User talk:Armando12/Archive 3

Re: Ev WikiProject

Hey, I will, just haven't gotten around to editing my userpage to include the banner. Also, regarding Lacrymosa (song), this article probably should be turned into a redirect to The Open Door. The most agreed upon notability guidelines for songs says that unless they have significantly contributed to music as a whole, or if it has been made into a notable single (which we tend to take very liberally with Ev songs), a separate article should not be created. To that end, I believe we should probably de-article-fy several of the Fallen songs that have articles created for them. They simply aren't notable. Thoughts? -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 23:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I don't see it as a problem. I think Lacrymosa is more notable than Breathe no More, and Breathe no More don't have any problem..so, well I really dunno :S Armando.O ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's just it...there is a problem with Breathe No More. There has to be a limit as to what songs deserve articles, and which are just a "waste of space". Why does either Breathe or Lacrymosa deserve their own articles? They aren't singles, they haven't been featured for radio play; they may have some verifiable history, but so does any song out there. While it isn't a confirmed guideline, I generally follow WP:SINGLE in my dealings with these types of articles. I would seriously suggest all non-single songs be redirected back into the main album article. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 21:18, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You maybe be right, or maybe wrong...Lacrymosa is one of the most known non-single songs of The Open Door...it's featured on the The Open Door trailer in music.aol.com and it's known for being a song originally made for a movie (Chronicles of Narnia). Armando.O ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know, and still don't think that qualifies it as notable. It wasn't in the movie, it hasn't been made a single, and it's the trailer song because it sounds good. That's trivia that any song may have associated with it. Breathe No More certainly has even less, and far less notable information. I'm definitely considering taking the lot of them to AfD. I'm not a deletionist or an expansionist, but I do feel a line has to be drawn somewhere. Oh, and don't worry about leaving a message on my talk page when you reply here, I keep your (and many others') talk on my watch list. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 21:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breathe No More is in the movie, Elektra...Now, is this song more notable than Lacrymosa?? Armando.O ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, it was on the soundtrack, though I don't remember it being in the movie itself (not all "soundrack" songs make a movie appearance). Even if it was in the movie, how does that make it notable? Should every track featured on the soundtrack album get their own articles just because it was played during the movie? Notability is not so clear cut, nor is such an outcome very desirable. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 21:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well...then.....Is Solitude notable..it's the first song by Evanescence as a band. It know it might not. Well, accordin to WP:N, the first criterion is a topic is notable if it has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself, and Lacrymosa does not fail in this.

Notable here means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice". It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". It is not measured by Wikipedia editors' own subjective judgements. It is not "newsworthiness" More, here. Armando.O ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose that depends on your definition of non-trivial, but that's beside the point. The problem is that Lacrymosa isn't necessarily the subject of those articles, just part of the whole description. I don't really see how it (or most other songs, really) is portrayed as notable in those articles, any more than any other song. Would you advocate creating articles for them all, just because VH1 has a news piece describing each of them? It's just another song, in my opinion. And please, don't flash WP:N around. It might be useful as a baseline, but if it were reliably enforced, a significant percentage of the articles on this site would vanish. We'll agree to disagree on this matter. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 22:20, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you advocate creating articles for them all, just because VH1 has a news piece describing each of them? No. I created Lacrymosa because, for me, it's notable. I would never create an article for Cloud Nine or The Only One (at least those are released as singles), because the only info we have is...the descritpion by Amy Lee, the album, the track #, and nothing more...but we have enough info about Lacrymosa.

About the WP:EV, please check the peer review for Evanescence and Amy Lee. Armando.O ^{(talk|contribs)} 22:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use

Unfortunately one of the images in one of your Evanescence userboxes is fair use and therefore probably shouldn't be there (fair use is only allowed in article space) Leon 09:05, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm changing it. Thnx for the advice. Armando.O ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:06, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After consulting with several admins and users on IRC, there seems to be a split in opinions. Some believe anything remotely derivative should be deleted, but others believe that it shouldn't be an issue, if they are properly licensed and a description of how they were created and where the original design was found is provided. However, I think you might run into problems trying to license the logos and titles you've created as free use, as they definitely are derivative of copyrighted material. I don't know. As one person said, Fonts and Copyrights are a very messy combination. I'll try to help if you need me. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 00:18, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh...no....But you told me you would fix the summaries...and you told me to tag those as cc-by-sa...so...you were wrong?

