Welcome!

Hello, Bladestorm, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! - Adolphus79 16:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

happy Turkey-Day!!!!

I wish you a very merry Thanksgiving! Hope you and your family have a magnificent day! So, what are you thankful for? Hooray and happy gormandizi^ŋ! --Randfan _{please talk talk to me!}

Have a great day! Please respond on my talk page (the red "fan" link in my signature). Cheers! :) —Rand fan !!

Cheers! :) —Rand fan !! has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs: Todd Replogle; The Whole Experience; Thing (comics); Itadaki Street Special; W-VHS; ViewSonic; Demolition Man (comics); Magic Carpet Bob; Middle finger; Two-Gun Kid; Laserfilm; Monolith Soft; Hallux; Physics processing unit; Uchu no Kishi Tekkaman Blade II - Next Generation 1; Smart Parts; Lost Odyssey; Jikkyou Power Pro Yakyuu series; Little finger

Cleanup: Alex Rodriguez; VAIO; Ve (pronoun)
Merge: Wikia; Interactive movie; Criticism of Wal-Mart
Add Sources: Angel (paintball); Crystal (comics); Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection
Wikify: Goldfinger (band); The Cockroach; Jacob Conrad Shafer
Expand: Hironobu Sakaguchi; Touchscreen; Thanos

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 18:11, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

USD conversion template

Looks great! Very clever idea, now just put it in some articles :D Scepia 17:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS3 USD conversion

Amazing template and implementation! You deserve a fricking award or something. Cmsjustin 21:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waste of Time

A rather long and pointless waste of both time and space can be found here. Anyone wishing to further comment there is free to do so, but don't expect me to check up on it very often. Either way, too much space for my main talk page. Bladestorm 04:08, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

archiving page

You can really do it both ways. If you wish to keep the edit history intact, you can move the page and put important things back on the talk page. I don't care about the edit history, as any questions of ownership would be solved by the signature - ~~~~, and the original talk page would have the complete history of discussion on my account. I just copy and paste, but it works both ways. Scepia 04:27, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Threat? Hardly.

It was not a threat. It was a natural consequence of his actions. He had not made a single civil comment in his history on Wikipedia, and I called him out on it. When I did so, he threatened me with blocking, and I simply showed him the futile hilarity of his statement. --Golbez 23:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stay away from my talk page

Any comments by you on my talk page will be summarily removed. --Ideogram 06:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I take it back. I am willing to converse with you on my talk page, although I remind you the invitation can be revoked at any time. --Ideogram 07:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um, okay... But, before I do, what were you still interested in discussing? Removing comments from talk pages? Because I doubt there's going to be much disagreement on that front anyways. (Just for the sake of people who universally oppose it, I think I might just ~~strike~~ it out next time it's really bad, instead of actually removing it) Bladestorm 14:31, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't watchlist your talk page so missed this for a while.

It's not that I have anything I particularly wanted to discuss with you, but if there is anything you want to say to me or want to discuss with me I am willing to listen. Striking out is okay, I guess, although I still prefer that you just not mess with other people's comments. Anyway, I'm not really going to argue with you. Happy editing. --Ideogram 09:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for helping with the HD DVD template. TJ Spyke 22:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Darthwhatsit

Just ignore him. Any more vandalism to either of your pages will result in blocks, so... – Steel 19:02, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't find that very nice. Not vandalism, just voicing an opinion. Pretty sure that I'm allowed to do that. Also, it's not very cool to pretend not to know somebody else's name just to sound cool. You guys have only said it about 100 times. DarthZantetsuken 12:10, 24 March 2007 (EST)

um... no... removing content from my user page, not for the sake of policy, but for the sake of making a point, was, indeed, vandalism. There's no way to even pretend that it was an honest mistake, since you supported it with the logic, "an eye for an eye". And, seriously, what's the deal with saying things like, "maybe now, I'll be able to use this website in peace", but also feeling the need to refer to people as "unfair friends", and also feeling the need to try to defend your inexcusable actions on my talk page? If you really want peace, then perhaps dropping it would be the way to go? hmm? yes? good. Bladestorm 20:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Don't worry about it. If anything, Illuminato has performed three reverts on the page today (it doesn't matter which part of the article one reverts). Xiner (talk, email) 00:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to help

