User talk:Uwright2

Atlan I came across this...

As we can only assure that further developement of the series is currently haulted and not "Ended" it would be appreciated, for the sake of simplicity to simply state that "Further production on the series is currently haulted". And the use and inclusion of Killer App is, more or less useless, so don't add it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Florez411 (talk • contribs) 12:43, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

So...yeah let's get rid of the "killer app" phrase - Why? because in 1996-1998 they didn't refer to things as "killer apps".

Also, please don't insult people when you send them messages, it makes you seem immature. Uwright2 (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

First of all, you are now bordering on violating the three revert rule; if you continue to edit war, I assure you, you will be blocked. Second of all, so you disagree with "killer app" - but that doesn't mean you get to invent the term "franchise title". A franchise title is a title in a franchise, you're seemingly equating it with killer app. --Golbez (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't know what point you're trying to make with that copy/paste of the Shenmue talk page. That was about a different instance of the use of "killer app". In fact, we're now discussing the use of "killer application", not the more colloquial "killer app". Furthermore, Florez411 made his point very poorly. Your point that the term "killer app" wasn't used is 1998 is particularly strange. Does that mean we have to write history articles in old English, because modern English wasn't used back then? We're writing the encyclopedia now, in 2011, and the language used will reflect that. Besides that, I'm pretty sure the term "killer app" has been in use since the 1970's or 80's. Regardless, if you can come up with a suitable substitute for killer application, I'm fine with it. Your made up terms won't do.--Atlan (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue.

In particular, the three-revert rule states that:

1. Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block.
2. Editors violating the rule will usually be blocked for 24 hours for a first incident.
3. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording, and content that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. — Coffee // have a cup // essay // 14:28, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours for edit warring, as you did at Shenmue. Once the block has expired, you're welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

ANI

Hello. 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. Mjroots (talk) 10:36, 21 February 2011 (UTC)