Check this..Btw, I like the logo graphics you're adding, haven't seen these fonts before. However, you need to label the things you create as being your own creation, and not fair-use (using something like {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}. I can take care of this for you on those logo images (and any others you might have scanned or created yourself), if you'd prefer.

Now, I must label the SVG images of the South Park characters and the other Evanescence and Lacuna Coil logo, as screenshoots (for South Park) and logos (for the bands)? Armando.O ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never claimed to be an expert, and this could very well be unnecessary, but it'd be easier to be proactive and cover yourself than be reactive and have them tagged for deletion at some point in the future. I would strongly encourage you to speak to an admin personally regarding these graphics you've created, just to a personalized opinion. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 07:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know any adms :S. Armando.O ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kenny.svg

I just thought I'd tell you that lying about image licensing is not a good idea. Even if you did recreate the image yourself, Kenny is still a copyrighted character. It's not hard to get fair use images through, just follow this: Image:Homer Simpson 2006.png example. -- Scorpion 16:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't add the {{promotional}} because the image hasn't been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media...I created the image, but I didn't create Kenny...so I must change the license or I must add another tag (maybe tv-screenshot). Armando.O ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Call it a screenshot. Several Simpsons characters (ie. Lionel Hutz, Rainier Wolfcastle) have similar cutout images that were adapted from screenshots. It's best to call all the character images you've created screenshots, otherwise you could get in trouble for "taking credit" for a copyrighted image. -- Scorpion 20:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I'm changing it. Now..what about the Evanescence's logo I've created...I must tag it as self and logos or just logos?? Armando.O ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:37, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about logos, sorry. -- Scorpion 20:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: See also

In this current usage, "Main" does work better because the sections in question only talk about events surrounding those albums. "See also" is good for the Anywhere but Home section because it also refers to Moody's departure. Were that section only to refer to the album, I'd suggest "Main" be used for it as well. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 23:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ohhhhhhh.....well It's ok... Armando.O ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:35, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, take a look at my changes to {{User:UBX/EvanescenceFan}}. Interesting, eh? -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 23:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice! hehe it rocks!!! Armando.O ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, it's been niggling at my brain for weeks now...why do you abbreviate The Open Door as "ToP"? That has me massively confused. -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 11:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

Armando, I'm noticing you are beginning to use fan sites as references (note your additions to Mystary EP), and I believe I've even seen the use of the EvanescenceReference.info wiki. Please do not use these fan sites as references, unless they themselves cite a reference (in which can you can just cite that instead). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Huntster (talk • contribs) 12:03, 9 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I knew something was wrong :S...well I'm deleting it.. Armando.O ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About the EvanescenceReference citation on the Origin article...it's true, the page have a link to download the interview with DC101 radio on February 24, 2003. (mp3). Armando.O ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:07, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. I'm extremely tired right now so I couldn't be arsed into finding it myself :P -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 17:55, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename

As requested, I have changed your name. You can now log in using the new username. Warofdreams talk 19:00, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Armando, I saw that you hadn't updated your sig links, so I did it for you. Hope you don't mind :) -- Huntster ^{T • @ • C} 04:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm so stupid xD...Thnx Huntster! Armando.O ^{(talk|contribs)} 20:07, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image tagging for Image:Lacuna_coil_icon.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Lacuna_coil_icon.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:23, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evanescence WikiProject

Thanks for that link on my talk page, but then again I did already know about this..... the evidence. Cheerio. Mathmo ^Talk 13:52, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:MCR_logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:MCR_logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJ^Talk 09:31, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Thornlogo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Thornlogo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 14:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:LC logo.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:LC logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 14:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editor review

I reviewed you. YechielMan 02:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Evanescence

The article Evanescence you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Evanescence for things needed to be addressed. Kyra_~(talk) 03:29, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archive icon

Hi. I noticed you recently changed (or reverted a change to) the icon at {{Archive box}}. I have started a discussion in order to reach a consensus on which icon should be used for archive-related templates. --Random832(t c) 21:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Template talk:Archive box[reply]

Award

Barnstar!!!

