User talk:Randall Brackett

User

Watchlist

R & D

User links

Deletion

Other links

Other

[edit]

——————————————— ——————————————— I am currently not participating in Wikipedia. More pressing matters in real life have arosen and I was already spending more time on Wikipedia than I should have. The personal duties I imposed upon myself here and the real life problems that I must attend to have made hobbies such as this very unhelpful. I hope to return later in my lifetime. I'll check my talk at random intervals, perhaps. This page is archived by User:Werdnabot I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.' - Douglas Adams, 1988 To post something please use this link. or the '+' between "edit this page" and "history".

^{User posts: 00:16, 8 September 2024 UTC [refresh]}

Go for it.

Let's see what happens. Al 17:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

66.192.104.10

The above user has been blocked for forty-eight hours for vandalism, as per your comments on WP:AIV.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

MegaMan X page

Where excatly does it describe X's strength capabilities? I have never heard of anything like that, besides possibly the question marks when it shows X's and Zero's statts after beating the first three games? The Faq listed as a source does not have naything like that information, either.

We've discussed this, and while its sourced in a FAQ, I have doubts. I'm inclined to reword the sentence as to be more ambiguous. -Zero^Talk 22:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Geisha Spoilers

Hi there,

Apparently you are policing Wikipedia a little too seriously...if you insist, let me explain to you why a spoiler warning needs to be added to the Geisha article (this can be found in the discussion page as you insisted).

If you have read the book, you would know the plot summary, and what happens at the end of the novel. Any plot summary that exposes important events of the novel, especially the ending, is a spoiler, and therefore a spoiler warning must be added. As defined by Wikipedia, "A spoiler is a piece of information in an article about a narrative work (such as a book, feature film, television show or video game) that may reduce one's enjoyment of it by revealing certain plot events or twists." The plot summary clearly fits this description.

And also, as noted by Wikipedia,

"Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, page blanking, or the insertion of bad jokes or other nonsense. Fortunately, this kind of vandalism is usually easy to spot.

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism."

Calm down buddy...no need to jump to accusations of vandalism.

The context of the article has not been changed in any way. Since the spoilers do fit the definition of a spoiler, thus, adding a spoiler warning is not vandalism. -— Preceding unsigned comment added by Victor8698 (talk • contribs) 22:56, July 3, 2006

I really don't think you get the deal here. The comment was not attributed to the accusation of vandalism. I noted that anonymous editing and edit warring without edit summeries can sometimes be precieved as vandalism, paticularly if it becomes common practice. Don't worry, I don't consider you attempting to harm the project, although I do strongly support the act of engaging in discussion in the relevant mediums. I've also replied on Talk:Memoirs of a Geisha. -Randall Brackett 23:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Heihachi

Why did u take away the information I added regarding Heihachi?? What's the reason? Aeneiden-Rex 12:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about your reasoning here. Editors are already bound by policy to remove speculative and original research from article space. I don't think any one needs to state an elaborate amount of reasoning for defending the encyclopedia. For instance, deletion of biased additions happens every day, as does removal of such original research and poorly written information from mainpace. This intensely annoys many people, but it still has to go on. Nobody owns any part of Wikipedia, your contributions only exist in an article insofar as it advances the project. As one becomes an experienced editor, one must take these facts on board. -Randall Brackett 12:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What are u talking about?? I wrote that Heihachi was the winner of tekken 2 & 4 because I couldn't find that information anywhere else, and u deleted it, why? what's the reason for thar?? Aeneiden-Rex 12:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Noted. Please take this to Talk:Heihachi Mishima. -Randall Brackett 13:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Steve

what are you doing? Why are u deleting everything I write. Speculations about Steve's father is not crap. What's the matter with you.Aeneiden-Rex 13:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The encyclopedia comes before the speculative views of a subject's fanbase, every single time. The encyclopedia is the matter. Inserting silly fandom views in encyclopediac articles must not be mistaken for participating in the production of an encyclopedia. -Randall Brackett 14:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Then why are u not taking away all speculations on the Devil Gene article?? A lot of Tekken-related articles here contains a lot of speculation why are u not deleting them? Aeneiden-Rex 14:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a little naughty. Why would you presume I have gotten to it given that its not even on my watchlist..? -Randall Brackett 14:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Almost everything that is written on the devil gene article, I don't know who wrote it, contains only speculations and the authors way of interpretting the story, thus it's not official in any way. So if I should go by your view of "silly fandom views", that should be delete as well since it's totally un-biased and pure speculation and thoughts from a fan.Aeneiden-Rex 14:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just finished cleaning up the article somewhat. If you still see some unfounded views, I'd advise you to remove them. In my edit, I removed the reception nonsense, elimated some weasel words and fixed the article to essentially output observations witnessed in the storyline. -Randall Brackett 14:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank You, but one more question: Can I write that Heihachi was the Winner of tekken 2 & 4, without that "fans-believing thing". Cause I can't find that information anywhere else. Aeneiden-Rex 14:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It appears for the second tournament, that would be unnecessary: After winning the contest, he has a showdown with Kazuya, and defeats him. Afterwards, he tosses Kazuya, who had proven to be much too dangerous, into a volcano and kills him."

