Talk:Berserk

This disambiguation page is within the scope of WikiProject Disambiguation, an attempt to structure and organize all disambiguation pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, you can edit the page attached to this talk page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.DisambiguationWikipedia:WikiProject DisambiguationTemplate:WikiProject DisambiguationDisambiguation articles

'If you "want to keep track of things" here click on the "watch" link at the top of the page...' the wikipedia "watchlist" isn't something I check every day, I'm sorry to say (it's not a very convient feature).... so, who here is liking the abusive admin or the linkspam? Told you so ;P ... expect lots of redirecting to berserker like back in late 2004... of course, at least then the disambig served as a getto version of Category:Berserk, but that's another story... -Aknorals 10:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Yes, this is okay, although I would prefer merging with Berserker (disambiguation)" And make going to the article I intend to edit a total pain? I knew you guys must have had some secret agenda against me! (note, I was kidding. take a joke) -Aknorals 10:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excessive negativity and doomsdaying never helped anything. This was the best way out of a deadlocked debate and it got rid of the absurd Berserk-->Berserker redirect, and on wikipedia compromise is preferable to absolute loss. Besides, did you just notice this now? It's been like this for a while.--tjstrf 10:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was joking there. I actually find it rather amusing to see you guys clean up after this: seems approperate in my mind. And keep in mind that berserk --> berserk (disambiguation) is also absurd, and the result of the same admin (who, last time I checked, still hasn't listed a reason for his actions on his talk page). -Aknorals 11:00, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, if you check the edit history, you'll notice that he kept redirecting it to Berserker. I managed to get it 3RR trapped at the current state, and the admin moved on to other debates. That's quite an effective tactic, actually, though it may be systemic abuse, not sure. Most editors have better things to do than wait 24 hours just to revert a page again. --tjstrf 11:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um.. when did I say I didn't check the edit history? I saw it on the 30th (or was it the 31st), when I got home and the power was on in my house. Between power outages, work, and sleep, it may become difficult at times to edit. -Aknorals 11:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Besides, did you just notice this now? It's been like this for a while." What's been like how for a while? -Aknorals 11:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No offense was intended there,I was merely stating that if you had planned on complaining about the repeated page redirects the time for that was the 29th when it was going on. Meh. --tjstrf 11:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]