User talk:URunICon/Archive 1

Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, URunICon, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of the pages you created, like Doom Unit, may not conform to some of Wikipedia's guidelines for page creation, and may soon be deleted.

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard. Thank you.

There's a page about creating articles you may want to read called Your first article. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

• Your first article
• Biographies of living persons
• How to write a great article
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Help pages
• Tutorial

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! ~Darth Starbo 14:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Doom Unit

A tag has been placed on Doom Unit requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for musical topics. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ~Darth Starbo 14:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Doom Unit

It seemed short and non encyclopedic at the time. Sorry. ~Darth Starbo 22:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Ringer Pilot Twins.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Ringer Pilot Twins.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:22, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

"Ringer"

It's not about the country. We can't just source it using the TV channel. We need third-party sources. Like a media site reporting that Channel Ten has picked up RINGER, why they've picked up, more information. Channel is not enough. See the others and you'll see why they're there. Jayy008 (talk) 17:44, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Isn't TVCentral.com a third-party source? Also there's no info on why 'Ringer' was picked up in these other sites: TBI, Mediaset, GlobalTV. --URunICon (talk) 18:24, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Canada doesn't really count as it's pretty much the U.S. Yes, that Australia website is third-party, but all it says again is that it will air on network ten. Why is just one thing. If it's a third-party source saying "ringer has been picked up by" then that's fine. That's news. TBIVision source is great, it's about an overall deal with the studio, it has a quote from the network (thought not specific to RINGER) and it's third-party. I'm on a mac at the moment so forgive me for not explaining further right now. I will try and explain better tomorrow. Basically those sources are media coverage. Jayy008 (talk) 20:52, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

"Ringer"

The sarcasm is not needed—one is enough. Jayy008 (talk) 17:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Number one, all those sources can not be used. IMDB can not be used, we can not source other Wiki pages and the first source you provided says nothing about that character. Adding a source to something pretending it has the relevant information is vandalism and will be challenged. Jayy008 (talk) 17:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm just trying to edit real information there. Zahn McClarnon plays the character Bodaway Macawi on Ringer. It is seen in the opening credits of every episode he's in (5). I don't understand why you keep reverting edits that are true. You state here that I have "lied" and "vandalised" the article just because what I'm writing is true. Where have I lied? Is good faith editing vandalism? Don't you think reverting is more vandalism than good faith edits? --URunICon (talk) 17:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Here's a screenshot of the pilot episode. And here's a picture of Zahn McClarnon, to prove me right. --URunICon (talk) 17:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The lie was that you didn't just add sources for this character like you claimed, you added another character without a source. There are guidelines, you can't just add any source you want. No matter what we're not allowed to use Wikipedia as a source, or screen shots. You can however cite the episode. Source 43 on this article If you use that, but change the information to RINGER, then that's fine. Also, he wasn't in the pilot, he was in episode two. Jayy008 (talk) 17:37, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I added three valid references that all stated the name "Zahn McClarnon". I also used the Cite episode template, which you also reverted. I did not use Wikipedia or screenshots as a source. And yes he was in the pilot episode, check again! --URunICon (talk) 17:49, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This is the last time I will say it. None of those references were valid: The first was an Entertainment Weekly article that did not mentioned the actor, the second was a link to a Wikipedia article which is not allowed and third was IMDB which is also not allowed as a source on Wikipedia. I have given you a template for which you are allowed to use, if you choose not to, that's your prerogative. If you continue to add those sources, I will send a warning. Jayy008 (talk) 17:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

This clearly shows that I used "Cite episode" template. --URunICon (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

The cite episode is the one you should use, but I must apologize, I got completely confused as to who you were talking about. I have made the change that will restore it. Only one source is needed, IMDB is never allowed. Again, sorry for my mistake! Jayy008 (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Breaking Bad pic

Stop reverting back to the promo picture. It is perfectly fine adding the screenshot of the opening credits. Please discuss on the talk page before reverting again. Thanks. RAP (talk) 18:18 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Non-free content#Policy 2 section 1. No free equivalent. --URunICon (talk) 20:39, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

Look, the promo art is being used on the episode list, so it's not going to waste. But the pic desired for infoboxes is the intertitle of the opening credits. Not the free promo art. RAP (talk) 18:29 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Please don't be a hypocrite. RAP (talk) 18:33 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Ringer Pilot Twins.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Ringer Pilot Twins.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Ringer Pilot Twins.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Ringer Pilot Twins.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

File:TheWalkingDead3x11.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:TheWalkingDead3x11.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 14:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of Jussi Award winners for Best Finnish Film, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Aleksi Mäkelä. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, URunICon. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, URunICon. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

La La Land accolades

These comments are moved from User:IreneTandry's talk page.
Hi, we should follow the style of the film accolades articles that have been chosen as featured lists, not any other style, as you've done [1] --URunICon (talk) 13:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

We? Maybe you, yourself. IreneTandry (talk) 13:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Also, don't remove comments from other users on your talk page. And don't result to Wikipedia:Edit warring. --URunICon (talk) 14:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

That's my talk page. Whatever I want to delete the message in my talk page or not. IreneTandry (talk) 14:12, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

---

Really? Vandalism? What about the other accolades which is similar to your La La Land, huh? IreneTandry (talk) 14:19, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Well, what ever the case may be, we should reach a consensus on the La La Land issue. I think we both know that the correct styling is my proposed style, which imitates other film accolades articles that have been chosen as featured lists. The style is also in accordance to Wikipedia's style guidelines. Yours is clearly not, since it doesn't use !scope = "row" and the reference is aligned to the left instead of the preferred center. --URunICon (talk) 14:20, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Hey you, what about List of accolades received by Gosford Park? It is at featured lists too, right? IreneTandry (talk) 14:24, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but it was nominated over 6 years ago and the preferred styling has changed in the more recently nominated lists. Eg. see 12 Years a Slave, Argo, Whiplash etc. --URunICon (talk) 14:26, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I refused your thanks. IreneTandry (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

And now, are you accusing me again as vandal? You show off your message in my talk page in order to make the other users accusing me as a vandal and now you change the title "Awards and nominations" into "Accolades" from La La Land's accolades? You're really vandal and selfish, not me. IreneTandry (talk) 16:51, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Just providing some context to our conversation. "Accolades" is the correct term. --URunICon (talk) 17:09, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

It shows me if you're the real vandal and selfish, not me. IreneTandry (talk) 17:23, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

You can read these messages, can't you? You are privileging La La Land accolades "better" than the other films which have similar accolades with La La Land. After that, you warned me before, if I should change the accolades' table design to your own table design. Actually, I hate your table design and suddenly, you accused me as vandal. If I am really vandal, why did you or the other users not block me before? I check all of accolades which include "feature lists" and the accolades' table designs are different each other. And I see your contribution and you only edit La La Land than the other films. Because of your selfish, I reluctantly change the accolades' table design for the other films.

I moved AFI Awards and National Boards of Review to the main page, not deleted, because "User:Tenebrae" had edit-warring with the other users for the top-ten lists, not because of you. You are unaware if "User:Tenebrae" deleted AFI Awards from the accolades' table design, so I decrease the number of awards. I'm right. Yeah, you are still selfish.

IreneTandry (talk) 02:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Your edit summary in the aforementioned edit was unnecessary and, frankly, pretty much a PA. In regard to the table style: why should the table in the La La Land article differ from highly-regarded (WP:FL) table styles in previous articles? Shouldn't we stick to what has been thought worthy, and not make up our own styles that are considerably worse aesthetically? --URunICon (talk) 22:13, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Really? You make a PA to me first by accusing me as vandal. Why did you not block me before? You don't answer my question. Highly-regard? I see La La Land wasn't mentioned at WP:FL and I see your contribution. You only edit La La Land and I edit Manchester by the Sea, Arrival, Moonlight, Hell or High Water, Fences, Jackie, etc. They are similar to La La Land. And no one change the table style into WP:FL for those films I mentioned. It means the table style is better. Your "highly-regard" table-style is worse. Don't talk about WP:FL again because of your selfish. We? Maybe you, yourself, want to stick, and I will not stick. No one comment to me about my table style (actually somebody make the table style before and I like it and the table style is better than your table style). One again, don't talk to me and come to my talk page for polluting my talk page, and I give you "the middle finger". IreneTandry (talk) 22:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

1) When you result to WP:Edit warring, you're a vandal (in my eyes anyway). 2) Individual editors don't have any means of "blocking" each other, as you well know. 3) Just because no one has had the time or will to change the tables to the correct styling doesn't mean that they are "better". --URunICon (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Do you see List of accolades received by Loving (2016 film)? Somebody change your table style and I like it better than your table style, without !scope row and with align left. Actually the film included WP:FL. Yes, my table style are better than your table style and no one change my table style. You are starting for WP:Edit warring first, not me, do you see your message before? "don't remove comments from other users on your talk page". It's my talk page, whatever I want to change, add or delete messages in my talk page. But you, you change my talk page and I hate it. Yeah, you, you start edit-warring. IreneTandry (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Please read Help:Table and MOS:TABLES for more info about the use of !scope = row etc. Edit warring means constantly reverting edits, which is what you were doing. If you mean that incident on your talk page, I apologize, since talk page customs are different here than at Finnish Wikipedia where you can't remove comments unless they're abusive. --URunICon (talk) 23:11, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Ah, I see you contribute La La Land at Finnish Wikipedia. But you didn't change the table style which Vadelmavene made. It's too funny. You said it includes feature lists. Is Wikipedia rule just for only English? Yeah, I think you're abusive to me. The reverting edit doesn't mean edit warring, you should know that, many users revert edit too, not just me. If you accuse me as vandal, it means you accuse all of users as vandal too. I give you "second middle-finger". IreneTandry (talk) 23:17, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Different wiki, different rules. Read up on the edit warring and you'll know the difference. If I were you I'd change my attitude and up my conversational skills ASAP. --URunICon (talk) 00:09, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

I will not change my attitude, so don't tell me like my parents. IreneTandry (talk) 00:29, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Heh, do you want to make edit warring with me, don't you? I just fix the center ref(s) with style as you did with La La Land's accolades, right? And then, what's wrong again? Did you see Sing Street's accolades? That's the table style I want. And it's too funny you didn't change that into your own table style.... I think you watch my contribution first and add the ref into center. You're not creative, selfish and vandal... And I think, you want to edit-warring with me and make plan. Make plan that I will be blocked by some user after edit-warring with you. Wow, that's good plan and amazing, I will be "kicked" at Wikipedia.

IreneTandry (talk) 14:35, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

align=center and style="text-align:center;" are the same, so there's no need for you to "fix from (my) worst fix".. --URunICon (talk) 16:02, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Huh, you don't admit it and answer my question. I did it as you did it for La La Land's accolades. And I want Sing Street and other films have accolades' table better as La La Land too. Full stop!!

NOTE: I refuse your apology since you revert MY user talk page.

IreneTandry (talk) 16:21, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

You're almost incomprehensible to a degree that I don't understand your point. My point is that you shouldn't change the align=center to style="text-align:center;" since it's the exact same outcome, only align=center is more compact and takes less space. You shouldn't also attack me in your edit summaries, as it breaks the WP:SUMMARYNO rule (as you have been informed here). Yet you continued to do so even after you were warned about it, as seen here and here. --URunICon (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

That's your alibi that I really hate to hear and read it. And that's plan for kicking me from Wikipedia. That's so amazing. Did you see my last message what I want to do with Sing Street and the other films besides La La Land? It's impossible to defend yourself, I still don't care about how long your statement, because you're selfish, privileging La La Land's accolades better than the other films, accusing me as vandal first and changing my user talk page...

NOTE: I never edit La La Land's accolades again since you privilege La La Land better than the other films. You can see my contribution.

IreneTandry (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Look. I don't care about whether you get "kicked out" or not. I understand that you're new here, but try to at least make some sense to what you're talking about since it's very hard to be reasonable with you. You're still going on about the table styles even though it was made clear to you that that is the standard style. About your user page: I haven't changed anything on it since I read the rule about en-wiki's rule concerning user talk pages (it's different from that of fi-wiki), so there's that. I hope we can put this to bed finally. --URunICon (talk) 20:00, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

We? Maybe you, yourself. I'm not new here. I don't care about fi-wiki because I can't read and speak Finnish and I'm not American, British or Finnish. This edit warring is close. I hope I never see you again at Wikipedia. IreneTandry (talk) 04:35, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, URunICon. 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)

Finnish election results table

Hello. Would you mind stopping adding back in the electiontable table? Contrary to your assertion in the edit summary that they are the default style and that the other one is "customised", electiontable is not the default style and the current one is probably the most widely used results table format, both on Finnish elections and elsewhere (see other current/recent elections: Cypriot presidential election, 2018 and Czech presidential election, 2018). Also, having separate templates to the articles is discouraged and many of them are gradually being deleted. Cheers, Number 57 14:38, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Stop restoring your own customised election table and use the standardised version, please. The style is in use in all other recent elections, plus your own has some errors in it like the total number of votes. --URunICon (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

Also, your version doesn't use {{formatnum:}}, the turnout percentage is in the wrong place, and there are no abbreviations for the parties. --URunICon (talk) 14:42, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

As I said, it's not a customised version, nor is yours the standardised version, so please stop using this terminology. I've also double checked the figures and the total number of votes is correct. The turnout figure is not in the wrong place and abbreviations aren't required. Not sure why {{formatnum:}} is needed either as I have hardly ever come across it despite editing thousands of election articles. Number 57 14:43, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

You should never put the rejected votes in to the total number so it's wrong. {{formatnum:}} automatically formats the correct way of presenting it, so it should be used. Turnout figure should be seperate from the registered voters, see Template:French presidential election, 2017 --URunICon (talk) 14:47, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

It's not wrong at all – they were votes that were cast. The turnout figure is separated from registered voters, it's not in the same cell. {{formatnum:}} isn't needed if the number is already presented in the correct way. Number 57 14:49, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

No, like it is in the source, they are _clearly_ separate. [2] --URunICon (talk) 14:53, 30 January 2018 (UTC)

You've now broken WP:3RR, so you may want to self-revert to avoid being reported (and probably blocked). Cheers, Number 57 08:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Now reported here. Number 57 11:03, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

What a childish reaction. Fine, you've had your way, keep the incorrect table if you so wish. --URunICon (talk) 11:18, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Archive 1