User talk:Zappernapper

I'm lazy..... what can i say, you know what to do User talk:Zappernapper/Image archive - an archive of image warnings from bots.

Redirect of Criticism of pokemon

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Criticism of pokemon, by Schutz (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Criticism of pokemon is a redirect to a non-existent page (CSD R1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Criticism of pokemon, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. --Android Mouse Bot 2 20:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quilava

What I reverted wsa nonsense, you called Typhlosion a Stage-3 and started going on about water and dirt. Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 08:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But HighwayCello, total page reverts are not the way to handle a few mistakes or formatting concerns. --Brandon Dilbeck 20:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oz, Liir, etc.

Hey, Zappernapper. Thanks for the invite, but I'm pretty busy at the Doctor Who WikiProject and I'd rather not divide my energies further. Feel free to improve the Liir and Wicked (novel) entries — I don't own them! I may drop in from time to time to see how things are progressing, but I trust my fellow editors. I'm not really an expert on Baum's Oz either — I just read the books a lot when I was a kid, and enjoyed Maguire's novels as an adult.

I agree that the character profile should have more than just a summary of his actions in the two books. It sounds like you've already got some good ideas for expanding and revising the articles. If you are going to work on them, you might be interested in this guideline that I recently learned about. In any case, I wish you luck and good editing! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PAC/S

Looking great! :). —Celestianpower ^háblame 18:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge tag you put on power points

i dont konw where you wanted this comment so i thought i would leave it here.

I am not a pokemon person, and i did a simple google search on this site for weasel words listed on the weasel word page, and added a tag for it.

so long as the weasel word is corrected, I dont care what you do to the page.

good luck

Stwalkerster 13:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

erection index page deletion

Hello, there. Thanks for defending the Erection index page I made, though it was deleted. As per dispute resolution I have sent the delete voters messages asking for clarifications and have begun working on a replacement page with some additional explanation and references. I'm thinking since this has a popularity contest element to it I should keep your handle and let you know when the Erection index page is under threat again. The deletion process has my respect, to a qualified degree, but in my opinion--as you pointed out--there were some pretty unqualified and arguably contradictory complaints against the erection index page. Anyway, thanks and maybe more later (and any advice gladly accepted). Cheers! -- M0llusk 05:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote solicitation

Hi. I agree with your comments about vote solicitation, which is why I only messaged people who had already voted. Cheers. Remy B 09:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Pokefair template

You forgot to subst it. Anyway, I've fixed it for both the images. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 08:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PokeVideogamesIntro

Are you absolutely positive that this is the best way to introduce the Video Games section of each pokemon? See my comment there for more details.

Re:hi raven

Apparently, that conversation got archived. :o Anyways, thanks for reminding me, I'd totally forgotten about it. However, I'd rather wait and hear what AMIB says before commenting. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 14:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Bisexuality

Thanks for letting me know. I left a note on Angr's talk page, and hopefully we can resolve the issue. I wasn't really protecting the page out of the number of vandalism edits, but out of the type of vandalism (libel, slander, etc.) Nishkid 64 20:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geisha

Thanks for supporting my Geisha nomination; hopefully having it as a featured picture will inspire people to work on the shoddy article itself. --Iriseyes 15:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: BiCon (UK)

Yes, a direction to human sexuality was my intention, I just forgot the split between that and the sexuality page. Simply put the field of discussion and experience at BiCon encompasses many other areas not directly linked to bisexuality (or other sexual orientations), such as alternative relationship styles and BDSM. I had used the term sexuality in the article in it's true broad sense, instead of the unfortunately common misuse of it as a euphamism for sexual orientation. --Myfanwy 19:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gloves

Actually, although I've had rats in the past, I don't have a strong interest in them; I created the article on degloving because... well, I don't remember what specifically made me look up degloving, but after I created the article, I linked all the mentions of it to the article. Plus I just did touchups for the article while I was there.

I'll have a look at the How-To section later on. DS 18:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah!

Figured it out.

You should go to Wikibooks. If there isn't already material on How To Keep Pet Rats for you to add to, you can start it. DS 23:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bulba change....

i love your proposed bulbasaur change, it cuts out so much redundant information that can be found elsewhere in WP. And of course, WP should not be a guide, and so cutting gaming strategies was good... although i kinda only skimmed your thing, and noticed a few things that i'm not 100% for, your proposed change is 100% in the right direction. I don't know how the hell it got featured while being so bloated. Blueaster 00:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC) i didn't fully understand what u said... and could u tell me exactly what happened to u when u got "wikibonked"? Blueaster 00:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: a request for futher input

You asked for my input regarding standardized section headings, so here it is. I haven't seen much success with this sort of thing in the past. I think the best way to handle it is through the WikiProjects, as you've attempted in the Pokémon case. In general, attempts at standardization tend to be seen as bureaucratic, for better or worse. In the case of Cat and Dog, the relevant WikiProjects are Wikipedia:WikiProject Cats and Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs. It might make sense to have a Wikipedia:WikiProject Pets or Wikipedia:WikiProject Domesticated animals, but this should probably be dicussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council to gauge the level of interest. Mike Dillon 05:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poke Ball

I don't think you can really use a page entitled 'Satanism in Pokemon' as a reliable reference. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 19:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Mr.Veinor should listen to your athouratay, or you should just not call it statanism, but something less harsh

Note: I'm not insulting anyone, I'm just giving adv-icePikazilla 19:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rat breeds

Are you moving all the articles out to Category:Rat species ?? Headphonos 20:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes. these are not breeds, but species, and therefore inaccurate. The categorey should only contain links like Dumbo rat or Hairless rat if they ever exist.