I, Emperor Walter Humala hereby award you a Tireless Contributor Barnstar, for your tireless contribs to the Rose of Versailles article and related pages/templates/episodes. Also your contributions to Evanescence were great!!!! Walter Humala Godsave him! ^{(wanna Talk?)} 01:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

*_* ...sniff sniff...my first award! hahaha yeah! thnks!! Armando.O ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Miscellany for deletion on me

Hey Armando I was wondering if u could comment on Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/User:Walter_Humala, guys have stressed me up against all my subpages, userpage, sig, and stuff. Pease give me a hand, thanks! -- Walter Humala Godsave him! ^{(wanna Talk?)} 01:52, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP Evanescence

Hi there. I just wanted to inform you that I've thought about your request and that I've decided to join the Evanescence WikiProject. (Kinda late, isn't it? :-) ) Since you're a member as well, i just wanna know if there will be a newsletter that comes every month regarding the project. Thanks!(SUDUSER)⁸⁵ 03:44, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think that a newsletter wouldn't be very useful, because I've seen that almost all the newsletters have the same info of their WikiProject page...for example..the About section, is in the article..the Tasks and that stuff is also in the article... Armando.O ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use problem with Image:Stan.svg

I notice you uploaded the image Image:Stan.svg with the {{tv-screenshot}} fair use image tag. However, it appears that this tag is totally unrelated to the content of the image, and as a result it may qualify for speedy deletion. Image:Stan.svg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you can find a valid tag that expresses why Image:Stan.svg can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the {{tv-screenshot}} tag that you have placed on it with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use in|article name that the image is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the image. If the image has been deleted, you can reupload it but please ensure you place the correct tag on it. However, you must not remove the speedy deletion notice. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Atomic1609 11:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use problem with Image:Kyle.svg

I notice you uploaded the image Image:Kyle.svg with the {{tv-screenshot}} fair use image tag. However, it appears that this tag is totally unrelated to the content of the image, and as a result it may qualify for speedy deletion. Image:Kyle.svg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you can find a valid tag that expresses why Image:Kyle.svg can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the {{tv-screenshot}} tag that you have placed on it with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use in|article name that the image is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the image. If the image has been deleted, you can reupload it but please ensure you place the correct tag on it. However, you must not remove the speedy deletion notice. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Atomic1609 11:53, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use problem with Image:Eric.svg

I notice you uploaded the image Image:Eric.svg with the {{tv-screenshot}} fair use image tag. However, it appears that this tag is totally unrelated to the content of the image, and as a result it may qualify for speedy deletion. Image:Eric.svg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you can find a valid tag that expresses why Image:Eric.svg can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the {{tv-screenshot}} tag that you have placed on it with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use in|article name that the image is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the image. If the image has been deleted, you can reupload it but please ensure you place the correct tag on it. However, you must not remove the speedy deletion notice. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Atomic1609 11:54, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use problem with Image:Kenny.svg

I notice you uploaded the image Image:Kenny.svg with the {{tv-screenshot}} fair use image tag. However, it appears that this tag is totally unrelated to the content of the image, and as a result it may qualify for speedy deletion. Image:Kenny.svg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you can find a valid tag that expresses why Image:Kenny.svg can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the {{tv-screenshot}} tag that you have placed on it with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use in|article name that the image is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the image. If the image has been deleted, you can reupload it but please ensure you place the correct tag on it. However, you must not remove the speedy deletion notice. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Atomic1609 11:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use problem with Image:Butters.svg

I notice you uploaded the image Image:Butters.svg with the {{tv-screenshot}} fair use image tag. However, it appears that this tag is totally unrelated to the content of the image, and as a result it may qualify for speedy deletion. Image:Butters.svg has been tagged for deletion, and may have been deleted by the time you see this message.

If you can find a valid tag that expresses why Image:Butters.svg can be used under the fair use guidelines, please replace the {{tv-screenshot}} tag that you have placed on it with that tag. If no such tag exists, please add the {{Non-free fair use in|article name that the image is used in}} tag, along with a brief explanation of why this constitutes fair use of the image. If the image has been deleted, you can reupload it but please ensure you place the correct tag on it. However, you must not remove the speedy deletion notice. Thank you, and please feel free to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Atomic1609 11:56, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just my 2c about the tagging issue for those Southpark character things. I guess your original idea of tagging them as "fair use" was basically correct, only that it's not "tv-screenshot" but {{Character-artwork}}. You can't treat them as your own GFDL work, because even if you re-drew them they remain "derivative works" of the copyrighted originals. If you want to keep them, you need to write up an individual rationale for each. I tend to be personally quite skeptical of most fair use rationales used on Wikipedia, but I guess an illustration of a comic character is generally okay, for identification (i.e., readers might need the image simply to understand which character is being talked about, because they don't remember them by their names alone.) Hope this helps, Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:00, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signature templates again

