User talk:InvaderSora/Archive 2

Help

Hello, you used the {{helpme}} tag. How may I help you? When you've asked your question, please put the tag back so we know to check back. Alternatively, you can join the Wikipedia Bootcamp IRC channel to get real-time help. (Use the web-based client to get instant access.) – Luna Santin (talk) 04:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

((helpme)) Oaky, so you are an admin.

I have been unfairly clocked. I udnerstand the 3RR rule, but i sort of had to. Also, user: apostrophe has been harassing me and im only defending myself. yet, he's not blocked. Please help. InvaderSora 04:22, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any blocks in your log -- if you're blocked, try following these instructions. In addition, I'm not aware of where the 3RR violation took place, so it'd be difficult to comment on it. – Luna Santin (talk) 05:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My name was changed from toajaller3146 to InavderSora. InvaderSora 05:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breaking the 3RR Rule

This is just a copy that I paisted on your Toajaller3146 page, incase you don't use that page anymore to break the 3RR rule.

It is not that you are posting vandalism. You are again, breaking the 3RR rule, by reverting information that is not sourced and giving information that is not written correctly, or backed up by facts. I'm going to stop writing this, because I've realized that you are switching accounts to again, break the 3RR rule. So, just for your information, User:InvaderSora, here is your constant reverts, to which I can find more than 3 today: [1]. Also, I'm posting this on your User:InvaderSora page. Chickyfuzz^{(user talk)} 05:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Read above for my say in this. InvaderSora 05:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt an administrator is going to unblock you. This is what the blocking administrator said: more 3RR violations, harassment of other users; take a couple days off, why don't you? I agree with him InvatorSora/Toajaller3146. Take a couple of days off. Read the introduction articles, especially the 3RR rule It will help you. Chickyfuzz^{(user talk)} 05:51, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You need to stop right now posting vandalism tags on 75.44.225.245's user page. He was just doing his job by patrolling Wikipedia, and he found that you were reverting edits on Piner-Olivet Charter School many times. You did not vandalize Piner-Olivet Charter School, by you were getting very close to breaking the 3RR rule. User: 75.44.225.245 was warning you that you were going to be blocked. It is over, I'm done warning you about it. I hope you get it, because it would be nice to get back to all of our lives. Chickyfuzz^{(user talk)} 04:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless i did break 3RR on that page, he/she has no reason to put a warning on my talk page. InvaderSora 04:48, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request

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).

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

Request reason:

Unfair (please read below)

Decline reason:

WP:3RR applies to everyone and no exceptions will be made for anyone. Even admins can and have been blocked under this policy. -- Netsnipe ► 11:22, 27 February 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.

OKAY, IM NOT HOLDING THIS IN ANYMORE. THIS 3RRR RULE IS BULLSHIT!!!!!!!!!!!!!75.20.203.104 15:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At least block that Apostrophe dude as well. He's harassing me as well, and he has no punishment? WTF? Is that fair? No. InvaderSora 04:25, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} reason= If Apostrophe isnt blocked, i shouldnt be. Also, i didnt vandalize anything.

Helpme

You use the {{helpme}} template one more time on this talk page, I will see to it that this page is protected, and you will lose the right to edit it. Sit down and cool off until the block expires. — D e on555^talk_desk^{sign here!} 05:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i do need help. I ahve the right to fair punishment. it's in the damn bill of rights. InvaderSora 05:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is a private organization and does not follow any government's bill of rights. It makes up its own rules, regulations, guidelines, policies, etc. You were blocked for violating WP:3RR at Kingdom Hearts II and you have been doing nothing but being a pain since that block was enacted.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 05:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can find a copy of the United States Constitution at [2]. —Centrx→talk • 05:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)You don't need help, you want to be unblocked. We can't / don't help blocked users, as they can't edit, thus they naturally wouldn't have a question about how to edit. Use {{unblock}} once. When that is rejected, don't use it again. Sit the block out. — D e on555^talk_desk^{sign here!} 05:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And Apostrophe did ( i believe) as well, and harassed me, and he isnt blocked. Either i egt unblocked or he gets blocked the same time period as me. What do you expect me to do when he unfairly removes my edits?

Either i egt unblocked or he gets blocked the same time period as me.

You're not really in the position to be making demands now, are you? As everyone here is saying, just sit back, enjoy the time off, read up on WP:3RR, and when you return, try to stick to our (not-so-hard-to-follow) rules. — D e on555^talk_desk^{sign here!} 05:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am only going to get over it if i can see Apostrophe blocked. As you can see on KH2, he has violated the 3rr BS, and harassed me. Example of harassment?

"God, not you again."- Edit summary by him.
He kept removing the comment i made on his talk page. I was only trying to talk to him about it, and settle it, and he removes it every time. Mature?
It seems he tracks my Contributions page. I am personally offended.

Apostrophe has been blocked once already, as i saw on his Block log. And it was for rude comments in edit summaries. If i was blocked for 3rr and "harassment" (though i didnt) he shouldn't be able to just get away with it. InvaderSora 05:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says my clock reason is for vandalism. I have never vandalized an article. InvaderSora 05:51, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this.. i consider this important. InvaderSora 06:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are almost trying to Disrupt to prove a point. Just let it go, and wait for the block to expire. Subsequently, I'm not going to be involved any more, and I encourage other users, be they admin or otherwise, just to ignore the user, and let them break while the block runs its course.— D e on555^talk_desk^{sign here!} 06:37, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So is apostrophe going to be blocked, as he did the same stuff i was blocked for? InvaderSora 15:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:ArielWaller.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ArielWaller.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

YOU ALREADY TOLD ME THIS. InvaderSora 15:33, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is the last time I am even going to try talking to you and settling your immachure problems. Why don't you fix what the bot is telling you to do [Put a Image Tag on the Picture]. It is not that difficult...and you could save all our time if you stop complaining and just do what the bot is telling you to do. Chickyfuzz^{(user talk)} 17:53, 28 February 2007 (UTC

It's wasting time if they repeat saying this. i got the point the first time. InvaderSora 23:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me a reason how you get the point the first time? You obviously don't because you are uploading images which are uncorrectly tagged. So stop saying you do. You're wasting all of our times.Chickyfuzz^{(user talk)} 04:44, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request declined

I'll stop "harassing" you when you:

Stop considering yourself above Wikipedia's policies. You aren't exempt from WP:NOR, WP:V, WP:NPOV. You don't provide sources for your edits. You don't correctly tag and source your images.
Stop assuming that your version of articles is inherently better than others and consider any disagreement trolling, "harassment", or vandalism.
Stop getting angry that people actually apply the rules to your edits.

Until you do those, I'm not interested in talking with you ever again. ' 04:12, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have fun with your block, because i expect you're getting one.
When i upload an image, unless it is a mistake, there is a tag.
The FN promo thing on the KH2 page? I was told (not in these exact words) w hen i was putting it on the KH series page "it would be best off on the KH2 page."

I see you were blocked once for harassment. Mayeb you'll learn if you egt blocked again... InvaderSora 04:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peace

So InvaderSora, I'm calling a peace with you. I'm sick of trying to control your every movement, even if most of them aren't great in Wikipedia rules. I've been reading over your talk page, and I'm sorry, but you don't always seem to get that you can't have a fight with someone over a couple edits. Think about it. I did and this is why I'm not going to fight with you about your edits. I hope that you read over the rules of Wikipedia and take into account of what other users are telling you. I hope you do that, and it could really help you in the future here, because you're just going to get all these comments every day until you stop. You're going to be in these edit wars everyday, until someone stops. Be the mature person, and stop fighting over a couple of edits because one of you think it is correct. Hope the rest of your days here on Wikipedia are well and followed by rules. Chickyfuzz^{(user talk)} 04:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry.. didn't think that this was vandalism

Hello InvaderSora, I'm sorry that you considered my change vandalism. Personally I thought that I was just adding one more species to a list of species which live off Elderberry. The Name "Jew's ear fungus" for that fungus was not added because of antisemitism if that's what you are criticizing; the Article for that fungus itself gives that name as a traditional name (and it wasn't me who wrote it into that article). In German, "Judasohr" is the quite official name of that thing. Best wishes and no ill feelings, -- 85.182.123.182 04:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the link to the article on that fungus, in case you want to check for yourself: Auricularia auricula-judae. -- 85.182.123.182 04:46, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting at WP:AN/3RR

Don't do something like this. User:Centrx has examined the case and decided there's no reason to block. If you're unclear about why, ask at User talk:Centrx, don't edit his response on the noticeboard. Jkelly 05:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops

Hi, I removed the warning you gave to User:85.182.123.182 because this[3] edit appears to be true, and not vandalism at all. When I first saw it I thought it was vandalism, but the article it links to confirms this is true. It was an understandable error, just letting you know. ^HighInBC ^{(Need help? Ask me)} 06:41, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Extreme Pizza

An editor has nominated Extreme Pizza, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extreme Pizza and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 21:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit on Extreme Pizza

The {{hangon}} tag should only be used when the article is tagged for speedy deletion, not for an AFD. If you want the article to be kept, discuss it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extreme Pizza and explain why the article should be kept. Thank you. Squirepants101 04:01, 3 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Madisonpettis.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Madisonpettis.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove AFD tags

Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion pages, as you did with Extreme Pizza. Doing so won't stop the discussion from taking place. You are however welcome to comment about the proposed deletion on the appropriate page. Thank you. Pagra shtak 14:08, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WTF? Discussion, as i could see, was CLOSED, decision was KEEP. Can i have some fishy crackers? 16:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here is what a closed AFD looks like. Now compare it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extreme Pizza. As you can see, the discussion for Extreme Pizza is still open. Only admins decide when an AFD should be closed. Squirepants101 16:30, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What sort of help are you looking for? Is there anything specific I can help you with? SWAdair | Talk 05:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

how do i make userboxes —The preceding unsigned comment was added by InvaderSora (talk • contribs).

Wikipedia:Userboxes. –Gunslinger47 20:09, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't remove deletion tags

I.S.,

I agree with you that the article on the Charter School should stay, but you can't remove a deletion tag, as the tag itself states. Once the tag has been put on and the deletion discussion starts, it has to go to its own conclusion according to Wikipedia rules. Also, if you remove the tag, potential supporters of the article won't know that it's up for deletion, so it helps your case to keep the tag. Have you voted at the deletion discussion and contributed your opinion? That would help in the eventual decision. I restored the tag. Don't remove it again or risk being disciplined for vandalism. Best wishes, Noroton 02:52, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about your recent reversion on Piner-Olivet Charter School

I recently moved the positioning of the image of the magazines to the top of the section. You reverted it. I am curious as to why. By putting it at the top of the section, it is formatted nicely to go with the appropriate section. By putting it at the bottom of the section, it goes into the section below and push the "edit" for the following section inward. — ERcheck (talk) 01:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because i thought you said you rmoved it... Can i have some fishy crackers? 02:02, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did move it.... I moved it in these magazine section, from the bottom of the section to the top of the section. I did not remove it. — ERcheck (talk) 02:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, i know that already. >_> Can i have some fishy crackers? 05:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phantom hourglass Wifi

Hi InvaderSora,

Rather then making an edit war, please show me the article and tell me where in the article it says Nintendo Wi-Fi. I just quoted the multiplayer article for you, where it said no online.

JackSparrow Ninja 05:17, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know you love edit wars and hate sources, but please listen to Sparrow's request. –Gunslinger47 06:01, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think an Admin could be a bit more civil, no? Can i have some fishy crackers? 20:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quoted from gamespot:

"He also filled in some gaps on the upcoming Nintendo DS version of the series--The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass. There will be a Wi-Fi-enabled battle mode nicknamed Wi-Fi Hide and Seek. The game is a Pac-Man-style chase, with two players taking on red and blue versions of Link.

Players must pick up "force gems" to see the positions of the phantoms on the board. However, carrying these also has a penalty--they will slow the player down, making it easier for the player to be caught. The other controls the phantoms, using the stylus to move them around to chase Link and hopefully bring him down. Aonuma commented, "The more you play, the more you get to experience the other player's habits, so it's very addictive." "

Please do not revert it again. I now have proof. Look for the article titled (some japaneese name) reflects on Zelda".20:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by InvaderSora (talk • contribs) 21:54, 10 March 2007

All it says in that part is Wi-Fi, not online Wi-Fi.

They specifically say "with no announced plans for online play". JackSparrow Ninja 21:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Online play= Wifi.Can i have some fishy crackers? 21:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Care to explain "no announced plans for online play"? [[User:JackSparrow Ninja|JackS

Show me. It's likely OUTDATED> Can i have some fishy crackers? 21:31, 10 March 2007 (UTC)parrow Ninja]] 21:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From GDC. JackSparrow Ninja 21:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that that was posted a day earlier. Things change. Can i have some fishy crackers? 22:40, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Picking between a definite no answer, and something that is open to interpretation, the definite answer weighs stronger. Most certainly since everyone else is reporting the same. JackSparrow Ninja 23:06, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get it. That was reported a day before the article stating there is Wifi. They obiously decided to announce it. Can i have some fishy crackers? 23:35, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All they say is Wifi. Not online or local. Just Wifi. How else would you have called it?

Doesn't it strike you odd that no one else even mentions Wifi? You're just taking something out of it's context.

That aside, you've broken WP:3RR. Watch out, most certainly when you refuse to cite sources. JackSparrow Ninja 23:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ONLINE PLAY IS WIFI. Can i have some fishy crackers? 23:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Online play is always Wifi. Wifi is not always online play. Same with animals and dogs. JackSparrow Ninja 23:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All DSs come equipped with Wi-Fi. This allows them to connect to each other wirelessly and play multiplayer. When used in this manner, they form a peer-to-peer local area network and do not connect to the (Captial-I) Internet. The DS Wi-Fi connection can also connect to wireless routers, allowing access to the Internet for games that support it. Note that not all multiplayer DS games have Internet support. –Gunslinger47 01:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendo Power

FYI, until the article is entirely cleaned up, the cleanup tag is appropriate and should stay. Removing it before the article is cleaned up is generally considered vandalism. Thanks for your efforts on the article. Keesiewonder ^talk 22:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not remove it. Can i have some fishy crackers? 22:39, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Block

Hi InvaderSora, you have been reported for 3RR on The Legend of Zelda: Phantom Hourglass, and it seems that you have been recently blocked for 3RR under your previous name. I have therefore blocked you for 48 hours. Please take this time to carefully review WP:3RR and decide whether you want to edit productively, while following our rules, or violate the rules and eventually be blocked from the site. I hope you make the right decision. Thanks, Crum375 00:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not my fault he kept removing it, and he was too lazy to read the other article. Can i have some fishy crackers? 02:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But Sora, please see my comment above. You are incorrect in believing that multiplayer support equals Internet support on the DS. There are many games that support multiplayer over Wi-Fi that do not have the ability to connect to the Internet. –Gunslinger47 02:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just made no scence. Are you aware of that? Can i have some fishy crackers? 03:47, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I'm making perfect scence. Wi-Fi is a LAN technology primarily. It is possible for a DS game to support Wi-Fi over LAN (basic multiplayer), while not supporting Wi-Fi over WAN (Internet, online play). I have a Bachelor of Computing Science degree, but you don't need one to understand this concept. Please research this and you'll find that you've been blocked over a simple mistake on your part. –Gunslinger47 08:34, 11 March 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).

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

Request reason:

Under 3RR Expections.

Decline reason:

As per unblock-en-l, 3RR is not a license to perform three reversions in an article. Stop and discuss your changes if they get reverted. — Yamla 05:20, 11 March 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.

Kingdom Hearts II, and some advice

I'm interested in hearing your reasons for why you want to put in a piece of trivia about the fruit snacks promotion thingy. A discussion has been created on the talk page, here. Please note WP:NOT#DEMOCRACY, so even though there are more people opposing you than supporting, a good reason is enough, not number of votes.

My advice to you is to not follow the policies exactly as they say, including WP:IAR. I see them as more like guidelines, common sense is required as well. In the case of WP:3RR, you certainly did not go over 3 reverts, but you did get into (or maybe even caused) a conflict, which is detrimental to progress. Avoiding conflict and discussing instead of fighting is my top priority. Wikipedia is a group effort. If you listen to them, they listen to you. - Zero1328 _Talk? 10:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i sort of CANT NOW, because of my BLOCK. And there is more to add in the trivia. Can i have some fishy crackers? 21:01, 11 March 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).

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

Request reason:

I tried to. I gave him proof. He kept reverting.

Decline reason:

Tried to what? Who is "he"? That is not a meaningful reason to unblock. — Sandstein 21:06, 11 March 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

Reading would give you those awnsers.

Decline reason:

Read what? We can't read your mind, so you need to be more detailed than that. — ²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:04, 12 March 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.

You posted {{unblock}} three times in a single day? That means your edit warring with Administrators now? I'm sorry, but you're officially dead in the water. Despite my best efforts, it seems like nothing can be done to help you. :( –Gunslinger47 22:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hw the hell am i edit warring right now? And im not going to help an admin be lazy. Can i have some fishy crackers? 00:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then we're just not going to unblock you, plain and simple. You're not the king of the world; we do not need to cater to you. We're not your mother; we don't need to act oh-so-kind to you. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 00:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Same with you. It's very simple to look at the Block discussion above. Can i have some fishy crackers? 01:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You were blocked for edit warring, not for being wrong. Administrator Physicq can review the discussion until his eyes bleed, and it won't change that. –Gunslinger47 01:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like I have to say it: It's very simple to stop acting cocky. You broke 3RR, hence you are rightly blocked. I don't care how correct (or not) you are, you're edit warring, and edit-warring is not tolerated here. Nor are attempts to make yourself sound all high and mighty, because you aren't. Nor am I, but at least I don't go flaunting nonexistent credentials. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(He's likely referring to the Essjay controversy in his last sentence, by the way.) –Gunslinger47 01:38, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So why isn't JAcksparrow Ninja or whatever the hell his name is blocked? He was "edit warring" as well. Can i have some fishy crackers? 01:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying that your block is justified? —²¹⁰physicq (c) 01:47, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, i'm saying that if im going to be blocked, JSN should be too. Can i have some fishy crackers? 01:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blocking is not a tit-for-tat sort of thing. —²¹⁰physicq (c) 18:51, 11 March 2007 (UTC-7)

I warned you about breaking 3RR, yet you continued. It wasn't me who reported you, I tried to save you from that.
You were putting in unsourced information, and were reluctant to solving it by discussion.
Most importantly, I didn't break 3RR. JackSparrow Ninja 02:09, 12 March 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).

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

Request reason:

Also, I need to participate in a AFD discussion of POCS.

Decline reason:

That is not a reason to be unblocked, just wait for it to end — ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 02:03, 12 March 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.

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).

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

Request reason:

I need to participate in the discussion to try to save it. And i need to make some edits.

Decline reason:

Please stop abusing the unblock template. You have had your unblock request declined by multiple admins. — Yamla 03:02, 12 March 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.

Re: protection

Done, I think. :) Sorry to keep you waiting. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Food (fishy crackers?) for thought

You were *just* unblocked. Why do so many of your edits since the block expired look suspicious?
a) [4] (I know you reverted yourself, but your edit summary on this is not valid);
b) unnecessary;
c) why didn't you correct this?;
d) use the show preview button for testing tricky stuff like this instead of saving each time.
Keesiewonder ^talk 02:59, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delineate the above for clarity ... It's not necessarily obvious which explanations go with which examples. Keesiewonder ^talk 03:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1)I misread it. 2)I assumed that if i was switching to a bot one, it would be good. 3) It should have worked anywayCan i have some fishy crackers? 03:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kessiewonder, please assume good faith. The second was an obvious mistake, where he only undid one of the two pieces of vandalism. The third was a difficult situation that you would have understood had you tried to fix the problem rather than coming here to complain about it. –Gunslinger47 03:34, 13 March 2007

I understood it perfectly, thanks. It was fixed by the time I looked at it or I would have fixed it myself. Assuming more good faith is good advice; so is using the preview button. Happy editing, all! Keesiewonder ^talk 03:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was speaking about this fix, actually. That one was not so straight-forward. :) –Gunslinger47 04:27, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

InvaderSora, I've corrected the DDR page. It seems that the template was all screwed up. There were two "platforms" fields in the code, but only the first one was being displayed. That's why your edits weren't being shown. I also expanded one of your edits on the Hottest Party page to properly show your reference.[5] Finally, I corrected your mistake on the Piner-Olivet AFD. Be careful not to "vote" twice in a straw poll! Bold "Keep" only once, or people might assume that you're trying to stack the vote. If you want to make a comment, then bold "Comment" as I did when reinserting your latest contribution.

Finally, welcome back. As a reminder, you can still give your input on Talk:Kingdom Hearts II#Consensus sought regarding fruit snacks. –Gunslinger47 03:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Do Not Remove Messages From Your Talk Page

Please Do Not Remove Messages from your Talk Page as you did with JackSparrow Ninja. An example of removing of your messages is: [6]. Only remove messages if they are vandalism, and that edit by JackSparrow Ninja is not vandalism. Thank you. Chickyfuzz14 03:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is. Technically. that warning was useless and a waste oif my time, as that image is used. Can i have some fishy crackers? 03:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but it still does not matter, even if you don't like the message, or as you put it, "it's a waste of your time," you still need to leave it on. I'm not going to argue with you, just leave them on from now on. Thanks. Chickyfuzz14 04:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you believe it's useless, then you can ignore it. It doesn't give you the right to remove messages from any talk page.

Rather then working against everything, it would be much easier if everyone if you'd work along everybody. JackSparrow Ninja 04:04, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~You're generally allowed to remove generic notifications from your talk page after you've read and acknowledged them. –Gunslinger47 04:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)~~[reply]

"Editing others' comments is generally not allowed. Exceptions are:
If you have their permission

Removing prohibited material such as libel and personal details

Removing personal attacks and incivility. Please read WP:ATTACK#Removal_of_text and WP:CIVIL#Removing_uncivil_comments before removing anything.

Unsigned comments: You are allowed to append {{unsigned}} or one of its variants to the end of someone's comment if they have failed to sign it. The form is {{subst:unsigned|USER NAME OR IP}}, which results in —The preceding unsigned comment was added by USER NAME OR IP (talk • contribs) ..

Interruptions: In some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution, either by a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or by a headline (If the contribution introduces a new topic. In that case, add "<small>Headline added to (reason) by ~~~~</small>"). In such cases, please add {{subst:interrupted|USER NAME OR IP}} before the interruption."

If you did any of these things, I am sorry for putting the message on your page, but if you didn't do any of these things/the message doesn't relate to any of these topics, you have no reason to delete the messages. And still, be aware and keep the messages on, they don't hurt you. Chickyfuzz14 04:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The warning was useless. The image was used ont he page. And i have a right to remove it from -cough-MYcough- talk page... Can i have some fishy crackers? 04:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC) UPDATE: And, the "Pelase see before adding" would have made things easier.[reply]
You do not seem to understand Wikipedia. Just because you say don't post something on my page, doesn't mean that someone can't post it on your page. Think about if someone was vandalizing a page, and that person put I don't want vandalism tags on my page. Think about all the vandalism. Read above, what I posted from here. It never says that just because the messages are annoying that you can delete them. So, technically, your breaking rules...again. Just stop it, will it kill you? Chickyfuzz14 04:37, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Users are allowed to remove warnings from their page. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 04:51, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Friendly word of advice
[edit]
{{User wikipedia/Administrator someday}} Though I think it is good to set goals, if you really want to become an administrator someday, I would like to suggest changing your attitude a little. Rather then taking everything as an offense and engaging in edit wars, try to learn from things -such as image / AfD tags- and try to reach consensus by discussing matters, before reverting things once more. A little more civility in your wording, whether in discussions or on your talk page (like those messages at the top), is also much appreciated.
I hope you can take this advice to heart and that one day soon we can effectively work together on Wikipedia.
Best regards,
JackSparrow Ninja 07:00, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
General note: Removing {{afd}} templates on Piner-Olivet Charter School. TWINKLE
[edit]
March 2007
[edit]
Please do not recreate Articles for deletion that have been deleted. If you wish to contest the deletion, bring it up on deletion review.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 20:47, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So care to explain why it was deleted? Can i have some fishy crackers? 20:50, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was deleted per consensus on WP:AFD.⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 21:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
To elaborate, it was deleted because it was subject to an AfD debate, and the consensus was to delete it. You can see the debate's archive here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Piner-Olivet Charter School. The general reason given was that is failed Wikipedia's guidelines regarding notability. –Gunslinger47 22:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Im trying to recreate it to expand it. Unfair."

The general reason given was that is failed Wikipedia's guidelines regarding notability. That has got nothing to do with how big or small or good or bad the article is. The subject is non-notable. JackSparrow Ninja 03:43, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
InvaderSora. Stop fighting consensus. If consensus is against you and you find yourself unable to formulate rational arguments then JUST SHUT UP. Please forgive my momentary lapse in civility, but that was my last, desperate attempt to get through to you. READ THIS PAGE FIVE TIMES and recite three Hail Marys. Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process. Ignore it and be damned. –Gunslinger47 04:10, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is really in your best interest. If you continue like that, before the summer someone will issue a user-review on you and you'll be indefinitely blocked. Wikipedia is a community, not a one-man-show. JackSparrow Ninja 04:15, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked. TWINKLE
[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for interfering with AFDs, recreating articles that have been deleted by consensus at WP:AFD, incivil attitude, abuse of the unblock template, and generally tendentious editing. Take this 1 week off to read over wikipedia policy, before you continue to edit here. You are allowed to use the unblock template ONCE for this block. If you repeatedly use/abuse the unblock template, your talk page will be protected.. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. ⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 21:10, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

⇒ SWATJester ^{On Belay!} 21:10, 14 March 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).
InvaderSora (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Im trying to recreate it to expand it. Unfair.

Decline reason:

State a meaningful reason for unblock or you will stay blocked. — Sandstein 05:40, 15 March 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.

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

Request reason:

The AFD on POCS was because it was under the views of a few people as "unnotable". Yet we have articles on many other schools. I was furious when i heard of it beign deleted. I want it to exist so it can be expanded and amde into a larger, good article. A block, especially for ONE WEEK, is going overboard. I did not even recieve a warning for re-making deleted articles. Maybe a week for lots and lots of big vandalism, but for re-making a article for a good purpose? I frequently make good edits to articles. I thinkl that a block this long for something so small is unreasonable. Maybe if the article was just something very small, it would be reasonable. I also find it unfair that i get blockedfor stuff like this and 3RR, yet people like Geg and Apostrophe are left without a block, when they are wikistalking and harassing me, which seems worse than re-making an article. An unblock is only fair at this point.

Decline reason:

You were not only blocked for recreating articles, but also for interfering with AFDs, abuse of the unblock template and incivil attitude. This last issue is particularly evident in your continued effort to find flimsy justifications for your misbehaviour, coupled with sweeping allegations towards others. Other people are not on review here; you are. My advice is to take this block as a final chance to improve your attitude. Understand that compliance with our rules and civil behaviour is not optional here - it is required. I understand you are twelve. If you continue to misbehave after your block expires, I will block you until you are grown up. — Sandstein 20:58, 15 March 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.

{{unblock|How am i being uncivil here?}}
This is not a valid reason to unblock. This is a question. If you want to ask Sandstein a question, use either your or his talk page. If he feels like it, he may respond. –Gunslinger47 23:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW,
1) AfDs are not a vote. 15 users could say "Keep" and not give any substantial reason as to why the article could be kept. 1 person could say "Delete" stating an article's content is not notable, and then clearly lay out evidence they used to come to their view. The deciding administrator may opt to delete the article in question, even though there was only 1 ~~vote~~ perspective amongst 16 "asking" to delete.
2) If there is potential for a robust article on a notable topic, then work on this article in private, but not main, user space. Consider not publishing the article on Wikipedia until you have thoroughly addressed the constructive criticism you have heard about the previous POCS article. If you proceed this way, and if the topic truly is notable, then things will go a lot smoother.
3) You did receive a warning regarding recreating articles that had been deleted. And then you recreated the article a second time. delete log
The article was deleted at 18:52.

You recreated it the first time, an admin re-deleted it and warned you at 20:47.

You recreated the article a second time, an admin re-deleted it, and blocked you for 1 week at 21:10.
4) The size of the article doesn't have anything to do with whether or not your approach to editing on Wikipedia matters. What matters is your approach to editing.
5) It may be true that you frequently make good edits to articles. I have also seen many of your edits and edit summaries that are potentially problematic. Many examples are in the edit history of the POCS article. Since the article has been deleted, I don't think I have access to those examples right now. While the AfD was in process, I made several constructive edits to the article. You undid every single one of them. For instance, there was a list of teachers names, something like "mrs. b, Mrs. V, mrs. L." I corrected this completely improper format, capitalizing "Mrs." each time. You reverted the change. (WP:OWN may be relevent?) How do you explain that edit of yours as being a good edit? At another point, I deleted the list of Mrs-so-and-sos (i.e. not notable or verifiable if they don't even have a first and last name). You reverted this too.
6) Some of your activity regarding wiki policy that raises flags for some in your Wikipedia community include things like this: changing an administrator's decision on ANI.
Keesiewonder ^talk 22:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I thought he/she meant on the Protection Request page. And if i put it on my userpage, it will be messy and cponfusing.
Please re-read my post on your/this talk page titled homework ideas. I have already mentioned how to do what I am suggesting and many, many users use the technique ... Keesiewonder ^talk 22:38, 15 March 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).
InvaderSora (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

So you're judging people by age, eh? Please. I am above most levels of my age. And the Teacher name thing- You also removed some others. I have no clue how i am being uncivil. A block for being uncivil? I've seen many being uncivil that stay without a block. And i had gotten confused with the warning and thought he/she meant on the RFPP page. I want the article to STAY. It is rich with info. I currently even have the source saved in a document so it can be put back, and the info wouldn't be lost. I think the block has been long enough already.

Decline reason:

This is your, what, fourth unblock request for this block? That will be quite enough. Your one week block is reset as from this moment for disruptive use of the unblock template and your talk page is protected for that time (see Swatjester's block notice above). Use this time to cool down and follow the homework advice above. — Sandstein 17:39, 17 March 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.

