User talk:TheDisneyGamer/Archive 1

Talk page archive: 2015-2017
This is an archive of all of my talk page discussions and messages from 2017 and before (in other words, up to the creation of my account in early May 2015). For future talk pages I will most likely make every single archive pertain to a specific year (i.e. at the end of 2018 I’ll do an archive of every single message from this year), unless I end up getting hardly anything in which case I’ll probably combine a few years into one archive.

Cheers! TheDisneyGamer (talk) 14:05, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome!

Some cookies to welcome you!

Welcome to Wikipedia, TheDisneyGamer! Thank you for your contributions. I am JesseRafe and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! JesseRafe (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

File copyright problem with File:Grantkirkhope.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Grantkirkhope.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright and licensing status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can verify that it has an acceptable license status and a verifiable source. Please add this information by editing the image description page. You may refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. (ESkog)^(Talk) 15:24, 15 May 2015 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edit on Mario Kart: Double Dash

Hello TheDisneyGamer,

Upon review of your edit on the article Mario Kart: Double Dash on the 8th of April, 2017, at 19:48, I've noticed that you added information without adding a reference. Not to worry -- I have added a citation for you, so your edit remains. If you would like to change the reference, by all means, do so. The cited website can be accessed here.

Anyways, thank you for your contribution. You can always contact me at my talk page here.

Manfred von Karma (talk) 00:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks for notifying me! TheDisneyGamer (talk) 02:30, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

Yooka-Laylee

There is a comment in the Jontron section stating not to change that sentence without discussing it on the talk page first. Those notes are not meant to be ignored, they were added for a reason. If you think the use of "racist" is improper then you can join the discussion and try to change the consensus. Because of your edit, I put in another request for semi-protection. MasontWang (talk) 21:50, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for swinging over by my talk page.

I did indeed notice the note about editing the sentence- I am well aware of the debate over whether to call Jon's comments "racist" or simply "controversial." I lean on the side of saying "controversial," but that's not why I edited it.

I don't know if you noticed, but in my edit, I added the term "controversial" but didn't actually remove the term "racist." I do realize that right now, the general consensus is that his comments, by definition, can be considered "racist," and thus the term will be kept for the time being. However, there's no denying that the comments are certainly still "controversial" by definition a son well; I thought it would make sense to call his statements both; not change it from "racist" to "controversial," but rather say "controversial racist comments" in order to still acknowledge that the comments are still controversial comments. I suppose that saying "THERE, EVERYBODY WINS" in the edit description did make the edit seem slightly less serious or in good-faith, but that was meant to be a sort of tongue-in-check way of acknowledging the debate between "racist" and "controversial" and saying "here- we'll use both terms- now is everyone happy??"

Once again, I did notice the message next to the sentence, but I sort of assumed it was mostly related to specifically related to removing the term "racist" and not the sentence a source a whole; I was simply trying to reasonable and contribute to the article in a way that I thought made sense. With that being said, I am legitimately sorry for coming off as slightly ignorant in my editing, and I'll try my hardest to head on over to add to the discussion before editing the sentence at all whatsoever. Either way, I do hope you understand where I was coming from in adding the word "controversial" and why I ceased to add my 2 cents to the discussion.

I know that this response is probably waaaay too long, but... ech. I do hope you read the whole thing.

Sincerely...

TheDisneyGamer (talk) 22:58, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

That's ok, thanks for the apology. And if you're more on the controversial side, feel free to discuss it with backed up sources on the talk page. MasontWang (talk) 16:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

The edit!!

The reason I did that was because the ip editing the article was doing some pretty unusual things to the article in question, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Super_Mario_Galaxy&diff=prev&oldid=778247956, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Super_Mario_Galaxy&diff=prev&oldid=778240713, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Super_Mario_Galaxy&diff=prev&oldid=778240636 and https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Super_Mario_Galaxy&diff=prev&oldid=778238741, so I wanted to make sure that any of the weird edits the ip made where gone and deleted. --Vaati the Wind Demon (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Alright, that makes sense. I took a look at some of those edits, and... yeah, that's some weird stuff. But I didn't realize you were changing it back to what it initially was, so I'll go ahead and change it back to what you edited it to (specifically the link that I changed).

