can I do to improve it? I've not done a biographical article before, so this stuff's all new to me, and the guidelines I've looked at haven't been all that helpful. Thanks! -- Sabre (talk) 14:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Just need to find some extra references for the career section and I'm all set then! -- Sabre (talk) 10:09, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I already took care of the redirects.

IMDb is not a reliable source.

-- Powers ^T 00:15, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for removing the "Goofs" section of the article. I'm glad someone else agrees that certain plot inconsistencies and continuity errors do not merit an encyclopaedic section. —Archon Magnus^{(Talk | Home)} 00:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you clarify (preferably somewhere other than the RfA...) who your comment at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/Gazimoff is directed at? —Giggy 10:07, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you... ...for participating in my RfA, which closed with 119 in support, 4 neutral and 5 opposes. I'm honestly overwhelmed at the level of support that I've received from the community, and will do my best to maintain the trust placed in me. I 'm also thankful to those who opposed or expressed a neutral position, for providing clear rationales and superb feedback for me to build on. I've set up a space for you to provide any further feedback or thoughts, should you feel inclined to. However you voted, thanks for taking the time out to contribute to the process, it's much appreciated. Kind regards, Gazimoff 22:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...although that was in March :) — Deckiller 03:51, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats :) I think the confusion is because I edited my userpage two months afterward; I wasn't very active for a while. — Deckiller 04:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please Do Chat About MALL POLICE!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mall Police (talk • contribs) 06:19, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A

I'm not quite sure what went on in this edit (my ISP has been very unreliable lately, although I suppose it could have been a Wiki issue), but thanks for fixing it regardless. Cheers! :) —MearsMan ^talk 05:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This was my experience: because having a extra chapter in the paperback version of a novel is unprecedented as far as I know, I was sceptical of the claim in the text until I saw the cover. So I regard the image as a "visual reference" and therefore valuable. However, if you still don't think it justified, fair enough. Robina Fox (talk) 19:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I replied on my talk page SF007 (talk) 23:11, 7 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I would have appreciated had you displayed the politeness to notify me of editing in my userspace. Secondly, the rule about cross-namespace redirects applies only to redirects from article namespace to other namespaces. user:Everyme 13:31, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects to the Talk:, User: or User talk: namespace from the article space. If this was the result of a page move, consider waiting a day or two before deleting the redirect. Spirit of R2? Also, this is clearly different in that it isn't a redirect from my main userpage, but from a subpage. Where someone clicks on my username, they will be redirected to my talk page. Still, for all my stubbornness I'm generally open to arguments, if and when I'm offered any. That said, I regard the issue as resolved. user:Everyme 19:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, I should probably get back to editing it again. Heck, I bet my efforts on Mario Bros. could have been better received on SEW, since most articles on there don't get that good (at least for games). - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this message is being sent to inform you that a proposal to un-merge all Pokemon articles has been started at

Please review this edit. The list claims to be "official" - but has no identification of who has compiled the list. The only context is that it is a list of 5 Kollywood actors that someone has decided have "Colossal" "huge" or "big" fanbases. -- The Red Pen of Doom 19:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK- Going with PROD instead of speedy is fine with me. -- The Red Pen of Doom 21:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sorry, I thought you were disbelieving the whole paragraph there not the sentance when u put citation needed there. my mistake , however BenBell the Exec. Producer said you will be able to "create uniqe sims" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.92.142 (talk) 19:15, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Random scheduling, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Random scheduling. Thank you. Orange Mike | Talk 01:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read

