User talk:New Age Retro Hippie/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Date stuff[edit]

One last thing: while it is true the date is modified based in our preferences, note that users that are not registered will see the article "as is". That is why we must use a consistent date format through the article; it may be confusing for a casual reader to find half the dates in American and the other half in European format. -- ReyBrujo 05:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:Kirbyspinballland.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Kirbyspinballland.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Merge tag for Shiny Pokémon to Pokémon game mechanics[edit]

i'm moving your post from Talk:Shiny Pokémon to Talk:Pokémon game mechanics since that's the page the tags direct you to... i encourage you to add it to your watchlist. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 18:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Merging of Internet Channel and Everybody Votes Channel into Wii Channels[edit]

Why did you do this? The Wii Channels article is now massively long, to the extent that it's almost at the point where any new additions will take it over the size limit, and it will be advised that the article should be split. Furthermore, there's an existing discussion on the Wii Channels talk page regarding the possible merger of the Everybody Votes Channel page, at Talk:Wii Channels#Everybody Votes Channel --> Wii Channels Merger, which currently stands at seven votes to five in favour of it having its own channel. I'd appreciate it if you could contribute in that discussion before you unilaterally decide what's right and wrong for the pages. Tim (Xevious) 10:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, to cover your points one by one:

  • The size of an article doesn't legitimize splitting it up into smaller, less notable articles.
  • Articles over a certain size, when editing, automatically have a header added on the editing page advising you that the article is very long, and that you should consider splitting it into small articles.
  • The ones I merged had no notability on their own.
  • That's a very strong statement with no evidence to back it up. In fact, if you looked at the Talk page for the Everybody Votes Channel, there was a great deal of discussion over whether the channel was notable, resulting in an agreement to keep the page since it is considered notable by a number of people. It also passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Can you expand your 'non-notable' claim?
  • Have you consider following the teachings of "sofixit"? I merged it. If you want to trim it, trim it.
  • I don't want to trim it; if anything I want to expand it so that it's sufficiently split into sections, as it was before, and categorised, as it was before.
  • Nothing in the Wii Channel needs its own article, so you're going to have to keep trimming it to a manageable but informative size.
  • The majority vote appears to contradict you there, in wanting a seperate article. The Internet Channel is even more notable. Again, I think you need to set out a better argument than you have done. Tim (Xevious) 14:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

The AfD was already overturned. The article was deleted by an admin who didn't look to see that the article had actually expanded beyond the two or three sentences that existed when the AfD was first placed. The same admin undeleted the article after he realised - and apologised for - his mistake. This can be seen in the deletion review which was linked to in the various debates. I don't think I need to prove it needs to be overturned again.

The exact text says:

This page is XX kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size.

Following that link says that long pages should be split up into sensible sections if necessary. Sensible sections should be discussed on the pages. Of course, all articles need to be notable. And what is notable? WP:N states:

A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.

The Everybody Votes Channel has been the subject of a number of articles already, including pieces in the Guardian, the Times and the Sun newspapers in the UK (not just trivial mentions I should specify), plus articles in videogames magazines and on technology and videogames websites. So, I'll ask you again, please can you explain why you consider this to be non-notable? Tim (Xevious) 15:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to back up Tim here. In addition to the points he made, you never used the merge tag (as is Wikipedia policy) to solicit discussion on the changes before making them. By doing this, you effectively silenced the opposition before it had a chance to speak.

This merger is incorrect and should be reverted. If you still feel strongly about the merger, I would ask that you follow the proper procedure and apply the merge tags so that dicussion can commence. That way a concensus can be reached. Jbanes 16:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I also think Everybody Votes should get its own article. TheCoffee 15:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


  • Going by your last response on my talk page, I'm assuming that you don't feel able to assert non-notability any more. Tim (Xevious) 19:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
    • WP:N sets out very clearly Wikipedia's definition of notable. Using this definition, can you explain why you think it non-notable? Tim (Xevious) 19:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
      • You're ignoring the articles in newspapers, then, and also what Wikipedia itself states to be notable. Many other things may indeed deserve articles. Does that mean that, since they have no article, there should be nothing on Wikipedia at all? Tim (Xevious) 19:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
        • Are you claiming that every feature of Xbox Live is as significant as the Everybody Votes Channel? Let alone the Internet Channel? A great many features of Xbox Live are as significant, and do indeed have their own articles. Xbox Live Vision, Xbox Live Marketplace, Xbox Live Arcade ... and if (when) they announce a web browser for the Xbox 360, I'd fully expect that to have its own article too. Tim (Xevious) 19:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
          • Your arguments are now no longer following on from each other. If you're going to compare it to the Xbox Live situation, then compare it, and don't try and find reasons why it's different. An article doesn't have to be overly long to be split, it ought to be split where there is sufficient information on seperate areas to warrant a seperate article. According to the discussion at Talk:Wii Channels, the majority of people seem to think this is the case. Tim (Xevious) 13:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
            • I never claimed that the sole reason, or even the main reason, for splitting was size. Unless you can find something in the Wikipedia policies or guidelines regarding whether an article should or not exist, or be merged into a larger article, which directly backs up your argument, you'll just need to participate in the discussion like everyone else. Tim (Xevious) 13:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of List of recurring locations in The Legend of Zelda series[edit]

A tag has been placed on List of recurring locations in The Legend of Zelda series, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Long name, should not be its own article. Consider merging with The Legend of Zelda

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. SyBerWoLff 15:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Recurring locations in Zelda[edit]

Please don't just remove proposed merge tags from articles. If you don't think the merge is a good idea, say so in the discussion that the tag links to. The article in question was originally tagged for speedy deletion (which I turned down) but short of a merge it will quite likely end up at AfD. So a merge or a move is worth considering. But whether you agree or not, do not remove the tag. Kafziel Talk 21:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Unmerged[edit]

I have undone your merge of those three Zelda articles, as the merger was clearly contentious and was not discussed. Please start a merge proposal. You may wish to get input from other editors at WikiProject Zelda.

I see from your talk page that this is not the first undiscussed merge you've made lately. In the future, it would be a lot better for you to discuss these changes with other editors before you waste your time. Kafziel Talk 21:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, you do have to seek consensus if a merger is contentious. This one clearly is. In fact, in my experience, most mergers are. My suggestion to you was just that: a suggestion. If you wish to waste your time by merging articles without discussion, you are free to do so. But if the merge is undone (as I did) you must seek consensus. Kafziel Talk 21:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

And you, Kafziel, must seek another admin to protect the page, rather than protect it yourself to keep your preferred version.
But I am here to say that I provided a link to the m:Spam blacklist that I mentioned in the landofthelegend.net topic on CVG. I'm sure you already saw it, though. Hbdragon88 22:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to point out once again that when merging articles, you must do it properly. Discuss, obtain consensus, merge, put the {{R from merge}} tag on the article, mention where you merged the info from in the target article, fix double redirects, etc. These things are not optional. Continuing to do these sloppy merges will result in many reversions by people like me who both disagree with the merges and don't want to clean up your poor work. --- RockMFR 00:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

It's said that I must obtain consensus? If so, I get the feeling most people who are mergists in the CVG project do poor work. Also, I made what was hundreds of edits fixing links fixing the Pokémon locations lists. If a lot of the major mergists discussed their merges, we'd be way behind in getting things merged. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)


InShaneee's ArbCom case[edit]

Hi, just so you know, InShaneee's ArbCom case has started. Addhoc 17:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleted "cruft"?[edit]

Why'd you delete my hard-worked list of prizes in Nintendo Power. Technically, it's Wikipedia:Listcruft, but each could be easily verified. It took an hour to make and 10 seconds to delete. The main reason was

  • The list is of interest to a very limited number of people

but I was just ticked because its my second run-in with you. The MySims incident was outdated information and slight bit of rudeness on my part, but in the settlement that followed, I ended with a relatively polite {{[cquote|Good, but I'm not going to accept it on the Wikipedia page without a reference.}} But you weren't done and shot back with one more thing left me particulary incensed...

Deep down inside, I want to say you were one of those little jerks in school that was always the smart know-it-all that always ended an argument with a haughty "I told you so!".