For the fourth, you were correct that there was lack of his victory in that tournament. I wrote: "With Jin captured by the Tekken Force, Heihachi faced Kazuya in the finals of tournament and defeated him. He then led Kazuya to his Hon Maru compound where Jin was being held captive." -Randall Brackett 14:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank You.Aeneiden-Rex 14:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Unrelated subject: I disagree with the deletion of the Endings sections. That information about as encyclopedic as you can get within the Tekken series, even if some of the endings are non-canon. King Zeal 15:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

New Mega Man series

Wow, new userpage, huh? Just wondering if you've been keeping up with the news of the Shin MegaMan DS series that I just discovered an article for. Hope everythings all right. See ya. ~ Hibana 23:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware of the series but wasn't aware we had created an article yet. I have placed it on my watchlist. Thank you for the notification, it was much appreciated. -Randall Brackett 23:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Gackt

Is there a KOF character, male or female, that doesn't look a little bit like Gackt? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I revert that nonsense everytime I see it. Recently I reverted some superman crap on Clark Steel. Whatever next...? -Randall Brackett 08:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think the Superman stuff is real. I vaguely remember something about that from some old Ikari Warriors fluff from back in the day. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting ready to flip Template:SNK character over to GenCVGchar, but this one is going to take a LOT of work. Can you do me a favor, by doing something that needs to be done anyway, and move all of the image2/caption2s down the article to the relevant part of the article?

Likewise, who was doing character design on KoF before Falcoon? I was planning to add the character designers to the template, but I don't remember who was doing character design before that.

Er, actually, would you be willing to just fill in the creators character by character? Seems like you'd be the one who'd know that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Speedy vandalism warnings

I noticed the comments about reverting vandalism without warning vandals at your RfA. You might try some of the tools at this section of the CVU page. I use the RC Patrol Script, which I've been very satisfied with b/c it let's me do almost one-click warning and reporting. Hopefully one of them will be helpful for you. Cheers and happy vandalfighting!--Kchase02 T 03:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. This looks to be very helpful. I'll take a look.-Randall Brackett 08:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

RfA

This is the main quote that made me wary of your confidence:

"However, I must conceed I do not feel confident in my charisma to pass the rfa placed before the community."

There are other points in your nom statement that seemed like you were not confident, but this stuck out most. Good luck, though. --WillMak050389 04:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm not popular fellow. Put yourself in my shoes. I'm a realist, and being a person who sometimes has problems people percieve as larger than they really are I think I was being honest. I don't think it has an bearing on my confidence in becoming an administrator nor does it relfect the work I'm capable of. But thank you for explaining and I accept your reasoning with gracious thanks. -Randall Brackett 08:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

The Diamond Age reorganization

Dear Randall Brackett, You reorganized The Diamond Age. It is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels and had been structured according to the project recommendations (template) to streamline articles on novels. Of course it is ok to deviate from the template, but I have to say I prefer a short introductory paragraph followed by clear section headings, to separate out levels of detail. I would argue for going back to the original structure. Would you mind discussing the change on the article's discussion page? Thank you! --Jottce 08:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought it merely flowed better and expanding the opening pharagraph seemed like a great idea. I'll step back from this and allow the wikiproject members to make their decisions as necessary if I acted in error. -Randall Brackett 08:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll simply insert the section heading then. I think it's a good idea to move it to the top though, as you did. Best, --Jottce 09:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Your RFA

Hi Megaman Zero Randall, I'm sorry for sorta acting a bit like a Devils advocate on your RFA. The only reason I maintained a discussion like that, is because I was the first oppose. If I find something wrong, as the first oppose, I usually try to maintain an open mind about all possiblities and reasonings behind an editors logic so I can support a statement I am making or try to make an editor see an logic where I'm coming from. I'm sorry I ruined as much as I did, but I think as soon as you fix the minor complaint I had, I would even consider nominating you for adminship again (perhaps November?). But anyways, hope you don't feel that outcome has discouraged you any.. — The King of Kings 14:20 July 09 '06

Oh no worries. I really think it takes a little bit away from me every time I fail a nomination and it makes it more and more difficult to get up again. : ( I really don't even assume good faith for the process anymore as its been beaten into me that I'm bound to fail. I'm not sure, maybe I should just give up. -Randall Brackett 15:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to pull a Yoda here: If you think you will fail, you will undoubtedly fail. (okay, so my grammar is better than his). I was disappointed to see you yank your RfA after less than 24 hours, because it was at 9/9; a lot could have changed going forward. I hadn't had a chance to review your recent contributions yet, as I actually went to bed for once, but you seem to have come a long way since the first time I met you as Megaman Zero. Feel free to let me know if you come up to try again in a couple of months, as I don't always watch WP:RFA as closely as I would like to. -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Damn man, you would have had my vote. Though maybe it's best you pulled the RfA before they see where scum like me sides. ^_^ Papacha 01:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I know what you mean and I am very pleased to have your endorsement, particularly in these terms. -Randall Brackett 11:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Devil Gene