The best thing to do is put them back in the Category:Rat breeds and then ask for a WP:CFD rename vote to Category:Rat species. If the vote is successfull the wiki "bot" will move the articles over automatically. 20:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, We better wait for this vote to finish first. Vote Once this vote is done, we can have a send vote to fine tune the Category. Species might be the way to go. We want to make sure that all rat "Breeds" or "Species" articles are under one category so people can find them easily under one roof. Whatever, the final category name voted on is fine with me, once we get input from others and agreement. Thank you. Headphonos 20:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No #redirects wait for the current vote to finish, then we will have another vote to fine tune everything. Please put everything back to rat breeds +cat for now and we will have a vote soon. Currently, you have split it in half making the situation confusing. Thanks Headphonos 22:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't put humans into the Category:Pet rats this is for rats not humans. Headphonos 00:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This +cat is already being used for fictional rodents Category:Fictional mice and rats Headphonos 11:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you put the categories up for vote before the first vote is completed ? Headphonos 11:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

There are moves by some of the more biologically oriented editors to boot the 'in popular culture and trivia sections out of what are predominantly biological artilces' and I consider I have a half way attitude - I really think they should have see also's in the species articles - perhaps a smaller section than the one in rat - but some of the orang utan edit war was over total removal. The big problem with the in popular culture articles - is that they are anecdtoal ad hoc collections of items from us-based tv and film watchers who dont even know what a ref or citation is - they are not in a stricter term encyclopedia articles but badly unalphabetical created lists. Oh well - there is a whole academic literature on the issues that hardly one of the arts in the range of category animals in popular culture even acknowledges as well. sad. SatuSuro 03:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well we are at least honest and direct on our preferences as to the issues - I appreciate that - maybe there might be some compromise somehwere rather than drawing lines in the sand - if you think rats ok - but point out an issue with dog - well there's something gained. I appreciate you going to the trouble to answer - all the best! SatuSuro 23:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the issue of size is a point well made. I suppose if you detest sub pages - you can tell my problem - anecdotal ad hoc unalpha order lists with mainly tv and film info with no refs! Hey - as I said - thanks for responding SatuSuro 23:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok looks like we agree in the end! cheers! SatuSuro 02:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

new world rats and mice and OWRAM

i have left a solution at the discussion page but no one has provided any feedback and i fear that is why the discussion was not closed today, could you please respond so that it could be closed? I will also be contacting visvia and headphonos, thanx! -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 02:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. - jc37 04:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting of animal phyla

The spaces in the sort keys of the animal phyla was deliberate, and prevents the phyla from being mixed in with the other categories. The only alternative would be to separate the phyla out into a Category:Animal phyla or Category:Animals by phylum, but I think that would overcomplicate things. --Stemonitis 16:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for any inconvenience i may have caused. I was under the impression that it was common for the next level of taxonomy to just be included, rather than separated. In truth, it is acually more confusing to have them seperated without a clear reason why to the common layperson. I recognized Chordata along with some others but a few were unknown to me and i thought that they were all just mistakenly put there, the spaces being accidental. I've seen the convention to use an asterisk before to denote a special group, but never just a space. Is this a convention that the relevant wikiproject proposed or one that i missed when reveiwing the category conventions? Pls respond on my talk page. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 00:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC) copied from User talk:Stemonitis[reply]

There's no need to apologise. I don't believe that there is a standard for such things; it was my personal preference. I had previously found it confusing and time-consuming to have to search through a list of "exploding animals", "animals in politics" and so on to find articles about taxonomic groups, and thought it would be easier to keep the phylar categories separate. As regards the use of the space, that's another thing that has been widely adopted without being specifically agreed upon anywhere (to my knowledge). It achieves the same thing as an asterisk, but looks a bit neater. I have used both in some categories, in order to create two independent sections. --Stemonitis 11:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for AWB!

Thank you for your recent application to use AutoWikiBrowser. I have approved your request and you should now be able to use the AWB application. Be sure to check every edit before you save it, and don't forget to check out the AWB Guide. You can get any help you need over on the AWB talk page. Feel free to contact me with any questions, alphachimp 00:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon game mechanics

I've removed the {{inuse}} and {{underconstruction}} tags because they were up for over a week. I do like the reorganization you've done and am looking forward to your improvements on the article. Feel free to msg me or start a discussion on the talk page if you'd like any help in developing your ideas! -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That’s fine, as I said in my last edit summary, other users should feel free to edit. Just be aware that I am still working on it on my computer every day, though, and hope to unveil some major rewrites and additions within a week.( Though Saturday obviously is Egg-retrieving day.) --WikidSmaht (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vaporeon

The article was assessed with the Cryptozoology template because it is contained in the Category:Fictional mermen and mermaids. All the articles in that category were given the banner, because, if you look at the banner, mermen and mermaids are kind of one of the primary focuses of the project. Also, the majority of the articles in those categories, even Aquaman and Namor the Sub-Mariner, are ones which contain content the new project would probably be best aware of. Personally, I have no objection to seeing the banner removed. However, if you do not want the article to be considered to be one about mermen and mermaids, I suggest you remove the misleading category. It is of course entirely your decision what you will do. However, if the banner is not replaced within 24 hours, I will remove the article from the misleading category myself. Badbilltucker 19:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Please attend to your bot

Sorry I was sound asleep when I got the message and forgot to check my watchlist when I woke up, delaying the fix even more. It has been fixed now, thanks for the reminder. BJ^Talk 23:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pokeball

Singular their

Thanks for the comments. You're right, I'm a bit of a grammar Nazi, I'll stop. You might not have noticed, but I try to eliminate the annoying pronoun whenever possible, i.e. "The player can use their Pokedex to..." becomes "Players can use the Pokedex to..." or something like that. SubStandardDeviation 07:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How Thrifty :P

Nice job being thrifty at the new page bazaar. That certainly gave me a chuckle...¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Species of rats and Category:Species of mice

Where did these categories go to ? Were they voted on ? Headphonos 13:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I was not accusing you of deleting them, but I do believe you add very little to wikipedia. bye Headphonos 22:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey

i'm back on WP from my absense from WP.... :P

Anyways, I think I've finally been able to come up with a suitable change to all the Pokemon articles' intros. I've tried it out on the Pikachu and Torchic articles... Would you mind checking my edits and telling me what you think? Including the adding of singluar case and in/definate articles... Which is sure to provoke an uproar among the more unthinking, dogmatic editors who are so resistant to change... Blueaster 21:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

category proposed for deletion _again_

Category:Ailurophiles, which survived an Afd in October, has been put back up for deletion by a user with no new fresh reason why. Please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_4#Category:Ailurophiles and vote accordingly. Chris 05:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Hello! Sorry about the pic of Gardevoir; I wasn't aware of the fair-use rule thing. I hope it didn't cause problems for you... Anyways, would it be possible to upload something like my own artwork or something? If so, how would I go about doing that? Hope to hear from you soon!-Floramage! 17:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re.: Image:01 map02.jpg

