Talk:Kevin Pereira

message: Anyone want to research and post stuff about him buying followers and getting banned from Twitch? https://www.polygon.com/2018/3/30/17181942/the-attack-kevin-pereira-twitch-view-bot  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.99.181.216 (talk) 14:52, 7 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Twitch Controversy 

message: Maybe mention Kevin's future projects such as the show he is producing on SyFy. Chiphazard711 (talk) 04:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future Project's 

message: It says "[...] The Screen Savers, in 2004.[5] Pereira is a co-host of G4's live tech info show Attack of the Show! and is the only original cast member still remaining." but that doesn't make sense since it doesn't say that "The Screen Savers" *became* ATOS.
96.255.47.51 (talk) 09:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs more explanation about TSS and ATOS - Can't Edit 

message: I can't believe they did not think this was cause chaos on mentioning it alive, and then actually reading some of the posts, I bet wikipedia never gets mentioned again on the show again
-SUN
: It's interesting that most of the questionable info in the article was added within the last two weeks by two IPs here and here. The latter even added fact tags to those edits a few days later. Most of the remaining questionable content can be traced to an edit from Aug 1, 2006. It might be instructive to peruse the diff from July 12, 2006 to today. Gimmetrow 07:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please note: Your diff contained some recent vandalism. I've reverted it. Vandalism finally seems to be slowing, but we will have to go back and look at that diff. --N Shar 07:09, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you certain it contained vandalism? (I don't mean the self reference.) Are you sure it's "Irrelevant Audio" with captain "Abraham", and not "Pointless Audio" with captain "Immy"? Neither have a reference as it stands, so I'm curious how you determined that was vandalism? I was in the process of checking the edits, and came up with this link to G4TV, which is presumably not just a wiki mirror. Gimmetrow 07:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Nope: maybe that part's right. I decided it was vandalism because of the pattern of edits, but I am not certain at all. Please revert, as I have to go right now and can't do it. --N Shar 07:25, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Note that I have tagged the article for expert attention. I don't actually know anything about this guy. --N Shar 07:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's been pruned some. Eventually I'll see what can be verified to his blog. Gimmetrow 07:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can't believe 

message: Someone lock this and revert it to before the vandalism spree.
I had already suggested that. Someone proceeded to delete it and the three or four discussions before that. Mtvcdm 00:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stopping the vandalism 

message: You changed it because it was on the TV! Way to go, man. Big ups. --Steve (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For those of us who have not referred to the history logs yet and do not understand the context, why were you embarrassed? Hall Monitor 16:56, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belvedere 

message: If this person has a middle name, please cite a credible source for it. It has been in dispute for quite some time now. --HappyCamper 04:19, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not Immy. That was a nickname he created for one of the Quake videogames. iKato 22:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kevin Pereira's middle name 

message: "broadcast live every weeknight from Los Angeles, California." That statement is wrong.  It still airs at 4pm every weekday in my area and never at 7pm and I live on the west coast.
It airs live at 4pm on the west coast which is 7pm on the east coast and is still airing live because of the time zone difference. Cyonk27 (talk) 20:55, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Attack of the Show

message: Can you add that Kevin Pereira occasionally mentions highly offensive terms, such as Goatse, Arabian Goggles, and Teabagging on the air (I don't catch this stuff while I watch it, but it gets alot of flak on the G4 Forums. -- Mushroom King 06:32, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's pretty POV.  I have no problem with goatse myself. --66.106.60.11 03:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Seriously, Goatse is the second best site on the Internet. I have it as my desktop background and my home page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Duodesu (talk • contribs) 03:06, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy

message: can u add that Kevin P. hosted Arena and sported the worse mustache ever witnessed on television?
You could, but it wouldn't stay long...--Dp462090 00:42, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arena

message: Are Olivia and Kevin still dating?
On the Tom Green Show, Olivia and Tom contemplated kissing, and Kevin said to go for it.
He then said, "update the wiki, kids."
Did he insinuate a break up?
It says single on his Myspace.
70.153.198.12 03:53, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: The Tom Green Show

message: I was sure that his Birthday was in early January. Anyone care to clarify? If I remember it I'll be sure to come back here and post it because I did know the actual date. I can't think of it ahora mismo.--InnerRise 04:10, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added a ref to his blog from 28 Dec 2005 where he talks about it. Gimmetrow 01:30, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kevin's Birthday 

message: Pereira has hosted or been a guest on many other programs besides Attack of the Show!, including Pulse, Arena, G4tv.com, X-Play, Robot Wars, Battlebots, Reviews on the Run, and Cheat!.
: The above text has been removed from the article pending reliable sources.  Thanks, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 04:36, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The last of the unsourced

message: Is Kevin Pereira in any way related to Michaela Pereira?SuperWiki5 22:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, as far as I know. I have never seen any connection asserted. Gimmetrow 02:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Any relation to Michaela Pereira?

