User talk:Rehevkor/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

GD3 database

GD3 database. Rehevkor, are you able to start a page about the GD3 database? It's a commercial database which competes with Allmusic & CDDB. I've tried to start the page, but since I am the president of the business, it has been deleted because the administrators believe it is just advertising. I think it needs to have a valid third party add the content, and since you are familiar with Allmusic, you know something about this industry and products. Thanks. 75.186.106.154 (talk) 13:28, 23 May 2010 (UTC)Dougstrach

I don't believe there would be enough independent coverage to support an article on this subject. Rehevkor ✉ 15:37, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Towers of Midnight copyright violations

I added one of those invisible/hidden messages within the Plot summary section in the article warning people not to copy and paste Tor's synopsis into the article. Hopefully this will stop anyone else from doing it again so you and I don't have to keep removing it. Spidey104^contribs 15:56, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Eeeexcellent, fingers crossed it actually works. Rehevkor ✉ 19:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Let us discuss then

I think it should be stated on In Flames' page that they are no longer a melodic death band. Yes I know it's probably trivial but I feel that people should understand that their later releases are in no way, shape, form or fashion, melodic death metal. I think the way that it is written on In Flames' artist page on last.fm is about as diplomatic as it could possibly be written. It's a pretty good consensus that they are now an alternative metal band. Actually scratch all that. I think we should get rid of the whole melodic death/ alternative part and just leave "metal." I think we can all agree that they are metal (though their new stuff is absolutely terrible... I can cite many a review if you want me to... lol), even if we can't agree on what exact style.Kingross (talk) 05:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

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

Hi, i noticed you unedited my modification about zero punctuation. My skills at wiki are.. well - absent. I'd just like to know if there's another reason for removing my editing. If not could you please just help rewrite the info, i think others may be interested in it too, instead of asking the internet. Thanks!. Zmin inc (talk) 01:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

York

Thank you for correcting my error. If you are interested, I have also raised the matter at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. On my talk page User:Tomtolkien has taken vigourous exception to my expressing the belief that he and the various IPs are one and the same. Yours, almost-instinct 10:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer permission

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:26, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Tnx for the last edit of "Old Gods of Asgard" (the section one)

Te iba a putear por el último cambio que hiciste en mi wiki de Old gods of Asgard, pero la redirección a la seccion de soundtracks que hiciste al final hizo que me retracte.

¡Gracias por la edición y graciar por mostrar semejante respeto a Wikipedia y al artista en concreto!

LucasXIIHK (talk) 23:12, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

My Spanish is a little rusty (i.e. non existent), but thanks, I think.. Rehevkor ✉ 23:16, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

so, about this TOOL band page edit

I'm kinda new at this so I'm not sure how to do this.

You just reverted an edit that I made to the entry in regards to a quote the Maynard said at a show. The quote on the page is a paraphrase of what was actually said (leave it to MTV to screw it up).

I have an audio recording of the show with the actual quote. It's a joke, about Spears "playing" with Gibson. "onstage" doesn't convey the joke.

What do we do?

Rossdotcom (talk) 23:34, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

APC and Puscifer Album Sales

Dude. The comments are from the guy who does the blog on yahoo. He's reliable. Read before you assume. He has a soundscan account. They are just not comments by anybody. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.42.159.47 (talk) 09:23, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: Still alive

...Is not copyrighted. May I please put up the video and lyrics?Deathsculler (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:22, 27 July 2010 (UTC).

I rather suspect it very much is copyrighted.. Rehevkor ✉ 12:32, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Opinion request

Would you please weigh in at the Examples discussion at Talk:Fringe theory? Thank you. Tom Reedy (talk) 20:54, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Inception (film)

As i asked on the article's Talk page, and never got an answer, where is he ever referred to as Dominic? Everard Proudfoot (talk) 00:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

external link/inception movie

hi whats the procedre to add external links —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnayagam (talk • contribs) 18:24, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

would like to add <BLOGSPOTLINK> under inception movie review —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dnayagam (talk • contribs) 18:27, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

The link you are trying to add is a blog, and cannot be linked here. Rehevkor ✉ 18:46, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Inception (film): further reading

