User talk:Tamarin88 - Revision history

Misatousp40s&w at 17:34, 17 September 2023

2023-09-17T17:34:32Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:34, 17 September 2023
Line 48:		Line 48:


	== ~~Civilization V~~ ==		== USP End of Evangelion==

	I've yet to find any explicitly dated concept art that dates the 45 calibre as part of the character conception. Also there is nothing in the movie itself that explicitly suggests that it is a 45. The origin of its attribution as 45 seems to be pure conjecture by later commentators which was not corrected despite the continuity error involved.		I've yet to find any explicitly dated concept art that dates the 45 calibre as part of the character conception. Also there is nothing in the movie itself that explicitly suggests that it is a 45. The origin of its attribution as 45 seems to be pure conjecture by later commentators which was not corrected despite the continuity error involved.

Misatousp40s&w at 17:33, 17 September 2023

2023-09-17T17:33:56Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 17:33, 17 September 2023
Line 46:		Line 46:

	If you were having trouble uploading the MAC's charging animation, you probably just need to add or remove a letter or character from the filename. --[[User:AgentGumby\|AgentGumby]] ([[User talk:AgentGumby\|talk]]) 19:01, 17 March 2020 (EDT)		If you were having trouble uploading the MAC's charging animation, you probably just need to add or remove a letter or character from the filename. --[[User:AgentGumby\|AgentGumby]] ([[User talk:AgentGumby\|talk]]) 19:01, 17 March 2020 (EDT)


			== Civilization V ==

			I've yet to find any explicitly dated concept art that dates the 45 calibre as part of the character conception. Also there is nothing in the movie itself that explicitly suggests that it is a 45. The origin of its attribution as 45 seems to be pure conjecture by later commentators which was not corrected despite the continuity error involved.

AgentGumby: /* MWR MAC-10 */ new section

2020-03-17T23:01:04Z

MWR MAC-10: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:01, 17 March 2020
Line 42:		Line 42:
	: I have a few that haven't been uploaded yet, but if I take more in the future I will move them a bit to the left, though not too much. --[[User:Tamarin88\|Tamarin88]] ([[User talk:Tamarin88\|talk]]) 04:18, 23 April 2019 (EDT)		: I have a few that haven't been uploaded yet, but if I take more in the future I will move them a bit to the left, though not too much. --[[User:Tamarin88\|Tamarin88]] ([[User talk:Tamarin88\|talk]]) 04:18, 23 April 2019 (EDT)
	::Thanks! [[User:Pyr0m4n14c\|Pyr0m4n14c]] ([[User talk:Pyr0m4n14c\|talk]]) 08:14, 23 April 2019 (EDT)		::Thanks! [[User:Pyr0m4n14c\|Pyr0m4n14c]] ([[User talk:Pyr0m4n14c\|talk]]) 08:14, 23 April 2019 (EDT)

			== MWR MAC-10 ==

			If you were having trouble uploading the MAC's charging animation, you probably just need to add or remove a letter or character from the filename. --[[User:AgentGumby\|AgentGumby]] ([[User talk:AgentGumby\|talk]]) 19:01, 17 March 2020 (EDT)

Pyr0m4n14c: /* COD:WW2 Variant Images */

2019-04-23T12:14:53Z

COD:WW2 Variant Images

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:14, 23 April 2019
Line 41:		Line 41:
	First of all, a big thank you for adding those variants to the page; really didn't think we were going to be able to get those. That being said, for future reference (it's not a big enough deal to replace the old ones, but it'd be good for any others that you might add in the future), would you mind turning the model to the left? It'd let people get a clearer view of the weapon. Just a suggestion, do with it as you please. Sincerely, [[User:Pyr0m4n14c\|Pyr0m4n14c]] ([[User talk:Pyr0m4n14c\|talk]]) 22:48, 22 April 2019 (EDT) P.S.: Keep up the good work!		First of all, a big thank you for adding those variants to the page; really didn't think we were going to be able to get those. That being said, for future reference (it's not a big enough deal to replace the old ones, but it'd be good for any others that you might add in the future), would you mind turning the model to the left? It'd let people get a clearer view of the weapon. Just a suggestion, do with it as you please. Sincerely, [[User:Pyr0m4n14c\|Pyr0m4n14c]] ([[User talk:Pyr0m4n14c\|talk]]) 22:48, 22 April 2019 (EDT) P.S.: Keep up the good work!
	: I have a few that haven't been uploaded yet, but if I take more in the future I will move them a bit to the left, though not too much. --[[User:Tamarin88\|Tamarin88]] ([[User talk:Tamarin88\|talk]]) 04:18, 23 April 2019 (EDT)		: I have a few that haven't been uploaded yet, but if I take more in the future I will move them a bit to the left, though not too much. --[[User:Tamarin88\|Tamarin88]] ([[User talk:Tamarin88\|talk]]) 04:18, 23 April 2019 (EDT)
			::Thanks! [[User:Pyr0m4n14c\|Pyr0m4n14c]] ([[User talk:Pyr0m4n14c\|talk]]) 08:14, 23 April 2019 (EDT)

Tamarin88: /* COD:WW2 Variant Images */

2019-04-23T08:18:19Z

COD:WW2 Variant Images

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:18, 23 April 2019
Line 40:		Line 40:

	First of all, a big thank you for adding those variants to the page; really didn't think we were going to be able to get those. That being said, for future reference (it's not a big enough deal to replace the old ones, but it'd be good for any others that you might add in the future), would you mind turning the model to the left? It'd let people get a clearer view of the weapon. Just a suggestion, do with it as you please. Sincerely, [[User:Pyr0m4n14c\|Pyr0m4n14c]] ([[User talk:Pyr0m4n14c\|talk]]) 22:48, 22 April 2019 (EDT) P.S.: Keep up the good work!		First of all, a big thank you for adding those variants to the page; really didn't think we were going to be able to get those. That being said, for future reference (it's not a big enough deal to replace the old ones, but it'd be good for any others that you might add in the future), would you mind turning the model to the left? It'd let people get a clearer view of the weapon. Just a suggestion, do with it as you please. Sincerely, [[User:Pyr0m4n14c\|Pyr0m4n14c]] ([[User talk:Pyr0m4n14c\|talk]]) 22:48, 22 April 2019 (EDT) P.S.: Keep up the good work!
			: I have a few that haven't been uploaded yet, but if I take more in the future I will move them a bit to the left, though not too much. --[[User:Tamarin88\|Tamarin88]] ([[User talk:Tamarin88\|talk]]) 04:18, 23 April 2019 (EDT)

Pyr0m4n14c: /* COD:WW2 Variant Images */ new section

2019-04-23T02:48:40Z

COD:WW2 Variant Images: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 02:48, 23 April 2019
Line 36:		Line 36:

