User talk:TheNuttyOne/Archive 1: Difference between revisions
TheNuttyOne (talk | contribs) |
(→News points: new section) |
||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
Many people say the Drill is the Drill Arm from ''Uprising''. Just because the names don't match doesn't mean that they aren't the same. Also, [[SW:OFFICIAL|just because something isn't confirmed is '''not''' an excuse to say otherwise]]. Another thing: read [[SW:1RV]] and stop re-adding reverted info. <font face="AmericanTypewriter">[[User: Rtzxy|<span style="color:darkorange;">Rtzxy</span>]] [[File:SmashSig.jpeg]] [[User talk:Rtzxy|<span style="color:blue;">Smashing!</span>]]</font> 18:29, 14 October 2014 (EDT) | Many people say the Drill is the Drill Arm from ''Uprising''. Just because the names don't match doesn't mean that they aren't the same. Also, [[SW:OFFICIAL|just because something isn't confirmed is '''not''' an excuse to say otherwise]]. Another thing: read [[SW:1RV]] and stop re-adding reverted info. <font face="AmericanTypewriter">[[User: Rtzxy|<span style="color:darkorange;">Rtzxy</span>]] [[File:SmashSig.jpeg]] [[User talk:Rtzxy|<span style="color:blue;">Smashing!</span>]]</font> 18:29, 14 October 2014 (EDT) | ||
:I have read 1RV and it states that if the edit adds false information it is appropriate to revert back. It is false to say that the Drill is "quite obviously" the Drill Arm. Perhaps it's false to say it has "strong similarities" as well, since it's similarities are more than just strong. However, without any official confirmation, the phrase "quite obviously" is not only "quite obviously" wrong, but also very unprofessional. And I also understand OFFICIAL- however, with every official source referring to the Drill calling it the Drill Arm and the only form of evidence for it being the Drill Arm is its appearance, I think that while SW isn't official, it should be official enough that we note the fact that there is no significant proof. I'll come up with a better wording than "quite obviously" or "strong similarities to", but I will continue to revert it back if that is removed, due to, as I stated before, "quite obviously" being false information. '''[[User:Nutta Butta|...a new Nutta]]'''[[File:Nutta's Mallo sig.png]]'''[[User talk:Nutta Butta|is approaching...]]''' 18:35, 14 October 2014 (EDT) | :I have read 1RV and it states that if the edit adds false information it is appropriate to revert back. It is false to say that the Drill is "quite obviously" the Drill Arm. Perhaps it's false to say it has "strong similarities" as well, since it's similarities are more than just strong. However, without any official confirmation, the phrase "quite obviously" is not only "quite obviously" wrong, but also very unprofessional. And I also understand OFFICIAL- however, with every official source referring to the Drill calling it the Drill Arm and the only form of evidence for it being the Drill Arm is its appearance, I think that while SW isn't official, it should be official enough that we note the fact that there is no significant proof. I'll come up with a better wording than "quite obviously" or "strong similarities to", but I will continue to revert it back if that is removed, due to, as I stated before, "quite obviously" being false information. '''[[User:Nutta Butta|...a new Nutta]]'''[[File:Nutta's Mallo sig.png]]'''[[User talk:Nutta Butta|is approaching...]]''' 18:35, 14 October 2014 (EDT) | ||
== News points == | |||
It would indeed be preferable to have fewer news items with more info in each. However, that only works if they're related to each other in some way - in this particular case they aren't really, meaning a merged item would be a bit confusing. [[User:Toomai|Toomai]] [[User talk:Toomai|Glittershine]] [[Image:Toomai.png|20px|link=User:Toomai/Bin|???]] The Steppin' 23:13, 20 October 2014 (EDT) | |||
Revision as of 22:13, October 20, 2014
← moved to User talk:Ninelevendo
Welcoming users
There's a better way then copying and pasting someone else's welcome. You can also use {{subst:welcome}} as well. Dots (talk) 
The Sandvich 00:22, 12 July 2014 (EDT)
- Oh, lol. Thanks! I was looking for a welcome template but I couldn't find it. :P Nutta Butta (talk) 12:12, 12 July 2014 (EDT) → moved from User talk:Dots
Woah
Never keep uploading an image because it doesn't appear to have changed; images open require a hard refresh or just time to update after being changed. Toomai Glittershine 
The Wacko 10:52, 14 July 2014 (EDT)
- I only did it on purpose once because I tried refreshing multiple times. The second time was my computer being ultra-stupid. Nutta Butta (talk) 10:55, 14 July 2014 (EDT)
SW:SIG
Please review the signature rules. You need to have your username (more or less) in your sig, and you need to follow the image sizing restrictions. Miles (talk) 16:24, 14 July 2014 (EDT)
- I'm pretty sure I obeyed the image size. I added my username, though. ...a new Nutta
is approaching... 16:27, 14 July 2014 (EDT)
- The height limit is 20px; as-is you're using it at 35px. Toomai Glittershine The Obfuscating 16:31, 14 July 2014 (EDT)
- ...hm, well that will make mallo very tiny. Sigh, alright. ...a new Nuttais approaching...
- ...hm, well that will make mallo very tiny. Sigh, alright. ...a new Nutta
- The height limit is 20px; as-is you're using it at 35px. Toomai Glittershine
Hey
I suggest you read SW:1RV, as your revert on my undo was in violation of it. You even said it yourself that the first leak was true, so that sentence you posted is irrelavant as the second leak was made in April. Laikue (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2014 (EDT)
- ...what are you talking about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutta Butta (talk • contribs) 15:43, July 14, 2014 (CDT)
You should be signing
with ~~~~ as opposed to ~~~. Typing out four ~'s gives you the proper signature + time stamp. MegaTron1XD
18:51, 22 August 2014 (EDT)
- The timestamp gives it a cluttered feel, I think. And I'm pretty sure it's not required. ...a new Nuttais approaching...
New pages
Please, in general, don't make a new page unless you plan on including basic necessary content like appropriate templates. Red links are a better indicator of work still needed. Miles (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2014 (EDT)
This page
Many people say the Drill is the Drill Arm from Uprising. Just because the names don't match doesn't mean that they aren't the same. Also, just because something isn't confirmed is not an excuse to say otherwise. Another thing: read SW:1RV and stop re-adding reverted info. Rtzxy 
Smashing! 18:29, 14 October 2014 (EDT)
- I have read 1RV and it states that if the edit adds false information it is appropriate to revert back. It is false to say that the Drill is "quite obviously" the Drill Arm. Perhaps it's false to say it has "strong similarities" as well, since it's similarities are more than just strong. However, without any official confirmation, the phrase "quite obviously" is not only "quite obviously" wrong, but also very unprofessional. And I also understand OFFICIAL- however, with every official source referring to the Drill calling it the Drill Arm and the only form of evidence for it being the Drill Arm is its appearance, I think that while SW isn't official, it should be official enough that we note the fact that there is no significant proof. I'll come up with a better wording than "quite obviously" or "strong similarities to", but I will continue to revert it back if that is removed, due to, as I stated before, "quite obviously" being false information. ...a new Nuttais approaching... 18:35, 14 October 2014 (EDT)
News points
It would indeed be preferable to have fewer news items with more info in each. However, that only works if they're related to each other in some way - in this particular case they aren't really, meaning a merged item would be a bit confusing. Toomai Glittershine The Steppin' 23:13, 20 October 2014 (EDT)
