User talk:Rehevkor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Thank you for adding the split template! I appreciate it. CaseyPenk (talk) 14:18, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

ANI discussion on user:Archivesharer[edit]

Hi Rehevkor,

Given the account's talk page edits, I've begun a discussion at ANI [1]. Their accusations of yellow journalism and character assassination have been painfully off-key, and I think it's appropriate to bring more eyes to this. Cheers, (talk) 13:12, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Chimed in there, hopefully with the article deleted we can consider the issue resolved now. Cheers. Яehevkor 01:26, 30 May 2012 (UTC)


I have manually archived the section on Michael de la Force from BLP/N. The bot won't do it until 5 days after the last timestamped post in a thread, so it wouldn't have dropped off until Sunday on its own.

I've watchlisted the archive page, just in case he gets any ideas. — The Hand That Feeds You:Bite 20:03, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Cheers, hopefully that'll help. Watchlisted for future reference! Яehevkor 20:32, 5 June 2012 (UTC)


Much as I agree with your actions, you appear to be in violation of WP:3RR in reverting the recent changes to Neil Gaiman. I suggest stepping back and letting others do some of the undos, because it would be a shame to get blocked for such good faith edits. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:16, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

WP:LINKVIO/copyvio edits are an exception to WP:3RR (WP:3RRNO). Thanks though. Яehevkor 01:18, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Video game platform discussion[edit]

Hi there! As someone who participated in the "platform" discussion at WikiProject Video games, you are probably well aware of the complexities involved in the issue. Thus far we've discussed quite a few points but haven't come to any firm conclusions. One of the participants has suggested that we hold a !vote. Please share your thoughts on how we should proceed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Starting a !vote. If you would like to !vote, one of the participants has already provided several options. Thanks for your help! CaseyPenk (talk) 16:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Stargate Universe[edit]

I wrote answer to SGU talk page. --Szente (talk) 01:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

List of God of War characters[edit]

Greetings. You were good enough to comment on the God of War: Ghost of Sparta article. Time allowing, I could really do with some assistance at this link ([], as the same user doesn't seem capable of seeing the forest for the trees.

Regards Bluerim (talk) 13:02, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The unusual comment formatting (comments actually inside the comments of others, usually unsigned) makes is rather hard to follow. But I do see an issue with the images there. Яehevkor 15:05, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


Your revertion was not founded. The Kickstarter you mention was NOT for the purpose of continuing the Goats comic but to release a book of previous Goats drawing that were left out of the already released books.

While Rosenberg did later add goals to the Kickstarter project regarding the possible continuation of Goats, the kickstarter ended four months ago and he has still not posted even a single status update to the goats site in over two years. The goats comic site is still, by definition, abandoned. That may change in the future, but until it does, the case will stand. You may add a section regarding the kickstarter (or its not being followed through on), but undo your revertion. (talk) 02:26, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Abandonment is subjected and unsourced, there's a reliable source saying he plans to continue Goats - the abandonment seems to be your own point of view, per WP:NPOV we cannot enter opinions as fact. Яehevkor 11:34, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
The information added to the article did not contain personal opinion. Please post the reference from itself where your reliable source indicates the continuation of the comic. The final comment made the author himself, if you bothered to read the cited post, was that he could no longer afford to continue the comic. The fact is that the author had to discontinue working on the comic. That he did not even return to the site after discontinuing it to update the status is, by definiton, his abandoning the site. (To refute the word abandoned, all you need do is cite where on the website the author returned to make even a single post, comment, or update since June 2010. You may not like the word because you are attaching your own connotation, but is it accurate by its definition.) There is a chance he might consider bringing the comic back in the future, but that does not change the fact that he did discontinue it back in 2010. Until the author posts a status update directly to the goats website, the status of the comic remains the same. Still discontinued. Anything else is just conjecture and rumor, which as you pointed out should be dismissed. (I was a fan for 13 years, I would welcome a return of the comic, but until the author actually brings it back, it is still gone.) (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
The abandonment of the site is simply original research (you are taking the lack of updates to be evidence of abandonment, yet there is nothing actually stating abandonment - this is original research). You need to cite a source specifically saying the site has been abandoned - I do not believe such a source exists. Right now we have the Kickstarter as a source stating that he plans to continue Goats. This contradicts any notions abandonment. Are we actually arguing about this? If you have a gripe about the Rosenberg discontinuing Goats then here is not the place for it. Яehevkor 16:02, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Clear Sky[edit]

