User talk:CBFan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello CBFan, and welcome to Wikipedia! The first thing you should know is that we encourage you to be bold. Feel free to edit and improve articles, by clicking any 'edit' link.

If you'd like to test what Wikipedia can do, check out the sandbox - just type and save the page and your text will appear. That's the beauty of a Wiki.

For more information check out some of the important links below. If you really need help, just type {{helpme}} on your user page. It's that easy!

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

If you'd like to get involved with current projects, have a look at the Community Portal. There are always tasks for users to do, ranging from copyediting to expanding stubs.

I hope you'll enjoy your time here, but be warned, it can become addictive! Feel free to message me, I'm more than happy to help. As an added tip, sign any message you post so users know that you've said it. To do so is delightfully simple, just use the wikicode ~~~~.

Once again, welcome! -Jfingers88 17:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

While reverting the edits of 161.184.48.207 in Zoo Tycoon 2, what you said to him was quite rude. I don't think he's lying at all (although great whites would probably not appear in Marine Mania, since they cannot survive in captivity).

By the way, this is not a warning. Giant Blue Anteater 01:41, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pot, kettle, black.

I was reverting your vandalism of this article. It is vandalism for you to remove legitimate complaints, and you accuse me of being a Mario fanboy because I dare claim that CTTR could be a clone of MKDD. It does not mention on CTR that it's a clone of MK64 because it's NOT. It is a kart racer. The only reason it could be interpreted as a clone is because it capitalized on the success of kart racers. But what are the odds that the developer made a game where you race and can have two racers on one kart after MKDD came out? You're creating an argument that CTTR is not a clone, trying to debunk the idea that it is. You are putting 110% into keeping this criticism off of the article. I am not the one who advertises his Crash Bandicoot fanboyism. You are paranoid, thinking that my sole purpose isn't to tell the truth, but rather disparage the Crash Bandicoot franchise (of which only five Mario games are ahead of the best CB game, the third). Grow up, kiddo. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, right - I mean, you were only vehemently against having CTTR even hinted that it is MKDD, that clearly isn't having an opinion. Stating that "others disagree wholeheartedly" is both POV and making an argument. Why doesn't FFVI say "many people consider it to be the best game in the series, while others disagree wholeheartedly"? It is a legitimate criticism that you are trying to downplay. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, Crash Tag Team Racing is more a clone than Crash Team Racing. Crash Team Racing was made because Mario Kart popularized the genre. It is a clone in the sense that the success of the genre inspired its existence. Two characters in one kart is far more obscure than an entire genre. Crash Bandicoot was inspired by Mario as well, but it's not a "clone". The dual kart concept is far more obscure than an entire genre. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's against WP styling guidelines to say that many disagree (it's called "weasel words", presenting something as NPOV by saying that many agree or disagree). What I am doing is providing an opinion of critics. It deserves to be mentioned as much as the other criticisms. If you want to argue that people specifically think it's not a clone of Mario Kart DD at all, show a reputable source saying so. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:09, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You do the same as I did with the IGN link. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page protection

Hi, I noticed your comment about protection for the Zoo Tycoon 2: Dino Danger Pack article. This is just to let you know that adding the {{sprotect}} tag does not apply protection, and it doesn't even deter vandals. Only administrators can apply protection. You can request protection from an administrator or at Requests for page protection. Do however read up on the protection policy, because it's not something we generally like to do. Thanks for reading. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:12, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi again CBFan. Clearly the anon editor is simply being disruptive in refusing to even discuss whether his/her additions are referenced (I know what the official site says). I'd like to ask you to refrain from any personal attacks and name-calling, just revert the edits, and familiarise yourself with 3RR (if you haven't already), and then a likely conclusion will be that the anon will get blocked. They will probably get blocked for disruption anyway. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Robot Wars

Hey there,

I couldn't help but noticed that you'd reverted some vandalism on the Robot Wars article lately, and also your userpage mentions that you like the show. I am keen to rewrite the article to a decent standard, perhaps creating an article solely for the UK series of Robot Wars, and make it fully referenced, add pictures, and so on - would you like to help?

Regards, CountdownCrispy ^{( ?} 14:58, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hullo again,

I've started a page at Robot Wars/Rewrite so that users can write a new and extensive article without having to sift through the current level of unnecessary detail and general rubbish. Your knowledge of later series is great to hear; even if it's not all that extensive, every little helps as we try to turn a mess of an article into a triumph. As for pictures, I am able to take screen captures from any repeats broadcast on Sky or whatever, and once the article starts to take shape I intend to contact some roboteers to see if they have any free images which we could use.

Thanks again for replying, and I hope that you are able to contribute in some way, however big or small it may be. -- CountdownCrispy ^{( ?} 21:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't Spam Me

I go to a Wikipedia article Standard Model and before I can log on I have this message from you.

The IP address I logged onto is floating and assigned by the server (along with maybe several million other people who use the same system.) I was not amused to unreasonably be subject to your rant:

"Moronator, you amuse us all with your stupidity."

I say go look in a mirror. - Swlenz 07:04, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I regret my last line -- no value in tossing an insult at you. You apparently did not realize that you flamed a dynamic IP address User talk:71.131.19.156. When I went to Wikipedia most recently, the server randomly assigned me that address (it is part of Yahoo, and there must be a million people that could have been assigned it). As you probably now realize, getting a nastygram for no reason (or in your case, no self-evident reason) is really annoying.

I looked at your contributions, and you have apparently flamed several dynamic IPs. I suggest that you clean those up so that future innocent parties won't get pissed at you too. Swlenz 16:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Name-calling

...isn't nice. Please don't leave nasty comment like this in your edit summaries. Please read WP:CIVIL. --Elliskev 22:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove warnings. I took a look at your contribution history. I'm handing this off to an admin. --Elliskev 22:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi CBFan. I've asked you nicely about this before, and I'll ask you once more. Edit summaries like this, this, and this are unacceptable on Wikipedia and quite frankly are going to get you blocked from editing, and that would be a shame because you fix a lot of things around here. I know there are some unconstructive editors around, but please don't call them names. Have a look at this. Thanks. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 22:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello, I am an admin here who was approched by Elliskev and asked to look at your edit summaries. I am just going to add the the above requests to tone down the inpoliteness please. TIA Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 01:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Papu Papu. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. ST47Talk 14:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Friendly advice

Hi.

I've been checking out some of your edit summaries since I left a previous warning (and the applicable edits). Your edits are very good. Commendable.

Maybe I was a bit harsh in my warning. I think I should have tried to approach you in a more helpful spirit. Anyway... I notice that most of your edit summaries are written in a conversational tone. You appear to be 'speaking' to the person that contributed the edit that you are modifying or reverting. That's not a bad thing in-and-of-itself. However, there's a sneaky little danger that goes along with it. When you write your edit summaries that way, the edit summary can be read as commentary on the editor to which it applies.

I hope you take my advice for what it is... It's just advice from some guy you don't know and will probably never meet and you probably will be just fine never meeting... But, I just want to suggest that you make an attempt to change the approach you are taking with your edit summaries from a conversational tone to an explanatory tone. Doing so will provide the rest of the community with a good understanding of the logic you are using to make your edit and, more importantly, nurture a sense of peership (if that's a word) with the editor that contributed the work that you are reverting or modifying. --Elliskev 01:36, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] Regarding reversions[1] made on January 11, 2007 to Dingodile

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 12 hours. William M. Connolley 19:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm amazed. Have you really learnt nothing from being blocked once? You are not immune to 3RR. 24h William M. Connolley 13:13, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

• It's HIS fault! He's the one doing all the bogus editing. If you didn't noticed, I stopped before I hit the 3RR bit, HE didn't. Please don't talk to me this way as if I am SOLELY to blame for the incident. User: CBFan

[edit] January 21, 2007

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Crash Bandicoot: The Wrath of Cortex. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule in regard to the article Crash Team Racing. Other users in violation have also been blocked. The timing of this block is coincidental, and does not represent an endorsement of the current article revision. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future on the article's talk page (Talk:Crash Team Racing).

--²¹⁰physicq (c) 23:42, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you can say you'll both be banned for violating WP:3RR and be reverting at the same time. And I don't want you pointing fingers at him; you know better than to revert war. You have been blocked for 31 hours. Engage in another 3RR violation, and the block lengths will only go up. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 23:45, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I say that because you have a history of 3RR violations, and you continue to violate policy despite the consequences. I blocked both of you for an equal amount of time, so I don't see how it's not fair. Just stop edit-warring, no matter who's to blame. How hard is that? --²¹⁰physicq (c) 23:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

And no, I do not put the blame solely on you, contrary to your assertions. But you are worthy of blame and reprimand for your actions. --²¹⁰physicq (c) 23:16, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jan 27, 2007

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Crash Bandicoot: The Wrath of Cortex. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --science4sail ^talkcon 20:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Shadow1 (talk) 20:05, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR violation at Doctor Neo Cortex

You have been temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated. -- ReyBrujo 20:15, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Doctor Neo Cortex

I have also fully protected the article, thus I want to see a discussion in Talk:Doctor Neo Cortex after your block is finished. If after the article is unprotected you continue to edit war without discussing, you may be blocked without further warnings. -- ReyBrujo 20:21, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 18:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page Deletion

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to Atlantis Newcomers. It may be considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

There is a proper way to delete unencyclopedic pages. Please see WP:AFD Feeeshboy 21:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

On the Koala Kong page, you asked for a guide on how to cite sources, so I direct you to the appropriate page, here. Until you do cite the source, I'm going to leave the tag on that page, because that's just how Wikipedia works.

• Post it in English. I can't understand half of this.

• You seem to have figured it out, now I ask that you improve the citation a bit. That picture on it's own could be anything, you need to put it in context. How about the linking the page it appears on?

[edit] Template:Crash series

Time to cool down...

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly, as you are doing in Template:Crash series. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. -- Scientizzle 16:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• I was aware of the 3rr warning I had received, and I was trying to get it back to the neutral phase. However, the other guy who was involved blatantly ignored the warning and continued to edit. Now his edit is up there, it isn't neutral and we can't edit it. CBFan 17:50, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, sometimes the Wrong Version is left up following 3RR blocks...Perhaps when the blocks are up you two, and other editors, can work towards creating a "right" version. -- Scientizzle 19:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Nitros Oxide. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. . Purgatory Fubar 17:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Have you two attempted to settle your disputes in another way? Have you tried Wikipedia:Requests for mediation? Please look at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes for other methods, too. -- Scientizzle 19:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• How come he's been unblocked and I haven't? You're making me think you think I'm soley to blame for this. CBFan 08:52, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AIV report

Hi, the report you filed at AIV is not strictly vandalism. May I suggest taking it to WP:ANI if you would like someone to look into it further. Thanks. Bubba hotep 16:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crash Canon

You said you'd show me where the offical canon was layed out by every developer? I figured here would be the best place for it. Much appreciated.

• Until you stop creating numerous accounts, why should I tell you? You're a vandal for all I know. Besides, I did NOT say what you said because that is not true. I said, quite clearly, I'd show you which games were canon. Sheesh.

• For the last time, I am not swapping accounts, that's my IP. Of course, you'll just delete this because you'd rather believe I'm creating a bunch of accounts and swapping between them, right? If you have something official, put it here, otherwise, I'm not holding to your personal fanon.

• I'm sorry, but it was 86.42.111.145 who asked me where the official canon was laid out and you're 86.42.108.170. There. Proof you are changing IP accounts.

• I have a floating IP, genius. It changes. Besides, what does it matter? I've made it very clear I'm the same person, so it doesn't violate any wiki rules. Now, how about showing me that official canon?

• Only once you stop vandalising the Dingodile page with your opinion.

• Is it my opinion that there are conflicting accounts of Dingodile's creation? No, it isn't. Your version states that Cortex created him, then in brackets, Brio as a possibility. That's biased in favor of Cortex. Therefore, we should simply state that there are conflicting accounts and leave it at that. Now, if you actually do have a source, and aren't simply bluffing, show me that offical canon.

• Then it is obvious you are incapable of reading. My version states that BOTH Cortex or Brio COULD have created him, and the reason Brio is in brackets is because it is mentioned that Cortex created Dingodile in TWO of the game manuals, whilst it is mentioned that Brio created Dingodile in only ONE manual, thereby making it perhaps a bit more likely (without taking sides) that Cortex is the creator and Brio isn't. THAT is not biasey. Your version adds a pointless bit of trivia, as I've said before, and has been incorporated INTO the text. But, of course, you just went "HU-WHA!" and vandalised. Since you are incapable of reading, adding the official canon now seems pointless, as you can't read it.

• But it still takes sides. They should be mentioned on equal terms because there is no consensus. My version is not pointless, it's quite valid, and it explains why there's confusion, somthing your version does not do. Obviously, you don't have any source, or you would have posted it instead of making excuses, so I'm not following your personal fanon. Oh, and before you call other people's languages skills into question, you might want to sharpen your own. "Biasey" isn't a word.

• There is a consensus, as two manuals mention Cortex, one mentions Brio...people are sure to think that the one with the greater information is correct. Your version, as stated before, adds pointless trivia, so it was not going to work. And you've not even TRIED to give me ANY time to post the source, but instead made me rant and rave, so it is NOT a personal fanon. Also, Biasey IS a word, and I have been using it for a long time. I might as well say that "Consensus" is not a word either, at this rate.

• Uh...that's not consensus. Whatever people assume, Wikipedia should not, and should give no bias. I haev asked you three times to post the source, but you've either ignored it or made an excuse. Why not post it now? And, Biasey is not a word. I think "biased" is the word you're looking for? It might be worth you investing in a dictionary.

• The canon storyline is Crash Bandicoot, Cortex Strikes Back, Warped, Wrath Of Cortex and Twinsanity (Team Racing is sometimes used, but that is probably fanon). The first three games are obviously connected, as are the latter two. Warped and Wrath Of Cortex are connected by the official statement (the same one you winge about not existing) and all five games are numbered in Japan. That was easy. Now stop telling lies about me.

• Right, and where's the official source? Wrath of Cortex can not discount CTR, as it was produced after it, so if anything, WoC would be non-canon. Ditto Twinsanity. The Japanese names of the games have no bearing, as that would be handled by someone else. In conclusion, there is no official canon unless all the developers get together and decide one. Trying to impose one qualifies as original research. Thank you.

• And trying to diss Universal is very stupid and something a vandal would do...EXACTLY what you're doing at the moment. The statement was written on the official Crash Bandicoot site, and counts Crash Bandicoot through to Wrath Of Cortex without going through Team Racing and Bash. Then we add the fact that Twinsanity follows directly from Wrath Of Cortex. The only person trying to impose an official canon is you by saying Team Racing is canon, but Wrath Of Cortex and Twinsanity are not. You're losing your own argument.

• I'm not dissing Universal, I've nothing against them. WoC can not dismiss CTR and CB as non-canon, because they're not from the same creators. They don't have the authority to do that. Oh, and I'm not trying to impose an offical canon. I'm not taking games out of articles like you are with Bash. I'm leaving them all in because there is no offical canon.

• You obviously are, because you're saying that their official statement is non-existant. Oh, and I'm not trying to put my fanon into my articles. I'm meerly going by anything official. If you can't stick to official stuff, then stop vandalising Crash and go back to worshipping Mario...or Spyro.

• Their "official stement" does not have authority over games they didn't make. It's as simple as that.

• Ha! There's the proof...you ARE a vandal, AND a fanboy as well. Universal DON'T make games. Besides, information can NOT be disregarded just because you don't want it there...if it is official, then it is official.

• It's not offical, though. And, let me get this straight, not knowing every detail about a company makes me a fanboy? Look in the mirror, kid, seriously.

• It is official, and thinking that Universal creates games does, indeed, make you a fanboy. Fanboys are idiots. You've now kept me up past midnight, so I hope you're happy.

• Well, they do actually create games. They've got a division for it. Besides, being wrong wouldn't make me a "fanboy". You really should check out a dictionary some time.

• That's what makes you a fanboy...they don't.

• They do, far as I know. Sierra Entertainment? Owned by Vivendi Universal. Blizzard? Owned by Vivendi Universal. Radical Entertaiment? Subsidiary of Sierra, owned by, who? Vivendi Universal. Also, if you wished to imply I was unintelligent, there are any number of words you could have used that would have, you know, made sense. Seriously, check out that dictionary.

• Typical fanboy behaviour. They do NOT, I repeat, NOT make games. They simply get a company, like Naughty Dog, and say "Right, make a game!" but do not make it themselves. Is this too much for you to understand?

• Oh, come on. Those companies are owned by Universal and you're just arguing semantics now, so I'm leaving it at this. Quit with the personal attacks, and maybe look at a dictionary.

• How about you stop insisting that your way is the right way all the time and actually read an encyclopedia more often? THEN we can talk. Oh, and since you don't know what "Intentional" means, I think you should keep (and open) that dictionary.

[edit] Apology

I should have acted better in the Crash Tag Team Racing. While I continue to feel that the Mario Kart DD!! being considered to be copied by CTTR is a legitimate criticism and it is pointless to say some disagree, I should not have edit warred and should have discussed it instead. I apologize for that and for calling you a fanboy of Crash Bandicoot as well. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC)