User talk:Abryn

Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

A-Jax and game guides

I saw you had removed a section on the available powerups in one of the old games, A-jax (assuming I'm getting the name right). I have seen many other games describe available items in this genre. What makes some information a game guide and other information just encyclopoedic? I would agree that describing in detail how to acquire said powerups would be vital, but not just saying what is there. Note that other games have had the quantity of such items mentioned as unique or not--one example is the old Commando game. IL-Kuma 06:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

In response to your request for clarification..I have seen some guides with what appear to be encyclopedic lists ('These are available from this'), some that have NO information at all, and some that give too much information ('Go to square 43, shoot NW three times ... '). The most typical are the list of what is in the game, as a way to contrast available items with other similar games. I rarely see overdescriptive items, and the stripped-list ones are only after someone had removed all mention of the abilities. I'm planning to add a few more items to the gameplay descriptions, but was also planning on mentioning the available items. At what point is a list a guide and not just a list? IL-Kuma 06:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

You indicated your opinion that powerup descriptions are in the theme of game guides, which WP:NOT#IINFO cites as outside of Wiki's scope. However, I do disagree with the total removal of descriptions, as it can differentiate one game from another. The project page does not address this issue, though. At least, not that I've seen yet. Personally, I think a brief description would be warranted; I do understand that a lengthy treatise on how to acquire a laser upgrade is outside of Wiki's bounds, but a list included in the description of its gameplay would be more description than how-to guide. There is a differing line somewhere--otherwise, one could argue that a list of scoring would count. And while an enemy-by-enemy description is iffy (I would let it in), some games are cited as 'one enemy equals one point'--and that description WOULD fall under scoring, and if all scoring is removed as a game guide, then what to me is an important disticntion (games that score conventionally vs games that only score kills--compare Final Fight to The Simpsons arcade game) would be removed entirely. IL-Kuma 06:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Wii games

Hey there a Link to the Past (such a cool username, btw),

I've noted that you've contributed before to the List of Wii games. Just wanted to let you know that the list is getting ready for Featured status and is currently undergoing a Peer Review. If you can take a moment to look over the article and add your suggestions/comments for improvement here, it'd be much appreciated. Thanks! -Digiwrld1 21:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of List of Wii Games, I re-assessed it as A-class. You bumped it down to B-class because it hadn't passed GA, and usually I'd agree with you, but lists aren't allowed to even be submitted to GA, and there's no such thing as a GL. Lists are kind of awkward in the assessment scale, some projects don't even bother assessing them, creating a List-class for them. Anyway, looks like it will be in FLC soon, so it won't matter one way or another. --PresN 22:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

????

What do you need?

Editor review

I reviewed you. YechielMan 16:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Console wars sales figures/sources

I looked at WP:ATT about said source, VGCharts. It appears that you are correct about proper sources. Do you know any better ones, such as numbers released from console manufacturers? I invite you to discuss this on the console wars talk page.--Crossman33 18:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

FoxTrot

You seem to have a lot to do with FoxTrot. Would you happen to know about when Amend Motor Company was shown in the background? --LSXsound 20:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)Talk

Nick Falco

True; but in this case, it is just one reason to keep the article. It is well written, informative, and IMHO, a notable subject. You aren't supposed to revert the prod anyhow. If you really believe that your prod was justified, however, take to AfD. Let the community decide. 172.130.194.167 19:24, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Depends on how you define justification

I define it as having a legit reason to do something, in this case prod'ing an article. Whether you agree with my definition or choice of words, the point is still the same: If you believe the article should go, then submit it for AfD. End of discussion. 172.130.194.167 19:48, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

What part of end of discussion do you not understand? Leave me alone.172.147.228.230 00:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This really bothers you....

more than it bothers me so stop trying to convince me. Take it to AfD and make your argument there. 172.130.194.167 20:12, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

What part of ...

Discussion ends here did you not understand? Leave me alone. 172.147.228.230 00:07, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Assessment?

Hey who's that weirdo IP? Nevermind, about Ashnard, I was kind of hoping to get some feedback, like how I could improve, you may have detected a hint of disappointment, it's just that it's got references, internal links, it's well written, it's got a picture. I'm not criticising, I just want to know, thanks for assessing it anyway. Ashnard _talk 18:53, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Now I'm confused, was that just friendly, informal advice, or are you assessing it? Anyway, considering the nature of the Ashnard page, I can't really get better sources since no site really covers the story in that much depth so I have to resort to in-game quotations, and also, could you explain your comment a bit more please? Please respond on the Talk: Ashnard page. Ashnard _talk 08:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking at your contributions that have been made after I sent the thw previous post, you are ignoring it -- which is pretty harsh considering the article is up for assessment shortly; and I just wanted you to elaborate upon your already unhelpful comment on the talk page. Please don't ignore this. Ashnard _talk 08:09, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess I should be grateful that there was a reply this time. Well, if you know the nature of the article, it's quite obscure, the Fire Emblem story itself can hardly be cited because you do not get sites that will delve deep in to the storyline, -- which is what is needed, the only thing I could possibly get is one site that maybe says: "Dain invades Crimea", but that's it. I could only get the basics, but, if it makes the reference section look better, I'll give it a try. Ashnard _talk 08:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've got a very basic IGN one, I suppose it will increase credibility. Ashnard _talk 09:07, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Gyakuten Saiban 3 / Trials and Tribulations seperate?

Why should these articles be seperate? Trials and Tribulations is basically a localized DS version of GS3.

Hmm... maybe you should look at this press release at least: [1]. 216.80.38.172 01:14, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

But what if a Japanese news site covering the event of the announcement refers to the game as Gyakuten Saiban 3? [2] 216.80.38.172 01:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Chip Skylark

Hi, I noticed you recently nominated this page for proposed deletion. I put in a redirect, but looking at the history, I noted that there had been a previous PROD removed. However, if you read WP:PROD, you will find it says "Articles that have been previously proposed for deletion or undeleted, or discussed on AfD, are clearly contested and are not candidates for {{prod}}." so your prod was inappropriate anyway. In the future, please check to make sure a page has not been prod'd before nominating. Thanks! Mister.Manticore 03:18, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Misunderstanding?

When I said "Real Assessment", I meant an assessment for quality from the request that I placed at CVG, yours was for importance. Don't jump to conclusions. I'm not stating that yours doesn't matter, just that the other assessment was from an official request with an assessment of the page. Maybe I should of reworded it, this is just a misunderstanding. Ashnard _talk 18:27, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't try make an enemy of me, the discussion on my talk page is purely facetious -- it's not meant to cause offence, I'll delete it if it is of so much concern to you. Ashnard _talk 18:31, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

umm.. talk about rude lol

oO

No need to insult people.

This is supposed to be a friendly place. :[ Not my fault you won't accept evidence that has been presented to you. It doesn't spoil much of the game. I didn't tell you what or how or why, now did I? :/

There's no need for immature name calling, now is there?

Erik Destler 20:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

You ruined a game which is ALL ABOUT THE STORY. I've had several aspects of this game spoiled by other people like you, if I don't tell your stupid asses off, you're gonna continue to think that ruining games' stories is an okay thing. What IS rude is the fact that you shrug off spoiling games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

No need for that abusive language; don't be so rude! Ashnard _talk 20:38, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I just didn't want to miss the opportunity, take it off if you want. Ashnard _talk 20:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Flame war at User talk:Ashnard

Hi - I've blocked both of the participants there, as it was really getting out of hand, despite the warning you gave. If they continue, it would probably be best to go straight to ANI, where further action can be taken. Thanks, Martinp23 21:11, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

thanks

glad things are good now.

]

Erik Destler 23:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Help

How do I put a picture in an article with a caption? Thanks.--YOSHIANDLINK1 11:18, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Zelda Oracle edits

Hi there. I was hoping we could talk about these edits to Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages a little. First off, I take your point about Flagship. I had toyed with changing Capcom to Flagship, and had only left Capcom because that's what the article stated before I started working on it. It's fine with me to leave Flagship in the lead.

I feel that my version of the lead is a better summarization of the article, per Wikipedia:Lead section, which states "the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article". Your edits, which reduced the lead from three paragraphs to one, in the case of Ages, has no summarization of the Development section, which is the most interesting part of the article. You also removed summarization of the Plot and Gameplay sections. As such, I do not feel that your lead serves as a "concise version of the article" — do you?

On a somewhat separate note, please be careful when deleting named references, especially those placed early in an article. You'll notice that your edit to Ages broke reference 11. Also, may I ask why you changed the {{See also}} template to the redirect seealso?

By the way, glad to see on your user page that you're in a good Wikimood; I hope we can discuss this without bringing it down. Pagrashtak 14:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, one reason I reverted is because you didn't do a partial revert; your intentions were to revert back to the lead with plot and gameplay and development in the lead, but you reverted content unrelated to that logic.

And on the note of content in the lead, I do not see how development is important in the lead. All the readers need to know in the lead is basic info on its release and how it plays. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I did in fact do a partial revert. I did not revert your deletion of the character list, because I was intending to do the same thing when I rewrote the Plot section. I've already explained why development is important in the lead. Consider these passages from Wikipedia:Lead section: "The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article", "Many users read only the lead, so it should be self-contained and cover the main points.", and "The relative weight given to points in the lead should reflect the relative weight given to each in the remainder of the article." If the lead does not cover the largest section of the article, how does it comply with the Manual of Style as quoted here? I intend to restore the expanded lead as I continue to work on the article, given my statements here, which I feel most experienced editors would agree with. If you wish to pursue the version of the lead that does not comply with the MOS, I suggest you ask for the input of fellow editors to see if they agree. Pagrashtak 03:27, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You also reverted my edits of the first paragraph, though, which was not part of your intention. Additionally, development is extra information that does not need to be represented in the lead. I very rarely see development info in the lead. And I can concede gameplay and plot, but just because there's lots of info on development does not make it particularly important enough to be in the lead. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll agree that I don't usually see development info in the lead, but that might be because I don't usually see much development info in video game articles. The next time I edit the lead, I'll take a closer look and keep the Flagship reference, etc. Pagrashtak 03:49, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't care. The main reason I reverted Ages was because you altered the lead back to the original version. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I can understand that. By the way, I noticed you mentioned elsewhere that A Link to the Past is on your short-list for upcoming work. Let me know if you need a hand with something there, or need some copy edit help with it. I'm barely finding enough time to work on the Oracle articles right now, but I'd like to see all of the main Zelda game articles at GA or better. Pagrashtak 03:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Assuredly, I've got the Plot section done - Hell, a friend of mine is helping out with it by taking screenshots to put in it. Other than Plot, anything else is probably not great and could use some copyediting. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:02, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I will help out

I noticed you mentioned a list of articles that you were working on here: [3]. I can help out with those, as a lot of those should be improved a bit. Zelda, Kirby and the Paper Mario games certainly should be FA class in my opinion. Great games. RobJ1981 05:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Wi-fi list in Animal Crossing

Hi.

Can you please consider re-installing the list of wi-fi 'gifts' in Animal Crossing: Wild World. I enjoy looking what has been sent out before- I have only been playing for a few months.

I also like checking the list to see if I have missed a recent gift- such was the case with this weeks letter.