Don't you think the section "connections between devils" is kinda unnecessary? I mean it doesn't really contain any biased information, it's just the way King Zeal (I think he wrote it) interprets the story, it's only his point of view and theories. Aeneiden-Rex 11:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any pressing reason to remove it from the article--but it may well be an instance of original research, which is not be a good idea. However removing the section in the article would be okay with me. I'd suggest you take this to his talkpage. -Randall Brackett 11:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, let me start out by informing you, Rex, that you have the definitions of "biased" and "unbiased" reversed. Biased means to be unfair and one-sided; unbiased means to be fair and impartial. Therefore, saying that the information in the section isn't biased is actually a good thing. However, I don't think that's what you meant, so I'll move on to my second point.

The article is written not based on my interpretations at all. I used to frequent the http://www.tekkenzaibatsu.com message boards and what's typed in the article is actually what the consensus of theory was after weeks of debate on the subject of the Devil Gene. Of course, that was a year ago, and if the theories have changed, I don't know. However, if you have any new ideas or find what I typed in there to be lacking in any way, I would appreciate it if you had the respect to talk to me about face-to-face instead of trying to rally a third party behind my back. It just asks a little bit more respect.

Now, with all that said, I will also state that I think the way to handle the situation is not to go editing other peoples' comments or deleting entire sections of info unless you have concrete proof that the information is false. Just having a different interpretation of the story doesn't justify editing out others' edits because if you're trying to be unbiased, then you'd want as many people to state their case as possible, right? Therefore, I think we should talk about a compromise before we started editing whole paragraphs, sections, or articles. Agreed? King Zeal 12:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not following this. Take this to the article talkpage. -Randall Brackett 13:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-Strike maps

Hi Randall. I hadn't finished putting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-Strike maps together, and you voted before I finished. As I hadn't finished, what you voted on is not what is now there, so I removed your vote. Please feel free to revisit the AFD. Thanks, Proto///type 14:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. -Randall Brackett 14:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Merman/Fishman

According to the official "Hyrule Encyclopedia" on www.zelda.com [1], the name of this character from The Wind Waker is indeed Fishman. Click on the reference link to see the relevant entry. I've changed the name back in The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker characters.

-- Tryforceful 07:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Aesthetics

For character images, concept artwork or renders? o/s/p 15:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about...? -Randall Brackett 21:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I was asking what you think would be more appropriate for illustrating characters of the video game variety. o/s/p 11:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think its a matter of leaving it to the editor who implements the image. -Randall Brackett 13:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Stitch (Lilo & Stitch)

Restored changes to the infobox for Stitch (Lilo & Stitch). The new image is better - it's more clear and it's not like Stitch runs around in his space suit for the majority of the series. He's a Disney character so the Disney character box is more appropriate. All the other info from the box should be mentioned as prose in the article. Have a good one. --Jtalledo (talk) 04:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No thanks. I have restored the latter and I've replied in detail on the talkpage. -Randall Brackett 10:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

What argument? That picture was on the official series web site. The other one doesn't even have a source. I was restored the other image in the "history" section but you reverted again. Between this and removing spoiler notices when no consensus has been reached regarding them, this is very disconcerting. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your logic here. But yes, thanks for coming back to me on that one. The capacity of the image is covered by Wikipedia:Fair Use. You can upload a image there saying its from the official site, but it really doesn't matter as all we need is a image. Uploads of various imagery to depict minor changes in an character is somewhat deprecated, but tolerated. Remember that wikipedia isn't a gallery nor is it bound by any policy dictating what templates are required on our character articles. It's assumed that editors are perfectly capable of using their reasoning in matters such as this and its what I have done. -Randall Brackett 12:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've done the same thing - but here the case is pretty clear - Stitch is not a superhero, he's a Disney character. I guess there's no reasoning with gunboat diplomacy though. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I take serious offense to that false accusation and I ask you retract your comment immediately. In the quibbling of reverts, I merely reverted twice and I've left it at that. In your comment, You've only clarified you wish to edit within the boundries of the series and I'm not seeing that. How the character can't be considered as such is beyond me. -Randall Brackett 12:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler warning comprimise

Sorry for having made that suggestion in the spoiler discussion involving the on/off thing. I really regret having done it now. I was so determined to find a way to get those things off of at least the default presentation of the site so as to ensure some measure of professionalism and integrity be preserved (which began to look like something that would only happen through a compromise), that I was momentarily blinded to the other negative aspects of the matter. I apologized to the encyclopedia as a whole already, but I feel like I owe you a personal one given that it was you who got me into this camp in the first place. I'm now once again firmly behind seeing them go down based on what they truly are: a NPOV and censorship violation. See you later. Ryu Kaze 15:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure why you're apologizing to me. I only have a problem with the comprimise in that people are still yet attempting to pursue the matter of retaining utterly useless content, which editors across do infrequently but with extraordinary consistentsy. That editors feel able to sway anyone to read or not to read on this wiki at any time dismays me; that people regard it as a courtesy is even more far-fecthed. If one could persuade editors to respect the policy in support of neutrality and recognise that this behavior sets a bad example for the encyclopedia's proffesional image, I think that would be a great service to Wikipedia. Even if the template was useful for people on other websites which endorse ignorance, Wikipedia is not the right medium with which to deliver them.