Now that I've re-read the guideline and read the notes appended to the bottom, it says it does have to be president or chancellor, and that positions like provost, dean, department chair do not qualify. So you were interpreting it correctly. I'll prod it. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:18, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea why splitting up each lens to its own article was done. I agree, keep each EF lens article grouped based on focal length. There is simply not enough information, at this time, for each lens to have its own article. Currently the Canon EF 24mm lens, and Canon EF 28mm lens have also been done the "split-up" way. The Canon EF 300mm lens page, and the other pages were stared by user:Rama. My guess is that he thought that splitting up would be better. But since every other lens article is grouped by focal length, consensus has shown we should group. I will do the necessary edits to bring continuity to the articles. Nebrot (talk) 10:14, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you commented in my recent unsuccessful RFB, and I just had a quick question for you, if you don't mind. You said, "Wikipedia isn't a game." I was just wondering what led you to believe that I consider Wikipedia a game, as I surely do not. Was there something I said that I should clarify or clear up? Useight (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got that impression when you said that you didn't like adminbots because they didn't allow you to build up your edit count. Bragging about edit counts and such is game-like, to me, a kind of boasting, a competition to see who had more edits than another person. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:02, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I can see how that could be derived from what I said. Note, though, that I wasn't referring to adminbots with that statement, but particular anti-vandalism bots. The wording I should have used is "bots often take away my opportunity to edit" not "bots often take away my opportunity to build up my edit count". By this I mean that I come to Wikipedia to edit, not to get repeatedly beat over and over again in such a frustrating manner. I mean, I sit down at my computer, notice some vandalism on my watchlist; I go to revert it and before I can, ClueBot has jumped in. If this happens more than a couple of times, my purpose for sitting down to edit has been frustrated, so I just move from Wikipedia.org to Digg.com and Wikipedia loses any contribution I would have made that afternoon. Imagine if you went down to the gym to play a little basketball but your friend brought along a guy who was incredibly good and every time you went to shoot a basket, he blocked it back into your face. It makes you not want to play anymore. That's why I don't like bots that revert. Also, if I cared so much about edit count, I'd be trying my hardest to run to the top of

this list by Huggling every day. Aside from today, I hadn't Huggled in nearly a month. You also won't find lists of barnstars I've recieved, articles I've written, or the like on my userpage. I am not competing with anybody in any game-like fashion, I just want to edit. Hopefully that helps clarify my original comment. Useight (talk) 04:27, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Yeah, sorry about that, I just thought adminbots, but I meant anti vandalism bots. I see your point that you view reverting vandalism as part of your enjoyment of Wikipedia and how anti vandalism bots detract from that. I still believe that having the bots is overwhelmingly a good thing but would strike my oppose based on that clarification. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:10, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know I'm in a super minority, about 99 to 1 (or more), but maybe if I knew more about bots, I would learn to appreciate them as well. Those four comments I made that everyone brought up at my RFB, it was actually really random that I made them. I had never, ever been to BRFA before and I happened to see and follow a link I spotted on a usertalk page. There they were conversing about secret admin bots, which, up to that point, I did not know existed. I never get involved in the drama-filled aspects of Wikipedia (like ANI), because I just want to get work done, not stress over he-said, she-said. Anyway, I thought, "Oh, man, secret admin bots are bad" and it further biased my thinking, which was already, "Bots keep beating me to my work." I'm going to approach some BAG members as a humble student and try to learn what makes bots so great. It's going to take a lot more time than seeing two pages and making four comments, but if I can get all the information, I could change my mind. After all, I used to oppose admin candidates because they used scripts, but I've since learned more and now use Huggle myself. I've seen the good in these scripts. Will the same happen for bots? Who knows, but I'm going to find out. Useight (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, all the

]

Re: Piotrus 2

There was Durova, which started as Durova and Jehochman. I think there was another one last year as well, but I can't recall the name. Kirill 15:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Watchmen character list

I think I'm going to try and fill out one character section per week for the next few weeks, complete with references. Hopefully we can get this into shape. WesleyDodds (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome. Thanks for the help. hbdragon88 (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfD nomination of Creatures in Metroid Prime 2, Metroid Prime Hunters, and Metroid Prime 3

I have nominated Creatures in Metroid Prime 2, Metroid Prime Hunters, and Metroid Prime 3 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. _ZXCVBNM 21:47, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point Blank\c

Sorry about that. However it is impossible when using rollback to do your own edit summary as it is auto. I thought it was a misleading one and was going by what it said at the start of the article. Simply south not SS, sorry 15:30, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hbdragon88

Hi Hbdragon, Trying to find out why you deleted the Killian's Angels entry? Please send me an email at [email protected] or respond on this thread. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.111.103.189 (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hbdragon88

Hi Hbdragon, Trying to find out why you deleted the Killian's Angels entry. Please send me an email at [email protected] or respond on this thread. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.111.103.189 (talk) 00:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Killians

Hbdragon-- still waiting to learn why you deleted the Killian's Angels page from Wikipedia Shaunchristmas (talk) 03:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)shaunchristmas[reply]

Killian's Angels deletion, and Las Vegas Sun article

In case you're wondering what all the inquiries about Killian's Angels are about, see:

• Kristen Peterson, "Band is in millions of homes but not on Wikipedia", Las Vegas Sun, January 13, 2009.

