Gentlemen, do not fight in here, this is the War Room!

Template:Usertalkpage (rounded) User:MuZemike/Menu

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11

User:Classicfilms is the one engaging in an edit war, she has already reverted my editions two times and should be warned1234peace (talk) 21:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to read WP:BRD. You boldly removed a section from the article. The other users reverted your removal. Hence, the onus is on you to start discussion on the talk page rather than continue to revert-war. That means stop edit-warring and discuss on the page until both of you reach an agreement. dispute resolution can also help you two reach said agreement. Thank you, MuZemike 21:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And looking at Talk:My Name is Khan, you did not start said discussion at all. Please do so. Further reverting will lead to blocks. MuZemike 21:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I saw that you're a member of that "Nintendo task force" so perhaps you could help me out with my question at the bottom of Talk:Nintendo Wi-Fi Connection? PalkiaX50 (talk) 19:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. That's a question that's normally not asked on that page (remember that article talk pages are for discussion about improvements to the article and not for general questions). You may want to ask at Wikipedia:Reference desk/Computing, where you might get some people knowledgeable about Wi-Fi in general to be able to help you out. Hope this helps, MuZemike 19:49, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks, will do. :) PalkiaX50 (talk) 19:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Short of assassination, I'm not sure we'll ever get rid of that idiot. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:38, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has anyone in the Cubs organization thought about bringing up Carlos Marmol earlier as a closer? MuZemike 02:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in fact they have already done it. Ya follow? :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots 02:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:EWN-America was blocked for having a promotional username and spamming. Once the new name was created, they went right back to work. That's why I filed a sock investigation, I thought I made that reasoning clear in the submission. Cheers. Hairhorn (talk) 11:43, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But if an account is soft-blocked because it violates the username policy (I know this because I reported the username myself.), then the user can create another account that doesn't violate username policy – see Wikipedia:Username policy#Dealing with inappropriate usernames, which was just revised about a month ago. Now, if the new account continues spamming, then it can be blocked harder; that is, to prevent further account creation on both accounts. If a user is free to create another account, then it can't be construed as sockpuppetry, and hence the SPI was not needed. Hope that clarifies things, MuZemike 15:11, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lol! I think the situation has got confused. No seriously, on the amiga cd32 section[1] the article for Microcosm was in red, so I created a article for it, don't ask me, but it was a simple mistake that I was miss-in-formed with. Sorry for any inconvenience. mcjakeqcool 15:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. That should have been changed. Thanks for letting me know. However, please mind the lists next time. Regards, MuZemike 16:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]