	Hello. I understand that you're trying to help building pages on this website, which you're more than welcome to do. However, there's a major issue with you that you need to fix, which is your constant preoccupation (if not obsession) with making unnecessary removals. You've been already notified about this before, and yet you're still doing it. For starters, the Enfield No. 2 issue on the WWII page already had me concerned, and while I finally opted not to keep it due to the reasons I stated on the discussion page, you still behaved rather poorly and were incredibly insistent on it by causing edit warring. What you should have done instead is discussed it on the talk page (which I ended up doing, but it was on you to do it in the first place, since you're the one who insisted on changing a long-time established edit, regardless of whether the user who wrote it regretted it or not). And now with the VMG 1927 you went ahead and removed attachment images, even though I ''did'' say that they were fine (and the extended mag view is even more important, yet you removed it as well - I'm not sure why you did it, considering that you're the one who uploaded it). For the record, we ''do'' show images of weapon with and without attachments on IMFDB pages (including CoD), even if it's not the case on literally every page. It might probably sound a bit asshol-ish from me to tell you "if I say it should be kept, then you shouldn't remove it", but I will be straightforward and tell you that you have to take into consideration the fact that me and the other users who talked to you above are long-term editors with many years of experience, and we know what we're doing. Now this doesn't mean we're always right, everyone makes mistakes after all, but we still have the necessary knowledge about how this site operates, and what type of content should be added/kept or removed. As such, I'm seriously asking you to be careful, and please don't edit in an unpleasant way as described above. --[[User:Ultimate94ninja\|Ultimate94ninja]] ([[User talk:Ultimate94ninja\|talk]]) 17:53, 20 April 2019 (EDT)		Hello. I understand that you're trying to help building pages on this website, which you're more than welcome to do. However, there's a major issue with you that you need to fix, which is your constant preoccupation (if not obsession) with making unnecessary removals. You've been already notified about this before, and yet you're still doing it. For starters, the Enfield No. 2 issue on the WWII page already had me concerned, and while I finally opted not to keep it due to the reasons I stated on the discussion page, you still behaved rather poorly and were incredibly insistent on it by causing edit warring. What you should have done instead is discussed it on the talk page (which I ended up doing, but it was on you to do it in the first place, since you're the one who insisted on changing a long-time established edit, regardless of whether the user who wrote it regretted it or not). And now with the VMG 1927 you went ahead and removed attachment images, even though I ''did'' say that they were fine (and the extended mag view is even more important, yet you removed it as well - I'm not sure why you did it, considering that you're the one who uploaded it). For the record, we ''do'' show images of weapon with and without attachments on IMFDB pages (including CoD), even if it's not the case on literally every page. It might probably sound a bit asshol-ish from me to tell you "if I say it should be kept, then you shouldn't remove it", but I will be straightforward and tell you that you have to take into consideration the fact that me and the other users who talked to you above are long-term editors with many years of experience, and we know what we're doing. Now this doesn't mean we're always right, everyone makes mistakes after all, but we still have the necessary knowledge about how this site operates, and what type of content should be added/kept or removed. As such, I'm seriously asking you to be careful, and please don't edit in an unpleasant way as described above. --[[User:Ultimate94ninja\|Ultimate94ninja]] ([[User talk:Ultimate94ninja\|talk]]) 17:53, 20 April 2019 (EDT)

			== COD:WW2 Variant Images ==

			First of all, a big thank you for adding those variants to the page; really didn't think we were going to be able to get those. That being said, for future reference (it's not a big enough deal to replace the old ones, but it'd be good for any others that you might add in the future), would you mind turning the model to the left? It'd let people get a clearer view of the weapon. Just a suggestion, do with it as you please. Sincerely, [[User:Pyr0m4n14c\|Pyr0m4n14c]] ([[User talk:Pyr0m4n14c\|talk]]) 22:48, 22 April 2019 (EDT) P.S.: Keep up the good work!

Ultimate94ninja: /* Same issue as before */

2019-04-20T21:57:57Z

Same issue as before

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:57, 20 April 2019
Line 35:		Line 35:
	== Same issue as before ==		== Same issue as before ==

