User talk:Rikara

Post your messages.

Help

How to I become a "established user"? -Rikara (talk) 20:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you automatically become an established user after 4 days of account creation, so you just have to wait for 4 days! Hope this helps! The Helpful One ^(Talk)^{(Contribs) (Review)} 21:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Truce

I'm willing to make a truce with you.--DarkFierceDeityLink 07:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:08fiesta.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:08fiesta.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 10:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The 3RR Rule fails. -Rikara (talk) 22:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been reported for violating 3RR. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, 3RR is the biggest load of bullshit i've ever heard. Second, Maybe if you douches would READ THE DAMN EDIT SUMMARIES, this wouldn't happen. -Rikara (talk) 22:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

3RR, and Attacks. Please stop before some admin blocks you. Atomic Religione (talk) 22:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What the hell is the point of 3RR? Wait, never mind. THERE IS NONE. NOW STOP ACTING LIKE AN IDIOT. -Rikara (talk) 22:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And stop with the personal attacks, or else I *can* block you. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about YOU and AR stop pissing me off with your bullshit, and LISTEN TO ME FOR ONCE? -Rikara (talk) 22:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have listened to you, and found your arguments (a) unconvincing, (b) undefended, and (c) thuggish. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you DIDNT. That's obvious. Now if you want me to be civil, then shut the fuck up and realize who's right and who's wrong. -Rikara (talk) 22:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked

You have been temporarily blocked from editing in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for making personal attacks. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

-Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 22:42, 24 January 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

I shouldn't get punished for this. You guys weren't listening to me.

Decline reason:

Please review the civility policy and the three-revert rule. — Nakon 22:46, 24 January 2008 (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.

I was just about to do this! Darn. SLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 22:47, 24 January 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

AGAIN! YOU DON'T LISTEN TO ME AGAIN! I was NOT being uncivil, and YOU violated 3RR as well! Yet there are members calling others "moron", "waste of sperm", etc, and they aren't being blocked! Besides, the 3RR rule has no point!

Decline reason:

reason — you're being uncivil again, and do you think yelling at us and not knowing policy will help you? — Rlevse • Talk • 22:51, 24 January 2008 (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.

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).

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

Request reason:

YOU ARE NOT LISTENING TO ME. I am NOT being uncivil. And i do know the policies. I should not get punished for this.

Decline reason:

Your page has been protected for the remainder of your block for abusing this template. Please take the time to reconsider how you're approaching these articles, or you'll likely end up with further blocks. MastCell ^Talk 22:57, 24 January 2008 (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.

STOP BEING AN IDIOT. It's not motherfucking speculation, and i'm not "attacking" anyone. Now shut the fuck up, because you are wrong. AND LEAKERS ARE RELIABLE!~ NOW PLEASE SHUT THE HELL UP! YOU ARE WRONG. END OF STORY

Thats being civil? I don't think so. And nobody violated the 3RR except you, all your edits were reverted by multiple editors who did not violate WP:3RR. Dengarde ► Complaints 22:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

The recent edit you made to Miley Cyrus constitutes vandalism, and has been reverted. Please do not continue to vandalize pages; use the sandbox for testing. Thanks. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 22:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

-facepalm- It's not vandalism. How is it? IT'S A TRUE EVENT. -Rikara (talk) 23:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotected

Your page is now unprotected. Please keep the event that lead to its protection in mind. -- lucasbfr ^talk 22:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Reliable Leak"

Unless you can provide an official, published source. It's not going in the article. End of story. So please stop before you get blocked again. -Sukecchi (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC) It was a leak from a friend of a Nintendo Employee. Reliable? Yes. -Rikara (talk) 23:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HAHA. No. ANYONE can say they're the relative of an employee! -Sukecchi (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They are.LOOK. JUST BECAUSE YOU DONT WANT THOSE CHARACTERS IN DOES NOT MEAN THEY WON'T BE IN. -Rikara (talk) 23:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And just because YOU want them in, that doesn't mean they're in. Tell you what, I'll let you in on a little secret! I'm a Nintendo Employee too! I've been working closely with Brawl, and I can safely say that Geno and Sora have not made it in. And, since I said I'm from Nintendo, I MUST Be reliable! Dengarde ► Complaints 23:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is obviously baised. HERE. Only place i could find it. -Rikara (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it was a forum post? Well, that changes EVERYTHING!!!
...oh wait, no it doesn't. This guy still has no proof. Dengarde ► Complaints 23:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my fucking god. I told you that's the only place they could be found. JUST BECAUSE YOU DONT WANT THEM IN DOESNT MEAN ITS FAKE. NOW QUIET. -Rikara (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who said I didn't want them? I'd more more then pleased if Geno and Sora were in. But this isn't proof. Simple as that. Dengarde ► Complaints 23:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-sigh- Yes. It.Is. Even look it up. -Rikara (talk) 23:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sigh* Uncivility and 3RR Violating again huh? Very well, I'm going to report you now. Dengarde ► Complaints 23:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uncivilty? No. And it might help if -gasp- YOU'D STOP REMOVING MY TALK PAGE COMMENTS! -Rikara (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We would not remove them if they had not already deen discussed. Dengarde ► Complaints 23:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It was not discussed before. I shouldn't get punished for YOUR vandalism. -Rikara (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest you check the archive. It HAS been discussed. I'm done here, enjoy the rest of your block :)Dengarde ► Complaints 23:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NO. It has NOT. This was a NEW ONE, if you would listen to me for once. -Rikara (talk) 23:33, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are not mirrors. We listen; but you, so far, have not. Do unto others, Rikara, or else you'll find yourself on the receiving end of an indefinite block. You've made a lot of administrators' bad lists. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you guys do NOT listen to me. I'm getting treated like dog shit by you all. And I don't like it. MY TALK PAGE COMEMNTS WERE CONSTANTLY REMOVED. Block them for removing talk page comments. -Rikara (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Users have every right to remove posts unrelated to the subject, posts that are blatantly incivil, or posts that serve no other purpose than to troll. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. So they didn't have a right to remove my comment from Talk:Super Smash Bros. (Series). It was on-subject, civil, and not trolling. -Rikara (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I saw removed was rumormongering, which falls under "unrelated to the subject". Talk pages are never for speculation. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, guess what! I was bringing it to the talk page to discuss it (as in if it was reliable), and it was getting removed! THIS IS OFFENSIVE. STOP PLAYING FAVORITES. -Rikara (talk) 23:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The second step on the path to an indef block is making false claims of administrative abuse. I'm not playing favorites; if you'd read edit summaries you would have known the answer is a resounding no. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YES, you ARE playing favorites. Those other users were REMOVING TALK PAGE COMMENTS FOR NO REAL REASON. -Rikara (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not playing favorites. Anyone, admin or no, can tell you that. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a perfect reason for it's removal: It's unsourced nonsense based on something a random person said. -Sukecchi (talk) 23:57, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeske- Yes, you ARE. I can tell. Suckeechi- It's DISCUSSION ON A DAMN TALK PAGE. -Rikara (talk) 23:58, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rikara: show me proof. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For what? Be specific, dammit. -Rikara (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The favoritism you claim. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then what you need to do is this: 'Hey guys, this came up on a site, I'm questioning it's legitimacy. What do you think?' Not 'THIS IS REAL (YES THERE ARE RELIABLE LEAKS) I'M ADDING IT BECAUSE THE PERSON SAID THEY ARE THE SON OF SOMEONE FROM NINTENDO SO THERE ITS TRUE'. See? It's that easy. If you calmly discuss things , you won't get blocked. -Sukecchi (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeske, The fact that you are ganging up on me with those others, while they are not being punished for their rule-breaking,

Sukeechi, I HAD calmly tried to discuss it on the talk page, then I got pissed off by my comments being removed. -Rikara (talk) 00:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you stop throwing accusations, Rikara. They have every right to remove speculation from the talk page; you edit-warring over it only hurts your case. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

LISTEN TO ME. IT WASNT GODDAMN SPECULATION. IT WAS ATTEMPT AT DISCUSSION ON THE TALK PAGE. GET IT THROUGH YOUR HEAD. -Rikara (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

^^Civility, right there. You're blinder than I.
Blind man shady 00:53, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A disscussion on speculation, if was not from dojo or the offical nintendo website we can always question it's truth. As you said "If you calmly discuss things , you won't get blocked.", mabey you should eat your own words and stop yelling through your teeth and accept wikidedia policy and common sence like so many more civil editors before you.→041744 13:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked again

I have blocked you for a uncivil comment and personal attack during edit war. Please stay calm next time. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi there... Your edit summary here [1] was really very rude and immature. It's in violation of no personal attacks and the Wikipedia civility policy. Please don't do edit summaries like that again. I understand you may be frustrated, but we expect people to act like adults and behave nicely to each other when editing here. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 23:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-facepalm- "shut up" isn't a personal attack. -Rikara (talk) 23:28, 25 January 2008 (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).

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

Request reason:

First off, "shut up" is NOT a personal attack. Do you expect me to be NICE when i'm not getting listened to and having talk page comments that I make deleted? I shouldn't be punished for their vandalism.

