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)

Page Deletion

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Atlantis Newcomers. It may be considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

There is a proper way to delete unencyclopedic pages. Please see WP:AFD Feeeshboy 21:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Citations

On the Koala Kong page, you asked for a guide on how to cite sources, so I direct you to the appropriate page, here. Until you do cite the source, I'm going to leave the tag on that page, because that's just how Wikipedia works.

• Post it in English. I can't understand half of this.

• You seem to have figured it out, now I ask that you improve the citation a bit. That picture on it's own could be anything, you need to put it in context. How about the linking the page it appears on?

Template:Crash series

Time to cool down...

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Template:Crash series. 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. -- Scientizzle 16:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• I was aware of the 3rr warning I had received, and I was trying to get it back to the neutral phase. However, the other guy who was involved blatantly ignored the warning and continued to edit. Now his edit is up there, it isn't neutral and we can't edit it. CBFan 17:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, sometimes the Wrong Version is left up following 3RR blocks...Perhaps when the blocks are up you two, and other editors, can work towards creating a "right" version. -- Scientizzle 19:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nitros Oxide. 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 which gains a consensus among editors. . Purgatory Fubar 17:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you two attempted to settle your disputes in another way? Have you tried Wikipedia:Requests for mediation? Please look at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for other methods, too. -- Scientizzle 19:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• How come he's been unblocked and I haven't? You're making me think you think I'm soley to blame for this. CBFan 08:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV report

Hi, the report you filed at AIV is not strictly vandalism. May I suggest taking it to WP:ANI if you would like someone to look into it further. Thanks. Bubba hotep 16:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Crash Canon

You said you'd show me where the offical canon was layed out by every developer? I figured here would be the best place for it. Much appreciated.

• Until you stop creating numerous accounts, why should I tell you? You're a vandal for all I know. Besides, I did NOT say what you said because that is not true. I said, quite clearly, I'd show you which games were canon. Sheesh.

• For the last time, I am not swapping accounts, that's my IP. Of course, you'll just delete this because you'd rather believe I'm creating a bunch of accounts and swapping between them, right? If you have something official, put it here, otherwise, I'm not holding to your personal fanon.

• I'm sorry, but it was 86.42.111.145 who asked me where the official canon was laid out and you're 86.42.108.170. There. Proof you are changing IP accounts.

• I have a floating IP, genius. It changes. Besides, what does it matter? I've made it very clear I'm the same person, so it doesn't violate any wiki rules. Now, how about showing me that official canon?

• Only once you stop vandalising the Dingodile page with your opinion.

• Is it my opinion that there are conflicting accounts of Dingodile's creation? No, it isn't. Your version states that Cortex created him, then in brackets, Brio as a possibility. That's biased in favor of Cortex. Therefore, we should simply state that there are conflicting accounts and leave it at that. Now, if you actually do have a source, and aren't simply bluffing, show me that offical canon.

• Then it is obvious you are incapable of reading. My version states that BOTH Cortex or Brio COULD have created him, and the reason Brio is in brackets is because it is mentioned that Cortex created Dingodile in TWO of the game manuals, whilst it is mentioned that Brio created Dingodile in only ONE manual, thereby making it perhaps a bit more likely (without taking sides) that Cortex is the creator and Brio isn't. THAT is not biasey. Your version adds a pointless bit of trivia, as I've said before, and has been incorporated INTO the text. But, of course, you just went "HU-WHA!" and vandalised. Since you are incapable of reading, adding the official canon now seems pointless, as you can't read it.

• But it still takes sides. They should be mentioned on equal terms because there is no consensus. My version is not pointless, it's quite valid, and it explains why there's confusion, somthing your version does not do. Obviously, you don't have any source, or you would have posted it instead of making excuses, so I'm not following your personal fanon. Oh, and before you call other people's languages skills into question, you might want to sharpen your own. "Biasey" isn't a word.

• There is a consensus, as two manuals mention Cortex, one mentions Brio... people are sure to think that the one with the greater information is correct. Your version, as stated before, adds pointless trivia, so it was not going to work. And you've not even TRIED to give me ANY time to post the source, but instead made me rant and rave, so it is NOT a personal fanon. Also, Biasey IS a word, and I have been using it for a long time. I might as well say that "Consensus" is not a word either, at this rate.

• Uh...that's not consensus. Whatever people assume, Wikipedia should not, and should give no bias. I haev asked you three times to post the source, but you've either ignored it or made an excuse. Why not post it now? And, Biasey is not a word. I think "biased" is the word you're looking for? It might be worth you investing in a dictionary.

• The canon storyline is Crash Bandicoot, Cortex Strikes Back, Warped, Wrath Of Cortex and Twinsanity (Team Racing is sometimes used, but that is probably fanon). The first three games are obviously connected, as are the latter two. Warped and Wrath Of Cortex are connected by the official statement (the same one you winge about not existing) and all five games are numbered in Japan. That was easy. Now stop telling lies about me.

