User talk:UKER/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Highlander

Someone left a message, and this is not so much a survey, but prophesies from films and other modern media sources are happening in this time. Difficult to explain on tape.I can see that people are irritated with equiptment and comes out in writings. My notes are not meant to be condescending. Are you matter?75.250.106.211 (talk) 18:22, 23 November 2009 (UTC)75.250.106.211 (talk) 18:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Three and a half. --uKER (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Dorissman

Well, hmm. I never noticed he was up to problems again. I am sure he can be re-blocked the next time he is reported.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 13:55, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that is another story. A stale report is a legit move when the person in question stops editing, but I do not feel it was the correct decision in this case.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 18:16, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

May as well either 1, find the appropriate noticeboard, or 2, wait till Dorismann returns again.Mitch32^{(A fortune in fabulous articles can be yours!)} 20:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Dorismann and Icairns

Best way under the circumstances would be an ANI thread, I would think ... let me know when you start one. Blueboy96 03:15, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Re your thread at ANI, noting can be done at the moment. You can keep an eye on Dorismann's contribs via this link. If any further vandalism occurs don't hesitate to report at WP:AIV. Mjroots (talk) 11:39, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

It was Icairns and not Dorismann who is bothering me the most at the moment for having deleted my AIV report four hours after it was submitted, effectively causing it to become stale when I submitted it the second time. --uKER (talk) 13:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

re: Transformers (film)

Well I think you're way out of line accusing me of vandalism and judging by your track record, you really have some nerve. It was an honest mistake; I seen a random IP change information of a Featured Article, so I assumed the information was already correct before they changed it. In the future instead of sending someone a rude message, how about you assume good faith and let them know nicely. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 00:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

No, but out of five reverting options to use (undo, rollback, twinkle), you chose the 'identified as vandalism' option. Real classy, especially after I spend most of my time on Wikipedia reverting vandalism. As for "anybody" would know it was not a mustang, don't draw that kind of generalization, because obviously I didn't know what kind of car it was. Thank you. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 01:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I may have inadvertently done so. I give you that. On my defense I can only say that I may have used the vandalism revert because there have been several vandals making that very same change. But how does that affect you? AFAIK it's just an attribute of the revert itself and doesn't affect your user in any way. BTW, you also have to admit that it was your mistake to revert given that you admittedly don't know what car BB was. It wasn't my intention to report you as a vandal and if it does affect your account, I offer to do what is within my reach to revert it. --uKER (talk) 01:20, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Lesson learned. --Mike Allen ^{talk · contribs} 02:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

The point was not to teach you a lesson. It's just to keep this whole thing working. Now, if you got something out of it, even better then. See you around. --uKER (talk) 03:38, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Reply

I have replied to your comment here. WossOccurring (talk) 20:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Avatar (2009 film) -- Banning in China

Hey, UKER. I just want to let you know that even though I undid this edit by you because whether or not to include this information was discussed on the talk page before and consensus was against it, I am all for it being brought up again; you should bring it up on the talk page to reach new consensus. I was originally for this information being included, and I would say that I am still okay with it being included, though I would prefer it be a subsection of the Box office section (like it was before). It is just that most of the other primary editors of the Avatar (2009 film) article also have to be okay with it being included.

To see where it was discussed before, look at this archive: Talk:Avatar (2009 film)/Archive 19. Flyer22 (talk) 03:11, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately I'm not that much into that article as to dedicate time to go into a debate on the inclusion of this info. I can't think of a reason why such a thing could NOT be mentioned in the article, but I just devoted as much time writing that couple of paragraphs as I was willing to put into it. Thanks for the notice though. --uKER (talk) 04:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for being polite about this. I know how frustrating it is for editors to have their additions reverted. We all know that feeling. The inclusion of this banning information may be brought up again anyway. If it is, I will likely ask you to weigh in on the matter...if you do not mind. Flyer22 (talk) 04:31, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem. See you around. --uKER (talk) 05:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring and violation of consensus

Had you cared to check before talking away for nothing, you'd have seen that the word appears written in Korean in the film, seen here. Now be done with it, will you, please? --uKER (talk) 23:16, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

And had you cared to read my post on the article's talk page, having the word in Korean DOES NOT mean that the screenwriters intended the use of the word "sarang" to mean "love". It can have a thousand meanings in a fictional, futuristic setting. And having the word written in Korean could simply be the manner of referring to whatever it might mean (a scientific project for example) in Korean. Now read this very carefully because I will not repeat it: WAIT FOR CONSENSUS BEFORE REVERTING AGAIN -- or -- provide a CITATION FROM A RELIABLE SOURCE that the screenwriters intended for "sarang" to mean "love". That's the way it's done on Wikipedia. One editor does not make unilateral decisions, and when there is disputed content that content is left out until consensus is reached. And this is an absolute promise: If you revert again without consensus here, I will immediately file a complaint at WP:ANI against you for edit warring and violating the policies of consensus, WP:V, and WP:NPOV without further warning to you. And that's your final warning from me. 65.41.234.70 (talk) 00:52, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

