User talk:BlackAce48

Wipeout HD

I have outlined my points in my edit summary, which you can find in the article history, that are based on actual Wikipedia policy; in-depth weapons listings are game guide material, and if you want to include mention of the weapons it should be done briefly to outline the types of weapon, and should be done in prose, not as lists. If you disagree then we will take this to the Wikiproject:Video game talk page and gain peer consensus there rather than debate it amongst ourselves which will ultimately be fruitless - let me know your thoughts. SynergyBlades (talk) 23:39, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please be WP:CIVIL in your edit summaries - do not tell an editor to "go away and leave it alone" as it shows you have not assumed good faith and reflects poorly on your editing. SynergyBlades (talk) 23:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

False, weapons do not have to be game guide material. They are a part of the casual gaming experiences and one of the largest parts of the game. I have briefly outlined the weapons. If I provided tips & tricks then it would be game guide material, but since I just outlined them, you are wrong in this sense. You say I'm violating WP:CIVIL? You are also violating it by saying that my writing is poor. Yeah, think about that. Oh and please do not own pages. If needed we will take this to that video game project. Regards --BlackAce48 (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't outlined them in prose or briefly, you have explicitly listed them in bullet-point format, which is unencyclopedic, and have added detail for every single one - there is a difference. This is not ownership, instead this comes from experience as an editor that has got several game-related articles to Good Article status. I have at no point said your writing is poor - once again, you have rushed to an incorrect judgement, as I merely stated that your uncivil edit summaries reflect poorly on your editing skills. As you state, this is probably best taken up at the video game project. SynergyBlades (talk) 15:08, 13 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Putting them in bullet-point format is perfectly fine and counts as an outline. It can also pass for encyclopedic. There is nothing there that would not be a part of casual gaming experience. I did add some detail because people need to know what the weapons do, you don't just automatically know. Saying "once again rushed to an incorrect judgment" and "reflects poorly on your editing" indeed violates WP:CIVIL. Please stop, I already did. Maybe you have gotten articles to "good-article" status, but you saying these weapons should not belong in the article will probably prevent it from doing so. Saying the controls for the game is indeed game guide material, but weaponry and a FEW DETAILS is not. -- BlackAce48 (talk with the ladies man)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 01:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} How do I get Twinkle installed? --BlackAce48 (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In the "gadgets" section of your preferences page (Special:Preferences), enable Twinkle. Tim Song (talk) 05:13, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

re User talk:Xxspirit4musicxx

I have indef blocked the account for the legal threat. I suggest that you unwatch their page - if they keep up the abuse then they don't get unblocked; sort of nonsurvival of the thickest. Happy editing, LessHeard vanU (talk) 16:37, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will let administrators deal with further abuse. --BlackAce48 (talk) 16:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A friendly bit of advice

Hi. With very few exceptions, you shouldn't remove content from another user's talk page. If you find the content objectionable, you can comment on it and ask the user politely to remove it, or, if it is violating some policy, you can ask an admin to enforce the policy. People will frequently react to those sort of edits as a violation of their personal space. Regards, Celestra (talk) 17:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know, but telling other users to "shut the f up" violates WP:CIVIL and that's why I removed it. However, I will take your advice. --BlackAce48 (talk) 17:08, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Divinity 2: Ego Draconis

Ok I dont see why you undid my change if the release date is in 2010 (i already added it to future video games and i even have proof that it comes out next year so i removed it from 2009. (64.72.39.223 (talk) 18:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

I see now, I looked at the article and it does, in the future, when removing content please provide an edit summary. Regards. --BlackAce48 (talk) 18:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's the thing, I don't know what an edit summary is. (64.72.39.223 (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

You see the box below where you edit, it says "Edit Summary" above it, and you can type in your reason for removing the content among other things. --BlackAce48 (talk) 18:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks! (64.72.39.223 (talk) 18:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Hello, BlackAce48. You have new messages at Avs5221's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Speedy deletion declined: Thomas Grover

Hello BlackAce48, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Thomas Grover - a page you tagged - because: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Skomorokh, barbarian 04:06, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jade Ewen

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jade Ewen. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 19:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

.333 OKH

I hate to bother you so soon after your last message about this, but your placement of a speedy deletion template on .333 OKH was incorrect. A7 doesn't apply to cartridges, but in this case G12 (unambiguous copyright infringement) does. So I just changed the tag. :) Reach Out to the Truth 06:40, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback use

You appear to have used rollback a couple of times where the edit was not clear vandalism. The first occasion was the IP clearing their talkpage, which is not vandalism (see WP:BLANKING). The second occasion was questioning you about this, which again is not vandalism. They are within their rights to object to the use of automated tools to revert edits they make to their own talk page. Quantpole (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, slight miscalculation on the first edit, but the second one I had every right to revert. However, I reported him for his vandalism in the past. Check WP:AIV or his talk page for details. You might want to check all of the contributions before you get involved. --BlackAce48 (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IP Vandal

I removed your report. His recent edits were at least somewhat constructive (pointing out perceived flaws in the focus of a few articles, and confining said complaints to the talk page), if somewhat overly loquacious and angry. This really doesn't seem to rise to the level of a violation requiring WP:AIV. —ShadowRanger ^(talk|stalk) 22:08, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I guess I was too busy checking the other contributions. Sorry about that. --BlackAce48 (talk) 22:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent reports to AIV

Well, I was going to come here and tell you good job, but you don't like Live and Let Die, so never mind. (Joking, of course!) Your last two reports to WP:AIV, [1] and [2], were very clear and concise and set forth why a block was necessary despite the lack of warning. I see you'd received some advice on better reporting to AIV, want to make sure you know you did those well. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:50, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks, just glad to keep Wikipedia running! :)--BlackAce48 (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A2 criteria for speedy deletion

Hi BlackAce48! I have declined you speedy deletion for Håkon aunbakk. That is because A2 (foreign language articles) only applies if the article already exists on that language's Wikipedia. In this case, the article (which Google Translate says is in Norwegian) is not found on the Norwegian Wikipedia. Therefore, the correct procedure is to tag the article with {{notenglish}}, and follow the logging instructions. If it is not tranlsated after two weeks, it will be deleted. I have done it for this article, but let me know if you have questions. Singularity42 (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason why I tagged it with A2 is because it was a foreign language article. I didn't know that it had to exist on another language's Wikipedia as well. Will remember for the future. Thanks. --BlackAce48 (talk) 21:21, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disengage

Please disengage from User:GaGaOohLaLa, it is not helpful and is being disruptive. I have left the same message to him. ^Chillum 22:13, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't being disruptive though, he chose to execute the disruption by making incivil edits and out of the world accusations. I've said what I had to say, I won't engage with him unless he engages with me first. --BlackAce48 (talk) 22:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That will only work if he does not engage you further. You not responding even if he does continue to engage you will work either way. Just something to think about. ^Chillum 22:19, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I don't think you were being disruptive yourself, I just felt that the disruption was depending on your response and that a lack of it would end it. ^Chillum 22:22, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Refactoring other user's comments

Please do not refactor other user's comments, as you recently did with your edit to AIV. If you wish to add your comment, add it below the user's post (indented). If you have any questions, feel free to message me on my talk page. Netalarmtalk 02:25, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not mean to refactor it, I just meant to add information on top of what he already reported, because the ip violated another rule after he was reported. --BlackAce48 (talk) 02:26, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

What has to be determined now is if the reverted content is vandalism or a WP:BLP violation.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:36, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle usage

Hi. Your recent edit with Twinkle left the page in a broken state (which I have now fixed) because there was more than one vandalism edit. In future, make sure you check every edit made with an automated tool before you save. Happy editing. OrangeDog (τ • ε) 22:25, 6 December 2009 (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) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]