This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

No problem, and thanks for your help as well. Yeah, the #96 IP is not mine, and I explained why I don't do that sort of activity on Metalvayne's talk page. Backtable ^{Speak to me} _{concerning my deeds.} 22:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

What man,you didnt even check the links to verify if they are working or not?anyways,I'v added a source of Nuclear Blast,their record label. Metalvayne ( talk) 19:55, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I didn't revert you based on the source's accuracy, I did because you removed sourced information without any sort of explanation. If you're removing a source because it doesn't work anymore, you're supposed to leave an edit summary explaining why you removed it. Or, conversely, find a new source. Considering how much you like to tinker with genres, totally disregarding sources, I hadn't checked to see if that one worked... Sergecross73 msg me 14:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

yes,that was really stupid of me. Metalvayne ( talk) 20:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You have good taste in colors. DanielDPeterson + talk 11:25, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Haha, thanks, you too! I had actually seen your signature around somewhere in the past, and had taken notice we used the same colors too, just never mentioned anything about it. :) Sergecross73 msg me 13:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Zagurzem: Hey, it's me again. Only four more days until Sonic 4: Episode II comes out! Anyways, on the 15th, I am planning to finish the plot on the Episode Metal and Episode II sections. I understand that you want me to keep the plot as short as I can, and I'll try. But you do know that the plot will be a bit meatier than Episode I . I agree, Sonic 4 doesn't have the heaviest plot, but I do need to put some depth into it so readers understand, but as I said, I'll keep it as simple as I can.

Also, can the Episode Metal section of the plot merge with the Episode II plot section? The reason why I think this could be is that because Episode Metal is just a bonus four-act long game that comes with Episode II. I should just combine the plot with Episode II's. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zagurzem ( talk • contribs) 12:52, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

That sounds fine. I'll be around to trim it down if it gets too detailed too. I'd support merging of plots as well, just as long as it stated that the Metal plot points come from Metal in a sentence or something. Sergecross73 msg me 13:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Zagurzem: What do you mean by "just as long as it stated that the Metal plot points come from Metal in a sentence or something"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zagurzem ( talk • contribs) 16:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I just meant, if you delete a subsection that says "Episode Metal", then the first sentence regarding Espisode Metal should probably start off something like "In Episode Metal, event X happens to person Y", subbing in actual plot points for the X and Y stuff. Sergecross73 msg me 16:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Sergecross73. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gordon J. Key.
Message added -- Trevj ( talk) 03:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thanks for easing the process on this one. Hopefully some further sources will be found some day... but in the mean time, at least it gives a bit of basic info. Cheers! -- Trevj ( talk) 01:22, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Zagurzem: I saw that you changed the image section to include both Ep I and II's logos. This is a good idea, but there's one problem: The Ep I logo doesn't have the "Episode I" subtitle underneath it, while the Episode II one does, making it kind of lopsided. Can you fix this and replace the Ep. I image with one that has the subtitle for me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zagurzem ( talk • contribs) 17:19, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't do that, another user did. I did think it was a good compromise between our earlier argument. However, I'm not much of an image person; Wikipedia has complicated restrictions/protocol with images, and even if it didn't, I'm don't especially desire to do image stuff, so I tend to stay clear. I don't think the "Ep 1" missing is that big of a deal, I'm happy enough with it as is. If you're that hung up on it, I guess you'd be better off asking someone else for help. (That is, if the image you speak of even exists. Do you know that it does?) Sergecross73 msg me 18:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

You do not add in pure speculation from a random journalist under release information. Do it again, and I will report you. -- 68.230.252.5 ( talk) 23:14, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

1UP.com is not just some "random journalist". I recommend you use the talk page to discuss than continue to edit war on the Final Fantasy Type-0 article. -- MuZemike 23:22, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd also recommend that you try to adopt a more cooperative attitude, because this warning appears to be quite confrontational and almost aggressive. Civility is key to harmonious relations and productive editing. :) Salvidrim! 23:56, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Thank you MuZemike and Salvidrim for responding to this. I don't understand what the IP is so worked up about either. 1up.com is considered a reliable source by Wikiproject Video Games at WP:VG/S, the source and the wikipedia article both clearly articulate that it's a rumor, it's not like it's a false confirmation or anything, and it's a pretty common sentiment, I'm pretty sure I could find a number of other reliable sources that would say the same thing.

