This is an archive of past discussions with User:UKER. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Thanks for uploading Image:Thisishyony4.jpg. Wikipedia gets hundreds of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:39, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Firstly, I did not remove the codename, but there was no reference for it at all so I would support its removal since it doesn't add anything to the article.
Secondly, the fact that the rest of the article is poor is not a good reason to keep other information that can never be verified. Wikipedia is not a collection of all knowledge and everything here should be verifiable. This doesn't just mean that there's references, it means that there could be references. You can't provide references for a lot of the firmware version stuff (like 'internal versions'), and the rest would be difficult to verify since Nokia does not publish information on firmware releases. Even if it could be verified, a list of firmware versions wouldn't be appropriate per WP:NOT.
Thanks for uploading Image:SF4EUHOME.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:SF4HOMEEU.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:SF4HOMEEU.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free media (Image:SF4HOMEUS.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:SF4HOMEUS.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
hey if you watch this you can see mixmaster forms the entire head [1] The Movie Master 1 01:29, 19 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Movie Master 1 (talk • contribs)
Because your one of the regular contributors and as you know there was a discussion on the talk page as to if he was the whole head and he is and theirs the proof User:The Movie Master 102:19, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
You are insinuating that it is Bonecrusher by saying it is his vehicle mode. They do not identify him as such, and such it's original research to try and say that it is his vehicle, or even slyly say "it looks like his vehicle". It's irrelevant. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a fansite where we can speculate about what vehicle is which, or include non-cameo cameo statements about characters that don't actually appear (i.e. Frenzy doesn't appear in the film, his head does, but the character himself does not). BIGNOLE (Contact me)22:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy 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 Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ttonyb1 (talk) 04:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
DePROD Ramon Rodgriguez (politician)
I have removed the {{prod}} tag from Ramon Rodriguez (politician), which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the {{prod}} template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks!
Their seem to be some disruptive edits to Arcee about the hive mind IP User talk:120.28.148.83 seems to be putting Chromia and Moonracer in despite this being cleared and their being no reliable source of this up long ago(They only appear in the toy line as everyone knows) and I need help to make sure it isn't re-entered. Iv'e warned him but he may return and I need an extra set of eyes, and he may try again. Please and thankyou. The Movie Master 1 (talk) 04:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Canvassing such as this is blatantly inappropriate and not conducive to constructive discussion. If you want to notify others and get a third opinion, leave a neutral note on the talk page of a Wikiproject. \ Backslash Forwardslash / {talk} 07:39, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
RoTF
Thats like the only comment I've posted that seems unhelpful I guess it didn't make much sense the way I worded it and they are worthy of mentioning I wasn't supporting him I was just trying to find references for him and just never saw a source that says its Grindor. Sorry. The Movie Master 1 (talk) 17:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Nah, no hard feelings. Despite the movie never naming him, he is called Grindor in the comic books and novel. Also, the game not only mentions his name, but it's the only official source we have for his alt model not being the same as Blackout (see the article). --uKER (talk) 18:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
I beleive it is Grindor (I have since I joined) I just couldn't find a really good reference to support it, because he's kind of picky The Movie Master 1 (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Ensure you only use rollback correctly, ie its intended usage of reverting vandalism ONLY. This and this were not clear-cut cases of vandalism. In similar cases, it'd have been more prudent to use twinkle or possibly WP:UNDO. This is meant to be a friendly reminder, but misuse of rollback, even if unintentionally, will result in its removal. Cheers, Nja24709:17, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
You reverted[2] an edit of mine, saying that I had no reason for removing. However, I did provide a reason; please see my edit summary.[3] The fact that it has a source is irrelevant; he's not in the movie, so there's no point in him being listed in the cast. EVula// talk // ☯ //00:40, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't get back to you before. I had somehow overlooked your message. I think the information is worth mentioning just like any other pre-release info, such as characters considered for roles, robots' pre-release names, designs, and the likes. I think this is one of the cases when excessive intent for enforcing the rules becomes counter-productive for the article, causing relevant information to get lost, a behaviour discouraged by the guidelines. --uKER (talk) 14:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I wouldn't die if the dog doesn't get a mention. That's kinda trivia, and I reckon it should only be added if it could be done in a way such that it didn't stand out as such. About Nolasco, I don't see anywhere else that it could fit in. I'm not suggesting adding him as a bulleted item as if he actually had a role, but more as a mention at the end of the section. --uKER (talk) 15:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
I wonder if we could find enough content to create a Casting section. The only problem with that is there aren't too many people that are new; maybe we could pull content away from the Cast section if it talks about what Bay was looking for, etc. Hmm... EVula// talk // ☯ //16:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Re: Uncivilized behaviour in List of Games for Windows titles
Look mister. Don't tell me what to do. If you are going to update everytime then fine. I want the article to be updated. I don't want things to keep changing constantly such has changing dates. It is a big nuisance. I want to stop adding rubbish in talk page. Also btw iam not all trying to be owner of the article. Iam not sure what to call such edits like this this and this. They are certainly pointless. What exactly are you trying to achieve?. Do you plan updating whenever the game is going to get released?. When the article get larger this will sort of work will cease to exist. Instead of wasting time try to improve articles and get a job in the real life. This is all i can say. If you plan of keeping the changes you done. Then you or anyone can take care of the article. Iam plan of leaving wikipedia has i lot of duties to perform in real life. --SkyWalker (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
Iam not sure what answer should i give you. Look at the history of the article tell me how frequently the article is getting updated. Iam not sure how policy such has OWN has any effect what i was doing. --SkyWalker (talk) 19:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
AfD nomination of Sweden
An article that you have been involved in editing, Sweden, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sweden. Thank you.
