User talk:Darkness2005

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome[edit]

I like your name. Chubbennaitor 19:02, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of films based on video games[edit]

A belated welcome to Wikipedia! Click “show” on the template Chubbennaitor left you above for helpful tips and links. Several things:
1) Do not undo[1][2] good edits without explaining yourself in the edit summary.
2) Please use edit summaries in general to make your intentions and reasons clear to other editors. Invisible comments are useful for important permanent notes, but easy to miss when part of a larger or seperate edit. Also make use of talk pages.
3) You do not own articles and should refrain from telling others not to edit them “until further notice”[3].( If you need to prevent edits to a page for a short while because you are doing a major rewrite, try {{inuse}}.) Indeed, you should refrain entirely from telling others not to edit articles in specific ways[4] unless a consensus to that effect has been reached on the article’s talk page.
4) With regards to the specific issue we seem to be having trouble with: Dōbutsu no Mori was not direct-to-video at all. Acccording to the intro to that film’s article, “It opened in theaters in Japan on December 16, 2006.”. It was released on DVD in Japan seven months later, and has not bee in released in other countries at all.
As for the latter Pokémon films, it is true that they went direct-to-video in several countries including the U.S. and U.K., but this is not the American Wikipedia or British Wikipedia, it is an international Wikipedia written in the English language; and just like Dōbutsu no Mori those films were all released theatrically in Japan( their country of origin), and in certain cases other countries, long before they were released on DVD anywhere. In fact, they continue to be theatrically released there at a rate of one per year in July, and the 11th installment is due to hit Japanese theaters in just a couple weeks.
-- WikidSmaht (talk) 23:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

July 2008[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, you may not know that Wikipedia has a Manual of Style that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Using different styles throughout the encyclopedia, as you did in List of One Piece episodes, makes it harder to read. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Your last edit to this was completely inappropriate. The season divisions will stay. Do NOT remove them again. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue[edit]

Hello there,

I was hoping you could explain your recent edit to I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue - why did you change the infobox for this radio programme to Template:Infobox television? I've reverted it to Template:Infobox Radio show - if you think this is a mistake, by all means let me know!

Cheers, Dafyd (talk) 16:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Getaway series template box[edit]

I know you did this edit a few weeks ago, but I just wanted to know why you reverted my edit to the box where I added, "PlayStation Home". This was properly and reliably sourced, therefore, you cannot simply remove it without giving any reason. Even the PlayStation Home article has information related to The Getaway.

Thanks. WIKIPEEDIO 19:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing deletion templates[edit]

Please do not remove deletion templates from articles. This is viewed as vandalism. Thanks. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of The Faceless (band)[edit]

A tag has been placed on The Faceless (band) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Once more: Please do not remove deletion templates and please do review WP:BAND. Thank you. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:10, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Planetary Duality[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Planetary Duality, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.smartpunk.com/product.php?item_id=29166. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:13, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And please stop trying to promote your band. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 18:14, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of List of Supernanny (US TV Series) Episodes[edit]

Please do not move pages to nonsensical titles. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to learn more about moving pages, please see the guidelines on this subject. If you would like to experiment with page titles and moving, please use the test Wikipedia. Thank you.

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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:56, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, your attempt to "split" the main series page into two separate articles was improper. It is the same show, just a different narrator, which does NOT warrant a separate article, nor your extremely inappropriate attempt at hijacking the series episode list. Your edits in this regard have all been reverted. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 18:59, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, STOP your attempts to Americanize the Supernanny article. It is a British show, period. The prose will mention reairings in other country, including the US, but the infobox is purely for the original series. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:18, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

November 2008[edit]

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits, such as those you made to Supernanny. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 01:10, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moving a Page[edit]

If you would like to move a page, please use the "Move" button, rather than erasing the entire page and creating a new one. This deletes the edit history, as you did with Britain's Biggest Loser. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 22:14, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

February 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Finders Keepers (1991 UK TV series). When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. --Ericdn (talk) 12:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits[edit]

Hi. I have a reverted your edits to Dog Whisperer because there's a reason there isn't a "the" in the title. A rule is all wikipedia titles don't start with the word "the". Also you might want to read this before editing some more. It's a rulebook about how pages should be written. The Cool Kat (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spyro (series)[edit]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing.

Arbiration[edit]

You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#wise_dude321 and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.

Thanks,

March 2009[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for engaging in an edit war at Spyro (series). Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.  Sandstein  17:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

April 2009[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary for your edits. Thank you. Dudesleeper / Talk 00:11, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reception[edit]

Please stop including "Community" ratings in reception sections. They are not representative of anything except the people that go to those websites, and are notoriously known for the vote stacking.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 14:49, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AC/DC[edit]

The two High Voltage albums are not two variations of the same album, but completely different albums, hence they have two separate articles. A recent clean-up of the AC/DC album articles was undertaken and it was decided that these two would stay as they were. In any case, before such a big change is made, you should be looking for consensus on talk pages. Bretonbanquet (talk) 19:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. and Mrs.[edit]

Hi. I've reverted your changes to the article Mr. and Mrs.. I don't believe there is enough content in that article regarding the Canadian version to justify splitting off the UK content, therefore I've restored it. Also, when you split off the UK content, you removed most of the relevant content. Please be more careful when splitting articles in future. ~~ [ジャム][t - c] 08:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, as you forgot on your recent edit to Treasure Hunt (UK game show). Thank you. You removed a lot of content from this page without using the edit summary. I have therefore put it back. Your recent edit history shows a general disregard for using the edit summary. Halsteadk (talk) 18:36, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Night Fever (TV series)[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Night Fever (TV series), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Night Fever (TV Show). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Wikipedia:Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 10:47, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Night Fever (TV series)[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Night Fever (TV series), but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://tv.piczo.com/tv-show/night-fever/story, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with our copyright policy. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL), versions 1.3 or later then you should do one of the following:

  • If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Night Fever (TV series) and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
  • If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Night Fever (TV series) with a link to where we can find that note.
  • If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Night Fever (TV series).

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at this temporary page. Leave a note at Talk:Night Fever (TV series) saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! Click23 (talk) 18:17, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removing deletion templates[edit]

Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Night Fever (TV series), without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you.

