User talk:Duhman0009

Computer vision syndrome

It was NOT personal opinion, the video was GENUINELY NONSENSE. Plus the advertising in the video is OBVIOUS (which isnt allowed on wikipedia anyway).

--Purpleone 18:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Eternal links

Please read the Talk:Computer vision syndrome page and follow up with some genuine refs if you want to help, instead of adding questionable EL to a one guy's view. Dicklyon 16:58, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Mother Brain in Aurora Units

Nobody seemed to have a problem with the paragraph as it was in Mother Brain (Metroid) (which I pretty much just copied over word-for-word), but I've gone ahead and reworded it to make it clearer anyways. Arrowned 19:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep in mind that I'm not the one who wrote all that; the info was on the Mother Brain page long before I copied it over. I just copied it because it was better worded about the whole situation.

That said, I believe the e-manga makes it pretty clear that Mother Brain was originally a Chozo creation, though the timeline is open for debate. The other sources, I'm assuming, would be various game intros and manuals, but I really don't recall any blatant disagreement offhand (to be fair, it's been forever since I read most of the manuals). If you disagree with all this, feel free to bring it up on Mother Brain's talk page, as I'm sure people would agree that it needs to be changed with legit arguments. Arrowned 19:44, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Gs3ds.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Gs3ds.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Fanboyism

Why the heck are you accussing me of fanboyism? You should read WP:Civility before editing yourself. I didn't removed the sentence because of fanboyism, but rather because during editing, I cut the sentence and forgot to paste it again. Besides, I actually consider the fact that it doesn't have any touch screen nonsense to be a plus. And I do acknowledge other negative points of the game such as the changed continuity, the fact that the two new main characters don't add anything, lack of 2-Player mode in Classic Contra and the "Gryzor" mistake in Museum mode. Jonny2x4 (talk) 15:34, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

RE: Izuna

"I added back the criticism of this game that you removed. Do not remove it again, fanboyism will not be tolerated."

I don't quite understand? First off, I've never even played the game before in my life or know anyone who has it either. It's not very nice or polite to accuse strangers of fanboyism. Or fangirlism in any case.

Secondly, I'm sure I removed it because it looked unprofessional. Here it is again:

This game makes no usage of any of the Nintendo DS' unique features (touch screen, Wi-Fi, microphone) other than using the top screen to show dialog and the dungeon floor map.

1) "This game" - Saying "this game" instead of "the game" or "Izuna: Legend of the Unemployed Ninja" sounds really, really horrid. I mean, it sounds almost as if some pissed off person got frustrated with the game and just wrote it out of anger.

2) Nintendo DS' unique features - Again, this is insult to injury. I'm talking about the "unique" part.

3) "other than using the top screen to show dialog and the dungeon floor map." - Since when was having one screen showing a map and the other screen showing dialogue (yes, it's spelled dialogue unless this was a typo) unique? As far as I know, countless countless countless games have that. Examples: Super Mario 64, Metroid Prime, LostMagic, etc.

And last but not least...

Why is this in the -Gameplay- section? You said "I added back the criticism". If it is critism, what is it doing in the gameplay section in the first place? Shouldn't it be in the reception? What do you think? Aileza (talk) 09:43, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, also can I have your permission to rewrite it and put it in the reception section then? It's not as if you're an administrator or anything, but if it's okay with you. Aileza (talk) 09:47, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

All done..thank you! Aileza (talk) 23:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Trivia

If you don't want your contributions deleted then don't add useless unsourced trivia to WP. Pretty simple. Deiz talk 10:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If you continue to disrupt Wikipedia by readding unsourced trivia after removal according to WP:V, an official policy, and continue being rude into the bargain, you will be blocked. Deiz talk 09:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

24hr block for continued disregard of policy (WP:V) plus incivility. Please ensure your contributions are sourced, please do not take exception to having to follow the rules, and please do not "dare" administrators to block you. Because they will. Deiz talk 06:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You have my sympathy, Duhman0009. I find there is a lot of bullying by admins around here. Linkboyz (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I hope I can bring justice to this case. I won't bother banning other proxy servers since it was only 24 hours, but first thing tomorrow, I'll have a lot of things to post regarding this, everything is already written, ready to be pasted. Duhman0009 (talk) 21:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, there is no big conspiracy to keep out a reference to Rush Hour 2 from the 7-11 article. It was an ordinary edit war, they happen all the time. The proper course of action is to discuss on the article talk page. Allegations of abuse and conspiracy only serve to inflame disputes. Mr.Z-man 04:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

"conspiracy to keep out a reference to Rush Hour 2 from the 7-11 article" - I don't think I'm the only one who finds that that sounds quite silly. If by "challenge his authority" you mean taunt him to block you then yes, you did. You may wish to see this essay. It isn't specifically about situations like this, but it still applies. Just becasue he did not remove the entire section does not mean that he has some sort of anti-Rush Hour POV. Are you suggesting that you would not have reverted if he did remove the entire section? If so, why did you not take the high road and remove the entire section yourself? You made an edit, he reverted, you reverted, he reverted, etc. That is the definition of an edit war. Admins have no special authority over the content of articles, its a user access level with additional tools. Except for the blocking, which has been decided was inappropriate, everything he did was as an editor, not an admin. Mr.Z-man 04:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to pursue dispute resolution, but you have no evidence that Deiz has a POV that he was trying to push, as all he did was to maintain the status quo, and it has already been decided that the block was incorrect. If you take out the block, this was clearly an edit war; I've seen dozens, it is quite obvious to me. No, he should not have blocked you, but one misuse of tools is not a reason to have them removed. You would need to show a pattern of abuse. While I would agree that they all should have been removed (and never added in the first place), not doing something is not an abuse. As far as resolving your conflict goes, you should discuss it on the talk page, stay civil (comment on edits, not editors), and be open to compromise. Mr.Z-man 05:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

The article history, to any outside observer, is evidence of an ordinary content dispute, which is why your last post to WP:AN was closed - content disputes don't need admin intervention, just discussion. If you added multiple things and he only removed one, that could be evidence, but what happened is more like a cop not pulling over everyone who is speeding. Any user can enforce the rules. If you get reverted, then you discuss. You may wish to read Wikipedia:Administrators - admins have no special authority in content matters. Mr.Z-man 06:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Street Fighter Alpha

here and here.Master Bigode (talk) 03:42, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Reliable Sources

Hi, after following your thread, I just wanted to suggest you read this: Wikipedia:Reliable sources. As you will see, it does not preclude sources that are not on the web. In fact, you'll find over time that most peer-reviewed, scholarly material (the best reliable source) is not freely available on the web. For instance, most peer-reviewed scientific articles supply free abstracts online, but one must pay for the detailed material. When it comes to topics have historical details, often there is no online details, but books are the source etc. etc.

In Wikipedia, editors usually assume good faith so that citations are not necessarily challenged even if they are not linkable. That said, an editor who provide said citations should be able to respond to a good faith query. This is why I took a little effort to scan some documents. I was never asked for evidence, but I had it handy just in case. That was probably overkill for Wikipedia, but I'm that kind of a writer. Mattnad (talk) 13:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Wii Fit

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wii Fit. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Dancter (talk) 06:01, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh it's 3 now, well I guess I'll need to ask more friends to help me out here. Also, I hope you warned the others or I might have to shout favoritism. Duhman0009 (talk) 13:30, 18 May 2008 (UTC)