False accusation of vandalism

If you wish to respond, you can do so at WP:WQA#User UKER's false accusation of vandalism. Thank you. 71.77.21.198 (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Characters in TF: RofF

Thank you. I have a terrible, terrible cold and no energy to do this now. The Red Queen (talk) 04:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

My pleasure. Take care and get better soon. --uKER (talk) 07:16, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Feeling better today. Did you create the cast list for RotF? It's really clean and I like it a lot. Might you consider doing a similar thing for the Transformers article? I'm really nutso about clean-looking articles and it'd be nice if all the films in the trilogies have the same sort of page organization to them. It's cool that people know all these little factoids about the series but it gets a little unwieldy. What are your thoughts? The Red Queen (talk) 22:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that was me. Glad you like it. I'm a perfection freak myself too. Anyway, I'd say the characters article took more work than the main one. If I get the time I'll see to do the same thing with the Transformers (film) article. --uKER (talk) 23:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for contributing. I still have more work to do on the character page, I think. The Red Queen (talk) 16:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Character list for Transformers (film) done. See here. --uKER (talk) 02:11, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Songs using auto-tune

I have nominated Category:Songs using auto-tune (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 05:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Transformers 3 redirects

Just a quick heads up to let you know that I've unprotected the T3 redirects to allow for creation of a new article. Do as you will... :) --Kurt Shaped Box (talk) 01:53, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Great. Thanks for the notice! --uKER (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

 Done Article created! --uKER (talk) 04:02, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

District 9

Thanks for your undo. Yes it was meant for the talk page. Rp (talk) 08:32, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh, no problem. The text was not bad, but it didn't look like it was meant for the article. --uKER (talk) 13:05, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Transformers (film series)

Hi UKER,

Since you seem to be quite involved with the Transformers (film series) article, i wondered if you might spare a moment to look at the changes that are being made to it? I have to little knowledge of the series to judge these edits myself, but seeing these comments and edit summaries i'm quite worried about the quality of those edits.

Kind regards, Excirial ^{(Contact me,Contribs)} 22:57, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I just reverted the changes. --uKER (talk) 00:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Ostrich

WP:OSTRICH is about deleting articles, not single facts. I did search it, and couldn't find anything at the time. One tiny little comment on a blog I've never heard about is probably something the average person won't find. Also, the source you added should be included in an article, since references should never be included in templates because they lead to a ref error. Sorafune +1 00:40, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Maybe the Wikipedia article about ostriches is related to admins deleting articles, but the concept is much broader. It's about it being easier to deny than take care of things. The source I cited wasn't found by myself. I just went to the tetraphobia, checked what linked there, entered one of the Nokia-related articles and found it there. About the source in the template, well, you asked for a source and I provided it in the only available manner, and yes, it shows as an error when you view the template by itself, but it works fine when embedded in an article that has a ref list. This said, I only provided that ironic edit summary in response to yours which wasn't particularly polite, or appropriate since you were asking whether there was a source at the same time as you were deleting the info altogether. Wouldn't we have been much better off if you asked in the talk page instead? Anyway, no hard feelings. See you around. --uKER (talk) 00:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

ANI

See the archive. I'd rather not have any Murphy-related content on my talk page currently. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Crap. Didn't have a clue. Good luck with that issue then. --uKER (talk) 21:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Reporting Darthvoldemor199

I disagree with your report that you made to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism because the page is for reporting vandalism and not violations of policies. Boygirl22 (talk) 00:51, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

What policy are you referring to? The one about not disregarding countless warnings of not adding deliberately made up stuff to articles? --uKER (talk) 03:10, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

I was referring to Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Boygirl22 (talk) 01:39, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not sure what to make of the user that started this thread... but please don't make edits like this as you removed a recently-report IP and removed several pertinent comments. In addition, the user you reported is making edits that someone unfamiliar with the subject, such as myself, don't see as obvious vandalism. That's the reason your earlier report wasn't acted on and the reason it was removed earlier as stale. If they continue to make edits contrary to consensus, please consider reporting them to WP:ANEW. Thanks. —DoRD (talk) 04:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I don't have a clue on how that edit could have come to be. My intention was only to paste the paragraph in which I reported the guy. Don't know how I may have ended up modifying all the other stuff. Sorry about that. About the vandal, well, I guess I'll wait until he goes at it again, which he certainly will, and the post him to the edit warring noticeboard. Thanks for the tip. Just for the record, his edits are basically what all of the Transformers fanboys do: baseless affirmation of their favorite characters or actors being due to appear in the upcoming film, probably due to their delusion that they'll create some kind of mass hysteria and the film's director will end up modifying the film to please them fanboys. Sad but true. --uKER (talk) 06:56, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks for explaining. As for the edit: After sleeping on it, I realized that you must have had a conflict with one of the helperbots. I've seen them mysteriously remove valid reports before, so never mind what I said above. Cheers —DoRD (talk) 13:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)

SSF4

you don't have to message me, i have it on my watchlist.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:32, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dance in the Dark

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Dance in the Dark. 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 Wikipedia:Notability and "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(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dance in the Dark. 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.

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. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:04, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Camilopc123

hola

este es un saludo

para responder al el mensaje que me dejo se muy bien ingles y también con la ayuda de google traductor y no es que quiera arruinar la pagina como dije antes en mi solicitud solo quiero mejorar la pagina y cualquier otro jamas haría vandalismo en en una pagina de wikipedia lo juro —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camilopc123 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

hola

este es un saludo

para responder al el mensaje que me dejo se muy bien ingles y también con la ayuda de google traductor y no es que quiera arruinar la pagina como dije antes en mi solicitud solo quiero mejorar la pagina y cualquier otra jamas haría vandalismo en una pagina de wikipedia lo juro

ello

This is a greeting

to respond to the message, i know very well English and with the help of google translator and not want to ruin the page as I said in my application I just want to improve this page and any other, never i do vandalism in a wikipedia page, I swear —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camilopc123 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

May 2010

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Transformers 3. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. magnius (talk) 22:39, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Assume good faith and don't template the regulars. Kthxbye. --uKER (talk) 00:15, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Mortal Kombat 9 at E3?

In a GamePro interview, the Warner interactive president mentions Mortal Kombat when talking about the company IPs. But he doesn't say that it'll be MK9 in particular or that it'll even be at E3 for a fact. http://www.gamepro.com/article/features/215346/turbines-lord-of-the-rings-online-goes-free-to-play/

Can we try to put that into the article? It really looks WP:Crystal, but it might be a safe assumption. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Transformers 3

Perhaps you misunderstood me. I don't believe that Arcee, Chromia and Elita-1 will appear. I believe they died in that battle in Egypt. And Bay said Twins won't appear. Sideswipe and Jolt aren't confirmed, but I think there should be a way to inform is it unknown that character will appear or not or is it confirmed and also confirm appearance but without information who is going voice the character. Added by TCCJH (talk • contribs) 10:36, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Shutter Island

Hey I did a length compression a few days ago on the plot summary for the movie because of a series of edits I'd missed that bumped it up to over 1000 words after you and I talked on the talk page over there. However, I could not for the life of me figure out how to get the paragraph with the reveal (second to last I think) to sound any better than it does now and it was so awkward I ended up pulling the anagram stuff in a desperate bid to get it to make some sense. You want to take a look and see if you can get that bit back in there? Millahnna (mouse)talk 14:06, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Um. I gave it a shot. See what you think and of course feel free to improve. BTW, sorry I haven't been "policing" the article lately. I've become somewhat less active on WP than I used to. Still hanging around from time to time but not like some time ago. Good to have you around. --uKER (talk) 01:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Looks great! In fact I think this version turned out better than the last time around. No worries on policing. I lose track of stuff all the time. Real life does rear it's ugly head and I've been goofing off in Civ 4 too much again. A girl's gotta have a hobby. :D Millahnna (mouse)talk 02:31, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Elevated

Hi, now that you've changed Elevated to point to a disambiguation page, could you fix the links that need re-pointing per WP:FIXDABLINKS? Thanks, --JaGa^talk 10:03, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm seeing here and I see none. Which ones are you referring to? --uKER (talk) 01:35, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Looks like someone else already took care of it. --JaGa^talk 09:31, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

camilopc, sorry

I'm sorry, sir Uker, I was not trying to ruin the Transformers (film) site, it is more the more I had no intention of that, I've been long absent from wikipedia. and I'm just reading the manuals and relief items. The cause of the incident was that I have installed the Google Toolbar, which is scheduled to translate the pages and words in English, which while I was editing the page, without realizing the damage my edition translated and which took that disastrous outcome.

sorry again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Camilopc123 (talk • contribs) 00:47, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Paranormal Activity

I think the release year for the film got screwed up, and instead of looking over the edits, I just reverted the last one. This resulted in the hidden text saying that "IMDB lists this film was released in 2009" instead of the original 2007 version, which I assume caused you reverted my edit. It's been 2007 for awhile, so I have changed it back. IMDB still lists the film as 2007. Angryapathy (talk) 14:54, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, yeah, the independent version of the film originally came out in 2007. It was in 2009 that whatever film studio bought it and re-released it. It's just that I seem to recall some consensus having been reached about the article referring to the theatrical version, thus the 2009 date, but I won't argue over it. Thanks for the notice. --uKER (talk) 17:03, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Coon 2: Hindsight

I did remove all subjective identifications but your action to removing the entire section was unwarranted. The secret identities of these characters is integral to the story and is the main draw of the episode. Wikipedia has already denied a request to semi-protect the page saying that it's all our responsibility to police this page. If something is wrong then fix it but don't chop off the critical aspect because it may deter vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frizbaloid (talk • contribs) 00:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Sources in navboxes

Oh! You meant technically not allowed, I see! My apologies.

By the way, there are other ways except inline external reference. You can use the lovely {{ref}} and {{note}} templates.