Cheers

Adam —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.169.49.214 (talk) 00:46, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

I thank you

I did not expect an apology! I accept it and thank you for it, and I offer you one as well. I have been away from Wikipedia for a while now, and I still haven't quite finished considering the article that was the source of our debate. Well, cheers, and while I hope we don't have another unfortunate run-in, I did enjoy debating with you. Lord Zymeth 21:31, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Demasked

Hi, Link! Are you sure that blanking the whole Demasked article was the right thing to do? -- Mikeblas 02:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted your edit, as I don't think it's appropriate for you to unilaterally remove articles. If you think the article isn't about something notable, you should tag it with {{notability}}, place a {{prod}} tag, or put it up for AfD. These processes are important, as they give viable articles chances to improve, while letting truly disallowed material to be removed. If you need help with any of those procedures, please let me know and I'll be happy to give you a hand. -- Mikeblas 04:00, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted similar replacements you've made to Heaven Smile and S.S Anne. While I agree that these are poor articles, the right thing to do is follow normal procedures to make sure you're not overlooking anything as you completly remove content. -- Mikeblas 04:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Part of being bold is to not be reckless. By taking large actions without discussing them, I'm worried that you're actions are more than bold. -- Mikeblas 13:05, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

If you haven't bothered to ask others about them, how do you know they're uncontroversial? -- Mikeblas 19:29, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Redirecting to mask was completely inappropriate, the two have no connection. You should have add {{prod}} and put advertising as the reason. --Bobby D. DS. 09:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

So basically, instead of a clean redirect when no merge is necessary, I should prod it, have it deprodded, and then wast everyone's time going through the AfD for the purpose of redirecting an article? - A Link to the Past (talk) 10:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think AfD is a waste of time? It's far more appropriate than you continuing to revert the restoration of the content without discussion or consensus. -- Mikeblas 22:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You sure are thick. Redirecting Demasked to mask makes no seance at all. It turn out that my first impression of you was right. Thou you may be very knowledgeable about the policies, you refuse to follow any policy that involves working with others. --Bobby D. DS. 23:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Redirection to Warp Pipe is slightly more appropriate, but still it is not the right thing to do. The right thing to do is to put it up for deletion. --Bobby D. DS. 06:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

D'oh. demasked is mention (many time) in Warp Pipe. That was completely appropriate. I should have read the article before remarking. I'm sorry. --Bobby D. DS. 00:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

FLUDD

FLUDD is very notable. Just because he only appears in one game does not make him not notable. FLUDD is a character, not just a device. You oviously never played Super Mario Sunshine.

YOU ARE NOT FOLLOWING PRCEJURE!--Bobby D. DS. 06:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

So as to keep it from getting confusing for other people I've copied what was said on my talk page here.

Procedure? Procedure says that if you can't show why a subject is notable for inclusion, it shouldn't remain an article, especially when it's obviously a subject with an EXTREMELY narrow reach - barely out of Super Mario Sunshine. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

And in regard your evidence of notability, all you said was "he is very notable", and then something about him being a character (which has nothing to do with notability). - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Some one posted the correct procedure on your talk page. You should also keep a discussion to one page so it doesn't get confusing.--Bobby D. DS. 07:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Also FLUDD is a main character, and you should at lest try to find the best place to redirect it to.--Bobby D. DS. 07:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Like what? He does not exist outside of Sunshine, except in one game, WarioWare Smooth Moves which does not count as it's simply referential to SMS. Being a main character, even THE main character of a single game is not a good reason to have an article. And no, that is not the correct procedure. The correct procedure is to be bold - at no point am I suggested to not redirect FLUDD. As it was not an uncontroversial move, I am not to assume controversy and ask permission. Policy dictates that my redirecting FLUDD to Super Mario Sunshine was perfectly acceptable. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:15, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

No it is not. Read over WP:BOLD again, thou you probably haven't read it in the first place.--Bobby D. DS. 07:21, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Some reading material: "'Being Bold' does not excuse a disregard of Wikipedia:Verifiability". By the by, that states that articles need to have their notability verified. Please don't tell people to read anything that you haven't already read. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I have read it. You should read WP:V and WP:AFD. --Bobby D. DS. 07:56, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

So you read that articles need to be verifiable, and yet you won't verify its notability (PS: Being a character and being a main one in one single game is a poor assertion)? Also: "For problems that do not require deletion, including duplicate articles, articles needing improvement, pages needing redirects, or POV problems, be bold and fix the problem or tag the article appropriately." AfD is NOT the place for redirects. Is it that much of a chore to read something at the very top of the AfD? Also... "Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources." FLUDD fails that - it's 100% unsourced. And at WP:N: "All topics should meet a minimum threshold of notability for an article on that topic to be included in Wikipedia. Notable is defined as "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". Notability guidelines pertain to the suitability of article topics but do not directly limit the content of articles." From WP:FICT: "Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic." Stop citing policies you've never read. AfD is not for getting articles redirected, I was appropriately bold, and you did not verify FLUDD's article as being factual or notable, as well as failed to explain any real-world notability at all. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Fine, but you need to actually try to find the appropriate page to redirect to, which would be [[Professor E. Gadd#FLUDD], and if anyone undoes anything you do, it is automatically controversial. --Bobby D. DS. 09:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

But it was not controversial in the first place. It was disputed by someone who wouldn't explain why it shouldn't have been redirected. Also, if you don't like the redirect target, fix it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:10, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

You should also add info about the subject to the target if there isn't any already. Also after carful rereading of WP:N I found this.

Topics that do not satisfy notability criteria are dealt with in two ways: merging and deletion. The most appropriate route depends on how the topic fails to satisfy the criteria, mainly how it fails to satisfy the primary criterion. Articles that may not meet notablity guidelines should be marked with the {{notability}} template to make other editors aware of the problem and give them a chance to address the issue.

--Bobby D. DS. 09:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Reread this too WP:BRD. --Bobby D. DS. 09:29, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I asked you to give me one good reason. Why is it an issue, when you don't seem interested in keeping the article for it being a notable subject, but rather because you like it? - A Link to the Past (talk) 10:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I've have realize that there is no reason to keep it. I can have trouble cooling off sometimes. I was put off by the Articles to possibly be merged/redirected section of your user page. I under stand where you are coming from. I know that what you did is perfectly with in Wikipedia's Polices and Guidelines. But a lot of people don't interpret them the same way you do, what I would like you to do is to be a little less bold. --Bobby D. DS. 18:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

I know that it doesn't matter now as it out of both of are hands, but here is one policy you have not been following at all. WP:FICT#Being_bold --Bobby D. DS. 06:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That's a guideline. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I sometimes froget to make a distention between guidelines and policies. You still need to follow it, epically it your using other parts of the same guideline as the reason for your actions. --Bobby D. DS. 23:57, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

FLUDD is a regurgitation of SMS' plot. End of discussion, a merge is pointless. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[4] --Bobby D. DS. 06:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Robert Goren Page

You said:
> Did you know that most Wikipedians like to be reverted for a single good
> reason instead of their edit being more or less being called bad?

I do not want to start a flame-war. However, I would like to point out that you did exactly what you are accusing me.

You removed in one swoop a great deal of information that I had added over months of tedious collection. Your reason was that I was bad for having added "trivial trivia". That summarization is definitly calling my edit bad.

All I did was revert what you had removed, and called for discussion on the subject. I said after to let the discussion decide and afterwards the text could be removed or retained. As the discussion proceeded, you made your point and gave your reasons. As more of the discussion fell towards your point of view, the removal stood. I considered that decision final.

But given your strong feelings regarding changing other people's edits, perhaps you should have started the discussion before removing my text and then calling my actions offensive. It would be the base of common manners to treat others was you desire them to treat you. Perhaps in the future you can kindly not remove large amounts of other Wikipedians text without expressing a single good reason instead of just calling their edits trivial and bad.

Thank you,
--ktoonen 17:31, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

April 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The April 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated notice by BrownBot 20:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Redirecting from Toads (Nintendo) Article

Hi! I'm Tyty1234.

I just noticed that on April 26, 2007, at 20:54, you put a redirect link to the Character Toad and just forget about what the article was all about. See the reason why I made that article was to descibe the Toad Species in the Mario Games. And why would you redirect a description page of a Nintendo specie to the ACTUAL PERSON?

I'm sorry, I'm overreacting. I don't mean any harm or abusement but that article here was not meant to redirect to Toad the Character. It was meant to describe his species as well as Toadette's, and Toadsworth's species in the Mario Games, and to provide just a little information of what Toads are in the Mushroom Kingdom. So, any reason why?

please kndly respond. thanks Tyty1234 20:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)Tyty1234

RE: Toads

Original Discussion

You said:

The Toad article's lead refers to Toad as a species, not the one Toad.

Exactly my point. I'm going to restore the article. Since you know why I made that article, I will put it back up. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tyty1234 (talk • contribs) 20:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure why that is your point. My point is that Toad IS about the species, so you shouldn't put it back up. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

That argument doesn't make any sense. If your going to bold, would you at least give a reson that sounds coherent. --Bobby D. DS. 06:18, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

If you say that Toad IS the species, then you should say the same about Toadette, and Toadsworth. But if you read those two articles, there isn't a section about the species and it's background history. And plus, it would be too much to include that history in EACH OF THOSE ARTICLES! And if this argument make any sense, then don't pay any attention to it. But, as I said before, that article iwsa meant to describe that type of specie. Ok? Tyty1234 01:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)Tyty1234

Merging Toadette and Toadsworth into Toad won't do anything! It'll just take away the background history of Toadette and Toadsworth and combining them into one article that's long enough will make it even longer. The only thing you could do is link to them which is already at the bottom of the Toad article. So there is no reason to merge those two articles together. *EDIT* But I will Merge the article YOU redirected. Tyty1234 06:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)Tyty1234

About your revert in Ambrella (Marigul).

The information about Ambrella being created by Nintendo and Recruit and such is true, as it says on the company's profile on IGN. Hero of legend 01:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Year categories in The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past

There is a relevant discussion on the Video Game project talk page, here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#Games_that_have_multiple_years_for_categories: the general consensus (now at least) is list only the original year as a category. All others should be removed, as it's overcategorization and redundant. The infobox lists all the re-releases, ports and so on already. RobJ1981 18:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ages and Seasons

I reverted your move, per the fact that they are different games connected only by plot and mechanics. Both have their own overworld, original mechanics, bosses, dungeons, equipment, etc. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Would you please discuss this at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Seasons and Oracle of Ages? Pagrashtak 18:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Ultimate Brain Games (Game Boy Advance)

A tag has been placed on Ultimate Brain Games (Game Boy Advance), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. --Android Mouse Bot 2 08:30, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Krrscreenshot.png

Hello, A Link to the Past. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Krrscreenshot.png) was found at the following location: User:A Link to the Past/Kirby's Rainbow Resort. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 05:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Phoenix Wright

I "fixed" the problem with Mia Fey and Maya Fey by merging them to the Fey sisters article, but the ultimate problem is that they're just not very notable. They can be discussed within the main game articles. Do the Ace Attorney and Justice for All articles cover the cases in enough detail? If so, can't we just redirect them into Ace Attorney (series)? hbdragon88 00:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Explain Yourself! (Regarding UmJammer Lammy Trivia Section)

A Link to the Past, I demand an explaination! What reason was there for you to remove the Trivia section of the article UmJammer Lammy? Trivia belongs in Wikipedia just as much as hard facts, especially in cases where the trivia is a hard fact! So explain yourself! ~ Joseph Collins (U)(T)(C) 17:52, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Trivia is to be merged and removed per WP:TRIV. After looking at the page that you're talking about, it seems that none of it is important enough to merge. TTN 17:57, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Fair enough. However... Would not pages such as List of Konami code games be considered "unimportant trivia"? ~ Joseph Collins (U)(T)(C) 21:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Probably, but I'm not concerned with that list right now. You may propose it for deletion if you wish, and I'd probably support. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:IvanOoze.jpg

Hello, A Link to the Past. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:IvanOoze.jpg) was found at the following location: User talk:A Link to the Past/Archive 2. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 09:38, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of Nintendo DS downloadable games

An article that you have been involved in editing, List of Nintendo DS downloadable games, has been listed by me for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Nintendo DS downloadable games. Thank you. hbdragon88 02:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Toad Specie Successfully Merged

There happy now?!?!?!?!?!?!

I put a little information of Toad's specie. CLICK HERE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Tyty1234 04:28, 17 May 2007 (UTC)Tyty1234

Brain Age 2

About Brain Age 1's sales. Europe has a population of 700+ million (compared to 300+ million for the US), it's still selling better in Europe because it came out 2 months after the US. So it's no surprise why sales have been higher in Europe.

Anyways, I just think it's better to be consistant around here when it comes to article names. Weren't you the one who wanted the Seiken Densetsu articles changed to Mana for the same reason? I won't get into a revert war (I have been in too many of those before, and they have almost ruined my chance of become an admin anytime soon), but I feel preety strongly on this. Maybe we should see what others think? TJ Spyke 06:33, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Pokéthulhu

My AFD attempt failed, so is a merge warranted? Say, into the Pokemon article? hbdragon88 06:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Somari

You kinda jumped the gun on listing Somari for speedy deletion. It was indeed deleted in a previous AfD discussion, but I put it through deletion review and it got kept, so it should stay. Just be a little more careful :) - furrykef (Talk at me) 04:46, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Age of the Beast

Let me state that, IMHO, you are a TROLL. - Stormwatch 06:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

May 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The May 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated notice by BrownBot 21:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Keep it cool

I will ignore your comments to me, but this remark was beyond the boundaries of civility. Pink made a simple mistake. You have no right to try and take charge of the discussion through bullying. --Masamage ♫ 00:37, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess that because I know these people better than you do, I tend to assume good faith of them automatically; I'm familiar with the sorts of mistakes they make and their readiness to correct them. I've seen them be apologetic about things and change their behavior before, so they don't worry me much. You are, of course, welcome to issue civility warnings of your own to the editors who have offended you. Just get your recipients straight; I myself didn't make any of the comments that are annoying you so much, and I wouldn't have. I just want this discussion to continue in a polite, orderly way, and it's refusing to do so. --Masamage ♫ 04:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Input request

Hi A Link to the Past, there is some discussion currently going on here, and I noticed you have {{User anime}} on your userpage. If you are not too busy, I would appreciate it if you could drop some of your ideas on how to reform the portal on the aforementioned talk page. Thanks! « ANIMUM » 21:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Civility

I respect that you have a differing opinion, but I will caution you to take a deep breath before approaching the discussion. Your comments comprise personal attacks and a very contentious and aggressive tone. This behaviour can get you blocked. So tone it down a notch. Onikage725 17:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you plz read this page people are sick of you sarcastic and mean spireted jokes ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 21:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Stress

hi you said your stressed out try reading this it might help you feel better :} ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 21:53, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/I

I decided to report your increasingly irritating behaviour here. Everything about you needs to stop — hopefully you will change after certain action is taken. Lord Sesshomaru

Calm down

Really, calm down. -- Ned Scott 06:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Link, why did you do the same for Toriyama? Lord Sesshomaru

Why did you not display this information before? Lord Sesshomaru

What qualifies as a "B-class" article? A statement, not example. Lord Sesshomaru

Last thing before I go to sleep: why did you move Kuririn to Krillin[5] a few days ago without telling anyone? Lord Sesshomaru

If you want to continue the rename debate then just make a requested move. Getting all mad just hurts the argument to move them. -- Ned Scott 08:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I have but two questions for you Link regarding Goku and Kuririn:

1. Aside from the fact that the dub names are more heard of, why should we precede with them especially since FUNimation gave too many other inconsistencies — as such being Goku's dad originally mentioned by Vegeta as a "brilliant scientist" and Goku's power level after training given as "over 9,000" instead of the original "over 8,000"? If the English dubs strangely named him Zero (which, believe it or not, actually was his name in a failed dubbing by Harmony Gold) then does Wikipedia have to use Zero just because the name is more heard of in the show? What if Bulma was renamed "Caroline", Gohan renamed "Maximus" and Oolong was renamed "Doisy"? Does Wikipedia have to use such silly names just because of a popular English dub or two? Thus, WikiProject Dragon Ball comes into play for these kinds of things. Don't ask me how, but I know they know what they're doing.
2. Would you care to comment on this move, your reasons there will have more of a base since you care to use dub names over correct ones, hence, the original title was the dub. That I agree with. Lord Sesshomaru

Haven't yet seen it in English, only Japanese. Lord Sesshomaru

User page

your welcome :} ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ 10:52, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

android 18

Feel free to discuss it....... Your explanation of why you thought it failed as B was cryptic and vague. It refers to "one sentance paragraphs" and "excessive lists". But the only lists are a list of moves she was shown using and games she has been shown in. Also the only one sentance paragraphs are in the lists.--Marhawkman 08:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Vague? What else is there to say? Lists are not good in an article by any means. They hurt the flow. A good article is the opposite of "an article with lists in it". Why do readers need to know every single video game she's been in? Why not say every single action figure of her? - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Need to? Most probably don't care. But as far as I know "neccessity" isn't really a requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia. Lists are only used because representing the information in prose form would make it more confusing. As for them "hurt(ing) the flow", that's why they're at the bottom.--Marhawkman 08:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that lists kill FACs no less than sloppy writing. And as I said also: "short paragraphs are never okay, needs much more citations (look at KDL - THAT'S got 17 citations, and it's really damn hard to find anything about that game, so that's actually an extraordinary number for it)." Let me go through and find what I can:

1. The Spanish dub is irrelevant - the only names that need mention are the English ones and the Japanese ones. If it were a Spanish Wiki or a Spanish subject, it would warrant the name.
2. Short lead
3. Total inconsistency - the title is Android 18, the name on the infobox is Android #18, and the name in the lead is Android-18.
4. Source for the implication that they were run-aways?
5. This line is confusing - it's unknown if it was consensual, but it is implied that it wasn't considering their disdainful disrespect for him. This is original research - you're presenting a theory as to why. That alone is reason enough to make it Start rank. But then you mention a game that says it wasn't consensual, so basically, it's unknown but known? I would say when you venture into "this article contradicts itself", that's not a B article.
6. Presenting a theory for why Krillin doesn't call her by her real name.
7. Where is it stated that they were manipulated into androids for the purpose of becoming absorbed by Cell?
8. Need a source that says he was attracted to her. IIRC, Krillin did not have a significant amount of affection for her, as the statement implies.
9. And the title? It reads like an ad. "Beauty and the monk" - don't make creative titles, PLEASE.
10. Need a source to say that they had a child.
11. Need a source to say that Krillin telling Goku how they had a child was, in essence, a message to fans.
12. Need a source to verify her personality change.
13. You capitalize non-proper nouns that are not at the beginning of the headers.
14. Need a source to say that this alternate timeline exists, and that the events mentioned in it are true.
15. Where is it stated that the main versions are stronger? It may be implied by how Gohan performed in the alternate timeline versus the Androids compared with versus 17 and 18, but this cannot be determined by reading the manga or anime. The only people who can determine it are the creators, who have never stated which is more powerful.
16. Yet again, you switched from Android 18 to Android-18.
17. Need a source to show her intentions and verify that the events of the budokai actually happened.
18. Need a source to say that she was killed by Majin Buu.
19. The fact that she has been absorbed twice over is very trivial.
20. Need a source to say that she was brought back to life.
21. Red link.
22. The last sentence of that section lacks objectivity. It sounds like someone is trying to say "even though she seems cold and ruthless, she really is just misunderstood!"
23. Super#17? So now there's no space in his name?
24. Need a source for the entire paragraph regarding GT.
25. And a source to say that she fought #17 because he killed Krillin.
26. For one, no sources on the movie appearances. For another, that section could easily be rewritten to describe her actions in the movies.
27. Need sources for the powers section, and for you to fix the prose.
28. Her appearances in the video games is a trivial fact. Change it to other media, put the movies in there, mention her video game appearances (do not LIST them), and mention her appearances in other mediums such as the TCG and action figurines.

Is that enough reason? - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

O_O what's the "you" stuff? I didn't write the article. anyways.... you mentioned sources repeatedly. Most of the sections more or less say "this happened in the anime" or something like that. Isn't that adequate for sourcing?--Marhawkman 08:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Not to intrude, Link I lefted a message for you at the Freeza Saga move thingy. Consider responding to it, because you are alone partly on this name changing to dub names. Lord Sesshomaru

Sorry to intrude. I agree with most, but I have a few thoughts on the matter- The Spanish dub is irrelevant - I just want to throw a little known fact- the Spanish dub was actually released in the US, up through most of the "Vegeta Saga." That doesn't apply to #18, but it may be relevant to include the VA's for the early saga. The Spanish track was on the now defunct "Ultimate Uncut" DVDs, though it has been removed from the season box sets. Where is it stated that they were manipulated into androids for the purpose of becoming absorbed by Cell? Doesn't Cell say this? I don't have those volumes on hand... IIRC, Krillin did not have a significant amount of affection for her, as the statement implies. If anyone has the volumes they could again settle that. I thought he made a comment on her attractiveness, but its been awhile. Need a source to say that they had a child. Again, would the manga itself be an appropriate source? Where is it stated that the main versions are stronger? Ya know, maybe I'll go buy these volumes this weekend actually. I think Trunks states this, based on how easily 17 defeats him (one blow) as opposed to his timeline where he could fight the both of them to a degree. Actually to sum up, yeah the formatting needs work, and there's a lot that isn't very encyclopedic. However, is the series itself adequate as a source? All of that is stuff that was stated, as opposed to conjecture (I think). Example, the thing about her fighting #17, when 17 kills Kuririn she does launch an attack while crying for him to give her husband back. After waking up from being beaten she joins Goku against Super 17. Couldn't we just look up the ep number as a source?Onikage725 22:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm...episodes are easy, manga pages... I'll see if I can get out to Border's and pick up some Cell Saga volumes this weekend. Failing that, I suppose we could just cite the anime if anyone has the DVDs around. Onikage725 00:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Let the process work

Hello. I see that you're involved in frequent reversion on the Mudkip article. Just a reminder that you're teetering on the edge of violating WP:3RR. Just before you erased it again, I had put a {{Unreferencedsection}} tag on the section that makes a big intrusive banner that make it obvious what the problem is. I would suggest that you put the section back along with that banner and give it a week or two. If there are no citations by then, go ahead and delete it. This rapid fire reversion, however, needs to stop. Thanks. —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 23:54, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Conversation copied here from my talk page to preserve continuity.

It's been more-or-less determined that this internet meme is nn long, long ago. It's no more notable than the Adam West Batman gif where he's carrying a bomb, or Pokeymans. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed that long debate in the page archives. I can't say that I've ever heard of those other two examples you mention, I guess I'm terminally square. I did look around on Google and Dogpile and didn't find a reference that I felt rose to the standards of WP:V, but what I think is frustrating a lot of the other editors is that the existing citations on that article hardly rise to that standard either. They seem to be mostly fan sites that I would delete out of other articles without hesitation. Perhaps the whole article should be stubified, or perhaps the whole article doesn't meet notability guidelines and should be deleted. Your thoughts? —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 02:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't be disruptive - an article having no sources =/= an article being unsourcable. After what has to be a year of that meme existing, not a single source has been provided to assert that it's a particularly notable meme. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

How is posing two scenarios in the subjunctive case in any way disruptive? I have neither stubified the article nor have nominated it at AfD, I was simply asking for your opinion since you seem to know more about these cartoons than I do. This is collaboration. I should point out that the article needs cleanup and damage control if nothing else- even one of the footnotes got orphaned somewhere along the way. Tell me, do you think tagging the article with {{Unreliable}} would be appropriate? Thanks! —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 02:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

ALL of the Pokémon articles have a verifiability problem, and MOST are getting merged. And might I ask why you even began this discussion? Get back on-topic. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I've replied to your comment at the article's talk page, if that's okay by you. Thanks! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 05:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Gengar

Actually, in Pinball: Ruby/Sapphire only the pokémon available in Ruby and Sapphire (with exception of Chikorita, Aerotactyl, Cyndaquil and Totodile) are avaible in the game. Don't believe me? Then ask some other experts. TheBlazikenMaster 22:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

A Link to tha Past

Just to let you know, there is a user named A Link to tha Past. You may want to go through the user name comment process if you care at all. TTN 19:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

There is also a User:Link on Wikiquote who has made indications of being you. If this is not the case, indicate so here and I will block that username as a tool of an impersonator. ~ Kalki 22:15, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I am investigating some sockpuppetry claims on Wikiquote, so I would appreciate it if you could definitively respond yes or no that you are the same person behind q:User:Link, as that user page claims. Thank you for your assistance. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Englishtrainingger.jpg)

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

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

2008 in video gaming

I'm confused as to your reasoning for deleting all of the content in the 2008 in video gaming article. The second source on there lists games expected to be released in 2008. Maybe not all of them are on there, but you make it seem like we need a source on each and every one of these games. Also, all you have to do is look up the expected release dates on numerous websites. Can you please elaborate on what would make you satisfied with this article? Certainly not every single game needs a "reliable source" on its release date. That would be ridiculous. Rather than pretty much deleting the article, why not take each game on a case-by-case basis? All we have to do is provide links to various gaming websites where people got these sources, and each game can be linked to one of these very few sources. While your edits were surely in good faith, I believe they were too drastic and reactionary. It's fairly simple to find an expected release date for a game. If you're concerned about a specific game on there, don't delete the content of the article based on those few specific games. As I said before, why not take it on a game-by-game basis? bob rulz 07:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I will. But why did you assume that it has to be your job in the first place? Rather than making such a reactionary move, why not make it aware to everybody that you think this article needs sourcing in a less hostile way? bob rulz 07:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see how it's misleading. Either way, I'd just like to make it aware to you that such bold edits might be a turn-off to many who care about the article. bob rulz 07:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

How do you know? You just assumed that Mario Bowling was a fake game. As far as I can tell, it is, but they did have Mario Tennis, after all. Either way, as I said before, it should be taken on a game-by-game basis. Removing the entire list was unnecessarily severe for seeing just a few "obviously" fake games in the list. bob rulz 07:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Whatever. You obviously don't care about discussing this issue further, so I'm just gonna go ahead and start the researching. bob rulz 08:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Steelix

You should put a hidden message that explains that it shouldn't be mentioned which particular item, because if you don't IPs, or other users, will keep on replacing it by metal coat. TheBlazikenMaster 13:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me?

"Proper order"
Any chance you can explain what makes that the "proper order"? You're starting to sound like the person who implied the UK box art was fake... Bladestorm 20:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Request your comments

Will do so later today, thanks for dropping by. -- ReyBrujo 22:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No way as far as I know, unless you inject Javascript into the page (and since the only way to do that is by implementing a MediaWiki extension, the code would be injected not only into the games but also into every other article). -- ReyBrujo 19:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

delisting GAs

Hello, when you delist a GA that has {{ArticleHistory}} on the talk page, the currentstatus never becomes B. Currentstatus is not an article rating, but a status. The status for delisted good articles is DGA. Also, it would be helpful for future editors if you filled out an action in the ArticleHistory, as I did here. Articles that simply have {{GA}} should have GA replaced by {{DelistedGA}}. In both cases, the article should also be removed from Wikipedia:Good articles. Gimmetrow 19:45, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What were you thinking?

What were you thinking?
The fact that you already had no less than five editors disagreeing with you irrefutably confirms that it was a controversial move. No room for disagreement. There was already controversy. And significant consensus against the move.
Listing it as "uncontroversial" was inaccurate, and arguably deceitful. Bladestorm 21:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Which part of that is assuming bad faith? Was there controversy? Yes. Was there already an existing discussion on the subject? Yes. Did you portray the move as being uncontroversial? Yes. Which part of that is factually inaccurate? That the discussion predates your listing it as "uncontroversial"? Because even I know how to read times and dates. Or that five people disagreeing with you counts as "controversial"? Bladestorm 21:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

And... you couldn't have simply explained that your statement was moved out of context, in lieu of the oh-so-helpful "You are a bastion of assuming bad faith"? You thought that was going to explain it?

More often than not, when a person's statements are inappropriate, or in the wrong place, it's because they put it there. Yes, that wasn't the case here. I fully and entirely accept that. But it sure as heck doesn't make me the 'bastion of assuming bad faith', simply it never occurred to me that somebody else had relocated your listing. But, instead of explaining, you preferred to simply insult. To allow me to believe that things were just as they appeared, and insult. No correction, just insult.

And now, you continue to keep adding further insults in the main discussion on the move. As many jabs as possible. (Yes, I intend to acknowledge my mistake there. I'm just doing it in person first) But, seriously, all the accusations of bad faith? From the person who's constantly asserted that anything but his own version of anything constitutes 'damage' to articles? That all arguments against you don't even count as arguments at all? Do we really want to go over the full list of every insult, dig, put-down, dismissal, and act of incivility you've committed in the last couple of days? I won't link it, because I hate linking essays, but try Assuming the Assumption of Good Faith once in a while. When somebody sees what looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, don't get too mad if he doesn't recognize it's really a cleverly costumed pheasant. Bladestorm 21:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I replied to my new message first.

I assure you that (though it sometimes pains me to do so) I always read what people say before I reply to them. That does not mean that I always refer to a person's "Contributions" list every bloody time I'm going to reply to them, just in case they choose to disclose information in one location but not another. Had it ever occurred to you that, just maybe, my talk page should've been the first place you could've put the explanation of my mistake? Or, more generally speaking, what was the purpose of simply leaving, "you are a bastion of assuming bad faith", with no explanation, on my talk page?

I am the first person to want to be corrected when I'm wrong. But simply leaving an insult, with no clarification, really doesn't correct me, does it? You left an insult, I replied to it. Once you pointed out the mistake, I confirmed and admitted it. No backpeddling. No "you misinterpreted me". No attempt at all to pretend I wasn't wrong. But I did, and always will, address messages left on my talk page before bothering with other wikipedia business. When people directly address me, I directly address them back as a top priority. At the very least, you could've linked me to the project page where you pointed out my error, instead of leaving just an insult. You know full well that just an insult isn't going to accomplish a thing. (Let alone repeated further insults and accusations before I have a chance to respond) Bladestorm 21:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

That was a mistake. I sooo won't pretend it was anything else. I do think it was a very easy mistake to make. I also think that correcting me would've made more sense than just insulting me. Or heck, at least you could've done both! Something to the effect of, "hey numbnuts, someone else moved it on me! be more careful next time!" would've been far more appropriate. At least then, it neither implies that I'm severely lacking in integrity, and, more importantly, it actually lets me know what I've done wrong. Bladestorm 21:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Um... you mean, when

• I asked Anthony Appleyard (the person who performed the move) why it had been moved, and he copied your request to my talk page; which had been filed as an uncontroversial move.
• I saw it still listed under "uncontroversial moves", with your signature.
• When I pointed out that it couldn't have been uncontroversial to Anthony Appleyard, and he reverted the move, but didn't correct me about you having listed it as uncontroversial.

Uh, no. I can honestly say that it never crossed my mind to ask if you'd listed it. (It was presented to me as being from you. And was located under "uncontroversial".) Again, I'm still admitting I was wrong, but I do maintain that it was a pretty dang easy mistake to make. And I especially maintain that, if you were going to go to the trouble of insulting me, you could've at least let me know why you were insulting me. It may be hard to believe, but I really do want to know when I'm wrong. Bladestorm 21:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It's an unusually short jump. An incorrect jump, yes. But an extremely miniscule jump to believe that an entry bearing a person's name, under a particular heading, cited by the third party who acted on it, was just as it appeared. Frankly, I don't think that my not even considering the possibility that your comments had been tampered with is really evidence of ill-intent. The fact that such misrepresentations don't even occur to me might be a sign that I'm naive, but not that I'm predisposed to assuming bad faith. And, yet again, for the umpteenth time, responding with just an insult, with no desire to correct me, really doesn't accomplish anything. If nothing else, seeing that I made a really easy mistake and just jumping to the conclusion that I must be a "bastion for assuming bad faith" isn't much better. Bladestorm 22:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

STOP

Please stop redirecting articles as you did with Fred Fredburger or you will be blocked, He is my favourite character and he deserves an article so do not do it again. Panguirus 08:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

No, Moronator, YOU will be blocked, because you CONSTANTLY create irrelevant threads, vandalise, scream like a two year old, threaten members for things they didn't do AND create numerous accounts. All that above sentence of yours is saying is "HE MUST HAVE AN ARTICLE BECOZ I SAY SO!! HU-WHAA! HU-WHAA!" You will be banned, AND have your IP blocked so you can't create another account.

Drop it

You need to drop it. I read your posts before I reverted them, they just consist of angry monologues about people ignoring guidelines. By the way, my "involvement" in the discussion consists entirely of making comments about people arguing, with nothing about the page move. I do not have an involvement. The discussion will not reach a consensus, therefore it is a waste of time. I strongly suggest you drop it, now. --Deskana (talk) 23:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Read my comments in that section. Not a single comment has anything to do with the requested move. That discussion is staying closed. --Deskana (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

"Libel"

How are those claims libellous? Please explain this to me. --Deskana (talk) 00:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The claim that I was disregarding guideline because I didn't like it. Because that is patently false, it's libelous. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It needs to be "damaging to your reputation"... which is quite a logical jump. --Deskana (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I do not use "Ignore all rules", like he claims I do (in not as many words). To say that I do is damage to my reputation. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Using IAR does not damage one's reputation. --Deskana (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Using it improperly does. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're correct, what he's done is illegal. This means you can sue him for defamation. Do you think a court would really accept that your reputation was damaged because someone said you ignored a rule? Especially considering that your user account consists of a pseudonym, and not your real name? --Deskana (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

It damages my reputation HERE, because I do not use Ignore all rules improperly, which he implied. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You didn't answer the question. --Deskana (talk) 00:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

You said as much about me. Should I be suing you, then? Onikage725 00:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I guess I was mistaken when you flat-out stated that you're enforcing Ignore all rules, and THEN stating that you were fighting for Son Goku because you had a personal dislike of the FUNimation version? You clearly were ignoring all rules improperly, because you haven't shown any factual basis to ignore the rule. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"Evolutionary stone"

I'm sorry if I appear to be following you around, but I was reviewing your contributions and I had to revert this edit. I'm not quite sure why you feel it more appropriate to be vague, but being specific is much better. --Deskana (talk) 00:33, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

The pagemove

If you so much as mention that requested move again, I will block you. You're arguing pointless about it and getting far too personal and incivil. In order to be fair to you, I will remove any comment left to you about the requested move so you are not "baited" into responding to it. --Deskana (talk) 00:35, 21 June 2007 (UTC)