Are you a bad enough dude to review the Joker for good article status? Some Wikipedia users would rather it stay as it is by misusing rules to ban people for no reason and limit exposure of the review process, plus they truck in food from out of state. Do you like your food produced locally AND your deserving and important articles good statusified? Review the Joker today!
I don't want to edit war with Black Kite or Wereith, but I don't want the archives to go away either. I don't have time at the moment to rearchive and I really hope none of these are dead links. How do you want to go about this? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'd see how the RFC goes for now, the links won't disappear as they will still be in the edit history. If the RFC goes in our favor then we can just revert to readd the links and then laugh at how much time Werieth has wasted scouring Wikipedia for them. If you're concerned though I guess we'd just have to archive the pages through the other archive sites for now rather than risk the pages being lost if the RFC goes against us. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!20:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
June 2014
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.
Coffee is abusing his administrative control panel for personal reasons. It is not disruptive to respond to a discussion, I neither did it inside the archive template nor removed the template to continue the discussion, there was no indication the discussion was to be closed and it was closed based on a false understanding of the events. There was no disruption in posting a response to another editor and the reaction by Coffee in each step, both there, at the RFC, and here has been overzealous at the least. Additionally Coffee just deleted Wikipedia:Archive.is RFC 3, which was a Request for Comment on the Archive.is situation rewritten to be as neutral as possible and mention all points, yet he has deleted this saying it is based on false pretenses. At User_talk:Coffee he claims that it was an exact copy but any admin who can see a history of the page can see that it was not and his act was completely reactionary. The user is personally assaulting me and the RFC for no reason and I've now lost the opening comments to that RFC and cannot get them back. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!23:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Accept reason:
After conferring with some other administrators on IRC, we've decided this block was made in haste. I've agreed to unblock you, under the condition that you wait at least 24 hours before restarting another RFC, to allow the situation to calm. If you wish to continue discussing this issue at ANI you are free to do so, just under a subthread of the original thread or in a new thread. Please do not reply directly to a closed discussion, as you did before. — Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've reworked it to be as neutral as I can. Why don't you look it over and edit it in spots you think I went too far the other way? When we agree it's neutral, then we can put it up with you having the first "Lift ban" vote and me having the first "Keep ban" vote. That way, neither of us gets an unfair advantage over the other.—Kww(talk) 14:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
moved to front
Archive.is is an archiving service similar to sites like Webcite and the Wayback Machine, offering different levels of service up to and including snapshots that are retained regardless of modern changes in a sites robots.txt file, which the Wayback Machine can abandon (potentially delaying rather than removing the potential for LinkRot), while Webcite has presented itself as having an uncertain long term future tied to funding. No issues have been found with the quality of the snapshots provided at archive.is.
Copied and edited from previous RFC
In August 2013, a bot called User:RotlinkBot, created by Rotlink began linking Wikipedia articles to the new Archive.is service. This bot was not approved, and was therefore subsequently blocked. This block was procedural, and made based on the lack of approval, not the quality of the RotlinkBot's edits.
Following this block, the bot was used in an anonymous operation using edits matching edits from the bot, including the edit summaries, were made from hundreds of IPs, residential and business,from three different Indian states, Italy, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Bulgaria, Qatar, Latvia, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Brazil, Argentina, Portugal, Spain, France, Mexico, Austria, and South Africa. raising strong suspicionsBased on fears that the IPs were not being used legally, these IPs, and User:Rotlink, self-identified as the owner of archive.is, were subsequently blocked. Rotlink has not commented on any of the blocks.
The previous RFC regarding Archive.is concluded that the site should be added to the blacklist and that all existing links to archive.is should be removed based on statements that links were mass added to Wikipedia by the unapproved bot called RotlinkBot, created by User:Rotlink potentially operating as a malicious botnet that mass-added some Archive.is links to articles. The ultimate outcome of the previous RFC is that archive.is links, whether added by the bot or by individual users, be removed with an additional weak consensus that it be added to the blacklist. Since then the addition of archive.is to the blacklist has caused some issues, preventing editing of articles containing Archive.is links (at the time of the original RFC Wikipedia contained over 10,000 Archive.is links), and mass removal of archive.is archives added by RotlinkBot or Wikipedians, without replacing them has created many unarchived or dead and unusable sources, creating LINKROT.