• Right, and where's the official source? Wrath of Cortex can not discount CTR, as it was produced after it, so if anything, WoC would be non-canon. Ditto Twinsanity. The Japanese names of the games have no bearing, as that would be handled by someone else. In conclusion, there is no official canon unless all the developers get together and decide one. Trying to impose one qualifies as original research. Thank you.

• And trying to diss Universal is very stupid and something a vandal would do... EXACTLY what you're doing at the moment. The statement was written on the official Crash Bandicoot site, and counts Crash Bandicoot through to Wrath Of Cortex without going through Team Racing and Bash. Then we add the fact that Twinsanity follows directly from Wrath Of Cortex. The only person trying to impose an official canon is you by saying Team Racing is canon, but Wrath Of Cortex and Twinsanity are not. You're losing your own argument.

• I'm not dissing Universal, I've nothing against them. WoC can not dismiss CTR and CB as non-canon, because they're not from the same creators. They don't have the authority to do that. Oh, and I'm not trying to impose an offical canon. I'm not taking games out of articles like you are with Bash. I'm leaving them all in because there is no offical canon.

• You obviously are, because you're saying that their official statement is non-existant. Oh, and I'm not trying to put my fanon into my articles. I'm meerly going by anything official. If you can't stick to official stuff, then stop vandalising Crash and go back to worshipping Mario... or Spyro.

• Their "official stement" does not have authority over games they didn't make. It's as simple as that.

• Ha! There's the proof...you ARE a vandal, AND a fanboy as well. Universal DON'T make games. Besides, information can NOT be disregarded just because you don't want it there... if it is official, then it is official.

• It's not offical, though. And, let me get this straight, not knowing every detail about a company makes me a fanboy? Look in the mirror, kid, seriously.

• It is official, and thinking that Universal creates games does, indeed, make you a fanboy. Fanboys are idiots. You've now kept me up past midnight, so I hope you're happy.

• Well, they do actually create games. They've got a division for it. Besides, being wrong wouldn't make me a "fanboy". You really should check out a dictionary some time.

• That's what makes you a fanboy... they don't.

• They do, far as I know. Sierra Entertainment? Owned by Vivendi Universal. Blizzard? Owned by Vivendi Universal. Radical Entertaiment? Subsidiary of Sierra, owned by, who? Vivendi Universal. Also, if you wished to imply I was unintelligent, there are any number of words you could have used that would have, you know, made sense. Seriously, check out that dictionary.

• Typical fanboy behaviour. They do NOT, I repeat, NOT make games. They simply get a company, like Naughty Dog, and say "Right, make a game!" but do not make it themselves. Is this too much for you to understand?

• Oh, come on. Those companies are owned by Universal and you're just arguing semantics now, so I'm leaving it at this. Quit with the personal attacks, and maybe look at a dictionary.

• How about you stop insisting that your way is the right way all the time and actually read an encyclopedia more often? THEN we can talk. Oh, and since you don't know what "Intentional" means, I think you should keep (and open) that dictionary.

Apology

I should have acted better in the Crash Tag Team Racing. While I continue to feel that the Mario Kart DD!! being considered to be copied by CTTR is a legitimate criticism and it is pointless to say some disagree, I should not have edit warred and should have discussed it instead. I apologize for that and for calling you a fanboy of Crash Bandicoot as well. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Zoo Tycoon 2

I should really think before saying things. I kind of accused you for being rude at that guy. I won't do that again. I'm sorry. Giant Blue Anteater 00:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

-The guy is posting false information. He actively admits he is guessing! That is stupidity and unfair.

Stop

Do not vandalize other people's userpages. Even if the person is a banned sockpuppet, it does not give you the right to violate WP:NPA. Go do something constructive and fix the articles he was working on so he has no reason to create more socks to come back. Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 16:30, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That's not the point. He WON'T go away. You have to BAN him, and I mean perminantly, for him to fully go away. This is not an order or a request, it is just a pointer, BTW. CBFan 15:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Unacceptable

Your behaviour is unacceptable. This is not the conduct of a Wikipedian. Please be more WP:CIVIL. You have already been extremely uncivil, and if you continue, you will be blocked. --Deskana (talk) 14:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

People take what you say less seriously when you're vandalising userpages and (according to the above section) and calling people names. Oh, and you are of course free to remove my warnings from your talk page, but on the same note I am free to reinsert them as I see fit. By the way, please talk to me by typing messages and saving them, not through edit summaries. --Deskana (talk) 23:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, why are you blaming only ME and not the guy who was actually vandalising ALTTP's page? Or the other numerous people who call him an idiot? 212.219.92.36 08:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You're the only one I saw. And it doesn't matter what anyone else is doing. Edits like that are unacceptable. Learn and move on. --Deskana (talk) 11:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Enough