Nope, no idea, try asking the uploader, who seems to have a reputation for uploading unsourced images. I just came across it while tagging all images in Pokémon Regions and assumed it to be a screenshot from the games. (And I know this reply's late, but I couldn't help it, I have exams on right now.) Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice^{(Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 07:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks. I'll check out WP:ATT. As for the image, just tag it as unsourced, someone or the other is bound to upload an official image after OrphanBot's finished with it. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice^{(Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 07:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chess openings

Hi, I noticed you commented on this category. I noticed a similiar problem back in November, and so far as I can tell, the pages simply have not been improved. I'm not sure whether they can, or can't be, but I'm wondering if you still feel something should be done. FrozenPurpleCube 17:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, assuming I understand your concern correctly, that your problem is with the lack of sources, then I don't disagree with you, but my first priority is establishing whether they belong on Wikipedia at all. The subject of openings in chess, I can concur with suitable for a general purpose encyclopedia. Some of the openings themselves might well qualify, but if the only content is a listing of the moves and strategic information? Not what I'd consider appropriate.

I do think we agree, though, there is work to be done. FrozenPurpleCube 17:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feebas

I think you need at least one more citation to call it "the most annoying Pokemon" to catch (WP:WEIGHT). I also think it's a tad bit too detailed, especially regarding the comparsion between Magikarp and Feebas, but whatever. Hbdragon88 08:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your help

Thank you for helping better understand what everyone meant by what everyone meant by indiscriminate. I'm rather new to this whole jig. mroberholt 10:57, March 11, 2007 (UTC)

Re AWB Feature Request "Open text selection in browser"

Hi, I've added it for the next release

=)

Reedy Boy 21:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What discussion?

I did not see any discussion relating to not having Pokérus in the game mechanics page. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Okay. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Frontier

I've userfied the old contents of that page to User:Zappernapper/Battle Frontier per your request here. I've commented out the unfree images used in the article so that they don't display, since unfree images aren't allowed in userspace. You can continue to work on the article now, though you should contact me if you decide against working on it anymore, and I can put the history back in the old place. --bainer (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Hi Zappernapper, thanks for the welcome on my talk page. I like the fancy rat page here on wikipedia but I find that I have to be very careful to remain objective when editing it: I have seven rats of my own so there is always a danger of losing neutrality! I'm looking forward to help make the page even better.Mumby 10:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon by Evolutionary Line

Hi Zappernapper. It seems as though you and I had the same idea on what to do with the List of Pokemon articles at some point: grouping by evolutionary lines. As you pointed out, there are flaws in the system, but I think I can work around them. I'll tweak my original proposition just a bit...

At present count, there are 33 legendaries and 32 otherwise solitary pokemon (including Tauros and Miltank, since they're not quite a pair, as you pointed out). So, here's an idea on what we can do:

Add a section in Legendary Pokémon to serve as an index.
We can list out all of the applicable monsters alphabetically, spanning several articles, naming the articles appropriately (List of Pokémon without evolutions (A-G), or wherever the divide might fall)
Then, we can join them all together with a template at the top of the page, such as the one found on the List of ninjutsu in Naruto articles.
Last but not least, we can create an index page for List of Pokémon without evolutions and repeat the process. Make sure to have a link on that index page to Legendary Pokémon, since they don't evolve, as well as main article: links instead of content under the headers of the eight pokemon in pairs.

As for naming conventions on the articles of evolving pokemon, I'd suggest going by "(First monster) evolution line," where the first monster is the first to appear in the National Dex, not necessarily the first evolutionary stage. For instance: Caterpie would head Caterpie evolution line since it comes before Metapod and Butterfree in the dex; Pikachu would head Pikachu evolution line because it comes before Raichu and Pichu in the national dex. The only line I think would be more convenient with a different naming scheme would be Tyrogue evolution line, since Tyrogue is in the center of it all. For the monsters in pairs by similarity, both names can go in the title in Pokedex order (Plusle and Minun, Volbeat and Illumise, Zangoose and Seviper, Lunatone and Solrock).

Do you think that could work? You Can't See Me! 06:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I left a reply on my talk page for you. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 18:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chess again

Hey, I was just wondering if you had any houghts to add about the problems with the various chess articles to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chess. Sadly, things remain in the same state as they were a couple of months ago, so if you don't want to get into this can of worms again, I can understand. FrozenPurpleCube 22:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AWB bug

Hi - I've replied on my talk page for threading purposes (I want to point one or two others at the thread). Wikibreak - no chance! Martinp23 19:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon images cat

Reinstated per your request. NawlinWiki 00:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon image templates

Honestly, that's what deletion review is for. I'd recommend going there. The consensus was pretty strong for deletion. Reinstating the deletion debate is ok in alot of circumstances, but I don't think it applies here. It's not as if the debate just lasted a day or two. TfD debates last a week. To me, that's more than enough time to catch things such as that. Usually, we only relist for consensus. Well. This had consensus...so...I'd suggest going to deletion review, where I might very well be overturned. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feebas and Milotic will never become GAs if they're separate?

Challenge? I'll make Feebas and Milotic GAs by May 15 2007 and they should not be merged if I win. Do reply on my talk page before May 2. Vikrant Phadkay 15:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Layout

Zapper, you may want to have a look at this. I had a brief chat with the person in charge, and recieved this response. You Can't See Me! 05:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop merging Pokemon articles

You are not doing any merger legally. So stop it. Do you understand? Stop It! Vikrant Phadkay 16:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

I would suggest that you advertise your Pokemon layout proposal, e.g. at the village pump or WP:RFC, to get more feedback from the community. >Radiant< 09:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In part because it's under attack, as is the other one. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 16:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removing todo from Template:PCP

do you have a reason for this? i wasn't aware of a consensus that todo shouldn't be transcluded into other templates, and as the project has over 500 articles, it seemed like a simplistic way of incorporating todo lists unilaterally. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, actually. When you try to make the template "small", the todo box shows up and is impossible to remove. So I just removed the todo box from the actual template, and problem solved! "Unilaterally" I don't think is the word you're looking for, unless you have a very different idea of Wikipedia's basic policies than I do. ;) Anyway, I don't think most pages need a "todo" added on automatically. If a certain poke actually does need it, it can be added on easily enough, right? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well rather than rming the template it may have been better to try and find a coded workaround (like just making todo not be transcluded if the small paramter is set). those boxes helped facilitate the project's focuses and now there are invisible pages (to do pages with no link to them) on whtever articles used todo. i'll put the above code i mentioned in, to prevent any problems, but in the meantime, could you also give me a page that uses the small parameter so i can see what the problem is? i may be able to fix it. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 12:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good point, I hadn't thought of that--of course pages that had already had a todo would no longer have the todo showing. Snap. Anyway, the page was Talk:Bulbasaur that I noticed the problem on. If you can do something to fix up the template like you said, that would probably be the best possible solution (or just include an option for the template not to be transcluded--say, notodo=yes). Actually, I see you've already done something to fix it, and I think that what the template is now will work just fine. Thanks and congratulations. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Frontier

I wrote an artcle on the Frontier 3 weeks ago and it got deleted because your article on it already existed. It's time you put a direct link to your article on the disambiguation page for the Battle Frontier so no-one else does this. I copied the article and relocated it here. If you want it removed then just delete it.(Eternal dragon 08:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Template talk:PokeAnimeIntro

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Template talk:PokeAnimeIntro, by Danielfolsom, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Template talk:PokeAnimeIntro fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Do we need a talk page for a deleted page?

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Template talk:PokeAnimeIntro, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Template talk:PokeAnimeIntro itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 03:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: removing to-do from Template:PCP

Sorry for my late reply; you'll find it on Template talk:Pokeproject.

Thanks! — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 23:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editings on BOTS

My mistake, I'm sorry, but I saw a massive removal of content from an anon with only one change in history... Cheers. Pac72 15:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see I'm a newbie :-) I'm patrolling recent changes from anons and, as a newbie, I'm trying to be cautious: I follow the assume good faith principle (that's why I reverted without mentioning vandalism) and, when in doubt, I leave the task of reverting to more experienced editors. Thanks for the hints! Pac72 15:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quixtar

I had removed it because of redundancy. There is an entire subsection on this issue. I am not questioning the controversial nature of this topic.

75.73.188.53 03:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request you to please correct it and help us in cleaning up the article, if you are intrested

75.73.188.53 04:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt . . .

. . . it's a small world. Heh. How about those Jesse White Tumblers ;) IvoShandor 07:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A comment on your comments

You always seem to make really good points on talk pages, but... how do I put this... you're very... "blah blah blah"... Your paragraphs are always so large! I suppose that what I'm trying to say here is that your contributions to talk pages sometimes get a bit big, and perhaps a little intimidating. When I read through them, I lose concentration halfway through and get to the point where I'm just scanning the text. I just thought I'd let you know that. --Brandon Dilbeck 07:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i know :D that's why i try to summarize at the end. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 07:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's my short attention span. I'm sorry to be so blunt. --Brandon Dilbeck 07:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Username

I'm confused. Are you going by a new user name now? But I liked your old one! Did you go through Wikipedia:Changing username? I think that by doing it that way, you can keep your history of contributions. --Brandon Dilbeck 07:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i created a second user name, thereby gaining a second watchlist which i can use just for pokemon stuff. however, i'm tempted to still use this one for XFD discussions and reviews because having Poke in my name might undermine my credibility... -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding pokemon merges

Well, the current format of Eevee evolutionary line violates GFDL. A note should be left in the page history indicating that the page was a merger of several other pages. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 22:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the merge

I left my comments here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon. I was actually very surprised when I saw you reverting the merges. It's quite disappointing that you want the project to remain in such a horrible condition, but I guess you believe it's in good condition. --Teggles 23:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not enough real-world context. Where's the information on creature design? Where's the information on reception? What about cultural impact; cosplay, fan coverage? Because that information is not available for every creature, instead the articles are filled with two paragraphs of "gains Flamethrower at level 28, gains Tackle at level 5 etc." and an in-depth coverage of every single minor appearance in the anime. What you're doing is simply copying the content of the game and anime. The "first appearance" dates are a good start, I commend that. But if there is no possibility for real-world information to overweigh fictional information, then the articles should be merged. Every single creature article has fictional information overweighting real-world information. --Teggles 01:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't reinstate any more Pokemon articles. A majority consensus has been arrived at that there's not enough information to give each Pokemon their own article and that they're easier to navigate in list format. Trying to get all Pokemon articles up to snuff by themselves would be a massive job that would take forever, while lists are more manageable. Heck, if even the Pokedex has a one-sentence description, how would we fill up an article? (If you're thinking of an anime synopsis, moveset listing, or other such cruft, it wouldn't work...because it's a plot summary, not an article.) And as the above post states, you wouldn't be able to drum up real-world info for every single Pokemon, only the major ones (starters and Pikachu, mostly).--Zxcvbnm 00:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the evolutionary line articles

In order to list-ify the Pokemon articles, we are going to have to delete all the "evolutionary line" articles and redirect the Pokemon names to the lists instead. It'll provide an easier and less confusing way to organize the Pokemon, as well as avoiding any anime summaries/fan speculation, etc. If you have some good reason to oppose this, feel free to try and convince everyone.--Zxcvbnm 14:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Battle Frontier

User:A Link to the Past has reverted the Battle Frontier page, the one containing your original page with my merger into a disambig several times, and this has sparked some debate as to whether this article should be kept.

This user claims, as stated on my talk page, that "recreation of deleted material is very strong criteria that cannot be countered by anything whatsoever." He states that a previous article on the BF was deleted, however this was on February 2007, at least five months before I merged your article.

I understand, as stated in WP:CSD that recreation of deleted material is also criteria for sppedy deletion, however the new article adresses the issue as stated below. As stated in WP:CSD, the article is not an exact copy of the exact article and does not match the criteria. Recreation of deleted material is only a valid CSD if it is an exact copy of the previously deleted article.

(The paragraph below was the argument I wrote on his talk page.)

The reasons for the previous Battle Frontier article being deleted, as stated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle Frontier states the reason for the previous articles deletion was due to the fact that it failed to meet the criteria of verifiability and no original research, and contained no reliable sources. However, overall, while the article was deleted, many people agree that a BF aricle is still necessary due to the fact that it is actually a region on its own and is highly relevant to the Emerald video game (however there is so much information about it that it may not be able to be merged into the article on Emerald).

Thus, as the BF article is still relevant to the topic on Emerald discussed, however requires too long an explanation to be merged into the Emerald article, it is necessary to have a BF article on Wikipedia. The situation is starting to turn into an edit war, and the last time he reverted the article, he claimed that it needs a deletion review before it can be recreated. The thing is, he failed to seek a deletion review himself before deleting the article in the first place.

I am still discussing with this guy as to keeping the article but this may have to go into admin hands sometime. Eternal dragon 11:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks For The Notice

Even though I've added myself. We've had little interaction but I have to say I'm sorry to see you leave the project. :( Oh well, happy editing! -WarthogDemon 17:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for your Notice I'm gonna have to leave the project. I've been innactive. Uch iha 23 05:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I meant to say that i've been innactive for a while. Uch iha 23 05:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal

Hey, sorry about the confusion, but I thought that the naming conventions for cities were to have the city followed by the state, as in Baton Rouge, Louisiana? I forgot about that when I was making the portal for the template. I am not sure which is correct so I leave it to you to decide. Thanks for your attention. Arundhati lejeune 00:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the heads up, I will try to get an admin to help out. Cheers. Arundhati lejeune 09:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The note

Um, hi, you probably don't know me, but, yeah, I added my name to the Poke-project without thinking of doing the work, and I haven't been editing lately, so I'm resigning. Thanks a lot for contacting me and not just taking my name off w/o a notice. Hopefully I'll see you in future edits. Yours sincerly, Spotted stripe_(Talk2Me) 23:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Check

Should the message under the images be the same? (Pokemon, by Ken Sugimori) ? -WarthogDemon 16:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oopsie. Well I can fix all of that pretty fast actually. Do you still want the pokemon's name under the image, or no text at all? -WarthogDemon 18:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

odd request for your bot

hi! not sure if you would have rather had this request on your bot's talk page or not, but i wanted to be sure you saw it quickly. the pokemon porject is currently trying to downsize all the lead images and upload them with consistent, descriptive names. As there are about 496 such images, doing it by hand is rather tedious. If i supplied you with a .zip of the images and a general write-up, could you have PNGcrusader upload them for me? it would save a lot of time. please respond on my talk page. Thanks for your time! -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm afraid this isn't what the bot was designed or approved to do. You are welcome to create your own bot and request approval for it (see Wikipedia:Creating a bot to get started), or perhaps use an editing helper such as the AutoWikiBrowser. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of pokemon

A tag has been placed on Criticism of pokemon, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page. 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. Schutz 20:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

Greetings!, My fellow foreign friend, Nice to see someone else with foreign characters in their name, I thought I was the only one. I checked in with Can't sleep, clown will eat me to make sure my name was ok, but upon seeing yours I guess it is. Feel free to drop me a line whenever you're bored! Падший ангел 07:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Images

Sorry to bother you but what is the status of the images? You appear to have stopped at 154 around and User:Water Pokemon Master is wondering what's up. -WarthogDemon 22:40, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Finally, a BF DRV

I've started a deletion review on the Battle Frontier page, as this is now the fifth time that the page has been reverted into a disambig. Please feel free to list your comments/support on the talk page. Thanks, ætərnal ðrAعon → 02:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon images

Fix the fair use rationales on all of the images you uploaded for use of the List of... articles, otherwise they're all going to be deleted (switching back to the old ones would be just as good, because they actually have fair use rationales).—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 16:30, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Pokeflute.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Pokeflute.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use media which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 00:58, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note about your subpages

Per Wikipedia:User page#Copies of other pages, "Private copies of pages that are being used solely for long-term archival purposes may be subject to deletion." Many of your subpages fall under that. Seeing as how many haven't been edited in a while, I may have to put them in Miscellany for deletion, if I don't hear anything from you. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TfD nomination of Template:Pokémon types category lead

Template:Pokémon types category lead has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. TTN (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon moves

Hey. You recently undid my merge of Pokémon moves into Pokémon game mechanics#Pokémon moves, citing that the game mechanics page did not cover it in full detail. I have expanded the section, and now I believe it fully covers everything said on the Pokémon moves page. Seeing as that is the case, I was wondering if I would have your consensus to now re-merge the article, as it is no longer needed. If not, I'll take it to AfD and see what the community thinks. Thank you, Artichoker^[talk] 20:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I just added a paragraph on Power, so now I believe that the section is complete, and a full article on the topic is unnecessary. I'll also work on cleaning up the section as you stated, but for now do we have a consensus to merge? Artichoker^[talk] 16:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have copy-edited the section, and since you insist, I will tag the article and we can have a merge dicussion, although I don't know how many people will comment on it. Thanks, Artichoker^[talk] 17:29, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have created a merge discussion here, and I invite you to comment on it. Cheers, Artichoker^[talk] 20:58, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been over a week (8 days) since I have initiated the merge discussion, and nobody (not even you) has commented. So I will probably be taking it to AfD today, or else tomorrow; unless you want to go ahead and merge it. Just a heads up. Artichoker^[talk] 18:35, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Categeory:Images of Alvin and the Chipmunks

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. TN‑X-Man 19:04, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

a request for experience

I was hoping you could de me a favor and figure out where David Adams (rugby league) would fit on List of Manly-Warringah Sea Eagles players and, if appropriate, Balmain Tigers. This article has been an orphan for about two years. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 01:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is not well-known having played only 9 x 1st grade games over 4 seasons at those two clubs between 1977 and 1980. He is "notable" according to our project guidelines but is not someone whose article I can expand - I can source nothing more to say about him. The List of Sydney Roosters players is the only Aust RL club article so far that attempts an all-time list of players regardless of obscurity. Both the Manly and Balmain lists you refer to are of renowned (representative) players and David Adams is definitely not one in that league. If the inaction on the orphaned status means this stub has to go, then you'll get no objections from me. -Sticks66 10:44, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon types

Sorry it got deleted. It can be found in your userspace here. Have fun! Regards, —Celestianpower ^háblame 17:42, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Images of Pikachu

Ehm, are you this is needed? - Face 18:35, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AWB

I posted more on my talk page about this, about a week ago, please respond when you get a chance. Ctjf83Talk 23:18, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Zappernapper. You have new messages at Ctjf83's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stop firearm conversions NOW!

You're doing it wrong. The link is always provided in the first conversion for reference, not everyone is familiar with SI and Imperial units of measurement. Do not change that. Dashes also wrong, MOS suggest spaces used after en dashes. Koalorka (talk) 20:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Found it! Take a gander here. Koalorka (talk) 21:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re report to AIV

I have indef blocked the sock Tymuhone under WP:DUCK, but you will need to go to WP:SSP to argue the case of blocking Kellvinmuhone's underlying ip - even if you knew what it was. Cheers, LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rats

Hey, nice work on the lab rat page. It's starting to look like a pretty good article! --Jcbutler (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rat - didn't know you were still editing

Hey, Zapper - sorry to jump on your edits - I didn't realize you were still going. The rats in fiction section could really use some references if you've got them. I don't think it's that big a deal, but someone is sure to object to unreferenced stuff. I'll check back when you're done rather than butting in. I recently saw on wiki that there is some box you can put at the top of an article while you are editing to keep people from reverting until you're done - sorry, I don't recall what it is. Bob98133 (talk) 19:55, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image identification

It's not a rodent. It's a small macropod, perhaps a quokka. --Aranae (talk) 14:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bates method

Thanks for the help with the Bates method article. I think you may be able to help get the article to GA status, if you have the time for it. I don't know if you have read any of the past talk page discussions, but they show how the article got to its current state. At least one editor has insisted that the majority viewpoint not be qualified in-text, citing NPOV and FRINGE (see this archived discussion, for example, though I think we reached a good conclusion on that particular issue.) This editor has also stated that the article should discuss "how absurd the Bates method truly is". PSWG1920 (talk) 22:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through your original recommendations for the Bates method article, I think we have resolved all or nearly all of the simple (i.e. non-controversial) issues. Sourcing, content, and to some extent tone issues remain.

I cleaned up the trivia in the Three Little Pigs article, and didn't meet with any opposition. I also found a few good sources which discuss the story, but I think more are needed. PSWG1920 (talk) 00:01, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job with the Sunning section. I hadn't been quite sure how to address your concerns there. Yesterday I responded to some points you made nearly two weeks ago which I had forgotten about, in this thread. The warning template at the top of the article is still probably the main turn-off to a formal GA review, and the concerns of the editor responsible for said template would only be exacerbated if we added more references to primary sources, especially ones which are not specifically discussed by independent secondary sources. PSWG1920 (talk) 05:22, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, you can find out about the origin of the current template at Talk:Bates_method#Tags. I actually crafted and added it, but only to replace a "multiple issues" template which didn't really explain anything and just served to cast a shadow over the article. I also personally have no desire to add any more primary sources, and I do see the point about the modern ones not being notable enough for individual mention. WP:RS states that "An individual extremist or fringe source may be entirely excluded if there is no independent evidence that it is prominent enough for mention." I do feel however that the current use of Bates' own work is fine and the template should be removed. PSWG1920 (talk) 22:25, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lab rats and assess cats

Yo Zappernapper, I've replied to your query at my talkpage. Mahalo, Skomorokh 07:44, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please reconsider...

...whether your comments to reviewers about long holds are helping to improve the encyclopedia, reduce the GAN backlog, or do anything useful at all. Once a GAN review is open, it is up to the reviewer when to close it. Are you telling them to finish and move on to another article? What if they don't want to? Geometry guy 20:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your understanding. I replied earlier on my talk page, but can see and appreciate your good intentions. Geometry guy 22:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Executive Magistrates of the Roman Republic

I hadn't actually completed a formal review. I made a few basic preliminary suggestions before undertaking a formal review - then both editors seemed to be madly busy elsewhere. I was proposing to run through a formal review next with hopefully only a few points left on hold. Fainites ^barleyscribs 21:18, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keratitis punctata

Hi. I note your Bates method edit summary "rm 'punctata' as obscure terminology unneeded in this context." While I don't seriously disagree with that, I'll just point out that I copied the description from Huxley's The Art of Seeing, so it must be what the doctors called it at the time. There seems to be something called "Superficial Punctate Keratitis" which does rather better on Google hits and appears in List of optometric abbreviations. But yes, "keratitis" will suffice. SamuelTheGhost (talk) 10:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hairless Rat Picture

You wrote to me on flickr asking to use the photo of the hairless rat Dax (http://www.flickr.com/photos/noner/18273263)

Thank you for the interest in my photo.

I did change the attribution so that you can use it.

I do have a much better (much more clear) picture of my hairless rat Luka at http://www.flickr.com/photos/noner/2632106021 and I've changed the attribution on that one as well.

You are welcome to use either of them with the article, though the second one is my favorite.

68.51.174.220 (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)Nona[reply]

Safety Issue bates method article

Please take a look at the Bates method article. Paragraph sunning and the arguments I gave on the discussion page.

See * [[1]]

former version :

See * [[2]] and the current paragraph about sunning.

In my opinion a very important safety issue.

( Note also the wikipedia internal links have been removed ! )

Regards, Seeyou (talk) 21:06, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dassie rat photo

hi,

go ahead and use the dassie picture. http://flickr.com/photos/dacarrot/30848224/in/set-72157600030697529/

it's a scan from a 35mm negative, but i guess that doesn't really matter, does it?!

regards,

d hesse —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.212.69.161 (talk) 19:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's a hyrax (which also goes by the common name of "dassie"), whereas a dassie rat is a much more rat-like animal:[3]. Best of luck, though! Anaxial (talk) 19:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GA reviews

Thanks for the message about my outstanding GA reviews. I've left messages at the review pages asking people to hurry up. However some reviews do take longer, e.g. North Sea is a big article with many aspects. I tend to be a bit more patient than average - possibly a little too patient - because I think that in the long run it's more efficient to allow a bit more time than to fail an article for exceeding a time limit and then force a second reviewer to spend time getting acquainted with the subject. --Philcha (talk) 20:54, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy rat

hello, you asked: "regarding your edits to Fancy rat, I'm confused by ur edit summary. Perhaps you could leave a more detailed msg on my talk page. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 05:28, 9 January 2009 (UTC)"

I changed this: "Colour definitions tend to vary for more vague varieties, like fawn for champagne or mink for cinnamon. They can fluctuate between and even within different countries or clubs." to this: "Colour definitions tend to vary for more vague varieties, like topaz for fawn or blue agouti for opal. They can fluctuate between and even within different countries or clubs."

Stating that color X for color Y reads to me that X can be confused for Y (or that one is used in place of the other depending on country). The color created by adding red-eye dilution to an agouti background (A/* r/r) is a golden orange; NFRS calls that Topaz; AFRMA calls it Fawn. Otherwise, they agree its ruby eyd, orange, and genetically A/* r/r.

However, the beginning of the sentence is a little confusing- because it refers to color definitions, which would mean i think the descriptions, not the names. I don't think there is any color name that is the same across clubs in different countries that have significantly different descriptions (definitions).

the examples of fawn for champagne doesn't make sense for either a confusion of names, or a confusion of description. Fawn (or topaz in NFRS) is A/* r/r and a rich golden orange with dark ruby eyes. Champagne is a/a p/p and a pale beige with bright pink eyes. Different clubs might have slight differences in what they think the ideal shade is- how they interpret the standard (even judges in the same club might differ). But no club confuses fawn/topaz for champagne.

I think it should go back to Fawn vs Topaz, and Opal vs Blue Agouti for examples, But also change "color definitions" to "color names"

75.3.0.134 (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

images accomodation Bates method article

Hi Zappernapper. Can you take a look at the current discussion regarding explaining accomodation in the BM article ? regards, Seeyou (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tiny Toon Adventures episodes

Hey, I noticed you did some work on the Tiny Toons articles. Any chance you can help me expand the episodes list by providing a brief summary of each episode? If it's a three-part episode, make sure to list each sub-episode and a very short summary of the wraparounds, like I did with "Cinemaniacs". Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 05:06, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Don't know if you saw this post or not. I could really use help on the TTA articles. Do you know anyone who could help? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 19:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ganon and Ganondorf

An editor named New Age Retro Hippie (talk · contribs) keeps giving me a hard time concerning the SSB cat you placed on Ganondorf and took off Ganon. I've already explained why your way was better off in the edit summary, but he refuses to listen. Maybe you can explain it better to the editor than I can. Thoughts? Please reply below, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Bates method

Could you remove your comment here? I don't see how it helps the discussion in any way at all, but instead just appears to be an attack. --Ronz (talk) 17:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 00:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Comment on content, not on the contributor" seems very clear to me. You're commenting on a contributor, right? You accused me of "unilateral belligerence," right? --Ronz (talk) 16:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

telling editors to be civil, AFG, etc., is still commenting on contributors... a personal attack is me alling someone smelly or stupid - but i saying that an edit they made is unconstructive is not personal. Likewise, i said your edit was an act of unilateral belligerence, it is belligerent when people provide reasons for an action and then the response is "well i'm going to revert you and do what i want anyways." if you had a reason for restoring the tags in the face of a large consensus that they are unhelpful and unneeded, it would have been appropriate to express it. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

NPA doesn't mean that we don't comment on editors. It means that we don't blatantly attack them, and it means we avoid commenting on editors in improper venues (like article talk pages) User talk pages are specifically for discussions about the user and the user's editing, right? --Ronz (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

actually to quote NPA - "Derogatory comments about another contributor must be supported by evidence, otherwise they constitute personal attacks..." i, and others, have provided evidence of you consistently ignoring consensus, additionally, these comments were in response to you edits on the relevent article page... nothing in WP:NPA suggests this is wrong. As for your addition to WP:TALK this would still be permissible. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 23:19, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you truly believe this, then keep up the comments! If you don't get blocked, then perhaps you're correct. I will certainly be on the side arguing for a block. In the meantime, I'll continue to point out what I see as clear violation of NPA. If you don't like that, then I suggest some other form of WP:DR in the meantime. --Ronz (talk) 17:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i don't need to keep up any comments... i've already made my point, and the fact that rather than taking any heed, you resort to claims of a "personal attack", you just prove that point. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:22, 4 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

FICT

I'm reverting a lot of your changes there. I don't want to give you the impression that I'm trying to protect or own the guideline and I want to assure you that I'm relatively open to change. Some of the things you are modifying, however, have been discussed or even changed several times just today. We are in the "discuss" part of the cycle for most of them. So I'm sorry if it seems like I'm hounding you. :( Protonk (talk) 05:16, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

no no, i understand, making a thread as we speak :) -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 05:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thanks. 200 characters in the edit summary just isn't enough. Protonk (talk) 05:20, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GA review on Dog

Hi Zapper,

Thanks for taking the time to review the Dog article. I know its a big article, and it took a fair investment of time to look over carefully. I agreed with some of your comments, but I feel that a number of them were really nitpicky, and holding the article to a higher standard than GA There are a fair number of people who have completely stopped trying to achieve FA status because getting an article that last 2% of the way has become very difficult and time intensive, without adding much substantively to the article. Unfortunately, I feel that many of your criticism fall in this category. For instance, you failed the article on being sufficiently referenced. There are over a hundred references in that article, most used multiple times. At least 99% of statements that could be contentious are referenced. You failed it for 3 missing references: the statement that the domestic dog is a subspecies of the wolf--a statement that is supported by 80 of the 100 references, and is not contentious--and the fact that Bob Barker was an advocate of spaying, and a third that I haven't tracked down yet. That standard is not the standard laid out in the good article criteria. Focusing on these three marginal problems is myopic at best.