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Chris Mowry. 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 "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/Chris Mowry. 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) 01:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
Revert
Hello, I do not understand why you reverted this edit, as it is not vandalism, and all the previous articles about the games in the Mortal Kombat series have a notice {{Redirect}} on the page. Please reply on how that edit was vandalism. AlxeedoTALK
Sorry. I guess it was a mistake of mine. I thought this was a mockup edit by someone angry about Kart Kombat. Sorry for the inconvenience. --uKER (talk) 22:57, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
It's ok. If you don't mind, I undid your edit on the page. AlxeedoTALK
Thanks for taking care of the Beaner. I was also curious about your inpu on a debate currently taking place on images for Transformers articles. I think articles on characters justify one picture per CHARACTER, but another Wikipedia editor thinks it should be limited to one picture per PAGE, sometimes 2 if necessary. So he went in and removed several pictures from pages like Blackout (Transformers) - Now only G1 and movie Blackout have pictures, but the other Blackouts like the one from Energon or the one from Armada have had their pictures removed. What is your thought on this? Mathewignash (talk) 00:31, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
You are wrong about the release dates. I suggest you actually look at feature class film articles. The release dates almost always appear in the second or third paragraph. Your attempt to summarize the plot in the lead is also confusing. The film most certainly does not deal with the alien race getting stranded on Earth and their population assigned to a slum. That is the backstory and you are confusing that with the plot. I realize you haven't been here very long, but it might be a good idea to take a step back. Viriditas (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Have a look at Category:FA-Class film articles. Do any of them mention the exact release date in the first sentence? And, the film is not about the aliens getting stranded or their assignment to the slum. That takes place in the backstory and is explained in the first several minutes of the film. The rest of the film has to do with Wikus and his alien friends. Viriditas (talk) 13:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I couldn't find any that had it at the end either for that matter, and I agree with it not being mentioned at all being less awkward than it being slapped in at the end, but there you go. Despite you thinking otherwise, I have it crystal clear that I fortunately don't own the article, and I say fortunately because it means I don't have the obligation to bother getting my ways into your head. Make your changes. If they're OK, they'll stick. If they're not, hopefully someone else will point it out and change it. That's the good thing about it. I deem the issue as finished. See you around. --uKER (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
Some of them have it, some of them don't. If you don't want it there, remove it - it's really not that important to me. All I'm asking is that instead of blanket reverting everything I add, you make an effort to incorporate my changes in some form or another. That's all. In other words, build around what is there. And if you think you can improve it further, please do so. Viriditas (talk) 13:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
UKER, I'm not sure what's going on, but the constant reverts while ignoring the talk page are getting to be annoying. Please do me a favor: The next time you revert, use the talk page to discuss it. And, if you could do that for your last two reverts, I would appreciate it. See you on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 08:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I missed the discussion on the date. On the other hand, I don't know what is the other revert you'r talking about. --uKER (talk) 09:10, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Now you changed 28 to 20? That contradicts the entire reason for claiming 1982 was the arrival. The film takes place in 2010. Viriditas (talk) 09:45, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I cited my reason in the talk page, with the exact quote from the movie backing it. Unfortunately the dates are a mess, and I'm trying to keep it as coherent as possible, by going by the movie alone. I never saw anything suggesting it's 2010 in the movie itself. If there is, feel free to point it out. --uKER (talk) 09:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
This is becoming annoying. The trailer says the aliens arrived 28 years before the setting of the film. If that setting is 1982, then the year must be 2010. Viriditas (talk) 09:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not deliberately trying to annoy you. I get nothing out of it. I'm just not letting tie-in media contradict what the movie explicitly states. BTW, let's keep this to the talk page so other people can participate. --uKER (talk) 09:54, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Fine, but you can't have it both ways. If the aliens landed in 1982, then the present day is 2010, which the director has confirmed, and apparently so has the film. Viriditas (talk) 10:00, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Couldn't the trailer be incorrect? The film clearly states that the eviction takes place 20 years after the aliens' arrival, and the film also DOES mention that it's the year 2010 (I know I posted something about this on the D9 talk page, but I noticed a mini discussion taking place here so I followed). Also, please don't take this as an insult or offense to your ability to observe, but in another issue on the D9 talk page you mentioned that you thought that the aliens came to Earth to harvest the fluid from alien technology already present on Earth; if you made an incorrect observation like this, couldn't it be possible for you to have missed the references in the movie that state that the present is 2010? Again, I really mean no offense I just want to get to the bottom of this inconsistency. --Seb0910 (talk) 22:05, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I already said this isn't the place to discuss it. For the time being I'll copy this to D9's talk page. Please don't bring it back here. --uKER (talk) 07:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Hello!
Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's film-related articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining WikiProject Films? We are a group of editors dedicated to improving the overall quality of Wikipedia's film-related content. If you would like to join, simply add your name to the list of participants. We also have a number of regional and topical task forces that you may be interested in joining as well.
Hey, welcome to WikiProject Films! We're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of films, awards, festivals, filmmaking, and film characters. If you haven't already, please add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your user page.
A few features that you might find helpful:
Most of our important discussions about the project itself and its related articles take place on the project's main discussion page; it is highly recommended that you watchlist it.
The project has a monthly newsletter. The newsletter for July has been published. August's issue is currently in production; it will be delivered as a link, but several other formats are available.
There is a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:
Want to jump right into editing? The style guidelines show things you should include.
Want to assist in some current backlogs within the project? Visit the Announcements template to see how you can help.
Want to know how good our articles are? Our assessment department has rated the quality of every film article in Wikipedia. Check it out!
Hello UKER, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Artifact (medical imaging) has been removed. It was removed by Fences and windows with the following edit summary '(We need to keep the page to preserve the edit history after the content was merged.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Fences and windows before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 02:43, 30 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)
You have tagged a number of redirects for speedy deletion using {{db-move}}; however this is only for moves which are either totally without controversy, or have been the subject of a discussion with consensus to move. Please see WP:ENGVAR. Requested moves which change the variety of English have been controversial in the past. Fribbler (talk) 15:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
It was only two articles, but it's OK. I thought being US-based, English Wikipedia suggested the english form for titles. --uKER (talk) 15:54, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
The August 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:25, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
C. Viper and E. Honda
While I do agree the full name should be used in these cases, as well as in cases like Ken Masters and Sakura Kasugano (where they aren't), there is actually a long standing previous debate caused mainly by User:Mr.bonus you might not be aware of. Basically, everyone was forced to come to the agreement that the name used on the select screen and/or in-game fight for fighting games would be the one used. If the full name was used in either event it'd be used in the article as the most common name, so it wasn't supposed to come across as a preference or bias.
Personally, I'd rather they have the full names because it helps prevent disambiguation needs, but I wouldn't put it past Mr.bonus to return out of the blue again to start an edit war over the issue (which he has done twice at this point successfully...). To find out more, check his contribution history.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
He appears to be just a pissed-off fanboy who wants to force his liking down everyone else's throat. If such thing ever happened, we can request intervention from someone from Wikiproject videogames who can bring common sense into the matter. --uKER (talk) 14:30, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Calling my edit "illiterate" here was totally uncalled for. If you wanted to condense it, be my guest, but there was nothing wrong with the sentence. --uKER (talk) 19:24, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
I called it an illeterate sentence because it was an illiterate sentence. There were several grammatical errors throughout the sentence that needed correcting. I condensed the sentence because it doesn’t make sense to distinguish that the character appears in both his vehicle and robot modes, as he is a Transformer and that’s what they do...--TriPredRavage (talk) 19:45, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
There was nothing wrong with the sentence. Your calling it illiterate only shows your desperate need to pat yourself in the back by disqualifying others. I've come to learn you're not worth discussing with. Farewell. --uKER (talk) 20:09, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
The September 2009 project coordinator election has begun. We will be selecting seven coordinators from a pool of candidates to serve for the next six months; members can still nominate themselves if interested. Please vote here by September 28! This message has been sent as you are registered as an active member of the project. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 02:29, 19 September 2009 (UTC)
Dance Dance Revolution Extreme
...Is an ongoing massive edit. Do not revert the changes I've made because what you seem to think is not the case. I'm not replacing the entire article with a song list, I've removed the badly written section, much of which contained "information" that's better suited for other DDR articles. Most of the information simply not being encyclopedic. I'm putting together the list of music, courses and sections that can expound on individual music that isn't notable enough to have its own article first because that's what I've chosen to do first. Repeated enlistment for help with the Dance Dance Revolution articles have accomplished nothing and I am truly the only user actively involved in rehabilitating them. I may not know everything about Wikipedia but I do know what I'm doing. What's the rush big fella, don't demolish the house before it's built, etc.
Also, don't use article talk space to lodge personal complaints (or threats of future action). There are placed designed for that. Reverting the damage done to the work in progress article and continuing work... if you'll let me. æronphonehome20:16, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
I reverted your 4-conductor to 4-contact edit. See [4]. The jack connector is 5-contact. One of the two sleeve-ground contacts is used for plug detection and carries no signal itself. Since the jack connector conducts signal across 3 conductors and ground and accepts 4-conductor plug jack connectors it is more logically consistent to say 4-conductor.
I am not reverting your additional edit to unpipe the link to TRRS connector since I was hesitant to use that pipe when referring to the jack connector anyway. In the comments however, you note that the connector would be TRRRS rather than TRRS although this is completely wrong. Perhaps you were confused because the jack connector schematic shows 5 contacts and you wrongly assumed that the mating plug jack would have to be 5-conductor with 3 rings.
Bgkwtnyqhzor (talk) 13:30, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I disagree on both. Wires have conductors. Connectors have contacts. Then, to have four contacts you need to have three rings (TRRRS). I didn't understand your saying I assumed there was five contacts and three rings. I always thought it had four contacts, not five. And if there's actually five contacts as you say, there must be four rings (not three as you suggest). --uKER (talk) 13:34, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
This is not a term special to TRS plug jack connectors, Electrical conductor. Both the jack and plug jack have conductors. Obviously only the jack connector has contacts (although only one of the contacts is a switch contact but that is another matter). The sleeve is a conductor. Ground is a conductor. Without either the circuit would not function so clearly they are not to be discounted. 1-Tip 2-Ring 3-Ring 4-Sleeve. Two of the contacts in the jack connector interact with the sleeve of the plug jack connector. Both go to ground; but one of them is a normally open plug detection switch that closes with the 6th panel mounting pin of the jack connector. The circuit would remain functioning without this contact even though it would become more complex to do certain things without a positive indication of plug detection. This is the reason a third ring is not necessary, because two of the contacts interface with the same conductorplug jack connector contact. From the reference:
The Nokia AV connector is based on a 2.5-mm or 3.5-mm 4-pole connector; see picture: Tip (5) Ring 1 (4) Ring 2 (3) Sleeve (1&2)
1) The photo [5] shows 5 contacts on the jack connector (which is the connector we are discussing).
2) That same photo shows that a plug jack connector with 4 contacts.
3) A contact can be likened to a conductor. (this seems to be part of where you are arguing, but the two are used interchangeably even in the TRS connector article)
Clarification: 3) A plug jack connector contact can be likened to a conductor. I make this assumption since the conducting wires interface directly to each plug jack connector contact although the same can not be said for the (6 in this case) conducting wires interfacing with the jack connector. Bgkwtnyqhzor (talk) 15:18, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Would 4-pole be a more satisfactory phrase perhaps? Obviously it refers to the number of conductors in the plug jack connector wire but it doesn't carry as much ambiguity. Bgkwtnyqhzor (talk) 15:43, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
I don't know. The whole concept of there being more than two poles sounds pretty awkward to me. Poles come in pairs, so while I'd say it would suit a traditional TRS connector, once we move to the ones with more than one ring, I don't think it's a fitting term. Also, it's probably me, but the word pole makes me think of pole as in pole dancing or pole vaulting. --uKER (talk) 16:39, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
Well here's the problem then: conductors is semantically incorrect, contacts is technically incorrect, and poles is also semantically incorrect although in this context it's probably meaningless. At least Nokia uses poles in their specification so it seems to be a reasonable compromise. The whole point is to communicate the number of contacts on the jack plug connector since that is the important detail that is actually visible. Of course that could just be said but that is not technically accessible. For that matter, the TRS connector article (and others) should be revised to be more semantically correct since I am confusing myself trying to read through conflicting articles. Bgkwtnyqhzor (talk) 12:37, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Also there is a weak correlation between the use of pole in this case and Switch#Contact arrangements. The abstract similarity in meaning is approximately referring to a discrete contact interface. Since there are 4 interface points for the contacts this seems to be at least vaguely accurate. Bgkwtnyqhzor (talk) 13:12, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for your reaction on the carrier compatibility issue.
To be fair, until a few weeks ago there was a section on compatibility with all kinds of carriers in different countries. Said section simply was removed because it was only indirectly related to the device and distracted from the actual topic. So the idea behind the edit wasn't entirely new. Someone simply tried to restart that section in a more orderly fashion but it would have still been removed for the reasons mentioned before. --Lennier1 (talk) 05:30, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
The September 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:41, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Transformers 2 Revenge Of The Fallen sequel
i have modifyed your edit on transformers 2 sequel because their is'nt a reference saying that this is the final Transformers film.I know this is off topic but you edit Transformers 2 Revenge Of The Fallen way too much i think your a Wikipediaholic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anesleyp (talk • contribs) 01:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
I have recently reviewed the edit history for Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. It appears that you and Anesleyp are "fighting" (or conflict resolving) through the use of edit summaries. Conflicts between two users, even when pertaining to edit conflicts, should not be discussed in the edit summaries. If you do have an editing conflict, do so on the articles talk page. It even states right here to...
Avoid using edit summaries to carry on debates or negotiation over the content or to express opinions of the other users involved. This creates an atmosphere where the only way to carry on discussion is to revert other editors! If you notice this happening, start a section on the talk page and place your comments there. This keeps discussions and debates away from the article page itself.
If you do have an editing conflict, do so on the article's talk page. And, if you so choose, notify the User, whom you are in conflict with, that you are discussing the matter on the article's talk page. But don't use the edit summary box as a way to discuss something between two users. THAT'S WHY THEY MADE USER TALK PAGES. GO FIGURE!!! ⊥m93talk.00:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Well I did start a talk page discussion the last time I reverted and he is just ignoring it and reverting me. What do you suggest? --uKER (talk) 12:38, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I suggest two things:
Notify the other user that editing conflicts and other matters should be handled on the discussion page; not the edit summary. I see you have been discussing on the talk page, but don't add comments to a specific editor about an editing conflict in the editing summary box. That is not what it's for. And continue to press the issue until they as well stop using the editing summary box for such things.
Don't be asking another editor a question about something they did or didn't do on MY talk page. You have an issue with him/her? Take it up on THEIR talk page.
Bummer. I thought you were an admin. That's why I replied to this guy in your talk page. Sorry about that. --uKER (talk) 23:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Whether I'm an admin or not... if you have an issue with someone it needs to be handled on the articles talk page or THEIR page. Only do so on my page, when it involves my editing. Not being rude, nor am I upset. Just informing you. ⊥m93talk.23:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Edit war
Hello. You appear to be involved in an edit war on Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen. While the three-revert rule is hard and fast, please be aware that you can be blocked for edit warring without making 3 reverts to an article in 24 hours. You are not entitled to 3 reverts and are expected to cooperatively engage other editors on talk pages rather than reverting their edits. Note that posting your thoughts on the talk page alone is not a license to continue reverting. You must reach consensus. Continued edit warring may cause you to be blocked. Toddst1 (talk) 20:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC) Toddst1 (talk) 15:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
I don't get the reason for this warning. I have only reverted twice and one of them wasn't a "pure revert" as I added a source to the information I was adding. In any case, why would one get blocked without breaking any established rule? --uKER (talk) 16:10, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Toddst1. I understand the three-revert rule thing very good. I agree with you to a degree, but if you look at the pages history (here) very carefully, you can see UKER has infact only done 2 in 24 HOURS. He's done three, but in longer time than 24 hours. ⊥m93talk.22:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Grindor or Blackout
How come you keep saying Grindor is a different character from Blackout when Roberto Orci doesnt know wheather they are the same character or not, plus the character seems rusty on some photo's. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dorismann (talk • contribs) 20:44, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Orci may have written the part for Blackout, but the helicopter Blackout turned into was taken out of duty by the army so the character previously know as Blackout was made into another character called Grindor who turns into a similar but definitely different helicopter. See here the Pave Low (Blackout) and the Super Stallion (Grindor). I know the movie is a mess, but it's how it is. --uKER (talk) 23:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
Not to be rude, but you gotta check and re-check stuff. I'm not saying I'm perfect, but have a clear understanding before you make an action. ⊥m93talk.04:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
I assumed that one of had been given incorrect diffs by the engine. It happens, and sometimes I read the diff backwards or something. We all make mistakes :) Verbalchat16:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I must have seen the diff to your edit and assumed it was the previous guy's or something. Anyway, glad to encounter people who can keep it cool. See you around. --uKER (talk) 16:17, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
Magibon Edit War?
uker-- looks like you are building an edit war on the Magibon page with reference to the appeal she appears to have among Japanese men. I understand you cite your source for this comment, which is fine-- what is confusing for me as a reader is why you do not explain the importance of keeping what you cite rather than simply reverting the reverts of other editors.
I don't have any opinion at all about Magibon, and I am not contacting you as a person with any interest in her appeal to anyone. I am contacting you as a fellow editor who is looking at an edit war and is asking you to take a minute to explain and justify your actions for the rest of us-- even actions that appear to completely justifiable. Yes? Thanks! KDS4444Talk07:43, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Um. First of all, you call two reverts an edit war? Then, it wasn't me who wrote that, nor am I particularly interested in its mention. The thing is, being the information sourced, who should provide a reason is the person removing it. Removal of valid information constitutes vandalism, you know? And as such, you don't need to provide edit summaries when reverting it. If anything, should I need to do it again, I'll consider adding a "reverted vandalism" summary. --uKER (talk) 12:32, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
District 9
Please don't restore uncited misspellings to the District 9 article. It's the equivalent of someone insisting an American called Bob is called "Boob", obviously wrong to a native speaker. Further, the actual citation refers to Wikus van der Merwe, for example. Greenman (talk) 14:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I have access to the actual movie and the names are the ones I cite, ie "van de Merwe" and "Koobus". --uKER (talk) 15:13, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Edits on Wikipedia of a bold, constructive nature are always encouraged, but several of your recent edits, such as the edits made to the District 9 plot summary, do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. Excessive detail should be avoided when editing plot summaries, as well as a high word count (if you can say something in 700 words instead of 1000, that's the goal). Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the plot summary edit guide to learn more about contributing constructively to this plot summary. Thank you. (Deftonesderrick (talk) 17:07, 9 March 2010 (UTC))
If you look up Catatonic you'll see it includes meaningless repetitive movements, as well as immobility, in its catalogue of symptoms. Possibly where your confusion arises is that catatonia can develop in some people who are autistic. Hope this helps. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 11:49, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
The October 2009 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. The newsletter includes details on the current membership roll call to readd your name from the inactive list to the active list. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 06:13, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Transformers revenge of the fallen
Do you know how to leave your signature.If not you are not a proper wikipedian.I suggest you should refer to more wikipedia pages other than Transformers revenge of the fallen.P.S. are you a administrator if not you will not be able to block me from editing.--Anesleyp (talk) 23:11, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
Sub-Zero states in the same line that Noob Saibot is his brother. And since Sub-Zero's ending in MK2 said the first Sub-Zero in MK1 was his brother, just put two and two together.
How do you know that it is actually Grindor?
Roberto Orci said he never gave the character a name, how do you know Blackout was not upgraded into a Super Stallion, Michael Bay even said before the movie came out that it was Blackout but the characters name was never mentioned in the movie and you're just basing your opinion on a toy where he is named Grindor.
First, the movie is not what the writers make it. It's what Bay makes it. The writers wrote a role for a helicopter, but when Bay went on to filming and he couldn't get the same helicopter, he just changed his head and name and got done with it. Also, the character is named Grindor in the toys, the games, comics, you name it. Get over it: Blackout is dead. He was thrown into the abyss and never revived. --uKER (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Bay did not create the toys, made the games, wrote the comic books neither did the writers. It could be either Blackout or Grindor because in the movie, his name was never mentioned, explain that. (Deadpool1992 (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC))
Bay makes the movie, and the toys, games, etc are about the movie Bay made. What's your point? About him being unnamed, in case you didn't notice, 90% of the characters are unnamed in Revenge of the Fallen, so that's not an argument either. On the other hand, the character has been named Grindor in a broad range of media, now what's your argument to claim it's not Grindor but your oh-so-beloved Blackout no one should ever dare to touch? --uKER (talk) 23:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
The media named him Grindor, not Bay or co, I know 90% of the characters are unnamed but most people knew who they were because their are websites that talks about them and the writers talked about them and their names except for Blackout/Grindor besides 90% of the characters make their debut so not alot of people would care for the new characters because they don't know them but they do know Blackout and this Grindor (as you call him) is causing confusion. This is the character that looked exactly like the one in the 2007. I'll believe if it's Grindor Bay or the writers say if it's Grindor or not but right now I believe it to be either Blackout and Grindor.(Deadpool1992 (talk) 21:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC))
You can believe what you want, but since all official media says it's Grindor, that's what the article will say. --uKER (talk) 22:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Glad you agree with what I did. The next step is remove some Sub-Zero from the Noob Saibot article and link Sub Zero in MK1 to the Sub Zero article. --uKER (talk) 16:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
It being categorized as a good article doesn't mean it's perfect and all other articles should mimic it in every aspect. Common sense should be above anything else. Do you really not agree on what I said about that section being about the character's storyline, no matter if it's told in videogames, movies or whatever? A section on the character in videogames could perhaps be created describing gameplay aspects (ie game-exclusive) of the character. --uKER (talk) 13:09, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Not saying that it's perfect, but projects say that GA and FA should be used as example. Maybe "video games storyline" could be used to note it is a video games exclusive section.Tintor2 (talk) 13:14, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The point is precisely that it's not a video games exclusive section. Should the storyline in a movie be made canon, it should be mentioned there. --uKER (talk) 13:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I had no idea, yet as far as I know MK vs DC and Shaolin Monks are not canon with the latter being a remake of the second game. Personally, I don't think a mention of canon should be made unless parts of the article contradict each other such as most of the MK's endings.Tintor2 (talk) 13:38, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
SM is not a remake of MKII but a parallel story. Also, MKvsDC is definitely non-canon, which is why I separated it. In any case, you keep missing the point: the section is not about videogames but about the character's story, no matter what media it's told in. --uKER (talk) 13:46, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
God, it seems like we're not going anywhere. Let's start from the beginning: you changed a section title from "Storyline" to "In videogames". Point is: the way it's written, that section's purpose is to describe the character's storyline, not to describe the character's appearances in games. That is, no mention of his moves, gameplay, or any other game-related features should go in there. Thus, the section's title should be kept as it was. That said, if you like I can help you create a game-oriented section to fit the title you want to create. --uKER (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Yep, I agree it is written in a way that the the title could be "storyline". I'll change the heading. However, all the storyline covered in such section comes from the video games. If it would be consistent, other sections should also be changed (like "film" to "film storyline"). I have doubts about creating a gameplay section since it could count as a gameguide. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
I just created a stub for what could be an "In videogames" section. Take a look at it and feel free to expand. It would be nice to cover any gameplay aspects such as new moves, tweaks added to the character along revisions of the games, etc. I also added a "See also" header in the second incarnation section linking to Noob Saibot. --uKER (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Necessary? Perhaps not. I added it just for the sake of completitude. It is true after all. It may though become necessary when MK9 comes out and throws all the MKvsDC story to the dump. Remove it if you like. About the "Gameplay/In videogames section", I was thinking of somehow merging it with the "Character development" section to describe the character's evolution through games both in gameplay and appearance. --uKER (talk) 15:48, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
With "In video games" I meant trimming storyline to an out-of-universe way. All the storyline in such section is from video games in the same way that there is storyline in the other media sections. About development, the information shown in such section can only come from primary sources like interviews with Ed Boon or other members from the staff.Tintor2 (talk) 16:05, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
Talkback
Hello, UKER. You have new messages at Talk:LoveGame. Message added 15:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
){kind=link}
![[5]](http://www.forum.nokia.com/pics/AVconnetor_pin_v2.jpg){kind=link}
