User talk:Mr T (Based)

July 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Disgaea: Hour of Darkness, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. DeluxNate (talk) 16:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not vandalism. One section is 100% OR, the other is a level list, which is game guide material.Mr T (Based) (talk)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Disgaea: Hour of Darkness. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Redo your edit, except leave Line 79 intact. Don't mass delete. The information is relevant. DeluxNate (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagreeing with my edits is fine. Accusing me of vandalism to conceal your disagreemnt is cowardly. Please chekc my edit history. I am not in the habit of vandalising articles. The information is game guide material and original research. I have removed it and will continue to remove such from this encyclopaedia.Mr T (Based) (talk)

Nice burn, and I have no problem with your constructive editing. However if you're unfamiliar with Wikipedia, mass deletion is vandalism, and that is what you are doing to the Episode titles. Please tell me why you don't leave the Episode titles in the articles. Also, please try to spell better. If I'm cowardly, then you must be a world champion speller. DeluxNate (talk) 17:04, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shiren the Wanderer

I've reverted your edits to Mystery Dungeon: Shiren the Wanderer because you removed noteworthy information from the article. You are welcome to restore your copyedits, but please do not delete information without a better understanding of the subject. Thanks! Luvcraft (talk) 22:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. I have removed and will continue to remove it unless a source is provided.Mr T (Based) (talk)

A source has been provided, but should not be necessary; literally translating words from other languages is not by any means "original research". Luvcraft (talk) 22:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong.Mr T (Based) (talk)

Um, right .. translations are not OR. Languages are public domain. Sorry :) BMW(drive) 18:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits

Hello. While I feel some if not most of your edits to Fire Emblem articles are productive, some seem a little baseless. Remember that references to other games in the series does help to establish context for the reader, and are not merely a matter of redundancy. When written, I aimed to provide info relative to the rest of the series while also informing people who knew nothing about the series. It is simply not pragmatic to reiterate the fundamental gameplay of Fire Emblem for every game article when it can be linked to the series article. If you feel that people shouldn't have to read another article to have a full understanding then that really is just tough, as this forms the basis of wikilinking on Wikipedia. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 14:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow WP: Consensus. Discuss your views on Talk: Fire Emblem. Until then, your edits will be promptly reverted. I do conceed that references to other games are too frequent, but there shouldn't be a restriction against every reference or link. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 14:15, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have a consensus. Neither of us does. So how can I follow it? The consensus is not your view, your view is your view, however much you wish it were otherwise. If you wish to discuss the series, do it on the series' article. Linking to a previous game's article to explain an important section like gameplay, is not good enough. It's lazy, and the constant "Oh, 2 didn't have this, but 3 does, and it was praised in 3 but criticised in 5" type interjections do not belong in the articles, though you could include them (again) on the series' page. Basically, you've decided to edit war because you disagree with my edits.Mr T (Based) (talk)

Consensus is whatever the current state of being is. If there is an edit, and it has not been challenged, then there is consensus to keep it. Your current edits are against consensus. I have conceded that the references to other games were too frequent, and I appreciate some of your edits to limit this. However, a senseless removal of every other game besides the article's is not productive. These are given to provide context to the reader, and usually do not require foreknowledge of the gameplay aspect as an explanation is given. Linking to other articles is not lazy—it is required to prevent a superfluous explanation of the fundamental gameplay aspects of Fire Emblem. It is senseless and redundant to litter each game with "rock-paper-scissors", and "when they die, they're gone for good". It is hypocritical that you accuse of me edit warring when I am retaining consensus and initiating discussion. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 14:31, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

August 2008

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Valkyrie Profile 2: Silmeria, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. De728631 (talk) 14:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of "Solium Infernum"

The deletion of an article you created, Solium Infernum, has been proposed for the following reason:

Non-notable yet to be released game. See WP:CRYSTAL.

You are welcome to improve the article to meet Wikipedia's quality standards and remove the deletion notice from the article. You may also remove the notice if you disagree with the deletion, though in such cases, further discussion may take place at Articles for deletion, and the article may still be deleted if there is a consensus to do so.

