Can someone please add the game Punch Out to the NES list??... "Mike Tysons Punch Out" is listed, but the other game "Punch out" is considered a different game and has a different cartridge label and does not include Mike Tyson but rather Mr. Dream... Both games need to be listed for collectors who want to collect every game. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.35.252.240 (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please continue the conversation already extant on the article's talk page, and not here. Blackguard 03:06, 18 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please see User talk:Rudi argento - Fayenatic (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That wasn't me. I was vandal hunting on recent changes, maybe I undid something wrongly. Speaking of which, here's this. This might be who you're looking for.--JadeGuardian (talk) 22:35, 17 April 2013 (UTC) Geez, I'm sorry. This is embarassing. That edit you pointed out is an accidental revert of what I thought was the good revision of a page. Hope you can forgive me, JadeGuardian (talk) 23:12, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Warned re AIV report and I've asked for the SPI case to be closed as a good-faith misreport. JadeGuardian may take a little more care in looking at the context of edits in future! Regards Tonywalton ^Talk 23:21, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, it's better to be an over-zealous vandal hunter than a spamming neo-nazi. Welcome to Wikipedia. Blackguard 23:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, though two minutes of caution on JadeGuardian's part might have saved the fifteen minutes on mine of checking edits, making SPI entries, writing you messages, writing Jade messages… Ah well. Welcome to WP yourself (I feel I should do the welcoming, having been here 4 years longer than your good self :) ). Tonywalton ^Talk 23:32, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Beacuse the statue is not representing him, but his son (so confusing then). The image of the coins a rare subject made during his reign, with his name on. --Sailko (talk) 19:06, 3 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It was in the museum captation in Halicarnassus... I cannot upload that, but you can read the name yourself. --Sailko (talk) 11:54, 6 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

(Undid revision 569357292 by Rmetherell (talk) Can't find any evidence of this existing; difficult to understand significance of variation anyway)

Appreciate lack of external evidence, hence why I tried to add the details of the variation to Wiki. Primary difference is use of single central pool hand and not the rest of the pack which significantly changes game play due to small number of cards in play. History wise I can trace this variation back to around 1918 through personal family accounts of games during the 1st World War.

With no other records it would be sad to see the variation lost.

1st edit, so apologies if my approach to this was wrong. Rmetherell (talk) 09:50, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification, I appreciate the problem. Unfortunately all the old references have since passed, I'll do some more research to see if anyone can come up with a verifiable 3rd party reference. Rmetherell (talk) 10:10, 20 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Q re your deletion : 01:32, 3 September 2013‎ Blackguard SF (talk | contribs)‎ . . (27,756 bytes) (-1,063)‎ . . (Poorly worded and possible WP:LINKSPAM using WP article nominated for deletion as only reference; movie plot fails definition of pyramid scheme)

Movie plot - true, however, the movie can illustrate that the math of a pyramid scheme can do good if used for a good purpose.

Insert - I saw you had the same issue with the card game, not plenty references yet plausible and needed. If a published book used in university lectures is not a reference then what is? Surely, it is fighting for survival on wiki as a start-up, but without references to the new knowledge in it (and yet missing from the pyramid article) it will be marked for deletion (chicken and egg problem). So, could you perhaps help with 'poor wording' as a more experienced wiki-editor, pls? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chxxx (talk • contribs) 08:39, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Deadbeef 14:28, 11 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated here for convenience: My Internet searches provide unsatisfying results. What's the difference between non-sustainable and unsustainable? Blackguard 06:06, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not much I would say. The potential problem with "non-sustainable," is that it links to the concept of and article about environmental sustainability. The previous editor had deleted non-sustainability altogether, which prompted me to find a similar word that might not link to a narrower concept of sustainability, although the exact reason for the deletion was not given. The opening sentence of the article on sustainability can be read as somewhat more general, but the article really points the word to a different, and more specific concept. I thought unsustainable would mean about the same thing without having to link to an article on a concept which was a bit narrow, if that makes any sense. Perhaps just taking the link out would work as well. I to think some sort of modifier along those lines is needed in the pyramid scheme article. Otherwise, it sounds as if a pyramid scheme is just a sort of ongoing business concept, albeit a dishonest one. (I'll add that I would not have changed the word but for the prior deletion bringing the link to my attention.) Donner60 (talk) 06:35, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense, and you're right, the article should not have linked to sustainability. Thank you for clarifying. Blackguard 06:52, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Hinduism and other religions, let us know why you removed the 10,055 bytes data, by proclaiming it to be written like an essay when it has been written as per the wiki standards. Also let me know that how removing the whole sourced version adds any improvement? Justicejayant (talk) 08:45, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Anyways, i have worked in changing it's lines, but if you ever pass by the article, kindly suggest at the talk page, i have tried to make the article, which is indeed similar to Christianity and other religions, thanks. Justicejayant (talk) 11:08, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article French naked is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/French naked until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Jrcla2 (talk) 22:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

DESTROY. Blackguard 22:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Kyaiktiyo Pagoda may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• pʰəjá|pron}}; {{lang-mnw|ကျာ်သိယဵု}}, {{IPA-mnw|tɕaiʔ sɔeʔ jɜ̀|}}), also known as '''Golden Rock''') is a well-known [[Buddhism|Buddhist]] pilgrimage site in [[Mon State]], [[Myanmar]]. It is a small

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:14, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Opt out We've talked about this before, BeeBee. You make me very uncomfortable. Blackguard 02:32, 2 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:83.108.11.30:

Hello Blackguard SF, I recently edited without being logged in on the James Randi page about his personal movie/film contributions.

I just noticed this message left for me to see: "Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to James Randi, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Blackguard 03:01, 1 October 2013 (UTC)"

I am a Norwegian, and the word I changed in particular was in a Danish film title that I thought must have been misspelled. I intended only to correct the word.

The word in particular as written was "snyd". While I immediately recognised it as the word "synd" (shame, sin, blame, etc.) "fornemmelse for synd" would equal "premonition of/for sin/blame/shame", and I corrected it as such as it made sense.

I recently checked it and while it didn't make sense to read it that way at the time, I now recognize it as a different word, the Danish equivalent of the Norwegian "Snyt" (fakery, cheating, forgery) and i welcome the reversion.

Is there a problem with taking it to the Talk page? Regards,--Soulparadox (talk) 19:00, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please do. Blackguard 20:32, 5 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit ^beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 50 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:22, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive editing. Your recent revert of Hinduism and other religions has been reverted. Reading your edit summary "problematic editor", i think you haven't read that here no personal attacks are allowed. I don't see any of your reply in the talk page, and this issue has been already refuted at Dispute resolution[1], and article undergone many changes, so instead of causing trouble in the page, it's far better if you try to make the page better instead of reverting to the fringed edition. Just claiming that "written like an essay" falsely, is not going to help anyone. Justicejayant (talk) 06:00, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Justicejayant has been blocked six times for both edit warring and sock puppetry, and resumed edit warring[2][3] six days after the block was lifted per WP:ROPE. User:Saddhiyama made a Sisyphean and commendable[4] act of good faith by wading through a 12,000-character sea of WP:SYNTH, barely readable original research, copypasta and WP:OTHERSTUFF while explaining relevant policy violations, but it proved fruitless as the editor either doesn't understand or didn't read Wikipedia policy. With a history of tendentious edits underpinned with an unfortunate grasp of the English language,[5] I'm afraid "problematic" is as delicate a term Justicejayant can expect. The hangman is asleep at the switch. Blackguard 20:09, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It's OK to remove this message. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:06, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The lack of refernces in the website of "Trick or Treament" is obvious. Anyone - including yourself - can see it. The wikipedia article gives the website as an external link. So why did you say that it is not supported by a third party? Could you please explain why you have deleted my contribution that it is obviously supported by the evidence - which you seem to disregard? Johntosco (talk) 09:54, 27 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First read WP:OR, then WP:RS and WP:NPOV. Please reread User:Alexbrn's response on the talk page, with special attention to his comments on original thought: does that come from a source, or did you originate it? Are you advancing the position of a source we use, or your own? ... [You're] engaging in original research with a distinctly non-neutral tone. If you're still up for some reading, check out WP:TINC. For what it's worth, I get what you're trying to insert into the article and it may be possible with proper sources, but POV edits conducted without regard for policy or consensus (and with such a confrontational attitude toward fellow editors) generally have a short shelf life on Wikipedia. Blackguard 07:56, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

1) It is not original research. It was mentioned in the book "Halloween Science" by William Anderson. It says exactly: "The authors frequently rely on figures, trials, events, quotations, statements, opinions and explanations which are unsupported by reference to sources." http://www.homeopathyworkedforme.org/#/halloween-science/4533482584. 2) I had alrady mentioned this on 09:16, 27 October 2013 (UTC) of the talk page of 'Trick or Treatment' and how William Alderson's book is mentioned in several publications. 3) Since you undid my contribution on 09:28, 27 October 2013‎ there are two possibilities. A) You hadn't read the entry on the talk page about the subject (my contribution) and the first book that talked about it or B) You ignored it. In either case, I would question the impartiality of anyone who has done so. 4)You say I should read: Are you advancing the position of a source we use, or your own? Then you should have read the reference to my contribution, which clearly states that I'm using the book's website which is what, according to you, is not a source the article uses. 5) If you had read properly the talk page you would have seen that my attitude was not confrontational. In fact I asked Alexbrn to suggest a different wording for my contribution on 21:39, 26 October 2013 (UTC). 6)Why - according to you - my attitude is confrontational? Because I ask for explanations? For instance, I asked Bobrayner (the first to delete my comments) to explain why my contibution was not important. So far, no explanation is forthcoming. Who is confrontational? The guy who deletes a contribution and refuses to give explanations, or the guy who asks why? 7) My observation can hardly be called POV since it comes from the authors themselves. In my opinion, POV is saying that it is not important as Bobrayner says or that it is original research as you do. 8) It was an observation which anyone and everyone can see and which is signed by the authors of the book. It wasn't any piece of research. 9) I am fed up with what - to me - seems to be a clear bias of what can and can't be included in the articles. I have provided the clearest reference of all. If when I make an observation about a website (which I repeat was included and mentioned in the article before I tried to contribute) and that same website can't be used as a reference, then the sentence in the article " It finds that the scientific evidence for these alternative treatments is generally lacking" should be deleted because there are no third parties who say that this is what the book says. In fact, I'm sure we could delete at least half of wikipedia that way. I do not need a third party to tell me that this is what the book says. Nobody does. 10) You should read my last contribution on the talk page about being fed up with the charade. It applies to you too. Johntosco (talk) 12:15, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept TransporterMan's invitation to the Teahouse, spend some time there and ask questions. Wikipedia's not going anywhere, so there's plenty of time to learn the ropes, become familiar with policy and what Wikipedia is all about. After a more comfortable and comprehensive understanding of policy, I hope you eventually return and contribute. Blackguard 19:44, 28 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is the main (only?) thesis in Foibe killings, Massacri delle foibe and Crimini di guerra italiani, I simply summarized (even the words of the President of Italy (!) (« [...] responsabilità dell'aver negato, o teso a ignorare, la verità per pregiudiziali ideologiche e cecità politica, e dell'averla rimossa per calcoli diplomatici e convenienze internazionali.») are clear). If it is incorrect, partial or wrong feel free to edit it. --Felisopus (talk) 09:22, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you mean in english language and, no. I'm not an expert and I just summarized. --Felisopus (talk) 08:16, 5 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi , just wondering why you removed my name off the Powerman 5000 page? I performed as lead guitarist in 2013. If your looking for proff , let me know and ill send many links.

thanks, Jesse Sauve — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.103.24 (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I believe you, but you should find a source that says you're a member. The official Powerman 5000 website doesn't say anything about you. Blackguard 19:39, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have protected your user page temporarily owing to the IP-hopping sock. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:26, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

That explains the lack of fan mail. Blackguard 09:28, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• LOL, perhaps. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The thread is "Trick or treatment". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 21:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. We found out you erase some materials which was contained on Hanok article. Actually, that information translated from korean wikipedia same article. Can I revert your latest edit? Sincerely Byung do jung (talk) 13:11, 26 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am the other member editing article Hanok. Since there were some grammatically incorrect, I tried to fix it this time. could you check it all kindly? It is hard to translate all, however we have been doing this so hard. There are some words or sentences you might not understand without traditional experiment. Actually it was kind of difficult to understand for me in Korean because there were some complicated words I had never seen. So I had to look up the words from other encyclopedia. Hope you answer me back. Sincerely GaHee Park and happy new year! --GaHee Park (talk) 17:54, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Get on a boat and leave. 125.237.153.167 (talk) 07:56, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]