User talk:Asperchu

Re: Cassandra

While there was enough material for reception, there wasn't enough material to *say* about her. It felt like the article was being propped up rather than actually working as a solid piece. Feel free to join the task force and help though if you're interested, could always use more hands.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:35, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page BKN has been reverted.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.youtube.com/BKNKIDZ (matching the regex rule \byoutube\.com). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. Video links are also strongly deprecated by our guidelines for external links, partly because they're useless to people with slow internet connections.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 17:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page K240 do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.
Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcRwIjD0DGA (matching the regex rule \byoutube\.com). If the external link you inserted or changed was to a media file (e.g. a sound or video file) on an external server, then note that linking to such files may be subject to Wikipedia's copyright policy and therefore probably should not be linked to. Please consider using our upload facility to upload a suitable media file. Video links are also strongly deprecated by our guidelines for external links, partly because they're useless to people with slow internet connections.
If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 17:54, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Asperchu, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Janggeom (talk) 22:48, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion contested: Becky Gable

Hello Asperchu. I am just letting you know that I contested the speedy deletion of Becky Gable, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Article has been to AFD before and kept. Please renominate it at AFD for discussion. Thank you. Reach Out to the Truth 04:53, 14 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then renominate it for deletion at AfD like I said. I don't decide whether things get kept or deleted. She just doesn't meet the speedy deletion criteria. Reach Out to the Truth 14:30, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You need to follow procedure, as with the Siro article. I have no problem with removing either articles if it fails wp:AFD. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 16:39, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The key word is "listed" you must list it for deletion at WP:AFD. If you do so, i'll support it but we can't be bypassing the procedure. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 16:46, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with keeping the article, you need to do the procedure to delete it. The burden of proof falls upon the prosecution. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 17:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The tag was updated by a bot... where are you getting that there was an outdated tag? It still says, "It may be listed for deletion". You are bypassing the procedure and not following WP policy. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 17:42, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i'll admit it. The HD Collection isn't real, however it was a good hoax though, but I need to clarify, it did not start in TRMK, it started in a random European website and we(meaning me and the members of the forum) all took it for fact and reposted it as fact and then Joystiq, GameSpot, etc. reposted that information. So I guess fans should be more wary... oh well, I won't revert the removal anymore. At least until it comes straight from the horse's mouth. Per Siro and Becky Gable, I agree the articles shouldn't exist in Wikipedia and they should be redirected like you did, but I want to stress the importance of following procedure, I agree with what you did, I don't agree with HOW you did it. How about, I will put an AFD to Siro if you put one onto Becky Gable? Alright? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 21:23, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one has said anything besides me, so i'm guessing no one cares about following procedure, so bye-bye Siro and Becky Gable. Good riddance. The one thing I don't get is, is that they got the info. from sites like Best buy, Wal-Mart, GameStop, game.com, Newegg, etc. Why would major retailers list it if it was just a joke? I think it'll come out eventually (probably next year). Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 21:41, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The fact I got all of those memes kind of explains that the site that should not be named (Or else i'd be violating the first rule) has affected the internet. And yeah, plus some fans work at the places too so they could've gotten in there that way too. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 22:20, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Revert

Per WP:BRD, you're free to make a bold decision, but once it's reverted, discussion should occur. Thus, here I am. In my humble opinion, the original version is closer to most video game good articles. I built the article and got it passed at GA in the same format, so I don't particularly understand why a change is needed. If it's not too much trouble, could you please enlighten me? ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 01:57, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And what exactly is your problem with me edit? --Asperchu (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the original version is closer to what I believe to be higher quality articles. Let me try to go through each individual change.

Nintendo DS game card -> ROM cartridge: This has become less specific and less precise. I don't see a reason for this change.
Linking of North America, Japan, and changing of wording of the last lead paragraph: I try to avoid dropping too many links to subjects that people should already know about, like North America and Japan. If articles like Video gaming in North America or Video gaming in Japan existed, I'd feel slightly more comfortable linking to them, but would still avoid them generally speaking. The rewording itself I have less of an issue with.
Moving the Plot section to the top: This goes against established consensus on video game good articles. See Mario & Luigi: Partners in Time, Advance Wars: Dual Strike, Apollo Justice: Ace Attorney, etc. for examples of this.
Removing |left|200px: I have no issue.
Delinking the redlink, Run to the Sun (convention): There's no reason do delink redlinks.
Changes to external links and categories: I have no issue.