Wikipedia has certain standards for inclusion that all articles must meet. Certain types of article must establish the notability of their subject by asserting its importance or significance. Additionally, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, content inappropriate for an encyclopedia, or content that would be more suited to somewhere else (such as a directory or social networking website) is not acceptable. See What Wikipedia is not for the relevant policy. You may wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Solium Infernum

An article that you have been involved in editing, Solium Infernum, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Solium Infernum. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 20:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wild ARMs

Please stop messing around with the Wild ARMs articles. I'm sure you mean no harm, but that's exactly what a lot of your edits are causing. Removing things solely because you yourself don't understand or agree with them is wrong, as is undoing the corrections to the games' title.Fragments of Jade (talk) 21:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not 'messing around' with the articles. That you disagree with my edits is fine. More to the point, your wholesale reversion has reinstalled OR, POV, poor grammar and English, massive amounts of redundant plot info, overuse of bold and italics, and random capitalisations (quite apart from the ARMs issue you are so impassioned about).Mr T (Based) (talk) 22:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But you are "messing around". Fixing spelling errors is one thing, but altering the spelling of the title, removing a reference to a game you've never played, and incorrectly altering things could be considered vandalism.Fragments of Jade (talk) 22:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! I sincerely hope you do try reporting me for vandalism. Please feel free to do so. And you're wrong about me having not played the games. You shouldn't assume things about a person you know nothing about.Mr T (Based) (talk) 22:46, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You need to read more carefully. You removed references in the articles to games you had never played. And what you are doing is considered vandalism. Please stop.Fragments of Jade (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I rmeoved a pointless comparison, not a reference. Assuming knowledge on the part of the reader about something totally unrelated to the article is stupid, andl azy. If it's considered vandalism, report me, go on. I know you haven't, and you know why you haven't. Because it's not vandalism. Your wholesale reversion is vandalism, if anything. You just disagree with my edits, but don't have a counter-argument, so accuse me of vandalism. Brave!Mr T (Based) (talk) 22:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I have reported you just now, because your edits ARE vandalism. You have no right to remove a reference solely because you have not played the game that is being referenced. You're changing and removing a large quantity of plot, and also altering the official title of the games. This information took dedicated fans a long time to input, and it is rude and disrespectful, what you are doing.Fragments of Jade (talk) 23:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My edits ae not vandalism. I have corrected OR, POV, tone, spelling, grammar, overuse of bold and italics, removed huge chunks of plot which goes into trivial detail and is in the wrong section to boot, corrected a capitalisation issue, sorted out links and all sorts of other problems. I have improved the articles. You have reverted my improvements, because they do not suit you.Mr T (Based) (talk) 23:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have removed valuable plot information, undone the correct capitalization, and put in things that do not belong. You have received numerous warnings from other people, not just me. You're messing up the articles, so just stop already.Fragments of Jade (talk) 23:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can I just say, massive failure on your part to assume good faith. Why in such a rush, worried the decision won't go your way?Mr T (Based) (talk) 23:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring. 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. –xeno (talk) 23:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So my edits aren't vandalism, then?Mr T (Based) (talk) 23:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism is in the eye of the beholder. You should've discussed the controversial changes when they were challenged - see WP:BRD. –xeno (talk) 23:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correcting spelling, grammar, overuse of bold etc is controversial?Mr T (Based) (talk) 23:37, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*shrug*. You knew your changes were being challenged. You'll note the other user has been blocked also. Hopefully when these blocks expire, you can both discuss the changes on the talk page of the articles in question and come to some kind of mutual agreement. –xeno (talk) 23:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair 'nuff. Thank you.Mr T (Based) (talk) 23:41, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck with that. You've hit the same logic brick wall that they had over at Silent Hill with the same user, unfortunately. I have tried extensively to help and educate the user, to unfortunately no avail. BMW(drive) 13:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your wishes, it's good to know all the mud FoJ is throwing is not sticking.Mr T (Based) (talk) 14:38, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, they have done far more harm than good to their own reputation. For example, the continued blanking of their own talk page doesn't help, as it shows they flagrantly flaunt the rules. In fact, I have carefully explained many of the rules they seem confused about, and they prefer to attack me instead. I see that they continue to misunderstand those same rules after all this time. Someone who could have valuable input into some of these articles now has about the same value of a 1981 Subaru. Very unfortunate. BMW(drive) 18:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FoJ quite obviously cares about the articles, but just seems to be unable to stop short of attempting ownership. And if you're disagreeing with FoJ, then obviously you don't have the article's best interests in mind. I have literally no idea what to do with an editor like this, not really come across such difficulties before. Had disagreements with other editors, obviously (who hasn't!) but this is a new extreme.Mr T (Based) (talk) 18:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see 88 and her duplicate accounts have stopped by-everything they have said is a lie, and they are prejudiced against Americans. They've never even played Wild ARMs, and are only getting involved because of their issues with me.

T, I did assume good faith with you the first time I posted here. I made it clear that you were making edits people had problems with and that were causing trouble, but also stated that I believed your intentions were good. However, after your responded by mocking me and continuing to edit the pages instead of discussing the matter, I could only conclude you were nothing more than a troll. The fact that you are now flaming me with this loser only enhances that belief, as does the fact that, instead of joining in the discussion on the WA series talk page, the minute you were unblocked, you went right back to editting. I'm not the one claiming ownership here. Those articles were worked on by more than just me, and they were wored on hard for a long period of time. When you so nonchalantly remove and change important things and do so incorrectly without even bothering to discuss it, you're pretty much insulting everyone who has worked their butts off.Fragments of Jade (talk) 18:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia, the encyclopaedia that anyone can edit. Believe it or not, like it or not, I can edit any page, and I don't have to clear it with you first. You did not, and have not since, assumed good faith. Treat me politely, I treat you politely. Call me a vandal, see what happens? Moreover, you are now reintroducing spelling errors, original research, bias, and all that good stuff, plus incorrect word usage and not to mention breaking links in your renaming rush. Is that how much you care about the articles, that you are quite happy to reintroduce errors and break links? Really, really, inappropriate, and very disappointing. Why not try reporting me for vandalism again? Got you nothing but a good laugh all round last time.Mr T (Based) (talk) 18:53, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is exactly what I mean. The first time I posted here, I was more than polite with you, and I did in fact assume good faith. I made it clear that I did not think you were a vandal, but that you were-and still are-making harmful edits. I politely asked you to stop doing this, as someone who has worked hard to fix these pages. And around here, it is common courteousy to respect other editors enough to discuss problems they have, instead of just going around making changes for the heck of it. That doesn't mean you have to "clear it with me", but the rules state discussion should be used to avoid edit warring. And your rude, mocking tone does nothing to help matters.Fragments of Jade (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To FoJ: Look Kid, enough with your stupidity about me being a sockpuppet - look at my edit history, you'll know that I have no relation to anyone else. I have done nothing but try to help you, and you're being an arrogant child. If you want to open a sockpuppet case against me, do it ... if not, then shut the fyuk up, I have had ENOUGH of your damn childishness when it comes to Wikipedia and your OWN version of the rules. You KNOW you have been 100% unable to prove any of your childish claims, and I'm sick and damned tired of defending you and fighting for your rights to edit on Wikpedia. As far as I'm concerned, you should get off your daddy's computer and never come back to Wikipedia anymore until you learn that YOU are NOT the most important person on any subject. Two months of witnessing your total disregard for others (and reality, and rules) is more than enough for any human being. File your sockpuppet case now, or quit Wikipedia - you have stopped being at all helpful. Oh, and remember .. the person who banned you told you to discuss this on the ARTICLE TALK PAGE and NOT on someone's personal talk page. BMW(drive) 21:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see 88 and her duplicate accounts have stopped by

For the nth time, I'm a man, and I'm not Bwilkins, Thatcher or anybody else, really. My only account name here is "Erigu." That's it.

Either file a sock puppetry report or stop throwing around baseless accusations already.

I politely asked you to stop doing this, as someone who has worked hard to fix these pages.

Again, I have to wonder: when was that? I only see two very minor edits by you prior to your edit war with Mr. T. 88.161.129.43 (talk) 22:08, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

MrT ... I'm sorry to have cluttered your talk page with this, but I'll stop. Please, be firm with FoJ, and do what you can to help them understand Wikipedia's policies. Discuss pages on THAT page, and not on your own talk page. Don't let them get you down. I do truly wish you good luck in dealing with them. Wikipedia needs good editors, and I'm sure everyone somewhere has that potential. BMW(drive) 23:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You two trolls need to stop-you're giving all of Wiki a bad name.Fragments of Jade (talk) 23:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings...

Hello, Mr T (Based), and welcome to Wikipedia!

To get started, click on the link that says "welcome".

I (and the rest of us here, too!) hope you like it here and decide to stay!

Happy editing! BMW(drive) 23:16, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]