User talk:The Bread/Archive One

It seems to me that you have acted in an uncivil manner on Talk:Solid Snake. It is important to keep a cool head, despite any comments against you. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and action can be taken against the other parties if necessary. Your involvement in attacking back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors, and lead to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! RandyWang (^raves/_{review me!}) 08:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

I don't recall actually sending a personal attack all i said was "You don't seem to be getting it" but I apologise and will refrain in the future, thanks for your civil message on civlity

(The Bread 08:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC))Reply

No problem on the support issue. I call it how I see it and there was a lot of bullshit floating around there from A Man in Black. Don't even worry about Randy and that civility shit, the guy's a robot. I got the same exact message.

cheers mate (The Bread 22:41, 28 July 2006 (UTC))Reply

The one we've got now's awesome, I give up with the whole Old Snake thing, clearly i'm not going to win(The Bread 22:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC))Reply

You know, if you keep that up, the world's gonna win. "Give em an inch, they take a mile." Your two cents actually DO matter, even if other people think they have 10.--Snake Liquid 02:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Your right, i'll be back

(The Bread 03:13, 29 July 2006 (UTC))Reply

Hello: There is an RfC on Snake Liquid which you may wish to comment on. --Emufarmers^(T/C) 05:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Gonna need your help on this one buddy. Help me show them what the real problem is.--Snake Liquid 06:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the support my friend! I owe you one!--Snake Liquid 07:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Bread, maybe we should bring up an RfC on Man In Black's policing behavior over at the Solid Snake article?--Snake Liquid 00:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree to the edit counter opt-in terms

I've got your back, Bread. Call others in to help with the characters article, and then we'll get cracking on the RfC.--Snake Liquid 06:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Only been here for a week. Read your argument with AMIB on the Recurring Metal Gear characters article, and I must say, I'm impressed. --User:Twlighter 20:03, 6 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Twlighter's not the only one impressed. Yes, I just picked up on this debate, and I think you're right, Bread. Check your user page. I added something to it. --Targetter ^{(Lock On)} 23:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

I started on the info box but real life intervened and I had some things that kept me busy for quite a bit. I'll put up what I have so far later tonight, will post to the project page when I have it up and the location. --Bookgrrl 12:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Put it up a couple of days ago here, did you get a chance to look at it? --Bookgrrl 04:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

So, are you an administrator?

As far as Rocky goes, I noticed you did some ok changes but I want to inform you... if you go on main page on rocky, this vandal makemi reverted important information which deals with rocky marciano, the man after all inspired sylvester stallone to make the movie, see that something is mentioned there, i hate when jerks like that, especially administrators rule this site and screw things up... Hopefully this looks like a good version with proper information?! http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rocky&diff=74013253&oldid=73890229

http://www.filmsite.org/rock.html Even though it was not named after rocky, the inspiration to the movie comes from rocky, this is what brother of marciano said.

I have no idea what is this all about, can we fix the Rocky link, i am not inserting anything because it will be reversed, hopefully others will agree to correct the article. Wikipedia is terribly lacking objectivity on all sides...

Please stop reinserting blatant vandalism/trolling by that anon. - A Man In Bl?ck (conspire | past ops) 07:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

It was just a comment like thousands of others, not vandalism, Vandals don't tend to sign their comments and you're not allowed to delete others comments, and why the hell do I have to have your silly comment on my page if he's the Troll, I might just delete your comment on my page

(The Bread 07:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC))Reply

Actually, I am allowed to delete vandalism/trolling on sight, just like every user is. This comment is on your talk page because you reinserted that comment repeatedly, and I would like you to desist. - A Man In Bl?ck (conspire | past ops) 07:12, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

It wasn't vandalism or trolling it was a comment

(The Bread 07:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC))Reply

It was not a comment about the article. Useless at best, trolling at worst. Additionally, I would appreciate it if you would can the incivility, even in edit summaries. - A Man In Bl?ck (conspire | past ops) 07:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

While he may or may not look like Ted Turner, that's not a comment about the article, and repeatedly reinserting vandalism is indistinguishable from vandalizing by yourself. This is your final warning, rather than using a {{test}} template; please do not reinsert vandalism into Talk:Solid Snake. - A Man In Bl?ck (conspire | past ops) 07:20, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

In my opinion your initial action of reverting his delete of a user's comment was correct. Editing a user's comments is definitely poor form. At this point it's becoming an edit war with the back-and-forth reverts so I think you're also correct to bring in a third party opinion. I will post something and we'll see if getting an objective opinion convinces him/her. --Bookgrrl 11:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

OK, here's what I've done.

