User talk:TriPredRavage

Image copyright problem with Image:TriPredRavage.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:TriPredRavage.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you created this image yourself, please look at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#For image creators, select one of those tags, and add it to the image. To do that, simply go to Image:TriPredRavage.jpg, click "edit this page", and add the appropriate tag. Be sure to remove the current tag indicating a lack of licensing!

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me at User talk:Angr or at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. —An gr 16:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. Please actually add one of the specific tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#For image creators. Images get patrolled by bots that don't know how to interpreted text saying "free licensing" and will tag the image for deletion. Thanks! —An gr 21:19, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hey there. I just noticed the tag on your page for Wikiproject Transformers and I just want to say welcome on behalf of everyone. Its always nice to meet a fellow TF fan. Best Regards.SMegatron 20:07, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Precedence

Either follow the precedence set by past articles or change the past articles to match the new precedence. --The Virginian 18:37, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quit spamming my talk page

I don't care what you have to say there. You are nothing more than hindrance. Either unify the program or get out. I care nothing for what you have to say unless it supports a unifying theme in all Transformers articles all other is BS and is erased without ever being read. --The Virginian 17:58, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have had to delete messages from you at least 3 times before your response to this. When it is unwanted in email it is spam. When it's messages on here that are unwanted it's spam. Don't bother posting on my talk page unless you want to support the Overlord move to Gigatron (Masterforce) or Leo Prime to Lio Convoy. Anything else is spam. --The Virginian 19:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Deadpool

Hey, I was wondering why you reverted my edit. There's no source for whether or not making a hissing sound is breaking the fourth wall. Thanks. Friginator (talk) 23:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware that you think he broke the fourth wall. I've seen the post-credit scene, and I think it's very arguable. There's no source to indicate either way, and any source given to confirm that interpretation would need to be a very good one. Friginator (talk) 03:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't mean to sound like I was offended or anything like that, but just looking at the camera should not be referred to as breaking the fourth wall, especially without a source. If you have a good source, then there might be an argument, but please don't continue to revert my removal of unsourced, arbitrary information, per WP:OR. Friginator (talk) 04:34, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even according to the fourth wall article, "Breaking the fourth wall reveals to the audience that the characters know they are fictional." And, having looked up a good quality version of the video here, his eyes are pointed towards the camera when he opens them, meaning he doesn't even necessarily look at the audience. Also, the hissing sound could instead imply he is breathing in after being revived, instead of exhaling a hissing sound that you presumably interpret a shushing the audience. Friginator (talk) 05:05, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I have added a source for Deadpool making a 'Shh' sound at the end of the Wolverine film, but Friginator insists on reverting it. Feel free to help. Faethon Ghost (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. The way he wants the article to be is ridiculous. Please join the talkpage of the Deadpool article if you get a chance. Thank you. Faethon Ghost (talk) 01:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring and adding unsourced speculation

TriPredRavage, let me be clear once again: I'm tired of you edit warring about this. Please stop adding unsourced, arbitrary, open-to-interpretation information to the article. That's not what Also understand that the article fourth wall is not policy of any kind. WP:OR is. Hear the noise however you want, but realize that this is entirely speculation, which, as stated before, is against wikipedia policy. I've gone over this with you before on your talk page, making it perfectly clear that this is not appropriate to add to an article, but you have instead decided to add unsourced content to the article, which could very easily be considered edit warring. I'm sorry to seem rude, but please stop this. If you or another editor can find an appropriate source that proves this was intended to be seen as the character "shushing" the audience then their may be a case for adding the info again. When a character looks into the camera, this does not, by most regular guidelines, constitute breaking the fourth wall, as it does not entail a character becoming aware of their fictional existence. I'm tired of fighting about this. I would like to ask you again to please stop. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 07:59, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: adding the old info on Reynolds' casting

I don't want to fight about it either, but the argument you're using, (Until there is a source saying he isn't) is the opposite of how citations ought to work. Wikipedia's content is based on reliable sources. You say we shouldn't jump the gun, yet that's exactly what you're doing. If someone were to write, "Reynolds' casting in an upcoming Green Lantern film will delay his role in a Deadpool soo movie," THAT would be jumping the gun. If we don't know about something, we don't put it in the article. We don't assume when there is reason not to. Per WP:V, burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. So unless you can find a source in which Reynolds confirms that the Green Lantern casting won't mess with the Deadpool film, the older info shouldn't be kept in the article. Friginator (talk) 01:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for sourcing the material. In the future, do that first before edit warring and ignoring policy just because someone is removing uncited info. Frankly, I'm tired of it taking this much trouble just to get one little, simple thing done. I'm going to reword the text a bit per WP:CRYSTAL, but other than that, the info is okay now. Friginator (talk) 01:56, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to remind you that per WP:V, it is YOUR job to research something you want to put in an article, not mine. There is absolutely no policy that requires me to research unsourced info before removing it, so don't pretend that I did anything to cause your completely unnecessary edit warring. I was following policy completely. You weren't. Please don't do it again. Friginator (talk) 02:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for your opinion

Hi. Can you join this discussion in order to offer us your thoughts? It would be most appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 06:47, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bonecrusher's ghost

I'd offer the wording " a Decepticon appearing to be Bonecrusher can be seen driving" I'm not saying it is him, but it APPEARS like him. Is that acceptable? Mathewignash (talk) 13:21, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you says a Decepticon resempling Bonecrusher appeared, it just as strongly implies that it's NOT him. How about something like "A Decepticon who appears to be Bonecrusher, but is not identified by name"? Mathewignash (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just removed one word, ressurrected. I didn't want to imply an explanation. He could be ressurrected, or he could have survived the last film as the toy bios said, but I don't think we should make that call. Mathewignash (talk) 08:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summary

Calling my edit "illiterate" here was totally uncalled for. If you wanted to condense it, be my guest, but there was nothing wrong with the sentence. --uKER (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I called it an illeterate sentence because it was an illiterate sentence. There were several grammatical errors throughout the sentence that needed correcting. I condensed the sentence because it doesn’t make sense to distinguish that the character appears in both his vehicle and robot modes, as he is a Transformer and that’s what they do...--TriPredRavage (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was nothing wrong with the sentence. Your calling it illiterate only shows your desperate need to pat yourself in the back by disqualifying others. I've come to learn you're not worth discussing with. Farewell. --uKER (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i.e Lio Convoy

Please stop your POV-pushing. The character's most widely used name is Lio Convoy, not Leo Prime. By arguing to move the page to Leo Prime, you attempt to put undue weight on that name. That, per WP:NPOV is unacceptable. If you do not cease your attempts to violate one of Wikipedia's fundamental policies because of your personal preferences, I will contact the administrators, who may take a dim view of the matter. --The Circle That Must Be Broken (talk) 09:43, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]