Hey Bladestorm, thanks for stoppping by to talk. Some of the relevant portions are (emphasis added):

Introduction: Our struggle against the Jews is very great and very serious. It needs all sincere efforts. It is a step that inevitably should be followed by other steps. The Movement is but one squadron that should be supported by more and more squadrons from this vast Arab and Islamic world, until the enemy is vanquished and God's victory is realised.

Article 7: ... the Islamic Resistance Movement aspires to the realisation of God's promise, no matter how long that should take. The Prophet, God bless him and grant him salvation, has said: "The Day of Judgment will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews, when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O slaves of God, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him. Only the Gharqad tree would not do that because it is one of the trees of the Jews."

Article 28: ... when the Jews conquered the Holy City in 1967, they stood on the threshold of the Aqsa Mosque and proclaimed that "Mohammed is dead, and his descendants are all women." Israel, Judaism and Jews challenge Islam and the Moslem people. "May the cowards never sleep."

Note especially in the last graf, they condem Israel, Jews, and Judaism; they are aware that these are separate things. Also, they're huuuuuge fans of The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. That automatically gets you into the antisemite club, complete with badge and decoder ring. There's yet more evidence, I think, but I hope this makes the point. Do keep nudging me, though, if you still think I'm wrong. Cheers. IronDuke 17:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VANDALISM

STOP VANDALIZING PS3 ARTICLES OR YOUR ACCOUNT WILL BE BANNED. i agree oh and also, did you not see the interview? Tome711 00:35, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, I want to be mad, but I'm having a hard time actually getting angry. :) Bladestorm 00:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

wii fanboy!!! lol. Sony=teh pwnage and u know it! Tome711 00:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

okay, I know they basically sort of suck right now... But still we all know the wiimote copied the SIXAXIS. Tome711 00:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

we will get rumble soon and we have blu-ray all you have is a blu LED light Tome711 00:42, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

we have blue and a green and a red led light Tome711 00:46, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i have more awards then you noob! Tome711 00:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

face PS3 pwns everything by 2008! Tome711 00:51, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battalion Wars 2

I marked it as RV vandalism because this users only edits are to revert every single one of my edits (check his edit history). TJ Spyke 23:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That would be WP:POINT, not vandalism. :D Bladestorm 23:04, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A relaxing massage for the little user?

Cool it, little user. Rise above! Have Ovaltine and relaxing massage, enjoy Zilla new ferocious sig! bishzilla _ROARR!! 22:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Where's the 3RR vio?

Hi there. I'd just like to say I'm glad that someone else was able to see I did not break the 3RR. However I accept that myself and other editors have been edit-warring - indeed I pointed that out on one of the admin's threads. I think we might need a RFC on the matter if we can't agree on a new version to use. Also thanks for the comments about my version being more neutral, even if it could be improved.

Not saying you're taking sides or anything, just expressing some thanks for knowing other wikipedians are sympathetic to my position. Cheerio, John Smith's 21:23, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policy question

On my talk page Fnagaton I have a section about a subject very close to my heart, binary prefixes being used in old computer articles, and I was wondering what are your policy related thoughts about asking a limited number of editors who have written about this topic before to check out my talk page regarding this issue? One editor has claimed it is "canvassing" and is "not allowed" but I think that it is reasonable communication about an issue to other potentially like minded editors. I ask because you have a track record of commenting on policy with an even hand. Fnagaton 01:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heads-up

Hey, no problem. I don't take anything personally and I understand where you're coming from. I'm equally tired of going around in circles with this, and a little miffed at the combattive attitudes of some (like Sarenne and Fnagaton) who are trying to lawyer guidelines and refuse to see other people's viewpoint. For the record (as I stated on the MOSNUM talk), I don't believe that another vote will resolve this dispute, but I'm not going to try and stop it.

I just ask that you please not hold the actions of one editor against this guideline in general; behind all the arm waving and shouting there are actually valid reasons to strongly recommend the usage of the prefixes (as well as there are valid reasons not to use them). I think that either way we should have a consistent guideline; it's a big step backwards if we just let this go back to being decided on a per-page basis. -- mattb @ 2007-04-10T16:13Z

I don't refuse to see other people viewpoint. I refuse to accept behaviours that are against a consensus, that's all. Sarenne 18:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to add that I do see other people's viewpoints on this but when they base their entire argument on style and dismiss the facts I'm not going to let them get away with it. ;) Fnagaton 19:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - I think that whatever happens it should happen soon. At this point parties on both sides are lawyering heavily, misinterpreting guidelines, accusing others of misinterpreting, etc. It's just getting to be an unintelligible mess. -- mattb @ 2007-04-10T16:20Z

Re: "If it does end up with a vote, please do notify some editors that you know prefer the IEC prefixes."

As I stated before, I don't think canvassing is ever appropriate (some agree with this, some disagree). I'm not going to be hypocritical and engage in canvassing after I've expressed my distaste for it. Someone else is welcome to do so, but it won't be me. There are healthy number of editors who have commented both ways on this guideline, and contacting them all is the only way to avoid vote-stacking, but contacting them all is also very spammish IMO. Again, this doesn't preclude others from acting how they wish, but I won't engage in canvassing myself. -- mattb @ 2007-04-10T16:24Z

Incidentally, if you'd like to talk about this in real-time, I usually hang around WP:IRC in the #wikipedia channel (nick uberpenguin). -- mattb @ 2007-04-10T16:27Z

I guess Wikipedia:IRC tutorial is as good a place as any to start. -- mattb @ 2007-04-10T16:32Z

Megabit

one megabit exactly equals 125 kilobytes... Sarenne 21:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Just wanted to say sorry for my not-so-recent flame assault (wasn't really a war, just me being a tool). Darth Zantetsuken (Grovel/Beg/Praise) 00:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted without reservation. Happy editing. Bladestorm 00:57, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I felt inclined, so I gave you a barnstar. Its not ment as a joke, its a sincere barnstar! Darth Zantetsuken (Grovel/Beg/Praise) 01:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

arbitration

An arbitration had been filed about myself and Ideogram's disputes. I will appreciate if you comment your experience with Ideogram on the RfA page. Thanks.--Certified.Gangsta 00:47, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your work on binary prefix debate. I do not understand why some think is absolutely necessary to only one prefix for all contexts. I have tried to explain it with no avail. You have done a better job, but it is not getting through.

I have taken issue with the overstating of "this is the consensus, now fall in line." Some of my comments were a bit out of line. Is it acceptable to delete your own comments on a talk page?

Before we have a vote, is the "must accept the change" clause allowable on any style guideline?

Thanks again for your efforts. SWTPC6800 03:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a laugh. SLi added a POV tag on Binary_prefix#JEDEC_units_of_semiconductor_storage_capacity because JEDEC was a minor organization. [1]

I beefed up the description adding that JEDEC/EIA was accredited by the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) and mattb removed it. [2]

SWTPC6800 04:10, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surely an editor that removes factual reliable sources (like the one SWTPC6800 included) when they disagree with them from a personal point of view is not doing a good job. Fnagaton 22:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Any ideas?

I've tried in vain to get folks to stay on track in that discussion. At this point I'm just going to sit back and see what happens, interjecting as little as possible. I've more than spoken my peace on the issue and am getting rather sick of the hurling back and forth of the same old arguments (on both sides). -- mattb @ 2007-04-16T22:02Z

Re: Good job!

Hey!! Thank You! Thank I really appreciate your kind words ^_^ lol I thought about putting that too XD Aoikumo 23:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Binary prefixes - So close!

Just a quick note to say hopefully there will be a compromise in the binary prefixes thing where the terminology used in the sources is used first and the binary prefixes are added in brackets afterwards. So we end up with text like this example here [3]. Unfortunately I'm away from the internet for a few days... *grumble* Fnagaton 16:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attacks?

I'm sorry that you feel I've attacked you. Please be aware that at the time I initiated those initial 'bad-faith attacks', I was comparatively new to Wikipedia, and had no idea you weren't allowed to question the integrity of other editors. ~~Please do not move or delete this comment~~. Algabal 17:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Dangerous-Boy

Hi - these editors were blocked on the basis of being involved in a meatpuppetry ring with the banned editor user:Hkelkar. As they have been warned several times in the past about incivility/personal attacks/disruptive editing and there is no doubt they were were of Wikipedia's policies concerning meatpuppetry and banned editors, there was no need for any prior warning to them. Also, consider the nature of the situation - I was lucky to have obtained hard evidence about this ring in the first place. Warn them and then what? They'll try not to get caught again. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 21:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are wrong. Yes the ANI thread began with a "notification," but I basically asked the community to understand why I blocked these individuals and asked for criticism, opinions, etc. I knew that the ANI thread would be a major discussion of the evidence, policies and actions taken. The RfAr was filed when a few editors objected to my actions and questioned the evidence. A major debate arose and only then was an arbitration request filed. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 21:37, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Gere

As a person who has been involved in the discussion of various rumors related to Richard Gere, I thought you may be interested to know that due to the unwillingness of FNMF to find consensus on this issue I have taken the discussion of the Gere/Crawford letter to the BLP noticeboard. [4]. Please feel free to comment. Sparkzilla 10:24, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Broken ref

Thanks, it's fixed. Jayjg ^(talk) 23:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Call it curiosity

Bladestorm, I'm moving Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Call it curiosity into the section Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Binary prefixes. Hope you don't mind. Fair points by the way. J ɪ m p 23:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Binary prefixes

I suppose I'm biased in that the "should be accepted" was the only part I took significant exception to, but I think that, considering how polarizing it can be, less policy is good policy.

Well, the version I added doesn't contain the "should be accepted" part. Did you read it? [5] It's meant to be a paraphrase of the original consensus wording that most people were happy with. Of course Fnagaton will never be happy until IEC prefixes are completely eradicated, so he reverted... — Omegatron 17:02, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you are misrepresenting what actually happened. The fact is I reverted an edit by Tor exit node. A different editor reverted your attempted rewrite of [WP:MOSNUM] because it doesn't have consensus. I also note your continued bad faith misrepresentation of what you think I will or won't like.Fnagaton 17:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So you're perfectly fine with the use of IEC prefixes on Wikipedia? If so, where do you think they are appropriate? — Omegatron 18:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another attempt at misrepresentation, stop it now. I think IEC prefixes are appropriate when it can be demonstrated the majority of reliable sources relevant to an article uses those terms. The fact is the majority of reliable sources relevant to the majority of articles do not use IEC prefixes. Fnagaton 19:30, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I the only person who thinks that, by now, we should just let authors of articles use whichever they're most comfortable with, so long as it doesn't trample upon the work of previous contributers to the same articles? Bladestorm 15:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You mean "stay with established usage, and follow the lead of the first major contributor to the article"? Fnagaton 16:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. (The "stick to the majority of the reliable sources" clause could be used as an excuse to go through any article currently using those stupid IEC prefixes and changing them. I may not like the IEC versions, but that'd cause new generations of edit wars, which I'd like even less) Bladestorm 16:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the "stay with established usage" does have one problem and that is locking down usage to one thing, even when that thing is obviously wrong. Or it doesn't allow change if IEC prefixes do eventually get to be commonly used by the sources, for example if the manufacturer of something changed all their documentation to using IEC. That isn't so good imho. That's why really I think the "stick to the majority of the reliable sources" guideline gives the right balance of concrete guideline (less wiggle room) with the possibility of change later on. Fnagaton 16:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Except, in that case, someone (the next sarenne... shall we say, 'enneras'?) will use it as an excuse to change as many articles as possible, and, right or wrong, numerous edit wars will erupt. In the end, even if IEC is bloody stupid, it's still a style choice. And stylistic preferences tend to be respected. Let people use what they want. If a company, some day in the future, makes a very clear and deliberate decision to switch from one to the other, then that can be the reason for editing the article. (Just as articles that are very definitively locally british get commonwealth spellings, even if that isn't the first major contribution) Anyways, just food for thought. Bladestorm 16:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the "majority of reliable sources" was always a compromise to the binary prefix lovers just so they wouldn't feel there would be no possibility of change. As long as "stay with established usage" allows change in specific circumstances then "stay with established usage" is good enough, but then it's not me that needs convincing. ;) Fnag aton 21:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Poutine on Bishonen's RfC