1. Reverted Talk:Solid Snake back to version that includes the user's Ted Turner comment
2. Added, on the talk page, a reminder to said user that talk pages are for discussions about the article not random chit-chat
3. Added same note to said user's talk page
4. Added note to Man In Black's talk page explaining what I was doing and why, with a link to Basic talk page rules to support my (and your) action

Let's see if this cools things down. --Bookgrrl 11:42, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

No problem :) --Bookgrrl 03:48, 7 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

First thing you can do is send me an email, we'll talk then. ILovePlankton 23:47, 6 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for rating Jake`s articleStevenscollege 23:17, 8 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

On Phaedriel's sound page, would you mind if I insert a picture of a loaf of bread in your entry? It was just an idea I got. :) —$???NGerag? (-¢|e|?|T|?-) 03:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I have been blocked,
Because of some fucking vandal,
I'm really pissed off,
With that fucking vandal,
When I get him he's gon' be in trouble,
I'll drown him in a puddle,
That Fucking vandal,
Wonder what he did,
Wonder what he did,
Oh I wonder,
What he did,
That son of a bitch...

Hello & thanks for writing me! :) I wasn't pretending that your refs were wrong (by date, I mean) because actually I don't know too much about it anyway. What I meant was the way you were using the cite web template! Please take a look at these diffs (as I corrected it twice): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rocky&diff=76257723&oldid=76147225 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rocky&diff=76397070&oldid=76366009 What I would like you to see is that when you use the cite web template accessdate means only the date, not also the year, which you have to specify explicitely with accessyear. If these diffs aren't clear enough, then just take a look at the 9th reference in your version here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rocky&oldid=76147225 and at the 10th reference here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rocky&oldid=76366009 You see that your date is in red? Well it shouldn't have and this is the only thing I've fixed (but as I've already said, after fixing it twice for you, I just wanted to point it out, nothing personal! :) Otherwise, keep up the good work with the Rocky article! :) --Vlad|-> 09:28, 19 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

The article did have citations, but they weren't in the form of references, they were links inside the article... However, I did change them to references. Also, the trivia section is not that large and that is not a necassarily failing point of an article. I think you should state more reasons or re-evaluate the article. Cbrown1023

Actually it does show the relationship to the video games (see the Production section and the Relationship to the Video Games section). Also, where does it say there should be no trivia section at all? Cbrown1023 01:14, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

I'll re-nominate but just one comment, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Style guidelines state that trivia sections can be a good addtion to the article but should not be long, and since that is the subject of the article in question, those guidelines should be followed. Cbrown1023 01:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the Blackadder Barnstar -- the project is shaping up nicely :) --Bookgrrl 12:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for passing Erast Fandorin as GA, and the compliments on the talk page. It is nice knowing your work is being appreciated! Errabee 11:05, 1 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I've sourced the offending bits (and am contacting you rather than choring through re-nominated it again). Except, what did you mean by her Buffy character? All it says is "She made her screen acting debut in early 2003, appearing in episodes of Buffy the Vampire Slayer" Mad Jack 05:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, The Bread! Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which succeeded with a final tally of 75/0/1! I hope I can live up to the standards of adminship, and I will try my best to make Wikipedia a better place. Feel free to send me a message if you need any assistance. :)

--Coredesat 16:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

How does this mean the "terrible chidren" instead of the "terrible infants"? Is so, then isn't that a paradox? - Metal gear ninty 20:54, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

My administratorship candidacy succeeded with a final tally of 81/0/1. I appreciate your support. Results are at Wikipedia:Recently_created_admins#Durova. Warmly, Durova 21:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

I like a game too, sir. You'll be seeing me again, I just need to go make sure my SHOES are polished up properly and also sleep. Heh heh... I live on the East Coast, ya know?

I'd gesture, but...Ah screw it.

Nite nite, breadman... make sure the nanos don't bite.

why did you revert my edit on metal gear solid? it was certainly not vandalism and was certainly a helpful; contribution