I hope this clarifies my concerns. ɳOCTURNEɳOIR _{talk // contribs} 17:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you want some redlinksso badly? ...Okay. --Asperchu (talk) 12:47, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Username

Would you be willing to change your username? It may be seen as offensive by those with Asperger syndrome, and as disruptive by those who are familiar with the Sonichu/Asperchu Internet meme. —Soap— 17:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mai Shiranui

Please stop making massive changes to Mai Shiranui without a consensus as the changes had a blanked section which seem to invite users to add more unsourced information or making charater section completely in-universe without sources.Tintor2 (talk) 16:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you stop vandalising articles while linking to redlinks as explaination. You don't want the gameplay section? Edit and remove it, no big deal. --Asperchu (talk) 16:50, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR Warning

You are coming very close to breaking the WP:3RR policy. The policy states that you are only allowed to revert an article 3 times during a 24 hour period. If you revert it a fourth time, your account can be blocked from editing for a given period of time. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Petrifaction (architecture) and Petrifaction in mythology and fiction

I've moved your addition to petrifaction to two new articles: Petrifaction (architecture) and Petrifaction in mythology and fiction and created a disambiguation page. The article petrifaction is about the geological/paleo concept. Please add references and additional content to your two new articles. Thanks, Vsmith (talk) 14:51, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Harmful edits of Midori

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did at Midori. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted or removed. Cgingold (talk) 13:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. --Asperchu (talk) 10:06, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing redirects

Hi, I note that you removed categories from a redirect without explanation. Please note that this is allowed in certain situations -- see Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects. - Fayenatic (talk) 13:19, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Film interpretation

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Jacob's Ladder (film). Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 17:26, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects in Disambiguation pages

Please read and understand the guidelines for formatting disambiguation pages. older ≠ wiser 14:35, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop making inappropriate edits in defiance of applicable guidelines after you have been asked to stop. You may be blocked from editing if you continue. older ≠ wiser 14:48, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

October 2010

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Midwinter (video game) appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this important core policy. Thank you. Geoff B (talk) 12:29, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not attack other editors, as you did at Sniper Elite. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Note, this warning relates to the edit comment you made which has now been quietly removed by the Oversight team. I strongly recommend you take a break from editing this article or only pursue your changes by civil discussion on the article talk page. Fæ (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"{{In popular culture}}"

This this exactly what I ALREADy did. You may compare it with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_the_Sengoku_period_in_popular_culture#Hattori_Hanz.C5.8D (actually this WHOLE article is such a total mess, for so many reasons, I'd just delete everything, I mean delete this whole article). And yes, I could probably have do this better, like I did with Sarutobi Sasuke for example, but anyway by posting this you basically insulted me. Also, you called edits by an evident vandal "clean version". Would you PLEASE pay some more attention? --Asperchu (talk) 02:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, the tag was removed by the time I got there. Yes, it is a mess, that's why we have the tag, if you or I or some regular editor have to weed it periodically, it's better to have the tag on. Those sections are dustbunnies and timewasters. I didn't call his edits clean, I went back to the edit I found that was in the best shape, sorry you took offense. None was meant, good luck editing, keep up the good work.--Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 14:16, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No no no no. I meant the tag here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hattori_Hanz%C5%8D#In_popular_culture - I posted the link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_of_the_Sengoku_period_in_popular_culture#Hattori_Hanz.C5.8D FOR A COMPARISON, you know (and this whole article is horrible). --Asperchu (talk) 18:10, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is your last warning; the next time you make personal attacks on other people, as you did at Talk:X-COM: Terror from the Deep, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Peter Karlsen (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This dude's buddy, eh? If not, check [1] this out. --Asperchu (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Report

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Subzerosmokerain (talk) 19:23, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't. --Asperchu (talk) 18:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need to settle this