You seem to be the only one who's very against FAQ link and the only one who's constantly deleting it, your argument of unreliable source is hard to argue as interpretations are in itself difficult to be sourced but in this particular film play a crucial part in understanding it, and while links directing to posts from other single individual's opinions get to stay, a group effort was deleted by you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.48.122 (talk) 02:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Vampire:_The_Masquerade_–_Bloodlines

Hey. You participated in the last debate on the talk page of that article. Debate has flared up again about another unofficial patch, and the talk right now is mostly about the reliability of the sources that a user wants to use to support mention of it. I would appreciate if you weighed in on that issue, since I'm on shaky ground on this particular issue. Eik Corell (talk) 12:14, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Starman-1-White-Logo-Print.jpg & File:AndrewStone.jpg

Hi there Rehevkor. The above images which you tagged for speedy deletion on 14th August 2010 have been restored, as I have provided confirmation to the OTRS team that I was in fact being truthful in my claim about the copyright status. The permission for use of the images has been archived in the Wikimedia OTRS system; it is available as ticket 2010081510004265 for users with an OTRS account. To confirm the permission, please contact someone with an OTRS account. Cheers IainUK talk 19:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

I see it has been confirmed via OTRS by Fastily, there is nothing more I need to do in this case. Thanks for the heads up. Rehevkor ✉ 19:36, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Nightmare_House_2

Baseless bad faith accusations, nothing more I have to say. Stopping before futher attacks are made. Dispute resolution thata way --->

See my comments on Talk:Nightmare_House_2. I don't believe it was your intent, but I do believe your efforts on this article have been unfortunately disruptive to editing viable content. Could you please give these contributors some breathing room? Rogdor (talk) 01:37, 1 September 2010 (UTC) Following up on this dispute. Look, I'm going to try to be really clear here and this is not intended to cause offence: You were clearly correct in requesting notability and references, the policy is clear and this entry was lacking them. Also, the entry was probably posted prematurely, as an unreleased game mod it couldn't possibly be notable. I have asked that you give the it time, because now that this game mod has been released it is gaining attention. That some key experts have made note so soon is significant for a mod that is not a commercial effort. You may or may not be technically correct if you made a deletion request but it would be a shame of wasted contributor effort if the article ends up returning. I've asked, politely, in the interest of not dissuading myself and others, that you apply this as common sense rather than push a to-the-letter interpretation of policy. Regardless however, I do not believe you are the correct editor to review the source references or the actual notability of this entry because you clearly have a misunderstanding of the subject matter. This is not a matter of good or bad faith, you've just made a couple of mistaken assumptions that continue. You also have already undone an edit based on a cursory glance, without regard to the actual source ("fansite" was a glance at the page). You did not listen to the quoted podcast I am quite certain, nor are you familiar with the content or who is qualified as an expert in this field and you have taken a listing of unreliable source for Moddb out of context because you are completely unaware as to the nature of the source. All of this would be fine, but in this case you have not actually given the good faith and diligence that you demand. Could you please just leave this to editors who understand the content of this entry? They don't have to be experts and I certainly wouldn't want to see a fan treatment, but I am sure there are plenty of appropriate Wikipedia editors besides yourself that could apply an unbiased review of the material within its own context. They don't even need any pre-knowledge of the topic quite honestly, just not a misunderstanding of the sources and content. All of the policies, no matter how well known, will be applied incorrectly while you operate on mistaken assumptions. All I ask is that this article be given a chance to make its notability requirements without your particular oversight. Please understand why I've so requested. I am absolutely willing to compromise and after I return the edited source link I would also not revisit editing onto this page if you agree to leave it as well. This is out of respect for our dispute and your efforts on Wikipedia as a whole. Could you please be reasonable and understand when you've stepped beyond your scope? I do thank you for pointing out policies to me. I do feel that you've insisted that I learn every minute detail of the policies before editing in good faith. See Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers. If you're determined to continue this to its conclusion without recognizing your determination bias and mis-assumptions, then you'll probably win whatever fight you're trying to claim because I am far too exhausted with this to push for arbitration. If Wikipedia's policy for sources is completely encompassed by the opinions and interpretations you've given in this dispute, then it is sorely lacking. These sources deserve peer review, and on this topic, that is clearly not you. This is not meant to be unkind, but to explain what I believe you have accomplished here: You have at least deflated one person from editing Wikipedia due to the amount of bureaucratic hoops you're requesting be performed before content on an article has matured for review. If the content itself were given good faith from you, this would not have been so exasperating to me. You indicated a bias early on by stating you had no doubt this entry would be accepted for immediate deletion. Again, please take this as constructive criticism. Rogdor (talk) 16:58, 1 September 2010 (UTC) As I said, I have already said I am not willing to allow the page to ignore policy and guideline. I have welcomed you to take the issue to third parties at places such as the reliable sources notice board. Since you have had this account since 2006, I don't think you can consider yourself a "newcomer". With this post you are basically saying I am bias, which is not appropriate and completely unjustified, your accusations against me are starting to feel like attacks, (remember "Comment on content, not on the contributor"). I am editing in complete good faith, please remember that, suggesting an article would not survive an AFD is not bias, it is going by my understanding of notability only. If you are not satisfied with my handling of this situation you are welcome to follow other forms of dispute resolution. As I said before, unless you desist in bad faith accusations there's nothing more I'm willing to say to you. Good day. Rehevkor ✉ 17:14, 1 September 2010 (UTC) And now from dispute resolution. The source did not reference a formal award, that's another assumption and another corresponding hoop you've asked me to jump through. I do not understand why, when I asked for third-party review, you then entered the discussion on to direct the answer to my question? Please allow third-party answers to questions to actually be third-party. The age of my account is not the same as my participation in editing. I recall only two other articles I have edited in that time and neither of which recently. I indicated early on that I was not familiar with the requirements you were quoting, but I have read many of the policies in the course of this dispute. I am continuously reminded by you to stay in good faith while you continue to ignore it for yourself. You have assumed that none of the requirements would be met and have quickly dismissed each point addressed, often with assumptions that were incorrect. I understand that no one likes their errors pointed out to them, but they have been specific and not about good faith. Rogdor (talk) 17:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for Clean-Up