	Hello. I understand that you're trying to help building pages on this website, which you're more than welcome to do. However, there's a major issue with you that you need to fix, which is your constant preoccupation (if not obsession) with making unnecessary removals. You've been already notified about this before, and yet you're still doing it. For starters, the Enfield No. 2 issue on the WWII page already had me concerned, and while I finally opted not to keep it due to the reasons I stated, you still behaved rather poorly and were incredibly insistent on it by causing edit warring. What you should have done instead is discussed it on the talk page (which I ended up doing, but it was on you to do it in the first place, since you're the one who insisted on changing a long-time established edit, regardless of whether the user who wrote it regretted it or not). And now with the VMG 1927 you go ahead and ~~remove~~ attachment images even though I ''did'' say that they were fine (and the extended mag view is even more important, yet you ~~remove~~ it as well - I'm not sure why you did it, considering that you're the one who uploaded it). For the record, we ''do'' show images of weapon with and without attachments on IMFDB pages (including CoD), even if it's not ~~always obvious~~. It might probably sound a bit asshol-ish from me to tell you "if I say it should be kept, then you shouldn't remove it", but I will be straightforward and tell you that you have to take into consideration the fact that me and the other users who talked to you above are long-term editors with many years of experience, and we know what we're doing. Now this doesn't mean we're always right, everyone makes mistakes after all, but we still have the necessary knowledge about how this site operates, and what type of content should be added/kept or removed. As such, I'm seriously asking you to be careful, and please don't edit in an unpleasant way as described above. --[[User:Ultimate94ninja\|Ultimate94ninja]] ([[User talk:Ultimate94ninja\|talk]]) 17:53, 20 April 2019 (EDT)		Hello. I understand that you're trying to help building pages on this website, which you're more than welcome to do. However, there's a major issue with you that you need to fix, which is your constant preoccupation (if not obsession) with making unnecessary removals. You've been already notified about this before, and yet you're still doing it. For starters, the Enfield No. 2 issue on the WWII page already had me concerned, and while I finally opted not to keep it due to the reasons I stated on the discussion page, you still behaved rather poorly and were incredibly insistent on it by causing edit warring. What you should have done instead is discussed it on the talk page (which I ended up doing, but it was on you to do it in the first place, since you're the one who insisted on changing a long-time established edit, regardless of whether the user who wrote it regretted it or not). And now with the VMG 1927 you went ahead and removed attachment images, even though I ''did'' say that they were fine (and the extended mag view is even more important, yet you removed it as well - I'm not sure why you did it, considering that you're the one who uploaded it). For the record, we ''do'' show images of weapon with and without attachments on IMFDB pages (including CoD), even if it's not the case on literally every page. It might probably sound a bit asshol-ish from me to tell you "if I say it should be kept, then you shouldn't remove it", but I will be straightforward and tell you that you have to take into consideration the fact that me and the other users who talked to you above are long-term editors with many years of experience, and we know what we're doing. Now this doesn't mean we're always right, everyone makes mistakes after all, but we still have the necessary knowledge about how this site operates, and what type of content should be added/kept or removed. As such, I'm seriously asking you to be careful, and please don't edit in an unpleasant way as described above. --[[User:Ultimate94ninja\|Ultimate94ninja]] ([[User talk:Ultimate94ninja\|talk]]) 17:53, 20 April 2019 (EDT)

Ultimate94ninja: /* Same issue as before */ new section

2019-04-20T21:53:57Z

Same issue as before: new section

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:53, 20 April 2019
Line 32:		Line 32:
	:::::::::::The point of clarifying the rules would be that admins don't have to clarify them to everyone who misinterperts them. --[[User:Tamarin88\|Tamarin88]] ([[User talk:Tamarin88\|talk]]) 04:55, 19 January 2019 (EST)		:::::::::::The point of clarifying the rules would be that admins don't have to clarify them to everyone who misinterperts them. --[[User:Tamarin88\|Tamarin88]] ([[User talk:Tamarin88\|talk]]) 04:55, 19 January 2019 (EST)
	::::::::::::It's fine, don't worry about it. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim\|talk]]) 07:27, 19 January 2019 (EST)		::::::::::::It's fine, don't worry about it. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim\|talk]]) 07:27, 19 January 2019 (EST)

