Page semi-protected

User talk:Optakeover

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

Edit warning

Why did I get a warning when I'm doing nothing wrong all the time? Jollibee and Luke are two characters along that were not confirmed for Tekken 7. Last year, Jollibee has been mentioned by Harada and Luke was even given this year known for just one day. Luke is not easy to find, but there is a concept image of him. If also comes the question, where it has been confirmed, I can not say, but I got it with, whether it is about a fan, I know not, but I would like the two characters as long as the table of contents Tekken remain until the final confirmation are.

And by the way, if you me because locks for operations in Tekken Wikipedia, then you make a mistake. Nehm I was the one who separated the main games and the spin-off games with the table and I also have the table games Others produced, I also Crow led back inside. Also, I have Lee and Violet out together in the table of contents, and Jin and Devil Jin, Jun and Unknown, Mokujin, Tetsujin and Kinjin and Kazuya and Devil / Devil Kazuya and etc. I have also taken in the table describes the fields opponents and film with pure. And since I was still Anonymous.

Best regards TheKerberos01

@TheKerberos01: I understand your reasons. But it is your responsibility to discuss it with the other editors whom you are arguing with. You are not the only person to receive this warning. Optakeover(Talk) 17:56, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Can they introduce because the two characters again?
@TheKerberos01: You don't have to ping me because you are posting to my talk page. I don't understand your question. My only advice for you is that if you think that what you want to add might be disagreed upon by others, please discuss with the others on the article talk page and come to an agreement. Optakeover(Talk) 14:40, 3 August 2015 (UTC)


I've seen that you undid my changes to the page of XenForo (in less then a minute?) because you said that the change was not constructive. However, the table violates WP:NOTCHANGELOG and listing every single version with "bug fixes" is beyond necessary. There is no reason to keep track of that information, and neither should we as it violates Wikipedias rules. --YannickFran (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

@YannickFran: Hello, thank you for your message. I have checked your edit. I apologise for my mistake. From the unloaded revision it looked questionable but I didn't choose to view it live. Once again, my apologies. Optakeover(Talk) 15:44, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

What revert rule?

I saw what you did on Katrina Kaif. So you are allowed to revert as many times as you want if its to stop vandalism? BollyJeff | talk 17:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

(talk page watcher) @BollyJeff: See WP:3RRNO for exemptions for WP:3RR. Technically, removing spam isn't on there but have a look at Wikipedia talk:Edit warring/Archives/2015/April. Note the spam has to be blatant. --NeilN talk to me 17:57, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
@BollyJeff: To add to NeilN, please see Wikipedia:Vandalism#Spam_external_linking. Regards, Optakeover(Talk) 18:03, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
It was not obviously blatant to me. Some of these fake social media accounts are hard to tell from the real thing. What is the rule for adding these types of links? Must they be verified, and how? BollyJeff | talk 18:49, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
@Bollyjeff: Then read WP:ELNO. Optakeover(Talk) 19:10, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
But it should be okay to have them if they are verified genuine by third party sources I hope. I have seen them on FAs with such sourcing. BollyJeff | talk 21:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
@Bollyjeff: Well I just read the article, you see the websites were already listed in the external section below, and so I found the repeated addition to the infobox rather disruptive, and well, since others did, it certainly give some community indication that the behaviour was frowned upon. If the users expended all good-faith notices on his talk page without engaging in discussion, and even resorting to sock-puppetry to force his edits, then I think that the behaviour was as blatant as it could get. The article is a good article and I'm not sure if any excuses on that regard could be given, that we need to protect the quality of the article, but even if that doesn't pass my take is that the user's behaviour was certainly blatant, without inviting discussion over the links he was putting. Optakeover(Talk) 02:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Agreed. I took them out of the external links as well; I think the same user put them there. Unless they are verified as genuine, we don't need them. Cheers, BollyJeff | talk 02:18, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Siddharth Nigam

Sir I have made changes on the "Siddharth Nigam" page. I have used reference this time. You may verify it yourself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddhinigam7 (talkcontribs) 17:01, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Sir the page was re-edited. Please do verify the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Siddhinigam7 (talkcontribs) 17:04, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

@Siddhinigam7: Much better. Optakeover(Talk) 17:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

May I ask?

May I ask why did you delete a blocked user comment on my talk page? -- Alexf(talk) 22:11, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

@Alexf: I believed that the edit was not made in good faith. I had warned the user. Sorry, Optakeover(Talk) 22:12, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
It was not overly insulting or overt vandalism. Just a misguided user trying to push his agenda in the article. He has been blocked for a few hours and we are watching in case he needs undef. -- Alexf(talk) 22:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
Noted. Once again, my apologies. Optakeover(Talk) 22:14, 8 August 2015 (UTC)