Fleet Command (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

So

How do you like your Mortal Kombat HD Kollection, allegedly released today, 3 months after "it was confirmed by a MK website called TRMK after talking with several big industry names"? --Asperchu (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

WTF is this supposed to mean? I guess you were having a fanboyish dispute with someone but it certainly wasn't me. --uKER (talk) 14:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

"Here's the source. Looks legitimate to me. AFAIK, TRMK is regarded as a reliable source. --uKER (talk) 15:51, 15 September 2010 (UTC)" Man, it's an awesome game... you were right, TRMK is indeed a reliable source! --Asperchu (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Angry Birds

Hey there. I'm sorry if our edits keep colliding, but I do have issues with some of the changes in the "Gameplay" section, which seem to add in grammatical errors. I'd like to hear your line of thinking on the talk page, however, as I know we're both working towards the same goal, improving the article.

In that regard, you're right that the "Gameplay" section needs some citations. However, the very nature of the game is that there isn't an included instruction manual. Further, everything was done with as little written language as possible, to facilitate export to other countries/languages. I'm wondering if the game reviews have some info on how the game works, and if that can be used. What do you think?

--McDoobAU93 17:21, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Gameplay mechanics, just like the plot in film articles, don't require a source. It's information that becomes evident to anyone with access to the work, and nobody would dispute it. In the event that it was inaccurate, well, then in fact it would be disputed by about every person with access to the game/film. You can take a look at any other videogame/film article. About the Gameplay section, I'll post my issues with it in just a minute in the article's talk page. --uKER (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm looking at the source you provided for Episode 5, and this appears to be a very extensive update. To that end, I do believe it's warranted to discuss other major gameplay changes implemented in the previous updates. Your assistance would be appreciated in filling this out. I'm working on the changes for Episode 5 with the source you noted. Thanks for finding it. --McDoobAU93 19:17, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Despite your seemingly kind tone, I don't appreciate you attitude of bossing me around and intending to unilaterally decide when something is worth writing and when it isn't. --uKER (talk) 19:31, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Call it what you will, but I call it "I see your point, and you're right about that." It's also asking for your help for something we all want, to improve the article. --McDoobAU93 19:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

I will continue to try and improve it, but I have to say this hasn't been the smoothest collaboration I've had. Anyway, see you around. --uKER (talk) 19:39, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Agreed ... I've butted heads with more than a few editors since I've been here. In time, those editors and I have become friends and co-collaborators. I do my best to not hold grudges, and look forward to working with you going forward. --McDoobAU93 19:44, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Subject

Have been attempting to provide myself with education and knowledge, and don't always know how to relate important matter. If the format says to be friendly, shouldn't this be a possible goal? I must learn from others. Not necessarily a punishment, though. Saturn75.204.113.32 (talk) 21:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't have the slightest idea what you're talking about. --uKER (talk) 03:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Lost Highhway and Detour

The link between the two films, Detour and Lost Highway, has been on the Lost Highway page for some time. I do not think a reference is necessary, since it is a "see also" reference, and not content about Lost Highway itself. See references can and should include things that are similar in theme, style, or content, and Detour is similar in theme and content. In any case, the reference is not a contentious fact about a living person, a clear example of original research, or ludicrous (qualities that clearly require deletion). Furthermore, the films are compared in at least two books I found online in a few seconds search. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.87.178.76 (talk) 08:31, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Then the most sane approach would be to add a mention of the relation between both in the prose, with a proper source, don't you think? --uKER (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted

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 revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was 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.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:28, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Bully Beatdown

Don't want an edit war. My intention was not to undo all of your edits, in fact, I am glad you made a separate page for an episode list. My intention was only to put the season synopses back on the main page as I think it is a more appropriate place for them than an episode listSchnapps17 (talk) 14:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree. I tried to do that just now. What I don't agree on though, is the season recaps you did saying trivial analytical information such as what fighters appeared twice, or how many bullies were female. The article is questionable as it is without sources. Let's leave out these WP:OR factoids. --uKER (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Schnapps17 (talk) 15:21, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Unicron in TF3

Nothing. Anywhere. Backs up that Unicron is in Transformers: Dark of the Moon. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Whether you like it or not, the affirmation that he appears in the TF3 preview is true and verifiable, and may prove significant if Unicron ends up actually appearing in it. --uKER (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Prove it. Post something here to make it verifiable. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 22:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't have to cite a source for Unicron being in the RotF Blu-ray. The RotF Blu-ray IS the source. If it's just to shut you up, here's this. --uKER (talk) 23:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Seen it. Video says nothing to back up that it was Unicron in the trailer.--Dana60Cummins (talk) 00:13, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Hell, do you even know who Unicron is? --uKER (talk) 00:41, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would you ask that? --Dana60Cummins (talk) 02:17, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Now that I think about it, I see your problem. Nobody said it was Unicron in the trailer? I'm saying it's him in the TF3 preview that was on the Revenge of the Fallen disc. --uKER (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

That's not proof of Unicron in TF3 or preview. --Dana60Cummins (talk) 16:55, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that there's nothing to solidly back up Unicron, but instead of the three of us going back and forth I have WP:BRD'd the issue (meaning we must come to a WP:CONSENSUS on the talk page before adding it back). I've also invited WikiProject Film to come in and give a clearer view. --Teancum (talk) 13:31, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean you've BRD'ed the issue? It's not like BRD is a formal procedure. --uKER (talk) 04:08, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Single link

