User talk:Darkwarriorblake

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Are you a bad enough dude to review the Joker for good article status? Some Wikipedia users would rather it stay as it is by misusing rules to ban people for no reason and limit exposure of the review process, plus they truck in food from out of state. Do you like your food produced locally AND your deserving and important articles good statusified? Review the Joker today!

Arkham archives[edit]

I don't want to edit war with Black Kite or Wereith, but I don't want the archives to go away either. I don't have time at the moment to rearchive and I really hope none of these are dead links. How do you want to go about this? - Favre1fan93 (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

I'd see how the RFC goes for now, the links won't disappear as they will still be in the edit history. If the RFC goes in our favor then we can just revert to readd the links and then laugh at how much time Werieth has wasted scouring Wikipedia for them. If you're concerned though I guess we'd just have to archive the pages through the other archive sites for now rather than risk the pages being lost if the RFC goes against us. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:26, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Darkwarriorblake (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

Coffee is abusing his administrative control panel for personal reasons. It is not disruptive to respond to a discussion, I neither did it inside the archive template nor removed the template to continue the discussion, there was no indication the discussion was to be closed and it was closed based on a false understanding of the events. There was no disruption in posting a response to another editor and the reaction by Coffee in each step, both there, at the RFC, and here has been overzealous at the least. Additionally Coffee just deleted RFC 3, which was a Request for Comment on the situation rewritten to be as neutral as possible and mention all points, yet he has deleted this saying it is based on false pretenses. At User_talk:Coffee he claims that it was an exact copy but any admin who can see a history of the page can see that it was not and his act was completely reactionary. The user is personally assaulting me and the RFC for no reason and I've now lost the opening comments to that RFC and cannot get them back. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Accept reason:

After conferring with some other administrators on IRC, we've decided this block was made in haste. I've agreed to unblock you, under the condition that you wait at least 24 hours before restarting another RFC, to allow the situation to calm. If you wish to continue discussing this issue at ANI you are free to do so, just under a subthread of the original thread or in a new thread. Please do not reply directly to a closed discussion, as you did before. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:55, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
Furthermore, if you would like any of the content from the last RFC you created, I'll happily email it to you. Coffee // have a cup // beans // 00:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Coffee - I need the comments from the article. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 21:08, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Darkwarriorblake: Sent! Coffee // have a cup // beans // 21:40, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion for moving forward[edit]

I've reworked it to be as neutral as I can. Why don't you look it over and edit it in spots you think I went too far the other way? When we agree it's neutral, then we can put it up with you having the first "Lift ban" vote and me having the first "Keep ban" vote. That way, neither of us gets an unfair advantage over the other.—Kww(talk) 14:24, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Suggested text[edit]

moved to front is an archiving service similar to sites like Webcite and the Wayback Machine, offering different levels of service up to and including snapshots that are retained regardless of modern changes in a sites robots.txt file, which the Wayback Machine can abandon (potentially delaying rather than removing the potential for LinkRot), while Webcite has presented itself as having an uncertain long term future tied to funding. No issues have been found with the quality of the snapshots provided at

Copied and edited from previous RFC
In August 2013, a bot called User:RotlinkBot, created by Rotlink began linking Wikipedia articles to the new service. This bot was not approved, and was therefore subsequently blocked. This block was procedural, and made based on the lack of approval, not the quality of the RotlinkBot's edits.

Following this block, the bot was used in an anonymous operation using edits matching edits from the bot, including the edit summaries, were made from hundreds of IPs, residential and business,from three different Indian states, Italy, Hong Kong, Vietnam, Bulgaria, Qatar, Latvia, Hungary, Slovakia, Romania, Brazil, Argentina, Portugal, Spain, France, Mexico, Austria, and South Africa. raising strong suspicionsBased on fears that the IPs were not being used legally, these IPs, and User:Rotlink, self-identified as the owner of, were subsequently blocked. Rotlink has not commented on any of the blocks.

The previous RFC regarding concluded that the site should be added to the blacklist and that all existing links to should be removed based on statements that links were mass added to Wikipedia by the unapproved bot called RotlinkBot, created by User:Rotlink potentially operating as a malicious botnet that mass-added some links to articles. The ultimate outcome of the previous RFC is that links, whether added by the bot or by individual users, be removed with an additional weak consensus that it be added to the blacklist. Since then the addition of to the blacklist has caused some issues, preventing editing of articles containing links (at the time of the original RFC Wikipedia contained over 10,000 links), and mass removal of archives added by RotlinkBot or Wikipedians, without replacing them has created many unarchived or dead and unusable sources, creating LINKROT. has never been added to the spam blacklist because the use of the blacklist would require the links to be removed before unrelated edits could be made to the article. Instead, an edit filter has been applied which prevents additions of the link, but does not prevent editing articles which simply contain the link.

The actions of the bot while perceived as adding spam en masse, has impacted the links added by individual users which fell under the blanket ban resulting from the previous RFC of links. Elements of the previous RFC relied on the potential for future threats applied through the website, although no evidence was provided to reinforce these views. movedThe original RFC found no issue with the quality of the snapshots provided by

The concerns about the potential for malware raised in the RFC have not materialized at this point, leading to arguments as to whether those fears were well-founded. An effort to get a bot approved to implement the RFC result stalled, indicating that the community may no longer believe the block to be warranted. The previous RFC posits that presents a malware risk based on the actions of RotLink and RotlinkBot, a belief supported by some users based on RotLink's mass additions, however there is no evidence that the site did, currently does, or intends to add malware. Protecting users from the potential of such malware was part of the reasoning for adding to the blacklist. does use advertising. The previous consensusdiscussion showed that some editors considered this to be a major issue, but there was no strong consensus either for or against the site based on this.this was not a significant issue that required the site to be excluded. Some users at the previous RFC complained that they were not informed about the ongoing discussion and as a result were denied the opportunity to voice their opinion. This discussion gives them a second chance to voice that opinion if any.

Based on the questions of consensus raised during Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/Archivedotisbot, the community should discuss whether the previous consensus is still in force

This seems reasonable. What options are fair then? "Allow use of links, continue removal of spam-added links", "Continue exclusion of links, continue with removal of all links"?
Probably "Continue to prohibit additions (oppose or support)", "Continue with removal of existing links (oppose or support)" and "Require that another archive alternative exists before removing link (oppose/support)". That way we could come out with eight different answers, ranging from "continue to prohibit additions, continue with removal, and don't require people to show there isn't an alternative" all the way to "Don't prohibit additions and don't continue removing". There's room for a middle ground as well, like "stop adding, continue with removal, but don't remove if there isn't an alternative". I've found that the best way to get one of these intractable situations to come to a close is to allow people to choose a middle ground where no one is completely happy. People don't like to choose extreme positions.—Kww(talk) 01:34, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Why on earth did you build it with five different alternatives instead of three? It's going to turn into a garbled mess when some people support one or the other assuming that we figure out what they meant on the others while other people vote on all five.—Kww(talk) 20:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
You gave five options. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:09, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
This seems pointless, what is the need in allowing people multiple votes across multiple sections, all you've done is added your support to one section then added an oppose vote to every directly contrasting section, which makes it look like more votes while all being the same vote about one thing. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 20:12, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
We talked past each other. Three options:
  1. "Continue to prohibit additions (oppose or support)"
  2. "Continue with removal of existing links (oppose or support)"
  3. "Require that another archive alternative exists before removing link (oppose/support)".
Everything else is just a combination of those three. By having everyone chose to oppose or support all three, all of the other combinations come automatically without the closer having to guess. Since we are the only two to vote so far, you have my permission to delete the other categories and delete my votes at the same time.—Kww(talk) 20:16, 27 June 2014 (UTC) RFC 3[edit]


In RFC 3 you wrote that does use advertising.

Although this is not false, one can easily misread it and imagine a website full of annoing popups and flickering banners especially when the phrase is surrounded by the text containing words such as spam and malware.

The only place where you could find advertising on is inside the Google Custom Search blocks pexample]. The content of these blocks is made by Google and no wonder that it has Google Ads in exchange to providing the search facilities.

I will take a look at rewording it, honestly I never noticed any ads on, I didn't write the whole opening thing. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 16:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

License tagging for File:Batman Arkham Origins.ogv[edit]

Thanks for uploading File:Batman Arkham Origins.ogv. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2014 (UTC) removal filter[edit]

I had disabled the filter that prevented removal of links when the accounts that were doing bulk removals stopped. It has a non-zero false positive rate and prevents some legitimate removals where people were simply rearranging the article. Still, under the current situation, I have reinstated the filter that stopped them the first time. I know you dislike private filters, but filter 620 is also a private filter. It has some rules that try to allow people to legitimately remove and replace links while blocking blind removal. If I expose the rules, people can cheat their way around it.—Kww(talk) 16:13, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't really know the story behind mass removals, I assumed it was Werieth since it fit his style to a T. I don't have an issue with filters, just the one being used for links, but thanks for the info. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

700 word limit?[edit]

Re: this, I don't have a problem with the plot section at present, I just don't recall seeing such a word limit asserted. What's the basis? Thanks, postdlf (talk) 18:16, 21 July 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) Here WP:FILMPLOT is what you are looking for P. This has been discussed many times over the years and the consensus has maintained this word number range through all the discussions. Cheers to you both. MarnetteD|Talk 18:24, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
The comment tag in the Django Unchained article makes it sound much more like an absolute limit rather than a guideline that editors may discuss "to determine if a summary cannot be contained within the proper range." I imagine Darkwarriorblake's language in that comment tag was born of frustration. Anyway, like I said, just a question about where that came from, not a complaint with that particular article's current state. Thanks, postdlf (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Probably frustration, if I'm tired then I have little patience for repeating myself. But yes, the limit is based on what Marnette has posted, and we do try to make it a hard limit unless absolutely necessary, as if you give out one exception then people will always take advantage. Then you get this. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:32, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
(edit conflict)You are welcome P. I hadn't looked at the item in question when I posted. For me avoiding "plot bloat" is usually a "less is more" situation. So often trying to add a plot point that is special or memorable to a given editor gets a plot section bogged down in minutiae. Now this isn't the case with all edits to plot sections and this is just one editors opinion. I just wanted to give you some context. If I wound up making things more confusing - many apologies. I hope that you both have a good week on WikiP and, especially, off. MarnetteD|Talk 18:37, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Oof. That is one of the all time best examples of plot bloat D. It takes longer to read that then it does to watch the film :-) MarnetteD|Talk 18:54, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
I had a bigger problem with the SYNTH in the "historical inaccuracies" section; someone wanted to use it to argue against the film's portrayal of slavery as being, well, really bad, using cherrypicked sources that didn't actually comment on the film. The last sentence of what I removed is especially priceless. postdlf (talk) 16:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Sleeping Dogs[edit]

Hey, Dark, how's it going! I was wondering if you could help me with Sleeping Dogs (video game) since I really need help with it. Ever since I joined Wiki I have been trying to tackle the article alone but I can't seem to do it by myself wit the amount of experience I have. Is there any way you could help me take it to GA? I know you usually only edit Military related articles, but this one is rated B class so it should be an easy thing for both of us. What do you think? Thanks for everything in advance, URDNEXT (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

I never edit military articles URDNEXT, do you have the right user? I will take a look at sleeping dogs when I have a moment. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 15:11, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Sorry, there was an error when I typed. I meant to say Batman related articles. Bu the way, can you take a look at my Arkham Knight theory? URDNEXT (talk) 15:13, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
I can help with your Joker review! If you want I can review it. URDNEXT (talk) 18:12, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Joker (comics)[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Joker (comics) you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 22:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome[edit]

I got snugunns to review Joker since you mentioned how much you wanted someone to regiew it. H's the best GA reviewer I know. URDNEXT (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

By the way, do you think you could help me with the development section of Sleeping Dogs? I'm not sure I can handle it myself. Thanks for everything in advance! URDNEXT (talk) 22:17, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 7 August[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:45, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Joker (comics)[edit]

The article Joker (comics) you nominated as a good article has failed Symbol unsupport vote.svg; see Talk:Joker (comics) for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of SNUGGUMS -- SNUGGUMS (talk) 05:02, 9 August 2014 (UTC)


Very impressive work on Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines. The amount of content you've generated in the last few weeks is ridiculous. It's exciting to see this game finally get the in-depth Wikipedia article it deserves. Are you planning to take it to GAN first, or just straight to FAC? JimmyBlackwing (talk) 05:01, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

its not good enough for fac yet so it will have to go through GAN first. There's still some unsourced or missing material like marketing and the multiplayer but I'm struggling to find reliable sources for these. Thanks for the appreciation jimmy.Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 10:47, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pitfall. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:26, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Sources covering VtM Bloodlines[edit]

As requested, here are your sources. They're in chronological order.

  • McDonald, Thomas L., ed. "2005 Buyer's Guide to Games - The Electronic Games 100: RPG & Adventure - Vampire: The Masquerade - Bloodlines." Games. Issue 206 (Vol. 28, No.10). Pg.60. December 2004. ISSN 0199-9788.

My scanner is out so these are taken with my cruddy digital camera. Apologies in advance for the blurry print at times. I can clarify from the originals anything that you can't read from the scans. I hope you find these useful. Good luck with the article! -Thibbs (talk) 13:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Thibbs, managed to pick up a few tidbits from these sources! Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)


How' it going? URDNEXT (talk) 19:01, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Fine thankyou, you? Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 23:22, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
Fantastic! I was wondering, have you ever played Red Dead Redemption? Ceasar (talk) 23:26, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
I have, though I didn't love it as much as most people seem to. Too much empty space. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I hated how (SPOILERS) John Marston dies at the end. That got me pissed off. URDNEXT (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
I didn't like that part considering I can take entire armies out single handed. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, I felt forced. Thought the real ending where Jack goes after his father's killer was kinda satisfying. URDNEXT (talk) 00:11, 29 August 2014 (UTC)


How do you write proses that flow so well, as seen in the Batman: Arkham articles? When I'm writing my prose, I go through it several times to make sure it works, and not always it turns out to be as good as I thought. You just seem to pull it off so easily. URDNEXT (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I tend to go over it several times as well, sometimes it just works because the words come to mind, other times I struggle. All I can say is it comes with practice doing it because I didn't use to have as much ease when I started but taking so many articles through the GA and FA process has given me a lot of insight into how to write things to pass. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 18:24, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Do you have tips? URDNEXT (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)
Just practice really, I write then I will go back and read through it to make sure I didn't repeat words, to see if I can trim it down, etc. I'll always request a copy edit anyway so someone else can take a look, then put back anything I think should stay after the copy edit is done. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 00:02, 29 August 2014 (UTC)
That's good news. I've always admired your work on Asylum and City, they're my references for quality on the site. I'll definetely start practicing more. Thanks! URDNEXT (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines[edit]

Your GA nomination of Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines[edit]

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Czar -- Czar (talk) 13:00, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Lana/Larry issue again.[edit]

You guess it. It's the same trouble on the Matrix article. I might need a bit of your help convincing people there. Anthonydraco (talk) 15:02, 3 September 2014 (UTC)


Thanks for your tips on writing proses! I have started practicing a lot more, and I think I'm getting better the more I do so (without bragging). Here's what your tips resulted in: Sleeping Dogs (video game) (Development section). I took your tips and wrote a draft which Tezero copy edited, resulting in the version you see in the article. What do you think of it? URDNEXT (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't replied to you about this URDNEXT, I have been struggling for time and not had the chance to take a good look. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 19:58, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
It's ok, we not always get as much time as we want in life. URDNEXT (talk) 20:13, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines[edit]

The article Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Czar -- Czar (talk) 23:20, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • such as a low [[Polygon (computer graphics)|polygon]] count and limited [[texture memory]]), as the technology improved, it thought it could create a real-time action game without

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:21, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines[edit]

The article Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Vampire: The Masquerade – Bloodlines for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Czar -- Czar (talk) 15:03, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Hey Blake[edit]

I just nominated Sleeping Dogs for FAC alongside Czar and Tezero. (Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Sleeping Dogs (video game)/archive1) Are you available for providing feedback at the nom page? Thanks! URDNEXT (talk) 22:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


The proper way to show appreciation of someone is to give them a barnstar. I'm not sure but I think that for some people, it might be an insult to send them a picture of a pie, because I once saw a picture of a pie in my math textbook when I was in elementary school and that made me wish I could have some pie when I couldn't. Blackbombchu (talk) 22:03, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

New Star Wars title[edit]

Hey Dark. Given the work you did on moving the original trilogy articles, I just wanted to inform you of an on going discussion at Talk:Star Wars: The Force Awakens regarding how the film should be referenced in the article. Thanks. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

SNL peer review[edit]

Hi there! I noticed here that you're one of the top contributors to Saturday Night Live. Well it's currently up for peer review at this link. If you wanna throw in your two cents, please do. Thanks! StewdioMACK (talk) 09:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Fast Five[edit]

As you (and I) are experienced Wikipedians, I am curious as to why you reverted my deletions of the now-irrelevant stuff on when actors announced for the movie. Useful before the movie hit the screens, but it is now on regular TV. Seems like outdated edits. Bellagio99 (talk) 15:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

Happy Holidays![edit]

Invitation to talk about an idea of a new consensus[edit]

You are invited to discuss an idea of a new consensus in here. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Your talk page[edit]

I just semi-protected your talk page. If you want the protection removed just ask any admin. Cheers. CambridgeBayWeather, Uqaqtuq (talk), Sunasuttuq 21:10, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

(talk page stalker)I requested it Dark, as I kept seeing all the trolls coming here. Was acting in good faith. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 21:25, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you, I don't know what article I've pissed this user(s) off on but it needed protecting. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 22:16, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah rats. That means I won't get to leave any more edit summaries extolling the virtues of Troll-be-GoneRegisteredTM.svg. Just Kidding!! I am glad that you will be able to log on to WikiP and not have the little OBOD forcing you to read such childish nonsense. Enjoy the rest of your weekend D. MarnetteD|Talk 22:52, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 22[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King
added a link pointing to Rohan
The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers
added a link pointing to Rohan

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:01, 22 December 2014 (UTC)