User talk:RagingR2

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


Hello, RagingR2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! , SqueakBox 22:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Re:Cultural impact of video games[edit]

My apologies if my edit offended you. I had originally justified that the article is intended to reflect the computer gaming. While I had only realized that the similar console game article had included a Criticism section reflecting video game controversies in general (and thus justifying your edits), my original thought was that it wasn't entirely explaining the problems of PC gaming alone, explaining general topics instead.

I have to admit that I have a somewhat aggressive stance in editing, but I do provide an explanation or justification when performing significant edits. I can also understand your sentiment upon realizing your edits were removed; I had similar experiences in Wikipedia previously. I typically assume that editors (me included) can take edits like some of mine with a pinch and salt and move on, or defend their edits constructively. In this case, you could revert my edits using the history page and provide a responding explanation on why the previous edits should stay (in either the edit summary or talk page) if you have any objections.

Thanks for understanding, and I'll be sure to better myself with this experience. Happy editing! :) ╫ 25 ◀RingADing▶ 13:23, 5 April 2006 (UTC) ╫

Response to reply in ZS's talk page
It seems like a rather reasonable proposition. Go ahead and do so. Thanks again for the prompt response. ╫ 25 ◀RingADing▶ 13:45, 5 April 2006 (UTC) ╫

Stormtrooper Effect and WP:NOR[edit]

It read like Original Research. (Note: Currently, there's an edit war over the policy page. Here's a link to a version from yesterday that shouldn't have those problems, I hope.) I apologize if I seemed slightly trigger happy. Original research includes new theories, speculation, conclusions, etc. If you were to include an outside reputable source which stated that the Matrix contained the Stormtrooper Effect, it would be fine.

Though there is still no particular need to include every single example of the Stormtrooper Effect ever filmed, as it detracts from the quality of the article by making it excessively huge. Finally, several articles on similar "effects" or "phenomena" in TV and film have recently been deleted as screencruft, non-notable, or original research, so the reduction of "cruftish" elements in the remaining articles is probably a wise precaution. --tjstrf 18:39, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, using things that people agree on would be perfectly all right. Kill Bill definitely displayed what you were talking about, nearly to a comedic point.
On a total sidepoint, in real life and depending on the situation, soldiers "waiting their turn" to attack might not be incompetancy, but rather caution to avoid hitting their comrades or self-preservation (let the enemy get tired by fighting other people first, then I'll attack). The only Stormtrooper-esque thing about it is that the main character survives. If he were to be beaten at the end of the scene, it should instead be considered cannon fodder actually displaying intelligence. --tjstrf 02:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

RagingR2 09:28, 22 September 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knife408 (talkcontribs)

Reversion of your Bonnie and Clyde edit...[edit]

Hello. I reverted your good faith edits to Bonnie and Clyde because the article represents the combined efforts of dozens of editors working hundreds of hours with thousands of individual edits. It was an often-painful — and always deliberate — process getting it to where it is today, and it really requires consensus on the talk page before carving the lead up and redistributing all over the article. Cheers. — HarringtonSmith (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't see you giving any reasons why my edit doesn't make sense; whereas I did provide a reason (short description) when I made the edit. On the other hand, from your point of view being part of said painstaking process; I can understand your feelings about someone barging in on the article and making his edits without any discussion. ;) So I described my opinion on the discussion as you will have noticed, and I hope people will see my point. Personally, I feel the fact that the article is a product of painstaking discussion and deliberate editing is no reason in itself to not make an edit, especially when the only thing the edit does is rearrange parts of the text to improve the logical structure of the article, without making any edits to the content or removing any of it... I'll leave that to the people who appearantly have substantial knowledge of the subject. ;) RagingR2 (talk) 10:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
Of course you're right — the hurly-burly of the editing process should have no bearing on the inherent value of the edit itself. I did my better writing to you over on the Talk:Bonnie and Clyde page, where I explained my feelings about your edits. Glad to have you as part of this article. :) — HarringtonSmith (talk) 16:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)


Fine. So find a source saying that :-) Blackmetalbaz (talk) 16:59, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Uhm, so you want me to supply sources for the fact that a) gore just means "blood and murder" and b) goregrind is about more than just blood and murder? Right, well how about 1) the dictionary and 2) the lyrics of your average goregrind band... or even a list of song titles will do, really. :) Right there you have your sources. But frankly it seems a little unnecessary to me to go quoting/referencing these in the article. :) RagingR2 (talk) 23:05, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Tablet personal computer requested move[edit]

As an FYI, there is a move discussion currently taking place relating to Tablet personal computer at Talk:Tablet_personal_computer#Requested_move. --Labattblueboy (talk) 18:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fairytale of New York, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Katzenjammer (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Star Wars: Clone War Adventures[edit]

Ambox warning yellow.svg

The article Star Wars: Clone War Adventures has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No sources for this series and no indication of real world notability (no reception or reviews)

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Nathan121212 (talk) 18:19, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

{{subst:Nothanks- web|pg=StarWars: CloneWars (comics)|url=}} Nathan121212 (talk) 04:23, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible copyvio[edit]

{{subst:Nothanks- web|pg=StarWars: CloneWars (comics)|url=all sources on page}} Nathan121212 (talk) 04:24, 24 July 2014 (UTC)