Forgive me for being blunt, but you are displaying a complete lack of maturity when dealing with other users. User:Deskana has already warned you about your conduct. Read WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. Your actions with User:Komodo lover and his sockpuppets are completely unacceptable. Feel free to report any of his new sockpuppets to WP:SSP but reverting his edits with summaries such as "Oh, shut UP Moronator!" and "Oh, for heaven's SAKES Moronator, SHUT UP and PROVE IT!!" instead of "reverting edits of a sock of a banned user" is not appropiate. It does matter how frustrated you are, what he does, or what other users do, you are expected to treat other users respectfully. I would suggest that you simply stop replying on the talk pages of User:Komodo lover or any of his sockpuppets and just report them to WP:SSP. Using language such as the above only aggravates him, and does not contribute to the situation at hand. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:37, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, for heaven's sakes, get with the times, please. I haven't done that for a while now. I think I've managed to control myself pretty well. He's insulting all of us as well, why are you bashing purely me? Surely he should be bashed as well (note the 'as well', I'm not saying I'm innocent of doing it in the past). CBFan 18:00, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

No, he shouldn't be insulted at all. The only thing that should be done to him is a ban resulting from a report filed to WP:SSP. There is no need to post on the talk pages of any of his sockpuppets to start any discussion. Doing anything of the sort is unconstructive and shows that you haven't read WP:CIVIL or WP:NPA. In any case, let's end this conversation and move on. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 19:03, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

What? All that proves is that YOU haven't read what I said. If HE'S insulting us, HE should get a warning AS WELL as me. It was blatantly obvious that I'd said that. I'm starting to think you have something against me, as you're sending warnings only to me, and not him as well. CBFan 06:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Good news!

I've just (accidantally) gotten in touch with admin Luna Santin and she says if we find anymore Komodo Lover sockpuppets just drop a line at her talk page. ;) Dora Nichov 03:14, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

About Dingodile's XS music...

I'm terribly sorry for the confusion. I must have misread what was written. I thought it said that the music that played when you fought Dingodile in XS was Tiny's. i'll read EVERYTHING the next time I make an edit. Klaus Kratchet 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

I would like to apologize to you. I have been fairly uncivil. And hope that we may be able to further edit wikipedia for the better, in the future. However I would like to point out, that when I said my "lies" about you, it was simply human error. I just glanced at your userpage quickly and misread some of the information, although this is actually one of the things I'd like to apologize the most about. But I would also like to note that you have said that I have screamed at you, which I haven't. However you have, while twisting my words in ways that don't entirely make sense: "NO, IT DOESN'T COUNT, YOU IDIOT!" "IT IS A BABY MAMMOTH/MASTODON BECAUSE I SAY SO!! YOU'RE WRONG, I'M RIGHT!! YOU'RE AN IDIOT". I wish you to know that I am apologizing for lying about and insulting you. However I do not regret stating my opinion. For you seem to not acknowledge it. I have never said, that you are wrong. I have on a number of occasions stated that I agree with you. But I still belive that due to the fact that we can in no way, be entirely, 100% certain, it should be noted that there is a possibility that we are incorrect. So, to get back to the point, I sincerely apologize for lying about and insulting you. I hope we may be able to resolve of differences civilly in the future. Pentagram16 00:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Your attitude

You need to knock it off. Don't remove the anon welcome message from IP talk pages with comments saying that the IP is not welcome. The message was placed there on purpose. If you have an issue with vandalism, ADD the appropriate message. --Elliskev 12:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh what, and actively ENCOURAGE the guy to vandalise? Only a vandal would do that, and whenever I revert vandalism, you put it back...suggesting that you, as well, are a vandal. CBFan 18:26, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Huh I didn't mean to add vandalism

Huh? SLSB talk • contrib 19:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Civility

I see that someone above linked WP:CIVIL for you to read. Looking back at the edit summaries for your contributions this past week, I thought it might be worth linking to again. --Onorem♠Dil 20:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Re the vandal report at AIV per Nick Jnr & Thomas

Per my comments I do not believe it is vandalism - other edits unrelated to unyet broadcast episodes are not reverted. Also, as mentioned at the AIV page, the ip may not have known about the warning/violations. Leave a message to discuss the matter next time you revert? LessHeard vanU 20:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about!? It clearly IS vandalism! Have you not seen the edits!? For heaven's sakes, people like you are supposed to make Wikipedia a better place for everyone, NOT encourage these idiots to spam whatever and whenever they like. The guy is CLEARLY a vandal! He does it constantly. He NEEDS banning. CBFan 20:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay man, chill...Here's the deal--there's nothing obviously vandalistic about today's contributions by 84.66.145.87 (talk · contribs), but I know nothing about these series. I blocked the account for 24 hours because it appears that you and another editor were having to "clean up" after him or her.