On the comprimise, it would be better than this utterly painful mucking about on perfectly good articles, which, as it seems is never going to give a full support of the removal of the templates a fair whack. -Randall Brackett 15:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

But I would think the compromise would be even worse-looking to you given that your focus is largely on the professional presentation of the encyclopedia. Mine's mainly been with regards to the integrity issue. For you, going about things in that way would be a horrible idea, as it is to Jimbo (probably for the same reasons), right? It would only be further reinforcing the notion that we endorse protecting people from knowledge, which is the antithesis of our purpose here, and not something any encyclopedia worth the paper or webspace it was written on would do. Ryu Kaze 15:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point about the spirit of the policy, by the way. Getting tangled up in semantics is probably unwise. Ryu Kaze 15:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I would support the comprimise, but Jimbo's suggestion is far surprior and sensible. -Randall Brackett 16:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Darkstalkers

Hi, are you the guy who removed my additional info about Sasquatch from Darkstalkers? If not, you can ignore this (I'm still new to how this message system works), but if you are I figured I'd let you know the source of the material, as you said the source was not given.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/coinop/arcade/game/583725.html

The "plot guide", as the name suggests, lists the plotlines and info on individual characters from Darkstalkers, translated directly from the Official Capcom books. As such, I think the information is pretty valid and deserves to be posted on Wikipedia.

Please respond, -Faeros 16:24, July 13, 2006

You're right, I goofed. Your addition was perfectly in order. However, I would contest my actions were suitible given the circumstances. The edit was constructed through the IP 193.60.199.37 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) which currently has many inappropriate edits and has reached multiple warnings.

As for the formatting, my personal taste is for articles with a bare minimum of straight facts and organization. It shouldn't be necessary to add more than is present. I've reverted in the time being for reasons I've outlined in the edit summary. If you insist upon the inclusion of this data I implore you to rewrite it after reviewing our guidelines for article construction. -Randall Brackett 16:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I edited some Darkstalker articles from a college PC, sorry about that.

I would've given an external link, but for some reason doing so seems to result in an error message. So, I figured I'd try and add the data myself (cleaning up the grammar as I went), as this is a fair bit of information that some fans might not have heard of previously. Sorry if I've caused any undue stress.

If you like, I could try and set it out in a more story-esque fashion as opposed to individual sections and bullet points. Would that help? -Faeros

Sure. Implement this and I'll see how it goes. I'm certain the external link didn't operate because a direct link was created to the FAQ in the URL specification. I'm pushing for this to be simply linked in the mains series article if this doesn't format well. -Randall Brackett 23:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

{{deletedpage}}

Barring a future successful RFA, please don't use {{deletedpage}}, as you can neither delete nor protect pages. Pages can always be tagged with prod, redirected to an appropriate page, or tagged for speedy deletion as a recreation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No hassle. I blundered over that. My apologies. -Randall Brackett 01:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler tags

Do not go on a remove the tags spree prior to a conclusion in discussion. Obviously the talk discussion (which I think you started) had turned into a heated debate which means the concensus wont be reached any time soon. --Cat out 07:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh I've removed lots and lots of them. And you seem to have your facts wrong regarding why I removed them. Belldandy, for instance, upon inspection, contained only a general description--for instance the only plot information included was that of the outline of the event of the first novel. The article should not have had a tag, nor should it have been considered to have spoilers--You clearly hadn't done your homework or else you wouldn't have replaced it. It doesn't elaborate whatsoever on the plot. That's why I removed it. Same reason I removed it from Hansel and Gretel - it was inapropriate.

The Oh my Goddess! articles were a straightforward descriptions of the characters on question with barely any plot points. We don't place spoilers on these articles. You're welcome to explain to me how you came to this conclusion if you think that is necessary, but please don't expect me to leave off the removal of tags for articles when they don't qualify for the bare minimum of story content. Please, I beg you, read the articles and use your common sense. -Randall Brackett 14:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

While on the subject, I think I let Johntex's most recent round of commenting hit a nerve. I fired back. Oops.

Anyway, we're going to have to require intervention on this, I think. There's not going to be an agreement between the two sides arguing this, and most of the people involved have dropped out at this point. You and I are the only ones to have stayed from the beginning. Even Steve's fallen out now, and he barely commented throughout (though he was there from the beginning). There will be no compromise, it seems. What do you think we should do? I don't think this is something the Arbitration Committee will want to address. They don't like to stick their fingers in matters of policy. They like to hope editors can come to an agreement, or that Jimbo or the Board will do something. Where does that leave us? Ryu Kaze 21:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm calm now, and John and I aren't killing each other, so everything's well on that front. But we're still left with what seems a hopeless issue of resolving this. Ryu Kaze 22:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've no objection to the discussion continuing, though it seemed obvious to me that we hadn't a ghostly chance of avoiding "keep the tags because people like them" so I remain optimistic about the comprimise. No problems. -Randall Brackett 06:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one slightly miffed that the compromise that was supposed to be the basis of us moving to RfC was "mysteriously" butchered the moment everyone "agreed" and RfC began? Yeah, yeah, I know, I know... "assume good faith". I'm certainly "assuming". Won't say what, though. Ryu Kaze 17:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ryuusei no Rockman

I'd just like to point you to the general direction of Ryuusei no Rockman, if you haven't noticed. It's a copy paste from Fireman's report at Atomic Fire. - Zero1328 _Talk? 02:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, this is on a tight leash. Things aren't too bad; I'll just make an entry on Wikipedia:Copyright violations. -Randall Brackett 06:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Image:Remastered Tracks Rockman Zero 4.jpg

Just wanted to let you know that I'm saving over your image. The image is actually of the calendar included, and vgworld.com redirects to The Emulator Zone for me. - Zero1328 _Talk? 07:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. -Randall Brackett 07:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

User:Randall Brackett/Test

I've placed your design here. If you want to get consensus to change the design, you can use your test page as an example, instead of inserting it into a template transcluded into hundreds of pages. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. You only needed to assist. -Randall Brackett 07:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I was interrupted twice by you reverting. ¬_¬ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Rockman ZX section on Alouette's Page

I chose to add spoiler tags since another user felt it was necessary to delete a section on Model V on Dr. Vile's page because it was a major spoiler for US audiences. Because the same applied here, I figured it was better to be safe than sorry. ~ライケン

I deleted them because I thought it a speculation and a hoax. -Randall Brackett 08:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, while the game does not outright say "Prairie is Alouette", it is implied in the same way that it is implied that Zero was originally constructed by Dr. Wily. At any rate, the part about Prairie being a Repliroid alive for several hundred years alone probably counts as spoiler, since it's only revealed about halfway through Van's storyline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ライケン (talk • contribs)

You already know my posistion on these horrid pieces of unencyclopediac trash. I don't see, how, as a rule, simply because information is there it must be inturrupted by spoiler tags. -Randall Brackett 09:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I agree that the spoiler tags should not be needed - if you're looking for information on something, you shouldn't need to be warned you're going to be told about it. However, a recent experience showed me that it might avoid conflicts if they were added, so I saw no reason not to. Thus, my use of the tags on the section on the Alouette page. I am not particularly attached to the tags and won't bother re-adding them, but I thought I might explain to you my reason for using them, as you requested in your edit summary on Alouette's page. That is all. ~ライケン

Bits and bobs

Ok, I feel we need to address certain issues that have us in disagreement so we can both be more productive from this point on.

First of all, abuse of fair use is rampant within the CVG space and we can usually avoid it by lessening unnecessary images and provide descriptive captions that both explains and ties the image to a chapter within the article which the image will illustrate (only if absolutely needed I might add). This chapter should obviously consist of more than one or two sentences as this is arguably not going to be covered by the fair use doctrine. For instance, an image titled 'gameplay screenshot' next to a section about gameplay (or any other for that matter) isn't helpful and I'm sure you'll agree. The same practice applies to images that are of no relevance such as game covers used outside the infobox - simply because they're not being discussed, they are more likely to be fair use in an article that specifically talks about covers in general.

Of course, I could replace and correct all these instances myself with something usable but there's a dizzying array of interests and there's no possible way that I can know what might look best or not in the cases of all of those interests. Consequences of leaving images for the sake of decoration can be discussed, but currently other language wikipedias employ a much stricter fair use policy that prohibits them from using any of that variety at all. Leaving images for the sake of decoration isn't going to work until someone eventually corrects the use and placement of these images either as someone else will be along to remove them. The purpose of these images are to aid in identification and illustration if absolutely needed, and not the other way around. The Fair use policy is quite clear on this (see WP:FUC for a complete list of criteria).

I should add that if there were indeed leverage to include all these images I've removed lately I'd argue for their inclusion. But this is a policy, and not just a guideline.

Next on my list is the use of {{Infobox Arcade Game}}. This is a widely used template on video games that were originally released in arcade form, such as Pac-Man and Donkey Kong, including the Tekken series. And my reasoning for implementing it was purely for stylistic consistency and arcade buffs such as myself find the added information about its arcade form of interest. Such as arcade system, monitor orientation etc.

And lastly, regarding {{General CVG character}}, if there is indeed an issue with how images work then it needs to be presented very clearly. I wasn't criticising you as an editor, but it was presented in a fashion that indicates there might be different purpose behind the proposed changes to the template in question as the image issue isn't at all obvious.