I'm not arguing with the decision--honestly, I haven't fully evaluated your review as a whole; I may completely agree with your final decision. The GA review process is supposed to be an intermediate point between FA--near perfect--and a crappy article, such as Dog behavior or Dog training, and serves two purposes: (1) to improve the article through a peer review process; and (2) to encourage editors to push for a higher standard. When reviewers are too myopic, and focus on the 2% of the flaws instead of the 98% of the improvements that editors put into the article, they undermine (2). That is why many editors have stopped striving for FA status. I think that is also why I will stop striving for GA status.

Thanks again for taking the time to review the article. --Thesoxlost (talk) 15:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if you felt i was being too "nitpicky", but AGF and trust me in that I do understand the difference between a GA and FA. You're response suggests that you did not understand (or i did not make clear) my reasons for failing the article, and you may not have understood the reasons for failing 2A.

Firstly, the article was not failed over three missing references. It was for the 11 seperate MOS issues, plus ref problems (including cite tags - which should have been taken care of before nomination), plus lack of coverage on expected topics (comprehensiveness is an FA issue, but a mention of these topics is necessary). Any one of these problems, by themselves, would have justified a Hold... but the three of them together means that this article was not ready for a GA nomination.

Secondly, the reason for requiring sources on those three statements in 2A is because when claiming that someone said something (as a direct quote or otherwise) you need to back it up with a ref. Look carefully and you'll see that each was attributed to some entity.

I would appreciate you not saying my actions are "myopic", that's a bit deragotory and unconstructive. I would love to see this article reach GA, and then FA. But to nominate an article that still has cite tags was poor planning. It shows that you failed to do Step 1 in the guide to nominating good articles. Rather than characterize my criticisms as "nitpicky", take the time to work on them. you'll find that you can learn more about writing a good article and it will help you in the future when you've gone on to tackle other subjects. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 00:40, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zapper, sorry for being too frank; I meant to be honest and constructive, but not derogatory. The point wasn't that you didn't have constructive things to say about the article that will help other editors improve upon it. The point was simply that your review scared away an editor that has made major revisions to this article, which is worth reflecting on. WP has a wierd community; Its essentially WoW or everquest without the monsters. People role play with their editor or reviewer or administrator hats on, and they lose perspective. No page, good, featured or otherwise, is a finished product; they are all in flux. People can throw fact tags into featured or good article because they are evolving documents. For this reason, my understanding was that one fact tag didn't count against the GA criteria. To support this understanding, see Wikipedia:Reviewing_good_articles:

<quote|'[Look for'] cleanup banners that are obviously still valid, including cleanup, wikify, NPOV, unreferenced or large numbers of fact, clarifyme, or similar tags/>

The point wasn't that you didn't have sufficiently reason to fail the article. Like I said, I think many of your points were substantive and on point. The point is that too many of them were so trivial that they send the message that an editor would need to spend many hours nitpicking over whether references go after periods, and a myriad of other silly things that substantively don't affect the quality of the article. Normal editors who simply want to improve articles won't do this; the only people who will do this are the hard-core wikipedians who are fighting for social capital, looking for barnstars and wanting to put another GA or FA feather in their cap. The WP equivalent of leveling up. Is that really what we want to achieve?

I didn't mean to berate you; I meant to encourage you to consider the POV. If you still completely disagree with me, no worries; I won't bother you on the topic anymore. Thanks again for taking the time. --Thesoxlost (talk) 14:23, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

perhaps my review was a giant monster that scared someone away, but it wasn't meant to be, and i would suggest to that editor that they not concern themselves with commas and periods but instead work on the problems with prose and coverage. Everybody has their own things they like to do on wikipedia, and i'm sure you could still focus on the other aspects of the article that need work. I have gone ahead and contacted editors at WP:TYPO and WP:GCE to help with those "nitpicky" details so hopefully you can instead work on the coverage issues and tracking down sources for your attributed claims (Humane Society, Smithsonian, Bob Barker, and Drew Carey - checking out those articles might be a good starting point). I suggest you also try seeking help with the other reference problems in the review. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:47, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Perhaps I was too hasty in my assessment. If there are people out there who's passion is commas, that's great :). My real interest is in substance, and your review did bring up issues of substance which I'm happy to focus on. When I found the article, it was really poor. It was a half good, half POV article on how people view their dogs. My goal was to make it the best public source of information on the topic. As it was, I think it met that standard, although it can of course be improved. As long as someone is willing to do it--or rather, enjoys doing it, I suppose fixing the "nitpicky" things is a valuable service. If this is truly the GA standard, then I still can't say that I care whether the article ever meets all of the criteria. But I do appreciate the substantive criticisms, and hope that others will be happy addressing the formal concerns. Best, --Thesoxlost (talk) 17:50, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I look forward to seeing your substantive changes (specifically adding information on the topics i noted were missing), and hopefully you can address some of that "Problem prose". One editor has already come forward and started making changes (although s/he failed to notice any punctuation errors... bah), and i have perosnally gone through and made quite a few fixes. I do hope though, that you still strive to meet all the GA requirements. Idiosyncrasies aside (perhaps my distaste for parenthetical prose in articles), following the MOS and standard punctuation/spelling/grammar is important to an article because it elevates it to a point beyond your typical hack-job. It lends credibility and authority to the article - are you more willing to trust something riddled with bad speling and punctuation, or something that looks like the people writing it were able to put two sentences together correctly? Again... I eagerly look forward to an expanded article -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 18:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Copyedit request

I'll try to get it done by Monday. MSJapan (talk) 03:52, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit complete. MSJapan (talk) 03:29, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rats in the ricefields

I'm sorry for not having specified the names. I was concentrating on the culinary aspect of the section more than on the scientific side. The rats in the ricefields in Southeast Asia are "Rattus argentiventer". I have not been able to find the scientific name of the rat species living in the rice growing region of Valencia, close to the Albufera around the 19th century. The rat-eating habits of the people of that area were mentioned by Vicente Blasco Ibañez in his novel Cañas y barro. Xufanc (talk) 10:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Peer review

I missed the comments on Wikipedia:Peer review/Fancy rat/archive1 until it was archived earlier today - sorry. I just replied to the questions there, and think it should be OK for GA. Good luck, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re : Fancy Rat

Hello saw your comments, my apologies for the delay... Was pretty busy. I have added my comments. --Bluptr (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]