User talk:CobraSA

Hi CobraSA, Great work on adding variant pictures of the Super FX chip to Wikipedia. I just thought you may want to know that there are actually six revisions/variants of the Super FX chip, and if you happen to have them available it might be nice to have pictures of all six together in the article. The epoxy version of MARIO CHIP 1 (glob-top version) which can be seen here:- http://www.anthrofox.org/starfox/misc/fxcart_glop.jpg Although this is just a different chip packaging, it would be nice to include it in the chronology. There is also a GSU1A version (The 'A' probably denoting a minor die revision to the chip) which can be seen here on the prototype PCB for the unreleased game Powerslide:- http://www.snescentral.com/pcb.php?id=0151&num=0&side=front The GSU1A was also used in some retail copies of Stunt Race FX. I hope that helps. Link83

Hi, Link83. This is indeed very helpful. I did know about the epoxy version but I didn't know about that GSU1A. When I can I will add them. CobraSA (talk) 07:04, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

September 2017[edit]

Please be careful about what you say to people. Some remarks, such as your addition to User talk:Bishonen can easily be misinterpreted, or viewed as harassment. Wikipedia is a supportive environment, where contributors should feel comfortable and safe while editing. Thank you. General Ization ^Talk 03:03, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop your disruptive behaviour. It appears you are purposefully harassing another editor. Wikipedia aims to provide a safe environment for its collaborators, and harassing other users potentially compromises that safe environment. If you continue behaving like this, you may be blocked from editing. You have been asked to stay off user talk:Bishonen's talk page. Your comments are are harassment and personal attacks. If you continue, you will be blocked. This is the only warning you will receive. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 03:09, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Arbitration Committee is what you're looking for, but as a sitting arbitrator, I can say that if you were to file a case request against Bishonen based on these happenings it would likely not (read: next to zero chance) be accepted. Ks0stm ^{(T•C•G•E)} If you reply here, please ping me by using {{re|Ks0stm}} in your reply. 03:35, 30 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead of M.U.G.E.N[edit]

In the lead of M.U.G.E.N, of course the figure is first mentioned there, because it's the lead and summarises the rest of the article. See WP:LEAD. Every quality article on Wikipedia leaves references out of the lead and relies on references later on to support the summary, so your argument about "first mention" has no weight on Wikipedia. There's already a discussion on that issue on the talk page, so why aren't you discussing there, rather than edit-warring in the article against Wikipedia's normal way of working.

Now, tell me why having a link to MUGEN archive in the lead is so important to you. I offered a compromise that falls within policy by giving it a specific mention in the Customisation section. You don't seem able to accommodate any compromise, which makes me wonder whether we need to have any mention of the site in the article at all. If I couple your fixation on that site with your earlier removal of a dozen other sites as "irrelevant spam", I start to wonder whether you have a vested interest in the MUGEN archive. Is that the case? You do realise that if you don't seek a consensus on including the site appropriately, that it could be blacklisted to prevent disruption. --RexxS (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@RexxS Sorry I didn't know wikipedia policies was to not insert sources in the lead. I often see sources in the lead, could you please point me out to that policy? If that's indeed WP policy then I will respect it. CobraSA (talk) 15:56, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

From Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section:

"The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents."
"Like in the body of the article itself, the emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic, according to reliable, published sources. Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article."
"Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material." (section WP:CITELEAD)

From Wikipedia:Citing sources #When not to cite:

"Citations are often omitted from the lead section of an article, insofar as the lead summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article ..."

There are exceptions to this general rule, but we do not pre-emptively insert references in the lead in case somebody might challenge them. I seriously doubt that anyone would sensisbly challenge the assertion that "Content is created by the community, and thousands of fighters, both original and from popular fiction, have been created.", especially when further into the article there is mention of a site containing thousands of uploaded characters. I have previously drawn your attention to these pages, more than once. The shortcut I used is WP:LEAD, so you can confirm for yourself that you've been asked to see that page already.

Nevertheless, you seem so determined to insert a link to mugenarchive.com into the lead, in the face of a compromise offered, that the only way I can see to prevent future disruption is to blacklist the site from any mention in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Spam blacklist for more detail. I'm sorry, but there's a limit to how far I'm prepared to go to accomodate your agenda, especially given your predisposition to make personal attacks on other editors. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks for more detail. --RexxS (talk) 16:33, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

October 2017[edit]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 1 week for edit warring (after multiple attempts to get you to stop), and either sockpuppetry or meatpuppetry, as you did at M.U.G.E.N. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Floquenbeam (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

CobraSA, may I offer you few words of advice? Although I'm not surprised that the edit-warring you were engaged in has lead to a block, it doesn't have to remain for a whole week if you make an acceptable unblock request. Follow the instructions above about adding the 'unblock' template to your page and give as the reason that you understand that repeatedly making an edit doesn't help resolve the difference of opinion between yourself and other editors, and that you won't do it again.

I'd recommend you also take the time to look at some of the policy pages that others have referred you to. As for the content dispute itself, I still think you might be able to "live with" a compromise where mugenarchve.com is described in the body of the article, but not used in the lead. Being able to live with a compromise – even if it's not everything you want – is how we reach consensus over disputes. You obviously are passionate about games and gaming and have a lot to contribute, which is why I'd like to encourage you to ask for the unblock and perhaps do some work on other gaming articles. Does that sound like something you could do? (By the way, you can edit this page even when blocked.) --RexxS (talk) 00:15, 3 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CobraSA (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

accused of sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry without any proof, I request the admin shows his evidence or gets retired from the staff, accusing people without proof is not acceptable CobraSA (talk) 21:15, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 21:50, 8 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

You have been blocked from editing indefinitely for persistently making disruptive edits. The moment your previous block ran out, you went straight back to the exact same behaviour - clearly temporary blocks do not get through to you, and so this one has no expiry date.

If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Yunshui ^雲 _水 21:30, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

CobraSA (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I don't understand what "disruptive editing" means, it seems like the wikipedia version of "trolling" which is a classic internet excuse to ban people you have a disagreement with. I have just added objective and valid sources and tried to make an article compliant with the wikipedia guidelines.

Decline reason:

No. You've engaged in edit-warring and apparently, violations of WP:MEAT, too. You'll need to specifically address this in your next unblock request. Realistically, I think it's unlikely you'll be unblocked unless you agree to a voluntary topic ban on [[ M.U.G.E.N]] (including that article's discussion page), given your past history. Yamla (talk) 11:18, 28 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.