User talk:BassxForte

This page is meant to allow people to talk to me regarding edits I have made, I will allow discussions that don't involve that to exist here, however any insults or other forms of vulgary directed at me or my edits will be deleted.

If your here about the boss battle against Roxas... go away, any post will be deleted.

Oh... and... if you use this page to tell me something I will go to your page to respond.

Do not come to me regarding the Zero series characters, anything will be deleted.

Note:I will delete discussions I think are irrelevent, pointless, or just don't have anything to do with me.

Welcome to Wikipedia!

Hi, BassxForte, and welcome to Wikipedia!

On behalf of the Wikipedia community, I would like to thank you for your contributions. You're already off to great start. I see a future for you among the throngs of Wikipediholics! If you need assistance with titling new articles, please see the naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. For general questions go to Wikipedia:Help or the FAQ. If we've been so inattentive as to not have the answer in any of those places, check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Finally, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. If you have any more questions after that, feel free to ask me directly on my user talk page.

You can contact me at my talk page for any questions. Happy editing, and I hope to see you around! —Cuivi é nen

Wikipedia Tips

Be sure to read the most important guidelines to Wikipedia, the Five Pillars and what Wikipedia is not.
If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, visit the Sandbox.
If you wish, introduce yourself at the new user log.
If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Tasks in the Community Portal.
Always remember to upload images with the correct copyright tags.
Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~). This will automatically produce your name and the date. You can change your signature on your preferences page.
Most importantly, be bold!

What up

Hey guy! Sorry about flying off the handle like that. If you don't mind, I'd like to add you to my contact list. You can reach me on MSN at SuperMetalLV2@yahoo.com. Enjoy your stay at Wikipedia! :)GrandMasterGalvatron 22:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind if I added you to my friends list as well? Like GMG said above, have a good time here at Wiki! ChromeWulf ZX 03:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ChromeWulf ZX 04:19, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Boss (video games)

If this is one of your favorite articles, why not assist constructively and actually provide sources for any of the claims that you want to keep in the article. It's not "merciless destruction" to remove original research. You should also consider the guideline of assuming good faith, which basically says (and you should agree, being a self-proclaimed optimist) that people editing the encyclopedia generally wish to improve the project. You shouldn't take the removal of material from an article you like personally. Instead, you should improve it, and work to reduce original research. Leebo⁸⁶ 13:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Templates for messages on user pages

Hi there - I saw the messages you left on User talk:68.193.163.133 and thought you might like to see Wikipedia:Template_messages/User_talk_namespace (various short cuts for greetings / warnings for user pages). For example, instead of the first one, you could have left

subst:uw-test1|Metal Sonic

(adding double curly brackets at both ends (ie {x2 to start, }x2 to finish),

and for the second one,

subst:uw-vandalism2|Minor characters in Sonic the Hedgehog (Archie)

(again with double curly brackets at each end).

This helps ensure consistency between warnings left by different people, saves time and avoids spelling mistakes! ("experminting"?) Hope this helps - I find it useful, I must say, and lots of others seem to follow the same approach. Let me know if I can help further (although I may not know the answer...) Bencherlite 19:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Putting the offending page after the | is optional but does allow you to be specific. You can also add a further | and a message after that: e.g. one I left earlier on today that finished "you will be blocked", and I added "|Again." Oh the fun of combating vandals and idiots... Cheers, Bencherlite 20:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roxas boss battle

Why does adding this to Organization XIII matter so much to you? If it belongs anywhere, it should be in Kingdom Hearts II's Final Mix section, since it has really very little effect on the actual character of Roxas at the present moment. Like I said, the only thing we'd probably want to add having to do with the battle are Roxas's powers, which will now be exhibited. But the bare fact that there's a boss battle has no effect on the character at all. We're not adding that you can fight all the Organization members in Final Mix to the Organization article, are we?—ウルタプ 23:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if you need to be so immature, I'll just keep reverting you.—ウルタプ 23:34, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, yeah, I acknowledge that fact is important. I'm just saying there's no point in saying it until we get information from it that matters...like his in-battle abilities, whatever.—ウルタプ 23:37, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...okay, that last statement doesn't make sense for your front, because there being a playable boss battle doesn't mean a change in story (they have a cutscene fight already, so it technically doesn't qualify as a change...)—ウルタプ 23:44, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...oh. The COM members, you mean.
...what about Roxas, which you continue to revert.—ウルタプ 23:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on March 4 2007 to Organization XIII

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 8 hours. William M. Connolley 21:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Roxas

You say that there's no good argument against putting it in, and they say there's no good argument for putting it in. Forget about putting it in entirely, since that'll just cause an edit war. If there is no consensus, it is left off since it is undetermined. - Zero1328 _Talk? 06:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(not really my discussion but) I think you're missing the point. We're not trying to make you show weakness. >>—ウルタプ 23:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not really concerned with what you think of yourself or other editors. Article quality is top priority for me. I see only two choices: either agree to disagree and forget the subject (since neither will win,) or keep going around in circles(again, neither will win). Going in circles will make article quality degrade. - Zero1328 _Talk? 07:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I assure you that I haven't been acting in contempt. I'm very sure we haven't been stalking you and reverting your edits, though.. I only remember me reverting you twice, to try to stop the edit war. - Zero1328 _Talk? 21:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's common to run into the same editors, as they probably have similar interests or cover a large range of articles. I'm not surprised you pointed that out, I guess that's just because we all watch talk pages closely. - Zero1328 _Talk? 07:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organization XIII

Uh, what we know is that they're "data" versions of Organization XIII, not "portals". ' 23:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ciel

I'm pretty sure I told you this before, but I'll say it again. Stay away from edit warring. If the info is disputed, the piece should stay off while it's taking place, to avoid edit wars. You're just repeating what happened to Organisation XIII. - Zero1328 _Talk? 03:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to get myself involved, I'm just trying to remind you about what I said before, it looks like you forgot it quite quickly. - Zero1328 _Talk? 04:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not write original essays on what you feel are the important aspects of characters' personalities. This is blatant original research; you're playing the games and interpreting them. That's not what we do on Wikipedia. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:32, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Organization XIII‎

Please be careful of the three revert rule. You have made three reverts, and while I have given reasoning for not including the information (it being out of place where you keep putting it in, the 'will be' as opposed to 'is' when the game is already released, the fact that it's entirely trivial and poorly worded/formatted), all you've given as reason for inclusion is "You allow the mention of the changes with the other characters". The changes mentioned are all EXTRA scenes, not things like the change of a cut scene to an actual fight, when it's not even said that it was 'only' a cut scene in the first place. If you want to add the information, don't cause an edit war: take it up on the talk page after the first revert-with-reasoning. Edit wars are not conducive to good vibes or healthy editing on Wikipedia. Thanks for reading. Nique talk 17:47, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't feel that the points brought up in the previous discussion were valid (although you seem to be ignoring the points that I made above in this discussion, as well as the fact that the trivia has no bearing on the storyline at all and is, well, trivial), you can always create a new discussion, ask for a third opinion or put in a request for comment, among other options. Nique talk 19:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I said it before, and I'll try to make it more clearly.

You say their arguments are vague, non-specific and there has yet to be a good reason for keeping it off the page.

They say your arguments are vague, non-specific and there has yet to be a good reason for keeping it on the page.

There's clearly something wrong here. Don't just assume you are right and continue edit warring, this has been going on for around a month. Stop it, right now. Make a new discussion on the talk page. Get a third opinion, go to request for comment, go to the Mediation Cabal, get a formal request for mediation, do ANYTHING but edit war. Continue, and you may get something more than a 24 hour block for 3RR. - Zero1328 _Talk? 21:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR block

Hi. You have been blocked from editinf for 31 hours due to a 3RR violation. Please be more careful in the future. Many thanks in advance. El_C 00:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good job admin, thank you for blocking me through no fault of my own, I hope your satisfied, you, you derive joy from ruining other people's time on wikipedia. BassxForte 04:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No fault? The rules apply to you, just as they do to everyone else. I notified you about WP:3RR just above, there, because I didn't think you'd want to get reported or blocked, but you decided to ignore that and put the information back in anyway. And typing it afresh doesn't change the fact that it's still restoring it to the same wording as the previous version, which is still reverting. You should take the rest of this time to read up on the policy, if you take issue with the decision. Nique talk 12:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Since this rule doesn't deny me the ability to edit this page I guess it has to go here) Question: Is it ok to break 3RR if your doing it for the sake of improving an article, and thus, improving wikipedia? BassxForte 17:08, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read the policy page. Edit wars NEVER benefit Wikipedia. Nique talk 17:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hello single-sided biased wiki editer, how are you today? BassxForte 17:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd feel better if people like yourself would read the pages for the policies they break instead of being disruptive. I'm just trying to help you improve your editing. Nique talk 17:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd sure feel better if the people on the orginization page can come to the conclusion that they can be wrong. BassxForte 17:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They know they can be wrong. The problem here is that you refuse to admit the same. Nique talk 17:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orginization XIII is ana rticle about video game releated characters, of bloody course there's gonna be something releated to gameplay. BassxForte 17:40, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place for the discussion. Take it up on the Talk page when your block is done. And be careful to stay within policies and, preferably, guidelines in the future. Nique talk 17:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually occurding to the policy there are situations where 3RR can be ignored (reverting vandalism, sheer nonsense, etc.) BassxForte 17:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those do not include the situation which took place yesterday, if you'll have a closer look at the list. Nique talk 17:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keeping the mention of the boss battle off the page is sheer nonsense, my actions are justified. BassxForte 17:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then take it up on the Talk page. Don't just revert indiscriminately and ignore the reasoning of other editors. Aside from the fact that editors have given reasoning citing policy and guideline, the fact that the consensus reached a month ago was in favour of not including it on the Organization page, and the fact that editors have given you the advice to put it in the Final Mix+ section on the KHII page, you deliberately started an edit war instead of trying to resolve the issue maturely in a discussion. Chill out, and talk through it instead of being disruptive and negative. Nique talk 17:51, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Put it on the Final Mix+ page? What?! Am I to list every diffrence from the original KHII from its updated version? BassxForte 17:55, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ask the people who suggested it. Nique talk 17:57, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ask them?! You want me to ask them?! Single-sided, baised, refusing to accept their wrong over this, refusing to accept i'm right over this, and you want me to ask them?! BassxForte 17:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. You have multiple options here: just add the information where it was suggested that you add it, take up the issue on the talk page again, or accept the consensus that was reached a month ago. Either way, your attitude is uncivil and you should consider taking a break to calm down and re-think your philosophy on editing as it stands. Nique talk 18:11, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: there are also the options suggested in the discussion above. Nique talk 18:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What? Go to the talk pages of Onaga, Brotherhood of Shadow, you see me clearly attempting to help wikipedia, also, check out Zero (Mega Man) where you see I am completly ready to see/admit flaws in my arguments. BassxForte 18:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This block really pisses me off... I can't revert vandilism, I see two pages that have nonsense added to them and I can't do anything about it. BassxForte 18:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI

I've decided to put you on WP:ANI. Just to let you know.

As a reformed vandal, I have been extremely tolerant of your actions, assuming you were adjusting. I've been trying to advise you on policy. However, over the past month you have appeared to me as a person unable to admit(and learn from) mistakes, accept consensus, or even act civil, no matter how much you hate them. You don't even realise I've been trying to teach you.

My final pieces of advice to you is that you should take a fairly long Wikibreak, and consider whether you are able to stay cool, and act polite in Wikipedia. Also, if you are ever banned for some duration, consider it as an obligatory Wikibreak, not as an attack by someone who hates you(which isn't true in the first place.)

(And yes, I'm aware I'm not following WP:APR.) - Zero1328 _Talk? 02:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go to ANI and say something. Don't just ignore it. - Zero1328 _Talk? 04:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving talk pages

For more information on archiving Talk pages, see WP:ARCHIVE. Nique talk 22:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RFC

ANI isn't working, so you're on WP:RFC now. - Zero1328 _Talk? 02:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to get people to comment on your behaviour. Now please go to the page and respond. - Zero1328 _Talk? 23:19, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go to the RFC page. - Zero1328 _Talk? 01:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think I made the ANI? the RFC? I'm very concerned about your behaviour and I am trying to seek broad input. If you think we are biased, say that. Do not just refuse to respond, or that may also be used by peers in their comments. - Zero1328 _Talk? 23:26, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Not replying would simply be used to further emphasize the claim that you are being unreasonable. I at the very least can promise that I will try to see things from your point of view before judging. Do not deny me that chance. Posted by: GDR of the Moon 23:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Larxy

I can't find it, but go to youtube and look at everything PS2 chain of memories or any other KHIIFM+ thing. You will find it. Arlene is an actual name such as Dilan and Even. Do the math, solve a puzzle. Should keep you entertained for a while. Dance, BassxForte, dance. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Furon (talk • contribs) 01:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC).--Furon 01:52, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3 revert rule

Your have violated the wiki policy 3 revert rule [[2]]. Please discuss the changes on the talk page. You can be temporarily blocked for this. You two should work this out and get the concensus of other editors. in ref to Nightmare (Soul Calibur) --Xiahou 23:33, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DiSaGrEe

You know it is true. find the link yourself. it is simple, so grow up and test it i cant find it, but u could find time cuz u sit and play frikin video games all day. i dont have time--Furon 13:25, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not answering.

You're on a wikibreak. I'm not answering your comment. - Zero1328 _Talk? 05:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still stand by what I said. A wikibreak is a time for R&R. Stay away from editing (or even reading) Wikipedia entirely. Don't even finish reading this message, you shouldn't be here. I don't know what the symbols were, it looked like gibberish to me. - Zero1328 _Talk? 08:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

xemnas

actually he does decide names i m user furon originally user:furon

Re: Return

I disagree. Uncivility is basically acting rude towards other people. Even if people act rude towards you first, it's not an excuse to be rude to them. Stuff like insulting them, calling them biased, etc. Not assuming good faith is a starting point for uncivility. You need to stay polite. Even if you don't believe you've been doing that, you still have a problem of going overboard quickly and forgetting the guidelines, as seen by your 3RR warnings and violations. Be more careful. The issues I raised on the RFC is that you appear to be unable to restrain yourself. - Zero1328 _Talk? 01:32, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accusing other people of things, acting rude, that is interpreted as you acting uncivil. You call them acting in contempt towards you, you call them biased, that is a lack of assuming good faith. That is what I mean.

The reason I told you to take a wikibreak was to take time to realise that. That was also to be my final piece of advice to you. If you are unable to learn that, I will simply have to ask you to leave this project. Right now, you are demonstrating to me that you have not been able to do that, with this being the fifth month since I have seen you. - Zero1328 _Talk? 07:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I refuse to stop. I did not say I was going to force you to leave. If I said I was, though, I have no doubt in my mind on whether I am unable to justify it. I have been trying to advise you on policy and you interpret it as "me making you do what I want". I have been trying to help you become a better editor and you have not changed. I will give you no more chances, I have been lenient for long enough. I will speak to you no more. - Zero1328 _Talk? 05:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Final Mix +

Kingdom Hearst II Final Mix + is the name of the COLLECTION - that is, the BOX THAT THE TWO GAMES COME IN. It is not the title that is displayed when the game loads, and it is not the title on the disc. It is as much the name of the game as "Ivalice Alliance" is the name of Final Fantasy Tactics Shishi Sensho.KrytenKoro 08:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No +

http://www.square-enix.co.jp/kingdom2fm/ The one on the right - no +. If you click on it, then on the header "Final Mix + toha", which lists the additions in BOTH GAMES, and then on "Theatre Mode", you will see the screen displayed as the title screen when you put the game in - no +.

The + ONLY appears when BOTH games are being referenced - as in the boxart, since both discs are held in the same box.

Please tell me you didn't change the page over and over without first actually looking at the game or the official site?KrytenKoro 19:44, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

....The Hell? The name of the GAME is Kingdom Hearts II Final Mix. The name of the BOX is Kingdom Hearts II Final Mix +. I don't recall any news of them shipping magical cloaked figures in those tiny little boxes. How the hell did I defeat my own point? The scenes happened in KINGDOM HEARTS II FINAL MIX.

Let me illustrate why your point is wrong. We could technically say that an added scene in a "Square-Enix" game, or even "a video game" shows whatever we were talking about. However, that would be unnecessarily vague (we know which game it was), and would mislead the reader ("Did it happen in another game, perchance Donkey Kong Jungle Beat?").KrytenKoro 19:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not in my local gamestore, so no. Also, when you buy a "game" at a local gamestore, you usually buy the box (unless you're at gamestop and they don't have the box). Finally - if how it is purchased is taken into account, we should change any references to "Kingdom Hearts II" to "Kingdom Hearts II and Collector's edition Player's Guide", since that's how I purchased it.

! Oh ! Also, I would be purchasing Kingdom Hearts II Final Mix +, Kingdom Hearts II Final Mix, and Kingdom Hearts Re: Chain of Memories. Since I don't just want an empty box.KrytenKoro 20:00, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually, that was one of the standard packages. In approximately four months or so, I would expect Kingdom Hearts II Final Mix to be a standard package as well - there will certainly be buy-backs, and Game retailers will likely sell the games seperately, unless they are sold-back together.KrytenKoro 05:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bubble Lead

In every game and source material where Bubble Lead is mentioned, it is written in Japanese as:

バブルリード = baburu ri-do

リ is pronounced ree/lee (as in a reed). If it were pronounced as reh/leh, it would have been written レッド = reddo.

