User talk:Parax

Edit Warring
There were various sources stating the endangerment of the Skirmisher race, and all you could do was delete the section stating so every time somebody re-added it. Your various summaries went as far as to be considered violent, and somewhat irrational. If it meant so much to you, why couldn't you just place a proposal on the talk page? Edit warring is condemned at the Halopedia, and you're opinion was vastly unpopular. Please don't keep doing that! Contact me if you want any clarification.--Fluffball Gato 06:24, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

Mmmmm.... Mmmm hmmm. Yeah, "violent".
 * 1) Nothing I stated was violent. Here are my edit summaries: 1. Give me a source on how it is canon. 2. How would you know they were not featured anywhere else because of being rare? They weren't THOUGHT OF until Halo: Reach was being made. And: Because they were thought of specifically for Reach. They weren't made in other games because of being rare, they weren't there because they weren't thought of. Nothing in those two summaries were what you considered "violent".
 * 2) Vastly unpopular? The only people that seemed to dislike my "opinion" (which was merely me removing information that wasn't true) was you and JEA13.
 * 3) I didn't see any sources stating that Skirmishers weren't put in other games because of being rare. As I have said several times, they weren't thought of until Halo: Reach was in production.
 * 4) I chose the 3 revert rule. If one of you was to put it back, I would have talked about it on the talk page.

I ask for you to reply back about this if you have something else.--Shade  12:48, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

Forgot to add something: The other admins that protected the page agreed that it wasn't needed. Notice they chose not to add it back. That means they also believe the information is fake/unneeded.--Shade  12:49, June 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * The above is untrue. I protected the article and chose to just leave the info as it is, while also improve some of the contents (grammar, layout, etc). -  5 əb'7 aŋk (7alk ) 14:37, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

Also, as much as you claimed my summaries (see above) were violent, they weren't. In fact, I saw some rudeness in your summaries, rather than mine. Oh, and why exactly is a normal, un-righted user telling me what I am doing "wrong", yet I deleted the false information with good intention?--Shade  13:06, June 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * I meant borderline violent, you don't have to get so angry about it. =( The only person who thought it was worthy of deletion was you, and your opinion is no greater than anybody else's. I believe you are kind of stepping out of your boundaries for deleting something just because it was your opinion. I didn't mean to sound so accusatory, or make you so upset, but please propose a content deletion if it means so much to you. Constant deletion is not the answer, and everybody should follow this rule. --Fluffball Gato 16:39, June 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, I forgot to add this. Remember how you said how their were no sources to that information? Well, we got it from the Xbox website, where they have said a couple things stating their extinction or near extinction by the Battle of Reach. Here is one that I found, "It could also introduce such new enemies as Skirmishers and fit them into Halo's lore with the explanation that the vast extent of the battle and destruction of the planet caused their extinction." I don't know if that's proof enough for you, so you can search Xbox.com for more. I was just saying that there are sources, so your deletions are unfounded. --Fluffball Gato 16:50, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

Once again Fluffball Gato, I wasn't the only one who thought it was worthy of deletion. Also, I wasn't giving an opinion; it's a fact that it is unneeded. I wasn't "stepping out of my borderlines because it was my opinion"; as I have said, Skirmishers weren't created until Halo: Reach was in production. I have another question: Why exactly does my "opinion" (which is not an opinion) not matter, yet yours does? I am not upset, I am just curious why only your opinion seems to matter. And it wasn't "constant deletion", it was good intention; For the... *counts* 4th or 5th time, Skirmishers weren't absent in other games because of being rare; they just weren't created. I'm not against you or anything, just to let you know.--Shade  16:54, June 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think you can understand: we know the Skirmishers weren't in any previous games because they were not thought of. That does not make that trivia entry any less important, as canonically they were nearly wiped out. Did you skip the source I provided? And your opinion does not matter less than mine. I was saying that two opinions (which were the ones that weren't really opinions... look at the source!) are better than one. You appear to be the only one to believe that way. The page was not locked because you were "right", it was locked because you wouldn't stop your campaign until it had finished. Just looking at your contributions, I see a pattern. A deletion, a revert, a deletion, another deletion... please consider adding to the wiki, not destroying it. I don't understand why it appears to be so important to delete that factual information. Sorry, but I am getting really shocked at your reaction, seemingly focused on the smaller things I have said, yet not the bigger picture.--Fluffball Gato 17:02, June 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Halopedia uses the "two-revert rule" (2RR) as opposed to Wikipedia's 3RR. You're closer to an edit war block than you think.--  Fore  run  ner  17:47, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

I didn't say it was locked because I was right. I am done arguing anyways, seeing neither of us can exactly listen to each other, Sangheili Commando.--Shade  17:50, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

Second, I am not "destroying" the wiki. A single user couldn't do that. Don't try to make me look like some blood-sucking villain--Shade  17:55, June 6, 2010 (UTC)


 * Look both of you are wrong for edit-warring and both of you have things wrong such as: Shade Link not destroying this Wiki, and Fluffball Gato was sort of right about the canon thing but just leav most of it alone because new releases cause speculation and leads to edit-wars so it should just be like it should normally until further information is released.

Agreed.--<span style="background:Black;display:inline-block;height:16px;padding-right:4px;line-height:1em;position:relative;top:-3px;-moz-border-radius:0 50% 50%"><font color="Blue">Shade  18:13, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

I wasn't attempting to edit war, which is why I initially contacted you. You said that you wanted evidence, so I gave it to you. I don't understand you're argument, sorry! Anyway, I'll be find to end it right here.--Fluffball Gato 18:33, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

So...
what could i do?--Shade Link 15:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Maybe make a user talk bubble? if only i knew how UberPhoeb made mine on Zeldapedia...

More userboxes
Go here.  Smoke Sound off! 16:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I am just looking for how....--Shade Link 16:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

if you are looking for userboxes too put more info onto your space, go to "community" then "project userbox."if you see a user box you like, then copy and paste the code that is next to it.Also, you can look on other peoples pages for userboxes made by them.Check out mine, i have afew you might interest in.Good day.StriderKing-with arms wide open 15:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Haider
Bye.(I can get rid of my own posts).-- C  2  / C C  00:24, September 4, 2009 (UTC)

Strider
Heeeee's baaaaaacccckkkk!!!!!!! <font face="century gothic"><font color="Purple"><font color="#666666">Lol @<font color="#666666">Phailure  00:07, June 6, 2010 (UTC)

(Just wanted to inform u)

Thank you!
--Jack Phoenix (Contact) 15:23, July 1, 2010 (UTC)

RE: Scarab Signature
Oh, thanks for letting me know. I wasn't exactly sure what was wrong with it, but I changed the signature out to a standard one. Please let me know if it helped. Sorry about that. :P --Blemo

Re: RfA Page
All RfA pages are protected when closed for archiving reasons and thus are not to be modified in any way after this regardless. Protection just prevents unauthorised changes. -  Nìcmávr  ( Tálk  ) 17:16, September 5, 2010 (UTC)

Re:
Done, thanks. -  Nìcmávr  ( Tálk  ) 19:05, November 6, 2010 (UTC)

Why did you make a change to my john 117 edit

Why did you just delete my edits on the Covenant light cruiser and Unrelenting pages? Halo: The Fall of Reach clearly states that the Unrelenting had pulse laser turrets, and therefore by extension so would other light cruisers as well. Deleting someone's edits (especially those that are accurate) for no reason is against the rules of this Wiki, so I'm going to change it back and I hope that you realise that what you're doing is not allowed. AlexB1001 17:08, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

No problem, we all make mistakes :D AlexB1001 17:56, December 5, 2010 (UTC)

Answer
No i am not the person who created the Human-Flood Conflict, but it is canon and i would highly recommend reading halo:cryptum because it gives a lot of information about the relationship between humans, forerunners and the flood

Halo: Cryptum
Halo: Cryptum is the new Halo novel that just came out on the 4th by Greg Bear. It's the first book in the Forerunner Saga. Shadowknightsims 20:07, January 20, 2011 (UTC)

Edit Watching
Alright number one I do not watch so I can undo your edits. Accusing Me of that is immature. And Number two I watch for bad edits or trivia doesn't make sense. Number three I let you keep your edit. I was a little concerned when I saw you undo a superior halopedians revision aka SPARTAN-347. "A Penny saved is a Penny earned" 13:47, 25 May 2011 (EDT)


 * Also do not call another user a little kid, that can be viewed by some as harassment "A Penny saved is a Penny earned" 13:50, 25 May 2011 (EDT)

About using your signature
I am not sure how you're using your signature but could you perhaps replace anything contained in Custom Signature box with the following:. — subtank  ( 7alk ) 21:17, June 26, 2012 (UTC)