Be careful to make sure CSD tags are legitimate before actually deleting articles. In this case, CSD A7 should not have applied, because the article stated the band "won national radio honors". Also, after the initial tagging, the creator used the talk page to mention coverage of the band in reliable sources.--ragesoss (talk) 22:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletionists suck, they make the website unfriendly, and they often bring us bad press because they are lazy and do no research on their own. They suck. Always have, always will. I hope you're not one. --David Shankbone 02:03, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've usually seen myself to be a mergist. I used to merge video game characters and locations together into lists, and still occasionally merge things (such as the D40x into the D40). I also tend to prefer to make concise statements and delete plot-heavy and uncited material (past week: removed 13K from LXG, 10K from SecuROM, 3K from David Cain, 4K from Cassandra Cain). Does that make me a deletionst? hbdragon88 (talk) 02:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think you read the article. Cenhx (talk) 17:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I Need To Know...

Would you mind if I ask why you deleted the information A7 Gersang? I have interest in Asian game Gersang. Can you add the information about the game gersang the more detailed? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.14.203.3 (talk) 12:21, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was a long article of an MMORPG game that described how to play but not why it was notable. It did not say what awards it had won, or anybody that reviewed it, or any information on how it was developed. Because it was an online game only, it qualified under the A7 web content criteria. hbdragon88 (talk) 18:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Circuit City

Why did you revert my edit? hbdragon88 (talk) 20:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it was illiterate nonsense. Go back and read it for yourself. "35,000 oeioke will lose thier"? No chance that's staying. Did you look at it before you asked me why? Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 01:29, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to simplify it. So my right hand moved over one key and I misspelled "their". You can clearly see that my effort was good faith, not vandalism. Why can't you just fix it rather than wholesale reverting? hbdragon88 (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it was "oeioke" that was the problem, and that clearly looks like vandalism. That's why I can't fix it. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 19:59, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, alright then. I'll be a lot more careful in the future to look over my edits. hbdragon88 (talk) 20:09, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back

Hey,

Just thought that I'd drop you a quick note, since you were the one who added me to Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians. I've resumed at least intermittent editing, although we'll see how long it lasts and to what extent. I realize now that I got so involved in Wikipedia that I burned myself out, so I'm going to try to keep it in check, although that may be difficult to do. I see that, on the whole, not a whole lot has changed in a year. Sure, there are rollbackers now and a few new things, but most policies and such are pretty much as I remember them, and what's new is pretty sensible (at least so far). In the article space, some articles were still pretty much in the state in which I left them; Diary of a Camper even survived a Main-Page appearance with little more than a few copyedits. That pleased me.

I'm still settling in. If all goes well, I do plan to resume substantive article editing. We'll see.

WP:MACH

under its hood. That's fine by me, but I can only hope that someone else or two finds the technical aspects of the subject interesting enough to research. That's the really difficult, obscure part about the subject; the articles on the fiction itself are pretty manageagble if you treat them as something of an odd hybrid of film, web content (usually), and video games, each of which has some good expertise on Wikipedia.

I'll try to look at real video game articles now and then, too. We all know that some are in dire need of attention. I just came across one article where about 12-15 hours of gameplay apparently requires 18K of plot summary to describe.

Anyway, I've rambled on enough. I missed Wikipedia to some extent while I was enjoying the other things in life. I never really forgot about it, though, and it's good to be back. — TKD::Talk 02:29, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Welcome back, TKD! hbdragon88 (talk) 04:45, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Land

Two things:

If you read back I did not restore the whole section. Select passages were deleted, mostly those heavily POV. But obviously, anything that is labeled under "Controversy" will be labeled as POV by default. Deleting such a section based on that is self-defeating. That does not warrant outright deletion. Second, a blog offering hard observable proof remains proof no matter what. This visual art-related topic requires visual identification of the controversy, which is provided as part of those links. Editor linking theese do not do so for the comments of the source so much as the content that is being presented for identification. This is ambiguous as far as Wikipedia guidelines go, but if you know the comics business, this is not a small issue and it is not unreferenced. Therefore it deserves to stay, especially since it is consensus here on WK that Greg Land has been repeatedly criticized as swiping, recycling and tracing artwork. Fetternity (talk) 07:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, just because the blog has said so, does not make it so. See

BLP Reliable sources. "Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, and blogs as a source for material about a living person" hbdragon88 (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Powershot SX10

Hey, well I suppose if you are going to re-direct all of them due to a policy about notability that makes more sense. To me it looked like you were singling out the SX10. I thought it was kinda nice to have it, as most SLR cameras have an article and the powershot model line of "bridge cameras" are close to SLR level. I'm fine with the redirect if its an across the board type thing, just maybe take the pictures into the other article as each of these cams have a picture. Have a good one! Stu pendousmat (talk) 18:57, 14 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image of 500D

Hay, looks like a user added a photo of the Canon 500D. The photo is from the canon USA website, and is copyright. It does provide a fair use rational, don't know if that is acceptable. But the photograph is modified, which I know is a no–no. Here is link —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nebrot (talk • contribs) 12:05, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Securom controversies (in Securom article)

Sblade1 (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC) - EDIT HbDragon88. The sims 2 has caused controversy. | url = http://bbs.thesims2.ea.com/community/bbs/messages.php?&openItemID=&threadID=c8b2ec5767ef5b9533203b17d637945f&directoryID=226&startRow=1#3e640cf2e4789f02ac5d308b1f7a297a | - - This is only 1 of the BBS (official TS2 forum) hot discussions - - EA has dropped Securom on The Sims 3 now. A sticky thread in official EA forum: http://bbs.thesims2.ea.com/community/bbs/messages.php?threadID=9d1253823ed34174bf4e9ad80ffe009f&directoryID=225&startRow=1&openItemID=item.225,item.43,item.61,item.104,item.41,item.127,item.23 - - If Securom hadn´t caused controversy in The Sims 2, EA wouldn´t have dropped it. - - BTW more articles for Spore http://venturebeat.com/2009/04/02/will-wright-favors-web-20-like-community-driven-game-design/ - - Hbdragon88 do your job as an admin thank you. -[reply]

Sorry, but BBS discussions are not hard, reliable, third party resources, as per

WP:RS. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

So are you saying the official Sims 2 forum isn´t a hard, reliable source for The Sims 2 game? The context of this controversy is SIMS 2, and there isn´t any better primary source to this controversy than these official forums. The context is the key of Veriafibility you have shown to me.

EDIT: I insist, which are the reliable sources for The sims 2 games? Their official boards BBS must be one of them. Sblade1 (talk) 12:20, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fast & Furious redirect

Hi !

There is something I don't know how to do, and I was wondering if you could perhaps do it : I agree with you that this movie is no more dominant than the 1939 movie. However, both movies have slightly distinct titles. Could you make it so that when people search for "fast & furious", it directs them to the 2009 movie page, with a disclaimer at the top of that page saying "for the 1939 film Fast and Furious click here" Conversely, could you make it so that when people search for "fast and furious", it directs them to the 1939 movie page, with a disclaimer at the top of that page saying "for the 2009 film Fast & Furious click here"

That would be great if you could do that... Thanks in advance !--Marc-Olivier Pagé (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To disambiguate like that, I think it might be easier to move

W. (2008 film) was moved to W. (film) with a dab notice for W (1974 film). hbdragon88 (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Excellent idea ! If you could do that, it would be greatly appreciated. I wish I knew how to do that !--Marc-Olivier Pagé (talk) 04:14, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you !!--Marc-Olivier Pagé (talk) 17:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/A Man In Black/Workshop.