Anyone who can read Japanese can prove this correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.246.65 (talk)

In english, is it pronounced "bubble leed" (as in reed), or "bubble lead" (as in read)? Thanks! Also, octopuses 17:54, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 2 weeks in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for 3RR violations, disruptive editing practices, and an unwillingness to follow consensus. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

--MZMcBride 14:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your lovly "consensus" was made in a way similar to a straw vote. All I heard from them was, more or less "since more people are on our we are correct." and that isn't how Wikipedia works. BassxForte 17:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

BassxForte (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

consensuses are not always right... 3RR can be done as long as your getting rid of nossense, I have never made a disruptive edit.

Decline reason:

3RR does not apply if you are reverting simple vandalism, no evidence this is the case here. — Yamla 22:40, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Yeah... I suppose an unbaised person deciding would have been just too much to ask for, huh? BassxForte 23:28, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it that every time a decision goes against you, that person is "biased"? And plus, what you did WAS a violation of the 3RR - if anything, you were the vandal in inserting original research and removing the sources and references used on the page. And for the record, Wikipedia works by building consensus. You may disagree with what the people say, but that does not make it "wrong." Please stop being so stubborn, and use the talk pages to discuss your edits should they be reverted, instead of violating 3RR. Suigi 19:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh... and by disagreeing with a consensus, I am the one who is automatically "wrong"? BassxForte 16:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In my understanding of the rules, no. But you are supposed to make your arguments in the talk page, and try to build consensus for your side of the argument. If you are unable to do so, then it's best not to make a big stink by pushing your edit regardless, and leave it well alone. It's not a matter of who's "right" or "wrong," but what's best for Wikipedia and the community. Suigi 17:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what yould YOU do if the people your arguing with are being unreasonable?! BassxForte 23:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give up and walk away. There's no sense in losing hair and sleep over one dinky little article. It's just Wikipedia. And usually, after walking away for a bit, I can come back to the article, and realize that the other side's arguments have merit, and in the end, were better than my idea. I've had experience with that (tried to save Waluigi's article from being merged). Suigi 18:14, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason I can tolerate what happened to Waluigi is because there was an acceptable compromise, but there is no way to please all parties regarding the subject in question because the ones against are far too unresonable, hell, there bending the meanings of rules to match their concept of them. Furthermore I don't see people saying "It's only wikipedia" when pages are being vandilized, like what they did. BassxForte 16:08, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then if you wish to resolve the dispute you have (including whatever vandalism you find), use the accepted channels of dispute resolution, and don't engage in rash behaviour. That's about all I can say on the subject. Sorry if I'm not helping any. Suigi 00:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If I tried that someone would slap down a few disputes I was part of, claim I was the one being unreasonable, and use their twisted concept of logic to convince the third party I was the incorrect one, that's ahppened about 3 times before. BassxForte 18:24, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 days in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for repeated abuse of editing privileges. Please stop. You're welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Evilclown93_(talk) 23:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

BassxForte (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

There are three reasons why this is unjustified. A. EvilClown93 never specified why i've been blocked. B. I haven't done anything since my last block that could be VAUGELY defined as vandalism, hell, I never did that since I became a registered user. C. Since I haven't done anything wrong, this block is nothing more then an abuse of power.

Decline reason:

This was a valid 3RR block (see here), but I think the length is excessive. I am contacting the blocking admin to see about reducing it.— Chaser - T 00:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

31 days seems kinda extreme over a block reduction, especially since I didn't actually violate 3RR, I made 3 reverts, but you need MORE then three to be violating it. BassxForte 02:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Which of those listed wasn't a revert?--Chaser - T 02:53, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... isn't this block over the orginization XIII page? I believed that it should be mentioned that Terra despises Xemna's original self, Xehanort, but another user named Apostrophe disagreed and believed it to be irrelevent, I was actually planning on taking it to the talk page. BassxForte 03:16, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planning isn't the same as discussing it before running afoul of 3RR, a rule I'm sure you're aware of after multiple blocks for the same [3]. Your 31 day block stands.--Chaser - T 03:32, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you like being unreasonable... why should I even believe you tried to shorten my block? BassxForte 03:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[4].--Chaser - T 04:46, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really hate it when people discuss these things over me and never give me a say in the matter. By the way, by bringing up that paragraph on my user page, you admit to be biased against me. Bringing it up is basically the same as saying "A user has done almost nothing but constructive edits, but since his first edit was of vandalism he must be a vandal". BassxForte 17:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Darth Nihilus. Thank you. --EEMeltonIV 00:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:32, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]