User talk:Undead Herle King

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

...[edit]

  • Nice user page...--Mariocossio 21:07, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

OK[edit]

I don't know if I'll be able to do this for long, but I'll give it a try. Please read over WP:OR, WP:NOT#IINFO, WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. After you do that, read the rest of this.

Most of the information that you readd is original research. Some of it happens in the game, but the game cannot be used to source it. The game can be used for "Mario can jump", but it cannot cite changes between versions. Besides that, we don't cover indiscriminate bits of info. They need to be able to be verified by reliable sources (going right back to the OR). The others like "Graphics" and "Music and sound" are also complete OR. The kings have already been removed by someone else, so I hope you'll leave those alone. TTN 18:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

...[edit]

What are you talking about? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see what you're talking about.
  • smacks you upside the head* Think before you say stupid stuff. I'm such of a sockpuppet that I reverted his addition of a merge tag to Koopa Troopa and Goomba. Dur. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply[edit]

Only administrators can delete pages. —Kurykh 03:55, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

No, speedy deletion is currently the quickest way to do it. You can blank then tag, if you really want to obscure the contents. —Kurykh 04:07, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Pixie dust[edit]

'"Pixie dust" althought not under this name is not a concept invented with Barrie's Tinkerbell, the concept of magical powder is ancient and that is what shall be presented here...'

If it wasn't called "pixie dust", why put the information into an article by that name? For that matter, why not wait until you have some information about this "ancient concept" (complete with sources to establish notability of the subject as an independent topic) rather than reviving a trivial article like pixie dust? - JasonAQuest (talk) 12:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
For lack of a better word as both I lack the time to input any such source and knowledge of how to rename the article under the more general word that, althought not essentially better, is more useful and accessible or well, maybe it is better (I'm undecided) but I shall say that either way (whether i is a better word or "just as good") it would certainly give more to speak; Which is this alternative name that I cannot put into the title for lack of knowledge of the how-to? It is "magic powder". If the article is just deleted it wont have time to gather enough viewers able to add up on its content until the depth and antiquity, and thus the value of the page, is proven. Furthermore, even under a misguiding title it had already developed some following as to have more content than many equally valuable stubs. So as to why am I impatient as to rescue it even when it has single-handledy determined as trivial? Because once deleted it becomes invisible and there's a lot that can be added to it... Fantasy, both from literature and believe, has magic powders and magically enchanted dusts as elements of it everywhere... In Literature it is just another regular trope, in myth it becomes the religious equivalent to that... Undead Herle King (talk) 13:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll agree with you on one point: if the article doesn't exist it won't attract material. The problem is that for all the time pixie dust has existed, it's attracted garbage. Look at the edit history; it's littered with additions of random things that someone somewhere has called "pixie dust", none of which have any connection with this magical powder theme of yours except that someone wants to make the stuff sound like something out of Peter Pan. But of course it isn't. The article you seem to want this article to become doesn't even sound like an encyclopedia article, but some kind of research paper about the theme of magical powders in the literature and ancient legends. And even if such an article belongs on Wikipedia, this article is not that, and the name doesn't fit; go create that article and let this half-baked mess die. - JasonAQuest (talk) 00:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:[edit]

What is your unsigned ID? From what I remember, I haven't warned anyone concerned Boeheim's page in a while. Thanks. GoCuse44 (talk) 17:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, if it was my fault, then I apologize. Certainly don't mean to warn someone that doesn't deserve it. GoCuse44 (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Botany[edit]

Hi! You removed a link at Botany with this diff. Can I remind you of WP:Assume good faith and WP:Civility? I agree that the link was not needed, but perhaps you could have put it more kindly in your edit summary? Richard New Forest (talk) 08:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Eunuch[edit]

Hi. I've reverted your entries on Human voice and Singing. As far as I'm aware there is no connection between eunuchs and either of these subjects. Are you perhaps referring to Castrato? ♦ Jongleur100 talk 09:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Mouse/Mole[edit]

Information.svg Please do not add or change content without citing verifiable and reliable sources, as you did to Topo Gigio. 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. Fliponymous (talk) 15:12, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I speak Spanish, it's my mother tongue, that's my source, and I know some ItalianUndead Herle King (talk) 02:06, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

oh damn, my bad, I hate to admit it when I make a mistake... thing is "topo" is a false cogante between Italian and Spanish, in Italian "topo" is mouse, in Spanish "topo" is raton... damn...Undead Herle King (talk) 02:13, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

anyway the mistake was in good faith, it was nothing controversial!!!!!Undead Herle King (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Changing America to US[edit]

Please keep with the sources rather than changing American to US like you did in Conservapedia. American can mean relating to the USA and your change makes what is there conflict with the sources that referred to it in that way and how it refers to itself. It is not up to you to override sources because of yor point of view. Dmcq (talk) 21:11, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

My point of view? I'm going for neutrality, America is a continent, North America is a sub continent, SouthAmerica is a subcontinent, United States of America is a country, it aint my fault it lacks a proper demonymUndead Herle King (talk) 21:35, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Nothing to do with neutrality. Please show sources referring to it as a US encyclopaedia rather than an American one. Dmcq (talk) 23:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
I have asked at WT:WikiProject United States#America is a continent not a country that they indicate the genberal policy on this sort of thing. Dmcq (talk) 23:50, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

You're entitled to your opinion, but please stop acting as if it were the norm in English. If you can't stand distinguishing the two continents of North and South America, "the New World" and "the Americas" are available.
—WWoods (talk) 02:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Indian Spot-Billed Duck[edit]

This is an automated message from VWBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Indian Spot-Billed Duck, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Indian Spot-billed Duck. 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) 06:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

If a non-bot reads this... I don't know how to clear the mess, before I intervined somehow the same search criteria could lead either to an empty page or to the appropiate page now the search criteria has a similiar bifurcation but both ways lead to an appropiate article on the Spot-billed duck however the older article has a warning while the newer does not.Undead Herle King (talk) 06:20, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Sport[edit]

Your mass reversion of edits was singularly unhelpful, not least of all because the new structure is well cited (per WP:V and WP:CITE), unlike the previous work. Also, your characterisation of me as a vandal breaks WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL. If you want to do that sort of reversion, take it to talk. OwainDavies (about)(talk) edited at 19:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 29[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.

List of fictional dogs in animation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
added links pointing to Winston, Barney, Satch and Reginald

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)