Thanks for explaining things at Talk:S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Clear Sky#Chronolgy of S.T.A.L.K.E.R. series. Cheers. -- Trevj (talk) 22:50, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


I've been adding Epinions to the external links of movie pages. I've noticed that the ones I've done while not logged in have been deleted. I just wanted to ask why you felt this was necessary.

seacow (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

An editor inserting links to a specific site on multiple articles is spamming, plain and simple. Please stop it. Яehevkor 12:46, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


Oh I did my time.:P (talk) 15:17, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt here, but you really shouldn't "flaunt" things like that. You still want to be very careful, it probably wouldn't take much for someone to push for you getting blocked again, considering your background. Try to stick to contributing to articles or discussing particular issues on talk pages... Sergecross73 msg me 15:25, 26 October 2012 (UTC)
Apparently you're "indefinitely community-banned", which is well, indefinite. I won't purse any action on this, but don't push your luck, as Sergecross73 suggests. Яehevkor 21:18, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Third opinion[edit]

I hope you don't mind, but I need a third opinion here. This is how I summed it up on an WP:AN/I entry:

An editor, User:LukeFF, has been forcing through gamecruft on this article. The first response was reverting my changes with no explanation, and retaliating by reverting my changes on other unrelated pages. When I contacted him and explained why his edits were against the video-game guidelines, he resorted to canvassing here[2], and deleted my talk entry on his page. He has apparently been editing that article for some time, and I'm not the only person's edits he's reverting when you look at the page history, so I think there's some ownership issues here as well. He has since then extended this behavior to other articles that I have edited. Eik Corell (talk) 14:31, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

We have both been warned about edit-warring now, but I don't see it as a case of that. I have explained meticulously, time and time again why I removed what I did. The user is not just reverting me, but also other users changing the article, so I believe me reverting was justified. What's your take? Eik Corell (talk) 17:39, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with your justification for removing the material, if not gamecruft it's mostly unsourced and there are original research issues. I do note, however, the lack of discussion on the article's talk page - that is where a centralised discussion should take place, not in the edit summaries of reverts. I'll try and start off a discussion.. Яehevkor 18:48, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Cave Johnson (Portal)[edit]

Valve employees portraying their video game alter-egos at a convention is confirmation, otherwise actors would have been hired. And it's pretty obvious she looks like Caroline.--SuperAnth: so dubbed by others, perpetuated by action (talk) 01:15, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Continued at Talk:Cave Johnson (Portal)

Merry Christmas[edit]

Holiday wishes![edit]

Koch Snowflake 7th iteration.svg
Rehevkor, I wish you excellent holidays and a glorious 2013!

I hope you'll have great meals, memorable family reunions and joyful times with those you love. :)

  • Salvidrim!, signing off on my best year yet, thanks in no small part to y'all!

Happy New Year![edit]

Hey Rehevkor! Wishing you a very happy New Year :) CURTAINTOAD! TALK! 23:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Machinae Supremacy[edit]

First of all, happy new year.

I'd like to thank you for all the work you've done on the Machinae Supremacy page. I have continued the work, and have completed all the criteria points for good article nomination, except for one: citing credible sources.

This is where I request your help. My knowledge is not sufficient to be able to find these sources, but with that as only criterium left I feel it may be a good idea to get it done so that the article can get the status it deserves. Could you please help me here, if you find the time? Thanks in advance. Supertanno (talk) 13:39, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello! Thank you for continuing work on the article. The issue of sources is why the GAN stalled last time, although the band has become more prominent since then, more sources are probably available now as the band has received more coverage. The main problem is sourcing earlier information - it's difficult to cite without resorting to problematic sources like primary forum posts, sources which should generally be avoided. As for replacing sources, the only place I'd be able to search is through Google, Blabbermouth cover the band a lot also, but there is probably little information before being signed. If anything I'm afraid I don't currently have a lot of time to work on this, but am happy to help where I can. Яehevkor 14:03, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


Hey just wondering why you removed my edits and consider them to be spam? They were all unique pieces of info that were not already included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki75643 (talkcontribs)