Now, the thing is, your histrionics didn't help at all. As admins we're trying to do the right thing. We don't block accounts that don't appear to be making obvious vandalism without proper warnings. You never once placed a vandal warning on the IP's talk page and never explained how the edits were wrong to the editor or to the admins at AIV. In the future, please fully clarify what the problems are and please apply proper warnings (and, no, we don't often block based on a single blatant vandal warning from a few days ago). Thanks, — Scientizzle 21:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, but you're wrong. The guy has obviously vandalised numerous times today, yesterday and a few previous days after that. If you want to know what he was doing, he was posting false information. Consistantly. And without evidence. His talk page clearly stated that the warning he got would be the only one he'd receive because his behaviour was that desruptive. And yet, he vandalised in the same way several more times, and I ended up wasting several minutes just trying to correct it. CBFan 21:12, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry, but you're wrong. It was not obvious to me; it was clearly not obvious to several other admins. You've wasted several more minutes by complaining about this when you could have applied a couple of template warnings and a brief explanation of how the information was demonstrably false. In the future, please lower the drama quotient of WP:AIV by making things clearer. We're here to help, and we get enough crap from those we do block that we don't need extra grief from those who are asking for that help. — Scientizzle 21:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm sorry, but it should have been. That's what the "Diff" function is there for. And the WP:Thomas page. It's not my fault if nobody believes me. It did clearly say, "Only warning", so it's not my fault if you needed another one. CBFan 21:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

For further clarity, you will rarely find an admin that will block an IP address for a 3-day-old final warning (especially one that did not specify the vandism incident). IPs shift a lot, so there's no telling if the actual person that received that warning is in fact the same one editing from that address days or even hours later. That's the deal. That, coupled with the fact that the vandalism wasn't obvious to editors that don't frequent these pages (obviously including a handful of admins working AIV) meant a delay in action. In the future, apply warnings and inform the editor of what he or she is doing wrong. Then take it to AIV if it doesn't work. It's simple and will save a lot of effort on everyone's part in the long run. — Scientizzle 21:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Non-Insultive Edits

Dude... I'm not insulting Crash and Tiny. All I'm saying is that they can possibly be diagnosed with autism. Tiny shows numerous symptoms that hold evidence, whereas Crash is only slightly questionable. (He almost never can mask his true feelings, and the autism contributes to the goofy side of him)

And I'm not vandalising. You might want to check on the wikipedia pages like others tell you to.

I apologize for getting on the wrong foot.

P.S. I don't call Crash stupid, and I do not think Tiny is stupid.65.30.24.128 20:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

So, you're saying that if you're autistic you must be stupid? Now that REALLY is hurtful buster. Tiny and Crash show no signs anyway. CBFan 20:45, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No. You're clearly misunderstanding. Also, read up on the diagnosis.65.30.24.128 20:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No, YOU'RE clearly misunderstanding. It is a Video Game. CBFan 20:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I know. I'm not calling anyone stupid. And realize how I'm calm on this. See Nitro Kart and other things where Tiny and Crash are in, among other things. In Crash Bash, Tiny switches to the Good side temporarily. He has a conscience. 65.30.24.128 20:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

None of that makes any sense. What am I supposed to be looking for. Yes, they are both in Nitro Kart? So what? They're also in Cortex Strikes Back, Warped, Team Racing, Bash (which you clearly have not played, because Aku Aku puts Tiny on his team. Thus it proves nothing.), Wrath Of Cortex, XS, Fusion, Twinsanity, Boom Bang and Titans. What is that meant to prove?

The whole Ripper Roo cart confusion

I'm sorry if I upsetted you or anything, but I just wanted to look into the statement prior to the edit on his kart statistics. You are right in which Ripper Roo's stats aren't mentioned in the game directly, but I was just thinking if it got mentioned in an official strategy guide and transferred to any of the aforementioned GameFAQs guides or anything like that.

Still, the way you responded me back was a little rash. I thought I saw signs of improvements with reacting to such situations since the first meeting at FF.net. Having seen that you sometimes have done the same with other users around Wiki in the past as well, I just hope that you could learn from the experience and be a bit more civil with your responses.

I'm sorry to be a bit of a bother, but it had to be said. Freqrexy 01:03, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that all the guides on GameFAQs that I've read claim him to be a Polar/Pura equse driver, which was what I was going on. As I saw it (and take note of this), you were meerly posting that he was a Crash/Cortex driver with no proof, and the other guy was basing it on the track (which, as I said before, was a little stupid because Tiny's track is full of bends, but unless you know how, he's hopeless at turning).

Mind you, I never did like the GameFAQ guides anyway. The ones for Bash always insist that Dingodile and Rilla Roo are rubbish, when for me they act like Crash and Cortex did in Team Racing (in other words, no real strengths, no real weaknesses, good all round). Still, lessons can be learnt. CBFan 10:33, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Robot Wars Episodes

An article that you have been involved in editing, Robot Wars Episodes, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robot Wars Episodes. Thank you. Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 10:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Giant Warthog in Zoo Tycoon 2.

http://www.zooadmin.org/test/index.php?topic=381.msg6513#msg6513

As you can see, it is confirmed by Blue Fang to be a member of that genus. Eriorguez 21:33, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

September 2007

Thank you for making a report about 66.84.180.204 (talk · contribs · block log) at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators generally only block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you. -- lucasbfr ^talk 17:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Hi there; you have reported some IP editors on the AIV page for vandalism. The vandalism is unarguably present, but it makes our life as admins much easier if you follow wiki policy in the matter of giving warnings. Except in the case of an obvious sockpuppet, and perhaps except in the case of vicious, obscene threatening vandalism, a vandal must be given one or more warnings on his talk page, perhaps up to a maximum of four of increasing severity. You will find the approved formats at WP:TEMPLATE. Also please note that a vandal can only be blocked after very recent vandalism, which has taken place after a final warning. Happy wikying. --Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 17:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I was wondering where I had to go. Sorry about that. CBFan 18:33, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

In addition- users are allowed to remove warnings from their talk pages; removing a warning is acknowledgement that they have read it. I used to get very annoyed by this, and my life got less stressful when I stopped worrying about removed warnings. -FisherQueen (Talk) 16:39, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice Bit of Detective Work!

Nice bit of detective work in figuring out this guy was a sock of you-know-who. It became quite obvious who it was once a boatload of SPAs had a nonsensical conversation with each other on that page and the fact that all that user's contributions were to the same articles targeted by you-know-who. Just try to tone down your edit summaries (like this one and few others). Thanks for the great recent changes patrolling.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 22:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

My talk page

Generally speaking, I prefer to read a comment before having it removed from my talk page. Sound fair? --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 15:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but the guy is telling lies about me. I am not being a bully, I am only removing a picture that was not allowed because of lack of licensing. CBFan 15:07, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm aware of the situation regarding the image, and that's figured into the report I've made here. However, as far as I can tell, the user believes (quite erroneously) that he's putting in a better image. And it's also true that you've been mocking his English skills. As such, I'm not convinced the comment he left here needs to be removed. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 15:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'll admit that. However, I did suggest, a few times, that he use a spellchecker, in ways that were polite. AND he has already been told (by me AND another member) that his picture can not be used. CBFan 15:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, not all editors are quick at assimilating the policies concerning non-free content. Some never will. I'm not saying he's right to keep adding the image (there are quite clear WP:NFCC difficulties with it); but I am saying there's a difference between vandalism and a lack of competence in this area. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 15:47, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Civility

I'm a little concerned about your edit summary recently that included the words "Can you not READ?" - as you well know, we place a high premium on civility on Wikipedia. I know you're frustrated by the situation, but in the future you might think about ways to de-escalate rather than fanning the flames. I'll take a look at the 3RR argument in a few minutes, but your edit summary caught my eye. Thank you for all that you're doing to keep the 'pedia clean and vandal free. - Philippe | Talk 15:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 72 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for incivility in edit summaries. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. - Philippe | Talk 19:14, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• I am disappointed that you continued with incivil comments after the many warnings that you have received on this page. I am also disappointed that you persisted in removing comments from the 3RR page, after an administrator asked you not to. For these reasons, but primarily the continued incivility in edit summaries, I issued this block. - Philippe | Talk 19:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
• Why? KOCAS deliberatly broke rules as well (The page says "Do not continue arguments", but he blatantly did) AND he's been nasty to me CONTINUALLY, as has Espio's da man, yet they've gotten NOTHING taken away from them. At the very least, THEY should be blocked as well. I didn't even get a ruddy warning. It is SO unfair! I've tried to be civil, and they tell lies about me. Continually. CBFan 19:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• You did in fact get a warning. It's right above the block message. You've also had people warn you before to pay attention to civility rules. Warnings don't have to be templated, and in fact, we have a guideline that we not template users who've been around long enough to get to know the place well, which you clearly have. Ryan asked you to cease removing comments from that page, and you did not. I asked you to be aware of civility in your edit comments and you continued. I think it may be a good idea for you to take a few days away and figure out what you can do to stay cool when things are heated online. You clearly have done some great vandal fighting, and I appreciate that - but when you stray into incivility, you defeat one of our guiding principles. - Philippe | Talk 19:31, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• First of all, what I consider warnings are the templates, and always have been. Secondly, the rules on that page clearly said "Do not continue arguments here", yet, as you saw yourself, Kingdom of Crash and Spyro clearly...CLEARLY...continued the argument by blaming me. Why is it HE can get away with rule breaking and I can't, even though he broke rules nuermous times and that was it for me? Finally, WHY are you blocking ME for insults when THOSE TWO aforementioned members insulted ME as well (see contributions)!? At the very least, THEY should be blocked as well, as I've already stated, especially as they won't stop. At the very least, I can't help but suspect sockpuppetry. CBFan 19:37, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• The guideline that I referenced is available for you to view here. I encourage you to read it and see that warnings can in fact be issued, off template and that it is preferable when dealing with users who've been around a while. Further, this discussion is not about the behavior of any other user, it is about your behavior. You have a pattern of incivility, have been warned several times, and chose to ignore those warnings. That is all that's relevant to your block. - Philippe | Talk 19:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• OK, Fine! If you'd rather believe those two insulters than listen to me, then go ahead. It's not like I'm not used to having lies told about me. CBFan 19:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• This is not about belief. It's about what's clear in the edit summaries. You were incivil. You may appeal the block if you'd like, the instructions are in the block message. I'm not "believing" anyone - no one reported you, I found this one on my own, as a result of your incivil edit summary on the 3RR board. - Philippe | Talk 19:55, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• That's what I'm TRYING to get through...so was Kingdom Of Crash And Spyro. HE was being uncivil as well, but did he get blocked along with me? No. He didn't even get a warning. Eye for eye here, surely. And, for the record, I did not "ignore" the warnings, I didn't even know I was breaking them. Also, I am not insisting that I should not have been blocked, I am insisting a bit of fair play. As I stated before, Kingdom of Crash and Spyro AND Espio's De Man actively insulted me. CBFan 20:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• I will say once more, this is not about any other user's behavior. It's about yours. But at this point, we're beginning to just say the same things to each other, so I'm going to disengage from this conversation. If you'd like another administrator to review the block, please feel free to appeal it using the unblock template - the instructions are in the block message. I wish you the best, and hope that when your block expires, you'll get back to some active vandal fighting, but with some altered edit summaries. - Philippe | Talk 20:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CBFan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

First, I'd like to state that I didn't know I was breaking anything. Secondly, I was only trying to help, as the edit I made was removing something which appeared to be breaking another rule that was set on that page. At the very least, Kingdom Of Crash and Spyro had been very very insultive to me in the past, and was aggrovating me. I was trying to remain civil, and that isn't easy to do with someone like him.

Decline reason:

How many warnings about civility did you expect? I can't accept that you didn't know that you were acting incorrectly. How exactly do you suggest that using incivil edit summaries was helping to resolve your dispute with the other user? — Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

HE was being nasty to me! Not only that, it was consistant! I can't see how I alone got blocked when HE did what I did much more so. For heaven's sakes, answer the question. At the moment, you're not. All you're saying is "You're solely to blame!!" CBFan 13:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'M IRISH!

We can't be the same, i am Irish & he is, well i never asked but he sounds English to me i only know him from school as i moved 2 years ago!--Espio's da man 15:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC).

id like to make peace

i don't like to have enamies so im asking whana make peace and just be freinds i mean were both fans of crash & simpsons so pleese we could make freinds.--Kingdom of crash and spyro 11:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC).

by the way don't say kocas it sounds weird and roung--Kingdom of crash and spyro 12:34, 15 September 2007 (UTC).

So does your usual name. It's too long winded to refer to on a general basis, hence his need to come up with a nickname. Freqrexy 12:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

How about "Kingdom"? --Kizor 20:04, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I don't like lies being told about me. I've just read your comments about me on the incident page, and I'm not amused. Yes, I was rather harsh, but, as you'll see, I did suggest the spellchecker politely at first. That seems to have completely overthrown you in your attempt at making me look bad, and I'm not happy. You mentioned you had similar problems. If I had suggested an aid which may help you, would you take it? Or would you just ignore it, carry on and force me to get more annoyed? Your attempt of making me the guilty party in my "restraint" is neither funny or wholely truthful. CBFan 21:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

You're still adding that image and refusing to use that spellchecker I pointed out (there's no such word as "roung"). I'm not too sure. I'll accept your apology, IF you stop adding that picture, and IF you use that spellchecker first. CBFan 17:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

ok il try to to use the spellcheck er on that website and maby like we chould somehow use both images imean i did the math the other image has also bean edited thers only a few images and screans of titans and trailers and only the trailers have shown that other image so you'd of had to copy the whole of the page using the print screen and cut of everything else so both images were created basicly the same oh sorry about anithing i said i whould like to make freinds. --Kingdom of crash and spyro 10:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

A screen capture and a removal of a background are two completely different things. Hence, the capture from the trailer is fine as it is. And if you saw Digby Tantrum's comments on your edit on List of Crash Bandicoot characters as well as the reasoning I gave to you in the talk section for Crash Bandicoot (character), you would clearly see that the image you tried to put in won't fit as a Wiki image no matter what. Freqrexy 11:51, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

what i still don't understand is that their is no rule on wiki saying that "edited images are not allowed" because every image on wiki has been edited somewere in its life.so i dont get whats the real problem.--Kingdom of crash and spyro 14:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Read points 2 and 12 of the Unacceptable image sanctions; I already mentioned this to you twice before, in your talk page AND at the discussion page for the Crash article. The image fails under points 2 and 12, where a cropped background (and a sloppy attempt at that) had resulted in an image that would struggle to quality as a feasible illustration, as well as that the current image - which has been around the Wiki servers for the past few months - is STILL serving its purpose today without any objections.

Now can you please drop the subject? Even Digby Tantrum left a message on YOUR talk page telling you to stop putting the image in due to the general consensus being to disapprove it. Freqrexy 15:13, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

it doesn't say that at all and i am gonna stop i don't want to stop but i don't want to get blocked over a pointless disagrement i mean 1 thing, and the yet caused so much chaos it chould cause a civil war.so can we just stop arguing and make freinds.--Kingdom of crash and spyro 15:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC).

Promise me that you won't attempt to put that image up in any article on Wikipedia, and the deed is done. Freqrexy 15:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

re:Requests for adminship/kingdom of crash and spyro

I've taken a quick look at this RfA, the Crash Bandicoot (character) article, and a WP:AIV request.

I totally sympathesize with your frustration with User:Kingdom of crash and spyro but to quote yourself:

You're NOT doing it right! If you want people to listen to you, do it properly.