But I'm not. The edit will remain as is for at least several weeks, and don't leave a message if you're going to be a big jerk.

TheListUpdater 21:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Internet Channel[edit]

I have reverted your redirect. You need to post on the talk page if you want to redirect the page. -- Jonathan Williams 00:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


What makes you think it's up to you alone to decide whether the Internet channel. It's not just a rhetorical question- I'd really like to know, since it seems to me that I keep running into people with a similar attitude. Anyhow, when someone thinks something should be deleted, the proper course of action is to follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion. Hackwrench 03:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

So I guess in your world, "Nevermind" means that the sinner has repented of his sinful ways and has no intention of engaging in such conduct again? Hackwrench 04:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

If one first accepts the idea that everyone including oneself is a sinner, I don't see how such a person would be arrogant in referring to another as a sinner. What are your thoughts? Hackwrench 02:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)


What did you mean when you said: "It'd be keen if you could stop disrupting Wikipedia, thanks." Disrupting Wikipedia? I haven't seen anything that could even come close to what I would call "disrupting Wikipedia". You may think that either I or Jonathan Williams were disruptive of your personal experience when interacting with others on Wikipedia, but that's nowhere near the same as disrupting Wikipedia itself as a whole. Hackwrench 20:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You have a curious definition of "creating conflict". I am trying to communicate how I am different from you and elicit information of how and why you are different from me. When people learn those sorts of things about each other, conflict is eliminated. Without exchange of such information, conflict escalates. Hackwrench 20:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

You say: "I intended to include insults, sarcasm, and general rudeness". That's curious, because I avoid such things in my own speech, except maybe sarcasm when I don't consider it being rude but humorous. Why do you think such things are appropriate human conduct? You may perceive me as rude, but you have failed to communicate to me the criteria by which you determine rudeness, not even the portions of your criteria that apply to my communication with you. Hackwrench 20:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

First you marked out your apology and added "If you will not even acknowledge the apology and try to create more conflict, I might as well just not apologize if it serves no purpose", and when you added, "I intended to include insults, sarcasm, and general rudeness", my initial thought was that you were continuing along the line of thought that we were engaged in an adversarial situation and those were the tactics that you find acceptable behavior when in such a situation. Your latest statement has caused me to take into account the fact that you did unstrike-out the apology, so I have adjusted my understanding of the situation accordingly. However the point in continuing is that apologizing for something doesn't make everything all better in the same way that saying "please" doesn't automatically get one what one wants. In the same way that "please" is not useless when you don't get what you want, the same goes for an apology. However, an insincere "please" or an insincere apology are useless.Hackwrench 21:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Majora[edit]

I don't really give a crap but since you feel it's necessary to notify me every time you revert something I do via talk page, I'll tell you that your anchor was pointing to "Majora" when it should have pointed to "Majora's Mask". Axem Titanium 16:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

I am not trying to pick a fight, nor am I blaming you for anything. I am simply entreating you not to post a message on my talk page every single time you disagree with me in any way. That's what talk pages on articles are for. Rest assured. If it's actually an issue, I'll see the message there and reply. Axem Titanium 16:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh I see what happened. I didn't understand what you were talking about before. Either way, it's too trivial to matter. Axem Titanium 16:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Don't sweat it. I'm not the kind of guy who gets upset over some sarcasm. ' 19:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Same here. Your apology is appreciated, though, and I know you were trying to do what you feel is best for the subject (and it probably is what's best, as far as I can tell). Just remember not to panic when stuff like that happens, and everything will sort itself out in due time. Kafziel Talk 20:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Myself as well, although I'm not sure what you're talking about with the # of Kirby games versus # of Zelda games thing... Axem Titanium 21:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmmmm... I don't seem to recall doing that ever. Guess I just have a bad memory. Whatever! Axem Titanium 21:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Apology[edit]

To A Link to the Past, who I believe is, besides our differences, a good editor.

Even though I feel that you have an agenda to promote LotL, I must apologize for my attitude towards you - including rudeness, sarcasm, and insults. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, I really appreciate this. I always do my best be civil towards everyone. Should I ever have failed you in that, please accept my apologies for that. I honestly believe you are a good editor, but our indifferences on this topic seem to clash. I hope we can one day work out our differences and work better together.
Don't worry too much about sarcasm though. As a friend of me says "sarcasm is an exotic language". JackSparrow Ninja 21:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, don't worry about it. I admit I push the envelope on civility all too often, as many can attest. -R. fiend 21:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Frank Grimes[edit]

You must really dislike Grimes because this is the third or fourth time you've gone after his page. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Notability isn't measured by the number of appearances. He made a notable appearance in one of the more famous Simpsons episodes and he's since been referred to several times. By measure of importance, I'd rank him above a lot of secondary characters who have basically just served as one-off jokes. ie. Sideshow Mel, Roger Meyers, Rabbi Krustofski, Hank Scorpio, Radioactive Man, Fallout Boy, Drederick Tatum, Bumblebee Man, Luann Van Houten, Jimbo Jones, Rod & Todd Flanders, Maude Flanders - And they all have pages. There are articles about MUCH less notable things on Wikipedia. -- Scorpion 22:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

See Homer's Enemy for info on the episode's popularity. As for it's importance, there are entire chapters in several books - Including Planet Simpson - devoted solely to Grimes and his one appearance. -- Scorpion 23:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Frank Grimes[edit]

You followed the procedure for uncontroversial deletes. The objections to merging Talk:List_of_one-time_characters_from_The_Simpsons#Frank_Grimes have come down on the side of "Yes, he really does deserve his own page", and not on the side of "He shouldn't be merged because he doesn't even deserve his own page". Thus the delete is still controversial, maybe even more so than if it had been simply due to the fact that it could be merged. Hackwrench 22:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Super Paper Mario[edit]

No problem, things just got a little heated. Keep up the good work. TJ Spyke 23:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Re:Apology[edit]

Hi ALTTP - you wrote: I apologize for the Namco Bandai stub debacle

S'alright. It's very easy to get annoyed if you do something that makes sense to you, then have someone come along and want to change it back. And I can understand that it does sometimes seem like WP:WSS is some kind of clobbering machine, for which I for one apologise. Hopefully the end result is useful for everyone involved in editing those game articles, though. Grutness...wha? 23:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Namco Bandai stub[edit]

Thanks for the note, but it's really nothing to worry about in the grand scheme of things. Everything panned out fine in the end, and no harm done. We see "debacler" on a daily basis, come by and see some time. :) Alai 01:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay...[edit]

I apologize for being kinda harsh too, anyways, it's all over, no need to get into another argument. ~~Eugene2x Sign here ~~ 03:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Apology[edit]

The apology was really not necessary, I think, you were just acting as you felt was best, and for the most part probably is the correct method, and I was just sort of hesitant at the idea (I still sort of am, but I've not been active enough on Wikipedia lately to really do much in the matter), and in your abruptness there was a sort of confusion and frustration. I'd actually like to apologize for my stubbornness and assuming behavior in the AIM chat and article votes.

On a similar note, I am on my weeklong Spring Break right now, and while I don't know if I can commit myself to helping start the WikiProject: Kirby that was proposed, if you have any ideas with regards to what might be done or need help with things you are already doing, feel free to request assistance and I will try to make time for it and try my best. --ArrEmmDee 03:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging[edit]

Tagging images with no-source is fine, but it's a really good idea to leave a message on the uploader's talk page, to make sure they can address the problem within the time period.

Secondly, {{Orphaned fairuse not replaced}} is only appropriate for images that are actually fair-use, and isn't appropriate for images that are licensed as public domain or otherwise as a free license. --Interiot 04:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Check all the images again, please[edit]

You've tagged numerous images for having no source even though the source is clearly listed (e.g. Image:Kidicaruslogo.gif, Image:Wii Shop channel.jpg, etc). Please go through them and remove the no source tag from the ones that are actually sourced. Thanks. --- RockMFR 05:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:041210_legend_zelda_four_sw.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:041210_legend_zelda_four_sw.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. 05:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Deleting comments on my talk page[edit]

