User talk:King Moonraiser

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Here are some links I find useful:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Cheers, Sam [Spade] 16:14, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

The Rowdyruff Boys

What makes you think the info you submit is accurate? (don't answer this question). Stop readding your POV, and RRB is not its own TV show. Marcus2 16:41, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I've been involved in the PPG and RRB community since 2000. I've personally comunicated with many fans who wanted these characters to return. Note: I didn't say "most" fans, I said "many." This is a fact, not a POV. Even if I personally didn't want the characters to return, it wouldn't change the fact that many others did. Also, you chose to delete other information in your edits like the return of the characters occured in season five. I agree that it's not its own TV show and will abide by your edits on those points to eliminate any chance for confusion. --King Moonraiser 16:52, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, it depends on how many you've spoken to during this time. Certainly I don't think it is among the thousands. You must provide a source for your statement or it shall remain chopped off. Marcus2 17:01, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I doubt the Wikipedia would like it if I posted every positive email I've received over the past four years. I've reworked the sentence into a paragraph describing the issue you are concerned about in detail. --King Moonraiser 17:13, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, you can at least try to dig up some evidence, otherwise, it shall be counted as a possible example of made-up information. Marcus2 17:13, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Give me your email address and I will forward you lots of evidence.--King Moonraiser 17:21, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Oh, and here are 462 signatures to bring the RRBs back in Canada: Petition

Thanks for this bit of evidence, but 462 isn't enough, is it. Marcus2 17:29, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I must certainly hate for this to blossom into an edit war. Marcus2 17:31, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You cannot say 462 doesn't constitute "many people". There is nothing facutally innacurate about the statements in my description, nor can you provide any counter argument that proves otherwise. If you still have a problem with the entry, follow the dispute resolution process and please stop reverting.--King Moonraiser 17:41, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)