User talk:Nintendude64

I'm serious

See my request at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Douglas Herbert and reply there. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request denied. I think it would've been sufficient to keep this in the AfD discussion. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 03:15, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

Since I quoted youHello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.---Balloonman ^{NO! I'm Spartacus!} 16:02, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I posted my two cents :-) --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 21:26, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merge of List of magical negro archetypes in fiction into Magical negro

Hi, As you participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of magical negro archetypes in fiction, I am notifying you of the proposed merger. Please comment at Talk:Magical negro#Proposing a merger. Thank you, Bigger digger (talk) 16:52, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Murray (politician)

I have renominated this article for deletion 6 hours after it was closed as kept. Racepacket (talk) 09:23, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jeopardy! Kids Week

You previously participated in an AFD discussion regarding a child article of Jeopardy!. There is currently another ongoing AFD for Jeopardy! Kids Week and you may be interested in providing a comment or vote for/against deletion. If you'd like to participate you can find the discussion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Kids Week. Sottolacqua (talk) 03:29, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

StarWind Software Page

Hi,

thank you very much for supporting us! Gave an excellent hint so I've included more independent reviewers :)

Thank you again!!!

AK47

213.238.8.10 (talk) 00:55, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review for StarWind Software

An editor has asked for a deletion review of StarWind Software. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Hu12 (talk) 16:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppet charges

Hi Nintendude, I'm sorry SkepticAnonymous didn't inform you of the sockpuppet charge. When I saw it first leveled on the Forward AfD, I considered asking you about it directly, but I didn't see any clear evidence that would make me comfortable doing so while still assuming good faith. Having contributed to the discussion on your sockpuppet investigation, I now feel bad that I participated in a discussion that was essentially behind your back; I didn't know this was the case. So I apologize for that. It's clear SkepticAnonymous is holding a grudge against you, but that doesn't mean he or she might isn't right on this particular. Since your response on the investigation only spoke to your history with that user, can you confirm directly that you're not the same user as User:Nintendude and/or not engaged in sockpuppetry now? You should probably add those answers to the investigation page, but feel free to also reply here or back to my user page. Best, BDD (talk) 21:22, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

To the unknowing third party that would be useful, so I will directly address those allegations on the page as reference. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 00:21, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. You have to admit, someone who finds out about a sock puppeteer named Nintendude and then sees the same charge leveled at a Nintendude64 could get suspicious. Your denial means something, and I now agree that there's not much of a case against you. You may want to consider a name change, however. As long as your name so closely resembles a past offender, you may draw suspicion. I think I would do this if I were in your position. Of course, it's entirely up to you--you shouldn't feel the need to change if you just like the name or don't want to appear that you have something to hide. Good luck! I'm sure this is all a bit stressful. --BDD (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again for the advise. I do like this name and I'd like to keep it. I can understand the suspicion, which is why I'll keep this Sockpuppet Investigation handy since I believe it provides a good case that I don't engage in this behavior, despite having a similar name to someone who was blocked for the practice several years go. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 16:53, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A beer for you!

Keep fighting MT king on his retarded voyage of deleting ufc pages....you have my support and respect brother. J Savage 666 (talk) 04:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Invite

Your efforts have been noticed. We could use an editor like you.

Please accept this invite to join the Conservatism WikiProject, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to conservatism broadly construed.
– Lionel ^(talk) 21:24, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MBTA ridership

Well done with adding the MBTA ridership numbers! I've been adding them as I overall individual articles, but it's great having them all in place. Are you planning to do the Commuter Rail articles as well? Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! The Ridership and Service Statistics have been out for a while and I'd only seen the information sparsely filled out for the stations so I figured I'd fill it in myself. I've finished the Blue and Orange Lines and am working on the Red Line. I plan to do the Green Line soon as well. I hadn't had any plans to do the Commuter Rail, however. At least not anytime soon. The statistics are available from the same source, you're more than welcome to undertake that effort as I won't be getting to it in the near future. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 22:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I use the Bluebook all the time for the ridership numbers. I think the CR ridership might be a good task for someone with AWB (which I don't use). I'll get them manually as a rewrite articles, but at my present pace I'll finish all the articles around 2015. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:17, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012

Hello, I'm SummerPhD. I noticed that you made a change to an article, War on Women, but you didn't provide a reliable source. I've removed it for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. SummerPhD (talk) 22:39, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I felt it wasn't necessary to provide explicit citation for this at the time since the sources attributing the political catchphrase are from Democrats. It's self-evident from the sources themselves and it is appropriate to not provide a citation in the lede if it's backed up by the article unless there are concerns that a statement is being given too much weight in the lede. I also explained on the Talk page how not including this edit did not present the article from a neutral point of view. However, citations have be provided which should close this matter. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 02:39, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012

Your recent editing history at War on Women shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belchfire (talk • contribs) 03:35, 5 November 2012‎

No I'm not, that's absurd. Every single one of my edits has been constructive if you'd followed the history of the discussion, the edits, and the user talk messaging. Because of this, I will be striking this edit myself as I do not believe it is constructive and it is demonstrably false.

I believe this message was posted without an attempt to acquire context, but I do not currently see any evidence that this is in bad faith. However, I do see that you personally have been previously blocked from editing this article due to edit warring: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ABelchfire&diff=518264477&oldid=518220586 and your block log here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/block&page=User%3ABelchfire. I'd suggest that maybe you do need to cool down if you still feel this is a contentious topic for you and that you be constructive in the discussion if you choose to participate. I also request that you please sign all posts to my talk page. --NINTENDUDE⁶⁴ 03:54, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Belchfire is always very good about signing his posts, I am certain that was a mere oversight. Almost everyone forgets to sign every now and then. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:08, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your signature

Please consider modifying your signature, and remove the font size attribute. While Wikipedia:Signatures#Appearance_and_color does allow for font size of 2 or less, it is distracting to other editors, and as you have already added color and bold, your signature is distinctive enough, I would hope, to satisfy. Thank you for considering this. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:04, 5 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

MMA Event Notability

You are invited to join the discussion at WT:MMA#MMA_Event_Notability. Kevlar (talk) 19:00, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]