YUCK!!!!! I'm convinced that's why Les Habitants can't win the Stanley Cup any more. :) Orangemarlin 15:48, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Followed up on your suggestion on my user talk page. :) Orangemarlin 16:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page: Blind leading the blind, and willfully so, from all I can see. Valiant attempt yuu're making, though. KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:47, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I was a bit afraid that I might be making things worse. (I have a habit of offering my opinions where they aren't solicited) Bladestorm 18:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gota be wary of those numbery-bullet-dealies! Lsi john 18:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh crap, you mean people actually pay attention to edit summaries? dangit! Bladestorm 18:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not fond of playing housekeeper, but editing inside another editor's comments, is a pet peeve of mine. I deal with another user who does that regularly. Lsi john 18:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I don't mind it at all. And normally find it can help discussion. Of course, that's when it doesn't mess up the formatting. (Which obviously wasn't the case here.) So thanks. :) Bladestorm 18:31, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Levity

Thanks for your comment; my efforts were not entirely in vain. :-) Jayjg ^(talk) 15:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request your comments

I created a proposal. Please comment here.

Note: Please analyze each proposal on their own validity - do not reject a proposal just because you rejected a different one. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

EU version came first. So logically, PEGI comes first. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are a bastion of assuming bad faith. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do your research. Check the history. I put it under contested proposals. Leave Wikipedia or stop calling everyone who you assume is acting badly a dirty fiendish fiend. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did - on the discussion on WP:ANIME/DB. But that would entail you read anything I say. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:32, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And by claiming that I acted in deceit wasn't an insult? Hmm. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saying you were a bastion of assuming bad faith is far less of an insult than claiming I acted in deceit. Did it ever cross your mind to ask if I was the one who listed it under Uncontroversial moves? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:50, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's called "jumping to conclusions". Just because it's the human condition to assume bad faith does not mean that it's acceptable and that you shouldn't try to make sure that you DON'T jump to conclusions. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Son Goku move

*Son Goku (Dragon Ball) → Goku (Dragon Ball) - 1. "Son Goku" gets 707,000 hits, while "Goku" -"Son Goku" gets 1,650,000 hits. 2. The only usage of Son Goku is the Japanese subtitles on the DVDs and in VIZ mangas, while Goku is used in the anime, in the trading card game, action figurines (and other toys), the video games, and the English dub contained on the DVDs. Also, the manga does indeed use the name Goku. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:52, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the move. In the circumstances, you could have reverted the move. Anthony Appleyard 21:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