Archive.is has never been added to the spam blacklist because the use of the blacklist would require the links to be removed before unrelated edits could be made to the article. Instead, an edit filter has been applied which prevents additions of the link, but does not prevent editing articles which simply contain the link.
The actions of the bot while perceived as adding spam en masse, has impacted the links added by individual users which fell under the blanket ban resulting from the previous RFC of archive.is links. Elements of the previous RFC relied on the potential for future threats applied through the Archive.is website, although no evidence was provided to reinforce these views. movedThe original RFC found no issue with the quality of the snapshots provided by Archive.is.
The concerns about the potential for malware raised in the RFC have not materialized at this point, leading to arguments as to whether those fears were well-founded. An effort to get a bot approved to implement the RFC result stalled, indicating that the community may no longer believe the block to be warranted.
The previous RFC posits that archive.is presents a malware risk based on the actions of RotLink and RotlinkBot, a belief supported by some users based on RotLink's mass additions, however there is no evidence that the site did, currently does, or intends to add malware. Protecting users from the potential of such malware was part of the reasoning for adding to the blacklist.
Archive.is does use advertising. The previous consensusdiscussion showed that some editors considered this to be a major issue, but there was no strong consensus either for or against the site based on this.this was not a significant issue that required the site to be excluded. Some users at the previous RFC complained that they were not informed about the ongoing discussion and as a result were denied the opportunity to voice their opinion. This discussion gives them a second chance to voice that opinion if any.
This seems reasonable. What options are fair then? "Allow use of archive.is links, continue removal of spam-added Archive.is links", "Continue exclusion of Archive.is links, continue with removal of all links"?
Probably "Continue to prohibit additions (oppose or support)", "Continue with removal of existing links (oppose or support)" and "Require that another archive alternative exists before removing link (oppose/support)". That way we could come out with eight different answers, ranging from "continue to prohibit additions, continue with removal, and don't require people to show there isn't an alternative" all the way to "Don't prohibit additions and don't continue removing". There's room for a middle ground as well, like "stop adding, continue with removal, but don't remove if there isn't an alternative". I've found that the best way to get one of these intractable situations to come to a close is to allow people to choose a middle ground where no one is completely happy. People don't like to choose extreme positions.—Kww(talk) 01:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why on earth did you build it with five different alternatives instead of three? It's going to turn into a garbled mess when some people support one or the other assuming that we figure out what they meant on the others while other people vote on all five.—Kww(talk) 20:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This seems pointless, what is the need in allowing people multiple votes across multiple sections, all you've done is added your support to one section then added an oppose vote to every directly contrasting section, which makes it look like more votes while all being the same vote about one thing. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!20:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We talked past each other. Three options:
"Continue to prohibit additions (oppose or support)"
"Continue with removal of existing links (oppose or support)"
"Require that another archive alternative exists before removing link (oppose/support)".
Everything else is just a combination of those three. By having everyone chose to oppose or support all three, all of the other combinations come automatically without the closer having to guess. Since we are the only two to vote so far, you have my permission to delete the other categories and delete my votes at the same time.—Kww(talk) 20:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Although this is not false, one can easily misread it and imagine a website full of annoing popups and flickering banners especially when the phrase is surrounded by the text containing words such as spam and malware.
The only place where you could find advertising on archive.is is inside the Google Custom Search blocks pexample].
The content of these blocks is made by Google and no wonder that it has Google Ads in exchange to providing the search facilities.
To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
archive.is removal filter
I had disabled the filter that prevented removal of archive.is links when the accounts that were doing bulk removals stopped. It has a non-zero false positive rate and prevents some legitimate removals where people were simply rearranging the article. Still, under the current situation, I have reinstated the filter that stopped them the first time. I know you dislike private filters, but filter 620 is also a private filter. It has some rules that try to allow people to legitimately remove and replace archive.is links while blocking blind removal. If I expose the rules, people can cheat their way around it.—Kww(talk) 16:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really know the story behind mass removals, I assumed it was Werieth since it fit his style to a T. I don't have an issue with filters, just the one being used for archive.is links, but thanks for the info. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!22:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
700 word limit?
Re: this, I don't have a problem with the plot section at present, I just don't recall seeing such a word limit asserted. What's the basis? Thanks, postdlf (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The comment tag in the Django Unchained article makes it sound much more like an absolute limit rather than a guideline that editors may discuss "to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range." I imagine Darkwarriorblake's language in that comment tag was born of frustration. Anyway, like I said, just a question about where that came from, not a complaint with that particular article's current state. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably frustration, if I'm tired then I have little patience for repeating myself. But yes, the limit is based on what Marnette has posted, and we do try to make it a hard limit unless absolutely necessary, as if you give out one exception then people will always take advantage. Then you get this. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!18:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)You are welcome P. I hadn't looked at the item in question when I posted. For me avoiding "plot bloat" is usually a "less is more" situation. So often trying to add a plot point that is special or memorable to a given editor gets a plot section bogged down in minutiae. Now this isn't the case with all edits to plot sections and this is just one editors opinion. I just wanted to give you some context. If I wound up making things more confusing - many apologies. I hope that you both have a good week on WikiP and, especially, off. MarnetteD|Talk18:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oof. That is one of the all time best examples of plot bloat D. It takes longer to read that then it does to watch the film :-) MarnetteD|Talk18:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I had a bigger problem with the SYNTH in the "historical inaccuracies" section; someone wanted to use it to argue against the film's portrayal of slavery as being, well, really bad, using cherrypicked sources that didn't actually comment on the film. The last sentence of what I removed is especially priceless. postdlf (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sleeping Dogs
Hey, Dark, how's it going! I was wondering if you could help me with Sleeping Dogs (video game) since I really need help with it. Ever since I joined Wiki I have been trying to tackle the article alone but I can't seem to do it by myself wit the amount of experience I have. Is there any way you could help me take it to GA? I know you usually only edit Military related articles, but this one is rated B class so it should be an easy thing for both of us. What do you think? Thanks for everything in advance, URDNEXT (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Joker (comics) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome
I got snugunns to review Joker since you mentioned how much you wanted someone to regiew it. H's the best GA reviewer I know. URDNEXT (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, do you think you could help me with the development section of Sleeping Dogs? I'm not sure I can handle it myself. Thanks for everything in advance! URDNEXT (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Reference Errors on 7 August
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Very impressive work on Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines. The amount of content you've generated in the last few weeks is ridiculous. It's exciting to see this game finally get the in-depth Wikipedia article it deserves. Are you planning to take it to GAN first, or just straight to FAC? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
its not good enough for fac yet so it will have to go through GAN first. There's still some unsourced or missing material like marketing and the multiplayer but I'm struggling to find reliable sources for these. Thanks for the appreciation jimmy.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!10:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for August 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pitfall. 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.
As requested, here are your sources. They're in chronological order.
Osborn, Chuck. "Cover Story: Bloodlines - The Half Life 2 Engine Gets Dead Sexy." PC Gamer (US). Issue 114 (Vol.10, No.9). Pp.46-54. September 2003. ISSN1080-4471.
McDonald, Thomas L., ed. "2005 Buyer's Guide to Games - The Electronic Games 100: RPG & Adventure - Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines." Games. Issue 206 (Vol. 28, No.10). Pg.60. December 2004. ISSN0199-9788.
My scanner is out so these are taken with my cruddy digital camera. Apologies in advance for the blurry print at times. I can clarify from the originals anything that you can't read from the scans. I hope you find these useful. Good luck with the article! -Thibbs (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
How do you write proses that flow so well, as seen in the Batman: Arkham articles? When I'm writing my prose, I go through it several times to make sure it works, and not always it turns out to be as good as I thought. You just seem to pull it off so easily. URDNEXT (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to go over it several times as well, sometimes it just works because the words come to mind, other times I struggle. All I can say is it comes with practice doing it because I didn't use to have as much ease when I started but taking so many articles through the GA and FA process has given me a lot of insight into how to write things to pass. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!18:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just practice really, I write then I will go back and read through it to make sure I didn't repeat words, to see if I can trim it down, etc. I'll always request a copy edit anyway so someone else can take a look, then put back anything I think should stay after the copy edit is done. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!00:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That's good news. I've always admired your work on Asylum and City, they're my references for quality on the site. I'll definetely start practicing more. Thanks! URDNEXT (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your tips on writing proses! I have started practicing a lot more, and I think I'm getting better the more I do so (without bragging). Here's what your tips resulted in: Sleeping Dogs (video game) (Development section). I took your tips and wrote a draft which Tezero copy edited, resulting in the version you see in the article. What do you think of it? URDNEXT (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
such as a low [[Polygon (computer graphics)|polygon]] count and limited [[texture memory]]), as the technology improved, it thought it could create a real-time action game without
The proper way to show appreciation of someone is to give them a barnstar. I'm not sure but I think that for some people, it might be an insult to send them a picture of a pie, because I once saw a picture of a pie in my math textbook when I was in elementary school and that made me wish I could have some pie when I couldn't. Blackbombchu (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As you (and I) are experienced Wikipedians, I am curious as to why you reverted my deletions of the now-irrelevant stuff on when actors announced for the movie. Useful before the movie hit the screens, but it is now on regular TV. Seems like outdated edits. Bellagio99 (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Happy Holidays!
Favre1fan93 (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:HH2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
TriiipleThreat (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:HH2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
BattleshipMan (talk) is wishing you Happy Holidays! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user Happy Holidays, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!
Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:HH2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Invitation to talk about an idea of a new consensus
Ah rats. That means I won't get to leave any more edit summaries extolling the virtues of Troll-be-Gone. Just Kidding!! I am glad that you will be able to log on to WikiP and not have the little OBOD forcing you to read such childish nonsense. Enjoy the rest of your weekend D. MarnetteD|Talk22:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation link notification for December 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.
A summary of a Featured Article you nominated will appear on the Main Page soon. I had to squeeze the text down to a little over 1200 characters; was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? - Dank (push to talk) 15:02, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Joker (comics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alan Grant. 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.
lively joker
Thank you, tireless warrior for sourced content, for quality articles on video games and films, such as Batman: Arkham City, Prometheus and The Expendables 2, for the mantra "Expanding article" and lively edit summaries, for pointing at "misusing rules to ban people for no reason" and "Brownie, better than eating a Xmas tree any day", - you are an awesome Wikipedian!
Moving a file and moving an article are not the same thing, I think anyone can move an article, although you need different abilities than I have to delete pages to make way for moves. I can just rename files like pictures/videos/music/etc. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!23:01, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I feel so conflicted by all this problems
I have to tell you, I am getting disenchanted with what Wikipedia has become; a battlefront by clashing editors who are fighting for their beliefs on what things should be edited, what should be kept or deleted, the certain policies and rules that are not good, how they are disregarding consistency on other pages are that like the other pages and ignoring what belongs to a certain countries like films, TV shows and such. BattleshipMan (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I felt much the same before I started working full time, now my time is limited so I pretty much only work on articles I was already working on, directly related articles (like the Batman games) or older articles with less interest in them like Vampire: The Masquerade. All the popular stuff, there's too much fighting and conflict all the time, don't have the energy for it anymore. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!22:42, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure how I can take with all this fighting and conflict going on. This is getting too much. I think I'm considering limiting myself on it and work on some articles I have been working on, like you said. BattleshipMan (talk) 00:58, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your edit in article "Prometheus (2012 film)" first. I just thought my edit may make this article look better, so I did so, hoping you can forgive me. However, you said "per starring list and existing guideline". I wonder which guideline is "existing guideline" that you mentioned. I'm new to here and not familier with the rules here. Thank you in advance! Whaterss (talk) 23:51, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to discuss a proposal of year by film release
You're invited to join a discussion here. It's about a proposal about an idea of having film by year articles made and produced by certain countries, such as [[2013 in films in United States of America]], [[2013 in films in England]] and such. I know your semi-retired, but I could use all the help I can get. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:51, 8 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Joker
Hello! You reverted my edit there. He is 100% guaranteed in Lego Batman 3. He is on the cover of the game. :) Just saying. Shall I change it back or what? –DangerousJXD (talk) 00:48, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again! "Sourcing is required for everything, it isn't based on personal observations. give me a chance to recover from work and gym and ill find a source, jeez." –Your edit summary at Joker
Hey Dark. If you had the time, would you be able to maybe peer review either Avengers: Age of Ultron or Ant-Man? I'm trying to get the MCU films up to WP:GT and these peer reviews are holding that up. We are hoping to get them done before Cap:CW starts filming in April, lest we have a third article to peer review. Thanks so much if you can, and I understand if you don't have the time. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 17:12, 12 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, no worries if you can't. I understand being burnt out too. Only reason for approaching you is we just want them done by April. Hope everything else is good with you otherwise. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 00:08, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you removed my genre additions. And I would ask you why did you do that. Did you even see Batman: Arkham Asylum and Batman: Arkham Origins, they have all the genres that I added to these two. The following points to this are:
They have stealth parts in their gameplay.
Both, Arkham City and Arkham Knight, both have the beat 'em up and stealth categories.
ALL of the Batman Arkham games play the same. I have even stated the other two articles have those genres in the genre sections of their infoboxes.
I do have sources that state Arkham City is a stealth game. And I am inclined to add the sources to the article. I haven't bothered to check anything else, so it's unlikely that I will add any of the other ones. Thanks.
The games contain elements of stealth and beat-em-ups, only elements, and both these are subtopics of Action games, therefore Action-adventure, which the game is categorized as and for which it wins awards, is the most generalised and apt descriptor. The other articles containing these genres is oversight not endorsement. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!20:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then you might perhaps want to see theseWikia articles, both of which have all three genres. As in regards to this discussion, you haven't answered my question, as to why Asylum and Origins should have all three genres, but not City and Knight. Considering all of them have the beat 'em up and stealth categories. And also that all of the games' gameplay are very similar. And as well, I'd like you to elaborate on what you mean by "oversight not endorsement" (I'm just wondering if you mean the Wikipedia oversight, though I don't think so). Thanks. Porchcorpter03:41, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My response about oversight meant that Arkham City and Arkham Knight, or whichever two articles have all three genres do so because noone has gotten around to removing them yet. WP:OTHERSTUFF relates to not doing something just because other articles are doing it. I'll get round to removing them, I'm too obsessed with Cities XL at the minute. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE!21:22, 20 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thibbs, I need 164, (Vol 24, #7) 2000 October, from here, it doesn't seem to say what magazine it is.
JimmyBlackwing, I need NextGeneration magazine (Lifecycle 1), Issue 53 May 1999, and NextGeneration magazine (Lifecycle 2) Issue 1, 1999 September, and Issue 8, August 2000.
SubSeven, I need PCGamer US 2000 September.
If any of you can provide any of these materials I would be grateful. I have lots of development info so I'm mostly interested in receptions/awards/plot/story/characters/gameplay info as I'm struggling to find this on the net.
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited The Fast and the Furious: Tokyo Drift, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fast and Furious (film). 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.
This is a camera image and it's half-overcast today so so I hope the result is not too dim to make out. Let me know if you need any of the text to be explained. -Thibbs (talk) 20:52, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ACL reads a lot better than the whole medical term. The necklace is needed for the "message" the villain is sending to make sense. The car model was meant to bring to the reader's attention that, yes, this is the same one from Tokyo Drift -- the car model was mentioned in the plot summary for Tokyo Drift, so I put it into this one to help specify without having to bring in who the hell else was in the race. I take back the development bit; I apologize for that bit, and you were right to correct me on that. But they were "forced" into shooting around Paul Walker due to him being taken out of action. I do wish you had messaged me after your first or second revert, at least -- and that you hadn't been so brusque about it. There was no need for that. Stolengood (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
April 2015
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Stolengood (talk) 09:05, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Re:Barnstar
Thanks a ton! Means a lot coming from you—the research and writing you've done on stuff like VTM:B and Dishonored blows me away. Keep up the great work. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 16:53, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A summary of a Featured Article you nominated at WP:FAC will appear on the Main Page soon. I had to squeeze the summary down to around 1200 characters; was there anything I left out you'd like to see put back in? I'd appreciate it if you could check the article one more time before its day on the Main Page. - Dank (push to talk) 02:52, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A barnstar for you!
The Editor's Barnstar
For being a "bad enough dude" to work on Joker. All that hard work of over 400 edits should not go unappreciated. Thanks for your dedication to the topic. You deserve this! — Yash![talk]05:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you reverted my edits in Dishonored's page i can assure you that Carvo can become a vigiliante if the players don't kill anyone in Dishonored, he only becomes an assassin if the players kill anyone in the game. 189.60.57.90 (talk) 01:58, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
