User talk:J.J.Sagnella/Archive02

This is my second Archive containing messages, 26 to 50. J.J.Sagnella 17:46, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you would like to bring up any comments about the discussion here, please do it on my main talk page. J.J.Sagnella 11:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from here

Query: The thing is, IMDb DOES back those sites up. Here are the links: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2091240/miscsites http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2091240/officialsites Also, if you type Christina Ritter Marie-Antoinette she does appear. Since Marie-Antoinette was also a person you can't even find much on the movie anyway without typing somelike else like "film" etc. It seems like you are kidding me with having at least 100 pages, because some people on here don't have over 20.

By the way I searched for some of the people on here and Eliza Bennett only has 51 sites that aren't all unqiue and she on here. Tatum McCann has only 7 sites she's on here, Darcy Rose Byrnes has less than 55 yet she is on here. So, in your argument you should dismiss the excuse of 100 articles and originality of the piece.

Answer from me: I don't usually do this, well to be honest this is the first time I've done this, but what I'm going to do is to quote what someone else said on the talk page itself. Sorry if this sounds weak, yet I feel this person has summed up what I could of said much better. I'd also like to note before I quote this is the fact, that this is reposted content which doesn't even deserve to be afd'd and should of been speedied.J.J.Sagnella 20:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Quote I will use: "The fact that IMDB backs the links is irrelevant. The fact that IMDB doesn't back up the roles in the movie/tv shows is what's so damning.

Also, don't bring up the other people here, as they're a completely separate discussion that needs to be dealt separately; if they're indeed irrelevant, we can go AfDing them separately too, don't you worry, thanks for finding that sort of material. Yet, Eliza Bennett doesn't exist, Tatum McCann and Darcy Rose Byrnes actually do have something on their IMDB pages.

And by the way, {{hangon}} is meant to be used while writing a reply to talk page; when you're done, please remove it. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 20:12, 31 March 2006 (UTC)"[reply]

Concerning here

I would appreciate it if you explain how I "monopolized" the image scene, considering the fact that not many place effort into the image scene in the first place.

Not only is the image "Runescape randomevents evilchicken TEMPORARY.gif" as said temporary, but how else would you expect to be able to animate it to demonstrate how the Evil Chicken behaves? It took me a long time to not only get lucky enough for such a random event to occur, but to also last long enough to record a half-decent clip of it, which if not pointed out, the Evil Chicken spurts out random quotes. I do not appreciate it being considered a "prime example" over something that was never focused on.

As for the "limelight," there really isn't any possibility for this to be fulfilled if the only actual person who works in the exact same subject is currently inactive? Plus, isn't it unencyclopedic to attempt to add what is already there, and to focus on who the image/clip has been created by?

I would like for an explanation of such opinions.

Also, you haven't appeared at all in the past two Saturdays, so I do not know what to do with the Rubber Chicken Whack animation.Tarikochi 18:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One only has to have a look at RuneScape Images to see how many you've made. Even though we appreciate all the images, many Wikipedia users have expressed their concern it would overclog the already very long RuneScape Pages.

As for the Rubber Chicken, I feel we shouldn't waste each other's time for something unneccesary, I happily accept that the new image will do. J.J.Sagnella 18:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But I heard you say that I "monopolized" the RuneScape images. This isn't relevant to the space issue that has been argued by far. "Monopolizing" images doesn't mean anything when it comes to space, so why mention it? Tarikochi 19:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the fact that if someone looks at this page for the very first time, it is not very appealing to see your face in almost very picture. It gets repititive and boring. J.J.Sagnella 19:20, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not showing my real-life face. And in the game of RuneScape, when was there such individualism?

There is also the fact that, as mentioned, no one would step-up to help contribute such.

Tarikochi 19:25, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding here

In reply to your comment: Wikipedia at its very foundation is a resource. A resource created and maintained by and for the users. As stated it is not within the rights of any user or group of users to make an official decision that permenantly reflects any content on Wikipedia. As such any user may change a page as that person see's fit as long as it conforms to Wikipedias ideals on copyrights and verifiable data.

Futher more you linked me to an official wikipedia page on external linking in which I quote "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories. There is nothing wrong with adding a list of content-relevant links to an article; however, excessive lists can dwarf articles and detract from the purpose of Wikipedia. On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite is appropriate, marking the link as such. See Wikipedia:External links and m:When should I link externally for some guidelines"

As such your major discussion deciding that only five links should be allowed does violate the comments made in the official page you gave me. Specifically "including a link to one major fansite is appropriate". You have linked five. Now if you would like to be a stickler for the rules, you can either A. Drop all but one of those links, B. Allow more links to be added, or C. Have an official complaint filed against you for attempting to self govern content on wikipedia (In which Wikipedia moderators/administrators would force a decision). —This

) .

First off, please sign your comments with ~~~~.

Secondly, If that link wasn't enough have this one and scroll down to the sub-heading "Regular clean-out of undiscussed links". You know, with a link like that, a guy doesn't have to say much more. J.J.Sagnella 15:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not like the standard wiki signing, so feel free to sign my comments for me if it means that much to you.

As for the second bit of your comment; giving me links to any page not marked as an official Wikipedia page will not in any way help your cause. I can just as easily create, or dig up resources on wikipedia that argue that you are not allowed to restrict what verifiable content is added to ANY page.—This

) .

vandalism reverts and 3RR

Just so you know, the three-revert rule does not apply to reverting vandalism. :) --Ixfd64 20:44, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you said that the 3RR rule doesn't apply to vandalism. However as the user was putting forward a claim that it was not vandalism but instead the right thing to do. How can you classify what is and what isn't? J.J.Sagnella 21:14, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, you will have to use your judgement on whether the edits are vandalism. If not, then the 3RR will apply. --Ixfd64 21:17, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's the problem. In my mind I think it is vandalism, yet how do I knwo if i'm right? J.J.Sagnella 21:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from here

Heh, thanks for that, its nice to know that at least somebody cares enough to hate me! We just can't let the hun use wikipedia for their sinister needs though, I sometimes get quite scared when I realise just how many articles there are devoted to stuff like that. Good luck with the deletion dude. Jdcooper 14:10, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Here Ha, well, it was still vandalism, because Belgium doesn't border Italy. Everyking 03:36, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

]

Thanks for notifying me, but all I did was nowiki the hangon sign in there. I don't know what the template is about and for that reason I will not place a vote. J.J.Sagnella 06:45, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From here

Well I think neologism probably would fit under nonsense. I am not sure I have 'strong views', though I believe I would probably delete neologisms as nonsense. Thanks for letting me know about your proposal, and happy editing. Prodego ^talk 14:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you are in the battle with me to get those fansite links back on RuneScape. I have contacted two admins that I have talked to in the past, and I asked them to give their opinions. No word from them yet. But Its not looking very good. Normally I would go and add those fansite links back in until a proper discussion and vote took place, but seeing that this Kelly Martin guy is threatening to block any user that puts it back in (which I believe is an abuse of administrative privileges), I have been too scared to do it. At this point I really don't know what is gonna happen. If I do not hear back from Kelly Martin (I left him a message), then I am going to put the sites back in, and if he blocks me I am going to file a complaint against him. Either that, or maybe we could put the fansite links in the Runescape portal? If that does not work, then I think we will just have to give up. Cheers! Wikipeedio 21:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fansite links are already on the portal, and I think we will win our claim to get them back. If not, oh well. J.J.Sagnella 05:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nah we lost our claim to get them back. This one admin told me we can put the largest one on the article, but after I added it, this random guy came and removed it. Oh well, it was worth a try. At least the links are on the portal. I'm still sorta upset at Kelly Martin though. I'll be keeping an eye on the list of people he blocks to make sure that he is not abusing or taking advantage of his privileges. Wikipeedio 14:05, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about this edit I reverted? [1] I reverted it not so much for content as for being poorly written. Anyway, we know the dupes are kept classified by Jagex officially, but they did occur, and do have some encyclopedic historical value, if not on the armour page, the economy one. I just wanted to have your opinion on this particular piece of information since we usually revert scamming additions since they're not encyclopedic. Hyenaste ^{[citation needed]} 03:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It has a lot of use on that page with a bit cleanup-it did make purple partyhats the least expensive going down from the most. In my opinion I would add a small sentence to the partyhat section about how purple partyhats went down in prize. J.J.Sagnella 06:10, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Regarding me putting Schmofo up for deletion) I don't know where you are from, but in my parts, this is more than a word. It's a revolution. —The preceding

) .

It gets 0 related msn hits. Also please see that on my userpage it states I am from England and also bear in mind Wikipedia is not a dictionary. J.J.Sagnella 20:25, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that wikipedia is not a dictionary. I would have put in on wiktionary if it was a definition. schmofo is more an underground culture-defining signal of communication. you could try to label it as slang, but it is very far from it. why is drunkenness on wikipedia? because it has a "cultural attitudes" section? i'll add that if thats what you'd like. and although you may be obsessed with the internet and think that it has all the answers, sometimes it doesn't. isnt that what wikipedia is for? learning about things you couldnt learn about elsewhere? so by me putting schmofo on the internet, im simply letting people like you in on information that they couldnt find by simply typing it in google.

Wikipedia isn't a crystal ball If you can't find it on Google, it doesn't belong here. J.J.Sagnella 06:13, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your edits to Tarikochi's user and user talk pages. (Techinically, they don't belong to him, but to the Wikipedia community). But the real reason I came hear was to address the images on his user page. The images are used under the fair use copyright status and cannot be placed on his user page. I would appriciate not placing them back on his user page. Thank you!

]

So Tarikochi can put the links but not the images? You make no sense. Where does it say that in Wikipedia's Rules?J.J.Sagnella 06:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, I must now admit I am wrong after andminstrator intervention has happened. I apologise for any inconvenience caused but It did seem the right thing to do at the time. J.J.Sagnella 16:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if it ain't J. J. Sagnella. It's me, Joe, remember? Seems like you've made quite a name for yourself on the 'Pedia. I'm off to screw around with some random articles, but feel free to drop me a line, if the need arises, on my talk page. The Enslaver 21:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, this probably my bad memory, but how do I know you? And I really hope by screwing around you don't mean vandalising, because taht is not good! J.J.Sagnella 20:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalize? Me? Who the hell do you think you are? I'm a 'Pedian, not a Maccy Dees employee, man. Joe from school, remember? Crazy one from the football pitch? Swears a lot, pretty well-known? That jog your memory, Mr. Sagnella? The Enslaver 18:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. I'm an idiot. Really sorry about not knowing you, yeesh i'm an idiot. J.J.Sagnella 18:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will you please discuss it on the talk page, it would look better if you removed the criticism with community concensus. --pevarnj ^(t/c/@) 19:01, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Without a doubt there was reason to remove it. But as you asked me to, sure. J.J.Sagnella 19:06, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello J.J.Sagnella. I had a quick comment regarding your reversing of my changes to the Runescape weaponry page. Jagex Moderator Paul confirmed that the Dragon Woodcutting Axe cuts no faster than a Rune Axe. He put this on the forums to unsettle the rumors. This in itself is not a rumor but a fact. If you could provide some sort of justification as to why that isn't so, please tell me! Screen317 02:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Screen317[reply]

And do you have a Link I could go to, so I know this is the truth? J.J.Sagnella 05:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

................................................................................................... .............
......................................................................................................
..........................._............................................................................
..................../``` /:::::::::::```~,................LOL.. NOOB................................
................../:::,/```''''''````-- ,:::\.....................................................................
..................|::/ · · · · · · · · ·|:::::....................................................................
...................\| · ·_ - -_ ·|::/..........................................................___.....
...................-|· · ·õ-`|::: -õ· ·|:/|..................................................._-~`` · · · \..
...................|;| · · · / · \ · · · | ;/........................................., ---~`` · ` · · · · , /..
...................`-| · · · ¯ ¯ · · · ·|`......................................./` · · · · · ·_·,·-````'.....
......................\ · ·`¯¯¯¯` ·,,- |,..................................../ · · · · · · /_,,__,,.........
........................`\ · · ¯· · /-` / ``~-,.............___........../ · ·'~,,,_· `· · · ·`|· ·\........
.........................| ·-¯¯¯ · /::::::::::::`/``¯/¯::::::::\......./· · · ·· · · ·\ /· · · |· · | \......
.....................,`:: ·/¯¯\`~,/::::::::::::::/::::/::::/¯¯¯¯`-,_,| · · · · · · · |· · · ·/· · ·|·/......
................-~`::::· /::::::\·/::::::::::::::/::/``::::::::::::::::::/ `-_¯¯``~`¯ /`· · / · · / /.......
....._..-~`/::::::::| ·/:::::::/::::::::::::::/:::::::::::::::::::::::/:\ · ·`-,,--,__/,__/,_, / '.........
.../::::::::/:::::::::|/::::::::/:::::::::::::/:::::::::\:::::::::::::::::::\· ·· ·``~-~--~ ..................
..|::::::::::::::::::::|:::::::/:::::::::::::/::::::::::::\::::::::::::::::::::\ · · · · · /.............
—The preceding

) .

Sorry But i Have no idea what you are on about? Ciuld you put some reasoning behind your claim? J.J.Sagnella 06:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, jj, i agree with him. —The preceding

) .

Probably something to do with runescape, god that depresses me.... Philc _T^E_C^I 13:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that you have made many useful contributions to RuneScape-related articles. However, could you please try to use more edit summaries? Thanks. :) --Ixfd64 05:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I try, I almost always forget though... J.J.Sagnella 09:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning here

Myeh well, you didn't make a great first impression on me, and well, so far it been you only impression. And your user-page shows that your POV on just about everything conflicts with mine. Maybe it is unfounded completely fabricated and unfair POV, but so far no-one has done anything to challenge it. Philc _T^E_C^I 12:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, nearly everything Philc_0780, we both have a dislike of the word "soccer" over "football". That's One thing we agree on...It's a start. And I really don't think you made a great first impression on me... Vandalising my userpage randomly adding links to an article which was obviously NN. J.J.Sagnella 12:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yup fair point. But I dont do that anymore, so I'm sorry. mahwell. Philc _T^E_C^I 13:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading

indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:08, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about that Orphanbot. I must of accidentaly forgot to label it when re-doing up an image. I was about to add the tag but I went to have tea but I have added information now. Hope it's okay! J.J.Sagnella 18:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the article today for the first time in a week, dang does it look good. I listed it as a featured article candidate so, hopefully, it will reach a good consensus and RuneScape could be on the Main Page for a day!!! I really hope it goes well! WIKIPEEDIO 02:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Best of luck to it! If it gets featured, I'll probably put a sound recording on it. J.J.Sagnella 09:34, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dang it. Already opposed by 2 users because they don't like the fact the criticism section is so small. I thought it was a ton bigger than it is now. A little bit of a thought I had was "Why do these users want a criticism section so bad?" Personally, I think the users hate RuneScape so thats why they want as many criticisms as possible. Well, if it means getting this article on the main page, then I suppose I'll go find some and put them on. Sigh... WIKIPEEDIO 13:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't think that's their POV. We betetr start searching for major bad publicity it got. J.J.Sagnella 13:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know of many criticisms it gets, but the problem is I have no citations for them. I don't even know where to look for valid sources on the net. I will continue to search though. WIKIPEEDIO 01:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It really didn't take that long to write it so I am not bothered at all, but why exactly was my article on fansites removed? Thanks, I'll check back for a reply. --Kjgmusic 16:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See here-Rule 7. Wikipedia should not be used as a directory. J.J.Sagnella 16:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, thanks for the speedy reply, I appreciate it. --Kjgmusic 16:27, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you go through wikipedia amending capital letters and commas which arent there and removing people's work for 'vandalism' when they haven't actually done anything. You really must have a lot of time on your hands. What difference in the world is it gonna make if someone puts an incorrect word into a document. Thats not vandalism thats just false imformation.

Vandalism is false information. J.J.Sagnella 21:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Under what title was it deleted before? I recall the AfD debate, but cannot find it. -

]

RuneScape cheats J.J.Sagnella 15:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:User RuneScape 75

the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I've commented on it before you could notify me. It's my sixth sense. J.J.Sagnella 17:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thank you for correcting my user page. I did not think it mattered if I put a tag on there since it was fairly obvious that I am "just testing." I thought that I would have to manually place a page in a category in order to flag the page for some action. Is there a guide or page or something that will tell me which tags will automatically flag a page for some kind of action, even if I think I am just testing? Thanks again. 6SJ7 16:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to my knowledge, but there is an easy way of testing. Just substitute it (eg {{spam}} goes to {{subst:spam}}). That will give you the tag written out. If it has a category embelished in it, then just remove the category. J.J.Sagnella 16:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]