User talk:Zero1328/Archive5

This is an archive of my talkpage, containing discussions from 2010.
The diff of the text removed is here.

Help with Scans

I was wondering how to get more specific with the referenced scans I used for a source on Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days, they reference every tidbit of information that the reference were being used for. So what's the problem? Is it the website that it's on? Concerns the scans might be fake? I'm just confused. What do I need to do to reference it right? Thank you. --Babyjazspanail (talk) 07:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thank you again. I'll try doing that. --Babyjazspanail (talk) 17:58, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assassin's Creed 2 edits

First of all, I would like to congratulate you. I would have never thought that the "Controversies" section could be improved in any major way but you managed that wonderfully. Well done! However, I did notice a few problems with the edits that you made which I will point out here.

First, when you made those copy edits, you deleted quite a bit of useful information and replaced it with weasel words, a practice which should be avoided as per wikipedia policy. As a result, I have deleted your weasel words and replaced it with the accurate info that was there previously.

[b]Shortly after[/b] - I don't think there is any benefit in using a specific figure so that can stay.

[b]following weekend[/b] - Again, no reason for a specific figure.

[b]a small percentage[/b] - How many? 5% is verified and much more accurate. Replaced!

[b]was soon developed[/b] - When is soon? One day later? One week later? One month later? Now you see the problem.

If you have a problem with the way I replaced your weasel words, feel free to make changes. Just don't put those weasel words back in unless you have a VERY good reason.

Next, I fail to understand why you deleted this reference: Ubisoft Blames DRM Outage on "Server Attack". It provides further evidence that a crack had not been released and also provides further proof for 5% of users being affected. As a result, I have put that reference back into the article.

Finally, the rest of my edits consists of minor changes to grammar and formatting. The crack doesn't "bypass" the connection requirement, it completely strips it out of the program. -XJDHDR (talk) 08:20, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Mana Bar

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Mana Bar. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Wikipedia:Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mana Bar. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:06, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]