User talk:Folken de Fanel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Tomb Raider Anniversary Edit[edit]

I was simply reporting what looked to be legit on another site. Mabey its fake, mabey it isnt but I certainly didnt intend on vandilizing your article.

End of Evangelion[edit]

The end of Evangelion is in the lyrics of the opening. The discussion was deleted, so I could not tell you it was "nonsense". What was changed was the plot, not the end. Help yourself and read the lyrics before answering.


It seems to me that you have acted in an uncivil manner on Daishokaioshin. It is important to keep a cool head, despite any comments against you. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and action can be taken against the other parties if necessary. Your involvement in attacking back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors, and lead to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! --3bulletproof16 16:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The correct term - Ares or Arles?[edit]

Folken de Fanel


I have been noticing as of late - that you are the one responsible for editing the name Ares - to Arles.

This is wrong, as you should know, the name Arles makes no sense and is completely mistranslated from the japanese name "Aruhss" as it is pronounced in their native language. Therefore, the correct term is Ares.

Please, I respect your opinion - but the correct term IS Ares, and it should be used correctly. I don't mind if the term Arles is used in your native language or in your country. I'm from Peru, and I have watched Saint Seiya in South America over 13 yrs ago. Like you, I also understand the burning passion and the love that we both have for our beloved series.

Yes, in my country - they also used the term "Arles" and the term "Knights" when it was dubbed here. However, we have grown fond of those terms and they are what we used everyday now.

But, it doesn't mean they are the correct terms, the correct terms should be "Saints" instead of "Knights", just like "Ares" should be used instead of "Arles".

Like I stated before - it was mis-interpreted and it became the standard term most Saint Seiya fans use nowadays. But this is Wikipedia, and we should strive to put out there correct terms, not the terms that we grown fondly of. Not the terms that we have grown fond of 13 yrs ago. I understand you - and I hope that you understand as well.

I am not forcing my opinion in you - but its the correct term dictated by the anime. Try watching the Original Japanese Anime, and you can see clearly he is named Ares. Try going to Bandai website, and you will see that he is named "Grand Pope Ares" in the packaging of the Saint Seiya Myth Cloth Series- thus, completely negating the term "Arles". See it for yourself, if you don't believe me.

And please, before you decide to edit my comments - state as of why? and provide evidence VALID to prove that ARLES is the CORRECT term. I have watched and OWN all the Saga, in 3 diff. languages, and I understand your opinion - but its invalid when it is used against the correct and ORIGINAL Japanese anime.


I really didn't try to be vindictive or anything, look - I'm not going to sit here and waste my life away in this.

You say Arles, I say Ares - truth to the matter, we don't know. And yes, I was very well aware of the Orphe comment, but like you said - there's nothing concrete and 100% fact. I was also very aware of the Japanese pronunciation, but it made sense regarding the "Ares" theory (read below)

Regarding Saga, being the embodiment of Ares, that is also a matter of speculation. Nowhere in the anime has it been stated - as to what really was that possessed Saga to being evil.

The opinion was:

- He developed an alter ego, due to mental problems (ying and yang theory), and his evil side ended up taking the best of him.

- He became so powerful and dillusional with his own power, that he decided that Athena was weak and was not ready for the upcoming holy wars - thus, he being the strongest should take lead. He wanted to what was best, but ended up losing track of who he was (hence the "who are you" statement in the manga, and later revealed in the Anime as to why he wanted Athena's power)

- He was possessed by the War God Ares, and feeling cheated of being reincarnated in a young body such as Athena, he wanted to kill her and take over the world (hence the many comments in the manga - of him being the "half-god" or possessing a Cosmos that defied those of a God - check the ep 4 of Hades - the title says it all - even in the Manga, when Seiya reflects the Shield light at him - a spirit much akin to the way Poseidon was defeated appeared, proving more evidence that it could have been the War God or an evil spirit)

- He was the re-incarnation of evil, as stated many times in the anime.

All of these are plausible theories, none have been proven yet - because they are all in the Anime and Manga. Thus, I'm going to leave it at that. Like I said - each and one of these theories are right - but no one has come up with a way of linking all of these theories together. Nothing is 100% concrete.

I'm sorry if I sounded harsh - but at least input all of these informations and facts out there. Don't just negate them. I'm only looking for means to link everything together - all of the theories and opinions, so that way we don't come to disagreements over names, or over what happened in the series. Kind of like have a common understanding such as this way - everyone is pleased and everyone is on the same page. If not, well - what can we do?