Decline reason:

Read WP:CIVIL, WP:3RR, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:SPS, WP:NPA, and WP:AGF. — Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:33, 25 January 2008 (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.

-facepalm- "SHUT UP" IS NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK! You didn't even read what I wrote, did you This is fucking offensive. -Rikara (talk) 23:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is incivil, and if you carry on like this your talk page will once again be protected. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not uncivil. I should NOT be punished for THEIR vandalism. And a user who is ACTUALLY being uncivil isn't getting punished! This IS offensive. I will NOT put up with it. -Rikara (talk) 23:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

YOU'RE the only one I've seen being incivil. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NO, i am NOT being uncivil. Try UUser:Lbrun12415. he's called other users a waste of sperm, a moron, etc. Block him, the one who's truly uncivil. -Rikara (talk) 23:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rikara, I recommend you cool it. Yelling and arguing is not going to get you anything. Take a breather and come back when you're feeling calmer. Otherwise you will find your talk page protected and you will be forced to take a breather. - Revolving Bugbear 23:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen nothing of the sort from that user (who has since been renamed), at the very least not in this current situation. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC

Why don't you understand that someone claiming to be the relative of a Nintendo employee is not proof? I could say My uncle is a programmer for Nintendo and that I have all kinds of Brawl information. Not only that, but it's all unsourced. They have no proof. You've been told this before. Why don't you listen? You continue to play the 'I'm innocent, block the other mean people' card. You are the only one being uncivil. We calmly told you the reasons why this was not true and you continued to charge in like a bull. -Sukecchi (talk) 23:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RB- Sort of hard to when I'm getting offended by baised opinions on me left and right. JC- No, but -gasp- HE HAS BEFORE! BLOCK HIM! HE'S ACTUALLY BEING UNCIVIL! I DON'T DESERVE THIS! MY LIFE SUCKS ENOUGH WITHOUT THIS BS! -Rikara (talk) 23:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Um, he already *has* been blocked for those before his rename. Note to users: read this AN/I thread. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stop playing favorites. -Rikara (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you just accuse me of admin abuse? -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 23:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jeske Couriano please assume good faith., it is possible that User:Rika ra was only acting in the throes of extreme emotional distress. and that he lashed out at you out of anger. i know that you were very hurt by his allegation but i respectuflyl ask you to please forgive and be patient wiuth Rikaara's outbursts since he has just been hit with yet another block.

Rikara, please cease the personal attacks and follow WP:CIVIL. your behaivor here is understandable giving the circumstances leading up to your the end of your wikipedia career bhere but you cannot treat your fellow editors this way who are only trying to help you. i know what you are going through and i know that hte stress seems unbearable, butr in this case i recommend that you take a break away from wikipedia and do something enjoyable for yousrelf that does not involve editing wikiepdia. it is clear that you are in enormous pain right now and perhaps the only way to relive that stress is to unwind by doing something pleasing to yourself. you may return to wikipedia when you are feeling better; i assure you it iwll not collapse or anything while you are gone. Smith Jones (talk) 23:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was never uncivil, but if you'd like, i can really get uncivil. Now stop playing favorites and unblock me. Or, leave me blocked and block Suckeech and th eothers whom were removing talk page comments. -Rikara (talk) 00:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This talk page says otherwise. Anyone reading it will notice that you have been incivil to most any editors trying to reason with you. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:02, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

please Rikara if you ere blocked you would be unable to edit. please , i know that the pain you are feeling right now is unimaginable but i have felt it before and it will too soon shall pass. the reason you ware being accused of uncivility is due tot his argument that you are having. i know that it is not all your fault but you need to calm down and try to be more polite to the people who are only triyng to help you on the road to ruin. please leave wikipedia and get help and get a breather before you come back. it will do you a lot of good. Smith Jones (talk) 00:03, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Smith Jones, blocked editors can still edit their talk pages. And the incivility stems from our refusal to accept his unsourced contributions on Super Smash Bros. (series), not from this argument. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

is there any compromise that can be reached regarding that isuse? maybe we could waive WP:SOURCE in this instaance and allow half of his contributions to be includedand reject the other half. Smith Jones (talk) 00:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, unfortunately, because all he's adding are characters that have not been officially confirmed. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:08, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

that may well be so, but in the interest of helping User:Rikara out in this instance than i think its worht it to put the information up with a citation needed tag beside it andthen someone might come along and edit it. if this happens i will do some resaerch myself to add the citations that rikara is missing so far. Smith Jones (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oaky, now my talk page comments are getting removed AGAIN! -Rikara (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That one was removed because it was incivil. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, it was not. I was asking for you to give examples, and for SJ to use proper spelling and grammar so i can UNDERSTAND HIM. -Rikara (talk) 00:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, from your own contributions: [2] (edit summary), [3] (edit summary), [4], [5] (edit summary), [6]. That's only 5 instances; it'd be a waste of time for any more because this talk page also show you being incivil. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 00:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're not going to be unblocked... please stop this whole issue, and wait for your block to expire. Jmlk 1 7 00:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I will not. This block is from Jeske playing favorites. I won't put up with it. -Rikara (talk) 00:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll tell you one thing, Rikara, insulting the person in power, whether it's true or not, will get you nowhere. Maybe you should be more clear with your posts if others view them as uncivil, but you see it differently.
Blind man shady 00:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rikara, both articles are now fully protected, so every change done must be worked with consensus. Your block ends in 31 hours, so I suggest you to cool down, find that other site you said it was down now, and come back then to discuss in the talk page of the article. Just in case you did not notice, three users (Sukecchi (talk · contribs), Dengarde (talk · contribs) and Masem (talk · contribs) reverted you. -- ReyBrujo (talk) 01:14, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that users are allowed to delete comments left on their talk pages. Most archive them, but deleting comments on user talk pages is acceptable. Useight (talk) 01:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to say something about the Nintendo Employee thing (I might be repeating the words of another user), you might be telling the truth, I also have a friend who claims s/he has a relative who works for Nintendo and tells me information about games, but that information can't be placed in Wikipedia, because it might be copyrighted and it's information that does not suppose be here and there might be complaints made Nintendo.--Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 02:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an extension to Antonio's suggestion, Wikipedia doesn't consider Original Research to be a reliable source of reference. Therefore, even if what your friend states is true, it cannot be added to Wikipedia merely because it is Original Research. --haha169 (talk) 19:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I was going to say that, but I guess I forgot.--Antonio Lopez ^(talk) 00:33, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, if you had the kinds of friends I had, you'd be singing a very different tune about so-called "leaks". Besides, your assertion that leaks are reliable seems to have failed. The game is out, and there's no Sora; Marth is in as well. As well, I'll eat my hat the day swearing and telling people to shut up are considered polite and perfectly acceptable. -Capefeather (talk) 04:32, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cape, wrong Sora. -Jéské ^{(Blah v^_^v)} 09:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm? I was pretty sure that Rikara's been aggressively arguing for the inclusion of Sora since day one here -- it wasn't anything to do with Sora, Ltd. Coreycubed (talk) 15:02, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Three years later, SSBB has Marth in. Sora is not in; this just means that your leak was no reliable source. This is over, but... VegetaSaiyan (talk) 01:38, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your TV interests

Hi, Rikara, as an experienced user, I saw your TV interests and found that the Ed, edd 'n' Eddy bit wasn't clickable. I edited that bit and it now is clickable. Regards, --S.C.Ruffeyfan 17:49, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Code Lyoko

Hi Rikara, could you please explain to me why you made edit the the Code Lyoko article? Undoing that edit is suspicious, and I'd like to hear your side of this before investigating further/ That article had been subject to an edit war that left two editors blocked, one for a month. Why do you want to unvolve yourself in that situation? Please explain the purpose of that edit, either here or on my talk page. Thanks, Gwernol 11:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And also please explain this comment. That is inflammatory and a clear personal attack. This is a serious matter - please address it promptly. Thanks, Gwernol 11:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Karaku for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Seraphim♥ ^Whipp 15:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked for block evasion using sockpuppet accounts

This account has been blocked for 1 month, the duration of the block on your User:Karaku account. That account has been indefinitely blocked. You may not use a second accounts to evade blocks on the first one. After this block expires you are welcome to resume constructive contribution to Wikipedia. Further gross incivility, personal attacks or edit warring will result in longer blocks. Any further use of sockpuppet accounts to evade blocks will result in an indefinite block on this account and all further sockpuppet accounts. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Gwernol 16:00, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the proof? -Rikara (talk) 22:56, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Karaku. It is abundantly evident that these accounts are operated by the same person. Gwernol 11:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also appears to be User:Nhjm449

Very similar edit profile, and a dormant account that has suddenly come to life. HtD (talk) 13:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I know that guy. Totally different user. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Block extended

You were caught abusing sockpuppet accounts again. Your block has been extended to three months. Please consider this your absolutely final chance to decide to start abiding by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Any further sockpuppetry will result in an indefinite block. --Yamla (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which account did he used exactly? - Face 07:57, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[[7]]. --Yamla (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]