User talk:Kariteh

Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy XIII

I question the addition of Fabula Nova Crystallis Final Fantasy XIII as a series to the Final Fantasy XIII, Final Fantasy Versus XIII and Final Fantasy Agito XIII. Fabula Nova Crystallis is not a series; in essence it is just a collection of games formed around a common mythos. Final Fantasy VII, for example, doesn't list the Compilation of Final Fantasy VII as a "series", even though it includes many spinoffs, and I don't see why FFXIII should either. If Fabula Nova Crystallis is linked to in the first couple of paragraphs of any given article it covers, that would be perhaps more helpful than listing it as a series. --EvilReborn [会話]

Bahamut Lagoon / Final Fantasy Tactics

The Bahamut Lagoon project began under working title Final Fantasy Tactics. However, as the game gradually took shape, it was decided that it didn't include enough elements from the Final Fantasy series to merit the name. Most of the existing Final Fantasy elements were removed, and it was released with the new title Bahamut Lagoon. Soon afterward, a second Final Fantasy Tactics (1997) project was initiated and released with the title intact.

This text in the Trivia section of the article Bahamut Lagoon has been present since August 2005, and nobody has found a reference yet. May I ask what was your source of information? Kariteh 11:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

It was a long time ago, but I recall the source of that information being the The Unofficial Squaresoft Homepage, a.k.a. square.net. It existed from 1995 to 1997, the webmaster was Andrew Vestal. Vestal actually had a relationship with Square. They even hosted his site for several months when he lost his server. Later he started the Gamers Intelligence Agency a.k.a. thegia.com, where Vestal had the honor of showing the world the first images from Final Fantasy IX, a full 10 months before Square even announced the game's existence. What I'm getting at is that the info came from a source that I personally consider to be extremely reliable. Vestal was truly an authority on Square lore, at least during the mid-90s. He was a great source of insider information, and virtually everything he reported as a "rumor" seemed to eventually turn out to be true. I wish the source was something that could be easily verified, but alas, we're talking about an obscure video game that was released in Japan over ten years ago and doesn't seem to have inspired many people to document its behind-the-scenes details. Druff 18:53, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Some guy already removed the information from the Bahamut Lagoon article... Too bad, I don't think it can really be mentioned without a reference but this info is still interesting. I believe you personally :) Kariteh 09:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Substing user warnings

When using certain template tags on talk pages, don't forget to substitute with text by adding subst: to the template tag. For example, use {{subst:uw-test1}} instead of {{uw-test1}}. This reduces server load and prevents accidental blanking of the template. Also, there are lots of new, improved user warnings available. I will watch your talk page for any follow-up. Thanks, and good job vandal-fighting. MKoltnow 16:29, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, I didn't know about it. Kariteh 20:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Hero vs. protagonist

Hi. I wrote hero linked to protagonist hero to make the article flow better. Could we keep it? -Eileen-

Protagonist is the most correct term, hero is more colloquial. But I guess it depends on each sentence. Kariteh 20:11, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I just did it to combine the two terms: The colloquial word, hero we use more with the encyclopedic one, protagonist. I understand that protagonist is more correct, but I wanted a win win situation for everyone. The reader can see a word that they are familiar with and click on the link to see what a protagonist is. (To be honest, I never heard of the word until I encountered a situation exactly like it on the Zelda page and I want to pass it around.) I hope you understand and keep it on Vincent's page as well as Tidus's and others. -Eileen-

Tetsuya Nomura and FFXI

Please look there [1] --84.184.90.167 17:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Sign

Don't forget to sign the warning you left for 137.90.169.200 here.--chris.lawson 22:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Doso and Cactuar

Most of the Dosos that I found in image searches are abstract/symbolic stone formations, or reliefs of people carved into boulders standing upright on a sort of mini-temple. I don't doubt that there is a resemblence between the two because I don't know much about Dosos, but I am morbidly curious to see a Doso that does, given that I couldn't find one. Could you point me to an image that shows the resemblance? --Daedalus 22:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

It seems like I mistook Doso with Haniwa. I had read on the Cactuar article about a similarity with Haniwa statues. Some examples of Haniwa statues on this page (at the bottom) [2]. Kariteh 22:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Now that one is a striking resemblance. Thank you for clearing that up. --Daedalus 22:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Featured topic

Hi; I'm sorry if I seemed knee-jerk reactionary earlier. There has been a lot going on, and adding another discussion into the fold makes it more stressful. However, I'd like to ask: why did you decide to list it right away instead of expressing the issues on the talkpage? — Deckiller 03:07, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

When I started to add some of the official novels/mangas, I saw that they weren't removed or reverted, so I kept on adding the ones I could find. Eventually I got in a deadend in the search for information (because most are Japanese-exclusive stuff) so I had to put stub templates, which seemed contradictory to me since it's supposed to be a Featured List. The stub didn't really brought people to complete the sections. In the meanwhile, IPs regularly came and changed release years in the rest of the article to the real correct ones, so I realized there actually were quite a few wrong (or at least unsourced) dates in the article... Anyway, I suppose I could have put something on the talk page instead of directly nominating it for FLR, sorry. But I think it really "deserves" to be removed in any case; I think that when an article has a big gold star at the top-right side of the page, people can be less willing to be bold and modify it because they think it's supposed to be all good already. I realize the WP FF project is busy with other articles, but it's not really a good reason IMO. Kariteh 10:31, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

You made the right call. — Deckiller 19:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but your vandalism report was invalid for the following reason.

Thank you for making a report on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. Reporting and removing vandalism is vital to the functioning of Wikipedia and all users are encouraged to revert, warn, and report vandalism. However, administrators are generally only able to block users if they have received a recent final warning (one that mentions that the user may be blocked) and they have recently vandalized after that warning was given. The reported user has not yet been blocked because it appears this has not occurred yet. If this user continues to vandalize even after their final warning, please report them to the AIV noticeboard again. Thanks.

By the way, last warnings are not counted if they are issued months ago to an IP address. For an IP to be blocked, it must have been warned in the last 24 hours with a final warning. Jesse Viviano 15:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Reever1

Kariteh,

In response to your comments:

"Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you."

I am fully aware of the Wikipedia guidelines thanks, but during my time with Wikipedia i have added only 7 external links to your website- all which have been fully justified. They are the follows: Cafe Mocha Apple Pie Sticky Toffee Pudding Steak Tartare Marmalade Rice Pudding Macaroni Cheese

On each occasion I have added content to your site (surely the one main objective and strategy of Wikipedia) which will benefit the readers and visitors to this site. Absolutely none of my external links have been inappropriate as you suggest in your first sentence. Surely users would require a sticky toffee pudding recipe under the sticky toffee pudding page- or am i totally mis-reading your visitor preferences (please inform me of the top reasons your users visit Wikipedia please?). Once this question has been answered, please then tell me exactly how i have affected your visitor's experience in providing this content and external link- i believe i have added to their visitor experience by providing more relevant content.

The website I am actually referring to does not sell any products to users (it is a free service), therefore i am just providing your users with more variation and relevant content to which they can either click or not click on (surely freedom of choice for the visitor is another objective for Wikipedia!!!). As for promoting a website, i'm sure i could find a lot of examples where companies have utilised the external links to their advantage, but i haven't the time to research. However, fundamentally every single external link is promoting or advertising a website- so the question begs; why have any external links on the page. The answer- to provide a better customer experience, and choice for users; something all of my links have provided the Wikipedia visitor. Please can you re-think your decision to delete my external links from the pages suggested as i have spent time in trying to benefit your user's experience. In the future i will use the discussion page suggested by yourself before inserting the link (but can you please reverse the decisions you have already made). As for the external links not gaining any Search Engine Optimisation benefits i am fully aware- that's just another reason that highlights that i am doing it for the benefit of your users, and not for the website on the external links. I look forward to a reply

Hi, I am not sure you really are aware of the Wikipedia guidelines. First and foremost, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. It isn't a universal repertoire of indiscriminate information. That something may be useful to someone does not meant that it is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a purpose: it is an encyclopedia. It is not a collection of instruction manuals; we cannot put links everywhere to everything just in the hope that they will be useful to someone out there. For instance, while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, things, dishes, etc., its articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain how-tos. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. This is an official policy and guideline of this encyclopedia. We just cannot put everything everywhere in the site.