Thank you for the clean-up to my Talk page. I was initially willing to assume that the guy's addition to Black Mesa was good faith and just ill-advised/considered, but the discussion there and the edit-warring, not to mention his comments on my Talk page, are swaying my opinion rather quickly. Doniago (talk) 16:14, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yar, some people just make it hard to assume good faith - which only makes it hard on themselves. I think this is a case of WP:HEAR. Rehevkor ✉ 16:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Yar? Is it Talk Like a Pirate Day already? (grin) Doniago (talk) 19:11, 10 September 2010 (UTC

Half-Life 2 Critic

So I should contact the association of Half-Life 2 Critics? Honestly, It's not an astroturfed opinion. I've been speaking to quite a lot of people who felt uncomfortable with the way Half-Life 2 turned out in comparison to the predecessor game. The blog post summed up some of these points. And I've chosen the MetaCritic review section since if you take some time you will see that various people will come up with the same or at least similiar points regarding criticism. Though I have to admit that I didn't like that MetaCritic reference since it can be easily manipulated by 3rd party forces and also is full of superficial and biased reviews. The thing is without any section dedicated towards negative reception the article is nothing else than an advertising page in disguise. Not mentioning something at all can be a way of manipulating people too. It's actually difficult to get good sources upon public criticism regarding Half-Life 2. I also think some people are simply too scared to criticize games (like Half-Life 2, Halo, Call of Duty, etc.) which became mass phenomena directly in public. For instance I remember a woman once trying to criticize HL2 in her blog. What actually happened is that someone posted a link of her blog post into a Half-Life 2 forum and it all ended up by her blog being by fanatics, complaining about her even criticizing the game. As you could see something similar also happened also in the blog post I posted as reference. I hope you understand the point I'm making.

