User talk:VanishedUser sdu9aya9fs232

Retired

This user is no longer active on Wikipedia.

Welcome!

Hello, TheMeaningOfBlah! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! -- Irn (talk) 04:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Getting Started
The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image
Getting Help
Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention
Policies and Guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The Community
Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Things to do
Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism
Miscellaneous
Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Payback 2014

Hi thank you for your edit on Payback 2014 I was going to add that match but was waiting until the opponent was announced, the match I removed claimed that it was already a divided match with Rob Van Dam taking on Bad News Barrett. Lukejordan02 (talk) 00:51, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

May 2014

Please do not add or change content, as you did to Payback (2014), without verifying it by citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. STATic message me! 01:21, 20 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for September 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Third-party. 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) 09:21, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Night of Champions 2014

Why can't I add information on the event so far? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Philgta5 (talk • contribs) 01:51, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The information that you've posted may appear to be misleading or weird. I suggest holding off on positng information until the event is over. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 09:58, 22 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Compromise for Final Character Count in Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U

Good evening, Gameditor, TheStickMan, Dissident93, New Age Retro Hippie, and notably Wonchop (Feel free to flag anyone else in if you so desire).

I'd like to propose a compromise for the final character count in the page listed above. Here are 2 examples as to how we can make this up:

Rewrite this:

"Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U features a roster of 49 playable fighters taken from both Nintendo's first-party franchises and some third-party franchises, 15 of which are new to the series."

to this:

"Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U features a roster of 49 (51 if the Mii Fighter variants are considered different) playable fighters taken from both Nintendo's first-party franchises and some third-party franchises, 15 of which are new to the series."

2. Rewrite this:

"Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U features a roster of 49 playable fighters taken from both Nintendo's first-party franchises and some third-party franchises, 15 of which are new to the series."

to this:

"Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U features a roster of 51 playable fighters taken from both Nintendo's first-party franchises and some third-party franchises, 17 of which are new to the series."

Stuff to support both of these (rewritten) sentences:

"Due to the fact they also have separate movesets", in the words of Dissident93.
This (at 5:30 into the video):[1]
"Reliable sources are valuable, but they don't override "Word of God". Sakurai has stated that he treats them as three separate characters", "Further, street advertisement for Smash on 3DS had the Mii Fighters advertised separately from one another as separate characters (each ad had a little icon in the bottom left corner, showing a character). They were also numbered differently.", and "However, the consensus as it stands feels that it is clear what Sakurai is saying. The three Mii Fighters were recognized as separate by Sakurai", in the words of New Age Retro Hippie.

Thoughts? TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 23:06, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

~ I like the first example the most. The fact of them each having their own unique Final Smash/movesets/equipment, along with Sakurai considering them to be separate characters, should at least be mentioned somewhere in the article. By the way, the instruction booklet treats them all as separate characters as well. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good to know that the instruction booklet treats them as seperate, but I think I'll wait until some more people show their thought about this. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are three different movesets, sure, but Miis themselves are infinite by nature, and the statement "there are three Miis" only applies if we assume every player chooses to just make one Mii of each type, which is pretty much guaranteed not to happen. As such, it can be confusing to just outright call them three seperate characters, as you can technically make three types out of the same Mii. I'd say rewrite 1 would work best, albeit with the "technically 51" statement placed after the Mii Fighter mention in the list of new fighters, just so it reads better. (ie. and the Mii Fighter which can be assigned with one of three different types (technically bringing the roster to 51). Wonchop (talk) 12:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I think we've reached a consensus here. If anyone seems to be against it, please leave a message explaining why. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Image res

Hey there - I noticed you reverted my reversion of File:Super Smash Bros for Wii U Box Art.png, citing WP:IMAGERES. My original reversion was based on the fact that video game cover art rarely should rarely exceed, if ever, dimensions that break the 100,000 px² suggestion. Just wanted to see if we're both on the same page. Since your reversion, another editor has come by and resized the image to a smaller size. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 05:00, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are a good thing...