			== Same issue as before ==

			Hello. I understand that you're trying to help building pages on this website, which you're more than welcome to do. However, there's a major issue with you that you need to fix, which is your constant preoccupation (if not obsession) with making unnecessary removals. You've been already notified about this before, and yet you're still doing it. For starters, the Enfield No. 2 issue on the WWII page already had me concerned, and while I finally opted not to keep it due to the reasons I stated, you still behaved rather poorly and were incredibly insistent on it by causing edit warring. What you should have done instead is discussed it on the talk page (which I ended up doing, but it was on you to do it in the first place, since you're the one who insisted on changing a long-time established edit, regardless of whether the user who wrote it regretted it or not). And now with the VMG 1927 you go ahead and remove attachment images even though I ''did'' say that they were fine (and the extended mag view is even more important, yet you remove it as well - I'm not sure why you did it, considering that you're the one who uploaded it). For the record, we ''do'' show images of weapon with and without attachments on IMFDB pages (including CoD), even if it's not always obvious. It might probably sound a bit asshol-ish from me to tell you "if I say it should be kept, then you shouldn't remove it", but I will be straightforward and tell you that you have to take into consideration the fact that me and the other users who talked to you above are long-term editors with many years of experience, and we know what we're doing. Now this doesn't mean we're always right, everyone makes mistakes after all, but we still have the necessary knowledge about how this site operates, and what type of content should be added/kept or removed. As such, I'm seriously asking you to be careful, and please don't edit in an unpleasant way as described above. --[[User:Ultimate94ninja\|Ultimate94ninja]] ([[User talk:Ultimate94ninja\|talk]]) 17:53, 20 April 2019 (EDT)

Evil Tim: /* Regarding some recent edits... */

2019-01-19T12:27:59Z

Regarding some recent edits...

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:27, 19 January 2019
Line 31:		Line 31:
	::::::::::Well, we have to work with what we have. And I just clarified them, so no problem there. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim\|talk]]) 03:33, 19 January 2019 (EST)		::::::::::Well, we have to work with what we have. And I just clarified them, so no problem there. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim\|talk]]) 03:33, 19 January 2019 (EST)
	:::::::::::The point of clarifying the rules would be that admins don't have to clarify them to everyone who misinterperts them. --[[User:Tamarin88\|Tamarin88]] ([[User talk:Tamarin88\|talk]]) 04:55, 19 January 2019 (EST)		:::::::::::The point of clarifying the rules would be that admins don't have to clarify them to everyone who misinterperts them. --[[User:Tamarin88\|Tamarin88]] ([[User talk:Tamarin88\|talk]]) 04:55, 19 January 2019 (EST)
			::::::::::::It's fine, don't worry about it. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim\|talk]]) 07:27, 19 January 2019 (EST)

Tamarin88: /* Regarding some recent edits... */

2019-01-19T09:55:29Z

Regarding some recent edits...

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:55, 19 January 2019
Line 30:		Line 30:
	::::::::: I can understand why alternating talk pages are kept, but I think this is probably a case where IMFDB should update itself to match standard practice on other wikis. As for humour and the rules, while I do agree that some humour has a place on the wiki, if the admins want to avoid confusion the rules should be clarified - "you don't have to check in your sense of humor at the door" is not clear enough. --[[User:Tamarin88\|Tamarin88]] ([[User talk:Tamarin88\|talk]]) 11:11, 18 January 2019 (EST)		::::::::: I can understand why alternating talk pages are kept, but I think this is probably a case where IMFDB should update itself to match standard practice on other wikis. As for humour and the rules, while I do agree that some humour has a place on the wiki, if the admins want to avoid confusion the rules should be clarified - "you don't have to check in your sense of humor at the door" is not clear enough. --[[User:Tamarin88\|Tamarin88]] ([[User talk:Tamarin88\|talk]]) 11:11, 18 January 2019 (EST)
	::::::::::Well, we have to work with what we have. And I just clarified them, so no problem there. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim\|talk]]) 03:33, 19 January 2019 (EST)		::::::::::Well, we have to work with what we have. And I just clarified them, so no problem there. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim\|talk]]) 03:33, 19 January 2019 (EST)
			:::::::::::The point of clarifying the rules would be that admins don't have to clarify them to everyone who misinterperts them. --[[User:Tamarin88\|Tamarin88]] ([[User talk:Tamarin88\|talk]]) 04:55, 19 January 2019 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:14, 23 April 2019
Line 41:		Line 41:
	First of all, a big thank you for adding those variants to the page; really didn't think we were going to be able to get those. That being said, for future reference (it's not a big enough deal to replace the old ones, but it'd be good for any others that you might add in the future), would you mind turning the model to the left? It'd let people get a clearer view of the weapon. Just a suggestion, do with it as you please. Sincerely, [[User:Pyr0m4n14c\|Pyr0m4n14c]] ([[User talk:Pyr0m4n14c\|talk]]) 22:48, 22 April 2019 (EDT) P.S.: Keep up the good work!		First of all, a big thank you for adding those variants to the page; really didn't think we were going to be able to get those. That being said, for future reference (it's not a big enough deal to replace the old ones, but it'd be good for any others that you might add in the future), would you mind turning the model to the left? It'd let people get a clearer view of the weapon. Just a suggestion, do with it as you please. Sincerely, [[User:Pyr0m4n14c\|Pyr0m4n14c]] ([[User talk:Pyr0m4n14c\|talk]]) 22:48, 22 April 2019 (EDT) P.S.: Keep up the good work!
	: I have a few that haven't been uploaded yet, but if I take more in the future I will move them a bit to the left, though not too much. --[[User:Tamarin88\|Tamarin88]] ([[User talk:Tamarin88\|talk]]) 04:18, 23 April 2019 (EDT)		: I have a few that haven't been uploaded yet, but if I take more in the future I will move them a bit to the left, though not too much. --[[User:Tamarin88\|Tamarin88]] ([[User talk:Tamarin88\|talk]]) 04:18, 23 April 2019 (EDT)
			::Thanks! [[User:Pyr0m4n14c\|Pyr0m4n14c]] ([[User talk:Pyr0m4n14c\|talk]]) 08:14, 23 April 2019 (EDT)