Little Update: I just did read your message. Thank you for answering me. I think my text above is obsolete now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.83.82.76 (talk) 15:12, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Okeydokey. Rehevkor ✉ 15:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Butters

Are you accusing me of a personal attack? Pehaps you can spcify to which editor you are addressing, as you comment directly follows mine. Thanks, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:58, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I am not, I was responding to MarnetteD. Cheers. Rehevkor ✉ 17:28, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Also Wikipedia:INDENT may be helpful. Rehevkor ✉ 17:44, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, either way - make clear whom you are addressing, or use a different indentation than mine, either way please make it clear you are not responding to my comment please. Slrubenstein | Talk 18:02, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I used the correctly applied indent per the guideline. Using the same indent means I am responding to the same comment you were, not responding to you. I'm sorry if I caused you offense but you should familiarise yourself with Wikipedia:INDENT to avoid this in the future. Rehevkor ✉ 18:40, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Graendal

You'vedone great work on the wot stuff. Do you think you could goover this article and help pare it down to things we can source. It seems to be almost entirely OR wanted to get your opinion. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 19:08, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Why are you running away?

Hi there,

You really upset me by posting my personal comments made off wiki...I don't mind the meat puppet coments, but personal stuff is personal!

But now when I question you on this you run away to hide? Or just simply ignoring me?

I don't understand...Cole Hayes (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Why will you attack but not discuss?

Cheers...Cole

See Wikipedia:NPA#Off-wiki_attacks. I didn't "run off the hide" I quite clearly stated I had "nothing more I have to say on the subject." If you have a problem with that then.. I'm sorry? Rehevkor ✉ 20:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Apology accepted...but again I repeat that you used some information and not all, in essence an attack on me without telling the whole story...ah well...let's leave it to the arbitrators...I'm too knew to know the rules...and I did read you reference BTW...there are also plenty that I could reference showing my point of view...but we're not supposed to be wiki laywers...so I'll leave it at that...I do finish by saying you brought my comments to wiki...not me...so any offense is now being accelerated by you...before you gave me your reference...maybe you should ponder that also...Cheers...ColeCole Hayes (talk) 21:50, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Rehevkor. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests.
Message added 23:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please sign your posts when leaving messages on talk and help pages. Kudpung (talk) 23:53, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Huh, where? Rehevkor ✉ 23:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

English Bobby

Ever tried discussing anything with English Bobby? Please do, did you note his edit summaries?

"Undid revision 412173108 by bitter editor simply continuing a grudge he has."

I notice you didn't include a warning per WP:CIVIL. I have started a talk page discussion but on past interactions with the guy it will be nothing but personal abuse directed toward me and no one will do anything about it as usual. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:39, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I was trying to be neutral and leave only notes about discussing the issue, not warn about civility issues. I do suggest you do at least try and discuss - edit wars should not be allowed to continue forever - otherwise page protection will be requested. Rehevkor ✉ 20:48, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Well being even handed does not require that you ignore other problematic behaviour does it? For information I have repeatedly tried to discuss things with the guy and it always ends up the same way. Wee Curry Monster talk 20:53, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the civility issue has nothing to do with me, I only stepped in to help resolve a slow edit war. If you want civility issues dealt with, try Wikipedia:CIV#Dealing with incivility. I see you have started a discussion on the talk page - excellent. Rehevkor ✉ 21:01, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

The slow revert war has been ended with me walking away and allowing him to continue his crusade on behalf of the English Defence League. Seems no one else cares, why should I. The article is off my watchlist. Wee Curry Monster talk 12:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Okalydokaly. Rehevkor ✉ 15:35, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Horse head

That was hilarious... thanks for removing the horse's head lol – Kerαunoςcopia^◁_galaxies 06:12, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

La Maison Tellier (group)

As you may have already seen, SarekOfVulcan fulfilled your selective deletion request for this article's unrelated history. I'm curious — would you like me to restore the deleted content separately from the current article and put the deleted content back in your userspace, or should it stay deleted? Nyttend (talk) 00:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sure that'd be great. Was previously at User:Rehevkor/Draft2. Thank you. Rehevkor ✉ 00:28, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome; the page is back where it was previously. Nyttend (talk) 04:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Duke Nukem Forever Current engine section

I was trying to make "Engine" a subsection in the developent in main page

This is meant to be for the current game engine , as there's no info available just yet but it will be very soon , i made it for preparations, it's also important for people to know that the engine is UNREAL based rather than leaving no info at all.

I am a lingtime 3DR folower and DNF fan and im quite experienced with PCs and technical stuff , i don't say im 100% correct but i know 3DR are very honest to it's fans , and failing to meet promises is something else, not necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xowets (talk • contribs) 17:03, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Well we still need reliable sources.. we can't just take your word on the engine. Per the talk page sources about the current engine have not been easy to find. Rehevkor ✉ 18:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Oh come on, it is definitely Unreal , i know the engine is all rewritten and replaced and whatever , but it is not another engine , it's still based on unreal technology so let people know that , at least leave it in the infobox please. I never saw you, the others that have been managing the site have always been okay with the engine as it really was 2.5 , it's just i didn't found enough soruces , george broussard put it in a different contect impling that it's not 2.5 , but he didn't explicitly point out it WAS U2.5 when they STARTED. Xowets (talk) 20:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

But we cannot put speculation or original research into articles. If you really want it in the article you should attempt to gain a consensus on the talk page, but without reliable sources I don't think you'll have much luck. If something isn't verifiable it has no place here. Wikipedia isn't here for fan services, if you want something like this in the article, then you need concrete, up to date and reliable sources. Rehevkor ✉ 20:24, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

By this definition wikipedia can be severely misinformational if 3rd party lookouts are taken as sources, IGN.com is a bad example of "sources" the problem is , only a few hundred people visiting 3Drealms forums and Duke4.net know the ... more of a truth , the rest of the globe doesn't have an idea at all. If you really want to verify , ask Yatta , administrator on Duke4.net , im interested to see his reply. This is purely coincidential , as 3Dreamls was always honest, not a lot of such companies out there. Xowets (talk) 23:14, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

I've told you, none of that can be used as sources. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and any others I have linked to. Anyhoo, not much more I can say without any sources, Talk:Duke Nukem Forever is -----------> Rehevkor ✉ 23:17, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Half-Life 2's "history"

Hi Rehevkor,

I noticed your revert on the article on Half-Life 2. Biosaber (talk · contribs) is being a jerk (see my earlier revert) and the warning I left him on his or hers talk page. I don't know when enough's enough, but that user is just being an ass. --Soetermans. T / C 17:45, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I think it's either a very naive person or a troll. Vast majority of their edits are reverted by various editors for very valid reasons. I'll leave a personal message on his talk page, maybe that'll get some kinda response. Rehevkor ✉ 18:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I say troll. Biosaber's edits mainly revolve around four things: removing the term fictional from articles (see Crysis, Halo 3, Battlefield: Bad Company 2, Metal Gear (weapon)) or being a smartass and adding it into extremes (see Half-Life 2 - two times), changing the term science fiction into the not-so-encyclopedic Sci-Fi (see Mass Effect (series), StarCraft's entry at List of best-selling video game franchises) and lost but not least, adding unsourced statements regarding a variety of topics (see GTA: San Andreas and POV, Casper and Max Payne (series) - twice!) He or she hasn't responded to any of my messages and I guess yours will fall on deaf ears as well. --Soetermans. T / C 00:12, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Troll or a major clue issue. I'm all for giving the benefit of the doubt though - best to wait to see what happens next. Ball's in his court etc. Rehevkor ✉ 00:25, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

He turned up on my watchlist again making problematic edits, removal of sourced content without any explanation. I think the best avenue now would be to make a report on WP:ANI. Rehevkor ✉ 16:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Alright. Too bad he or she left us no choice. Perhaps this time with admin discipline Biosaber will listen and change his attitude. Thanks Rehevkor, have a good one. --Soetermans. T / C 20:23, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

[1]

Forgive my ignorance, but isn't in English should be upper-case like First-person Shooter ? Sir Lothar (talk) 23:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Nope, you only fully cap proper nouns, such as place names, not genres like that. Rehevkor ✉ 23:45, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Wooblz!/Thornofhate

Informational note: this is to let you know that there is currently a discussion at ANI regarding Wooblz!/Thornofhate's continued copy and paste page moves. The thread is User:Thornofhate's page moves. Again.. As you have left a number of messages for the user, i thought that you may want to say something Regards, —Terrillja _talk 06:27, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Cheers, I've chimed in over there. Rehevkor ✉ 14:16, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Source?

What, you didn't like it?

Of are you going to continue reflexively removing facts from articles?

Agoodbadhabit (talk) 02:21, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Forum sources are not reliable sourced, see WP:RS and WP:SPS. See also this, which also applies. You don't seem to know how things work here, perhaps you should lean before you contribute further? Rehevkor ✉ 02:22, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello? You seemed very enthusiastic about replying to my queries before. Do I have to revert you to get your attention? Rehevkor ✉ 14:34, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

AfDs in general

Hey dude, I noticed your name come up a few times on my watchlist. Is it just coincidental that you replied to a few of my AfD discussions in a row, or did you somehow deliberately find them? I only ask cos I've been trying to find a better way of keeping tabs on the stuff I send to AfD, I've got a lot of stuff on my watchlist so sometimes it's tricky to find them again. Cheers for your input btw! doomgaze (talk) 17:36, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Just had a look at them via your request on the help desk. Rehevkor ✉ 18:06, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Ah didn't even notice that someone had answered that, cheers. doomgaze (talk) 18:45, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

hey

hey im trying to edit the Forever in ur hands but how i do citations? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.155.246 (talk) 20:22, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners. Rehevkor ✉ 20:27, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

srry dude

sry i was trying to put my name in as im his brother and what wud be an example of a good source? cus im sure i can find one for me —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.155.246 (talk) 20:39, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

As I put on your talk page, "Reliable sources are generally published media be it online or print that are subject to editorial oversight and fact checking." Rehevkor ✉ 20:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

"We got this covered" website

Hello, I've noticed you've removed several references to this website recently as "refspam" - is there a problem with it? I was just wondering if it's been blacklisted or something? I realise it's perhaps not the best source, but it does feature press releases and pre-release information. Bob talk 00:30, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see my report at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#wegotthiscovered.com, almost every link has been inserted by a single user who evidently has a conflict of interest and is engaging in typical ref spam, ignoring repeated warnings. Feel free to re-add the link, but you take responsibility for doing as, it does not appear to be a reliable source to me. Rehevkor ✉ 00:33, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Insulin Signal transduction pathway and glucose blood level.

Hello Mr/Mrs.Rehevkor, Few month ago, you moved the page "Inulin Signal transduction pathway and glucose blood level" and put it under my name. This is an educational assignment. When you moved the article, me and my team mates were just working on it. we have made a lot of improvements so far; however, we are not done yet. Would you please put our Wikipedia article back on the wiki-space at least until we get our grade for the project? If your answer is no, then what can we do to put it back on the wiki-space? This is the link to the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Rshadid/Insulin_signal_transduction_pathway_and_regulation_of_blood_glucose Thank you and have a great day. (Rshadid (talk) 23:59, 23 April 2011 (UTC))

You could submit the article to Articles for Creation, or just move it yourself, if you think the article is ready for mainspace. Rehevkor ✉ 00:15, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

AfDs

Hi, I'm sorry to bother you but I need help since I can't create articles. Could you please create AfD pages for Spencer Smith (musician) and Tom Kaulitz? Same thing, per WP:MUSIC, "Note that members of notable bands are redirected to the band's article, not given individual articles, unless they have demonstrated individual notability for activity independent of the band, such as solo releases." My redirects are contested so it looks like a discussion is in order.

• Tom Kaulitz: zero notability outside of the band, if you remove the fancruft from the article you're only left with information about the band; someone mentioned that the singer has an article so Tom should too -- even if they're identical twins they don't share the same notability.
• Spencer Smith: nearly everything in the article is in relation to the band and has been covered in the band's article. Cameo appearances in music videos by his band's label and always alongside his band's singer don't make him notable. This was also discussed here ("but if the article was nominated for deletion and the decision was a merge, it would seem that an unmerge has to be justified other than just an editor coming along and doing it"); the article was nominated to merge but that was a while ago.