This is the reason why the sister project Wikibooks has been created. Wikibooks is a collection of free "books" and annotated texts that are written collaboratively by anyone. While tutorials, guides, recipes, how-tos, etc. do not belong on Wikipedia, they are definively at home on Wikibooks. When people want to look for encyclopedic contents, they look here; when they look for how-tos, they look on Wikibooks. So you might want to check that project; there are a lot of other recipes there and yours would definitively be welcome. As a matter of fact, contents which are inapropriate for Wikipedia can often be moved to Wikibooks instead of being simply deleted or reverted.

Consequently, your external links fall under the same reasoning. There is no doubt that your site is free and doesn't sell products, but links to it in Wikipedia are still inapropriate in the same way that how-to and recipes are. As for compagnies, links to them can be to their advantage in the same way that they can be to their disadvantage. It is only an indirect effet. When an article links to some page on a compagny's site, it is and should only be for encyclopedic reasons (such as referencing or sourcing a statement, or simply indicating the compagny's website as an information). It is true that sometimes links to some sites or compagnies are blatant spam; this is why they are generally removed upon sight.

Since Wikipedia is maintained by humans, maybe you have seen some links which hadn't been removed because someone didn't notice them yet. But in any case, please understand that inclusion of one spam link is not a reason to include another. Many times users can be confused by the removal of spam links because other links that could be construed as spam have been added to the article (and not yet removed). The inclusion of a spam link should not be construed as an endorsement of the spam link, nor should it be taken as a reason or excuse to include another. So, as a conclusion, I hope you understand Wikipedia's reasonings and guidelines better now. Again, while recipes are not appropriate for an encyclopedia, they definitely are for Wikipedia's sister project Wikibooks. Kariteh 18:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Lavos

Must've accidentally highlighted and clicked or something...—ウルタプ 12:49, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hyphens to colons (again)

Hi, you recently moved all the pages back to the colon versions and I was just going to point out some things. First, I posted a message at User:SeizureDog's talk page (here), explaining my reasoning for keeping the hyphens. The gist of it was that it is possible to respect Square Enix's trademark (with the hyphens) on Wikipedia by maintaining the hyphens in the title while colloquially referring to only the "Dirge of Cerberus" (or whatever) part within the article. It really isn't a question of grammar since that doesn't really apply to titles. Anyway, SeizureDog never made any indication of replying so I figured he dropped the issue and I was justified in "reverting until discussion is completed". Afterwards, I was unaware that he had made a subsequent post at Talk:Before Crisis: Final Fantasy VII, acting as if I had never messaged him at all. Anyway, I'd just like to reopen discussion about it at the WPFF page here. Axem Titanium 21:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Spamming spoiler warning links

Spoiler warnings are handled by a case by case basis (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines). In the case of the Final Fantasy WikiProject, the debate for that project to include or exclude them is limited to that WikiProject. This is why the spoiler warnings are a guideline, not a policy. However, I noticed you are advertising the discussion to those outside the WikiProject. — Deckiller 22:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Isn't anyone allowed to express their opinion? I don't think what I'm doing is "spamming." It is more like giving chance to more people to participate in the discussion. Also, just to clear up any potential misunderstanding, I'm not even against the banning per se. I just find it a little unfair and controversial that a small number of people seem to be making the whole decision, yet outside of this discussion there are a lot of people (IPs or users) who regularly come and add spoiler warnings to the articles of the project. If the spoiler warning is to be banned, I'll let it be banned; if it is to be kept, so be it. But in either cases, I think the consensus should be decided by more than a small team of seven people. Kariteh 22:21, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Consensus should absolutely be decided — by people affiliated with the WikiProject. I bet that most of those people add spoiler warnings because they are used to seeing them across Wikipedia (otherwise, they would not even know the templates exist). However, the problem is that it is a guideline, and most people on Wikipedia will disagree with us and the few other WikiProjects who do not use them (as it has been done in countless debates before). In that case, our consensus is steamrolled by that of the rest of the community. — Deckiller 22:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

cheers for being vigilant, but

this is a public IP (at Newcastle University, Australia). the person you were intending your message for probably didn't get it, and probably won't get it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.148.5.119 (talk) 00:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC).