User talk:CBFan

Hello CBFan, and welcome to Wikipedia! The first thing you should know is that we encourage you to be bold. Feel free to edit and improve articles, by clicking any 'edit' link.

If you'd like to test what Wikipedia can do, check out the sandbox - just type and save the page and your text will appear. That's the beauty of a Wiki.

For more information check out some of the important links below. If you really need help, just type {{helpme}} on your user page. It's that easy!

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

If you'd like to get involved with current projects, have a look at the Community Portal. There are always tasks for users to do, ranging from copyediting to expanding stubs.

I hope you'll enjoy your time here, but be warned, it can become addictive! Feel free to message me, I'm more than happy to help. As an added tip, sign any message you post so users know that you've said it. To do so is delightfully simple, just use the wikicode ~~~~.

Once again, welcome! -Jfingers88 17:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

While reverting the edits of 161.184.48.207 in Zoo Tycoon 2, what you said to him was quite rude. I don't think he's lying at all (although great whites would probably not appear in Marine Mania, since they cannot survive in captivity).

By the way, this is not a warning. Giant Blue Anteater 01:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Pot, kettle, black.

I was reverting your vandalism of this article. It is vandalism for you to remove legitimate complaints, and you accuse me of being a Mario fanboy because I dare claim that CTTR could be a clone of MKDD. It does not mention on CTR that it's a clone of MK64 because it's NOT. It is a kart racer. The only reason it could be interpreted as a clone is because it capitalized on the success of kart racers. But what are the odds that the developer made a game where you race and can have two racers on one kart after MKDD came out? You're creating an argument that CTTR is not a clone, trying to debunk the idea that it is. You are putting 110% into keeping this criticism off of the article. I am not the one who advertises his Crash Bandicoot fanboyism. You are paranoid, thinking that my sole purpose isn't to tell the truth, but rather disparage the Crash Bandicoot franchise (of which only five Mario games are ahead of the best CB game, the third). Grow up, kiddo. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, right - I mean, you were only vehemently against having CTTR even hinted that it is MKDD, that clearly isn't having an opinion. Stating that "others disagree wholeheartedly" is both POV and making an argument. Why doesn't FFVI say "many people consider it to be the best game in the series, while others disagree wholeheartedly"? It is a legitimate criticism that you are trying to downplay. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Crash Tag Team Racing is more a clone than Crash Team Racing. Crash Team Racing was made because Mario Kart popularized the genre. It is a clone in the sense that the success of the genre inspired its existence. Two characters in one kart is far more obscure than an entire genre. Crash Bandicoot was inspired by Mario as well, but it's not a "clone". The dual kart concept is far more obscure than an entire genre. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's against WP styling guidelines to say that many disagree (it's called "weasel words", presenting something as NPOV by saying that many agree or disagree). What I am doing is providing an opinion of critics. It deserves to be mentioned as much as the other criticisms. If you want to argue that people specifically think it's not a clone of Mario Kart DD at all, show a reputable source saying so. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You do the same as I did with the IGN link. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Page protection

Hi, I noticed your comment about protection for the Zoo Tycoon 2: Dino Danger Pack article. This is just to let you know that adding the {{sprotect}} tag does not apply protection, and it doesn't even deter vandals. Only administrators can apply protection. You can request protection from an administrator or at Requests for page protection. Do however read up on the protection policy, because it's not something we generally like to do. Thanks for reading. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi again CBFan. Clearly the anon editor is simply being disruptive in refusing to even discuss whether his/her additions are referenced (I know what the official site says). I'd like to ask you to refrain from any personal attacks and name-calling, just revert the edits, and familiarise yourself with 3RR (if you haven't already), and then a likely conclusion will be that the anon will get blocked. They will probably get blocked for disruption anyway. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Robot Wars

Hey there,

I couldn't help but noticed that you'd reverted some vandalism on the Robot Wars article lately, and also your userpage mentions that you like the show. I am keen to rewrite the article to a decent standard, perhaps creating an article solely for the UK series of Robot Wars, and make it fully referenced, add pictures, and so on - would you like to help?

Regards, CountdownCrispy ^{( ?} 14:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hullo again,

I've started a page at Robot Wars/Rewrite so that users can write a new and extensive article without having to sift through the current level of unnecessary detail and general rubbish. Your knowledge of later series is great to hear; even if it's not all that extensive, every little helps as we try to turn a mess of an article into a triumph. As for pictures, I am able to take screen captures from any repeats broadcast on Sky or whatever, and once the article starts to take shape I intend to contact some roboteers to see if they have any free images which we could use.

Thanks again for replying, and I hope that you are able to contribute in some way, however big or small it may be. -- CountdownCrispy ^{( ?} 21:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't Spam Me

I go to a Wikipedia article Standard Model and before I can log on I have this message from you.

The IP address I logged onto is floating and assigned by the server (along with maybe several million other people who use the same system.) I was not amused to unreasonably be subject to your rant:

"Moronator, you amuse us all with your stupidity."

I say go look in a mirror. - Swlenz 07:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I regret my last line -- no value in tossing an insult at you. You apparently did not realize that you flamed a dynamic IP address User talk:71.131.19.156. When I went to Wikipedia most recently, the server randomly assigned me that address (it is part of Yahoo, and there must be a million people that could have been assigned it). As you probably now realize, getting a nastygram for no reason (or in your case, no self-evident reason) is really annoying.

I looked at your contributions, and you have apparently flamed several dynamic IPs. I suggest that you clean those up so that future innocent parties won't get pissed at you too. Swlenz 16:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Name-calling

...isn't nice. Please don't leave nasty comment like this in your edit summaries. Please read WP:CIVIL. --Elliskev 22:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove warnings. I took a look at your contribution history. I'm handing this off to an admin. --Elliskev 22:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi CBFan. I've asked you nicely about this before, and I'll ask you once more. Edit summaries like this, this, and this are unacceptable on Wikipedia and quite frankly are going to get you blocked from editing, and that would be a shame because you fix a lot of things around here. I know there are some unconstructive editors around, but please don't call them names. Have a look at this. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I am an admin here who was approched by Elliskev and asked to look at your edit summaries. I am just going to add the the above requests to tone down the inpoliteness please. TIA Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 01:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Papu Papu. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ST47Talk 14:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Friendly advice

Hi.

I've been checking out some of your edit summaries since I left a previous warning (and the applicable edits). Your edits are very good. Commendable.

Maybe I was a bit harsh in my warning. I think I should have tried to approach you in a more helpful spirit. Anyway... I notice that most of your edit summaries are written in a conversational tone. You appear to be 'speaking' to the person that contributed the edit that you are modifying or reverting. That's not a bad thing in-and-of-itself. However, there's a sneaky little danger that goes along with it. When you write your edit summaries that way, the edit summary can be read as commentary on the editor to which it applies.

I hope you take my advice for what it is... It's just advice from some guy you don't know and will probably never meet and you probably will be just fine never meeting... But, I just want to suggest that you make an attempt to change the approach you are taking with your edit summaries from a conversational tone to an explanatory tone. Doing so will provide the rest of the community with a good understanding of the logic you are using to make your edit and, more importantly, nurture a sense of peership (if that's a word) with the editor that contributed the work that you are reverting or modifying. --Elliskev 01:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions[1] made on January 11 2007 to Dingodile

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 12 hours. William M. Connolley 19:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm amazed. Have you really learnt nothing from being blocked once? You are not immune to 3RR. 24h William M. Connolley 13:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's HIS fault! He's the one doing all the bogus editing. If you didn't noticed, I stopped before I hit the 3RR bit, HE didn't. Please don't talk to me this way as if I am SOLELY to blame for the incident. User: CBFan

January 21, 2007

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Crash Bandicoot: The Wrath of Cortex. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule in regard to the article Crash Team Racing. Other users in violation have also been blocked. The timing of this block is coincidental, and does not represent an endorsement of the current article revision. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future on the article's talk page (Talk:Crash Team Racing).

--²¹⁰physicq (c) 23:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you can say you'll both be banned for violating WP:3RR and be reverting at the same time. And I don't want you pointing fingers at him; you know better than to revert war. You have been blocked for 31 hours. Engage in another 3RR violation, and the block lengths will only go up. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 23:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I say that because you have a history of 3RR violations, and you continue to violate policy despite the consequences. I blocked both of you for an equal amount of time, so I don't see how it's not fair. Just stop edit-warring, no matter who's to blame. How hard is that? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 23:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

And no, I do not put the blame solely on you, contrary to your assertions. But you are worthy of blame and reprimand for your actions. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 23:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Jan 27, 2007

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Crash Bandicoot: The Wrath of Cortex. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --science4sail ^talkcon 20:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Shadow1 (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

3RR violation at Doctor Neo Cortex

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. -- ReyBrujo 20:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Neo Cortex

I have also fully protected the article, thus I want to see a discussion in Talk:Doctor Neo Cortex after your block is finished. If after the article is unprotected you continue to edit war without discussing, you may be blocked without further warnings. -- ReyBrujo 20:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 18:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:61.230.75.183.