For the Arbitration Committee,

AGK 17:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Barnstar

		The Editor's Barnstar
		This is for the plot section on Point Blanc that you shortened. Spongefrog (talk) 10:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried it myself once, but anons keep putting stuff back in. Almost all the Alex Rider novel articles have this problem, you might consider doing them too, specifically Skeleton Key. Or not. Spongefrog (talk) 10:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the barnstar. It's a perpetual problem; I guess, if I check in once a month, I just rewrite it. Happens to all articles I watch...I don't know how aggressive I should be with it. hbdragon88 (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

BE VERY AGGRESIVE. With Alex Rider articles anyway, because, as I said, people gradually put stuff back in. Anyway, I HAVE TO SLEEP NOW Spongefrog (talk) 22:05, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE to all members of

WikiProject Pokémon

Following a discussion on

Active members list, I am notifying you in case your active interest remains. Thank you for your cooperation in our efforts to keep our list of active participants as accurate and up-to-date as possible. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 04:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Gilad Shalit on Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/June 25

Hi there. FYI, see these comments I made: [6] [7] [8]

As of now, I do not have the energy to actually think carefully and read all the relevant archived talk discussions about whether you should reverted or not. I do not know if someone else will. All I can say is that this type of scenario is another reason why us admins maintaining the Main Page templates are a little more reluctant to avoid posting articles that have been the subject of an

mediation request and stick with those that have been purely high-quality articles free from those kind of issues. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

And yes, in the first couple of years of being an admin here, I probably once did fulfill a request by a user only to find out that the issue had been discussed over and over previously – and my change might have actually went against consensus. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I should have checked the article history. I just thought that lead wording was long-standing and did not realize that the person had changed the lead before making the requests. I agree, the Main Page should reflect the article itself, which was the assumption I operated under. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:50, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've self-reverted for now and await further discussion before proceeding. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:53, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ReclaimYourGame source

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SecuROM&diff=prev&oldid=299439354

Hi there.

I´m one of the admins at ReclaimYourGame.com and I´m a little annoyed due to the fact that, one way or another, you hide the fact that the Official Securom Uninstaller does leave the License Information on the registry. If you do not want to undo the edit I warn you that we are getting more popular very soon, we are interviewing 2 major DRM vendors.

If you don´t like RYG fine. But the information must be complete. I want somewhere in the Securom article that the uninstaller does NOT COMPLETELY uninstall Securom software.

Regards Sblade —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sblade1 (talk • contribs) 11:10, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't sound like you're issuing a threat. I hate SecuROM but this article needs to be brushed up to standards and not be a vehicle for hate. (same deal with Greg Land, I don't like him either but a blog is not a reliable source.) Please link to the original BBS post that states that SecuROM leave bits behind. The RYG tutorial does not link to any such post, at least if I've read the tutorial correctly. hbdragon88 (talk) 16:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Their own FAQ from Securom themselves is clear https://support.securom.com/faq_pa.html

Why is this information protected against deletion? Allowing for the easy deletion of this information would essentially remove the copy protection from the application, allowing easy copying of the publisher's intellectual property. Deleting this information also impacts SecuROM™'s DRM functionality. Some examples to illustrate this:Protection setting Consequence if DRM license information is deleted Online activation required Imagine that someone first correctly activates (unlocks) an application and then deletes the DRM license information. SecuROM™ would then believe that the application has not yet been unlocked and would ask for a new activation. This would result in the user "losing" an activation. Allow up to only 10 launches of an application Imagine that someone launches such an application 10 times, and then deletes the DRM license information. SecuROM™ would then believe that the application has not yet been launched and would again permit 10 additional launches.

Obviously, this is not in the interest of the rights owner.

I have another thing that can be edited, Securom no longers blacklists Process Explorer since version 7.39 and higher. This is one of the common demands for gamers. AS for sources. I´m the tech man who does the tests. If you want to test it yourself. Download Protection ID to identify Securom versions and test it on Securom games while launching Process Explorer Sblade1 (talk) 12:18, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regards Sblade

Their information is protected because they're a primary source. See

self-published source that we can use. hbdragon88 (talk) 15:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Die Hard 2

What's wrong with linking to a blog? That was a perfect link. Ryanbstevens (talk) 20:50, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because it just drives traffic to that blog wihtout any real reason why to do so. The actual link itself is the best source to use. hbdragon88 (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are quite foolish