Hi, Sources are good thing, please use them. Without them, it makes it very easy (and required) to revert edits or delete content like what happened in the Sonic Boom (TV series) article. Thanks, --SCalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 20:38, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am still keeping the sources, just condensing all of them into one general reference at the top of the air date column. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/FAQ#Verifiability for more information. Dcbanners (talk) 22:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dave the Intern

Nice find on the source... :) Normally I delete Twitter references as non WP:RS, but this one is actually for the show so it makes sense. Thanks, --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 17:58, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your welcome! TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2014 (UTC) 😉[reply]

3RR

Hi there. I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but Wikipedia has a bright-line rule called the "three-revert rule". It states that: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period." You appear to have broken this rule on Sonic Boom (TV series) [2][3][4][5]. Please make yourself aware of our edit warring policy and refrain from making any more reverts on that page for another 24 hours (with the exception of reverting clear vandalism, of course). The best advice I can offer for situations like these is to stop reverting—even if you know you're right. It's far more productive and polite to address the issue on a talk page rather than through edit summaries. Yes, it means that the article will stay on a version you don't like for some time, but in the end, a consensus is formed, the encyclopedia is improved and there are no grudges. It is important that editors do not repeatedly revert each others' good faith edits because doing so creates an battleground atmosphere, which is ultimately very disruptive to the editing process. For this reason, editors who engage in edit wars are typically blocked from editing. Respectfully, Mz7 (talk) 23:27, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Blarpkin

Don't revert user talk pages unless you know what you're doing. The user removed the block notice. He had the perfect right to do that. An IP reverted the removal, which was improper. I reverted the IP. You then came along and reverted me. Please don't do that again.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:08, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

February 2015

Yes the 70,288 attendence is in the gamebook and also reported by ESPN. Whoever is readding the attendance, it is still unsourced??? Ucla90024 (talk) 21:05, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Even though it was recorded in the Gamebook and reported by ESPN, there was no reliable source to back up this claim. That's why it was periodically removed from time to time. As the attendance was added without a source, this also falls under WP:OR and WP:CITE. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 01:31, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Add sources: History of the Dallas Cowboys; Paula Abdul discography; Jets–Patriots rivalry; San Francisco 49ers; African-American Civil Rights Movement (1954–68); Alpha and Omega 2: A Howl-iday Adventure
Cleanup: Michael Strahan; Ben Roethlisberger; National Football League Cheerleading
Expand: 2011 San Diego Chargers season; Go Fund Yourself; Operation Rainfall
Unencyclopaedic: 2012–13 NFL playoffs; 2013 Seattle Seahawks season; NFL on NBC music

Wikify: National Football League Rookie of the Year Award; Bill Belichick; Sports-related curses
Orphan: Comparisons between the National Football League and NCAA football; New Orleans Saints Playoff History; Amirabad, Corrin
Merge: Windows 10; Universe of The Legend of Zelda; Recurring enemies in The Legend of Zelda series
Stub: Panther Creek (Pennsylvania); I Won't Be Home for Christmas (The Simpsons); Dog Blood; 1994 Cleveland Browns season; 1976 Pro Bowl; Ove Bjelke Holtermann

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

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 02:05, 15 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wrestlemania 31, Andre The Giant Battle Royal entries

You might want to remember that there is a delay in the end of the Smackdown airing to the time they edit the page listed as a reference in Wrestlemania 31. The edit you reverted of mine was actually edited in to the page referenced shortly after you reverted my edit. I know you're trying to keep the page clean of vandalism, but sometimes things are announced on the programs that aren't immediately added on to the relevant pages. retched (talk) 09:52, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Level 257.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Level 257.png. 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. Stefan2 (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

The edit of removing the brackets is perfect. I will accept that but removing entire reasonings. No. So thanks for that! TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 00:39, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Haxz.999

I am here to state I was merely removing the Daniel Bryan. I did it as WWE hasn't added him according to the WM 31 website and my comments on the end of the summaries were references to the "I Quit" Match involving John Cena vs. The Miz (w/ Alex Riley) and he was abusive in his summaries and I went to his talk to try and resolve things. Thanks! TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 01:32, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Due to his edits, I'm currently creating an admin noticeboard discussion regarding it. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 01:34, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've edited your post but just to fix typos. Other than that everything else remains as originally written. TheGRVOfLightning (talk) 01:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The noticeboard discussion can be found here: [6] TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 01:45, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

WrestleMania 31

Hi there! My recent edit on WrestleMania 31 was reverted by you which you can see here. May I know why did you do so? I also added a summary of my edit, "Triple H comes first since he is the ceo and the head of the authority". Ikhtiar H (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter who comes first. TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 09:18, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

What should we do when WrestleMania 31 goes live (also for all future WM articles)?

Good afternoon, Donnowin1, ClassicOnAStick, Babylambdaman, LM2000, ShaneH1990, CRRaysHead90, InedibleHulk, and Starship.paint (Feel free to tag anyone else in).

As all of you may know, WrestleMania 31 is upon us, but I've been thinking about the {{current sport}} template and how we can use it for the article (and future WM articles) when the PPV goes live.

For example, we know that WrestleMania is a major event by the WWE and stands out as (according to WWE) a flagship event, like the Super Bowl from the NFL. When the current sport template is used on a Super Bowl article like so:

{{Current sport|sport=American football|event=Super Bowl}}

this is what comes out:

Now, I know this might sound silly, but I'm think we should change this:

{{current sport|sport=Pro Wrestling|event=professional wrestling PPV}}

to this:

{{current sport|sport=Pro Wrestling|event=WrestleMania}}

Thoughts? TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

Simple change. I like it Rewind Wrestling (talk) 20:19, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Just to note, the name of this editor is not "Rewind Wrestling", but "ClassicOnAStick". BMK (talk) 11

04, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to it. I kinda like it. As long as WrestleMania is the only one to have their name specified in the current sport template, it should be fine. It's the only PPV with the reliably sourced importance to have it done. CRRays Head90 | ^#RaysUp 20:25, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. WHATCHA GONNA DO WHEN WRESTLEMANIA RUNS WILD ON YOU? starship.paint ~ ¡Olé! 23:16, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No problem here. Unify those titles, Brock! InedibleHulk (talk) 02:44, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Looks great, go for it.LM2000 (talk) 03:43, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Super Smash Bros. for Nintendo 3DS and Wii U

In other games with different "versions", precedence is that only one boxart is used. See Pokémon Black and White as an example.
Consensus was that they are pretty much the same game, and whether Sakurai thinks otherwise is irrelevant.
There is no need to violate WP:VGBOX for no reason, especially as having two or more boxart images is explicitly discouraged.
Multiple boxart images may violate the "minimal usage" and "minimal number of items" parts of WP:NFCC.

So one boxart image for the article is enough. Thanks, Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 22:53, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to revert your revert with this in mind:

While two or more boxart images are discouraged, its not a violation of either WP:VGBOX or WP:NFCC.
Sakurai explicitly stated that the games are indeed seperate installments.
The consensus to remerge doesn't matter. Nowhere in that consensus does it say that they are the same game.

TheMeaningOfBlah (talk) 23:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

But why do something that is explicitly discouraged? Your points #2 and #3 are also misinterpret my argument (I stated why Sakurai's opinions don't count, and it doesn't have to be the "same game" - they are different versions for a reason). I've raised the issue at WT:VG as I don't want to edit-war over this. Satellizer (´ ･ ω ･ `) 02:45, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not superfluous

I reversed your reversion on Wrestlemania XXXI because it was not a superfluous edit. The match was announced as "pinfalls and submissions only". Therefore it was no count-out as well as no DQ. If you have a source that states that it wasn't pinfalls and submissions only I think you should add it. Curse of Fenric (talk) 03:22, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see you go...

This is the first time I've actually seen a fresh start happen. Take care, see you on the other side... :) --Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 16:00, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:FNAF3Artwork.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:FNAF3Artwork.png. 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. --B-bot (talk) 17:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:WrestleMania-32-Logo-WrestleMania-2016.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:WrestleMania-32-Logo-WrestleMania-2016.png. 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. --B-bot (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of File:Sonic Runners No Subtitle.png

The file File:Sonic Runners No Subtitle.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

A free version of this file exists at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Sonic_Runners_logo.png

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. JOE BRO 64 12:39, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Sonic Runners No Subtitle.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sonic Runners No Subtitle.png. 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 section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:36, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]