This was all written in a haste and I apologize in advance if I left something essential out of the discussion. o/s/p 15:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll try to stop saying things that might be concieved as difficult to comprehend, but you know you're an incredibly straightfoward guy. What is wrong with saying that you'll have to accept that policy is really an ends to a means and not something to be followed simply because its there? It is a fact that fair use imagery is a major issue and that you were at that time attempting to eliviate the amount amassed in various articles. I've never opposed you on this other than the view that you sometimes did so in an almost robotic fashion without any paticular reasoning. Your recent uploads of promotional artwork for video games is also something I find suspect. You claim to uphold the spirit of fair use, yet you upload and replace competent images with redundant ones. Elisiac was not justified in his accusations on your talkpage, but it did make me wonder what you were up to.

On my removal of your arcade box, it was because it seems to be in the nature of an irrelevant edit (paticulary the ugly image which had no informative value). You raised these events from weeks ago, and used it to imply an ongoing and chronic lack of respect for policy. I of course removed it as an irrelevant bit of silliness, while keeping the relevant information needed for the article.

On the template issue, I'd draw the line where a user constructs a argument to imply that I would change a competent design for personal reasoning [2], especially given my contribution history and dedication to the encyclopedia. Your comment, in some views could be considered slander; at the very least it breaches good faith. -Randall Brackett 16:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't quite make sense to use cover art of ports to identify an arcade game as they often represent an altered product. The nature of eliashc's complaint concerns replacement of title screens where there is a established concensus that recommends either gameplay screenshots or game covers for identification in infoboxes, arcade games however only have flyers as a means of advertising and representation aside from screenshots. Recently, other editors began uploading these and I first noticed it in Virtua Fighter 4, I simply decided to follow in their footsteps in an attempt to keep articles look stylistically consistent across arcade related articles. Perhaps I was in error and should've opted for screenshots, though some people view these flyers as equivalent to game covers.

I'll admit that I have been brutal in some cases of fair use but that's why descriptive captions, accompanied by commentary within the article needs to be present. I would discuss my removals with every editor but it would take forever to get the message across. o/s/p 00:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh I don't know about your reasoning, there. I look at the bigger picture, perhaps. And as far as an encyclopedia goes I don't really think it matters if we have the poster art or the box art. I think, to avoid wasting resources and improve the encyclopedia we shouldn't worry about those little things. Which ever one we have beforehand is fine. Remember simply because other people do it,doesn't mean its the correct thing for wikipedia.

I wouldn't describe your removals as "brutal". Just, well, odd. Follow the spirit of policy, not the letter. Policy exists insofar as it assists the encyclopedia. -Randall Brackett 09:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Dhalsim

Can you assist me here? I'm getting tired of this guy. Danny Lilithborne 10:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think WP:NOT said it best when it prohibits against "indiscriminate collections of information". -Randall Brackett 22:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Moby Dick up to his old tricks

I am not offended but its genneraly better practice to wait for the discussion (at the talk page of the spoiler thing) to complete.

As for character articles, I do not really mind the removal of the tags... I guess with that reasoning it is only logical. I am also not certain if the tag is necesary in any article; you'd expect to see a plot summary in a plot section, a warning to that end is really redundent. Furthermore, our friendship is more important than the tags.

As for Moby Dick, I am sure arbcom would love to see this new evidence. I would however ask you not to revert war with him so as to evade unnecesary arbcom restrictions. Sometimes retreat is the better side of valor, especialy when dealing with stalkers. --Cat out 17:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

With respect, I think the problem, which is not that of "making a bad edit", was his unnecessarily vituperative stalking habbits. Such actions make for bad editing environments. I shall be watching Moby Dick's edits, his comments and not least of all his edit summaries. -Randall Brackett 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Secondary infobox images

Please do not reinsert those images without placing them with accompanying prose. And don't accuse me of "mindlessly reverting," then revert my cleanup of an infobox without comment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I purposely reverted your infobox changes. When you're prepared to stop utilizing rollback I'll be prepared to be similarly sensible. -Randall Brackett 02:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't play games with revert warring. I will block you if you're reverting to make a WP:POINT. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't play me for a fool. You know what rollback is intended for. I'm willing to comprimise but I do not tolerate nonsense. -Randall Brackett 02:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Using fair-use images without commentary isn't a content thing. It's a copyvio thing. This is an admin-hat issue, not a content dispute. Reinserting FU images without commentary isn't strictly vandalism, but it is destructive. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh please. The image in question has fair use claims and each section an apropriate header in the article. I know you have common sense and that's why I'm not tolerating these games you're playing. -Randall Brackett 02:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There aren't games. If you're not placing the image with accompanying commentary, you don't get to use it in the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It was games. The caption Orochi (insert name here) was a critical commentary. Although perhaps one you didn't prefer. But than I don't folllow the quality of wikipedia in your preferences. -Randall Brackett 02:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I see you've now used appropriate edit summeries. I'll leave it there. -Randall Brackett 02:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

3RR on Gandara

Six reverts in the past few hours? I've blocked you (as well as A Man In Black (talk · contribs)) for 24 hours; when you return, please approach the issue with a bit less blind reverting and a bit more constructive discussion. Kirill Lokshin 02:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. -Randall Brackett 02:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough; may I suggest an unblock or a similar comprimise for unblock duration...? The edit war is concluded and I think it sensible if both parties agree upon no furthur reverts while we inquire for third opinions and discuss on the relevant talkpages. -Randall Brackett 02:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, I can unblock you both if you promise not to revert each other again for the duration of the original block. Is that acceptable to you? Kirill Lokshin 03:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That certainly is. I'd also ask you act as a in-betweener so the back-biting doesn't get out hand. According to WP:DR, inquiring for a third opinion is appropriate in such disputes. -Randall Brackett 03:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've unblocked you. Please play nice :-) Kirill Lokshin 03:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Thank you for the cool-down period. It was much appreciated. -Randall Brackett 03:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Volta (Tekken)

The article about Volta supposedly to be in T6 seems to be complete bogus. Nowhere else can I find any info about this Volta. It seems as if someone made it up. I was wondering if anyone could delete it? Cause I don't know how. Aeneiden-Rex 09:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

See WP:AFD. -Randall Brackett 10:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Weil article

You know what, the Dr. Weil article has always bugged me, what with it being way too darned long. I think I'll get going on that one and I will be putting spoilers around the Rockman ZX section, as it IS a spoiler to me and I didn't like having that part of the game spoiled. After all, how was I supposed to know about Rockman Model V and how was I supposed to know you'd discuss it in an article about Weil? Wolf ODonnell 15:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is something that needs to be explained in a future revisions for the Mega Man ZX article, not the character article itself. The model V nonsense should be placed as trivia or in the opening pharagraph since its more an item, not the character in question. Please don't make this more than it is. I'll be watching.

The personality section needs a rewrite. -Randall Brackett 15:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

65.60.219.176

Hi, I've removed your report of this user from the intervention against vandalsim noticeboard as this is a content dispute, not vandalism. Please try to resolve this by engaging with the user, preferably on the article's talk page, rather than jumping to the conclusion that they are a vandal. Thanks, Gwernol 17:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No it wasn't. I've replaced the section as appropriate. -Randall Brackett 20:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You disagree about how to spell Hayabusa. How is this not a content dispute? Even assuming that the IP is wrong about the spelling (which I've no reason to doubt), I don't see evidence that they are vandalising. Please see WP:VAND#What_vandalism_is_not - edits made in good faith (and we are assuming good faith) are not vandalism even if they are mistakes. I'll let another admin deal with your replacement of the report at WP:AIV. Thanks, Gwernol 20:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It was blatent vandalism. There is no other spelling venue for the name, which is of japanese orgin. How do you know this was made in good faith...? And added numerous of times...?-Randall Brackett 20:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Really? It looks to me like you and he escalated a content dispute until he started putting ill-advised meta-commentary into the article. However it started as a dispute over the spelling of the word. Transliteration from other languages into English always leaves room for multiple representations of the other language. If you had tried to engage the user the first time he made tha change instead of immediately labeling him a vandal, perhaps the outcome would have been different? Gwernol 20:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You're view on the matter is entirely incorrect. Utterly, overwhelmingly incorrect. -Randall Brackett 20:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

65.60.219.176

It's usual not to block if an admin only comes across the report some time after the vandalism has stopped, and it's an IP address. There's no reason to take the risk of blocking the next user of an assumedly dynamic IP; things would be different with a purely vandalistic named account of course. My edit summary dealt briefly with I think 3 individual removals, so each got only a few words. -Splash - tk 21:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I concured and that's why I didn't press the issue. My query was in relevance to why the block was not initiated from the outset when the timeframe of vandalism was still current and I think its a poor assumption to think it was a dynamic IP, looking at the contributions provides no evidence of this. -Randall Brackett 21:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't answer for any admin other than myself as to why they weren't blocked when you reported it; I can only suppose that noone looked at the page, or felt like clearing the list until I got around to it. -Splash - tk 21:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. The vandalism has ceased and that's all wikipedia needs. -Randall Brackett 21:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

RfC

It was a little bit hard for me to see what was going on in the RfC. My basic viewpoint is that we'd be better off without "warnings" of any kind, but I recognize that that may be unachievable given the population of people who contribute to Wikipedia. If possible, I'd limit spoilers to works published in the past two years or to works in which the "surprise" is actually the reason a work exists (e.g. "The Sixth Sense"). In fact, in the few cases when people might justifiably feel a "warning" is required, it should be part of the article text (e.g. '"The Sixth Sense" has a surprise plot twist at the end that shifts the viewer's perception of the entire reality of the film." without adding "so don't read this article if you don't want to know it"') I'm not sure that I have much to add other than my opinion that "spoiler warnings" don't belong in a serious reference work, and I would pretty much just echo the other "anti" arguments on that page. - Nunh-huh 03:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm discussing various venues with editors in the rfc now. They're fully aware of the situation and they are aware of the remedies for hiding the template in due course. Feel free to add an outside view or continue to contact me via my talk page sp we can at least discuss the matter. You can always find a place for comment on an rfc. I'm sure they'd be happy to discuss the case with you. I feel it would be a great view on your part to submit. -Randall Brackett 12:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

List of Mega Man Zero characters

I've just had an idea. Why don't we move the Neo Arcadian characters from the List of Mega Man Zero characters article into your Neo Arcadia article? The Megaman Zero template means we can split get rid of the List of Mega Man Zero characters and split the characters into one Resistance article and one Neo Arcadia article.