Sorry for the misunderstanding! TheDisneyGamer (talk) 15:16, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

No worries at all!!!! --Vaati the Wind Demon (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Total Drama

Hey, I saw that you criticized the series reception section and I would like to know why do you think it's so bad. It would be nice to know how I can improve this section and make the article follow more of Wikipedia guidelines. However, if the section is so bad like you said, do you think that it might be better to just delete it and start all over? Giggett (talk) 00:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Hey, thanks for leaving me a message!

Honestly, the reception section of Total Drama isn't actually that bad! Looking back, I suppose that my chosen words were a little harsh- it's not that bad, and it's clear that you've put a lot of effort into editing and maintaining the TD article. The specific edit I made there was changing the section title from "series reception" to just "reception," as that's all it needs to be.

The part of the reception that I was talking about specifically was the awards section- what you can do to make that section of the reception better is, rather than having it be a bullet point list, you should have it be a table with each award show/ceremony, the award that the show was nominated for and who was nominated, and whether or not the person was nominated or won the award. For a good example, you can go ahead and check out the article for Mary Poppins, which has been nominated for a lot of awards.

Other that that though, the reception section is honestly just fine- I'd say that starting over definitely wouldn't be necessary. :)

I appreciate your concern though, and once again, thanks for messaging me!! TheDisneyGamer (talk) 01:16, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Croc: Legend of the Gobbos

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Croc: Legend of the Gobbos you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 11:20, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Alright, sounds fantastic! I am leaving for summer camp this coming Wednesday and won't be able to respond to any suggestions for a month because of that, but I'll make sure to immediately check Wikipedia when I return. Thanks much. TheDisneyGamer (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Croc: Legend of the Gobbos

The article Croc: Legend of the Gobbos you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Croc: Legend of the Gobbos for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of FunkMonk -- FunkMonk (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Croc (2000 video game) has been accepted

Croc (2000 video game), which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

• If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
• If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Sulfurboy (talk) 00:43, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Famitracker (October 1)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Chrissymad was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Famitracker and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk or on the reviewer's talk page.
• You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Hello! TheDisneyGamer, I noticed your article was declined at Articles for Creation, and that can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 14:27, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use File:Zack Granite picture.jpeg

Thanks for uploading File:Zack Granite picture.jpeg. I noticed that this file is being used under a claim of fair use. However, I think that the way it is being used fails the first non-free content criterion. This criterion states that files used under claims of fair use may have no free equivalent; in other words, if the file could be adequately covered by a freely-licensed file or by text alone, then it may not be used on Wikipedia. If you believe this file is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the file description page and add the text {{di-replaceable fair use disputed|<your reason>}} below the original replaceable fair use template, replacing <your reason> with a short explanation of why the file is not replaceable.
2. On the file discussion page, write a full explanation of why you believe the file is not replaceable.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media item by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by creating new media yourself (for example, by taking your own photograph of the subject).

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these media fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per the non-free content policy. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. – Train2104 (t • c) 02:33, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

October 2017

Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to The Emperor's New Groove. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Stop adding your own personal analysis of the film's box office performance and reception. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 21:29, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

The things I added weren't personal analysis. The film has generally been positively received by critics- that's not an opinion or personal analysis, that is to say that the film has been reviewed by several critics, a significant number of whom have given the film positive reviews. This information is supported by the article's "reception" section, where it demonstrates that the film holds 85% on Rotten Tomatoes and... whatever it has on Metacritic (I don't remember what is was but I'm pretty sure it's a positive review aggregation), and quotes several positive reviews (along with a few negative reviews), so the statement that the film has received positive reviews is a solid fact supported by the article's content, not "personal analysis." Other pages about films state that the movie has received positive or negative or mixed reviews so I don't understand what the problem is with doing so in this page. As for the box office, while what I first said about the film performing "disappointingly" was retrospectively not supported by any sources and, admittedly, was somewhat original research-driven, the fact that its BO (box office, not body odor) numbers were considerably lower than several of Disney's animated films released throughout the 90s is also clearly stated in the reception section and sourced, for that matter. So I don't completely understand what you mean when you say that both of these things are "personal analysis", because they are both clearly supported and well-sourced in the article.

Sorry for the semi-ranty response– I'm not too good at being concise if you can't tell. :P TheDisneyGamer (talk) 21:57, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

See WT:FILM#Is it worth it to send "The Other Woman" For GA reassessment. Yes, this is your own personal analysis, and it's forbidden by policy. Edit warring to restore your synthesis and original research is only going to lead to a block. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:43, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Ok, fair enough I guess. I won't get into an unnecessary edit war with you over this. But I still don't understand why this applies to specifically tis article- I mean, all seven of these animated film articles cite their respective movies as recieving "positive reviews" or "universal acclaim" or some other term for a film's reception without any specific source stating it from what I can, and they each have Good Article status. In fact, stating a film's overall critical reception with "x received critical acclaim", "x was panned by critics", "x received mixed reviews", etc. is something that I've seen in almost every article on a film (hell, articles on video games also), including featured articles and GA articles, and I haven't seen those articles have it removed because it was "personal analysis". I'm not saying you're wrong- you're an admin and probably older than I am so I have no right to say that you're wrong- but I don't understand why you're saying that stating "The Emperor's New Groove received positive reviews" without a source saying exactly that goes against WP's standards when in fact several other articles touted as well-written have done the exact same thing! And as for the box office, I the article literally has a part where it says "Overall, the film grossed $89.3 million at the U.S. box office and an additional $80 million worldwide; totals lower than those for most of the Disney Feature Animation productions released in the 1990s." and has a respective citation, so I was adding that fact to the main section summary- after all, the main section shouldn't have citations in it and should simply summarize the info within the main chunk of the article, right? I mean, the source used is literally just Box Office Mojo, so maybe that tidbit about the lower numbers was original research itself and should be removed.

Like I said, I'm not gonna get into an edit war over this- I'd appreciate more elaboration as to why it's like this in these other articles and not this one, though- I would appreciate extra clarification, if possible. Thanks! TheDisneyGamer (talk) 23:36, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Just because I'm an admin doesn't mean that I'm automatically right about stuff. There are a lot of articles that are poorly written, and, like I said in the WikiProject Film discussion, some of them are GAs. The GA criteria are very specific, and articles are not judged according to every guideline. GA reviewers are also sometimes not as strict as I think they should be. I've been trying to clean up animated film articles, but it's nearly impossible to clean up all of them. There's simply too many. I focus primarily on my own watchlist, and I clean up what I can. There's also occasionally dispute over what counts as OR or synthesis. This, however, seems pretty clear-cut to me: the aggregators say one thing, and you're interpreting their data to come to your own conclusion: that it received positive reviews. Metacritic's analysis is problematic for several reasons, though my main complaint is that they judge an 80/100 score to be "universal acclaim" when this is demonstrably incorrect – their own site will sometimes include several negative reviews despite their consensus that it was "universal". For this reason, I really don't think we should use their consensus ("mostly positive reviews", "critical acclaim", etc) outside direct quotations in the reception section itself. If you want to label a film as having positive reviews, this should be properly cited to a secondary reliable source, such as Entertainment Weekly or Variety. Coming to the conclusion yourself, based on the reviews in the article or aggregator scores, is original research. BOM generally doesn't label films as "disappointing" or describe their performance outside of simply listing a series of numbers. They do, however, post editorials sometimes that perform analysis and compare the performance of various films. This would be what to cite if you want to discuss the performance of the film. I could say that The Emperor's New Groove performed poorly compared to Gladiator. But why? NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 01:03, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

About that conversation ...

About that "talk" that happened on Talk: List of Game of the Year awards, I wanted to thank you for explaining why did protecting the page, since you were the only one who gave atention, even though it may have been a waste of time for you. I thought they had done it purposely, to be proud that their only could edit the page, so I wanted to question one of you, other people did it too, not disrespecting you at any time, as some did. I think, however I did not comment in that session, that every room should have a designated Bot to delete what would really be vandalism on the part of IP users, but that is to dream too high. Anyway, that's what I meant, not everyone here wants to ruin certain pages. See you. MalakoiExpert (talk) 15:31, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh yeah, no problem dude! I’m glad I could explain to you and help you understand things a little better, and I appreciate that you had the courage to question something that didn’t seem right to you- don’t act like this was a waste of time for me, because I’m glad I was able to help you. And I’m glad that you’re interested in editing in he first place- like I said, you can always edit other articles, and after you’re part of Wikipedia for a while you should become autoconfirmed, so that you can then edit List of Game of the Year awards. :)

I understand what you’re saying in terms of the IP users... a bot that could detect vandalism on any page would certainly be wishful thinking! I think that there are bots like that that automatically revert edits that “seem” vandalistic, but they don’t detect everything, probably only stuff that like deletes the entire article or something really big like that. The major thing is always that there are a ton of IP users who come and vandalize an article, so many IP’s who vandalize a single page so often that it gets difficult to fix all of the edits, so it becomes protected so that it’s less prone to it- it’s not to say that all IP users are out to mess up an article, but it does mean that it happens to be a subject that a lot of people like screwing with. For example Princess Peach was semi-protected because Peach is a really infamously made-fun-of character, so a lot of people were constantly coming specifically to mess the page up as a joke.TheDisneyGamer (talk) 03:42, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

It is nessesary

Nessesary to the public if you look at it through my POV. WikiJoseph (talk) 12:27, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

...What? Are you talking about an edit of yours that I undid? Which edit are you talking about?? I edit a lot of articles so I don't really remember much of anything that I do :)TheDisneyGamer (talk) 17:47, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Your edit to Talk:Compact disc

Hi. I reverted this edit of yours. My reversion put the page back at the IPv6's second version, because that version was correct, in that the IPv6's new section was then at the end of the page where it belongs. That's where we put new sections (we bottom-post here). If you have any questions, please follow up here, as I am watching this page. Thank you. Jeh (talk) 06:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, alright. I appreciate the clarification- it seemed like the person was just moving their old section at the bottom in order to “bump” it so more people would notice it. Thanks much!TheDisneyGamer (talk) 15:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't try to defend

Partner, he was wrong. Do not try to defend him because deep down you know he was wrong. He deleted a valid edit because he wanted to. Not because it was the right thing to do, but because his prejudice forced him to delete a normal change, which, in fact, in all other lists that appear Zelda: BotW, appear the platform Wii U, and in Metacritic (if I don't mistake), was not listed. He did it on purpose in my opinion, he wants to abuse the power he has just because he has a history on the Wiki.

UPDATE: Now I saw that it was the user Ammarpad who did the editing, but what I said is worth it to him and to all of you, and CityOfSilver already did a lot of shit too, do not want to cover it up. Respawner267 (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I actually want to take back my statement that CityOfSilver is a new user- that was a different person I was thinking of now that I think of it. But still, what has he done that’s so wrong other than calling you out for being unnecessarily hostile and uncooperative? TheDisneyGamer (talk) 22:20, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm being cooperative, the problem is that you don't accept this cooperativity, you're going to say, "ah, but there are other pages to edit", the other pages are worse, believe me, try to edit some page about a new game, it does not even pass 5 seconds for them to remove their edition, they take control of the room for them, they hardly create the page and they already put protection in it, you are the type of person that exclude the page of the scientist who refuted Darwin, So much to expect from these people who already have a luggage of edits in wikipedia. Respawner267 (talk) 23:22, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Haha, thanks for adding my signature- guess it slipped past my mind.

But swearing and insulting people isn’t exactly what I would call cooperative. I’m willing to accept cooperativity, but you’re being so inherently hostile that I can’t even try to explain to you why something happens without you passive-aggressively arguing with me. Perhaps there’s a reason why some of your edits are being undone. After all, you are a fairly new user, right? One of the most important aspects of editing Wikipedia is willing to admit that you’ve made a mistake, and clearly you are quite unable to do so- whenever someone undoes an edit of yours you immediately assume that it was undone for absolutely no reason and begin villainizing that person because they reverted your precious edit rather listening to any sort of explanation as to why the edit may not have conformed to Wikipedia’s quidelines. If an edit of yours is reverted, then why don’t you ask about and listen to the reason why it was reverted rather than going on about how evil the admins are. Looking through your editing history, you haven’t made a single edit (at least on this account, I don’t know if you used to be an IP editor) that wasn’t an openly aggressive stab at other editors. Even when I try to be patient with you and attempt to explain something, you still come back with a snarky and passive aggressive remark (heck, not EVEN passive aggressive, moreso just aggressive) towards other people. So you have done virtually everything BUT try to be cooperative. I guess I kind of understand why you’re so upset over this (kind of), but you need to remember that Wikipedia is first and foremost a collaboration, not a competition, and we really are trying to work together in order to make it a better encyclopedia- I mean, what the actual fuck would even be the point of competing over editing anyway? Like I said, perhaps there’s a reason why your edits may have been reverted in the past- you should always ask questions before immediately assuming you’re the victim. Dont just assume the worst in everything, alright?

And even besides any of this, I reiterate- you have NO excuse to personally attack anyone here on Wikipedia or use the language that you’ve been using.

idk, I feel like I may be coming into this a bit late and perhaps maybe there’s a bunch more to this that I just don’t know/understand, but I still don’t get why there needs to be such a conflict over all this.TheDisneyGamer (talk) 02:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Is it serious that the guy asked that?

I do not want to piss you off, but seriously did the guy think you were a girl? HUAHAUAHAHAUAAUHAUHUAHAUHAUA This one is desperate to get a woman, the typical virgin of the internet, yours User Talk is bizarre KKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKKK Respawner267 (Talk) 23:28, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

I’m sorry, are you still in elementary school?? I’m not really pissed off at you or anything, but seriously, I’m 16 years old and somehow I’m far more mature than you are.TheDisneyGamer (talk) 02:24, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Wow, wow, practically a trained man, does he already have a beard on his face?I'm sure that you watch Rick and Morty, since only those who have high intellect like you can understand a work like that, right? HUAUASAHSHAHSKDJAHHSHSA. You say no one has to be better than anyone here, but what did you just do? I may have been childish, but hypocritical and a false good person like you, ah, I do not do that and I'm certainly not like you. Respawner267 (Talk) 05:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 187.113.155.76 (talk)

That’s a very, very original joke and I’d like to applaud you for your stunningly original joke that NOBODY has EVER made before. How ORIGINAL.

either way, you have a point... that was slightly hypocritical of me to say that this is a collaboration and then say that I’m more mature than you.

Still doesn’t change how childish you’ve been acting though. Ah, but it doesn’t matter- once your account gets blocked for being blatantly rude to other editors (assuming it hasn’t already) you won’t even be able to respond to this! :] Au revoir! TheDisneyGamer (talk) 05:59, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Mate, these twits thrive on your attention. Give them nothing but silence, and if wou need any blocked while I'm about, just yell out. Don't feed the trolls so they say. -- Longhair\^talk 06:03, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, and my apologies for the earlier short term block upon yourself, you got caught up in crossfire while I was taking a few out. All fixed now :D -- Longhair\^talk 06:05, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Alright, thanks! That block legit gave me a huge scare, I’m glad it wasn’t real, haha. I’ll try my hardest not to feed the trolls, though it’s pretty tantalizing to do so anyway... :P If I run into any other troubles I’ll try to shout you out if I can. This has been a pretty unexpected ordeal for me all things considered...

Well, anyway- cheers! TheDisneyGamer (talk) 06:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

It won't effect your otherwise reasonable reputation here, anyone can see the block was mistaken. When blocks fly around that fast, and you were right in there cleaning up their vandalism yourself, and it happens. Do you know these twits from school or something or are they just attacking at random? I'd just delete their crap from your talk page and go hang with the good folk. That's how you win :D -- Longhair\^talk 06:19, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

I have absolutely no idea who any of these fools are. They’ve been lurking on the list of GOTY awards for at least a month or so complaining about the pending protection like a bunch of whiny pre-schoolers, and I guess I just sort of got stuck in the middle of it all somehow. Well, no worries about the block, and at some point I’ll probably delete all of this junk from my talk page, or at least maybe archive it so that I can still show my friends the one time I got into a pickle with some whiny brat on the Internet. ;) TheDisneyGamer (talk) 06:29, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

User page

Hi TheDisneyGamer, I have unfortunately had to suppress some of your edits because they reveal too much personally identifiable information about you. We have a policy of protecting editors' safety by hiding such information if they share it. I'm really sorry about having to suppress your edits, and I know it's annoying, but it's for the best. Please don't re-add the information. For some useful information on privacy and safety, you can take a look at Wikipedia:Guidance for younger editors and Wikipedia:On privacy, confidentiality and discretion. Thanks, and sorry for messing about with your pages! -- There'sNoTime ^{(to explain)} 08:22, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

It's extremely important that you heed @There'sNoTime in light of having been targeted by a long term abuse sockmaster. -- ferret (talk) 14:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I don’t recall giving out anything particularly personal- I thought the only thing that I said in hat conversation was my age- but I’ll respect your action and make sure to be extra careful in the future.

Once again, thank you. TheDisneyGamer (talk) 14:25, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, TheDisneyGamer. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 7

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Game Boy Advance, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ABC (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 20:35, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wii Play

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Wii Play you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 08:20, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wii Play

The article Wii Play you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Wii Play for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 10:41, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Wii Play

The article Wii Play you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Wii Play for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of MWright96 -- MWright96 (talk) 17:22, 14 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Super Mario Sunshine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Halo (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 18:44, 14 December 2017 (UTC)