User talk:Theonlyedge

• If you happen to know about a tutorial on Wikipedia rules, please tell me!
• Also, please remember to sign your message!
• NOTE: If I forget to log in, I appear as 70.27.42.86 (redirects to my userpage)

That Crossmr (Sims2) guy is a total jackass.
sselfless

"Dicdef" means "dictionary definition". Since Wikipedia is

BTW - if you would like I can semiprotect this page as well. Then we will know when we missed VaughanWatch socks because they'll be the only ones harassing you through the protection. ;) Let me know if you want me to take you up on this. You can reply here, I have you watched. --Syrthiss 16:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Syrthiss, I'd hate to have another vandalization, but has VaughanWatch targeted my talkpage yet? Maybe you should give him the benfeit of the doubt that he has stopped before you protect this page. Thanks a lot for your help, Theonlyedge 22:10, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm still not entirely convinced that this fact, by itself, warrants identifying her as a feminist in the very first paragraph of the article as if that were one of her primary points of notability, but if you disagree and feel strongly about putting it back, go ahead — it's not as if I'm the final authority on the matter. Bearcat 19:35, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm. I'm not entirely sure it could be a very encyclopedic or interesting article on its own, though it might be a good subsection of another article (like, say, Economy of Canada or something like that.) Is there really much that can be written about it besides "Canada has $500 billion of government debt"? Bearcat 01:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You've claimed The Sims 2: Pets has been confirmed in your statement of keep. I've asked for you to cite a credible source for that as that is the heart of the problem with the article. If you cannot provide a credible source, please consider retracting your statement. --

Amazon isn't a credible source in this case. A credible source would be Maxis or EA. It wouldn't be the first time I've seen a website advertise a product that never materialized, especially when it comes to video games. Not to mention the product isn't even for sale through the site, they're simply asking you to leave an e-mail address so you can be told when and if it ever becomes available. They're only using a screen cap from E3 for pete's sake. Let's not forget that amazon was one of the sites that originally had TS2 set for a release date of Feb 25, 2004. They're not terribly accurate.--

Crossmr 20:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Thats not the official TS2 UK website. This is the offical TS2 website: http://thesims2.co.uk/pages.view_frontpage.asp for the UK. Sorry but even if you were to consider amazon credible, the fact that they provide 0 information about the product other than "Sign up and we'll tell you when we have information" doesn't lend any credibility to it. I've seen plenty of gamesites like EBgames, gamespot, etc create pages for things that never materialize. I've also posted on the deletion page an e-mail from EA stating that the EP was not shown at E3 which means any conclusion drawn from that is complete speculation. And of those 64000 results, not a single one is an official credible source. The only information we have is: A trailer shown at E3, and EA saying the next EP was not shown at E3. Everything the fan sites have done to generate buzz around this is complete speculation and not a single bit of it reliable. --

Crossmr 23:34, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Hello, you uploaded these images claiming they were public domain as they were from the CBC. The CBC is a crown corporation and it does not fall under the general government copyright laws. CBC produced material is just as much under copyright as any private company. Moreover, all Canadian government materials only permit noncommercial use. These are not allowed in Wikipedia as many of our content reusers are commercial operations. - SimonP 15:36, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the note. I will have to work on referencing the comment some more, giving credit where credit is due for the real work.  :) --Omnicog 22:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I've recently put myself up for the Editor Review process. With the (seeming) end of the Vaughan-gate mess, I've been back to normal editing for the last while and wanted some outside opinions as to what kind of job I'm doing; if I'm on the right track, if there's anything I can do to improve, etc. If you have some free time, I'd really appreciate it if you could take a look and leave me some feedback! Thanks. --Chabuk 03:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

February 2007

Sorry, this was posed to your page due to a script error. Please ignore it.

image description page

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