You are a dedicated MK fan, and so am I but if we want to create quality MK articles without clashing at every turn, we've got to find a median. I'll admit i've been rigid to downright stubborn but you also need to recognize Wikipedia policy. I'll accept your edits (not that you need my acceptance) but your direct violation of WP:OWN is making it difficult to make a collaboration. What do you say? Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 01:20, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, i'm glad that we can collaborate. As per the move, we can't do that move because you'd need pages labeled (or sections) as "Mileena" to create the disambiguation page, like a pro wrestler or another video game character. If you do a search of Mileena in the Wikipedia database, hers is the only article that is titled Mileena in some way, shape or form. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I know I have a few friends (online and offline) who are named Mileena but we can't say it unless there's a real ambiguity that would confuse people. Upon searching, I found a couple of sections of characters from are also named Mileena. I can do it, but I can't say anything of it being a common name (because it would violate WP:OR, policy not my choice). Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that but that would be using the argument WP:EXISTS as well to state that in the disambiguation page. I'm sorry if this seems like i'm just to keep it from being said but it's just bad editing to include something like that in the disambiguation page. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 23:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong, it does follow the guidelines. --Asperchu (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain the reason for edits and keep in mind the Video game Mos for various changes.Tintor2 (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explaination for edits: complete rewrite. Thanks for your concern. --Asperchu (talk) 15:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it doesn't follow the guidelines. "complete rewrite" is not a valid rationale.Tintor2 (talk) 15:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong, it does follow the guidelines. And I did this with a lot of other characters, including most of MK and all of Resident Evil ones. --Asperchu (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other stuff is not a valid argument unless the mentioned article have reached GA or FA status which are the ones to follow.Tintor2 (talk) 17:01, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I am a random passerby. Asperchu, if you believe that you are following guidelines, it would be great if you mentioned specific parts of the guidelines to prove your point. As stated above "complete rewrite" is not a valid rationale; you need to be more clear and succinct. Bramble claw x 15:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hm? Okay. For example, not having stuff in infoboxes that won't be displayed (like "race" and "alliegance"); instead, having stuff like which will be displayed (like "creators" and "motion actors"). --Asperchu (talk) 15:38, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds ok. But renaming those sections when the video game manual of style clearly gives suggestions for their naming is probably not a good idea. Bramble claw x 15:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The many problems I find is that first of all the lead ended up completely unbalanced per WP:Lead. Statements were left unsourced. External links are wrong (Kung Lao is not Liu Kang), wikia is a fansite). The Mos states the section's name should be "Concept and creation".Tintor2 (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikia is not "a fansite", it's a Wikimedia dump for all the stuff which was too trivial for Wikipedia. It's also started by Jimbo W. and edited by volunteers (mostly fans), so it's not more of "a fansite" than Wikipedia. (Now go to Wikia article and write how it's "a fansite", becuase there isn't anything about it.) --Asperchu (talk) 17:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The simple point it contains "trivial" info, and that it's edited by fans makes it less usable as an external link.Tintor2 (talk) 17:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The simple point is external links are for information that couldn't be found or included in this article. And it (Mortal Kombat Wiki) is edited by the very same fans as these editing Wikipedia. I'm not saying it's good, it isn't (just like most articles on Wikipedia), but at the very least it contains pictures. --Asperchu (talk) 17:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So it is important because of images? If so, any fansite could be used as an external link.Tintor2 (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not it is important at the very least because of images. But it also contains info. You see, what you think is "stub sections" are actually complete sections on Wikipedia (without any fluff and excessive details) - and the rest of info is in Wikia. And as I said, most of stuff on Wikipedia is also bad. (Including this very Liu Kang article before my edits.) Oh and the beginning of the article needs to be short - just to introduce the character as a game character in what series and nothing more. The details are in the following paragraphs (and sdections, and the infobox). --Asperchu (talk) 17:32, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I personally think keeping Wikia is ok, because in theory, you could argue that Wikipedia is a fansite too, often being written by fans. On section headings, I suggest following the MOS. Bramble claw x 18:49, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So according to you, fansites can be used as external links? WP:Elno seems to contradict that.Tintor2 (talk) 20:12, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying it's not a fansite. Or, I'm saying Wikipedia is a fansite. Take your pick. Bramble claw x 20:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get your point, but even wp:elno talks about how wikis shouldn't be used.Tintor2 (talk) 20:20, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On Template:Wikia, it mentions points similar to yours. Basically, you're mentioning elno#el12, about avoiding open wikis. If the wikia in question is open, and doesn't have a substantial history, then I suppose it wouldn't be helpful to link to it. On the other hand, the point of EL's is to provide links to information otherwise not available on Wikipedia. (implied through eL1, i think). What might be considered trivia here may be considered useful to some readers, who may wish to find these. Well organised Wikias tend to try to rise above the level of a "fansite", often striving to be encyclopedic as well. So using Mortal Kombat Wikia here is a question of whether or not it is useful and reliable. I have no wish to spend my time evaluating that wiki, so please, don't ask me if I think that one is appropriate. As I mentioned before, it was just a personal opinion on the use of Wikia. Bramble claw x 20:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Per talkpage comment, no it really wouldn't go there. It wasn't released, we can't put cancelled games/delayed games on a Wikipedia page unless the WB guys say so. Your section was strictly rumored content. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 22:30, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VGChartz Network as sourcing