homework ideas
[edit]
Hi InvaderSora. Once you are finished studying the above suggestions (Wikipolicy per Swatjester and Consensus per Gunslinger47), please know that there is an approved process for proceeding with your idea for an article. While it is not, however, guaranteed that the ultimate article survives on Wikipedia, when handled professionally, it is (as I understand things) an approved way to proceed with your content after an AfD. So, I suggest that during this enforced Wikibreak, you read up on how to use sub-user pages for works in process as well as the deletion review procedure. If you have trouble finding material on these topics, let me know, and I'll point you in a right direction. Keesiewonder ^talk 09:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sora in Brawl
[edit]
I noticed you said you would contact Nintendo. Would you please let me know, on my talk page, when you get a response? I would certainly like to know about Sora in other games, he is a great character. Quatreryukami 13:18, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't gotten a reply. I'll email them again. It was a possible rumor that Nintendo asked SE if they could use Sora.. maybe other SE characters, such as some Organization members, Spectrobes characters, FF? Who knows? I'd like to have Mario fight Axel XDCan i have some fishy crackers? 19:26, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure you won't get much of a reply. Nintendo doesn't comment on rumours or speculation. - Zero1328 _Talk? 02:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, before i e-mailed them asking if they'd make a Cat version of Nintendogs, and they sent me a non-automated response, that said they have no plans at the moment. Can i have some fishy crackers? 17:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
InvaderSora
[edit]
Copied from User talk: Sandstein
Please unblock me. -Invadersora —Preceding unsigned comment added by InvaderSora (talk • contribs) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.163.132.236 (talk • contribs)
No. Do not evade your block by editing anonymously. Sandstein 16:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I sort of have to. its unfair to block me for aother week because i was using the unblock template to expand further on ym reason for unbcok. 64.175.37.54 00:29, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, kid, you do not "have to". What you do have to is to obey your block, the reason of which has been explained to you several times. I will reset your block again. If you evade it once again, I will extend it. If you evade it yet again, I will block you indefinitely. This is your last chance to obey Wikipedia's rules and participate constructively in the project. Use it. Sandstein 05:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see another admin has restarted the block already. Remember, the next block will be indefinite. Sandstein 05:56, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit to Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games
[edit]
Your recent edit to Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Wikipedia articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // MartinBot 03:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
STOP DELETING MARIO AND SONIC!
[edit]
Stop it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 139.62.134.22 (talk) 04:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]
No. It has been merged and is pointless now. You have no authority over em anyway. InvaderSora- The Irken Invader With a keyblade. 04:07, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please, don't go calling idiot to people. The correct name of the article, per our guideline and policy, is Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games. It could be argued that Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games is also one, but Mario&Sonic at the Olympic Games is not. We do not follow trademark naming, as Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks) states. Please do not convert Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games into a redirect again, and stop calling people names. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 04:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to move the page. The spacing matters..how? InvaderSora- The Irken Invader With a keyblade. 04:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Did you flunk English? Of coarse there is a space before and after the "&". TJ Spyke 04:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you noticed that you have effectively created a mess between both page histories? The article you say is "bigger" is the newest one, as you can check there. So, all its content should be moved into the other article. As for the space, read the guideline. If the game title was announced to be "MARIO AND SONIC at the OLYMPIC GAMES" the article would be named "Mario and Sonic at the Olympic Games", not "MARIO AND SONIC at the OLYMPIC GAMES". We have our own guidelines and policies (which I already pointed above) which overwrite trademarks in most cases, and this is one of those cases. -- ReyBrujo 04:44, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would move the article, but MASATOG is a redirect. I want the peopel that are screwing up my article to stop NOW. InvaderSora- The Irken Invader With a keyblade. 04:45, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First, it's not "your" article. Second, the article on the game existed long before your version. TJ Spyke 04:47, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I consider it mine if i started it. And it was not long before. That doesnt matter. The one i made is bigger and has more info. Now STOP before i really lose it. InvaderSora- The Irken Invader With a keyblade. 04:49, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You do not OWN articles. Please see Wikipedia:Ownership of articles. If you continue with this battle, you WILL be permanently blocked from editing. — ERcheck (talk) 04:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you created "your" article 14 hours after the original article (which is located at the CORRECT name of the game). You then blanked the right page (which is vandalism), and managed to screw up the edit history and get the page locked. TJ Spyke 04:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I consider it mine as in i am the CREATOR of it. Read my whole posts. >_> InvaderSora- The Irken Invader With a keyblade. 04:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't matter. You don't own the article or have any control over it, and you didn't follow any guidelines or policies. TJ Spyke 04:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MINE as in i was the one who CREATED it for the last time. InvaderSora- The Irken Invader With a keyblade. 05:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ownership of articles
[edit]
InvaderSora, Have you read Wikipedia:Ownership of articles? Please, before you engage in further arguing, take some time to read this page. In your previous editing on other articles, you have been provided with Wikipedia guidelines to help you improve your working in the Wikipedia community. This is another such case.
If you refuse to abide by Wikipedia standards, you will be blocked for disruption. You have been warned about this before. — ERcheck (talk) 05:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OMFG. HOW MANY TIMES HAVE I SAID THIS!? "My article" as in I CREATED IT. Will you egt the point?InvaderSora- The Irken Invader With a keyblade. 05:05, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, let's try to stay civil here, shall we? Take a deep breath. I know you feel strongly, but civility is VERY important on wikipedia, and you often get farther in your arguments with that tactic, okay? Philippe 05:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Capitals get attention, which get the point across. Right now, nobody is getting the point im trying to point out, so i have to use caps. InvaderSora- The Irken Invader With a keyblade. 05:09, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, capitals hurt your point because it means that you are shouting, which does not help since it won't make people listen any more. TJ Spyke 05:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Disputes
[edit]
I am not a party to the dispute. Please resolve it in the article talk pages. Also, no one owns articles. --Ragib 05:12, 29 March 2007 (UTC) OMFG. "my article" as in I CREATED IT. How many god damn times must i say it? InvaderSora- The Irken Invader With a keyblade. 05:15, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to suggest a cooling off period here. Take some time away, go have a cigarette or a cocktail, or whatever, but take some deep breaths. Then, maybe work on a merge? Philippe 05:20, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about neither of those. Ciggaretes are peices of shit. Yes, merge the older one into mine, which i already did. InvaderSora- The Irken Invader With a keyblade. 05:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You created an article (at the WRONG title and basically copying the info) 14 hours after the origial (which was at the CORRECT title), and then tried to have the old one deleted and turned into a redirect (which destroys the edit history. Do you realize how many rules you are breaking? TJ Spyke 05:25, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to fix the title. How many times must i tell you this? And for the last god damn time, i didnt find the other article. and i dont give a rats ass about timing. InvaderSora- The Irken Invader With a keyblade. 05:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:CIVIL. It's not just about timing. When you found out the article already existed, you should have turned the page you started into a redirect. I doubt you didn't know about the original article since yours was almost an exact copy of the other article. TJ Spyke 05:37, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]