Also, for the record, not sure what I would be "reported" for, I only reverted once, and with a detailed edit summary, and it's certainly not POV-pushing; I'd personally prefer they didnt release it on Vita, as I own a PSP, and don't plan on owning a Vita any time soon. I'm writing it according to the sources, not my personal feelings. Sergecross73 msg me 13:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I'll split up the articles! CaseyPenk ( talk) 17:08, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I appreciate it. Sergecross73 msg me 00:16, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

Cheers man. People need to learn that if they make comments they regret they shouldn't make them in the first place. Яehevkor ✉ 01:25, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. Judging by some of his other edits, he has a rather warped view of Wikipedia ...there's a lot of things he should probably learn... Sergecross73 msg me 02:06, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this, it's not like I was instigating unbecoming original research or something. Can you show me why WP:NOTAFORUM should apply? There, it says "that talk pages exist for the purpose of discussing how to improve articles". Now, having an official quote pertaining to a section of the article that needs improving / clarification certainly would serve that aim, would it not? Obviously, the information could only be used once present as a source that meets the required standards. (What if I had written this: "I know of book x that I think could make an excellent source to clear up y, but can't find it at the moment. If there is someone out there who has it, could you please check out whether or not it's helping in the matter?" Would you consider that verboten, too?) – ὁ οἶστρος ( talk) 18:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It didn't look appropriate because you addressed it to "video game journalists", not editors, (Wikipedia Talk pages are not the place to try to contact journalists or the press.) and you asked a random question about the topic without actually addressing the actual article at any point.

I apologize if I misunderstood you, but with the way I read it, it looked no different than how people sometimes go to talk pages to ask inappropriate questions like "How do I get my PS2 to work?" or "How do I unlock X character for Y game?". You can re-add it if you want, but if you want to avoid others removing it too, you may want change your wording, so it's more about the article, and it doesn't sound like you want answers to a personal quiery. Sergecross73 msg me 18:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It's about this (within "Post-announcement"):

On July 5, 2011, when asked about whether or not the Wii U was going to support 3D, Iwata told Mercury News, "If you are going to connect Wii U with a home TV capable of displaying 3-D images, technologically, yes, it is going to be possible, but that's not the area we are focusing on".

I can see how my edit may seem inappropriate, but again, I'm not asking for someone to go find something out and then immediately put it into this article. It would have to be published somewhere first. So, actually, I was addressing journalists, but not to edit here, but to garner data that later on could be used by editors. Given E3 is currently underway (where there are folks at hand who possess the information this article presently lacks) and since Wikipedia is read by many people, including professional scribes, it seemed like a good opportunity to direct attention to the issue. So, I don't know, maybe it was against policy to do that, but I've yet to be shown how. – ὁ οἶστρος ( talk) 18:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Right, your intentions seemed to be good, it's just wording seemed more like one of those "personal queiry" type of posts where a user is using a talk page like it were a messageboard. Had you given the same quote you just gave above, and asked if there were any other sources that clarified what the quote meant, for example, I never would have given it a second thought. Sergecross73 msg me 19:05, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Sergecross73. You have new messages at Armbrust's talk page.
Message added 16:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Armbrust, B.Ed. ^{WrestleMania XXVIII} _{The Undertaker 20–0} 16:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hello. Feel free to read and supply commentary to this discussion concerning several review sites. Thank you. Backtable ^{Speak to me} _{concerning my deeds.} 01:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't have more to contribute. Let me know if there's anything else I can do... Sergecross73 msg me 21:29, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

As you had participated in the previous AfD, your views would be welcome here Talk:Use_of_Twitter_by_celebrities_and_politicians#Proposal_to_merge. §§ AnimeshKulkarni ( talk) 16:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Hey man, with all due respect I put back the changes that I actually spent time making. I didn't hurt the article, that's for sure. Even if it's not perfect, it's way better now. All statements have relevant sources. I doubled checked them all. Buy simply "undoing" the changes the article actually goes back to being worse. Doesn't make sense unless you have a vendetta against this page / guy which also wouldn't make sense. I appreciate you reaching out to me on my talk page. I tried to list my changes on the Nick Perri talk page but I don't think I put them in the right place. I'm new to this whole thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deathdealer101 ( talk • contribs) 03:39, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted your changed because you keep on removing templates without addressing the issues. For instance, you removed the "BLP unsourced section" tag, after you removed a sentence. That doesn't make any sense; no sources were added, so it's still an unsourced section. The tag needs to stay. Secondly, just because you removed some sentences, doesn't change the conflict of interest situation; the article is still largely written by that George Summer guy who clearly has a conflict of interest. Don't remove that tag.

Here's another example.

In the article, it says Later that year he started releasing instrumental singles under the moniker "Nick Perri Music", ^{citation needed}.

You then changed it to: Later that year he started releasing instrumental singles.

Again, that's not handling things the right away. The correct thing to do would be to add a source, not remove half the information, and then remove the CN tag. It's still unsourced.

Ultimately, I'm not against all of your changes, but so many of them are done the wrong way, like the ones above, that it makes more sense to change it all back. I'd suggest, until you learn more of the policies of Wikipedia, that you make smaller, multiple edits, so all of your work doesn't get changed back due to just some mistakes. Sergecross73 msg me 10:27, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Aha. Now we get a reason, finally...that's what it took? Your observation that it only LOOKS like him in the video may be a reason, but I hope you see you're the first to bring this up. You didn't say its too old, or poor quality, or that i was vandalizing...congratulations. 66.87.2.85 ( talk) 02:41, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Well, the other editors were making a lot of valid arguments as well, but regardless, I'm glad you understand my explanation at least. Sergecross73 msg me 14:33, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

I do believe I said that personal observation does not make a reliable source. In any case, I'm glad the point has been understood. Ladyof Shalott 15:04, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, and I believe another person said something awfully similar too. In fact, I almost didn't save changes when I wrote the message because I felt it was too redundant to what other people were saying. But hey, it worked. Sergecross73 msg me 15:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Read the quote back over a little more carefully. "[he] can't say that it's entirely out of the realm of possibility that some Capcom character could appear in the next Smash Bros. The big problem, though, comes from the idea of trying to get characters from a completely different universe to fit with the style that has been dictated by Nintendo's characters in a fighting game." When he says "characters from a different universe", that doesn't just extend to Capcom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.200.178 ( talk) 19:29, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, after I reverted your change I noticed that your change actually was more in line with what the source said. I think I initially misinterpreted your edit because of your edit summary here, which seemed to suggest that the impossibility of a more than one third party character from a third party, which is not suggested in the source. But your actual edit didn't really reflect that part of the edit summary either, and your actual edit was correct. Sergecross73 msg me 19:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about my bad behavior. I responded to you on my talk page. I don't know how to link back to it, but I'm done trolling, and it's time for me to start editing like a normal human being :) I just made a recent edit to the AC3DS page and I honestly think it's a productive change, because it corrects a few glaring grammatical and punctuation errors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.123.111 ( talk) 03:51, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for stopping. Sergecross73 msg me 16:24, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

My reply:

1. Well, can we try to get the community to do more with it? Like maybe make a WikiProject to bring some attention, say it needs editing ASAP? You see, 3DS homebrew is all I hear about now. I get on 3DS forums, and I these are the post titles I see:

"Anyone know of a 3DS flashcart? Need 1 ASAP."

"Pokemon Steel (3DS fangame) Project - N33D C0D3R5"

"Top 10 3DS Homebrew Games of 2012"

2. Pokemon Crazy Diamond DOES deserve its own page, I just need images first.

3. I know you didn't delete my image. The guy that did said it violated Nintendo copyright because it's called "Pokemon Crazy Diamond", EVEN THOUGH IT'S UNOFFICIAL. TrollGlaDOS ( talk) 05:41, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

If you want to save this article, then you should be the one trying to save it through Wikiprojects, getting people to help, etc. Time and time again, all you do is revert the redirect with a snarky comment, and then let it sit for a week. The burden is on you here. I feel there's so little relevant info here that it can just be part of the overall homebrew article for now. You haven't proven otherwise yet. Sergecross73 msg me 10:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

For being awesome.

TrollGlaDOS ( talk) 05:42, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

just wanted to come by and say hi. it's been a long time we didn't talk and see eachother around WP... i hope you're doing fine ;) Reza ^(Let'sTalk) 20:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Reza! I'm well, and I hope you are too. Yeah, a ways back I had intentions on working more on Grace for Drowning, in which I figured I'd probably see you around, but the album disappointed me a little, so I never got around to working on it much. (Though it's growing on me some, so maybe I'll get back to it...) I have seen you working on the Storm Corrosion articles though. Anyways, hope all is well with you. Sergecross73 msg me 02:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. and yeah it disappointed me too. i wanted to expanded it more but i just left it. maybe later. and actually Storm Corrosion disappointed me too. I can't make a connection with it. ;) Have a nice day Reza ^(Let'sTalk) 16:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your input on that question. That question had left my mind for a while; I wonder if that is around the time I got the album, or if that was afterwards. Anyways, I appreciate the response concerning this question I had almost three years ago. Cheers. Backtable ^{Speak to me} _{concerning my deeds.} 22:19, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

		The Video Game Barnstar
		For all your hard work in video game-related areas, you definitely deserve this barnstar. :) Cyan Gardevoir (used EDIT!) 01:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! I tend to work alone, and much of the time on less-than-mainstream topics, so I don't get many of these. Thanks! Sergecross73 msg me 03:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote of support ... you can see how this IP and I went round and round on this. Take a look at the edit history and look at his parting shot that I deleted as a personal attack ... then they tried to reinstate it under another IP. -- McDoob AU 93 03:37, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, it was actually the edit where you removed it (where he's going on about his wife or whatever) that I caught on my watchlist, and inspired me to chime in, because the IP was being so ridiculous. Sorry I didn't saying anything sooner, but I just hadn't noticed the conversation... Sergecross73 msg me 13:10, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

It's OK, and thanks. I thought it was hilarious that he accused you of being one of my sockpuppets! Oh well feeding time's over, I think. -- McDoob AU 93 15:03, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I found that funny too. As I was saying, it's not very often that two multi-year, 10,000+ editors get accused of being each other's sockpuppet. Can you imagine the level of committment to time and energy for a single person to be both of us? ^_^ Sergecross73 msg me 20:20, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I must be good to keep that going, right? ;) We'll see if he drops in on another IP this evening. They usually geolocate to Walla Walla, Washington, so that should give us a head-start ... that, and the argumentative tone he takes. But again, I'm gonna do my best to stay out of it, since I really think he's just trolling now. -- McDoob AU 93 20:28, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, and at least now, with two sets of eyes on the article, I'm guessing if he keep's up his reverting, he'll either violate 3RR many times over, or it'll be enough to warrant page protection too. Sergecross73 msg me 20:54, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Why did you delete my article? It was my understanding, based on the literally thousands of Marvel and DC character articles, most of which have no popularity, that ALL comic characters get to have individual articles. In any case, Sally is more than notable enough for her own page and has plenty of fan reception (which I understand is now necessary in articles) to talk about. But even if she didn't, she's been around for almost 20 years now and has appeared in almost every issue of her series! How is that not enough appearances for an article?

In any case, I will soon be recreating the article, more finished this time. Please don't touch it or we will have a problem. ResonX ( talk) 21:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

• Please calm down and take a breather... and lay off the threatening attitude. I don't think it's helpful and it certainly doesn't promoted the kind of collaborative atmophere needed to this project. :) Salvidrim! 22:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

( talk page stalker)I looked at what you wanted to do, and while I am vaguely aware of the character, I doubt seriously this one merits its own article. The thing to remember is, regarding these other comics characters, there are a lot of details about the character's creation and history (both in print and in universe). If you want to make a good case for starting a character-specific article, add your new information to the list of characters article, then if it gets to overwhelm the page, you might (a) get support to separate it out or (b) find most of it is unsourced or otherwise inappropriate and removed. -- McDoob AU 93 22:14, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, articles need to meet the WP:GNG in order to avoid being deleted. This means coverage in multiple, reliable, third party sources. The article was sourced by a game screenshot, a unreliable blog, a wikia, and a comic book. That's not coverage in reliable sources. How many Marvel characters have a article is irrelevant to whether or not Sally gets one.

I'd recommend working on simple editing of Wikipedia, and basic policy understanding, before taking on writing a whole article, but if you do go for it, work on making it meet the GNG if you want it to stick. Sergecross73 msg me 23:46, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Allow me to explain myself further: Sally USED to have an article, along with dozens of other Sonic characters who are now article–less and hundreds if not thousands of other, unrelated fictional characters like Timmy Turner. I'm not trying to make an unprecedented new article, I'm simply trying to right what was set wrong years ago.

Sally has appeared in nearly every issue of a series that's been around for almost 20 years. Isn't that enough? How many appearances automatically warrants a fictional character an article?

Also, there is tons of fan art and discussions out there about Sally. How much notability is fan art and discussions worth? I'd say a lot. However, you only seem to accept sources like IGN as "notable", and when discussing fan reception on character articles you usually refer to places like that rather than to actual fans. What gives with that?

The Marvel/DC comparison is relevant because of the number of minor and unpopular comic characters from those universes that are allowed to have their own articles while much more popular characters like Sally are denied articles just because their comics aren't as mainstream. That's why I flagged Egg Fu for merging. If you ask me, there should be less than 100 character articles each for Marvel and DC. The rest should be merged.

ResonX ( talk) 04:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Sources from "fans", as you say, doesn't make a topic notability. Notability requires "significant coverage in reliable, independant sources"; this excludes passing mentions, sites without established reliability and primary sources. Salvidrim! 04:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Salvidrim is exactly right. ResonX, please stop making this out to be some sort of huge injustice. It was merged/deleted before, and now, because it didn't meet the WP:GNG. That's Wikipedia's criteria for notabilty, that is, it's right to have an article. It doesn't matter if she appears in one issue of a comic, or a million, it's whether or not reliable source provide coverage on her. Reliable sources are professional sites. Like Gamespot or IGN. Not fansites or kids with art or videos on Youtube or something.

I've looked at old versions of her article, and they were even worse than the one you made, in regards to fulfilling Notability requirements. You need to write it to Wikipedia's standard if you want it to stick. I'm not saying its impossible, but I'm saying it hasn't done yet. If you don't like Wikipedia's standards for notabilty, I'd suggest working on some Sonic wikia or a fansite or something. These are the rules that have to be followed here. Sergecross73 msg me 11:09, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait. Are you telling me that fan content is worth NOTHING WHATSOEVER, regardless of amount? And the same with amount of appearances? ResonX ( talk) 01:55, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• For the sake of notability within Wikipedia. I'm glad the point finally got across. :) Salvidrim! 02:07, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

No, you haven't gotten the point across, and you never will. That is a HORRIBLE mistake, and it is WRONG. It MUST be changed. ResonX ( talk) 02:45, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• I wish you the best of luck changing one of the fundamental traits of Wikipedia. In the meantime, follow policy or your changes will be undone. Or go write at a Sonic Fansite, where fan content means something. Sergecross73 msg me 02:52, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

There are certain facts that can't be sourced by your very specific standards. Does that mean they should be omitted from this site? ResonX ( talk) 03:10, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it does. Read WP:VERIFY. And these aren't my personal rules, they're Wikipedia policy.

Anyways, no, not everything needs to be sourced, but anything "challenged" does require a source, and if someone is adding tags to an article, then that mean's it's challenged. As such, it needs sources. Sergecross73 msg me 03:24, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Explain this. And, for that matter, most of the other DCAU original characters. Excluding Harley Quinn and Terry McGinnis, none of them have any sources or notability. Why is it that characters from certain things such as DC are allowed to have articles automatically with no "Reception" required while all other works are extremely restricted when it comes to having character articles?

Also, what you say are "fundamental rules of Wikipedia" are NOT fundamental rules. They didn't exist until about 2008. Prior to that, pretty much everything could have an article, and it was great!

Finally, a question: What's worth more? One review in a published magazine, or one million fan reviews?

Respond to me ASAP.

ResonX ( talk) 23:51, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

1. Linking to terrible articles does not give a valid reason for creating another terrible article. It means the terrible articles should be deleted. If you want them to be deleted, go for it. There's WP:PROD and WP:AFD. I haven't done it because I honestly don't care about comic book stuff like that. My main interest is video game related, and rock music related. I have no obligation to do anything, let alone go about deleting random terribly written articles. There's just not enough time in the world to go about deleting every random terrible article. So I focus on things of interest. I won't object to you deleting them, in fact, I'd probably support it.
2. A fundamental rule of Wikipedia is using reliable sources to prove a topic passes the WP:GNG. Fan created artwork does not qualify as a reliable source. I don't know how to address the rest of what you said regarding 2008, I don't know what you're referring to.
3. One reliable source is more important than a million fan reviews, unless the fan reviews are covered by a reliable source. (ie if IGN does an article about how ridiculous some fan art is or something, it's worth mentioning. Again, read WP:VERIFY and WP:RS. Sergecross73 msg me 00:10, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but this particular album has it's names written in ALL CAPS. It's also copyrighted in all caps, the lyric videos are in all caps, everywhere else, it's all caps except here. This site is the only exception, the odd one out. I don't see why CAPS LOCK bothers you so much. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L530303 ( talk • contribs) 17:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

It looks sloppy, it looks like "yelling", and on Wikipedia, we use standard english, not crazy stylizations or capitalizations. It's policy - See WP:ALLCAPS. Thank you for at least discussion it with me, although you should have done talked it over before edit warring without leaving edit summaries. And you never should have resorted to name calling within the article itself. Sergecross73 msg me 17:24, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay your right. Sorry about that. In all honesty, I didn't know know to make edit summaries. It confused me how others were able to do it and I wasn't. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by L530303 ( talk • contribs) 18:50, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Hello, Sergecross73. You have new messages at A. B.'s talk page.
Message added 18:02, 24 August 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Um, I got a feeling that we might need an nonpartisan third-party, such as one of our administrators, to weigh in on this RfC and give their opinion about this. Should we contact one of our administrators about this matter? Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 01:52, 21 August 2012 (UTC)