Hi. Regarding the Dark of the Moon page, there actually was just one link included for the novel, so I restored it. Thanks. -- James26 (talk) 22:18, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

There probably was two when I removed it. In any case, your edit is fine. Thanks for the notice. --uKER (talk) 00:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No, actually there wasn't. But we all make mistakes, so it's cool. Just thought I'd alert you. -- James26 (talk) 01:36, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Jetpower Prime

OK. I give up. The new version of Jetpower Prime is released only in Japan, but I'm still not so sure about this. Those new upgrades I saw in trailer didn't resemble the trailer in my eyes. -- CAJH (talk) 10:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

First of all, it's called Jetwing Optimus Prime, and here's what its toy looks like. --uKER (talk) 13:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I watch nearly every day Transformers News pages like TFW2005. Of course I already what that toy looked like. -- CAJH (talk) 21:08, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Then how do you think that's Jetfire's parts? --uKER (talk) 23:06, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, first it looked like black colored and resembled very much the jetpack we saw in ROTF. But forget it. I just looked it one more time and now I can believe this time it is the trailer. -- CAJH (talk) 20:00, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Transformers: Dark of the Moon Editing

Hey, amigo! Listen, I know you keep reminding me not to edit the page Transformers: Dark of the Moon. Don't worry, I stopped. I know, that took FOREVER! Anyways, there's something I think you should know. I keep typing those from Transformers 2 will be in Transformers 3 and you don't agree, but why does the page 2011 in film agree with me. Don't worry, I NEVER created that page, it's too many movies to keep track of and I'm a person of my word. Anyways, you should check 2011 in film. Talk to me about this on my page! Talk to you then! TheActionMovieCritic (talk) 17:21, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Transformers: Dark of the Moon sourcing

Sorry about that. Didn't realize the forum belonged to Bay. --Teancum (talk) 19:03, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Transformers: Dark of the Moon Driller

There's a link added as a source for this on film's own article. Source is an article from seibertron.com, but the link is broken and should be fixed. CAJH (talk) 17:32, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

Sub-Zero's appearances section

The way it was organized really implies an in-universe tone and that order should be avoided. Moreover, the subsections are really pointless considering the small content each section has (storyline comment, appears, end) and would persuade others to expand them to add trivial details. Additionally, who added the biography section? The title sounds like a real person, and it contains unsourced information, as well as analysis about his role in the series. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

About the in-universe order, I considered your point of view, but I felt the storyline would be of little value told in the order in which the games came out. I do agree on it being unnecessary to have sections for each game. It could well be told in prose, and it would probally lend itself to less unneeded additions indeed. About the "Biography" section, I don't really know who created it, and I tend to agree with your points. I just don't think chopping off the information is the way to proceed. --uKER (talk) 16:34, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Angry Birds WebGL

Hey there ... thanks for updating the article to include the new WebGL version. However, after installing the game, I do have some questions about how we're presenting it. The game is referred to as Angry Birds Chrome, and also includes a "beta" tag in the title graphic. That makes me wonder if it's exclusive to Chrome for now, and upon full release will be available to other WebGL browsers. That would of course be speculation on my part, but at the same time the game (which itself can be considered a reliable source for article content) is kinda clear on who's behind this. What do you think? --McDoobAU93 19:00, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I really can't tell first hand, but my point is that while the game is presented as tying in to Chrome, Google themselves mentioning the existence of "Chrome-exclusive content" implies their acknowledgement of the game's ability to run on other browsers. --uKER (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Therein lies the question. From my own admitted original research, I tried installing on Firefox 4, which (supposedly) can run WebGL, but a pop-up appeared saying that Firefox didn't yet support the Chrome Web Store. Again, since it's OR, I'm not going to add it to the article. Also, "exclusive" could also be interpreted as "not on iOS or Android or Symbian, etc.", as well; but I'm cool with what's there now, just the same. --McDoobAU93 19:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Ah-ha. I see your point. I always read the "Chrome exclusive" thing as "not in other browsers". Shall we write it to be as ambiguous as the source then? --uKER (talk) 19:23, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I think it's pretty stable for now, but I'll look at it again after a good night's sleep and see if something can be adjusted. I do like how you relocated the "beta form" phrase in the sentence, so it can be easily removed later ... and it reads better, to boot. Well done! --McDoobAU93 06:24, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Source Code

Thanks for your work at Source Code's plot section. The new introductory paragraph is much clearer than your first version, and your other edits give it some needed polishing. Diego Moya (talk) 15:24, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Glad you liked that. Thanks for noticing! --uKER (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

What?

I was trying to revert my move and you template me. And because of your requesting speedy deletion, I could revert. Thanks for making the situation more harder than what it had to be. ceradon 21:44, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Huh? The only way that could be reverted was keeping that CSD:G6 on the page, which you removed and I had to restore. --uKER (talk) 21:53, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

It could have been easily reverted if you hadn't rquested speedy deletion but, Under the MediaWiki software, in order for an article to be move over redirect is for the only edit on the page you're reverting to is the one with the original move, and I am still disgusted that you templated me and you used the wrong template. Hmnnn. ceradon 22:01, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Angry Birds Rio

Thanks for voicing your opinion on the merge discussion at Angry Birds Rio. I don't know why it didn't occur to me to ask your opinion, considering how much content you've provided at Angry Birds itself; just the same, thank you for weighing in. --McDoobAU93 22:37, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

An editor has proposed merging the article for Angry Birds Rio into the article for Angry Birds. You are encouraged to offer your opinions on this proposal on the target article's talk page. Thank you. --McDoobAU93 19:32, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Insidious ( 2011 film) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Insidious ( 2011 film). Since you had some involvement with the Insidious ( 2011 film) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). uKER (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Angelina Pivarnick

I noticed you reverted all references of Angelina Pivarnick's well-known nickname "Jolie" from Jersey Shore (TV series). However, if you follow the show you would know that they frequently referred her as "Jolie" (especially the owner of the t-shirt shop). Furthermore, a quick google search of "Angelina Jolie Pivarnick" yielded many results. While the use of "Jolie" was not as frequent as "Snooki", "JWoww", "Pauly D", and "The Situation", it was used just as much as Sammi's nickname "Sweetheart". I have re-added the Jolie reference. If you have any question or feedbacks, please do not hesitate to contact me. Thank you!--TheBigNatural (talk) 14:41, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Um, your name having "natural" in it makes me think you're Angelina herself trying to do some self-promotion in popularizing a name that somehow links her to Angelina Jolie. --uKER (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

No it is simply a nickname of mine. I am not Angelina Pivarnick. I have been working diligently on Sammi Giancola which was amazingly a redirect before I worked on it a couple of hours ago. Why would Angelina feel the need to work on Sammi's Wikipedia biography?--TheBigNatural (talk) 15:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Psx doom listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Psx doom. Since you had some involvement with the Psx doom redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). uKER (talk) 04:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Jaguar doom listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Jaguar doom. Since you had some involvement with the Jaguar doom redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). uKER (talk) 04:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Moving Top Gear US

TV series is the correct terminology for Top Gear US. It may not be in the UK, but in the US, we use the term series for both scripted and unscripted television programs, and a season for a group of episodes. The UK uses series for a group of episodes, which is very different from how we do it. Please be careful not to move US shows without being sure you understand American terminology. Better yet, discuss moves that are potentially controversial, as this one decidedly was, before making the move. --Drmargi (talk) 00:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm not exactly British. I did it because it didn't seem right. About discussing stuff before doing it, there's WP:BRD Thanks for the notice though. Best regards. --uKER (talk) 07:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion and unexplained edits?

Could you give some reason(s) for your edits and deletion nomination of WiDi_(disambiguation) in its talk page? I'd like to know, thanks. Nitwon (talk) 22:09, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The page is simply not necessary since there's no more than one article named WiDi. Capitalization alone is enough to disambiguate the currently existing topics (there is WIDI and Widi). About my edits to the page, I just removed links to stuff that wasn't actually called WiDi. --uKER (talk) 15:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Apologies if I've disrupted the usual process, I'm still relatively new to Wikipedia editing (I do try to keep up with reading relevant rules). I originally created the page since there were a couple of incorrectly named wireless display technology articles and WiDi incorrectly redirected to Miracast. I assumed that the confusion of the term (due to general ignorance more than anything) warranted a disambiguation page, but I now understand the correct usage of such pages. I'll put that speedy deletion tag back up. Thanks and happy editing! Nitwon (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Just for the record, you're not supposed to delete the tag. Once a page has been nominated for deletion, you're supposed to discuss the matter via any means you find suitable, and once the matter has been settled, the tag can be deleted if necessary, but you're not to delete it just because you disagree. --uKER (talk) 19:34, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

WiDi (disambiguation) listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect WiDi (disambiguation). Since you had some involvement with the WiDi (disambiguation) redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion (if you have not already done so). uKER (talk) 16:52, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Langley Kirkwood

Hello, UKER. I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you started, Langley Kirkwood, for deletion because it's a biography of a living person that lacks references. If you don't want Langley Kirkwood to be deleted, please add a reference to the article.

If you don't understand this message, you can leave a note on my talk page.

Thanks, Gbawden (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Langley Kirkwood, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Athlete (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

The Pact

I see that you moved Jodi Picoult's novel to The Pact (novel). This leaves a large number of incoming links, intended for the novel, now pointing to the disambiguation page. You can see them here. It is your responsibility to clean these up. Please take care before making any page moves, and be sure to tidy up after any moves you make which might damage the encyclopedia. Thanks. PamD 10:31, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Further: A lot of the incoming links are from the one template, {{Jodi Picoult}}, and I've updated it to reflect the page move, though this may take some time to show up in the list of incoming links (by removing most of them). PamD 10:37, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I corrected the ones I could find. It was also not easy because many came from erroneous links, such as from the actors participating in the several films called The Pact. --uKER (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Just wanted to point this out.

Hey. I just wanted to point out this edit that you made, and let you know that I reverted it. I assume it was accidental? Anyway, cheers! Friginator (talk) 19:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I had intended to remove the link to the Elvira episode list, which is no longer an episode list. Where those images came from or how they managed to get there is beyond me. Thanks for the notice though. Cheers! --uKER (talk) 20:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Nexus etymology

Hi,

You recently returned some information to Google Nexus that I'd deleted. Rather than re-re-revert, I've started a discussion at Talk:Google Nexus#Etymology, if you want to comment.

—me_and 23:43, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

fact tag usage

Hi, UKER. I noticed this edit you made to the The Matrix Reloaded article. Instead of {{fact|"the" visual effect?}}, you should use {{fact|reason='the' visual effect?}}. You must have the "reason=" part to prevent the page from appearing in Category:Pages containing citation needed template with deprecated parameters and the reason parameter cannot have double quotes. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 22:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Damnit. I wasn't 100% sure about the syntax and I forgot to check afterward. Sorry about that and thanks for cleaning up after me. :) Cheers. --uKER (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. Until just recently when I added it, it wasn't even in the documentation for the template that double quotes shouldn't be used. That's a technical limitation that's very unfortunate. I'm hoping there's so way that the template itself can be improved on that matter. Cheers, Jason Quinn (talk) 22:51, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Colorado Parties

Please don't rename articles that have been established for a long time without some attempt at prior discussion. In this case, "Colorado Party" is clearly the WP:COMMONNAME, and any US-centric confusion with the US state doesn't alter that. Rd232 ^talk 21:59, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

I live in Uruguay so believe me I know that the common name of the party is. The "Partido Colorado" (red party) opposes the "Partido Blanco" (white party), so unless you'd call the latter "Blanco Party", it's ridiculous to call the former "Colorado Party". --uKER (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Britannica says exactly that: The two principal traditional political parties are the Colorado (“Red”) Party (which has had a liberal urban base) and the Blanco (“White”), or National, Party... [1] Rd232 ^talk 22:22, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Citing Britannica as a reason is against WP:OTHER. The name being a not-otherwise-significant color name, I don't see why it should stay untranslated, instead of making it simply "Red Party" as was the case with the Norwegian one, which appropiately is -not- called "Rødt Party". --uKER (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

LOL - citing Britannica on this is WP:OTHER, but some other party elsewhere on Wikipedia isn't?? Well you've started a talkpage discussion, so let's continue this there. Rd232 ^talk 00:04, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

CFD talkback

Hello, UKER. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 29#Category:Fede_Alvarez.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 16

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Super Street Fighter IV, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Yan (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SuperSF4AE.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SuperSF4AE.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Active shutter glasses

Hi UKER,

I saw your revert and want to see if we could find a better solution than deleting the information entirely.

I had added the information after searching the web for 3D shutter glasses that would operate on a wide range of frequencies. I found one system operating from 50 to 144 Hz, of which the producer claims it is the world's first 3D glasses operating in this range (producer's website: [2] and [3]). Searching further, I found another one now, operating from 96 to 144 Hz, the XPAND 3D shutter glasses (links: [4] and [5]). There's another one that operates from 60 to 120 Hz:

Shutter glasses that operate between the standards would be quite relevant for the article. Adaptation to different frequency ranges is one aspect of this. Any suggestion how one could draft a better statement to reflect this?

Cheers, --Chris Howard (talk) 06:49, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I gave it a shot here. See what you think and feel free to improve. Cheers! --uKER (talk) 16:47, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Looks good to me; I've just added a further detail and formatted the links. Cheers to you too, --Chris Howard (talk) 22:04, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm Darkwarriorblake. I noticed that you made a comment on the page Dredd that didn't seem very civil, so it has been removed. Wikipedia needs people like you and me to collaborate, so it's one of our core principles to interact with one another in a polite and respectful manner. If you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:09, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars --uKER (talk) 22:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You sure know how to abuse templates while ignoring ones you don't like. MOSFILM is not a hard rule, if it were Prometheus would not have been able to pass the FA process. You cannot simply cite OTHER STUFF in the face of that simple fact. You immediately entered an edit war instead of entering discussion, this is a common theme with yourself. So you get templates when you deserve them, nothing less nothing more.Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:19, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

WP:MOSFILM is a much better reason than you just reverting me just because you didn't make the change yourself. --uKER (talk) 22:28, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Ren and Stimpy

I wish to ask how the refs are dubious?--Crazyseiko (talk) 09:04, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

They were mostly to offline sources, which makes them hard to check. No more than that. --uKER (talk) 16:49, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

you can view all the refs if your a member of UK library ;) --Crazyseiko (talk) 19:33, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Well, they're only hard to check then. I mean, I see your good intention in the edit. The information was even mildly interesting, but quite non-notable at the same time. I live in a small country in South America and I'm fully aware that it's largely unfitting that I comment on the treatment given to Ren & Stimpy by my local TV stations. Hope you understand. --uKER (talk) 19:53, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

If I rework the piece of information, ( Dare say it will be given to someone else to do that) and also found a few more refs would that work? When it come to the UK it was noticeable what the BBC did with the series, since even the ref did highlight why cartoon was in trouble, and even still it was for kids the BBC decided not to broadcast for kids, I may have to put in more details and not rely on broadcast dates--Crazyseiko (talk) 21:10, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

I honestly don't see why its antics in the UK would be more relevant than stuff happening in any other country, but go ahead. Give it a shot and I'll give you the benefit of a second opinion. Cheers! --uKER (talk) 23:17, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Dredd

Hi. I have reverted back to your version per MOS. However, please note that you are both entering 3RR territory. Thanks. Taroaldo ✉ 22:20, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry. It just gets on my nerves when people revert me "just because", especially when it's consistently the same person doing it. I pretty much gave up editing that article for that very reason. --uKER (talk) 22:26, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Understandable. I am already getting minor flak on my talk page, but I expect that in such situations. Taroaldo ✉ 22:34, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

You realize that repeating a lie does not make it true yes? That we don't live in Planescape. Reasons were given. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Kinda rude of you to hijack a conversation like this, don't you think? --uKER (talk) 22:55, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

At some point you need to stop reverting every edit I make because you're annoyed you haven't consistently gotten your way all of the time. An irradiated wasteland where crime is all encompassing is by definition, dystopic, it doesn't need to be said because it is BEING said in descriptive terms, and because there are words left to use does not mean they need to be used. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 06:47, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The initial edit wasn't even mine. It's just annoying that you revert everyone else's edits just because you liked the article the way it was before, which of course is the result of your own edits. This edit in particular, cited a reason that happened to be untrue, that is him saying it was "utopic". --uKER (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The plot is, as you have been told repeatedly, the result of several collaborators. As for this "untrue" edit summary, I never said that the edit said "utopic", it was pointing out that the existing description could not BE utopic and so stating it was dystopic was unnecessary, not that the edit itself stated utopic. That you didn't understand that or that you have a personal problem with me making edits to an article are not something that belongs on Wikipedia, especially the last part, in fact undoing my edits because you have a personal issue with me is against the rules. There is a thorough description of the city and it's state, dystopic is an unnecessary, superfluous addition because we have a full description of it. So you can undo the edit yourself if you wish to make peace, otherwise I will undo it after a reasonable amount of time to give you the opportunity, because it isn't about how I "liked" it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 17:43, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm not bothered in any way by that adjective there, so I don't have any reason to remove it. You offering me to be the one that exerts your will is worthless, and my having a problem with you is simply because of your obsession with reverting whoever touches the article without any tangible reason other than "there was nothing wrong before", as is the case here. --uKER (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Easily the worst part about you as an editor is the way you blatantly ignore given reasons and then say "you didn't have a reason". Where have I said "there was nothing wrong before"? Oh wait I didn't on that edit did I? You make shit up. All. The. Time. It's why there is no point talking to you. First your reasoning was "he didn't add 'utopic'" now that your blatant inaccuracy has been pointed out, you've changed your reasoning to "It's annoying how you edit pages". The reason given is that there is an actual, present, description of the city. Calling it dystopic is superfluous because it is REPEATING THE INFO and STATING THE OBVIOUS. Your petty and pathetic reasons for wanting to keep it are purely because I want to remove it, which is not, despite your oblivious nature, a reason for keeping it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 20:51, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

The guy wrote the city was dystopic and you delete it saying "is blah blah utopic?" Sorry that the lame attempt at sarcasm threw me off. And my reason for hating that you systematically revert other people's stuff is that someone else's reasons for wanting it in are just as valid as your reasons for wanting it out (not much either way really) yet you always feel the need to have it your way because of course, you own the article, don't you? :) --uKER (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It's remarkable, how the user who doesn't automatically get his way every time, immediately cries "Wah, you own the article". Every time. You've deliberately strung out discussions well past their settlement time because you can't stand not getting your way. Like I said (and like you ignored, again) not every edit needs to be, and you confuse developing an article to a higher standard with ownership. I've explained why "dystopic" didn't belong, you've chosen to ignore it so you can whine like a 6 year old and play out your power fantasies, getting revenge on the big bad editor because he undoes edits, wah. You've yet to explain why dystopic belongs when I've given you a substantial reason why it does not. Instead you simply say "well I don't like that you undid a random IP's edit because you own the article". Like I said, you're undoing my edits because of a personal issue, and if it continues I will have no option but to report it as a personal attack. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 21:45, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

It's not my way. It's everyone's way you go against. It's just that I happen to be the only one that sees it happening over and over and the only one that cares to bring it up. And I can't care less about your petty threats. --uKER (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Uh huh, go ask the two other contributors over at Batman: Arkham Origins how much I bully them while they make edits to an article on which I am the main contributor. Useful edits are never rejected. Meanwhile I have your admission here that you're editing purely out of spite. It's time for you to move on, you've been acting like this since the first time you didn't get your way months if not a year ago, so don't pretend it was some sustained assault on your editing freedom that turned you into a resistance fighter. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 22:02, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

I have given up on trying to touch this article. It's not me I'm fighting for. --uKER (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2013 (UTC)