I know he is usually considered a human but cant know for sure so I think we should leave it as unknown. Count Raznagul 20:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Daizenshuu noncanon!!!!! Count Raznagul 00:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

(Breaks some bread)[edit]

I totally do not need any more of this drama. Can we just bury the hatchet and pretend all of this never happened? The S 02:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Fellow Saint Seiya fan[edit]

I've noticed by now that you have as much spirit for Saint Seiya as i have. And i thought that the Wiki page being just built on one persons knowledge wouldn't be aknowledged by the community. So i would like to suggest a teamwork between you and me since i've noticed that we both have some sources the other doesn't. So what do you say?


Hi, I already provided fact info on the discussion on the talk page, what do you still need to wait for to adjust the article? I can even provide the manga pages that stated the fact to expalin the research if you need that. Yajaec 23:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


What are you talking about, I stated hard fact stright from manga that Hypnose and Thanatos have Pandora to watch over Hades' spirit till the seal on the tower is broken, it's hard fact I even have the manga and I can provide it how can you dismiss it? Yajaec 23:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


I did not modify the words in manga, and I will provide links to manga pages if I have to and proove that's what manga said. I did not controdict myself because manga clearly said that Hades born as Pandora's younger brother. And shown in manga that all the gods existed before 13years ago either physically like Hypnose etc. and spirirtually like Poseidon and Hades, that's not a controdiction.

You have no bases to proove that I am wrong, why don't you provide the fact that I modify the words in manga and proove that manga clearly stated, with out a doubt that the spirit possessed Saga IS Hades?!?!?Yajaec 23:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Your dispute over Saint Seiya[edit]

Hello! My name is Kurt Weber, and I have agreed to assist User:Yajaec as an advocate in his dispute with you over the Saint Seiya article. In order to let tempers cool down, I am asking that both of you agree to refrain from editing this article until the matter is settled. As a show of good faith, Yajaec has agreed to let the article stand as you wish it (this does not, of course, preclude third parties from making their own changes to the article).

You should know that I am not trying to prove the substance of Yajaec's edits "right" in any way--in fact, I know next to nothing about anime or manga. So you don't need to try to prove your case to me; that's not what I'm concerned with. All I'm concerned with is making sure that this matter is settled in a mature and intelligent fashion, regardless of what content winds up in the article.

I think you misunderstand the purpose of the RfC Yajaec filed on that article. He wasn't necessarily trying to find people to back him up; he was simply trying to determine what the community consensus is--whether it agrees with his point, your point, or something altogether different from what both of you want at present. Whatever that consensus is, he is willing to follow it--and, as a good Wikipedian, you should be too. While you are always free to try and change a consensus, you must allow the article to reflect whatever the consensus is at any given moment. Yajaec was simply inviting the Wikipedia community at large to come together and arrive at a consensus, whatever it might be, so that this dispute may be resolved peacefully and quietly.

Finally, your threat of "proper vandalism warnings" should Yajaec continue to edit the article in the manner he preferred was most unnecessary. While a good case could probably be made that he was edit warring, the same case would apply to you as well--it takes two to tangle. And at any rate, what he did certainly was not "vandalism". Simply adding content that you deem inappropriate or incorrect (or removing content you deem appropriate or correct) does not constitute "vandalism"--it must be added (or removed) in bad faith, which clearly is not the case here. Hopefully you can understand this, and keep what arguments you must have in context.

Feel free to contact me if you have any questions about Yajaec's case or the dispute resolution process. Hopefully we can solve this quickly and amicably! Kurt Weber 18:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstand how Wikipedia works. It is not sufficient to simply claim victory and to declare that any further adding of content you consider false constitutes vandalism. Wikipedia works by creating a consensus among interested editors--and, as you and Yajaec appear to be the only interested editors to this point, you must both agree for a consensus to exist. Unless and until that happens, you can neither (a) claim that your version of the page is the only correct one, nor (b) claim that adding content you consider to be "misinformation" constitutes vandalism.

Vandalism requires intent. One not must be simply be adding "misinformation" (your word); he must also honestly believe it to be false. That is absolutely not the case here.

As you and Yajaec were clearly unable to come to a consensus among yourselves, Yajaec filed an RfC requesting a consensus on what should be contained in the article. This simply means that he was soliciting input from the Wikipedia community at large as to what the best way to write the article would be. Remember that, by choosing to be a Wikipedia editor, you are bound to honor whatever consensus the Wikipedia community comes to regarding article content. As I mentioned earlier, you are of course free to try and change that consensus--but you must allow the article to reflect the current consensus at any point in time. I urge you at least give the RfC a try--simply because Yajaec has been ineffective at convincing you of his arguments does not mean he is wrong. We all get a little thick-headed (myself included) when we're sure of ourselves, and sometimes it takes two or three different ways of presenting an argument before those who disagree with you find the one that gets through to you.

Just give it a chance, that's all I'm asking. Help Yajaec see the RfC through to the end--clearly, you're both genuinely interested in making this article the best it can be.

Finally, I do not need to understand the article's subject matter to be an effective advocate. Remember, it's not my job to figure out what the "correct" version of the page is--my job is simply to help editors come to a consensus as to what it is by guiding them through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Kurt Weber 22:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You claim it is indisputable proof; he clearly disagrees. That is the purpose of the RfC--to come to a community consensus about which is correct. Again, it is not enough for you to simply claim victory and then categorically revert any changes he may make. When there is a disagreement among editors, you solicit the input of the community as a whole. If you are unwilling to follow proper Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures, further action may be taken. Kurt Weber 13:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you understand quite what is required of you as a Wikipedian. First off, you must realize that this is a community effort. That means, among other things, that you may not "claim" ownership of articles. Your remark that you "will not allow" Yajaec to edit Saint Seiya unless it contains certain elements [1] indicates that you do indeed assert ownership over that article, a violation of WP:OWN.

Furthermore, being right (if indeed you are--I don't know) does not free you from your obligation to work with others. You claim that the RfC for that article is "unnecessary" because all Yajaec has to do is cite sources that back him up. He believes he has done that. You claim he has not. The whole purpose of the RfC process is to resolve just such disputes between users. Unfortunately, no one uninvolved in the dispute has chosen to offer his input. This is regrettable; however, there are still several options available to resolve the dispute--but merely claiming "victory" and reverting any edits you disagree with is not one of them, regardless of how right you may be.

Finally, I must insist that you stop referring to Yajaec's edits to that page as "Vandalism". Just because you are convinced you are right--and are convinced you have adequately demonstrated how right you are--does not make adding what you call "misinformation" vandalism. If malicious intent is not obvious--and it is not in this case--then you must show that he did indeed have malicious intent rather than being simply mistaken about a question of fact. If you continue referring to his edits as "vandalism" without showing this to be true, it may be considered a violation of WP:CIVIL. Kurt Weber 17:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not whether or not you consider it to be "misinformation", or whether or not it actually is "misinformation". The issue is: did the individual who added the content honestly believe it to be incorrect? You may be convinced that you have sufficiently proved that his edits are incorrect, but that is not sufficient--Wikipedia runs on consensus, not your assertions. The fact that Yajaec has agreed to refrain from editing the article until a consensus can be reached is a certain indicator of good faith--and the rest of the Wikipedia community will agree with me. If you continue to reject the need to find a consensus and instead simply deem your assertions sufficient, and if you continue to assume bad faith on the part of Yajaec and consider him to be a "vandal", you may very well find yourself blocked for violating Wikipedia's No Personal Attacks policy. Kurt Weber 21:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Aroon Alone[edit]

Hi there, i where just wondering how you got アルーン to Aroon, when the kanji means Aruun.


May i know why you have revert in tomb raider : anniversary?. --SkyWalker 14:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Dragon World[edit]

Please see Talk:Dragon World dispute for your vote on whether we should keep the Human (Dragon World) article or have it merged into Dragon World. Thanks! Power level (Dragon Ball) 15:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

template tag with Daishokaioshin[edit]

I don't know what's going on but please stop right now. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Replied on my talk page soi as to keep the discussion in one place. Although if you just stop there is no more to discuss. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 01:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Power level (Dragon Ball Z)[edit]

It seems that the article is missing a few Dragon Ball power levels from the Daizenshuu. In the past, you claimed to have [owned/or still own] a Daizenshuu, is that correct? I'm pretty sure that the following power levels, which I shall list now, are from thoses file books. They are:

Start of Dragon Ball

Kid Goku: 10

Kid Goku (Oozaru): 100

Other official ones I'm sure I've seen before:

Tao Pai Pai (before he became a cyborg):146 (When he was revived as a cyborg, I've seen that it was 189)

Crane Hermit:120

Piccolo Daimaou (old): 201

Piccolo Daimaou (young): 260 =I don't remember exactly what all of his demon offspring's power levels were precisely.

  1. Now I won't list the Red Ribbon Army's, Bacterian's, Namu's, Panpoot's, Man Wolf's, Ranfuan's, and Giran's, etc., Dragon Ball power levels because now I'm not really sure what the Daiz' has for them, or if they/anyone else is even given a power level in those books. Can you confirm any of these according to your Daizenshuu(s)? If they're official, can they be added to that article and, hence, can the article be renamed and moved to Power level (Dragon Ball)? -Since it's a continuation of DB, why should it even be named after DBZ, right? Answer back to me A.S.A.P.! Thanks, PL(DB) 08:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Then can you go ahead and add all of those Dragon Ball power levels since you have the Daizenshuu and I don't? The ones you listed of course (which I believe is true):

Kid Gokû: 10 Gokû Ôzaru: 100 Kame Sennin/Jackie Chun: 139 Tsuru Sennin: 120 Gokû and Tenshinhan during the 22nd Tenkaichi Budôkai: 180 each Gokû and Piccolo Daimaô in their final fight: 260 each

  • By the way, the reason why I said for the aricle to be renamed and moved to Power level (Dragon Ball) is because (Dragon Ball Z) is still (Dragon Ball). For example, Baby's article is not titled Baby (Dragon Ball GT) it's just Baby (Dragon Ball). Burdock's isn't Burdock (Dragon Ball Z), it's Burdock (Dragon Ball). See what I mean? If you still think it shouldn't be moved, then should I begin a survey/discussion about it on its' talk page? Answer back to me as soon as ya can and I really hope you add those power levels and give ear to my move request. Thanks! PL(DB) 18:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Folken, uh, are you gonna do it? Will you add the power levels and rename/move the page to Power level (Dragon Ball) si'l vous plait? Monsier, I would do it, but I don't wanna be scolded at or warned for possibe vandalism, plus I don't have a Daizenshuu to prove my theories... PL(DB) 19:02, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I already moved the page. I really, really hope that you add those Dragon Ball power levels since you have proof and I don't. Maybe I'll try to buy a Daizenshuu on eBay when I get the chance (if there's still one available). PL(DB) 20:01, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for everything. I was wondering though...[edit]

If it's not too much work for you, could you scan those power levels from your Daizenshuu and at the bottom of the Power level (Dragon Ball) page, place them as external links? It would be proof that all of those power levels are official, trustworthy, and not Original Research. Just a thought though... but perhaps, there is a website that has those Daizenshuu scans in Japanese, ain't there? Do you know of any site(s) that can be used as external links? PL(DB) 07:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Seems that it is called spamming to have those Daizenshuu scans and that image shacking is not allowed either. PL(DB) 17:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
These scans of yours here

and here that I got from you and added to that PL (DB) article are considered spam because of having something to do with image shacking. I wouldn't know, though... but in order for there to be some kind of evidence that these power levels are 100% accurate, don't cha think that there should be some kind of external link at the bottom of the page? That way, several people can use the links as references and not have to ask any questions or find the need to change any of the levels of any of those characters. PL(DB) 17:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Well then, maybe ya should take a look at this...[edit]

Hey, it's me Power level. Or I should say Bonjour, mon ami! Como c'est vai? Très bien! Très bien! (I only took French I in Secondary School, or as you'd call it, l'école secondaire) Anyways... maybe you saw how that I was just adding some more missing power levels from your Daizenshuu. I just realized, shouldn't the DB movie power levels be placed onto that article, PL (DB)? I don't have the Father of Goku, Broly, and any other DB movies except the Bojack film and Super Android 13 film DVD's. Maybe you can help add those movie power levels. If I recall correctly, Broli was born with a power level of 10,000. Burdock's power level was ≈10,000 (meaning approximately 10,000) which was mentioned in the special (I think) to be closer to King Vegeta's power level, which must have been 10,000 right? As for my user page, maybe you could just look through that and see if any of my guestimated power levels are correct. Now I'm not sayin' to use them as a reference, but see if anything else is right (which is not listed on the PL (DB) article). Ok? Thanks for your time, merci beaucoup! PL(DB) 16:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply: PL discussion[edit]