I am very mad that you deleted a comment addressed to ME off of my talk page. If it was addressed to you, then you can delete it. Just because it's ABOUT you, doesn't mean you have a right to it. Although I haven't looked too much into it, any good you've done for wikipedia doesn't give you the right to terrorize other people and pages that you have a problem with. Deal with it another way. Think about it, ok? No one's trying to make you the ad guy except you. Drop the tough guy act, and people can 'love' you. Ok? Lamename3000 05:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Virtual boy sources[edit]

I could have sworn that I had the source mentioned for all of those pictures, but I uploaded them a long time ago so I guess I just wasn't in the habit of doing that yet (since I got tired of obviously good fair use images being deleted for not having sources). The source is [www.vr32.de Planet Virtual Boy] btw, which has a ton of sources for every Virtual Boy game made. If you want to work on an VB article, it's literally a one-stop sources for all the references you'll need. If you're interesting on working on an article, drop me a line and we can team up and try to get something to GA status maybe.--SeizureDog 05:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I see. Well, back in the day I hated sourcing screenshots because I felt that it was stupidly obvious who owned the copyright on then and that it didn't really need to be mentioned. It's also dumb because the place you find a screenshot is rarely the person that actually took it anyways, since many are just given out in press packets to sites that proceed to watermark someone else's screenshot. I still rather feel that way, but oh well. Good luck on the Kirby's Dream Land article though. I will say that you should probably try to get a print source in there if you can. Reviewers like that. I need to find somewhere only that has scans of old Nintendo Powers. That would be nice on many levels. --SeizureDog 05:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Apology regarding Wii Channels[edit]

Accepted, but really not necessary. You argued your side in an entirely civil manner. I really hope that you will take part in subsequent discussions. Tim (Xevious) 12:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Numerous edits in the "Mother series" of game articles.[edit]

I noticed that you made edits to all the game listings in the Mother series, and I feel that the edits were made quite hastily. You cut out much relevant material, and while I will assume good faith in your desire to edit, the edits have been reverted because of the negative effect they had on the quality of the articles; in the future, please do a little more research and have a little more consideration before making further edits to these articles and others like it. --PeanutCheeseBar 16:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

If it was only a single game (and not a series), I could understand not having a list; however, you made some mistakes in that:
  • PSI actually has some storyline significance to each game in the series, which has sadly not been expounded on.
  • You had not bothered to reference even SOME of the content within the list, which defeats the purpose of even keeping the article around.
  • You did not open it up for discussion on what could be done to improve it, but rather you blew away the whole article and redirected it. You do not have the "final say" in what is fit and what is not.

From some of the other comments on your talk page, I can see you have a history of doing this. I will ask you once again to please refrain from doing so again without taking the proper channels, as blanking pages can be construed as vandalism. --PeanutCheeseBar 17:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I also stated that the significance of PSI has not been expanded upon; however, rather than completely remove it from the picture, you can improve the quality of the article by showing how important it is. In the future, please open a discussion on the talks page of each article that you take issue with. --PeanutCheeseBar 17:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not you "care" about the article, you alone do not have the authority to decide what stays and what goes; to do so is unencyclopedic and uncivil. --PeanutCheeseBar 17:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I have already stated twice before now (in this discussion, no less) that more relevant information exists concerning PSI that has not been added to the page; that aside, you can feel free to "point out" things all you like, so long as they are within discussions. There are guides for Final Fantasy classes and magic (not to mention other games), and it is not your "job" nor do you have the authority to single-handedly make these decisions. --PeanutCheeseBar 18:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

