User talk:Wikipedian06 - Knowledge (XXG)

124:(who called Midna a beautiful, tall woman) for POV, but consider calling her a Goth is NPOV. What's also funny is that I supposedly need a chill pill, while you're the one flying off the handle in a big way. You say I need to learn about Knowledge (XXG) etiquette. Is that some kind of joke? I've rarely encountered someone so uncivil in both his edit summaries and his user talk messages. "READ THE FUCKING TALK PAGE KTHNXBAI" doesn't inspire me to go into great detail when reverting your edits. Lastly, I gave you a vandalism warning because you reverted all the way back to your own last edit, thereby disregarding any edits in between. It put back a lot of unsourced stuff in the article.-- 3011:. You wrote, "Cubed3 changed its score for this game from a 9.9 to a 9.0 due to a new rounding system, causing Grand Theft Auto IV to be listed #1 on GameRankings. The GameRankings editor noted that dozens of angry readers emailed him about how it was an outrage for sites to change their scores years after publishing their original reviews. He then arbitrarily set a policy that only original scores could count on the site". After I read this I got interested and researched and found a very important fact. 1844: 1723: 1161: 1066: 704: 1631: 3611: 3836: 871: 820: 3943: 3064: 2785: 2289: 2273: 1409: 343: 39: 3149: 3536: 759: 3302: 3236: 2559: 2368: 2253: 1993: 3028:, the second review appeared. The review was written 3 years after the first review was published. It’s pretty much obvious that the first score by Ryan Amos is the original score. According to game rankings’ policy, the score of 8.5 by Ryan Amos should be taken as RPGamer's score. How do you think?-- 2600:

makes personal claims that American sources changed their medal ranking system at these Games. This isn't true, according to the WSJ article. You can't make personal observations of ESPN's other medal tables to draw personal conclusions as it's considered original research. Also, it's facetious to

2171:

Please do not accuse people of being a fanboy, no matter how that may seem. You recently accused one editor of being a fanboy because he/she removed a passage from the reception section concerning some criticism to OoT. Just revert the edit, it is not necessary to call someone a "fanboy", unless they

918:

Please leave it to the appropriate Wikiprojects to decide what their priorities are and are not. As of now, Brawl is high priority and Melee is top priority for Wikiproject Nintendo, regardless of your personal vendetta against those games. We would appreciate it if you leave the priority messages be

633:

Submit best use of editing time after chapter sections would be to minimize plot revelations for a few months. We've centuries to write an encyclopedaic article, right now, the responsible thing would be to protect the facts as much as possible for the enjoyment of the youngest readers. Best regards.

3586:

deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Knowledge (XXG)'s policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the

2958:

is your second POV attack in a day. The shame of it is, that viewpoint actually might be valid (to temper the views expressed in American sources), but you made up things that were not in the article and you stretched the article in such a way as to make a vitriolic attack in the article instead of

2763:

Could you please stop adding false information to this article? You have repatedly added a count of the countries with the most medals stripped. Neither are the numbers you give correct, nor is there any factual accuracy in this statement as athleths and not countries win gold medals. But looking at

1026:

I believe that Knowledge (XXG) is striving to present information as accurate as possible, and I'm simply aiding this process by using the knowledge that I have - which I have because I know more about the writing of "What Will Happen..." than you do. I replaced an incorrect statement with a correct

1022:

I do have an account for the MuggleNet forum, obtained several years ago and not used for a very long time. I'm sure, if necessary, the technical staff from the site can check for the date of my last login, which was well before the development of the book. This is far better proof that I didn't use

325:, my apologies for the inconvenience. Should you find yourself disagree with what I said, please reopen the archive 14 debate on the Deathly Hallows talk page so that it can be easier for all parties to get involved in the discussion and avoid reverting one another. Thank you for your understanding. 123:

Leaving a message at the talk page doesn't mean you can just go ahead and add anything you like to the article. No one even responded on the talk page yet, so there's no consensus for your edit. Also, this goth thing you keep adding is just POV nonsense. It's funny how you revert someone else's edit

3042:

I have not yet got a reply from him. First, I send a message to him from my email address of yahoo.com, but got a failure notice that said "Mail server for "gamespot.com" unreachable for too long". Then I send a message from my email address of mail.com on 30 November. It may be that he has not yet

2840:

At least you got the numbers right this time, well almost, as Russia lost 8 medals, but I guess counting from 1 to 7 is easier than counting from 1 to 8. Anyway, given your track record her on Knowledge (XXG) I have a hard time assuming good faith, but if a table says that it is incomplete, that it

1292:

Just a quick note that your archiving of the talk page may have been a bit hasty. The size of the page should not be the deciding factor so much as the age of the threads--as I noted in my post there, you archived one discussion that was still active only a few hours ago, and there are many others

600:

It's WAY too long, and we do NOT need chapter-by-chapter summaries detailing every minor event in the book. Judging from previous books, I'd say 8-10 paragraphs is a good length; any more than that, and it's excessively long & overly detailed. Anyone else agree? Wikipedian06 17:46, 21 July 2007

2620:

Hi. I saw your repeated blanket reverts at said article and I'm afraid you can't just go around deleting or re-adding chunks of text which have been deleted after having been subject to discussion, otherwise other people will just revert you. If you want to change things then its better if you say

626:

Let me add, this will undoubtably grow to about ten times the current length based on prior articles. Though I tend to agree, ;perfering a 'sense' synopsis, no one will likely agree on what should be included, as all six prior novels lend plot elements to this. It's very rich, indeed. Nothing like

3628:

status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient

2083:

You say peacock terms in the reception section? Would you care to fix it yourself before you add the template? Those templates are used only if the problem is big, and one editor may not fix them all himself. If the reception section passed FA criteria (and recently too), I say that the reception

1018:

There is no evidence that I got my information from the forums because I didn't do so. Similarity of subject matter and/or conclusions is no such proof. When different people independently analyse the same information they may very well come to the same conclusions, which is the reason for any

3434:

Ideally, members are encouraged to do both, but either one meets our criteria of inclusion. Members still listed inactive at the beginning of November 2009 may be removed. You may re-add yourself to the active list at any time. Thank you for your help, and we look forward to working with you.

2488:

Yes, but your edits are close to pushing a non-American viewpoint on an American article. The article must be given room because it is an article about American records, achievements, and history. The article even uses American spellings. In regards to the media, they are not breaking any IOC

2873:

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Knowledge (XXG) page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

380:

from DeepDiscount.com, which shipped the book several days early as a mistake on their part. Because I have a legitimate hard copy of the book and am not relying on the "leak," the info is fully legitimate, and there is no reason for Knowledge (XXG) to withhold information in this situation.

2693:

The additions to Guo Jingjing seem to be in order. The source is good, and has quotes from the Chinese team doctor stating the fact. It is not just a Chinese thing, it is all divers. This does not from Guo at all. If she can truly not see the board, it makes her diving even more impressive.

1962:

article. I see nothing wrong with using it to confirm that nintendo.co.jp announced the game on May 15. It is a fan site yes, but a good one, updated almost daily. No, I'm not in any way connected with that site, in case you think that. I just think that the date on which the game was first

2658:

As I said many times, your comparison was not scientific and you took the report out of context. you also do not understand science sufficiently to distinguish the difference between microgram and milligram. Stop ruining posting scientific arguments if you do not understand the science.

3247:

articles without prior discussion with other editors. As far as I can see you have no affiliation to the article or any of the WikiProjects for whom you edited the templates. You can't simply say something is unimportant because it's non-profit. Any talkback/discussion, please

2117:

Might I tell you that I have never played OoT? Don't accuse somebody of fanboyism, simply because I removed your paragraph about criticism. That still belongs in the lead. If you want, you can insert a bit of criticism into the existing reception paragraph in the lead,

902:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on 851:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on 1293:

which have been posted to in the past couple of days and may very well still be active. Given the relatively low frequency of discussion, I don't believe that people should have to revive threads they are participating in just because they were gone for a day--even

1262:

You shouldn't remove something from the body of an article simply because it's found in the lead. The lead serves as summary of the article, so this is to be expected. If the lead contained only information not found in the article body, this would be a problem.

2472:

Actually, I think the text you removed is relevant to the article. The sentence could be re-worded, but it definitely pertains to US athletes and their performance during the Olympic games. If the information is well-sourced, I do not see why it cannot remain.

3967:

until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

1903:

While I understand what you did, in the future, kindly contact me privately when you have an issue so that I can edit appropriate comments myself. I was making an important point with the second paragraph of my reply, and your edit pretty much destroyed it.

3043:

read my email, or he read it but is thinking it over, or because I emailed him from a free email address, which I have only, my email was regarded as a spam or something. If I do not get a reply till 5 December, I want to ask you to email him instead.--

229:. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Knowledge (XXG)'s policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate 184:. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Knowledge (XXG)'s policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate 517:. Continued behaviour in that manner may lead to blocks. For what it's worth, at the time you submitted that summary, you were technically wrong — the book was yet to be legally released for 6 minutes. I realise it's easy to get riled, but remember 3804:

Members listed in the "Unknown" section will be removed from the membership list and category at the end of January 2010. You may re-add yourself to the active list at any time. Thank you for your help, and we look forward to working with you.

3079:

prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the

2800:

2304:

2495:

You say that we are grasping at straws. But the fact is, the United States did win more medals than any other NOC, it had more athletes win medals than any other NOC, and it is still historically the most successful nation in Olympic history.

3588: 2276:

Do not redirect Pokémon Platinum to Pokémon Diamond and Pearl, as consensus has already been reached that this is not what should happen. If you have a problem, discuss it on the talk page, or you may be blocked. 20:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

2959:

trying to be constructive. You are generally a productive contributor so I don't want to cause a fight with you over just a few edits, but if you continue doing this I will have to report you for administrator intervention. Thank you, —

3970:

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has

1988:. In addition to that, you (maybe inadvertently) removed several footnotes from the article backing the statement that major websites called Twilight Princess the greatest Zelda ever. Per the reasons above, I'm giving you this warning: 1300:

I appreciate that you are trying to keep the page accessable through dial-up, but you have to be wary of actions like this one, particularly since you followed up the archive with a large post of your own. I've suggested implementing

2736:

Would you please stop what is effectively edit warring at this page. Some of the sources you keep adding do not show what you claim they do. Instead of continuing to add them pehaps you should discuss the changes you propose on the

679:

you have not discussed the changes you are making on the talk page. Therefore, your edits are the vandalism, not mine. It is a consensus that the list of killed characters is staying, therefore it is staying. Stop removing it.

2343:

Hi. I saw your edits at said article and I'm afraid you can't just go around deleting chunks of text otherwise other people will just revert you. If you want to change things then its better if you say what needs changing on the

2719:. It is important that this article gives a fair and balaced overview of the different ranking systems as a lot of pages where we've had disputes over the system we use here at wikipedia now link to it for explaination. Thanks, 2841:

presumably is. And conversely to what you said I did not delete "your" paragraph on Rick Delmonte, but added the year the medal was recognized by the USOC. But what I am saying, there are not many reasons to assume good faith.

88: 2489:

convention because there is no official convention. The majority of United States media has ranked by total medals for most of modern Olympic history. The IOC medal tables only began ranking by gold as recently as 1992

1046:

You stated on the talk page of this article that the game is classified as an action-adventure game on Nintendo's website. Where exactly is this statement? It would be useful to end the dispute over it at the moment.

1019:

similarities between MuggleNet's forums and "What Will Happen...". There are also huge differences between the content of the forums and the book, particularly with reference to whether Harry is a Horcrux or not.

2984:

Given the amount of warnings on this talk page and the complete lack of response to these warning, and given the disruptive, nationalist editing on anything China-related I would not call this editor productive.

1607:

Thanks for being so nice to me. I had already checked it, thank you very much. Unfortunately, your note makes no difference since there is no reference template at the bottom. So please change it accordingly.

396:

Good to know. But seeing as I don't have proof you really have the book, it's still not verifiable, and you still can't post it. And if it is real... can't you wait like 4 days before posting it? Thanks.

2403:

in the public domain. You can't simply tag them as being PD.. nor can you claim being the original creator of the image, with your {{pd-author}} tag for that image. Regardless, I've deleted the image.

3015:

is the reviews section of RPGamer's Ocarina of Time page. You see two Official Staff Reviews and one Unofficial Staff Review. Game Rankings take the two Official Staff Reviews as a score of 5 out of 5.

898:

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "

847:

1821:

I notice you recently changed the importance of 4chan, saying in the edit summary the it is not "important", although you haven't explained why you believe this is the case. I'd like to direct you to

3400:

All members have currently been placed in the "Inactive" section by default. Please remove your username from the "Inactive" listing and place it under the "Active" listing if you plan on regularly:

1925:

How is the fiscal information related to the founding of Facebook? The first paragraph talks about the founding and its history, and then the last sentence talks about the financials of the company?

21:

As I too was taught this, I thought I might best pass it on, but it's policy never to delete your talkpage information. If you want to clean it up, you can create an archive and move it there, like

2622: 117: 2678:

Could I ask you to respect our policies on reliable sources. Furthermore there is no need to use inflammatory edit summaries and label everything you do not like as anti-Chinese and propaganda.

1423:. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " 83:. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also " 1375:

is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Knowledge (XXG) policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

1232:

is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Knowledge (XXG) policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

1134:

is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Knowledge (XXG) policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

471:

Please do not replace Knowledge (XXG) pages with blank content. Blank pages are harmful to Knowledge (XXG) because they have a tendency to confuse readers. If it is a duplicate article, please

419:

If the media is reporting all these leaks (and in many cases, actually including plot details within the news articles), why can't Knowledge (XXG) have information once it's readily available?

2407:

Right now the current image is the only free use or public domain image that presents the Beijing Olympic medals. So we'll have to use those until there are other PD or free use images. --

736:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any 299:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any 1876:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any 1755:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any 1193:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any 1098:" link (it is located at the very top of any Knowledge (XXG) page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any 1471:. They seemed to have been sourced and (in my opinion) added to the article in a positive way. Is it because they were out of date or did you just think they were unnecessary? Regards, 87:"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at 955:

Do you have proof that it's really a gameplay video of SMG? Youtube is rarely a reliable source. Mario, the coins, and the manta ray look extremely similar, if not the same as SM64. —

431:

Because there is no proof that it's a leak and not a hoax. I suggest you take a look at the talk page, because at the bottom it says stuff about people who post spoilers being banned.

3334: 480: 161:

for you, so you have to do them yourself. I'm marking them for deletion, which has a 7 day deadline. Also, you need to properly source them. Be more specific than www.nintendo.com -

2233:

article by once again redirecting it without discussion. The consensus right now is to not merge, and you are acting quite like a child who has just lost an argument. Please stop.

1430:

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at

2064:

You seem to be someone who knows their stuff about this. Can you tell me why gamerankings isn't allowing logins/new reviews to be added? It's so infuriating. Thanks in advance.

1872: