User talk:The 888th Avatar

Welcome!

Hello, The 888th Avatar, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! -Razorflame (talk) 07:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, here is interactive_agency( my username), and i want to move my first contribution (im trying to create all most important advertisers pages in wikipedia and i wrote somes), but i think this is really done (i saw you edited for some vandalism, thanks a lot). Can you check if this is correct to be published? check my sandbox please. really thanks.

It's me, Energybender, from Avatar Wiki, and my username here is Readopedia. I believe Zero also has an account here: GENERALZERO. --Readopedia (talk) 23:13, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind that account isn't Zero. --Readopedia (talk) 00:32, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Energy...or should I say Readopedia. WHSL ^(Talk) 03:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, thanks for the follow up explanation. Camw (talk) 07:43, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It correctly redefined the subject of a page

I have 888th Avatar granted rollback rights to your account; the reason for this is that after a review of some of your contributions, I believe I can trust you to use rollback correctly by using it for its intended usage of reverting vandalism, and that you will not abuse it by reverting good-faith edits or to revert-war. For information on rollback, see Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. If you do not want rollback, just let me know, and I'll remove it. Good luck and thanks. –Juliancolton ^Talk · ^Review 13:35, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

MY LANGUAGE WAS FROM A NEUTRAL POINT OF VIEW DUE TO THOSE WORDS. DON'T DELETE IT. LET'S READ IT TOGETHER!!! IT IS "KNOWN FOR"! IF I KNOW IT FOR..., THEN THAT IS TRUE. I DID NOT SAY "COMMONLY KNOWN FOR" "IT IS CRITICIZED" IF I CRITICIZE IT, IT IS CRITICIZED, I DID NOT SAY OFTEN CRITICIZED. YOU MUST BE MORE CAREFUL, MY FRIEND. I AM SMART AND SLICK! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.193.102 (talk) 09:46, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well CANADA was incorrect. Please read the few sentences I wrote and what I wrote above. Is it untrue? It is just tricky. Just like the marketing in television commercials you see daily. There is nothing wrong with it and I refuse to allow it to be removed. It is fair because the words I used can have broad contexts. For each portion to be true, 1 person must criticize or "know it for" and I am that one person. That is how we make advertisements.

PS: I no longer use "harsh" and liberal is used a little differently.

Sir or madame, thank you for your time. If you are not the "person to go to," please do not edit it. Sometimes when something is written very sneakily, like advertising, it can be misleading to a degree while also being true. My level of higher education is enough to tell me that this needs no sources because I use myself as an example. I am 1 person and if I criticize, then I can say, with no sources, that the city has been criticized. I, for a fact, know the city for its liberalism, so I can say it is known for its liberalism. That is being tricky! No sources are needed. If you "are not interested," then please butt out. I purposely deleted the talk page section to see if it would be brought up again, because the argument has changed, and the words have changed!

THEN YOU LEAVE THE 2 SENTENCES THERE SO WE CAN DISCUSS IT ON THE TALK PAGE. OR YOU START SOMETHING ON THE TALK PAGE! BECAUSE YOU'RE THE ONE WITH THE PROBLEM WITH MY TWO SENTENCES!!!!76.102.193.102 (talk) 10:28, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to make you understand, I am the source. I can say "some people like WHSL" and that would not need a source, because, grammatically, if one person likes WHSL, that statement would be true, so I would just need to find one person. Apply the same example to Piedmont and see that no sources are needed. Thanks 76.102.193.102 (talk) 10:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

May we please discuss this on the talk page of the relevant article. My main comment will be there. Elemesh (talk) 10:40, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The questionnaire is a great example of how some people like you are just unwilling to budge. You see something, you don't like it, and nothing can convince you that it should be there! Unbelievable! "Questionable Source"???!!! 76.102.193.102 (talk) 11:01, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cease arguing, and please talk on the articles talk page, not here. Elemesh (talk) 11:07, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you keep arguing? You cannot communicate and are not willing to cooperate!76.102.193.102 (talk) 11:20, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry to have approached you so hostilely. I am open to hear your argument though my opinion hasn't changed. I felt Elemesh, you, and me had reached a consensus. Thanks. 76.102.193.102 (talk) 06:53, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, thanks for your comment. How about we remove the "disapprove..." for know, but keep "extremely". If you look at the source, I think it's over 70% Obama voters. Now, I may be wrong, but the US, was barely over 50. I am interested to know what you think, as I understand your point that the source does not discuss disapprove... I must find a way to rephrase that so the source can account for it. Thank You. 76.102.193.102 (talk) 07:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that my source provides percentages and numbers, but I am assuming you want them only for Piedmont rather than the whole area. I am looking... 76.102.193.102 (talk) 07:16, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's on http://www.acgov.org/MAPS/rov/ElectionResults/Default.aspx , but it's very hard to find. One has to click and zoom and find Piedmont to see the results. They mirror the county results closely although not perfectly. 76.102.193.102 (talk) 07:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I'll work on it tomorrow. Could use your help! 76.102.193.102 (talk) 07:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The website www.filmtaka.com you treat as a spam, some peoples (who did not know wikipedia TOS) try to add the pages of filmtaka.com in wikipedia. and there is misunderstanding occured between editors who edit filmtaka.com and administrator of wikipedia, but it did not mean that the website is spam. please stop doing this, if you have any query so , let me know —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.176.211 (talk) 10:04, 27 March 2009 (UTC) --122.161.176.211 (talk) 10:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Just to explain what I'm trying to do. Originally I wrote two articles, Alpinorum auxiliary regiments and Raetorum auxiliary regiments, to deal with regiments from the western and central/eastern Alps respectively. Now it occurs to me that it makes sense to integrate all the Alpine regiments in one article. So I renamed Raetorum Alpine regiments of the Roman auxilia and merged Alpinorum's data into it. I therefore propose to erase Alpinorum, but I don't know how to do it. Cany you do it? Regards EraNavigator (talk) 10:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I thought you were doing something extraordinarily bad. What you need to do is do an article redirect. You can read about them at Wikipedia:Redirect. Sorry for the confusion. WHSL ^(Talk) 10:07, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You might be interested in the discussion at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Recurring edit war on articles related to Piedmont, California. Thank you. KuyaBriBri^Talk 17:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't vandalism. I'm attempting to REMOVE blatant vandalism, yet you keep reverting it. (Guitar Hero: Britney Spears doesn't even exist!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.144.142 (talk) 07:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, but I came across it while browsing Category:Wii Wi-Fi games. I thought either way it doesn't belong there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.214.144.142 (talk) 07:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Totally forgot the nowiki tags. ThuranX (talk) 03:58, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any time. ;) WHSL ^(Talk) 04:14, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I removed Lyricwiki is to avoid clutter in the history section. Wikia absorbes tons of wikis. If we made an entry in the "on day X, wikia absorbed wiki Y" style, the page would be unreadable. Lyricwiki having a wikipedia page is not important here. Other, imo more well known, wikis like Uncyclopedia, WoWWiki and Memory Alpha also were absorbed and are not mentioned there. --Xeeron (talk) 10:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that all these wikis' absorption should be mentioned (possibly not Memory Alpha, certainly the others). The wikis are all significant entities in themselves and attract a large proportion of Wikia's traffic (I can't remember, but WoWWiki is 20% compared to all of Wikia?). WHSL ^(Talk) 03:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So which wikis should be mentioned? Which should not? What is the criteria? And how many in total should there be in the history section? Why is it not enough to include a more general sentence along the lines of "many wikis that started independently have been included in wikia"? --Xeeron (talk) 10:49, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what's wrong with "Many wikis that started independently have been absorbed into Wikia, such as Uncyclopedia, WoWWiki and LyricWiki"? The general statement "Many wikis have been included" is not particularly specific and not particularly useful. The 888th Avatar (talk) 11:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That sentence is a lot better than what is currently in the article. --Xeeron (talk) 18:25, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing how the article still has lyricwiki (and only lyricwiki) in it, together with a precise date (which I feel is of no importance), can I ask you whether you prefer to have a somewhat reasonable subset of well known wikis in that section or none? I prefer the latter, but having some is a lot better than one random example. --Xeeron (talk) 15:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I prefer that a reasonable subset of well known wikis be included in that section, because it makes that statement more specific and informative. The 888th Avatar (talk) 04:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to change the sentence to something a bit more specific to wikia in general. Please take a look. --Xeeron (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Who do you think you are? B. Fairbairn (talk) 12:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A person interested in upholding the principles of this project. It seems as though my advice to you to be polite to be other users was completely sound. You'd be surprised how far a bit of manners can take you. The 888th Avatar (talk) 12:07, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, point taken. A word of advice - you would come across better if you were not so patronising. B. Fairbairn (talk) 12:23, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If that was the impression you received, I apologise. I generally try to be as polite as possible, and sometimes it is misinterpreted. The 888th Avatar (talk) 12:36, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there The 888th Avatar, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some files that I found on User:The 888th Avatar/Sandbox. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use files to your user-space drafts or your talk page.

• See a log of files removed today here.

• Shut off the bot here.

• Report errors here.

Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 00:25, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oops. The 888th Avatar (talk) 08:04, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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. 7  10:10, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's me, Suzon PhilospherJoshua (talk) 13:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. The 888th Avatar (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As an Australian Wikipedian, your opinion is sought on a proposal to advocate for the introduction of Fair Use into Australian copyright law. The discussion is taking place at the Australian Wikipedians' notice board, please read the proposal and comment there. MediaWiki message delivery MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This message has been automatically sent to all users in Category:Australian Wikipedians. If you do not wish to receive further messages like this, please either remove your user page from this category, or add yourself to Category:Opted-out of message delivery