It is VERY improper to blank any page. You should have not blanked the (incredibly stupid) RfA. Doing so just makes you look bad.

No matter how frustrated you are with another user remain civil. With a user like KCAS it is understandable to be frustrated but that does not justify being uncivil. Two wrongs don't make a right.

On the issues in this case, you are right. But it is not enough to be right, sometimes you have to persuade other people that you are right. When you are uncivil it make yourself look bad, and leads outsiders to think that you are the one who is wrong.

Before you press the "Save page" button, ask yourself, "Is what I wrote persuasive? Will it help me persuade others to agree with me?" It can feel good to blow off a little steam, but it can work against you. Often, it is best to walk away for a while, then come back and reread your words before posting them. You may get better results by cancelling and rewriting. Sbowers3 13:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Rest assured, the RfA will go nowhere. I'm also going to try to help out with stopping KCAS's bad behavior. Sbowers3 13:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Block

The blocking page said that the block would expire at 19:13 on the 16th of September. It is now 19:16 of that date. Why am I still blocked? How can I try and prove I can be civil if you won't let me? CBFan 18:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Your block log[2] indicates you should be free to edit at 19:13 UTC, which is 20:13 in British Standard Time. You've under an hour to go. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 18:23, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You...could have made that clearer. CBFan 18:24, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Errm, I didn't block you. Besides, all signatures, histories, etc, yield a UTC time — surely you've noticed there's an hour's difference between BST and the time it's recorded on Wikipedia?

Anyway, welcome back. Vandalism fighters can be great contributors to Wikipedia. Just, y'know, tone it down a bit. --Mark H Wilkinson ^{(t, c)} 18:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

KOCAS's new image attempts

Though I was in higher approval of his/her latest image upload to try and place within the Crash article images, I understand your reasoning for its exclusion from the List of Crash Bandicoot characters article. However, I'm fearing that he/she might not in spite of their efforts (which are clearly a lot more presentable than last time).

I think we need to come to a compromise on where to put the actual image. As stated, the Crash characters article seems to be out of the question, and I doubt that it'll fit under Crash Bandicoot (character) either as we ALREADY have a Titans Crash image there. I'm a little skeptical for using it in Crash of the Titans as well due to it better being reserved for boxart and screenshots rather than renders. That said, do you have any bright ideas on the matter? Holler me back, Chris :) Freqrexy 22:36, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Molly_the_Yellow_Engine

Hi. I noticed you listed this AfD, but didn't specifically quote which policies called for the pages deletion. In the future, please be more specific when listing AfD's. Cheers, --Bfigura ^(talk) 00:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Reasons?

Hi, I've seen you removed below text from the article Thomas the Tank Engine and Friends without any comment. Would you mind to give me some justification? If you miss source from there, you could easily insert the appropriate template, but I don't see any reason to remove this place... Furthermore the same info is there for Denmark.

• In Hungary the narrator is Zoltán Csankó, and the series have been running under the title Thomas és barátai (Thomas and his friends).

Thanks for clarifying. Pasztilla 16:13, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It must have been removed when I removed the V, I and S that Ozzie had written. Judging by the edit history, at any rate CBFan 19:12, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Ok, if an unwanted mistake, then I move it back. Pasztilla 19:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

dude ure on vugames forrum 2!

so u couldn't read what it said on that post tons of others could.hm,anyway,grait seeing you. --Kingdom of crash and spyro 14:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Ahem

Didn't you know that I have an australian accent, if you ever see I, leave it alone, I can't speak normally. Bingodile 21:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, don't be silly. You're writing, not speaking. CBFan 21:05, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:AIV

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thank you! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 14:28, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The Addax Problem

Someone got my password, moved the addax, and aruged with you, I apoligize to you for the problem, if I see anything left from the vandal I will try to fix it, again I'm very sorry for the trouble Triceratops9 14:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Docter trio vortex

I blocked this user for a week. If he continues trolling when he gets back, he can be blocked for a longer period. However, your own conduct was less than stellar. You reported him to AIV when he was not warned, and you allowed yourself to be drawn into name-calling and edit warring with him. The better approach would be just to notify an admin. Thanks --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 22:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

• All very well accept I have no idea which admins to contact, or even who they are. Besides, knowing him, he would have removed any warning I'd put there. CBFan 22:50, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually I did some more research and determined that he was an abusive account, so I changed the duration to indefinite. If you find any more sockpuppets of that particular user (it should be easy to tell from this editing pattern), leave a note on my Talk page. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 04:16, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

I'd like to just make a quick comment (not a formal warning) and explain something to you. In several of your edit summaries you remove things using comments that WP is not game FAQs - you are quite correct, of course - and say that in those cases you are reverting vandalism. I'm like to encourage you to be careful about the word "vandalism". According to WP:Vandalism,

• Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism; careful attention needs to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well intended, or outright vandalism.

Referring to something that is contributed in good faith as vandalism can have an unintended consequence - it can WP:BITE other users. I would encourage you - once again - to be more courteous in edit summaries and choose your wording carefully. Please don't refer to good faith contributions as vandalism. If there's even a CHANCE that the contribution is intended to be helpful - even if misguided - it's best to not call it vandalism.

I hope you realize that I'm not in any way trying to scold you, but only to help you to improve the experience that other people are having online.

Best wishes, - Philippe | Talk 13:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I fully agree with you on this, Philippe.

Personally, I tried to help out in two CB articles, by adding character information.

After thinking a bit, I agree that it doesn't fit all well into Wikipedia, so no offense about that. Good work.

But still, to see my hard work being labeled as "Vandalism" hurts.

So I fully side with you that, CBFan, should indeed "be more courteous in edit summaries and choose your wording carefully".

~ Mads Ren`ai 22:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

BRR's goodside

Blocked. --Spike Wilbury ♫ talk 02:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

SSP

On the komodo SSP you filed, please provide the diffs showing the statements you refer to. Put them on the SSP page. THANKS! — Rlevse • Talk • 15:36, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't feed trolls

Regarding recent developments: Give this a read when you have a chance. If you can take it to heart, I think you'll find it improves your blood pressure. Dppowell 20:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Unlisted

What about the questioner (He said Ouestioner) He is a sock of Black rhino ranger. Tenom 18:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean "What about the Questioner? He is a sock puppet of Komodo Lover." You have any proof of this? CBFan 18:55, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, You were the one who created his talk page and I see his 2 extra accounts

Links, please? CBFan 19:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Here: User talk:Ouestioner —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenom (talk • contribs) 19:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I also heard that snakezilla recreated his talk page. Here: User talk:Snakezilla. Tenom 19:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I found out more puppets, Go to the category of Supected puppets of KL and you will find them —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenom (talk • contribs) 10:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 10 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring at User talk:82.17.81.154. It is essential that you are more careful to discuss controversial changes with the user in question, rather than simply revert them repeatedly: this applies even if you think or know you are correct. Edit warring helps nobody, and actually harms the page in question, and the encyclopedia - please bear this in mind. Kind regards, Anthøny 19:31, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by
adding the text "{{unblock|your reason here}}" below this text, or contact me.

Note, this block is also for disruptive editing. Please bear in mind the effect of your contributions before you make them - you are disrupting the encyclopedia. Anthøny 19:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CBFan (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

If you did actually look, I was trying to help him become a respectible member. This isn't fair...he called me a brainless marsupial, and yet you're blocking ME. Come on, be fair. I wasn't calling him names, for a start.

Decline reason:

Ok, I see why you were blocked. You need to lay off of 82.17.81.154. It's not your talk-page. Stop reverting it. It escalates the situation and it's under the annon's preview of what to include and what not to. — ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm not really seeing any problems with your most recent editing... I haven't dug all that far back, so I'll consult with the blocking admin. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 21:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

In complete fairnessy, his edits (the ones I reverted) were actively insulting me, the moderators (such as you) AND Wikipedia in general...they couldn't have just been left there. Also, he's the notorious sockpuppeteer Komodo Lover (he actively admitted it). They couldn't have just stayed there as far as I was concerned. If you look through HIS contributions, you'll see why I did what I did. CBFan 22:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes they could have. Edit-waring to remove something only creates a worse situation. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

The best place

Tenom heard what Kl's puppets say in Zoo tycoon 2 extinct animals talk page, Is Wikibooks best place for Object lists. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenom (talk • contribs) 11:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Some friendly advice

Please stop reverting others' talk pages. It doesn't matter that they're associated with socks of a blocked or banned user. The user page (which can't be edited by someone under a block) is sufficient for the placement of the sockpuppet template. As for blanked warnings, the page history and block log tell all to anyone who wants to see. Forcing the issue is unnecessarily adversarial and gives the abuser the attention they crave. I see that you've already been blocked for this, yesterday. Please stop. Feel free to continue reporting abusive socks through the proper channels, but don't forget that you're here to help build an encyclopedia. Dppowell 23:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

What's the best advice for asking to blocking a userpage (of said sockpuppet) from being edited completely? I say this because this is getting rediculous. He just keeps insulting everyone and the page is somewhat useless now anyway. CBFan 18:29, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

You can request page protection for the userpage and an admin will evaluate the necessity of preventing the page from being edited by anonymous or new users. Seriously, though, the editor(s) in question are almost certainly getting a huge kick out of the frustration they're causing you. Try to forget about them and go work on an article. Dppowell 22:03, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so much frustrated as bored stiff, but thanks for the advice anyway. CBFan 23:18, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

i need you to stop been mean to me

im not a sockpupit this is my only acount,i did not ever vandilize if you check the rules the image was completely legal and not against the rules & how cocobandicoot17 said you start argumants & other things like that realy quickly so can we just make freinds pleese--Kingdom of crash and spyro 17:06, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

do not remove coments its against th rules!--Kingdom of crash and spyro 16:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

i didn't tell lies about you cbfan you have been liying about ME BY saying im telling lies,infact name one lie ive ever told about you.--Kingdom of crash and spyro 16:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

News

Tenom say something in IP address, Look it up. -- Tenom (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)