Holymolytree2
I'm sorry to delete your additions, but you were saying "This is not a goof" instead of deleting the goof. I know it was your intention that some one would delete it, but why did you do so? I should have commented on the talk page on if I should have deleted the "goofs," but I didn't get around to it. If done so, it could have been negotiated and some one may have decided if or if not that should be deleted, and I am sorry, but you still easily could have suggested deletion/deleted them yourself. Though I do agree with the two not being goofs. Ultim87 02:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Re: What the Hell?
editI reverted your edits to Scare Tactics because you provided nothing to support your claims that the entire show is fake and the victims are in on it too. Whether you're correct or not you need undisputed sources of evidence that support your claim. You admit having none with a statement like "Though never officially revealed" meaning you're drawing your own conclusions. Until it is "officially" revealed otherwise Scare Tactics is as it claims - a legitimate prank show. You may wholeheartedly believe the show is bullshit and thats fine, but Wikipedia is no place to enforce your personal opinions about a given subject like you just did. Cyberia23 04:38, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, I'll be the first to agree that the show is completely retarded and I'm by no means a fan, but making serious claims against something or someone without clear and viable evidence to support it is against Wikipedia policy and grounds for deletion. I really don't care if the show is fake or not - the point of the article is to inform of it's existence - not that it sucked and is SOOOOOOO FAKE! It's been mentioned already under the Criticism section that some believe it's completely fake, and thats really as far as it should go without showing bias to the whole article. If you hate the show go bitch about on another forum. Cyberia23 05:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
Boxing
editWhether you know better or not is besides the point. The issue at hand is that unverified information that copies another section for it's material is not suitable for the article. My gym would not recognise the phrase as you interpret it. If you don't want others to edit the information you input then a wiki is not the place to put that info. To source information you will want to find an appropriate article on the web and link to it rather as your personal knowledge needs to be backed up by weblinks. MLA 17:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Just a quickie - you left your message for the above user on their userpage, rather than their talk page. I've moved it for you, but be sure to watch out in the future! Oh, and don't forget to sign your comments - I'll post a little reminder below for you. Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 22:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. On many keyboards, the tilde is entered by holding the Shift key, and pressing the key with the tilde pictured. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! Giles Bennett (Talk, Contribs) 22:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
Duke Nukem II
editIt doesn't matter if you played every video game ever made; you must cite sources for calling the graphics poor, otherwise it's original research (and you can't simply cite your own expertise). If you can find a reliable source that compares the graphics of the game to contemporary games, go right ahead. The fact another unsourced opinion was there for ages is immaterial. I don't edit Wikipedia nearly as often as I used to and I guess I never really paid any notice to the statement.
In addition, it's kind of pointless comparing PC games of that time to console games anyway. At that time consoles and other computer platforms always had an advantage over the IBM compatible in terms of graphics (at least in terms of 2D games). It took time until the PC was a serious games platform in the sense of the consoles or some other makes of computer. Back in the mid-to-early-90's, a friend of mine had an old Amiga that didn't even have a hard drive (I think the next model up did). All the games were loaded off multiple floppy disks. But there were a few 2D games that left many later 2D PC games in the dust in terms of graphics. Yo! Jo! particularly comes to mind (granted one of the few I recall and can put a name to).--Drat (Talk) 10:36, 30 October 2007 (UTC)