The VGChartz Network cannot be used as a reliable source on Wikipedia. Please see WP:VG/RS#Unreliable sources. --Teancum (talk) 13:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Storm Warrior

Would you like me to tag your article, Storm Warrior as under construction? Thanks! :) Endofskull (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done. --Asperchu (talk) 01:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh okay. Endofskull (talk) 03:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jutte

I restored the gallery you removed, feel free to add pictures but please do not remove the gallery.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 11:05, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No. Use the Commons. --Asperchu (talk) 11:18, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong, this is how the administration has requested pictures be added. Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 11:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are wrong, and learn how to use Wikipedia. --Asperchu (talk) 11:30, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Gallery No clear-cut rule forbids any type of gallery; instead the pros and cons of each gallery must be considered. To this consideration are added some commonsense guidelines.

From reading your talk page it looks like you are the one who has problem using wikiSamuraiantiqueworld (talk) 11:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are writing in uncencylopedic way ~~(also pushing false information, as the yari is a big spear and not a hidden blade)~~, the gallery is for additional images that could not be used to illustrate an article, and with this you could (and should) just make a Commons category. --Asperchu (talk) 11:44, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

From wiki yari (Yari were characterized by a straight blade that could be anywhere from several centimeters, to 3 feet or more in length) if you have a more proper name and description then by all means change it.( No clear-cut rule forbids any type of gallery;) I was told by wiki administration to include images that contribute to the article in a gallery with the format that is used in jutteSamuraiantiqueworld (talk) 11:58, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work, now go away. --Asperchu (talk) 12:27, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at all the WARNINGS you have for your edits etc. There is a reason for that. Do some RESEARCH and find a better name and description of the jutte in question since you are so interested in the PROPER way to use wiki. I have provided several references so try READING and find actual PROOF.Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 12:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Go read this about the yari jitte or spear jitte Classical weaponry of Japan: special weapons and tactics of the martial arts By Serge Mol page 36

http://books.google.com.ph/books?id=ZzIXkFec0e8C&pg=PA36&dq=yari+jitte&hl=en&ei=y7frTK6PONCHcbO_1ZUP&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=yari%20jitte&f=false

Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 12:53, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Look at all the WARNING I've never goven to aanybody (including you). The proper way of using Wikipedia, for example: not making a huge empty spaces by repeatedly pushing Enter while editing. Make a Commons category like everyone else does. --Asperchu (talk) 12:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You should edit subjects you know something about...if you think a space need to be filled then find an image to use, do not delete galleries, you have no history of edits on the subject of samurai weapons before and now you are an expert? If you think my edits are improper file a complaint with administration, I suggest you do some reading on the subject of samurai so you have some knowledge. Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 03:42, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have subjects you are interested in...how would you feel if I came along and made edits to the articles you are working on with out knowing anything about the subject? Many wiki articles have galleries, I suggest that you contribute to the subject you have some knowledge of or add images or information that helps the article rather then to just remove items that contribute to the knowledge of the subject, Have you even tried to read any of the references listed on the subject of jutte or war fans before changing information? Are you interested in samurai or are you just wanting to "fix" something? Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 03:55, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jutte and War fan

Rather then have a war which might bring undesired actions from administrators why not leave the galleries alone and just take a picture from each gallery and fill the empty spaces in the articles if you can not find any other images that will work? Samuraiantiqueworld (talk) 04:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus, what are you talking about now? --Asperchu (talk) 07:29, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Take a CLOSE look at this: this is how you edit Wikipedia. Get it? Illustrations? Lack of unnecessary quote marks (""tessen"", ""gunsen"" - see, HERE I'm actually quoting - quoting you, so I am using quote marks to show you your stupid quote marks!) and repeating how everything is "Japanese (samurai)"? Properly made references, with italics in the titles, and capital letters in the titles (instead of in "By"), and spaces after references? Without repeating the whole references repeatedly? Everything else? Christ, I mean, it's crazy I even have to tell you this. It's just... so obvious, and elementary! Now, MAKE THE COMMONS CATEGORIES OR PAGES, so you will then use Template:Commons - and that's all! Sorry, I couldn't explain it tou any in any MORE simple way than this. --Asperchu (talk) 07:47, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can edit...wiki is about providing information and when you remove pictures and the information they contain you are removing information. Galleries are used on wiki to provide additional information. There are many types of war fans and jutte, pictures of the different types and styles are helpful to people who are actually trying to find information. You do not seem to have any real knowledge on either war fans or jutte when it comes to the actual historical items. Why dont you read some of the books that are referenced and actually learn something so you can contribute. If your interest is just in the popular culture then contribute to that and leave the historical aspect alone as you do not seem to know what people are looking for when they come to wiki for information. If you had bothered to even look you would see that the pictures are already stored on commons. You think that editing wars contribute to the article? How would you like it if I start to edit your articles that interest you even though I do not have enough knowledge on the subject? Most of the articles I contribute to have litte or no references and it takes a lot of time and effort to find reliable references the validate the information, ANYONE can edit but most people can not do some research and find worth while references. You probably do not even know why some jutte are samurai and others are not. The way you go about editing and the way you talk to people does nothing to help..stop thinking you are such an expert, maybe you will get alone with other people if you are not so confrontational. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Samuraiantiqueworld (talk • contribs) 11:44, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

However, appearently "anyone" can not even sign their comments. Also, tl;dr. --Asperchu (talk) 11:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kitana (Mortal Kombat) Pictures

Could better explain why the pictures I added in the Kitana (Mortal Kombat) article were unnecessary??? The article goes into great detail of each incarnation of the character, but lacks visual aides to show the evolution of the character. It's not as if the article became bombarded with several pictures. I only added 3, formated them in a small thumbnail format, and even cleared up the crowding and overlap of sections from the previous edits. TBird100636 (talk) 23:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request to join mediation

I am inviting you to join informal mediation concerning the article Jutte. You are under no obligation to do so, but I would like to hear your opinion on matters concerning the use of a gallery and try to resolve the dispute that has evidently cropped up between you and Samuraiantiqueworld over the matter. Kind regards. -- Scjessey (talk) 14:45, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since you have not responded thus far, I have told the other party in the case to edit as deems necesssary. Please see my comment on the article talk page for further information. Thank you. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your comment on the mediation page. -- Scjessey (talk) 18:26, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

This account has been temporarily blocked because it is suspected to be a sock puppet that was created to violate Wikipedia policy. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but using them for illegitimate reasons is not.

If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Alex Bakharev (talk) 22:39, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck in real life! Your friend, Biophys (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hi. I just mailed Alex, explaing myself and stuff to come clean about at last. If he won't reply, I'll just post it here, and well, probably move. And I mean, I'll move on... to another account, and we'll continue our silly game. Except it may end anyway, because now I'll probably do something like just get a dynamic IP address and whenever I'll need an account I'll get a new account every time too :). I mean, no biggie. If I'll quit Wikipedia when I decide so, and no would even notice this too, it fits me just fine. I'm honest about this, because I don't care, I have nothing to hide right now. Maybe I can be restored as a normal user, maybe not, either way I'll be ok. Also I'm sure I almost always make good work here, almost because everyone makes some mistakes (sometimes I even keep correcting my various mistakes I did here years ago, and yet no one did anything about them in the meantime). I like when an article is well done and even looking good, that what counts for me, I don't really need anything else. You know how the superheroes almost always hide their actual identitity? Something like that :). It's not like I'd be paid for this here anyway. Maybe I'd be paid for it somewhere else, but... ok, suddenly I'm now less cheerful about it, so scratch that.

Btw, I don't know if there's a good will and actual neutrality on his side, though, and I'm especially curious why a guy I didn't know (Offliner): 1. knew about me in first place (among, um, millions of the other users), 2. knew about me SO MUCH, 3. knew perfectly well where to go with this, how strange. But whatever, right now I'm "assuming good faith". Also, I'm cool about it, not even really annoyed, much more interested about several Russian users' motivation and what they think about me (like, maybe I'm perceived as a threat or some kind?), maybe I should actually remember Alex and Offliner too, but I just forgot (never forget). I'd really like to know, this might be amusing. Or maybe I'm just paranoid? who knows :). --Asperchu (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We talked before about Wikipedia:Standard offer. Other than that, I am not going to comment, but strongly advise you not to mail anything to anyone because this can be regarded as harassment. If you want to discuss your ban, this should be done through official channels, such as mailing list of Arbcom.Biophys (talk) 17:49, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I think these were rather friendly e-mails. Besides being honest, but nothing abusive, I'm pretty chilled about this you know. If I don't get an answer I publish here, so you'll see (I guess I'm going to wait 2 days or something). I just wonder, should I know Alex but I forgot? All this name is only telling me is he's blocking me every time :). But I hardly remember almost anyone I interact here with, so it's possible (I don't think I could name even 10 users now). And I don't even know what is the Arbcom, I was never interested in such things. If you want to mail me personally about this or anything, you can do this by clicking now. Won't be no harassment :). --Asperchu (talk) 18:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anyeway ok, I won't be sending any more of these e-mails unless I get a reply. --Asperchu (talk) 18:37, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Arbcom would not help because you was banned by a community decision. So, the "standard offer" might be your only option. But I tell you this. You contributed a lot to the project. This is great. But there are certain RULES. By showing disrespect to the rules you show a disrespect to the project and its participants. This is not the way. However sad, you must accept it. There are many other things to do with your life. If the community does not want to see you here (however wrong they might be about you), why should you insist? There is Russian saying: "An uninvited guest is worse than a tartar". We are guests here, so let's behave. Sorry if it sounds crude.Biophys (talk) 19:29, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, yeah. And the one of these guys who decided about this was a sock-pupped of a banned user too :). I mean, seriously. But, I'm actually not saying the initial ban was wrong. I freaked-out major time and appaearently even demanded to be banned or something, it's quite emberassing to look at so I'd rather not. Also, Tatars can be okay if treated right. Polish Tatars are some of the finest soldiers we have for a very long time. They were also the largest Muslim community here until recently (it is Chechens now), because they eventually almost all assimilated and lost their national identity. Also I just love writing about stuff on Wikipedia. I can't help it. And on the various Wikipedia-like websites (various user names), like the Wikias, or Encyclopedia Dramatica, even CWCki where I actually did more edits this year than I did on Wikipedia, but if you don't know what CWCki is, I guess it's just better for you, and I mean it :). --Asperchu (talk) 19:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not waste your time. This is all I have to say. Biophys (talk) 21:14, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a problem too. But ok, so I did this anyway, let's see about it. --Asperchu (talk) 11:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I saw you request below... Unlike you, administrators must follow the rules. Almost any administrator will tell you that he can not undo the community decision. But if you or anyone else places a new ANI request asking to modify your ban right now, this will not have a chance for approval because you just was caught socking.

You ask to modify your ban, but you tell that you are not going to abide by the rules at the same time. You tell you improved, but you have a recent block for incivility.

Sadly enough, you are a highly knowledgeable and surprisingly neutral content contributor, but you have problems interacting with others. When someone suddenly reverts you in an article (and that is how all your and my conflicts started), you suppose do the following: (a) do not revert him back; (b) assume WP:AGF on his part and explain him (without any sarcasm!) your edit; this usually works when another editor is acting in a good faith but does not have a clue about the subject; (c) leave article to others if you can not come to an agreement. But it might be already too late for this...

I would like to help you, but I too must follow the rules. Biophys (talk) 14:59, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, I meant I'd otherwise. Like, i didnt go around and edit now as I'm waiting (and i could but geez, I don't NEED to (even as I wanted to work on this at first because the article is horrible in some other sense, for example one external link is to this: [2] - no, seriously). About the said community: more than one is gone (several appearently), another was an ALREADY banned user (Rudie_M.), also actually I don't contest this as of: back then. But now is now. --Asperchu (talk) 19:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

With regard to decline by Sandstein... Unfortunately, his argument is impossible to dispute. Look what you said to another user just a couple of days ago: "If you knew anything about editing Wikipedia (again), you would know...". This is not exactly a polite way to communicate with people. If you said this to me, I would not be offended, but that's because I came from a different culture.Biophys (talk) 23:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just in case if you are interested in my plans... I can not be very active on-wiki for personal reasons. My most important collaborator demanded that I stop editing here, and I know: this is right thing to do. Good bye again, and I wish you all the best.Biophys (talk) 05:15, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Asperchu (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Long story, it's basically contained in the 3 rants below (these are 3 original e-mails I've sent to Alex, he appeared to be supportive of this in his answer).

Decline reason:

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Short version: I understand and actually agree with the original reason for the ban almost 3 years ago and it won't happen again (also, I found out a banned sock-puppet was involved in giving me my ban, whcih is ironic), I believe I'm doing a lot of real good job here (some recent examples provided) even when not allowed since then (and I'm doing it only to make Wikipedia better, not seeking anything for myself, I never did), and I just wanted to size this occasion to explain myself before continuing the same circle again (maybe it will work, probably not, but guess it won't hurt trying).

I think I actually deserved to be originally blocked at the time because I totally failed to control myself, so I'm not contesting this, but I really don't think I should be banned still. Anyway no matter what I will probably simply continue to edit, unless I decide otherwise. This is the first and the last time I'm trying to straight up it this way. I was never interested in any administrative stuff, or any social stuff on Wikipedia, I'm just interested in good editing in every meaning of this, this the thing I'm doing practically non-stop since about 2004 I and will probably keep on for many years to come still, this way or another. Yes I'm pretty much addicted to this stuff.

Regarding my edits, you can for example ask Subzerosmokerain. He and I used to have a major argument, really disagreed with reverting each other and what not, however: 1. it turned out I was right, 2. I think we're pretty much bros now since whet it was cleared out. The thing is he's a really huge MK fan, as even his name indicates, and in the last months I also completely rewrote most of the related articles of all kinds. You can ask him for an expert opinion about the quality of these "new" articles now, or you can take a look at some of them (Category:Mortal Kombat) yourself. I also did a similar thing with most Resident Evil articles at the roughly the same time too, and much more (lots of stuff). I didn't finish doing this yet, too. I recently got access to almost literally tons of old magazines and I keep researching in them, and I already got a plenty of references that I didn't use yet.

So, my proposal is to let me back on some kind of probation, even indefinite. I'd like to show you, and myself, I can behave like some model citizen of Wikiville after all when properly motivated. The details would be for discussion, but for example I can promise I'd make no use of a fake account to go around this like for example to attack someone (I never did something like that, just saying), and the point is: if I do anything bad again anyway (from a list of stuff I can't do, and what I should do instead, so I will know), you'd be just ban me again, this time for good... and then I'll just quietly revert to my normal ways (but this time with a dynamic IP so there would be no further disruptions). Sorry, I'm sicere here. But I'd just prefer it this way, legally. I guess it would be better for everyone. It would be easier for me, and for everyone else. It would be also much more satysfying.

I'd like to also indicate I'm just so completely honest about everything here, and everyone too for that matter. It's just how it is. I just edited-out some of my thoughts regarding Alex's possible motivations that now appear to be unfounded, so I won't throw it around. I also won't cite his responses here, if he wants he can say whatever he wants himself.

1

Hello!

Yeah yeah, it was me. Again, yes. Hi. Guess this time I'll write to you and try to talk to you. (Am I talking to you for the first time now? Frankly, I just don't remember.) So here we go.

It was you who banned me in first place, right? And keep banning me since then? Okay, I'll now assume you're doing it with no hidden agenda whatsoever, and you're doing this just to make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia and keep the vandals out. So now I'm going explain myself and to show you why it's better to have me around by showcasing of the good work I do (and I do lots, as my longest account was once at 300-something place for edits among the all users there at the time).

Here, there is some of the recent work that I'm proud of (there was of course much much more and it's just examples as I said - I took a look at my recent edits and chose some of them):

[9] -> [10] (general cleanup + restoring long-lost content (the text was actually cut-in mid-sentence), also some work in the related articles, like as a cleanup on [11] and such)

[12] -> [13] (general cleanup/rewrite, also merged the 2 very old character articles that just needed to be merged)

[14] -> [15] (here, it's MAJOR! and the old version was there for years, I also did this to several other such articles)

[16] -> [17] (a totally new article, no less -> completely rewritten, then vastly expanded, and again after many years of a really bad article)

[18] -> [19] (a completely new article, rewritten from a very scratch (I just left some of the external links), I also cleaned-up and expanded [20] and more)

[21] -> [22] (total cleanup, also merged there the articles on all his films such as [23], also I just rewrote myself for more NPOV negativity (like "poorly", "badly") and the guy is still alive after all and I actually wish him well)

[24] -> [25] (general cleanup/rewrite)

[26] -> [27] (general cleanup, and actually more work then it may appear, for example most of existing internal links had to be corrected)

And what got me banned, basically?

[28] -> [29] (expanded for the FSB versionn of his bio via Kommersant, and I came there after checking the "what links there" when I made a stub article on the village of Galashki)

As well as this [30] which I further explained on his talk page (which I guess was my mistake).

[ommited part]

2

And some more examples sbout how good I am compared to so many others working on all these articles all these years, just some more of my recent (last months) work picked up from my Watchlist randomly:

[31] -> [32] (cleanup, rewrite, expansion where needed - notice how the article is 1/4 (over 7kb) shorter despite having more than 3 times more references, and remember this article was here since 2004, often updated by a large number of users)

[33] -> [34] (note how this article is now 26kb(!) shorter after i completely cleaned-up/rewrote it, which was a lot of work given the sheer size of this thing - it's over 60kb now, still)

[35] -> [36] (from 6kb with 0 references to 20 kb with 30 references, and this article was also created in 2004 and after 5 years was redirected for being still so bad - then I also did a semi-quick total cleanup for [37] but obviously it's not finished yet, just look at the all tags I posted)

[38] -> [39] (a relatively small article but created in 2006, so you may just compare the very poor work of basically rest of the world for over 4 years to the sudden quality of an article after I come by)

I really don't want to sound narcisstic, I never wanted any fame or acclaim or position or anything (like the recent proposal from Jimbo that the top editors would be paid), but now I bring it up to you to show how I'm just so-damn-good. Because that's simply what I think I am. It's 5-6 (I don't remember) years of continued experience, tens (hundreds now?) of thousands of edits and untold thousands of hours spent on them, also a LOT of knowledge on a number of subjects and morever I know how to research stuff (this is not an obvious skill), etc. I'm always concerned that the article should be NPOV, sourced, as complete as possible but without doubling the stuff elsewhere, properly written in every sense AND easy to read, even visually pleasing. Actually I'm even obsessive over such things like outdated internal links (leading to redirects), this is a very minor thing but I'm often checking all of them and updating anyway, in short I'm trying the best I can and I think I succeed. Maybe it's strange for a "rogue" user, I don't care.

OK, that's all. That is, assuming that your concern as an administrator is only in the quality of Wikipedia, and not anything else. I know nothing about you and drankly I'm not at all interested (as well as in everyone else on Wikipedia). Myself, I just believe I'm doing a good job and valuable contributions here, and I will continue doing it unless I decide (and then bring myself) to stop editing, or the life matters will force me (which actually is quite probable, stuff happens). Now stopping editing would be actually a good for me, but this is up to me, only, not you. And you probably already know this. You can now decide to quit the game we two are playing, or just explain to me your reasons. Let's discuss this any way, shall we?

3

Regarding my original ban. I just checked out, and it wasn't you (sorry, I didn't remember any of this at all). It was by someone who since then has since left Wikipedia. Maybe more importantely, actually the person who I appareantly had a beef with which sparked all of this (I think it started with an edit war with him), later turned out to be...a sock puppet of a banned user, which I guess is super-ironic. (I never had anyone banned after I was banned, or before this too as far as I remember.) It would mean I was totally right in this dispute to begin with, before it went totally out of control from my side. You can check this out, maybe it changes much. Also, when I've seen it, I freely admit I behaved stupid. I was way too angry and I was actually vulgar too (against an admin?) maybe drunk, I don't know, it's certainly very embarrassing when I look at it now. Appearently I had some kind of fit and actively wanted to be banned. Obviously I changed my mind on this since then. Also, almost 3 years passed. I did a LOT of good work since then, and never had any drama like that.

About the guy I mentioned, he said: "I think we've been very patient with him for a long time. If he can't learn to be polite, then there's no place for him on Wikipedia." - and, wow: [40]. I didn't even know this until now, but i think it's crazy someone like this was taking part in administrative proceedings (regarding me). As I said, it's so ironic. The guy who actually banned me ("being highly productive does not give one the right to be uncivil.", now I can say he was right) is gone: [41], but I'm still around and since then i grew up. And due to more experience, even my editing became much better. Sometimes I even find my old articles and I cleanup after myself. An example (a quick cleanup of a bad case of overlink from the time when I've been linking everything like crazy, and "See also" should be for thing not mentioned in the article - encountered it again recently): [42]. Yes it's the subject which you'd be interested in, but I think it has an article on the Russian wikipedia or just I couldn't find one. A similar cleanup of an overlink, this time not mine and more important, I wanted to do today at the Battle of Little Bighorn, including a plenty of simply wrong links in the one-word Indian names in the sections "Indian leaders and warriors in the battle" and "Notable scouts/interpreters in the battle" (I already did the general cleanup for this article before: [43], but didn't realized this one until I've seen it again - there's planty of simple links on the names like Goose, linking obviously to the article on goose the animal species, and such - I'd remove all of them and also the red links too).

[ommited part]

--Asperchu (talk) 11:37, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of Sengoku Basara characters for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of Sengoku Basara characters is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Sengoku Basara characters until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:32, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ninja in fiction has been nominated for renaming

Category:Ninja in fiction has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 22:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]