User talk:Russoc4

Warning

Please refrain from adding nonsense to Wikipedia, as you did to User:Conrad Devonshire. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. --Nlu (talk) 05:49, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove warnings from your talk page.--Conrad Devonshire ^Talk 02:15, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Template

Do not create a disruptive attack template such as {{User nohumor}} again. --Cyde Weys 03:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Although I do not condone your actions (changing other users' pages is vandalism) and I had no opportunity to actually see the userbox you created, I seem to share your opinion on the reason some users do not get the userbox idea. Friendly Neighbour 06:08, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Apologies

Chris, I understand we've settled the mistake on the HBP page, but I just wanted to say that I apologize for reverting your edit. I'm not going to cover it up or anything; the reason I had reverted it was because when I clicked on the "last" button in the history page, it showed you taking out the Gryffindor Quidditch team. I did not see anything in that link that showed the duplicate entry; thus I thought you had just taken it out. You will see on the history page that the only edit I made to the page in the recent list reverts what I thought was you taking out information. You hadn't left an edit summary in any edits before I reverted, and I have not edited the page since you and Apostrophe both started to use the edit summary.

I was not attacking you with the warning, I was simply leaving it because that difference between versions suggested it. I apologize if it looks like I was being a jerk, but I was simply going by no edit summary and the difference from the previous version. Good luck, and I hope to see you around. --Fbv65edel ^{(discuss | contribs)} 15:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Glad everything is cleared up. --Fbv65edel ^{(discuss | contribs)} 15:27, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

MoS

Sorry, I should've linked to it. It is the Manual of Style, which offers the following regarding Heading format: "Capitalize the first letter only of the first word and of any proper nouns in a heading, and leave all of the other letters in lowercase." --mtz206 (talk) 15:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Tables on User Page

I have done what you have asked me to do. You can do any further edits yourself. --yaninass2 | talk 16:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Harry Potter Wikiproject

I'm confused. Are you actully part of this wikiproject? Your name is not listed as a praticipant. ForestH2

List Russoc4 or Chris on this list. Participants List — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForestH2 (talk • contribs)

It would also be helpful if you add a link to your talk page from your signature. ForestH2

Thank you - U.S. FAC

Hi,

Thank you for supporting the recent FAC of United States, but unfortunately it failed to pass. However, I hope you will vote again in the future. In the mean time, please accept this Mooncake as a token of my gratitude.--Ryz05 _t 15:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Four Swords

Four Swords is not a game, it's a subgame. Subgames do not warrant their own article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

How is it a game at all? It is included with A Link to the Past - they do not call it "The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords", and then include a note that it included an A Link to the Past port. Four Swords Adventures is sold as its own game. The Game Boy Zeldas are sold as their own games. Four Swords is a multiplayer mode - and is no more of a game than Hyrule Battle, regardless of the fact that it has a story. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It is new content added to the A Link to the Past port. It is not a separate game. It is a multiplayer mode added with A Link to the Past, not as its own original game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:04, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

It's not a game. It's a multiplayer mode. Having a storyline does not make it its own game. Is each part of Kirby Super Star its own game on the basis that Nintendo calls them "Eight Games in One"? - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Four Swords is a PART of the remake. It is the reason why it's a REMAKE, and not a port. Four Swords is included as a multiplayer mode, and not its own game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

What, are you now arguing that because it's original content, it's not a part of a remake? So that means that I should make an article on the final case of Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney, on account of the fact that PWAA is a remake of Gyakuten Saiban, and the fifth case was not in GS? Regardless of whether or not this "original content" is a part of the remake is irrelevant. The main game is A Link to the Past, and Four Swords is a subgame. It's not The Legend of Zelda: Four Swords (including a port of the SNES smash hit, A Link to the Past!), it's The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past (includes new multiplayer adventure Four Swords). It says on the box that it's a multiplayer mode, not a separate game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:16, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Because Four Swords Adventures isn't a part of another game. Four Swords is.

1. . A Link to the Past

1. . Four Swords

1. . Four Swords Adventures

1. .Hyrule Battle
2. . Tetra's Trackers

FSA is its own game. FS is a multiplayer mode in another game. Its as simple as that. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

They call it a "new multiplayer adventure" instead of a game for a reason. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Or they can call it "New single player game". They cannot call FS a multiplayer game, because it is a PART of a game. A lesser part of LttP. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

The game is A Link to the Past. Being a new multiplayer adventure does not make it a separate game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Faerûn images

Greetings. You asked about the images on the Faerûn article. These images are copyright Wizards of the Coast, and are not available under a free license. We can't use such images on Wikipedia, unless a detailed fair use case can be made. This is quite difficult to do. The image must satisfy all of our fair use criteria. But our criteria states that a high-definition map is not allowed.

Because of this, someone listed the image at Wikipedia:Copyright problems. After it had been there a week, I deleted it according to procedure there.

Sorry the image had to go; it was good looking and informative. Perhaps you could link to the images instead? All the best, – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 18:04, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Harry Potter

RHB(AWB) 23:27, 30 December 2006 (UTC), on behalf of WPHarry Potter

Possibly unfree Image:Hedwig hp.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Hedwig hp.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images because its copyright status is disputed. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page for more information if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. KFP (talk | contribs) 20:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

OASYS

Hi - when you edited the OASYS entry, you entered the comment "ginormous infobox." It's true - the infobox isn't well-suited to multifunctional synths (which I've brought up in the talk for the synth infobox), and for some reason the formatting expands when items exceed a single line. If you have any formatting tips for infoboxes, I'd very much appreciate them! When you edited the page, though, it apparently reverted to a much older version, which is both incomplete and out-of-date. I assume that this was unintentional on your part. If you'd like to discuss this further, I keep a watch on the OASYS talk page. Best regards, Dan.