You again defied the rules by using improper consensus. Those statements of redirecting the article were based on a stub version of the article; had they seen my version of it, they would not have proposed it as such, thus you are still wrong. For that matter, those two people are not editors of the article per se and not enough for consensus. You have 24 hours to undo it or I will seek an administrator and have you banned from editing articles as you are unqualified to do so based on your inability to properly adhere to Wikipedia's policies the way they were meant to be applied, not the way you see fit to apply them. The source I provided was for the Skype bit, for which it is absolutely a valid source, since it's victims accounts of being harassed by said numbers. I don't know about you, but I work for a living and edit articles in my spare time and when I do, I follow Wikipedia guidelines as per the nature of the law, rather than spin my own misinterpretation thereof as you have. Noone else has objected to the article in its most recent state other than you and yet you feel as though you have complete authority over the article and your opinion reigns supreme above all others', which is not the case. I cited you on at least 5 policy violations which you selectively ignored as you had done up until that point. I'm sorry, but you have repeatedly disregarded the true nature of the rules you try to uphold and in doing so have violated them and many other areas also. I do intend on seeking administrative help if you fail to undo the move as you have no right to act upon the article or any article the way you have. -KirkCliff2 (talk) 03:48, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... looking through your talk page, you have a repeated history of bad faith edits and causing conflicts and thus you should, in fact, be banned from editing altogether. KirkCliff2 (talk) 04:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back and I see that you continue to irk people with bad faith edits. For the record, you are still wikilawyering and for that matter, your justification doesn't hold up. Your philosophy is that any article that does not cite sources is immediately to be deleted. This is just articles of its kind; you need to look at the bigger picture and learn to try and contribute rather than detract from the quality of the encyclopedia at large. There is a due process in Wikipedia and if you truly feel that the article is not worthy of remaining, you can address it at AFD or RFD and get a true consensus at one or the other (not both) and honor the final decision made. Until then, you are but one editor among many and are not the sole decider of the article's content nor will you be and as such, must respect the community-based rules of Wikipedia and its editors as a whole and not in part based on your preferences. Good faith editing and acting in consensus won't get you banned from editing articles, blatant wikilawyering, however will. KirkCliff2 (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Grayson is relevent.

Dick Grayson is relevant, and is the Batman. Keep removing him and I will keep adding it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.140.195 (talk) 02:00, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The warning states that we cover the Batman most well known in the public consciousness. Dick Grayson has been the Batman for less than a year. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's Talk.

I am confuse about what is going on. Could you please explain in more detail? Thanks alot.

My freedom of speech.

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you delete or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did to GSG 9, you will be blocked from editing. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Bendallf"

What you see as disruptive edits is my freedom of speech. Please read before you response. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bendallf (talk • contribs) 04:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no right to freedom of expression on Wikipedia. Daniel (talk) 04:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Freedom of speech protects you from the government intervening, i.e. shutting your press down or etc. That doesn't apply here, on a server owned by a private organization. You're beholden to our rules, and our rule is that you cannot blank large portions of the articles without a good reason. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Soundboard Prank Call

I have agreed to mediate your dispute and all relevant discussion should be directed to the case page. Before we begin I need agreement from you that you will not edit the article until the dispute is resolved. I hope to see commnents from you there. Regards, Gaelen S.^{Talk • Contribs} 01:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...=

What are these anchors you added to the Saw page? And I read the #images thing you linked to, I see nothing there that says the images can't be small and less obtrusive, linking to a larger version.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:35, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The anchors create # so that you can still access them for multiple names. For instance, nobody will ever link to List of Saw characters#The Jigsaw Killer (John Kramer), but they may link to #Jigsaw Killer or #John Kramer and the anchor would still work.

Although the MOS doesn't explicitly say so, I believe adding a hard px will override a user's preference, and I was told some time ago that you want to let them choose. There is no compelling reason for why a hard px is needed in this case, and the default (180px) is bigger than the 100px that was in the article. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:48, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fast & Furious Characters

Why do you keep changing the pages that people have worked hard to build?! We want to know about the characters not about the freakin' movie. If people wanted to know about the damn movie they would click one of the many links within the character pages to take them to the movie page, or better yet, they would SEARCH FOR THE MOVIE ITSELF.

Why do you keep changing the fucking pages.

Please see

WP:NOT#PLOT: plot-only articles are highly frowned upon, due to copyright reasons. Fictional character articles require setions such as real-life development, reception, sales, marketing, etc.; see Jason Voorhes, Batman, and Cortana for examples of good articles on fictional characters. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

There's still information that can be put on the individual character pages, such as a list of each of their cars in the different movies, amongst other things.

Instead of just redirecting to the movie page. As long as you leave a disclaimer at the top of the page indicating that all the information listed is gathered from the books, movies and other publications there's no problem.

There's enough information on Toretto and O'Conner to justify having their own pages. They may not be as in-depth as Batman, but they also haven't been around for 40 years.

At the very least leave the Toretto and O'Conner pages up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.8.64 (talk) 20:29, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no page for Voorhees. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.8.64 (talk) 20:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that should be

List of characters in The Fast and the Furious film series

; I don't think this existed when I redirected the articles, but we can re-redirect to those articles now, if you desire to.

As for the other points...it's not the disclaimer that matters. It's the out of universe info. Wikipedia has adopted standard of striving for more than just a plot article, and I've seen hundreds of articles merged as a result (such as that of the Tekken series, Final Fantasy, etc. to name a few). And if most of the Tekken and other series characters don't get their own separate articles...neither should The Fast and the Furious chracters. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why you (anyone) would merge some of the final fantasy characters or tekken characters pages into one. Long standing characters like those, there's enough information out there on them that you could easily have a valid page for them.

As for that list of F&F Characters, even if you took the information that was originally on each characters individual pages and put it all there on one huge page, that would be better than nothing. Is that at least do-able? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.8.64 (talk) 05:44, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as I said before, it's

all plot summary and not what Wikipedia is about. You want to take the 14K of Dominic Toretto article and put it on the kIst article? I would say heck no. You can summarize Dominic's role in the films to a couple paragraphs. More than that and you're just detailing every incident in the film, which we don't do; we provide an overview, a summary, of the characters (see Batman, Jason, Freddy, etc. for examples as to how plot summary is handled). The article as it stood just basically repeated the plot summary of the film articles. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:49, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Well the most important pieces are the list of cars (preferably with images/stills) and the bits that aren't a rehash of the plot. Can the OP be asked to take out the rehash? Or is that still not enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.138.8.64 (talk) 06:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get what you're talking about. Aren't YOU the OP? Also, car lists (which have been on the film articles) have been removed for being indiscriminate information. I can write out or rewrite a short plot summary for Dominic Toretto. But, as I said before, I don't want all 14K of that article to be in the List article. hbdragon88 (talk) 18:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Characters of View Askewniverse

What Wikipedia is not

").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to

sign your comments

with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the

articles for deletion

template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a

talk) 01:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Jailbreak

Concerning my iPhone Jailbreak pic, isn't that fair use? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kkraemer (talk • contribs) 22:18, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canon EF 24-70mm lens

Hi there - I changed part of the 24-70 article back to saying that the 24-105 is its nearest competitor because it would be hard to say it's not. The 24-105 covers the same focal length, is in the same price range, and has the advantage of IS. They're very similar lenses and calling one the closest competitor of the other is pretty reasonable. Consumers often have a tough time deciding between the two. Let me know what you think. Nrbelex ^(talk) 22:31, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no further objections...good rationale for why you think the 24-105 is a competitor. hbdragon88 (talk) 01:48, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Joey Lauren Adams

http://www.nndb.com/people/134/000030044/

What is your source for that 1968 is the correct date? Do you have a birth certificate or similar? I searched the Google before I changed and I found plenty more sources which gave 1971 than 1968. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karbuncle (talk • contribs) 04:28, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, even one of the External Links is to a page that gives 1971. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Karbuncle (talk • contribs) 04:32, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I found a source – an article that listed Adams as a 31-year-old actress in 1999. I'll put it in the article. hbdragon88 (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the same article or if it's another one (at least it's written by the same journalist) says she was 29 in 1999 which is linked right under your change. However, I cant't see that you have provided a link to the article that listes her as 31. Karbuncle (talk) 14:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(I´ve written this in my talk page too, didn't knew if you could see it there. Also. Did I do it the right way with the sign-thing?)

Service awards proposal

Hello, Hbdragon88! I noticed you display a service award, and would like to invite you to join the discussion over a proposed revamping of the awards. If you have any opinions on the proposal, please participate in the discussion. Thanks! — the Man in Question (in question) 18:33, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diana Wikipedia Page

Hey there, listen I am one of Diana's biggest fans and I am in no way trying to spam her wikipedia page. I own both books I have sourced so I'm sure the information is correct. I am in no way trying to send out an unbalanced image of Diana, I adore her I would never do that but all I'm trying to show is that opinions have changed around the world since her death I am not trying in any way to say she was a bad person but merely a human being with faults and it's not sensationalism it's just the truth, we all have faults.

The version you're pushing is really not that good. You're making a lot of general, sweeping claims about her, very strong language such as "time and time again" and that opinions around the world are horrible. In any case, I've started a talk page discussion and invite you to chime in on your opinion. hbdragon88 (talk) 17:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks, I replied to that discussion page, maybe we can work out a compromise a version we both agree with. Anyways let me know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.247.77 (talk) 20:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

LA Metro redirect

Hi Hbdragon88, how ya doing? I'm wondering what led you to think most people would be looking for Metro Rail instead of Metro the whole system or buses? Although it may be true most ppl prob are not looking for the agency, the system info along with the bus system are on the LA MTA page. Also the agency has officially branded itself "Metro" which is used for all press releases on the system. It's probably better to redirect to the LA Metro page instead. What say you? I'll also add this discussion on Metro's talk page. --Mistakefinder (talk) 10:36, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Golden Raspberry Award

I worked quite hard to create an entire list page for this. Please see

List of people who accepted Golden Raspberry Awards. Cirt (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

My apologies. I just assumed that it had been deleted during the content purge (down from 35K to 9K). hbdragon88 (talk) 05:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I removed a lot of unsourced stuff. I did quite a bit of work to make sure that every single sentence on that page is sourced. :) I hope you like the list page,

List of people who accepted Golden Raspberry Awards? Some editors in the past have said that no celebrities like their awards, but clearly from this sourced page, that is not the case! Cheers, Cirt (talk) 05:26, 6 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

New userbox!

Hi there GameFAQer, I made this userbox!

G	This user is a member of GameFAQs.

You can add it to your userpage by simply adding this {{User:UBX/Gamefaqs}} --Lorson (talk) 19:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CityCentre

Actually, the development is called "CityCentre" and not "

CityCentre Houston". The article should be moved to "CityCentre". Postoak (talk) 04:40, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Moved it. Thank you. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Postoak (talk) 14:04, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a few, hope this helps. Thanks [9] [10] [11] [12] Postoak (talk) 22:22, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Exxon Valdez oil spill

Hbdragon88, I just wanted to bring your attention to this edit. [13].

DISPLAYTITLE as Wikipedia:Page name#Changing_the_displayed_title says: ... the use of display title for italicizing the article titles is only acceptable for articles on organisms using scientific names)

There was a reason cited for removing the display title. I personally couldn't care less what the title looks like, but I see an edit war brewing and wanted to make sure you had all the facts. Take care. Aalox (talk) 04:02, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for bringing it to my attention. I have self-reverted. hbdragon88 (talk) 05:38, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Eaglestrike.JPG

You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media

).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a
  bot
  , and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:19, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for Bulbapedia

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Bulbapedia. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Neo^(T) 03:45, 18 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CLAIM

You have been around awhile so may not need the assistance but I saw your edit summary here. I hate the term on Wikipedia usually and love

WP:CLAIM. I suppose it could be argued that since there was a legal case that it could be used but said works best. Cptnono (talk) 04:46, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Alexa Chung source query

Back in October 2008 you asked a question here. If you're still interested, I've left an answer. --DavidCane (talk) 00:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Romanization for words of English origin

On the

here

).

Over the course of a month, it has become apparent that both the parties proposing to include or not include those romanizations cannot be convinced by the arguments or guidelines brought up by the other side. Therefore, a compromise is trying to be found that will satisfy both parties.

One suggestion

on a compromise has been given already, but it has not found unanimous agreement, so additional compromises are encouraged to be suggested.

One universally accepted point was to bring more users from the affected projects in to help achieve consensus, and you were one of those

selected

in the process.

What this invitation is:

• You should give feedback on the first suggested compromise and are highly encouraged to provide other solutions.

What this invitation is not:

• This is not a vote on including or excluding such romanizations.
• This is not a vote on compromises either.

It would be highly appreciated if you came over to the

MOS:JP talk page and helped find a solution. Thank you in advance. Prime Blue (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Happy Birthday

Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Have a great day!

Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 02:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply