User talk:Ralf Loire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Ralf Loire, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Karmafist 15:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Q & 12

• I suggest talking to this guy as the merge was his idea. Danny Lilithborne 07:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh. I see...

Very well then. Thanks for telling me. Ralf Loire 18:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No Idea What You're Talking About

You sent me a message about something you left on the Brain article and about how you were stupid or something like that. I have no idea what you are talking about. Apparently, to answer your question, you didn't do something right because I haven't ever even been to the brain article. Sogospelman 06:47, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I know what you're talking about now. Yes, I did remove the information because it didn't provide any valid information to the topic. Sogospelman 09:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Alright. By the way, don't threaten me again. Tata~ :3 Ralf Loire 06:18, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Possibly unfree Image:PI Sahad Ani.gif

[edit] Edit Summaries

Um, can you please use edit summaries that actually summarize what you edit? Your last edit summary was incoherent. Diez2 16:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Mmmmmmmm... I thought it over, and my answer is... well, how can I put it... "no."

What may be incoherent to you makes absolute perfect sense to me. You just have to be well versed enough in the particular subject to know what I'm talking about. =)

If what I put in there at times bothers you, pay it no mind. I do summarize my changes frequently enough, but once in a while I will be goofy! So don't mind it is all I ask~ :3 Ralf Loire 17:57, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Testing Sig

Testing... Ralf Loire 15:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Retesting... --'''''R'''alf '''L'''oire'' 15:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Retesting again... --Ralf Loire 15:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fourth test... --Ralf Loire 16:00, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Fifth~ --Ralf Loire (Annoy) 16:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Testing sig one more time. --Ralf Loire (Annoy) 17:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Most Recent Contributions

Hi, you undid my changes to the article, that was A LOT of work for both of us, for me the most I've done on one article. I actually made the article less complicated. & MOS requires headings headlined. Now we have to find a way to revet your changes. Please discuss next time. Oh, & if your wondering why I was editing anon, I sometimes don't bother logging in.100110100 23:24, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I did undo your changes to the Power Instinct article because they were simply not necessary. You were only cluttering it up as such and therefor I assaulted your "improvements" with no remorse, like when Rambo takes a machine gun and blows all the enemies away while screaming like there's no tomorrow. However, next time, I will indeed look into that discussing bit, thank you very much. :3 --Ralf Loire (Annoy) 23:44, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying on my talk page, & your talk page. I used to do that, but it became a lot of work. Sorry, as I said, MOS dicates headings to be headlined. If you don't know what MOS stands for it means manual of style, & I'll point to WP:MOS.100110100 23:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, sorry, but I disagree somewhat. It makes the article look very sloppy, so I cannot comply. Don't get the wrong idea, I am not rebelling, nor am I being an asshole or saying my word is law like one guy here was doing. It just does not look good on the article. At all. It just makes it very ugly, and we can't have ugly articles laying about like carnies in a freakshow, now can we? Of course not!

I will take care of it myself, but don't you force ugliness on the PI article, plzkthx? :3 --Ralf Loire (Annoy) 23:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I respect your views, but I actually disagree on how it looks sloppy. It looks more organized because of the headlines. You also said

It just does not look good on the article. At all. It just makes it very ugly...

. Asethetics is culturally bound, trust me, I've taken Anthropology and Art History, & another one I'm taking right now, & each individual has their own culture, which defines asethetics, but for now, I'll see what you will do with the article.100110100 00:58, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you planning?100110100 01:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hm, I'm thinking on it still, but so far my plans are that I may clean it up some and do away with a few things on the article to make it a little simpler and cleaner. Most likely the info on the staff, since it may not be too important, but we'll see. Sorry for any trouble, BTW. :3 --Ralf Loire (Annoy) 01:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Usually, we include as much information as possible. Have you thought of spliting the article? It works well if it makes sense, like a lot of games in a series are split into there separate articles, but have a (series) article to tie them together (cf. Marvel vs. Capcom). I find it works well if information in sections diverge enough for their own articles. A criterion to look for is if the section seems to be inworld, as in that the section seems to talk about itself (meaning it refers to the content generally present only in the section). But I digress: back to taking out the staff info, I believe you shouldn't do that, IMO don't do it. And you didn't cause any trouble, but I do appreciate your thought.:D In all honesty, when I read bits and pieces of your talk page, you seem like you have a lot of angst, & in all honesty, I'm glad you didn't blow up in my face:D.100110100 01:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

A possibility, but I feel there's really not a need to go into a huge amount of detail on the games separately to warrant each one's own article. And even so, it would probably be better to put Main Article links on each one as such. I would do this myself, but alas, I'm not an observant enough player to dwelve too deeply into a game's engine in full. :)

As for the angst thing... not a whole lot, I'm actually a pretty nice and friendly guy if you look past it all. I just don't like that one particular fellow because he's such a contradictive, self-righteous ass.

Oh, and, um, please do not revert the edits of the article anymore until I have finished what to do, and I may still very well do away with that staff info. I pray you respect this in the end if I decide to do so, and as a fair warning, if you do it again, I will not be as forgiving toward you as a person. Thank you. :3--Ralf Loire (Annoy) 03:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry bout the huge mess. I requested a rv at Help Desk ([1]), but as I just checked the article history, it seems that he didn't rv. I made the request before I started discussing the issue with you, my sincere apologies. I didn't bother to retract my request, again my apologies. But he made very little changes, as he didn't rv. You are very smart and right, & (of course) I will respect your requests. By the way, I'm not an admin (and the admin didn't rv).100110100 04:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Very well then. I apologize for misunderstanding. :3 --Ralf Loire (Annoy) 05:05, 4 April 2007 (UTC)