Considering everyone of your edits is to add thinks to this one site, and sometimes even replace suitable sources, in my eyes you are engaged in reference spamming. Are you in some way affiliated with the site you are linking to? Яehevkor 15:10, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

No I'm not I just read that site a lot so I get my info from there. I don't remember removing an already existing link to replace it with mine, when did I do that. I didn't realise it looked like spam, maybe I'll try and post the link from another source next time instead of where I read it first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:54, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Your first edits here. Maybe there was a legitimate reason for doing this, but you didn't state what it was. Thank you for taking this into consideration, using alternative sources is recommended. Яehevkor 18:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)


RATM KitN — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:47, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Fallout: New Vegas[edit]

Talk:Fallout: New Vegas/GA1 --Niemti (talk) 20:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for letting me know about the change. I'm not soapboxing though. This is a big deal in the Thief fan community and part of the history of making the game. I'm just providing info same as every other article. There are tons on online magazine articles about this, and I am just about to add one to the sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malekdarshin (talkcontribs) 18:01, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but without coverage from reliable sources the petition isn't notable. Please do add these sources, but information on the petition has no place here without them. Please be aware that forums or other self-published sources are not reliable. Яehevkor 18:52, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I can live with the last edit you made, and I am willing to leave it be. I still say there was no soapboxing being done in the later posts though. I was neutral in the giving of information and gave references. Oh, and by the way, the whole page existing is promotion, articles linked giving positive reviews or developement news are promotion. I mention a petition I had no part in making about fan reaction to a certain part of the game's developement and I am promoting and soapboxing. You can say that I have a personal stake in the petition, and maybe that's true because I did sign it, but anyone who posts anything about anything does it because they have a personal stake in it because it is part of their personal interests. My guess is that fans for the game wrote the wiki. No one is getting paid to post as far as I know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malekdarshin (talkcontribs) 19:47, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

We'll have to agree to disagree, linking to the petition (and edit warring) like that is soap boxing in my eyes, intended or not. Яehevkor 21:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Agreed to disagree then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malekdarshin (talkcontribs) 06:27, 24 April 2013 (UTC)

WP:VG discussion[edit]

Hey Rehevkor. I've seen you discussing this in the past on my watchlist, so I was wondering if you'd give your 2 cents at - Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 13:37, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

My edit on iPod touch[edit]

I got the source from The Next Web. --Kamran Mackey (talk) 20:34, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay. Please cite it? Do you have a link to this source? Яehevkor 20:53, 6 June 2013 (UTC)
You were very quick to revert, but slow to show this source! You can copy paste it here, I can sort it out for you if you can't cite it yourself, but H:FOOT has some information which may help you.. Яehevkor 09:57, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
Here you go: --Kamran Mackey (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

IP reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive216#User: reported by User:Guy Macon (Result: Level 1 pending changes protection ) (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, I had already them on their 4th revert this morning: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User: I'll withdraw mine as yours is more comprehensive. Яehevkor 17:47, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
It also seems there is somewhat of a backlog currently. :/ Яehevkor 17:48, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
Just think of it as more WP:ROPE (smile). --Guy Macon (talk) 18:12, 9 June 2013 (UTC)
The page and talk page are now under Level 1 pending changes protection, and the IP vandal has not edited any other pages since. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


With all due respect, I am not trying to do any kind of SEO/spam work with my additions from BoomPopMedia. If I wanted to SEO BoomPopMedia, I could just edit thousands of user pages and it would have the same effect. These were good faith additions with reasonable content - I am totally ok with removing them, but in some cases - like Tribes: Aerial Assault - where there are no citations whatsoever, I feel that the citations I included were better than nothing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AtlasBurden (talkcontribs) 22:12, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The fact remains it is not an established reliable source. It should not be used until it has been established as such. Яehevkor 12:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
I have stopped putting the citations into the articles. I was trying to help shore up weak articles, but I guess I won't anymore. AtlasBurden (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
(talk page stalker)Your efforts are appreciated, you just need to use sources other than BPM. (If you're only here to use BPM as a source, then you're here for the wrong reasons.) If you are interested in using other sources, there's plenty useable ones at WP:VG/RS... Sergecross73 msg me 21:08, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Geneva Motor Show[edit]

I'm confused by your reversion of my reference at Geneva Motor Show. It had a newly added, rather poor reference which I replaced with a reference by Car and Driver - a well respected magazine. I'm not sure what the conflict of interest is or when the admission of COI was. Have you confused me with AtlasBurden or someone else?  Stepho  talk  12:41, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Ah, my apologies. I was reverting about 10 instances of spamming and hadn't noticed the old ref had already been removed. Яehevkor 12:44, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
Okay, no problem.  Stepho  talk  12:47, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

section is for released platforms only[edit]

And that's said by... who? You? Haven't you noticed the "Unreleased" tag? And have you even bothered to check the usual custom for unreleased games in Wikipedia video games articles, especially when we are dealing with COMPLETED and LEAKED unreleased games? So much for you, I suppose. (Mr Wesker (talk) 23:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC))

I have checked and it's stated at Template:Infobox_video_game: "The console or operating system the game was released for." What do you mean by "So much for you, I suppose."? Яehevkor 07:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)
So much for you checking out articles of games which don't fulfill the rule. Here and here, some examples for you to notice. The supposed rule, if there's really any, is ambiguous and undefined to the point of being pretty much debatable. But do as you wish, I'm not going to try to argue with people that can't be reasoned to any longer. Wikipedia works that way with users that enforce some nonsense in one specific article and completely ignore the same in others. (Mr Wesker (talk) 21:13, 28 July 2013 (UTC))
Obviously games that were never released are an exception. Perhaps the topic could be raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. Assuming good faith could also do you a world of good too. Яehevkor 21:29, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Significant bands - sludge metal[edit]

Hi, I disagree with a reversion of an edit I made to the sludge metal page. You state that the Wordpress link is not enough - is this not what the "citation needed" tag is for? I think you should have raised the issue first, as it is trivial to find more sources talking about the sludge band Elitist/Bastard Feast - starting with Metal Archives, the definitive source for most metalheads, moving on thru major extreme metal zines like Terrorizer.

Also, what *is* significant? Should I delete most of the other bands on that page for having inadequate citations? At least one simply has a page from its own record label's site.

The point of the citation I chose wasn't to prove that they were significant - they are - but to prove that they are part of the southern sludge tradition. Since I now can't revert your edit lest I be accused of edit-warring, I can't add the extra citations. (talk) 15:06, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Bottom line is that Wordpress sites are self published and simply cannot be used. Significacnce is not necesserily the issue here, it's notability. The band has no Wikipedia aricle, so one cannot presume they're a notable based on a Wordpress blog. You may note every band on the list has an article and may make at the very least a claim to notability. Please see WP:RS for reference for reliable sources and raise the issue at Talk:Sludge metal. Яehevkor 15:18, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Broken Sword[edit]

Rehevkor - thank you for contributing a sensible question to this otherwise sterile conflict. You say that publisher aids in verification, particularly of printed media. Take a concrete (well, paper actually) example:

{{cite journal| journal=[[Retro Gamer]]| title=The Making of ... Broken Sword|first=David|last=Crookes| publisher=[[Imagine Publishing]]| pages=60–63| date=November 2006| issue=31}}

I don't see how anyone checking the citation is helped in any way by being told the publisher of the magazine. That's why the guidelines for citations in general don't recommend including it (see WP:Citing_sources#Journal_articles) and the guidelines for the cite template (Template:Cite_journal#Publisher) specifically say "Not normally included for periodicals". (The qualification "normally" allows an exception for really obscure journals, where publisher may be helpful in tracing them, but my changes only concern journals well-known enough to have their own WP article, which would of course provide publisher information, if anyone really wants it). My changes just bring the citations into line with recommended practice. Colonies Chris (talk) 10:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Your revert on Enter Shikari[edit]

Uh yeah, I checked Enter Shikari's feed on facebook today, which stated that the Barrowlands is an upcoming live DVD, and then there was a link to a song from the DVD. Sorry, I made an edit without much thinking, I should have thought that it could be anything. Yeah, thanks from the revert, I would have reverted myself anyway. CAT (CATLITTER) 04:53, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Links Being Removed[edit]


I'm Sivan and I've been getting messages form you regarding the external links I've been putting on some song terms on Wikipedia. The links are real links to real and legit lyric pages by the artists of each term. Moreover, Wikipedia seems to have no problem with lyrics referrals in general. In almost every song term on Wikipedia you can find a link to a page. As long as have their links on songs terms, it means that it is after all allowed by Wikipedia, and so our links should not be removed.

If you think there is anything else I should know, I'd be glad if you told me.

Thanks. Sivan qtrax Sivan qtrax (talk) 07:15, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

MetroLyrics is a licenced lyrics provider that respects copyright, it's basically the only one that I am aware of is accepted on Wikipedia. But this is irrelevant in light of your conflict of interest, you simply should not be linking as you are. Яehevkor 10:45, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Removal of Help desk section[edit]

Can you please explain this edit where you removed a Help desk section and my response to it? I did not find your edit summary of "rv technoquat" informative. It seems to me that this is one sort of query that the help desk exists to answer. DES (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The user is a sock of trolling user Technoquat, the user in question had already been blocked as an obvious sockpuppet, he's banned so any of his contributions are deleted. See Wikipedia talk:Help desk/Archive 11#WP:DENY and removal of several questions and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Technoquat for some background. The removal offended you so I apologise, but per WP:DENY replies should be deleted also. Яehevkor 17:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
I wasn't offended, I was confused, so i asked for an explanation, knowing that you as an established editor would have one. I admit that I am not very thrilled with WP:DENY, I think it is far too often used to remove otherwise worthwhile content. In this case the content was not in itself disruptive, IMO, but not particularly valuable either, so i won't object further nor restore the content. Thanks for your prompt response. DES (talk) 18:13, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Sludge metal (Oct 2013)[edit]

Hello, the user Vasil' is still insisting on the addition of the phrase 'sludgecore'. Please give your opinions on the talk page.--Shallowmead077 (talk) 17:58, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Discussion - who to judge if a link is compliant?[edit]

It seems that every time I write here on your talk, to open a discussion, you hurry to remove me.

As a Wikipedia editor, you tend to undo revisions a lot. I trust it does donate much to the editorial part of Wikipedia, and thanks god there are people like you, who invest their own time for the enjoyment of the public. But, there is a question I would like to raise - In a page, where there are a few websites that offer reliable, official, and licensed services, that directly relate to the term - how would you decide which one fits better for the users of Wikipedia?? I'll repeat it, to emphasize the point, both has the same licensing and agreements, both a are 100% and pay artists for their intellectual property that is being exposed for the enjoyment of the public - how then should a Wikipedia editor compare and prefer one on the other? What would you suggest here? What scale should an editor use in such matters? What would you consider fair and functional for the readers of Wikipedia?

Many thanks for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:01, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) I imagine WP:IRS and WP:CONSENSUS were major factors. I don't have a link to the actual discussion, maybe Rehevkor does, but that's generally a big part of it... Sergecross73 msg me 12:05, 7 November 2013 (UTC)
At this point weather or not the link has merit is secondary. When single purpose accounts (likely with a [[WP:COI|conflict of interest) insert a link into dozens of articles without consensus or taking heed of warnings, this is spamming (in violation of our external link policy), plain and simple, and it is treated as such. Then in retaliation there are acts of vandalism, personal attacks, sockpuppeting and general disruption, it makes it extremely difficult to assume good faith. Attacking me is not the way forward. If you feel the link has merit then there are avenues to bring it to the attention of people, without spamming, such as Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard or Wikipedia:WikiProject_Songs. I do encourage you to seek a consensus, disruptive editing will get you nowhere. Яehevkor 13:13, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Note - It looks like they are using bots now. See their comment on my talk page. - DVdm (talk) 10:05, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Cheers for the heads up, based on that I've put a request in to have it blacklisted at Яehevkor 10:39, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Again, I appreciate much your advise, and we use the things you offered in order to gain trust and consensus about the legalities of our service, and its value to wikipedia users. The thing which i do not understand, is why you insist to include Qtrax in a spammers list? After all, we are suggesting an external link, free for users to enjoy, yet we are paying to the artists and ip owners. There are so many piracy in the online music trade, yet when a legal service that benefits both the audience and artists is being banned here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:55, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you summed up the problem pretty well yourself; its deemed spamming because you're doing it for the website and the artists, and not to better the Wikipedia project. Wikipedia is not here to use as your source of free advertisement. Sergecross73 msg me 14:16, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
I'll defer to what Sergecross73 said here for the most part. But additionally, I feel I should make it clear that I, and likely everyone else involved, has nothing to do with the linking of MetroLyrics, and if I was I can't say I'd have even supported its use. Again, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Songs seems to best place to discuss that. Яehevkor 14:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I read your discussion here, and I'd like to refer you to a few things I have found in my research here on Wikipedia.

After reading all the above, in my opinion Qtrax is not so different than MetroLyrics. It seems to be fully legal and licensed. I think they have a good claim here, if wikipedia can't offer lyrics, and a result offer external link to a licensed service, then Qtrax should be good as MetroLyrics for that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EZekiEl tWenti5 7teen (talkcontribs) 19:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Erm, at this point there is nothing more to add here, if you feel the link has merit or whatever there are other venues mentioned above. Whoever asked you to come here to say this should probably have mentioned this already. Яehevkor 19:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)
Why do all these Qtrax people (or maybe its still just the same one person) seem to think your talk page is the place to get approval to spam their website? When were you appointed head person of Wikipedia's use of lyrics websites?? ;) Sergecross73 msg me 19:39, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

just because someone oppose your opinion in a a healthy discussion, doesn't mean he represents anyone --EZekiEl tWenti5 7teen (talk) 20:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

I think I'm just popular :P Яehevkor 20:06, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Fire Emblem (video game)#Requested move 2013[edit]

Another move request is made, but it's not the title originally proposed in 2008. Join in. --George Ho (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

The move request is relisted. Join in discussion to comment. --George Ho (talk) 01:46, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello from Lifehacker land![edit]

Great to see there's annother devotee to the process who reads wikipedia ;) Hasteur (talk) 20:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

  • gasp* How did you know it was me?! Hello hello! Яehevkor 21:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Bravest Warriors - Youtube as source[edit]

Re: your reversion here I should have checked!  :) Thanks for the correction and the edification. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:48, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

when you add citation[edit]

make sure to fill in the title parameter.Lucia Black (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Excuse me? Яehevkor 17:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Ian Watkins[edit]

hello, could you maybe fill me in a little more as to why you reverted my edit? are youtube sources not allowed? also why are his religious views not important? thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ophuls20393 (talkcontribs) 22:04, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

YouTube videos are not reliably published the vast majority of the time. And unless his religious views have received some coverage from reliable intendant sources then it's not really important (or notable). Яehevkor 00:03, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Holiday wishes![edit]

Koch Snowflake 7th iteration.svg
Rehevkor, thanks for your hard work this year, you deserve wonderful holidays!

I wish you success and happiness in your endeavours for this coming year, and I hope we'll be able to carry on improving the wonderful project that is Wikipedia together! Keep rocking on! :)

  • Salvidrim!, wrapping up another great year of collaboration with y'all!
Cheers Salvidrim! And I hope you have a wonderful time yourself. Яehevkor 20:18, 23 December 2013 (UTC)


We need to be precise and to avoid confusion for the readers. He has never published on a music magazine or for a professional publishing company. he's non professional. This has to be said. My main concern is neutrality. You're supposed to be a stalker anyway which means if I'm not wrong that you can't take part in editing. Woovee (talk) 17:07, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Why do you have erased Dan Morell who wrote this elogious article about Scaruffi? Dan Morell has only contributed 4 articles for this paper. I gave a source, this is to bring nuances. This means that Morell didn't fit to the NYT criteria of high quality if he doesn't work work for them anymore. I don't say this in the article, I let people judge by themselves and ponder. If Scaruffi had received praise by Jon Pareles who wrote tons of very important musical reviews for the NYT, that would have been something else. Woovee (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
A couple of things to be cleared up.
  • "Talk Page Stalker" just means they're someone who has another person's talk page on their watchlist. They're free to take part in editing. Some could be irritated by talk page stalkers, in theory, but I always encourage them to chime in on my talk page, and help out. Sometimes they help before people
  • You don't need to focus so much on "what he isn't", Woovee. He's also not an astronaut, or a firefighter, but we don't put that in there either, right? Its right to remove any statements that say he is a professional, but you don't have to go out of your way to call him non-professional. If its not stated in the first place, there's no reason for the reader to assume it so. Sergecross73 msg me 17:21, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
It's not relevant, NYT published the article and how many other articles of his they published has no bearing on this, especially not on Scaruffi. It's POV pushing by trying to discredit Morell somehow and it shouldn't be done. Яehevkor 17:28, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Could you read my reply in the talk? I've just raised several new points after your post and one would need your point of view on this too. Woovee (talk) 12:24, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Arbitrary Removal[edit]

Dear Matthew, I do not think arbitrary removal of links that add to the sources of information are such a good idea. You could have let me know your problems with the links I added before removing them instead of removing them first and then dropping in a line. Kindly don't do that. Citations and sources are being provided. No opinion is being added. Be a little tolerant of others' understanding of what is befitting of an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prastavanasingh007 (talkcontribs) 18:16, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

You should consider using more care when inserting links - the several of your contributions are adding links to articles where they are not needed. Why are you linking to this particular website? Are you in some way affiliated with it? It seems to be patent reference spamming and I've not seen anything to convince me otherwise. I'm not convinced it's a usable reliable source either. Яehevkor 19:30, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Matthew, First and foremost, there is no affiliation that I have with the concerned website. But I did find that the website has a section that is useful as a source for some of the articles published on Wikipedia. As for Junko Furuta, look closely and you would find that except for Crime Library, there is not other website other than this one that has any content at all. Much of the information about the case comes from blogs and not from reliable websites. You might not have noticed but Junko Furuta article was published on that website before even Crime Library published the story. Furthermore, that particular article is more elaborate than the Crime Library story about the same case, and Crime Library is perhaps the best website on Crime. Those things convinced me that it was a good idea to provide additional source to the article. I found more such articles and provided additional links so that our readers had more external sources to refer to. Be a little more open minded and less suspicious, and also try keeping the prejudices aside. Hope that explains a few things. I am new to Wikipedia and I would like to contribute in a meaningful way. Kindly consider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prastavanasingh007 (talkcontribs) 23:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Dear Matthew, It is further requested that you consider reversing the removal of the links that I added. I can do that myself, but I am sure you would see the point yourself. I respect your opinion, but push things to the point where I start considering and questioning the value of your contributions the website. You wouldn't like it either.--Prastavanasingh007 (talk) 23:33, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Sludge metal (April 2014)[edit]

Since Vasil is inactive I guess, suddenly a random IP and a user show up to add 'sludgecore' in the lead. Shallowmead077 (talk) 07:35, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks![edit]

Just wanted to drop by and say thanks for the advice/guidance on the Game page. Will proceed with some additive edits (seems they are more appropriate rather than any page split) and wait for community feedback. Cheers for taking the time - much appreciated! ShourenUK (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

No problem. I will keep an eye on the article and let you know of any issues. Cheers! Яehevkor 11:16, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Ingress (game)[edit]

I'd say your rollback was accurate, I'd still like to have seen it stay though. The page I cited is where Niantic Labs (Google) likes to leak their new updates. The game is kind of mysterious with their story line, as the two human factions are fighting for control for the minds of humanity. Any new info that reaches the public is on purpose, it's just supposed to be "leaked" and "secret". Knowing the game and how they develop features, this is a reliable source, but it's not on Google's site or a major news outlet so it does make sense.cliffsteinman -- Discuss 12:46, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The mysterious nature would not aid in sourcing at this point, Decode Ingress is still essentially fansite regardless of where they get their information, unreliable. Unless there's something concrete put out by developers rumour shouldn't be addressed, unless perhaps it's covered by 3rd party reliable sources (which Decode Ingress is not). The subjective April 12th date mentioned in the source came and went without interest. (Plus, they'd be silly to release a new faction before the playerbase of the 2 current factions balances out a bit) Яehevkor 13:00, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

FA review[edit]

Hi Rehevkor. Do you wish to check the prose or non-free media files in Megadeth, my FA nominee? The review page is here, so your input will be appreciated. If not interested, please write me back so that I know whether to contact another editor. All the best.--Retrohead (talk) 07:14, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Me again. Just to ask were you planning to review Megadeth, or should I contact someone else?--Retrohead (talk) 14:48, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
Hello there, I've been quite busy with job hunting to engage in anything lately I'm afraid - I'll try to get a look in this weekend and put a word in this weekend though. Яehevkor 15:41, 11 July 2014 (UTC)