--194.150.65.41 (talk) 16:48, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

You forgot Spencer. :c Should I ask someone else? --194.150.65.58 (talk) 19:44, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I was planning to look a little deeper there as it was fairly well sourced. I still plan to, but I've not had much time to myself lately, so feel free to ask someone else. Rehevkor ✉ 22:17, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Hi, you undid revision 426793580 made by myself (Jasonbook99) mentioning that I will need independent sources. I referenced the deleted Dolf page which is still on Wikipedia's own system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dolf) which shows the discussion and also referenced the Darts Golf page that was created, again on Wikipedia's own system. Please advise how that is not an independent source? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jasonbook99 (talk • contribs) 22:45, 30 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles cannot be used as sources, as I said, you'd need independent sources, as in sources that are outside of Wikipedia. Rehevkor ✉ 00:32, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Accusations of copyright issues

I removed the source if that was what you were talking about, but the information i provided is like news, it is just information that is relevent to the topic and i feel users should be aware of. If you have a need to withhold information for the public and try to undo my work i will fight you on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.184.185 (talk) 02:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Leaks are not notable without independent, reliable sources, so far you have provided zero usable sources - what you have written is little more than an advertisement for those torrents, even without the links. This is an encyclopaedia, not your battleground. Please just stop adding it. Rehevkor ✉ 10:40, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

What you are saying is bullshit and you are just trying to silence the truth, i gave a reliable credible source and you claimed it was in violation of some copyright so i removed it, stop trying to war with yet again a helpful contributor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.248.184.185 (talk) 11:39, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

All information must be verifiable, you have not provided sources. Rehevkor ✉ 12:09, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

That is not true, i provided a source but you made me remove it, id be glad to recite it.--Jpheonix (talk) 12:22, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I think I made it clear that was not an acceptable source in any way. Rehevkor ✉ 14:27, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Sales figures

I receive my numbers from a variety sources. Sega themselves claimed that Sonic 1 sold over 15 million when bundled with the Sega Genesis. There's no way the Genesis could have successfully competed with the Super NES with their flagship title selling 4 million compared to Super Mario World's 20 million. On the Sonic Retrospective video from Gametap (you can find it on Youtube in 4 parts) the number of units Sega themselves claimed the game sold was actually 15 million because they bundled the game with the Genesis. So I'm going go by what they (Sega) said. They also said that Sonic 2 was owned by 1/5 of Sega Genesis owners. Since those numbers were updated to over 40 million, I figured that Sonic 2 's numbers also needed to be changed to 8 million since 1/5 of 40 m is 8 m (the previous sales figures for the Mega Drive were 30 million and 1/5 of that number is 6 million). However, the majority of my sales figures come from VG Chartz.com which I truly believe is a reliable source (when it comes to older games such as the ones I updated). Also, there's really not many other websites dedicated to video game sales and the ones usually have the wrong information (such as this one for example). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Winxclub93 (talk • contribs) 17:00, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Reply ASAP

Can you just reply to me on your page? I just want to see the Template thanx. 92.30.206.170 (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Whut? Rehevkor ✉ 21:07, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to Rehevkor

Thank you (for helping me close the discussion at the help desk (3.16: “username”). I split the section from the below section, 3.17: “wikicup”, becuase they were two different sections and needed to be split to distinguish the characteristics and comments from one another, because they're different subjects. Again, thank you!) . A user who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday, October 28, 2010. 23:08, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for quickly fixing the "Platform(s)" field of System Shock 2's Infobox. ProResearcher (talk) 07:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

number

You have 3415^th place in most edits (13851). Nice! Probably changed by the time you read this. Here:

A user who has been editing Wikipedia since Thursday, October 28, 2010. 22:25, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Reading your user page

What MUDs do you play? You can drop me an e-mail if you wish! Scarian^{Call me Pat!} 00:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Article Editing

Please learn to read official websites before undoing revisions to articles you don't know anything about. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitrowolf (talk • contribs) 15:57, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Can you please be more specific, rather than engaging in ad hominem personal attacks? And who are you to say what I do and do not know about? Яehevkor ✉ 16:31, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6