Cut & paste move of Night Fever (TV series)[edit]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give Night Fever (TV Show) a different title by copying its content and pasting it into Night Fever (TV series). This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other articles that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. --MLauba (talk) 09:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

June 2009[edit]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Mario (series), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Haipa Doragon (talk • contributions) 15:39, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Spyro (series), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. (GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)--( 18:48, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

July 2009[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Fun House (game show), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. I have seen your edit to this page as vandalism if it wasn't, then sorry, however you deleted large sections of the artical Lukefulford (talk) 13:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Reception[edit]

Please stop adding Cream of the Crop and Community ratings to the Texas Chainsaw franchise page. First, the "Cream of the Crop" rating is based on a number too small to be of actual relevance. Second, we do not chronicle "Community" opinion. See WP:MOSFILMS. Online polls contain vote stacking and are regulated to just the community of people that frequent that website and not the people that see the film.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 22:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GH reception[edit]

I appreciate what you are trying to do, but listing every aggregrate score for every system is not helpful to give the reader the general sense of understanding the reception of the series. Detailed score breakdowns should be on the individual game pages, not the main series page. Furthermore, your table removes the reception for the expansions, which is very important in relation to the main series games in terms of describing the reception of the game. --MASEM (t) 16:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MOSFLAG[edit]

Per WP:MOSFLAG we don't liberally use (national) flag icons on wiki articles, b/c

  1. It gives over-emphasis to nationality over all other deatils in an infobox. That's not permissible per WP:NPOV
  2. The nationality is already mentioned in the lead sentence - there's no need to re-emphasize the nationality with a flag icon
  3. Wiki needs to be accessible to all readers, and the actual name of a country is more recognizable than a flag. (As described in greater detail on the WP:MOSFLAG page)

I'm assuming that you have a dynamic IP, as anonymous editors with a 94.2.XXX.XXX IP range have a similar scope of articles and editing pattern. Please make sure you keep your edits within the same account as we don't allow multiple accounts as it can be abused via sockpuppetry.

Thanks. --Madchester (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to the Street Fighter (film) page. Such edits are considered vandalism and quickly undone. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox instead. Thank you.

Again, we don't add flag icons to article freely. Also see WP:MOSFILM, which explcitly states "Some users like to use flag icons instead of country names. However, this should be avoided, as flags are less recognizable than country names."

Thanks. --Madchester (talk) 23:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to DOA: Dead or Alive, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Madchester (talk) 00:44, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even a Bad Film deserves a Good Article[edit]

Good to see you working to improve the article about Bloodrayne but the large amount of detail you have added to the infobox is not recommended. The guidelines specifically on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Films/Style_guidelines#Release_dates say stick to details about the wide release, in maybe one or two countries. If there is other notable release information then it could be written out in prose and included in the main body of the article in the Release section, and in the case of Bloodrayne lots of advance showings at festivals may have some notability or have been part of a marketing strategy or something which might give you enough to write about. I might trim back the level of detail in the infobox but since you think those details are important I'd encourage you to try and include them in article in the best way possible and with some context information as the guidelines suggest. Best of luck. -- Horkana (talk) 16:33, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

January 2010[edit]

Please do not introduce incorrect information into articles, as you did to The Fox and the Hound. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them again. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. Rotten Tomatoes doesn't "say" anything about any site. It is purely an aggregate site. Your additions to a multitude of Disney articles making this claim have been reverted. Please refrain from such incorrect attributions in the future. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to The Lion King. Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Again, please cease these inappropriate claims that Rotten Tomatoes has said anything about any film, and cease removing valid, reliably sourced content -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:15, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The new template you added for List_of_highest-grossing_films_in_Canada_and_the_United_States looks nice but it varies so wildly from the Box Office Mojo list, we may need to include the old list as well. I am also concerned that the new template is actually Original Research (since after all it is different that published sources) Cshay (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. When you make a change to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to The Spoony Experiment. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit. It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. When you remove enormous chunks of information from an article, it's probably a good idea to explain why. WP is a collaborative project, and any editor looking at recent changes may simply reverse your edits. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 20:48, 5 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Page move[edit]

Hi, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you recently tried to give The Film programme a different title by copying its content and pasting either the same content, or an edited version of it, into another page with a different name. This is known as a "cut and paste move", and it is undesirable because it splits the page history, which is needed for attribution and various other purposes. Instead, the software used by Wikipedia has a feature that allows pages to be moved to a new title together with their edit history.

In most cases, once your account is four days old and has ten edits, you should be able to move an article yourself using the "Move" tab at the top of the page. This both preserves the page history intact and automatically creates a redirect from the old title to the new. If you cannot perform a particular page move yourself this way (e.g. because a page already exists at the target title), please follow the instructions at requested moves to have it moved by someone else. Also, if there are any other pages that you moved by copying and pasting, even if it was a long time ago, please list them at Wikipedia:Cut and paste move repair holding pen. Thank you. Ibn (talk) 18:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clock Tower Ghost Head[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Clock Tower Ghost Head, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://wiki.verkata.com/en/wiki/Clock_Tower_II:_The_Struggle_Within. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: This bot warning was triggered by the same course of action you were warned for with The Film programme directly above. Please use the move tab and do not copy and paste articles to move them. VernoWhitney (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 11:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

June 2010[edit]

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal of the Ultimate Champion spin off series row on the Big Brother (UK) page does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Tomdresser27 (talk) 09:31, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

July 2010[edit]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Resident Evil: Afterlife. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Mike Allen 19:46, 5 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Silent Hill (film). Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. magnius (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doomsday[edit]

Regarding your edit to Doomsday (film), I wanted to point out a few things. It is largely unnecessary to include the runtime of "uncut" versions especially when the version is not noteworthy (as opposed to a film like Blade Runner). In addition, the infobox's country field is for the primary country of origin. Filming in South Africa does not make it a South African film, nor does German involvement in production make it a German film. It's largely a British film. Lastly, I'm okay with the inclusion of the UK gross, but it leaves out the worldwide gross (in US dollars), which should be included to be more encompassing. Also, I removed all the botspam you had on your talk page since it took up so much space. Erik (talk | contribs) 14:25, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

August 2010[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from It'll be Alright on the Night. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Such removals as you just performed simply cannot be done without explanation. As far as I can tell, you haven't responded to a single comment placed on your talk page, and as of right now only 0.39% of your edits took place in talk space. I urge you again (I already did a few months ago) to explain yourself. Drmies (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

IMDb is not considered a reliable source for information, and the Peter Bracke book "Crystal Lake Memories" is more reliable than Box Office Mojo or The Numbers, because he spoke directly to the people involved to get the budget figures.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 20:33, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (UK) ratings[edit]

Please don't remove the {{uncategorized}} tag from the article until you've actually added it to an existing and appropriate category; all articles on Wikipedia must be either categorized or tagged. Bearcat (talk) 04:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

September 2010[edit]

Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Inchon (film). Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 22:47, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't alter or remove sourced information as you did to Sahara (2005 film) in this edit and to The 13th Warrior with this edit. If you think this information is incorrect please start a discussion on the talk page and include a source for any new information. Without a source all changes to existing sourced content will be reverted. Betty Logan (talk) 22:55, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at List of digital terrestrial television channels (UK). Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. - Jasmeet_181 (talk) 05:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, as you did to List of Beat the Star episodes , you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

Looking through your talk page I see a long history of controversial edits and looking through your contributions I see no edit summaries, and no edits anywhere in the talk namespace. You need to communicate with other editors, especially if you are going to make edits that may be considered controversial. In particular you need to state either in the edit summary or on the talk page when you copy and paste text from one wikipedia page to another. It is considered a copyright violation if you do not. You can use the copied template to provide attribution on the talk page if you did not do it in the edit summary. Take a look at Talk:The Mole (series_2) for an example. If you do not want to be blocked I suggest that you start using edit summaries and responding to concerns brought up by other editors on talk pages. --D•g Talk to me/What I've done 05:34, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Mole (series 1)[edit]

This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a search with the contents of The Mole (series 1), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: The Mole (UK TV series). It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page— you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. VWBot (talk) 18:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from The Mole (series 1) into another page. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to make a note in an edit summary at the source page as well. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. You also cannot just remove the bot tag. Deutschgirl (talk) 18:26, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your edits to Groundhog Day (film)[edit]

I do not know what you think you were doing, but your edits were not helpful. The film is not in either French or Italian, and you gave no reason for removing information from the infobox. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:54, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm upping this warning for Around the World in 80 Days (2004 film). You changed the countries, which didn't need changing and weren't correct; you changed the formatting to an incorrect version; you stripped a reliable citation; and you rearranged the writers of the film (just to let you know, Jules Vern was not the primary writer for the film). This is considered disruptive and, given your long line of messages stretching back to 2008, as well as a warning from a few days ago, it appears you should know better. Please discontinue this behavior. Thank you. --132 02:16, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines. When removing content, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the content has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 03:17, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Channel 4. Doing so helps everyone to understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 15:17, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop removing pixel dimensions from TV channel logos[edit]

Over the last few days you have altered or deleted the display dimensions of over 30 uk tv channels in infoboxes. As you have chosen not to use edit summaries it is impossible to know what your intention was, but it looks like vandalism since the effect has been to change logos so they are either very large (BBC 1) or very small (Cbeebies). Please stop doing this. All your changes have been reverted by other editors. If you want to alter established dimensions from infoboxes you can use the preview function to check how the logos display without saving a version of the page that then requires attention from someone else. As you have been asked many times on this talk page, please use edit summaries. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 10:41, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Changing reception on the Saw franchise page[edit]

Why did you do this? To bad I didn't catch it then, or you would have been reported on the spot. Mike Allen 02:24, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And you just did the same thing on the Scream page. It's funny how you changed some to the right figure, but totally made up the rest to make it have a better rating. Your edits are being watched closely now. Please use an edit summary for your edits. Mike Allen 02:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've checked his percentages, Mike, and they're spot on. Maybe you have old pages in your cache? Betty Logan (talk) 03:03, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just deleted my cache and I still get a different percentage. [5] --> [6] What's going on? Mike Allen 03:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still getting the same percentages as Darkness! It's strange how it's only the Top critic ones that are different, we seem to agree on the main rating. Betty Logan (talk) 03:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Btw, that was from the first Saw. I'm opening a discussion on WT:FILM to see what others get. This is strange.. Mike Allen 03:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Betty, are you and Darkness from the UK? I know that the UK website for Rotten Tomatoes often has differences in the "Top Critics" section, which could explain what there are such discrepancies in what Darkness is posting and what the American website reports.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 03:56, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We're going by the North American Rotten Tomatoes scores on the Saw franchise page. Thanks. Mike Allen 00:05, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

November 2010[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (film), without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Betty Logan (talk) 21:36, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ANI discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Darkness2005. Thank you. Erik (talk | contribs) 21:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see you've edited since receiving this notice. I advise you to respond to it before you are blocked from editing. Discussion is important on this project, and you seem unwilling to discuss anything with other editors. Rodhullandemu 23:29, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

Despite repeated requests, it appears you're still totally refusing to engage other editors' concerns. This is unacceptable, and while of course you cannot be forced to engage in a discussion, you can be asked to stop editing if you're unwilling to do so. Accordingly, you have been blocked indefinitely from editing. Note that "indefinite" doesn't mean "permanent". You may use the {{unblock}} template (or just comment on this page, I and several others are aware of this), and indicate a willingness to engage in discussion in the future. At that point, I'll be happy to unblock you, or for the first admin along to see it to do so. But that will be required before you begin to edit again, and it will be required going forward. This is a collaborative project, ignoring concerns brought in good faith is not acceptable. Seraphimblade Talk to me 00:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of The Spoony Experiment episodes for deletion[edit]

A discussion has begun about whether the article List of The Spoony Experiment episodes, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of The Spoony Experiment episodes until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. —Half Price 16:11, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for vandalizing/contributing so many articles without using the edit summary.[edit]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Darkness2005 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

OK, this is my original account and yes this is the original Darkness2005 account I'm using. And I would just like to say, I'm sorry for vandalizing/contributing so many articles without using the edit summary. I now know what I must do in future edits, contribute an article while using the edit summary. Please unblock me for this apology and I'm sure I will obey Wikipedia's guidelines next time.

Accept reason:

Per discussion below. Amalthea 10:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Edit summary usage, although in my eyes very important, wasn't really the issue when I look at the ANI discussion that led to the indefinite block. What do you say to that, and to the significant block evasion you have engaged in since then?
Please make also sure to read Wikipedia:Guide to appealing blocks.
Amalthea 20:59, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing that greatly concerns me is the attempted deception I saw here. Not really what I want to see from a member of a collaborative project. Amalthea 21:02, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I'm sorry for the sock puppets I created as well. I wasn't looking at the rules and guidelines straight enough. And I would just like to say to Ruth-2013 "I'm sorry for lying/bullying you on my Wecantdoanythingaboutit account, I got angry when you weren't accepting my updated Challenge TV article." Again, I'm sorry for disobeying Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. I know what I must do now in my future contributions and my bad behaviour won't happen again. (Darkness2005) 21:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Putting this on hold for now, waiting for further input. My goal is to see this block lifted, Darkness2005, and I for one appreciate your apology, but it may take us a day or two to get everyone convinced that lifting this block is the most constructive way forward, and that any issues from the past will not resurface. Amalthea 21:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
From what I recall of the Darkness case, while many of his edits were legit, many also added unsourced content or even changed content so that it contradicted the source. When editors tried to raise various issues with him on his talk page he failed to engage in discussion, which was ultimately what the block was for. I also recall that the blocking admin stated that the block could be reconsidered if Darkness showed a willingness to enter into discussions regarding his edits. Personally I have no objection to the block being lifted as long as Darkness provides a guarantee he will respond to issues raised on his talk page. Betty Logan (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Darkness is incredibly prolific and before he was blocked it was clear his intention was not destructive. It can't be easy reversing the anger he clearly felt at being blocked and if he's now agreeing to work collaboratively, that could greatly benefit Wikipedia. Not having to track, check and block his sockpuppets would certainly save time. Since he's acknowledged so much, shouldn't he be given a fair chance to show he's learned from all this? Alistair Stevenson (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was the reason I was blocked. I didn't actually use the talk page to communicate with other users as well as not using the edit summary as to why I edited the articles. Now I know I have to use the talk page and the edit summary to actually explain why I had to edit an article. (Darkness2005) 22:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


This may not be so bad with this user if he could communicate better with other users, when we clashed with his one of many sock-puppets it was regarding the correct use of the second column on the challenge tv article. When an edit dispute arises this user needs to learn not to keep redoing the disputed changes as this starts an edit war and instead use the users talk page and find some middle ground. I am open to any user of this site using my talk page for reasonable discussions on editing and in all the editing on the challenge article if this user had approached me via my talk page he would have known that I liked quite a few changes he did to the article, and that the whole edit dispute could have been resolved by adding 1 extra column to the tables. Its not rocket science is it?

However I was annoyed and upset about been implicated in one of his sock puppets that was later proven I had nothing at all too do with it. These sort of tactics need to change as although the user did apologize if admin had believed the false clams I could have lost my account which I actually value.

The main things that need to change if this user is allowed back on the site he needs to include edit summaries in a majority of the edits on here, drop all the dodgy tactics i.e. sock puppets and false claims and not cause edit wars if disputes arrive use the talk pages. If the user does the above I could forgive and forget the previous rubbish that went on i.e. edit wars, sock puppets etc. One more thing I know its not always possible to source all edits but attempts should be made by this user to provide source for some of the edits if not all.

Maybe admin could give this user a trial to see whether there editing attitude changes i.e. monitor the users use of the site and obviously re block only if attitude don't change. In closing I would be open to this user been able to have the block lifted as long as attitude changes. If the block is lifted as well the first thing I would like to see this user do is approach me on my talk page so the issues I had with the challege tv article can be resolved in an amicable fashion instead of mass reverts been done to the article and we can get the article back on track. Thats my thoughts on this matter anyway.(Ruth-2013 (talk) 21:48, 14 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Can you give me a template example of what it should look like next time I edit the Challenge TV article? (Darkness2005) 22:15, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is about your unblock request so maybe should not be posted here and you can of course visit my talk page if you get unblocked, but all I was locking for on the challenge article is on the tables of programs shown by other broadcasters is 5 columns they are Name of show, Original channel that aired show, a column that either includes the seasons challenge aired or the years of the seasons, when aired on original broadcaster which would be the years the original broadcaster has the show on, and the last column what years challenge aired. I am happy to do a mock table if you don't get my drift if your unblocking request goes ok. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 22:22, 14 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Oh, yeah. Sorry about that. I got a bit carried away there because I didn't know what you wanted me to do on that article. When I get unblocked soon enough I'll contact you to tell me what you want me to do on the Challenge TV article and maybe give me a template example so that I know what to do next time. OK? (Darkness2005) 22:52, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats fine. Next few days though I wont be on wikipedia till the afternoons just so your aware. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 23:05, 14 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

Thank you for awaring me about that. I've got it memorized in my head. (Darkness2005) 23:16, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify what happened, the major issue isn't edit summary usage. It's good to use edit summaries, but no one gets blocked just for failing to use them. Rather, the issue was that you totally refused to communicate with other editors when they were trying to discuss what was going on. Totally ignoring people who come to you with legitimate questions or concerns, and just pressing on with what you're doing with no explanation whatsoever, is a lack of common courtesy and ultimately incompatible with working on a collaboratively written project. I'm willing to chalk your previous issues of the lack of communication and sockpuppetry up to inexperience and give you another shot, provided you understand it can't continue to happen. That's not to say you always must agree with other editors, and indeed we disagree with one another all the time, but if you do, please engage in civil debate rather than ignoring the concern and pressing forward. Is this something you're willing to agree to? Seraphimblade Talk to me 01:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am willing this time to communicate and engage with other editors on why I'm doing these edits and I am willing to agree with other editors if they don't like any kind of edit change or vandalizim I attempt to do. (Darkness2005) 01:33, 16 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I sincerely hope you won't be attempting "vandalizm" in the first place, but it's a good sign that you are willing to communicate with other editors. Betty Logan (talk) 01:01, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think this user maybe got confused when they used the term vandalism which might not be surprising the amount of times this term has been said to him. But of course most people may have thought he vandalizing by the fact he never used to talk to people which when concerns where brought up. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, that was the case. I got confused what the word Vandalize meant. Because it's a new word to me. Is there some way to change the word Vandalize to a word that's more easier and simpler for me to remember? (Darkness2005) 16:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I have suggested edit summaries should be used by this editor, is some of there edits where been viewed on as vandalism. Now I am sure he meant well with these edits in question. Now it would be better for an editor in the case of this user to see an edit summery so we have some sort of idea as to the reason the edit was put there. But yes your right the main issue here is in the past he did not engage with other users which I see he has agreed to change this for the better which is good. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 02:46, 16 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

And I'm pretty sure I will start engaging with other editors from now on during edits or vandalism that they won't like from me. (Darkness2005) 00:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've left a message at Amalthea's user page. Since everybody seems to agree, I hope this block is lifted very soon. Alistair Stevenson (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my unplanned absence over the weekend.
Darkness2005, I have unblocked your account. The block was a consequence from an unwillingness to engage in discussion. Discussion is imperative in a collaborative project such as this. You have acknowledged that and assured to work on it. This will (implicitly) be the central condition for the unblock: If someone voices a concern about an edit of yours, don't ignore them, but discuss and find consensus before you continue to edit this issue – in short, WP:BRD. If you ever get into a situation where you're unsure how to proceed, feel free to ask me (or any editor you trust of course).
Good luck, Amalthea 10:13, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I'm sure I will from now on engage into any discussion if they are concerned by an edit I attempt to do. I'll hopefully contact you or any other editor soon if there's something I'm unsure about. (Darkness2005) 11:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Now your unblocked please remember to contact me so we can go over the issues on the challenge tv article. (Ruth-2013 (talk) 15:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]
I will. I need to test out the edit summary first on a few articles then I'll go over to your Challenge TV article issue. (Darkness2005) 16:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

April 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add or change content, as you did to the article Tekken (2010 film), please cite a reliable source for the content of your edit. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. See Wikipedia:Citing sources for how to cite sources, and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The edit you recently did on Tekken was one of the reasons you got banned in the first place. Stop it now! Areaseven (talk) 14:55, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

No, it wasn't. It was something else. Darkness2005 15:43, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of which, your edit on Tekken was very inaccurate. Mandarin was never spoken in the film. Also, don't always rely on IMDb, as their information tends to be partially inaccurate (especially with the languages they listed on Tekken). - Areaseven (talk) 16:33, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Clocktowerghostheadasi7ll1.jpg[edit]

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Clocktowerghostheadasi7ll1.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" 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 "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Courcelles 05:58, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on a minute. That's not the picture I uploaded on Wikipedia. Darkness2005 12:36, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Final Fantasy table and suggestion.[edit]

Two things. 1. Isn't it a bit hypocritical to not include Dawn of Souls in that table and then go on to include the FFIV Complete Collection, another compilation? 2. I think it would be a good idea to archive some of your talk page. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 17:36, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As I said before. Do NOT include games in the aggregate review scores that are 2 in 1 (or bundled) because that will be unfair & confusing. NOT hypocritical. Also, the PSP version of FFIV is NOT a compilation. Darkness2005 18:03, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Complete Collection has FFIV, The After Years (which is a completely separate game), and a extra chapter that bridges the two. Heck, the article itself describes it as a compilation. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 21:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And explain how it's confusing/unfair on the FF talk page. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 21:21, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not talking about the talk page. I'm talking about the review score template. Darkness2005 23:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I know. I meant, "Go to the talk page and explain yourself about the template, please." TheStickMan[✆Talk] 23:28, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

The Resilient Barnstar
For bouncing back then editing in just the way he said he would, I hereby lob this barnstar at Darkness2005 Exok (talk) 01:18, 27 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

  • WP:V does not require that all sources must be online, it actually says the opposite. -- DQ (t) 20:15, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Film languages[edit]

Please stop adding multiple languages to film articles. The infobox is for the primary language of a film, not languages that may appear within it. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 16:49, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also do not make false statements on your edit summary so that people overlook what you've actually done, which is insert incorrect, unsourced information. As this this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Transformers:_Dark_of_the_Moon&diff=437166352&oldid=437163301 Darkwarriorblake (talk) 12:30, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism?[edit]

Excuse me, but how is this vandalism considering I never edited the infobox? The only notable edit I remember I made was changing the table considering the originally wasted over 8 kylobites making it not only undue weight, but also collapsed with the article's size. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 19:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have completely deleted the entire list of games, which is completely vandalism. Plus the Chronicles games are NOT part of the main series. They are the same storylines as the main series games but they should be in the Spin-Off games because they are both completely different gameplay compared to the classic and the over-the-shoulder Resident Evil styles, that's why they really shouldn't be included in the main series. User:Darkness2005 19:28, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nope. Blanking as a vandalism is only applied when no edit summary was made and addition was made. I already pointed guidelines for such removal and added a smaller one in the same edit. I don't get what you are pointing with the next sentences, so just check Talk:Resident Evil#list of games for further discussion.Tintor2 (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasons for the games being "main series" don't sound too convincing. It sounds like your own opinion, which is not allowed. I will have to take your word for it though, since I don't know anything about the series. Blake (Talk·Edits) 20:49, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That was not my opinion. It was someone else's opinion. And if you don't anything about the RE series. Do not even bother confronting me if you don't know anything about the RE series Blake. You're just being stupid and hypocritical. User:Darkness2005 22:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should refrain from using comments like "stupid and hypocritical" per WP:Civility not because that easily leads to getting blocked.Tintor2 (talk) 01:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't you clearly see the words "I don't know anything about the series." from Blake? Why is he arguing with me? He shouldn't bother arguing with me. I don't want you bothering arguing with me Tintor2. User:Darkness2005 02:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I was not arguing with you. I was just saying that while I don't know much about the series, others that do know will not let you use your own opinion. You don't have to get defensive and snap at me. Blake (Talk·Edits) 03:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, That was not my opinion. It was someone else's opinion. I don't have an opinion, I just do what people tell me to do. User:Darkness2005 11:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving[edit]

Hi Darkness. I expect you already know but - if you want to - you can easily set up your talkpage to archive old discussions automatically, so that visitors only see current discussions. There's a guide on how to do it here. Exok (talk) 12:46, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Kung Fu Panda 2- Release Date[edit]

Hello Darkness, I see you have been constantly changing the release date of Kung Fu Panda 2. The date has been left to be just shown as "May 2011" because of this film being released on different dates in many countries, by one or two days more than the original date, or less than the original date. On the page's disscussion page, to make this fair we decided to get around all this commotion, we decided to let the date show as just "May 2011". I hope you understand why the date is to be left that way and it is not going to be shown as "May 26, 2011" anymore. Monkeys 9711 (talk) 13:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thanks for letting me know. User:Darkness2005 13:54, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'm glad you understand, cheers :) Monkeys 9711 (talk) 14:00, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Edit summaries[edit]

Something a little more explanatory than "Updated the article" would be more helpful and appreciated. Thanks Stephenb (Talk) 15:17, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Bond Films[edit]

Before you edit the release dates of any more films, please could you acquaint yourself with the Wikipedia Film Release date policy. You will find it most useful when approaching any future edits. If you continue to change to any other dates your actions could be construed as vandalism and the appropriate action may subsequently be taken against you. Thanks--Schrodinger's cat is alive (talk) 18:28, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

July 2011[edit]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. BOVINEBOY2008 11:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to second this: please use edit summaries on every edit. They make things ever so much easier on other editors. -Phoenixrod (talk) 05:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Asdfsfs[edit]

Please stop reverting on others' talk pages. Editors are free to blank those pages if they like. See WP:TPO. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 18:08, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I find this incomprehensible: you just restored that content again. That's the fourth time, and as a long-time editor here with multiple blocks, including two for edit-warring, you should be aware that this is not acceptable. Drmies (talk) 18:12, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Drmies (talk) 18:14, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Hill: Downpour release date[edit]

Please provide a source to support the date you introduced; I have reverted your last 2 edits to the article, because the date you introduced was not included in the corresponding source (Metacritic). Thank you. Hula Hup (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The release dates I found were from GameFaqs. User:Darkness2005 00:56, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Myst articles[edit]

Despite how our wikipedia article categorizes them, I've never seen the Myst games called "first-person adventure"; point-and-click, graphic adventure, yes, but it seems the majority of items stick to those terms. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 23:10, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

August 2011[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Catchphrase (UK game show), did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. I have no idea why you wiped the references clean. References are there for a reason; editors do not put them there for the fun of it. Please stop removing them. Thank you The Master of Mayhem cup of tea? Don't worry, I'll make it 16:39, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

FFVI[edit]

I've already reverted edits where you've done this. Please explain why the NA release date can't be in the same template as the other dates. TheStickMan[✆Talk] 16:43, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The NA release date didn't come out first, hence why I've moved it. User:Darkness2005 17:40, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Stop vandalising Big Brother[edit]

This is the only warning you will receive for your disruptive edits of Big Brother 2011. If you vandalize Wikipedia again you will be blocked from editing.

Edit Summaries and your blocking history[edit]

Hello. One of your latest contributions flagged up on my watchlist as having no edit summary (ES), so I came here just to ask you to follow consensus i.e. wp:ES#Always_provide_an_edit_summary.

However, I see many have asked you before. Then I noticed your history of being blocked on numerous occasions.

Then I noticed that to escape a previous blocking, you promised "User_talk:Darkness2005#I'm_sorry_for_vandalizing/contributing_so_many_articles_without_using_the_edit_summary.".

Well, there's not much recent evidence of your sticking to your promise. Please use ESs. Trafford09 (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also an edit summary is required when copying from one Wikipedia page to another, to mention the source of the text - this has been mentioned to you before: [7] and [8]. None was provided for the Cash Cab (Australian game show). I've added a template to the talk pages of the articles to say that it was copied. Peter E. James (talk) 12:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tomb Raider platform[edit]

Why are you deleting "Platform" from Tomb Raider articles? You need to use edit summaries and I also suggest you go and add them back. I'm tired of cleaning up your mess. —Mike Allen 22:37, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Skylanders[edit]

You apparently have added quite a bit of biased POV material to the Skylanders article. Wikipedia is not a soapbox or your ranting ground. Please do not add your personal opinons or biased material to the article or you may be blocked from editing. Some guy (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do not have any personal opinions. I've just be told what was on a couple of source websites. And I don't rant on an article. User:Darkness2005 19:38, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
#@$#@%%^!!@#@ I'm sorry I posted that comment on the wrong user's talk page. Just stop removing the "spin-off" sentence. Now to go warn the correct person... sorry about that. Some guy (talk) 19:51, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's alright! I make mistakes as well as you. User:Darkness2005 19:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TV show list articles[edit]

Several of the "list" articles you have created for TV shows clearly don't need their own page, as most of them can very clearly be included in the show articles themselves. As such, I have merged them back into the parent articles. If you disagree, I strongly recommend that you use the articles' talk pages to discuss. Regards, –MuZemike 06:19, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Such as... User:Darkness2005 06:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That is NOT vandalism, and you know it. There is no reason to split everything off into their own articles when it is not warranted. –MuZemike 23:11, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It needs to be split like Have I Got News For You, Never Mind the Buzzcocks, A League of Their Own, Would I Lie to You?, 8 Out of 10 Cats and Shooting Stars because it avoids confusion and kilobytes overload User:Darkness2005 23:14, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wall of Fame (game show) is at most 3.5KB with the list; any extremely low-level browser can easily run that. Also, just because other shows have their own episodes list doesn't mean they all have to. It's more convenient for readers to have some of the episodes lists in the parent articles as opposed to spreading them out all over the place and making it harder for them to locate. –MuZemike 23:17, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The meaning of vandalism[edit]

Hello Darkness2005. I see you reverted MuZemike's edits to the article Wall of Fame (game show) as vandalism. Vandalism means malicious editing. I recommend you familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's principle of assuming good faith. That someone disagrees with you doesn't mean they are a vandal. Please do not revert good faith edits as vandalism again. Thank you, --KFP (contact - edits) 23:38, 4 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Hill's TV Burp[edit]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Harry Hill's TV Burp, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Adamiow (talk) 12:35, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why oh why[edit]

Further to User_talk:Darkness2005#Edit_Summaries_and_your_blocking_history, I note that you have still neither started addressing other editors' concerns re ESs, nor even responded to them. Why is it that you consider yourself Special and above consensus?

Wikipedia ad for Help:Edit summary
Wikipedia adsfile info – #2

Trafford09 (talk) 23:57, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

November 2011[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Team Soho, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. You removed a considerable amount of information (over half the article) with no edit summary. There is no request on the article talk page to shorten it (your version of it is barely worth keeping). To put it into context you thought it more important to leave an external link to a page where they discuss one of their games, but remove any mention of the fact they developed the game from the article. I see no reason why this should not be treated as content blanking. Halsteadk (talk) 09:47, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to blank out or remove portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did at True Crime: New York City, you may be blocked from editing. Trafford09 (talk) 23:59, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning. The next time you remove or blank page content or templates from Wikipedia, as you did at Skylanders: Spyro's Adventure, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. . I can't think of any reason for you to have removed the Metacritic score, which was sourced, from the article. Some guy (talk) 21:03, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Halo aggregate scores[edit]

I'd like a proper explanation as to why you're telling me only the scores of the main series should be shown since that was not the case in the past. TurboGUY (talk) 19:42, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The main series games are important than the spin-off games because they make a cultural impact on their franchise after the first main series game got an overwhelming positive response and keeps the gamers occupied and guessing what the next main series game will hold and they are a continuation of the storyline from where they left off. User:Darkness2005 04:58, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion discussion about List of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (UK) ratings[edit]

Hello, Darkness2005, and thanks for contributing to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that some editors are discussing at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (UK) ratings whether the article List of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (UK) ratings should be in Wikipedia. I encourage you to comment there if you think the article should be kept in the encyclopedia.

The deletion discussion doesn't mean you did something wrong. In fact, other editors may have useful suggestions on how you can continue editing and improving List of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (UK) ratings, which I encourage you to do. If you have any questions, feel free to ask at the Help Desk.

Thanks again for your contributions! Sottolacqua (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The Operative: No One Lives Forever[edit]

Hello,

Thanks for editing The Operative: No One Lives Forever. You've recently made a number of edits to the article. While I found some of those edits positive (such as giving EU release information to the infobox, and consolidating the reception of the series into one section), you also removed some content and made preferential changes without giving an appropriate edit summary. Although I can see that you've been warned numerous times to do so, and have even promised it in order to be unblocked, I would like to ask you to please fill out the edit summary, when making changes, especially when removing content.

Here is a list of changes that I don't agree with, and don't know the reason for. Would you please be so kind and give your reasons for these?

  • You have decided to remove the following sentence from the lead: "After receiving several Game of the Year awards in the press, a special Game of the Year Edition was released in 2001, which included an additional mission." I would argue that this is an important part of the lead, which has the aim of summarizing the article's contents, as well as explaining why the topic is notable. The fact that the game got several GOTY awards is certainly a notable achievement, and I don't see why it shouldn't be in the lead, along with a mention of the GOTY edition.
  • Regarding the infobox:
    • You have decided to remove all mentions of the Game of the Year edition. Why? Not only is it an important release, but it also has different set of publishers (in NA), which the infobox now fails to mention.
    • You changed the correct publisher name MacPlay to "Mac Play".
    • You removed the the collapsible list functionality from the list of publishers, and the list of release dates, even though Template:Infobox video game encourages one to do so. Why?
    • You removed Template:Start date from the release dates, even though Template:Video game release encourages one to do so. Why?
    • You have classified that only the Windows version of the game has a 18 BBFC rating, and only the PS2 version has a 15+ ELSPA rating. The ELSPA rating is known to be true about the Windows version. Not only this, but you have removed the fact that versions of the game (such as the GOTY version and the Mac version [albeit the Mac version was not mentioned previously]) got M ratings from the ESRB. Why?
    • While it was clearly distinguished which versions of the game came on 2 CDs, and which on 1 DVD, you removed this information. Why?
    • While it was clearly mentioned that only the Windows and Mac versions of the game have multiplayer support, you removed this information. Why?
    • In the comma-separated list of genres, you capitalized "stealth," as in: "First-person shooter, Stealth". Why?
    • While for some reason you decided that its necessary everywhere to refer to Windows as Microsoft Windows, you removed the fact that the Mac version also has a score by Guy Whitmore. Why?
  • You changed the section title "Original release and Game of the Year Edition" to "Microsoft Windows port". Why? Not only is the original section title more descriptive and specific, yours is actually incorrect, as the game was originally developed for Windows, therefore, it is not a port.

Please give reason for the changes listed above, and remember to use the edit summary box. If you don't give your opinions or reasons for the above in a couple of days, I will revert the changes. Cheers, --Mondotta (talk) 16:45, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that I have reverted the aforementioned changes. --Mondotta (talk) 03:49, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removing sourced information[edit]

Hi Darkness2005,

Concerning editing the BioShock articles, the 'survival horror' bit is sourced. Please leave it in. Thanks. --Soetermans. T / C 09:51, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar![edit]

The Nintendo Barnstar
For your massive work fixing release dates and Infoboxes in Mario-related articles & fixing templates and such. Salvidrim! 01:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


You've been popping all over my Watchlist tonight, and I must say I like every single piece of your work. :) Salvidrim! 01:02, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario (series)[edit]