...and as I said, there should be more content concerning the importance of PSI in the Mother series on the page, but there is not. I will make the effort to improve the page, since you have nothing constructive to contribute. --PeanutCheeseBar 18:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Why write the same content in three articles when we can write it in just the one and link to it? Removing it is not an "improvement". --PeanutCheeseBar 18:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Where is it Wikipedia policy to "be bold" and massively wipe out content? I have no problem with your "boldness" so long as it is constructive (which you have not been), and so far you have not given me adequate reason why you are inherently superior to other users, and thus why you don't have to engage in the conventional measures that most other Wikipedians do when they take issue with an article. --PeanutCheeseBar 15:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
The be bold policy lets the user be bold, period. If it doesn't violate policy or guidelines, what do you bring up? And PS: The fact that you don't like it when I merge "your" article doesn't make it unconstructive. Based on the participants of the AfD, I'd suspect that my blanking of the PSI List article was very constructive. And I like how you say that I am claiming superiority to Wikipedians because I, like many other good Wikipedians, don't say "hmm, I guess I should assume that my edit will be controversial, so instead of being bold, I'll ask for permission for anything I do on Wikipedia". You make it seem like "being bold and not asking for permission whenever they want to do a merge" is an uncommon concept on Wikipedia, when plenty of people do it. Few of my merges are considered controversial, so you're basically complaining that I don't ask permission before I do anything. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not 'my' article, and that's not the issue; I simply don't appreciate the fact that you do this to as many articles as you do, despite the objections that are raised. Truth be told, I wouldn't have had as much of a problem with it had you not been so overtly arrogant at the start of this discourse. That aside, for what it's worth, it does not lend any more credibility to you when you compare yourself to "good Wikipedians", because it only adds to your arrogance (which certainly does not help the discussion at hand). Your boldness stems not from your desire to improve Wikipedia, but rather from your arrogance. The end result is that you show me an increasing amount of arrogance and excuses as to why you can do this and that instead of answering my questions, and I in turn will refuse to answer yours. --PeanutCheeseBar 16:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, right. Because the judge of my character is not myself, but a jilted Wikipedian who is upset because I redirected an article he liked. Do you know how many merged/redirects I've done? Compare that to how many objections have been made, and read more policies while you're at it. You never read what I say, so what difference does it make that you refuse to answer what I ask? Few, if any of my moves were clearly controversial. To say that they are is not only speculation, but baseless speculation at that. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, but you're quite wrong; I DO read what you say, and much as you choose to ignore answering my questions (with great contempt, I might add), I simply decided to "play by your rules" and I decided to ignore yours as well. As for your opinion of yourself and whether or not your moves were controversial, they are just that, opinions. Opinions often stem from fact, but facts don't necessarily stem from opinions, and that seems to affect both your editing skills and your attitude towards others; I am afraid that your refusal to acknowledge that is a shortcoming, but it is one I hope you overcome at some point in the near future. --PeanutCheeseBar 17:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
You've been refusing to answer my questions much longer than I have of you. You never showed me a policy where I should say "if it is possible that someone MIGHT not like my edit, I shouldn't make it", you never told me who committed meatpuppetry (which you HAVE to do - not doing so is out of the question, lessen you wanna get in trouble for making attacks). My merges are uncontroversial by the simple fact that there is rarely ever anything to indicate that a merge would be opposed. What about that do you not understand? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh, there's nothing among what you're saying that I don't understand, it's just that you're mistaken in thinking that you've been asking the questions longer (you still haven't explained to me why two years of editing can justify the ever-changing (and sometimes invalid) reasons you present for making changes that have upset a lot of people), and I simply do not appreciate your hostile attitude that has been ever-present in this matter. Judging from your past, I can see where you've upset others with your attitude, and eventually come to apologize to them, so I know you're not all bad; however, until you can be a little more level-headed and less hostile, I'm just going to ignore you. --PeanutCheeseBar 20:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Bitter Wikipedians usually DO read into things a bit more deeply. My actions with merging articles violated no policy or guideline. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Prime box[edit]

Not my version anymore. You should ask the guy who overwrote it this last January with the better quality version. K1Bond007 19:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Source needed for image[edit]

I didn't actually upload that image. You could contact the first uploader you can see at [1]. I just reduced the image size because of its fair use-ness and unfortunately, deleting the older, larger images causes it to make it appear I uploaded the images. There's little one can do to determine this, except by looking at the logs (which will only tell you this is the case) and the history to determine who created the page and is therefore the uploader, but that kind of detailed work isn't possible on every image so I don't mind the notices, though I often ignore them. Please notify the true uploader of this image. --MECUtalk 19:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Deletion discussion[edit]

I replaced your prod tag at PSI List (Mother series) with an AfD tag. The deletion discussion is here. You may want to participate (but please remember to keep your cool!) Kafziel Talk 20:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)