Darn! Sig templates are no longer frowned upon (good news). They have been prohibited now (bad news). :( and :/... See WP:SIG#Transclusion of templates. Notice that I redid my signature after all. I like the old one better, but sig policies are sig policies... You might want to consider changing your sig to not be a template... — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 21:20, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hahahahahah....H-A! Hell, no...according to WP:SIG my signature must be Armando12?? WTF!? No sub, no sups, no big text, no long markup, no colors...hell!! Armando.O ^{(talk|contribs)} (this is my sig and I think I'm not changing it...but thnx for the advice!)23:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What?! Where do you see that? All I see is, "...be sparing with superscript and subscript..." Your signature should be fine; just enter it without the template. That's all I was referring to. Whatever, it was just a suggestion; I hope nobody actually makes you change your sig (Ligulem tried on me, changing my template links to [[User:Voyagerfan5761|Voyagerfan5761]]). — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 23:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And...your sig is really cool. Armando.O ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:02, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I like yours, too. — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 23:19, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't use it without template...look...

[[User:Armando12| Armando.O ]] ([[User talk:Armando12|talk]]|[[Special:Contributions/Armando12|contribs]])

see? Armando.O ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what to tell you. As I said, it was just a suggestion. I have no reason to report anyone for using templates in sigs, given that I used one myself at one point. Anyway, the only thing causing your signature to be long (as with my old sig) is the coloring. Changing colors in HTML just takes a lot of code... The point is, I don't care what you do with your sig; I was merely pointing out a violation of recommendations (policy?). Leave it, though; I can't think of a way to shorten your sig while retaining the appearance, unfortunately. Wish I could; I'd be able to fix my own old sig. :) — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 23:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah..I know that stuff about the colors..but it looks so cool xD! Armando.O ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amen. Remember my old, colorful signature? (User:Voyagerfan5761/signature if not) I really liked that; too bad I had to change it... — Tuvok[^T@lk/_{Improve me}] 23:52, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that sig rocked... Armando.O ^{(talk|contribs)} 23:55, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Evanescence

The article Evanescence you nominated as a good article has passed , see Talk:Evanescence for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. Kyra_~(talk) 04:05, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Armando.O ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:18, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, one other thing, I'd just like to let you know that using templates for signatures is forbidden, as per the guideline on signatures. Just thought I should let you know before someone else decides to let you know. Have a most wonderful day! Kyra_~(talk) 04:31, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

=( Yeah , my buddy told me the same today (see above). Well, I'm changing it *sniff sniff* Armando.O ^{(talk|contribs)} 04:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naesala

Why did you unmerge this article? He is a NN one-time character who could adequately be covered in the general Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance characters thread. -- Scorpion 02:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did. There's more than enough information to make an article about him. Actually we have more than enough information of a lot of more characters in FE:POR that hasn't been written in the List of characters in Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 02:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just because there is a lot of information doesn't mean he deserves a page. Many Fire Emblem characters are all grouped together becuase of Notability concerns. -- Scorpion 02:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell me one point of WP:NOTABILTY wich Naesala fails. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 02:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really that he fails notability, it's more that it's tradition that single game video game characters are usually grouped together. -- Scorpion 02:56, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh...Yeah I think that's right...but, what about all the history of Naesala? Are we gonna just throw it or merge it with the List of characters?? Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 02:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the article deserves to be its own page, then keep it as its own page, but if you merge it, you should keep as much information as possible without making it that much longer than the other sections. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scorpion0422 (talk • contribs) 03:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

OK!! Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 03:40, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work on Ashnard and Giffca and Elincia.

Thanks for adding the photo and table, the article really needed it, but I don't have the know how about images and copyright issues,I've just seen Giffca and Elincia too, they look so professional now, so thank you.Ashnard _talk 09:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, feel free to post on my talk page anytime, as for the list of PoR FE characters, I'm sorry man, but that article needs a bit of work, I was reviewing it before and spotted many mistakes, look at this Talk: List of characters in Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance (bottom), but once all of the problems are fixed, I'll support the cause. Ashnard _talk 17:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Ike FE.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ike FE.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. BJBot 12:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An Automated Message from HagermanBot

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 21:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lol?? I always sign. Armando.O^{talk • Ev} 13:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]