360 technical problems

I agree but the link itself seems dubious to me. Personally I'd like to see multiple examples, and at least one from an independent journalistic article. There's nothing really to show that the heat sink was not attatched by an end-user or some other party besides microsoft. Personally I'd like to leave the tag for now and see what response it gets while I look into it a little further myself.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 17:35, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Erased comment

Link erased one of your comments in the Son Goku to Goku consensus at WP:DBZ. I don't know if you wanted him to. Just thought I'd let you know. --VorangorTheDemon 00:12, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(partially cross-posted with Deskana) Just to let you know, I did another revert because he went in and removed comments by you ("libelous claims" in the edit summary). Beyond that I promise to drop this myself. I know where you're coming from with wanting to correct him, too. For all his claims of bias, I've actually watched the entire dub. Just watched that ep where Kuririn fought stage 1 Cell that was on this past Saturday. And I simply say "Goku" pretty much 99% of the time, so my opinion here is not based on bias. But I think all any of us on all sides were doing was fueling the flame, so it's best just to back away. Onikage725 00:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, I didn't revert because it's an issue between you an link. I don't want to get involved. Just thought that I'd inform you. :) --VorangorTheDemon 00:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Libel

What the HFIL...? Ok, I want your opinion, cuz you seem to have dealt with him more. I notice on his arguments for video games, he pushes pretty hard for European names over all else. Does Europe not get the most recent dual language DBZ DVDs and/or the Viz manga? Maybe that would explain why he claims them to be unfamiliar and mentions DBZ VHS tapes.

First off: "What the HFIL"-freaking hilarious. :)

Beyond that, I really don't know. I know little about who gets dvds/mangas first, and know even less about his motivations or intentions. To be honest, I wouldn't care to speculate. Bladestorm 00:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's even funnier is hearing VegettoEX pronounce it (What the HFIL) on his podcasts :p Onikage725 00:40, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be bad to admit that I have nooo clue what you're talking about? :D Bladestorm 00:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha no. VegettoEX is the owner of www.daizex.com. He has regular podcasts recorded for the site, and sometimes he'll say "What the HFIL?" He pronounces it as "hiffle." It cracked me up the first time I heard it. Onikage725 00:49, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"hiffle"? Well, that's it. I believe this is officially the first time I've ever literally laughed out loud from something I read on wikipedia. Bladestorm 00:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a break

You've got three hours of peace. I suggest you take a break. I'm going to get a nice cold drink. I'd make it alcoholic if I hadn't already drunk all my vodka. I'd also make it a double, as I've gotten four edit conflicts trying to post this message on your page. --Deskana (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Know what? I think I might do that. :) Think I'll check out the news or something. Bladestorm 00:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I envy you. I'm having a quiet night at work, and we have a firewall blocking most things fun-related... Onikage725 01:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask you a question?

Why does it seem like you've resorted to fighting for Trace Memory instead of the first title? I mean, even though what that user did was what I did, which you oppose vehemently? You don't seem to have a problem with what the user did, even though it's no different from what I did, which you have a problem with. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:45, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I argue that the article is still a stub, and that it's not fair to say that the older contributions are not major contributions, because there wasn't much to be said about the article. As time progressed, more information appeared. There wasn't enough to add when the article was known a Another Code. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Extreme Championship Wrestling (WWE)

Despite the fact that there was no opener at all for tonights ECW, some users keep changing the opening theme to "Famous" by Puddle of Mudd. I can't revert without violating 3RR (even though removing unsourced info is supposed to be allowed by other policies), would you take a look? TJ Spyke 06:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry spyke, but I know nothing about wrestling at all. I can make sure the 'fact' tag stays in there, but that's the best I can do. Bladestorm 14:06, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Secure server?

Hey gurch.
I saw you mentioning the secure server (secure.wikimedia.blahblahblah). As it so happens: I have no bloody clue what that is. :D
But it sounds interesting. Problem is, I couldn't find any info on wiki about its secure server. Have a link? Bladestorm 00:40, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gurch is probably asleep now, so hopefully he won't mind if I tell you that the link is here. You may wish to bookmark it. Gurchnotes^T § 01:55, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think he knows where it is, but was wondering what it is. Essentially, you can browse the English Wikipedia as usual (or another project, by changing "wikipedia", or another language, by changing "en"), via a secure connection (https). On a wiki, where everything can be read and (in most cases) edited by anyone, there's not much call for secure connections, but some people are concerned their passwords may be intercepted when they log in; apparently that makes up for the fact that it's awfully slow compared to the usual way. There is probably some information somewhere, though I don't know where – Gurch 08:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, both of you. :) I don't think I'm going to bother with it myself. I have no sysop bit to exploit, and my school doesn't snoop on passwords, so I think it's pretty safe. :) Thanks all. Bladestorm 14:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

Hello, Bladestorm! I'm A legend! Nice to meet you! If you want to talk to me, feel free to use my talk page!

--A legend 21:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response.

I identify their actions as vandalism because the user has resorted to using sockpuppets in reverting (switched from an IP to King of America). I am well within my rights to revert in situations such as this. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:10, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3rr

I do not recall adding a "no vio" to it.Baka man 00:48, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The IP sock-troll did it. Its ok though.Baka man 00:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry new here but I have asked for protection for the page .I think that is the correct way forward.Will get an account and start using it.Anyway Thanks for your prompt response.He put the No vio back [6] after i removed it.I had earlier cut pasted the earlier request.Anyway I will joining Wikipedia with an account in a couple of days.81.208.161.46 01:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More Tor

I agree with you, but I replied to your comment at Talk:Tor (anonymity network). Any ideas? Cheers, Flyguy649 ^talk _contribs 16:31, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gurch's "vandalism"

(ec)Something to remember is that there's a difference between banning and blocking. Some editors really are effectively banned, solely for desiring privacy. While although adding the templates are obvious wp:points, they certainly aren't malicious, and are, rather, a way to force people to accept that editors are becoming victims of policy. It's not something I'd personally prefer to do, if only because it uses the same template as a 'real ban/block', but is still a genuine attempt to improve the project by protecting editors. (I know you didn't ask, but just in case you don't see why hiding IP's matters...) I primarily edit at school, in my office. Anyone with checkuser (or who can get an ip from a checkuser), and nslookup could very easily determine not only my school, but the precise office I edit from. It would then be a trivial matter to learn my personal identity (just ask the secretary). The other two IPs I edit from would detail my travels across the border (US/Canada), and would essentially allow a person to know precisely who I was, where I go, what I do for a 'living'... pretty much far more information than the average person wants available. If I had, for example, a crazy ex-wife or something, then she could very easily use my IP to track me down. These are serious concerns, and anonymous editing isn't malicious in and of itself. Banning people for wanting to protect themselves may be the only option, but it should be a public and transparent option. Wanting people to see these victims of policy certainly shouldn't be sufficient reason to block gurch. (Incidentally, so you don't think I'm trying to justify my own use of proxies or something: I don't use them. Anybody could find out a great amount of information on me, and even track me down, but I'm not personally paranoid enough to care about that. However, several people really do have to worry about that sort of thing, whether it be ex-spouses, stalkers, etc., and they shouldn't have to choose between safety and being able to participate in projects) Bladestorm 17:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, policy rather than techincal issue... that's what I meant. 20% of the world? Ew...

Yeah... I understand now. I totally misunderstood what the intention was of the edits. I apologize for well... not assuming good faith. Which I perhaps should have. I'm not going to take sides on this issue, because I don't know enough as of yet, but it's a viable issue and Gurch's edits were a form of protest, so to speak. It would be good if there was a way to have both anonymity and the ability to block ip vandals, but this seems to be difficult, if not impossible. So no hard feelings, right? Gscshoyru 17:09, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Replied on your talk page. :) Bladestorm 17:16, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SELF

Took it out anyway. So no harm done. But I think mentioning the Allspark thing is worthwhile, because there's too much inflexibility about what a MacGuffin is or isn't. When we have Wiki editors advocating one position *largely without references* against *published* meanings of the word used by the likes of Lucas and Ebert, you have to wonder about where they get their certainty from. I'm not saying their wrong, but I do suspect their purist interpretation of what Hitchcock means might not be the only valid one within the industry. Hence, I'm happy to play Devil's advocate here, and to push for a more inclusive article that more accurately describes the usage in the industry comes out. God knows why, because I really couldn't care less about the subject! Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 17:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS3 image

No, it's not based on a specific, commercial picture. There's not so many ways to show a standing PS3. There was a long deletion request and debate involving editors on that picture, and the conclusion was keep.Ssolbergj 01:22, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

WikiThanks

Thanks for supporting me in the conflict with Anonimu! You truely deserve a WikiThanks!! --Eurocopter tigre 22:26, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Che Guevara

Greetings, I am looking for an outside writer to end an edit war by rewriting a small portion of the intro for Che Guevara , I've been attempting to keep the tone neutral, however, I'm ameniable to including more than one conflicting opinion in the intro. As I've been caught up in the edit war over it I don't want to do it myself and I was pointed your way by a previous editor. Thank you in advance for any time and help you provide. Gtadoc 20:10, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While although I appreciate that you asked, I'm not sure I'd be the appropriate choice to edit it. I've already expressed a distinct preference to your phrasing, so I might not appear particularly neutral to zleitzen. I will, however, at least try to make it easier to get outside attention. (I just posted a little structure on the che talk page, in hopes that it may help you two to collate what it is you'd like, and why. I hope it wasn't a terrible idea) Bladestorm 20:37, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re your comment on my talkpage is {{expert-verify|July 2007}} what you are looking for, or do you feel there are too many experts already contributing? ;~) LessHeard vanU 21:00, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gtadoc added this to my talkpage
Good call, I believe you were thinking of this {Wider attention} Gtadoc 21:04, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
This might also be the one. LessHeard vanU 21:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Df747jet

Hi Bladestorm, I noticed you've left a warning on Df747jet's user talk page. He/She has taken to blanking their talk page without previously archiving old discussions. Could you help me monitor their talk page to make sure he/she does the right thing?--Just James ^T/C 13:33, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Until

Yes, the link on his userpage allows any admin to see his previous identity and peruse his old admin history. So far as I can tell he was a remarkably uncontroversial and well-respected. — Laura Scudder ☎ 18:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for telling me about the image. I'll remove it now.

Not trying to sound sarcastic, but...

2005 came before 2006, not after it. The DS Lite came out in 2006. The Game Boy micro came out in 2005. As such, there's a possibility that you could consider the DS Lite to be the successor the Game Boy micro, as it's the most recent Nintendo handheld to come out since ;) I am reverting it back. Knowitall 18:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thank you for your support in my Request for Adminship. Unfortunately the nomination did not succeed, but please rest assured that I am still in full support of the Wikipedia project, and I'll try again in a few months! If you ever have any questions or suggestions for me, please don't hesitate to contact me. Best wishes, --El on ka 06:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iantresman ban appeal

Hi. With permission from an arbitrator, Iantresman has filed an appeal to the Arbitration Committee, seeking review of the ban against him imposed after discussion at the Community Sanctions Noticeboard, and listed you as a potentially interested party. Your comments would be welcome at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#iantresman indefinite ban appeal. Newyorkbrad 18:41, 2 October 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) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:ToUSD

Template:ToUSD has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. eh bien mon prince (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated example

Hello. Tracking for errors I found an outdated example you posted here: Template_talk:ToUSD. The second parameter should now be CAN, not CAD. Trigenibinion (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for deletion of Template:ToUSDvalues

Template:ToUSDvalues has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:22, 4 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]