[Vandalism warning retracted] (see below) ArtistScientist (talk) 04:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC) ArtistScientist (talk) 11:21, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wario Land and Super Mario World 2 are NOT important to the Super Mario main series because they have no continuation of the Super Mario storyline and they are games where you takes control of Wario & Yoshi and they have their own articles and templates for their main series games. Please refrain from disobeying this. User:Darkness2005 16:12, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for butting in, but please assume good faith. Nobody's disobeying anyone, because nobody can give orders. Please raise the issue on the article's talk page to find a consensus whether the article should include all platforming games with Super Mario in the title, or only those where Mario is the main character. Salvidrim! 16:32, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
So, should Wario Land: Super Mario Land 3 and Super Mario World 2: Yoshi's Island be included in the main series Super Mario games? Or should they be in the spin-off games? Because in Wario Land, Wario is the main character and in Super Mario World 2, Yoshi is the main character.User:Darkness2005 16:35, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
-Do note I am not taking a position as to whether the two games should be added or not! I am asking you to discuss it politely and properly.
-Also, making null edits to "discuss" via edit summary is not the proper way to discuss. Talk pages are there for a reason.
-I also address both of you in remembering that everyone edits according to their own opinion. Both of you have asked the other to "keep your opinions out of the editing". I respectfully ask that you raise the issue on the game's talk before this escalates into edit warring. And try to avoid personal attacks -- neither is uncontroversially "right", but you are in disagreement. Also, threatening "please do not revert this or you will be blocked" is not a desireable attitude.
-I'm strongly hoping the two of you are able to discuss this healthily on the article's talk page and prevent this disagreement from escalating into something nastier. Salvidrim! 16:41, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The warning for vandalism was for this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Super_Mario_%28series%29&action=historysubmit&diff=463582107&oldid=463477635, which reverted the changes that were based on consensus reached through the article move discussion. A warning seemed appropriate given the user's history as seen on this page. The inclusion of certain games is another issue and I'm raising it on the article's talk page. ArtistScientist (talk) 02:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's because both of those games you added were NOT relevant to the Super Mario series or even had Mario as the main character to control in those games. User:Darkness2005 04:27, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss it on the game's talk page (here) in order to reach consensus instead of repeating here that "your opinion is the correct one". Salvidrim! 04:33, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed the vandalism warning I gave because in this edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Super_Mario_(series)&diff=next&oldid=463582764 the user reverted back to the content that reflected the new scope of the article, with the exception of the two games in question. It was just hard to discover that it was Darkness2005 because there was no edit summary. ArtistScientist (talk) 04:49, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you making minor edits and complaining in edit summaries, as you have done here and here? It is becoming apparently clear to us that you have not learned anything after your last indefinite block, and that said block may need to be reinstated as it is clear that you are unwilling to fairly discuss anything with others, make outlandish and unreasonable edits, and call others' legitimate edits that you do not agree with as "vandalism". –MuZemike 07:36, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to note that despite making a substantial number of edits today, the user has still not responded to the talk page topic (here) prompted by his reverts, insistence, and comments on this user talk page. He has done the last revert and the changes have not been added back by the other editor (who has voiced his position on the article's talk). I am worried that if, since for now the only comments on the article's talk support the change, I went ahead and made it effective, this user would proceed to undo them. In fact, the last 500 edits include no posts nor replies on any Talk page other than his own. I have not checked them individually, but a visible majority of non-minor edits have no Edit Summary either. While I am perfectly winning the give the benefit of doubt, assume good faith, and also recognize that an important number of this user's edits are prefectly good, I will admit I am uneasily worried that some undesirable patterns seen prior to the indef-block may be re-emerging. Salvidrim! 02:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In Little Crackers, you recently added links to the disambiguation pages Paul King, John Bishop and Mike Christie (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (UK) ratings[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of List of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (UK) ratings, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://www.museumstuff.com/learn/topics/List_of_Who_Wants_to_Be_a_Millionaire_(UK)_ratings::sub::Ratings.

It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 02:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (UK) ratings for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (UK) ratings is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (UK) ratings (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

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 template from the top of the article. Sottolacqua (talk) 06:07, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of List of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (UK) ratings[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on List of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (UK) ratings, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. RichardOSmith (talk) 11:29, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

December 2011[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. A page you recently created may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for new pages, so it will be removed shortly (if it hasn't been already). Please use the sandbox for any tests, and consider using the Article Wizard. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Your first article. You may also want to read our introduction page to learn more about contributing. Thank you. Recreation of article deleted following AfD RichardOSmith (talk) 11:32, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • If you want to contest the original AfD decision then WP:DRV documents the process to be followed. RichardOSmith (talk) 11:33, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


A tag has been placed on List of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? Ratings (UK) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia, because it appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion process. If you can indicate how it is different from the previously posted material, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's discussion directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. If you believe the original discussion was unjustified, please contact the administrator who deleted the page or use deletion review instead of recreating the page. This is the second time you've done this. Please stop your disruptive behavior. Sottolacqua (talk) 18:04, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from introducing inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, as doing so is not in accordance with our policies. For more information about creating articles, you may want to read Wikipedia:Your first article; you might also consider using the Article Wizard. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. List of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? Ratings (UK), the same article under a slightly different name. RichardOSmith (talk) 19:13, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (UK game show), you may be blocked from editing. Please do not add contents of deleted articles that have gone through an AFD into other articles as you did in this edit, adding info deleted from List of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? Ratings (UK) and List of Who Wants to Be a Millionaire (UK) ratings. Sottolacqua (talk) 22:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (UK game show). Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. [9] Please add references with your edits. Sottolacqua (talk) 01:30, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (UK game show), you may be blocked from editing. Please stop making edits without providing the proper source as you did in these edits. Sottolacqua (talk) 02:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Who Wants to Be a Millionaire? (UK game show) shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. 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. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. edit 1, edit 2, edit 3. Sottolacqua (talk) 02:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. When you recently edited Recess: School's Out, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Toshio Suzuki (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not add unsourced content, as you did to Safebreakers. This contravenes Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. If you continue to do so, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. RadioFan (talk) 13:58, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary for your edits. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Given that providing edit summaries was aparrently a requirement for your unblock in April, I strongly advise you provide edit summaries when you edit; your recent edit history shows none at all. RichardOSmith (talk) 15:49, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification[edit]

Hi. In your recent article edits, 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.

The Legend of Spyro: Dawn of the Dragon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Michael Graham and Chris Wilson
Spyro: Year of the Dragon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to David Lodge
Spyro 2: Ripto's Rage! (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added a link pointing to Richard Barnes

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of discussion at the Administrators' Noticeboard[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. RichardOSmith (talk) 11:13, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. v/r - TP 14:06, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of The Most Annoying People of 2011 for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article The Most Annoying People of 2011 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Most Annoying People of 2011 until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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.

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 template from the top of the article. Kinkreet~♥moshi moshi♥~ 21:35, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (File:Minnanogolf2.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Minnanogolf2.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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:01, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Millionaire Manor for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Millionaire Manor is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Millionaire Manor until a consensus is reached, and anyone 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.

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. Moswento talky 12:59, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of 8 Out of 10 Cats episodes for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of 8 Out of 10 Cats episodes is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 8 Out of 10 Cats episodes 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.

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. AldezD (talk) 17:20, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Roll with It (game show)[edit]

Notice

The article Roll with It (game show) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Has been one sentence since 2009. Zero sourcing found

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:08, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Darkness2005&oldid=1090288637"