message: Kevin was never invovlved with that site ic checked its a gay porn site.that site is obviously vandalisium it needs to be removed.-jw
: It wasn't added as vandalism - the site is mentioned on the G4tv website. If the domain was lost and taken by some other enterprise, perhaps that's why it's not linked in the text? Gimmetrow 00:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That used to be a site operated by Kevin under the Captain Immy psuedonym, I have a couple of films from there that he made (Immoral Kombat - a MK parody, and "Are 3D Games Real?"). They were quite funny. 62.219.148.12 (talk) 18:33, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Lickmysweaty?

message: He really should legaly change his middle name to Renaldo
totaly(Esskater11 18:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kevin's Temporary Middle Name 

message: Didn't Kevin once confirm himself on an episode of Attack of the Show that his first big break was on Nickelodeon's Are You Afraid of the Dark?  In fact, didn't he exactly say "Wikipedia does it again" before confirming it?  Why isn't it on this article?  Now, I know what you're thinking:  "Just add it yourself," but if he confirmed this to be more than just Wikipedia blaspheme, shouldn't it have never gotten deleted in the first place?--Wikieditor1988 (talk) 04:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Are You Afraid of the Dark

message: "When a reference tag coincides with punctuation, the tag is placed immediately after the punctuation. [Exception: ] where a reference applies to a specific term within a parenthetical phrase, rather than the entirety of that phrase, the tag may be placed within the closing parenthesis if appropriate." Since the exception doesn't apply, the ref is placed immediately after the punctuation, just as discussed at Talk:Jennifer Lopez. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:41, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Very simply, you have failed to respond to my point in the relevant thread.  A well-established and respected external style guide explicitly and directly supports my style choice. WT:FN does not go contrary to established styleguides. If your interpretation goes contrary to styleguides then your interpretation  is prima favor wrong. If the current wording of WT:FN leads you to that wrong interpretation, then perhaps the wording should be changed, but in any event your failure to respond while making the same dispted edits is noted. Gimmetoo (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  If the external guidelines is contrary to the quotation above, then yes, WP:FN is contrary to that guideline. My "interpretation" is based only on the English meaning of the words in the guideline. If you would like to get consensus to change our guidelines, you should. I'm not sure where you're "noting" anything, but please also note that you are edit warring contrary to the guidelines. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  BTW, I found your point in the so-called "relevant" thread -- that would be the point right after I provided the pointer to the actually relevant thread. Sorry I missed it the first time round. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:11, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

text: JHunterJ asked for outside opinions. First of all, are two parentheses worth this much drama? That said, "you have failed to respond to my point" probably means this point: "It does not say that all refs covering the "entirety" of a parenthetic phrase must be placed outside those parentheses. At least, I don't see those words." I don't see those words, but if I had to decide, I do see the concept expressed indirectly. It says that the ref comes after the punctuation with two exceptions. Assuming the ref covers the entirety of the parenthetic phrase (the ref was dead when I tried it), that means that the exception does not apply. So even though it doesn't directly say the rule applies when the ref covers the entirety of the phrase, it does say the rule applies with two exceptions, and it does say that the exception doesn't apply, so to me that is logically equivalent to saying that the rule applies. Ref outside the parentheses. Point 2: "Nor has that been how WP:FN has been understood for years." Really? How many people other than we Manual of Style regulars are even aware of that guideline at all? I can't respond to editors I'm not aware of, except to suggest that they change the guideline. Whew, does anybody want to argue some more, or can we do something more important like fixing that dead link? Art LaPella (talk) 23:23, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The difficulty, for me, are editors who go around "fixing" article styles. This article has had with the ref inside the parenthesis for some years. It wouldn't surprise me if I even added the ref originally, and in that placement. Many content editors accept that the style of their articles is subject to the whims of style "fixers" and is inherently unstable. However, I am tired of it. Not only do style "fixers" make it more difficult to read the diffs, it's a waste of time for them, since there will inevitably be another style "fixer" who "fixes" things to some other style. The WP:FN guideline on cite placement in particular has had at least three major changes that I recall, and there will almost certainly be more, and more "fixers" coming around to "fix" the "mistakes" in articles that don't "conform" to the latest phrasing of the MOS, their interepretation of the latest phrasing, or their desire for what the phrasing out to be. Enough is enough. The only solution I can see for stability is to recognize MOS:STABILITY and make editors stop screwing around with the style of articles that they do not regularly edit. Gimmetoo (talk) 23:48, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Then you might want to express that opinion at WT:MOS#Is there consensus to end the long-standing role of the MoS?, where the Manual of Style is currently protected over issues like that. I'm pretty sure the answer isn't to say that the Manual of Style only applies to your WP:OWN article. Remember, only the tiniest minority knows even a few percent of the Manual of Style (quick, what's the Manual of Style rule on the period in "Hudye Farms v. Canadian Wheat Board", and even if you happen to know, would you notice that text in paragraph 17?), so that would make the Manual of Style almost completely irrelevant. A better argument can be made for a much more permissive Manual of Style, with fewer rules or with more rules saying that either style is OK if it's consistent. But if changing the Manual is impractical, the only solution I can see is to take it at face value and use its current version. MOS:STABILITY doesn't apply as written; it says "from one guideline-defined style to another", not from your favorite style to the Manual of Style's style. Art LaPella (talk) 01:15, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

text:  Gimmetoo: "their articles"? Editors don't have any articles, only Wikipedia has articles (but Art LaPella has already pointed up the WP:OWN problem). And I've been editing this article slightly longer than the Gimmetoo ID has. I only tried to subject it to the "whims" of the MoS, not to my whims, when I noticed the point of contention between you and Tinton5. Articles can have incorrect style for years and then finally have it fixed -- the age of the error doesn't give it more weight. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  "their articles" is shorthand for "articles they work on". But it's ironic that you choose to interpret that as WP:OWN. JHunterJ, you have not established that there was anything "incorrect" about the article, and, indeed, I explicitly and directly challenged your interpretation of the MOS. When you restored the edit of Tinton, knowing full well that the edit was disputed, and then restored it again after I had waited days for your response on WT:CITE, then you were in essence edit warring to establish your preferred style. And you dare to refer to WP:OWN? For shame. Gimmetoo (talk) 23:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: A reading of WP:REFPUNC established that the disagreement between you and Tinton5 (not my preferred style, since the two of you were warring about it before I read the guidelines and applied them) should be resolved by placing the ref outside of the parentheses. I have pointed this out several times, and I've asked that if the guidelines do not reflect current consensus, that they be updated. If you had responded at the discussion that I began first and pointed you to after you started a separate one in a less fitting place, I would have responded faster. Nothing ironic, no dare, no shame. Get down off of your high horse. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Whose "reading of WP:REFPUNC established" that? Yours? And that justified your edit-warring to change the stable style of the article over objections, including a clear and direct objection that you were wrong in your interpretation of the guideline you were supposedly citing? Congrats on saving a thread-starting post two minutes before me. Gimmetoo (talk) 22:12, 6 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh bother. ... Tinton5's reading first. Mine second. Art LaPella's third. It's the English reading of the words in the MoS. Which is why I suggested that if they were wrong, they should be corrected. Also, there weren't "objections" to changing the "stable" style. "Clear and direct" objections do not have to be observed if they don't have consensus. I didn't "supposedly" cite any guideline, but clearly and directly cited (and continue to cite) the guideline, but you continued to edit war. It wasn't a race to start a thread, but rather I was pointing out why I missed your note, since you were in the the thread I wasn't watching (even though I put a pointed to the better-placed thread for you). -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disputed that you had interpreted the guideline correctly; Art LaPella doesn't exactly support you, but whatever. You were trying to make a change. You were opposed. Standard WP:BRD says to start discussing your change. I have found that style "fixers" almost never want to discuss; they take it for granted that their interpretetion of Wikipedia style guides is right, even when that interpretation is explicitly challenged. Do you consider that behaviour appropriate? Gimmetoo (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Not quite. Tinton5 was trying to make a change, and you opposed him. Rather than take either side for granted, I checked the guidelines and found that he was right. You reverted again (reverting a different editor -- me). Art LaPella's note above does exactly support the English reading of the guidelines that I have also performed: "that is logically equivalent to saying that the rule applies". I am not surprised that you don't see that. I have found that you do not want to discuss, you just want everyone else to acknowledge your inerrancy. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, in the context of the 12:22 post, I did indeed support JHunterJ, because I agreed with JHunterJ about what the guideline said, and that's what mentioning my name was about. What I never understood is what the big issue is. Gimmetoo disputed JHunterJ and Tinton5's interpretation of the guideline, and JHunterJ didn't respond – I think it was because the discussion was on multiple talk pages and JHunterJ was reading the other one. That doesn't sound like anything to get excited about. Generalized gripes about style fixers are a legitimate issue, and maybe we should discuss it at WT:MOS, but I am also a style fixer and I don't think the criticism describes me at all. I could name some style fixers it does describe, and I don't mean Tinton5 or JHunterJ because I'm not familiar with them. I don't think that means we shouldn't fix style; the same argument could be made against fixing anything else in an article. Art LaPella (talk) 21:22, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it "doesn't sound like anything to get excited about", then why did certain people repeatedly insist on changing things like this rather than discuss? "Because that's what the MOS says" is apparently the answer. Well, it's not clear that's what the MOS says (a reply at  the WT:CITE thread says refs inside parentheses is consistent with the FN text), and if the MOS really excludes putting refs inside parentheses, then it is likely to be changed at some point in the future. (Note Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Archive_117#Comment_from_Noetica mentions another guideline, New Hart's (17.2.2), which says of the placement of the tag, or "cue": "The cue is placed after any punctuation (normally after the closing point of a sentence). If, however, it relates only to text within parentheses it is placed before the closing parenthesis.") If the guideline is changed, will all the style fixers who now insist the refs must be outside then put all the refs back inside? Gimmetoo (talk) 11:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: WT:FN is a good place to discuss what WP:FN says, not WT:CITE. If it's wrong, then it should be change now, not at some point in the future. Since the guideline hasn't yet been changed, will all the style unfixers who now insist the refs must be inside put the refs back outside until the guidelines are changed? -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  Per multiple external style guides, it should be changed so that people don't misinterpret it. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:25, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's no danger of misinterpretation here if the internal guidelines are followed. But no worries; I knew you wouldn't. I was just pointing out the silliness of your previous question. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:30, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The "internal guidelines" come from a review of external guidelines. When an interpretation of an "internal guideline" conflicts with multiple external guidelines, something is not going to be stable. Also please review WP:NPA. Gimmetoo (talk) 12:33, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: No WP:NPA going on here. "the silliness of your question" is not a personal attack. Your sideways digs at "certain people" and "style 'fixers'" tread closer. I repeat my suggestion that you stabilize the guidelines if you think that they are unstable, and avoid future problems like this one. -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

text: "If the guideline is changed, will all the style fixers ..." Eventually yes; the new text of a changed guideline has pretty much the same status as an older unchanged guideline. I have often changed my AWB software to match a guideline change. However, as a muggle, I can't change my software to match a future guideline change. Art LaPella (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  You've been around a while. You can probably recognize when some changes to the MOS are likely to be changed later, or when some particular interpretation of a particular rule goes contrary to the general, broad trend of consensus with the MOS. Presumably that would inform what rules you add to AWB and what rules you don't. If, for instance, BAG-approved refpunct scripts do not touch parentheses, then most AWB users will either be aware of that, or will adjust their AWB scripts when informed. Gimmetoo (talk) 02:56, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that because BAG knows automation can't tell if a reference applies to "the entirety of the phrase"? More generally, if I were aware that BAG approval is based on something other than the written guidelines, I would leave that issue alone when editing; Wikipedia already has more than enough wiki-warriors who enjoy such battles. But on talk pages, I would urge them to get their act together. It shouldn't be so hard to find out what the real rules are. It certainly shouldn't require studying talk pages like this one. Thank you for addressing that criticism by changing the guideline. Art LaPella (talk) 03:41, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ref placement 

message: The current lead image for this article is :File:Kevin Pereira.JPG. This image is clearly in public domain, and quite clearly identifies the subject of the article. Any image that replaces that needs to be as clearly public domain or free (see WP:NONFREE), and clearly identity the user. A crappy, grainy image from a phone doesn't qualify on the latter, and it's not clear that :File:Kevin_Pereira._With_iPhone..jpeg was uploaded by the subject, so it's not even established that it's free. Gimmetoo (talk) 23:40, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: This has been happily resolved by email, available on OTRS. If there are future difficulties, please feel free to drop me an email or note, or to email another OTRS volunteer who can review the details of ticket:2014041310010378 if I am not around. --Fæ (talk) 17:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 22:48, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: The redirect The Attack (TV Series 2015) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Duckmather (talk) 23:10, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:The Attack (TV Series 2015)]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]