As the characters split more evenly into Resistance and Neo Arcadia, that would be a good idea. We can then sub-divide them into which games they appear in.

Wolf ODonnell 11:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It is my impression, that we subdivide the characters into factions as appropriate. As per your suggestion, we merge the Neo Arcadians into the article, creating a hiearchy subsection into the description header I had previously implemented.

On the Resistance case, obviously you're right, but this is why the list article is so important. List articles is essential in many cases with large cases of a character cast, so dragging them out into a seperate, minor article (I don't believe there's much to warrent a seperate article about them). However, perhaps some refinement might be necessary. I think it best to deal with the remainder of the list article characters by stating their origins in each video game, elaborating the context if need be. Currently, I'm going to go through the four gaurdians' articles and clean-up. -Randall Brackett 12:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you guys considered combining the Four Guardians into a single article, like I did with Mega Man Killers? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That's appalling. Of course we're not going to merge them. Out of respect, I assume that comment was a bit of a jest. Please don't do that again.-Randall Brackett 12:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

One of them appears in only one game. All of them appear together whenever they appear. The articles are wholly plot summary, and not a one of them has any impact outside of the context of the games themselves. I'm having trouble seeing why they aren't merge candidates. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Should you persist, I think you'll find that your perception of the situation is somewhat awry. I'll assume for the moment that you're too bright to push the envelope. Perhaps you should read up on the game in question and re-evaluate your thesis. -Randall Brackett 12:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

How about you explain to me why I shouldn't merge them instead of being patronizing? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

My comment was in no way, shape or form patronizing. I think when making statements about a game in this vien, a sufficeint amount of knowledge is required on the subject. A quite ample amount. -Randall Brackett 13:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If you have this knowledge, I'm sure you can explain to me why I shouldn't merge them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any point in responding to someone who keeps falsely claiming that I have no idea what I'm doing in article construction or my actions are against policy. Please take this to the relevant talkpage. I'm busy. -Randall Brackett 13:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about policy or that you were doing anything wrong. I wanted to know why you don't want me to merge those articles, and you haven't yet told me. This is the relevant talk page, because I want you to explain why I shouldn't merge them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not speaking of today. This doesn't hold relevance to my talkpage as I have every article watchlisted. -Randall Brackett 16:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I shall do so. They are four different characters with different impacts on the story of the Megaman Zero series. Merging them together would be like merging the Founders of the United States together and not giving them individual entries. Furthermore, Harpuia makes more of an impact than the other three, as he actively appears in the Remastered Tracks Rockman Zero 3 Telos CDs in the Drama Tracks that expand on the backstory of the game. Wolf ODonnell 13:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Neo Arcadia is hardly the United States, as far as encyclopedic topics go. Is there anything you can say about them that isn't plot summary of MMZ or RTRMZ? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, you could always {{main}} out Harpuia if that part's too long, but I'm still curious if there's anything you can say that isn't plot summary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please take this to the relevant talkpage. I grow weary of the threaded discussion on every section that arrives. Its enough to drive one quite giddy.

Yes. Thanks, Wolf. On the other hand, AMIB if you're interested in merges, your assistnce would be appreciated on combining the little monsters I placed merge tags for on the article List of experiments from Lilo & Stitch. I've left a note on the talkpage. Input would be welcome. -Randall Brackett 13:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Move requests for Elder Scroll related article

The Elder Scroll related articles were nominated for deletion. The result of the debate was to merge all articles which is the reason why they are on a project page. The discussion may be found here. Because they were moved as a result of an Afd I am denying your request to move the articles into main space. Joelito (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The point being adressed here is that they're in mainspace. Whether they are merged are remain standalone is not adressing the problem. If they have the mentioned naming convention with the wikiproject then they must be removed from all article links. -Randall Brackett 20:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Iroha-art.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Iroha-art.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for handling all the merges with List of experiments from Lilo & Stitch. -- Gogo Dodo 16:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Glad I could be of help. -Randall Brackett 22:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"Personality" sections

These are wholly unencyclopedic. They don't belong here.

They're original research, because they're interpretation and analysis (instead of just observation) of the primary work. There is original research involved in choosing which quotes to use, how to order them, and what they mean. They're just one person's interpretation of a character, and WIkipedia really isn't here to tell people how to interpret a work, just that the work exists and give enough plot summary to place the work in context. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There a policy on this...? In my arguments against spoiler tags, the usage of an editor's view of encyclopediac is highly subjective. I think they're merely observations myself although I'm not strongly opposed to their removal. I only ask you adhere to 1RR in the current timeframe and bring this up with other editors who dabble in the series. I won't go against concensus if my view is mistaken. -Randall Brackett 00:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

They're original research, because they're interpretation and analysis (instead of just observation) of the primary work.

That is policy.

These are highly subjective interpretations of these characters. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This is your opinion. Take it to a third party for reiview. -Randall Brackett 00:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)