User talk:Russoc4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to User:Conrad Devonshire. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. --Nlu (talk) 05:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove warnings from your talk page.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 02:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Template

Do not create a disruptive attack template such as {{User nohumor}} again. --Cyde Weys 03:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Although I do not condone your actions (changing other users' pages is vandalism) and I had no opportunity to actually see the userbox you created, I seem to share your opinion on the reason some users do not get the userbox idea. Friendly Neighbour 06:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apologies

Chris, I understand we've settled the mistake on the HBP page, but I just wanted to say that I apologize for reverting your edit. I'm not going to cover it up or anything; the reason I had reverted it was because when I clicked on the "last" button in the history page, it showed you taking out the Gryffindor Quidditch team. I did not see anything in that link that showed the duplicate entry; thus I thought you had just taken it out. You will see on the history page that the only edit I made to the page in the recent list reverts what I thought was you taking out information. You hadn't left an edit summary in any edits before I reverted, and I have not edited the page since you and Apostrophe both started to use the edit summary.

I was not attacking you with the warning, I was simply leaving it because that difference between versions suggested it. I apologize if it looks like I was being a jerk, but I was simply going by no edit summary and the difference from the previous version. Good luck, and I hope to see you around. --Fbv65edel ^{(discuss | contribs)} 15:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Glad everything is cleared up. --Fbv65edel ^{(discuss | contribs)} 15:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MoS

Sorry, I should've linked to it. It is the Manual of Style, which offers the following regarding Heading format: "Capitalize the first letter only of the first word and of any proper nouns in a heading, and leave all of the other letters in lowercase." --mtz206 (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tables on User Page

I have done what you have asked me to do. You can do any further edits yourself. --yaninass2 | talk 16:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Harry Potter Wikiproject

I'm confused. Are you actully part of this wikiproject? Your name is not listed as a praticipant. ForestH2

List Russoc4 or Chris on this list. Participants List —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ForestH2 (talk • contribs).

It would also be helpful if you add a link to your talk page from your signature. ForestH2

[edit] Thank you - U.S. FAC

Hi,

Thank you for supporting the recent FAC of United States, but unfortunately it failed to pass. However, I hope you will vote again in the future. In the mean time, please accept this Mooncake as a token of my gratitude.--Ryz05 _t 15:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Four Swords

Four Swords is not a game, it's a subgame. Subgames do not warrant their own article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

How is it a game at all? It is included with A Link to the Past - they do not call it "The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords", and then include a note that it included an A Link to the Past port. Four Swords Adventures is sold as its own game. The Game Boy Zeldas are sold as their own games. Four Swords is a multiplayer mode - and is no more of a game than Hyrule Battle, regardless of the fact that it has a story. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It is new content added to the A Link to the Past port. It is not a separate game. It is a multiplayer mode added with A Link to the Past, not as its own original game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a game. It's a multiplayer mode. Having a storyline does not make it its own game. Is each part of Kirby Super Star its own game on the basis that Nintendo calls them "Eight Games in One"? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Four Swords is a PART of the remake. It is the reason why it's a REMAKE, and not a port. Four Swords is included as a multiplayer mode, and not its own game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

What, are you now arguing that because it's original content, it's not a part of a remake? So that means that I should make an article on the final case of Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney, on account of the fact that PWAA is a remake of Gyakuten Saiban, and the fifth case was not in GS? Regardless of whether or not this "original content" is a part of the remake is irrelevant. The main game is A Link to the Past, and Four Swords is a subgame. It's not The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords (including a port of the SNES smash hit, A Link to the Past!), it's The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past (includes new multiplayer adventure Four Swords). It says on the box that it's a multiplayer mode, not a separate game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Because Four Swords Adventures isn't a part of another game. Four Swords is.

1. . A Link to the Past

1. . Four Swords

1. . Four Swords Adventures

1. .Hyrule Battle
2. . Tetra's Trackers

FSA is its own game. FS is a multiplayer mode in another game. Its as simple as that. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

They call it a "new multiplayer adventure" instead of a game for a reason. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Or they can call it "New single player game". They cannot call FS a multiplayer game, because it is a PART of a game. A lesser part of LttP. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The game is A Link to the Past. Being a new multiplayer adventure does not make it a separate game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Faerûn images

Greetings. You asked about the images on the Faerûn article. These images are copyright Wizards of the Coast, and are not available under a free license. We can't use such images on Wikipedia, unless a detailed fair use case can be made. This is quite difficult to do. The image must satisfy all of our fair use criteria. But our criteria states that a high-definition map is not allowed.

Because of this, someone listed the image at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. After it had been there a week, I deleted it according to procedure there.

Sorry the image had to go; it was good looking and informative. Perhaps you could link to the images instead? All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)