← Older revision		Revision as of 12:27, 19 January 2019
Line 31:		Line 31:
	::::::::::Well, we have to work with what we have. And I just clarified them, so no problem there. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim\|talk]]) 03:33, 19 January 2019 (EST)		::::::::::Well, we have to work with what we have. And I just clarified them, so no problem there. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim\|talk]]) 03:33, 19 January 2019 (EST)
	:::::::::::The point of clarifying the rules would be that admins don't have to clarify them to everyone who misinterperts them. --[[User:Tamarin88\|Tamarin88]] ([[User talk:Tamarin88\|talk]]) 04:55, 19 January 2019 (EST)		:::::::::::The point of clarifying the rules would be that admins don't have to clarify them to everyone who misinterperts them. --[[User:Tamarin88\|Tamarin88]] ([[User talk:Tamarin88\|talk]]) 04:55, 19 January 2019 (EST)
			::::::::::::It's fine, don't worry about it. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim\|talk]]) 07:27, 19 January 2019 (EST)

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:55, 19 January 2019
Line 30:		Line 30:
	::::::::: I can understand why alternating talk pages are kept, but I think this is probably a case where IMFDB should update itself to match standard practice on other wikis. As for humour and the rules, while I do agree that some humour has a place on the wiki, if the admins want to avoid confusion the rules should be clarified - "you don't have to check in your sense of humor at the door" is not clear enough. --[[User:Tamarin88\|Tamarin88]] ([[User talk:Tamarin88\|talk]]) 11:11, 18 January 2019 (EST)		::::::::: I can understand why alternating talk pages are kept, but I think this is probably a case where IMFDB should update itself to match standard practice on other wikis. As for humour and the rules, while I do agree that some humour has a place on the wiki, if the admins want to avoid confusion the rules should be clarified - "you don't have to check in your sense of humor at the door" is not clear enough. --[[User:Tamarin88\|Tamarin88]] ([[User talk:Tamarin88\|talk]]) 11:11, 18 January 2019 (EST)
	::::::::::Well, we have to work with what we have. And I just clarified them, so no problem there. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim\|talk]]) 03:33, 19 January 2019 (EST)		::::::::::Well, we have to work with what we have. And I just clarified them, so no problem there. [[User:Evil Tim\|Evil Tim]] ([[User talk:Evil Tim\|talk]]) 03:33, 19 January 2019 (EST)
			:::::::::::The point of clarifying the rules would be that admins don't have to clarify them to everyone who misinterperts them. --[[User:Tamarin88\|Tamarin88]] ([[User talk:Tamarin88\|talk]]) 04:55, 19 January 2019 (EST)