Oui, oui... well, in the Burdock movie special, I remember distinctly that when Burdock was recovering in that water chamber, either Malaka or Planthorr said something along the lines that: "he's recovering rapidly close to 10,000. That's almost King Vegeta's strength..." or something like that. Also, in the manga, Vegeta did say something along the lines to Freeza that he [Vegeta] was stronger than his father and had surpassed him when he was a child. For some reason, in the special, I also remember something like "Prince Vegeta's power level is 5,000." Either Nappa (the tall guy with hair in that special) said something like that, or I'm getting this from other source, or somewhere in my head :} Can you confirm all of these facts by watching the Japanese version of your Bardock: Father of Goku DVD with English subtitles on? (If ya haven't already done so, of course) Also, Vegeta's power level being close to 250,000 when fighting Freeza's first form sounds innaccurate. If anything, it was closer to being ≈530,000 rather than 250,000. If you recall, Vegeta was able to evenly match Freeza in his first form. Doesn't that mean that 250,000 is a little too weak of a power level to combat 530,000? Also Vegeta being closer to the 2 millions after being healed by Dende does sound like a guestimation. If ya really want my opinion on it, I'd say it was a hell of a lot closer to the 3 millons or something. Anyways, I'll let you decide on that. Oh yeah, get back to me on that Burdock and Broly thing. Then we'll add those power levels in the order they should be added. Definitely, we'll have to add Broly's power level at birth (10,000), as well as Son Goku's birth power (which is a mere level 2). PL(DB) 19:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, two other DB characters power levels that we should take into consideration is:

Yajirobe: 180 (from being able to match Kid Goku [180] evenly in their first encounter) - {just a thought...}

Karin: 180 (from caluculation)

Why Karin you ask? Because remember when Kid Goku asked Karin to train him to fight King Piccolo? Karin said something in the series like this "You gained as much power as I've ever had". You remember that, right? That's why Karin couldn't train him to battle King Piccolo. Anyways, I really hope you go back online Wikipedia so we could chat more about this. Where are you?... ... PL(DB) 15:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

If you recall this message: About the movie, I've not seen much of them (unedited/subbed, anyway), I only have the "Burdock Special" DVD...In it, they do say that Burdock is "about 10,000" so we can add it, yes. Also, Gokû as a newborn baby is said to be 2. As for the other movie, I don't know yet. Broli is said to be 10,000 at birth, but that's really all I know for sure. Concerning King Vegeta, I don't remember anything being said about him in the Burdock Special or anywhere. But know we're talking about it, I think Vegeta said somewhere he was already stronger than his father, but I don't remember when it was. Concerning your guesstimations, they seem valid. Anyway, while we're at it, concerning Vegeta against Freeza, I've always thought he was like 250,000 when he fought against Freeza 1, and then 2 millions against Freeza 4. What do you think about it?

Why did ya never respond to it again even though I responded back? (I noticed you started editing Wikipedia again on Jan. 13.) Anyways, we should add those movie power levels, Karin's, Yajirobi's, etc. immediately, right mon ami? (Power level (Dragon Ball) 19:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't know you were so busy. My bad. I guess I'll discuss power levels with other people. Power level (Dragon Ball) 20:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to say somethin'[edit]

When ya also could, see Wikipedia:User_categories_for_discussion#Category:Wikipedians_who_like_Dragon_Ball_Z for your opinion on this. PL(DB) 19:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

It's been taken care of... (Power level (Dragon Ball) 19:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject France[edit]

Hello! We are a group of editors working to improve the quality of France related articles. You look like someone who might be interested in joining us in the France WikiProject and so I thought I'd drop you a line and invite you! We'd love to have you in our project :-) STTW (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

PL (DB) Comment[edit]

I don't know if ya still wanna participate in this, but if ya want to, see Talk:Power level (Dragon Ball)#Okay, let's get these power levels right!, thanks! Power level (Dragon Ball) 19:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Salut Folken! I didn't know that you had the Burdock film. Can you confirm the power levels of Prince Vegeta, King Vegeta and Burdock if they're mentioned in the Japanese audio with English subtitles? If you want to, you can show a scan (or we'll just trust your word if its' too much trouble for you to scan them). Thanks! Power level (Dragon Ball) 17:41, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
It was in the manga (I believe) that Prince Vegeta said to Freeza on Namek: "I had surpassed him [King Vegeta] when I was a child..."

But wait, you have the uncut DVD right? Yours doesn't feature King Vegeta in it? How strange... Power level (Dragon Ball) 22:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

But you have the uncut FUNimation DVD, right? I'm so sure that King Vegeta (and his son) and even a young Nappa is in that version of the Bardock: The Father of Goku special. You sure ya got the Uncut FUNimation Bardock special? Power level (Dragon Ball) 22:20, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Pardonnez-moi then, I'm sorry that I bothered you a little about it. Merci pour l'informatique though... I'll see if I can find out soon what TV episode King Vegeta appeared in. Power level (Dragon Ball) 23:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
What was mentioned (power levels, etc.) about Prince Vegeta when he defeated those four Saibaimen in that training chamber? Did Nappa say anything? Power level (Dragon Ball) 16:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


Hey Folken, would you be interested in joining our Wikiproject? Wikipedia:WikiProject Dragon Ball -- bulletproof 3:16 02:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


I have nothing against Geocities but it isn't a reliable source. Why don't you just source the info the the DVD itself using {{cite video}}, instead of repeatedly adding the geocities cite

†he Bread 3000 22:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If you happened to know the WP:RS rules (go read I can't be fucked explaining it) Geocities fails it, no matter how well translated it is. And if happened to know WTF you were talking about you'd know that the directors commentary comes from a DVD, I've sourced the crap you wanted sourced, it's done. That information is fairly trivial though, who cares if BB lost his eye to a bullet or the muzzle flash he still lost it, and it's fairly obvious he's pissed with McCone when he doesn't shake his hand
†he Bread 3000 19:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Here, the DVD exists I have it at my house. I'm reverting, it's easier to go with the DVD
†he Bread3000 19:53, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
I meant location as in that that was the one I reffer to, the location of the one i'm citeing. Prehaps we could provide a hyper link to the geocities cite in the title of the ref as can be done, thus we're sourcing the reliable source and have a exaple for people to see online
†he Bread3000 01:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you speak Portuguese too?[edit]

I noticed that you've been editing the Power level page on the Portuguese Wikipedia. I've also noticed that there is a vandal on that page and that you constantly warned him with the same warning to not put OR levels there and yet he still continued. Are there no other test warnings on that Wiki? Are there even any administrators on the Portuguese Wikipedia to stop those vandals? By the way, I'm Brazilian! :} Power level (Dragon Ball) 01:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! Just one thing, I'll talk to User:Leon in my native language to help him out, but here's the catch: would it be considered sockpuppetry to talk to him using a different username? I don't wanna have Power level (Dragon Ball) as my Brazilian username. It's too wierd... Power level (Dragon Ball) 18:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I trust you on this. Power level (Dragon Ball) 18:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I did it! I lefted a message on his talk page and told him that I was gonna show imageshacks of the Daizenshuu as proof. I hope this works... Oh! By the way, my portuguese username is Justiça Poética. I'm sure you can figure out what it translates to in English... ;} Power level (Dragon Ball) 19:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
I left a comment for you on the Portugues wiki on your talk page. Cheers! Power level (Dragon Ball) 19:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


If you haven't already, please familliarise yourself with our three revert rule. -- Steel 19:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Daizenshuu and Son Goku's height.[edit]

Hello, nice to meet you. I'm here to ask you of a question which needs Daizenshuu to be solved. Power level (Dragon Ball) recommended me to ask you because you have Daizenshuu. Of course other users also are welcomed to talk about this together. So here it goes.

There are many opinions about Goku's height. Some say 5'11", some say 6', and others say 6'2". But these are only 'guesses' and I think only Daizenshuu can truly answer to this question.

According to my search on the internet, I got a conclusion that the answer would surely be either 5 feet 7 inches(170.2cm) or 175cm. Here's the reason why I got to think so.

In the US wikipedia site(here), some users strongly insisted and concluded that Son Goku's height is 5'7". They said the English Daizenshuu says so. Therefore, I thought at first, 5'7" would be the answer.

However, as I searched the Japanese websites(I can somewhat speak Japanese), I found an intersting thing. The Japanese wikipedia page claimed Goku's height is 175cm! Every Japanese private DB homepages I went also said Goku's height is 175cm. Not even one exception. Of course wikipedia and the all Japanese homepages could be wrong. But it is very probable that some of those Japanese wikipedia users or Japanese homepage makers too, have Japanese Daizenshuu considering DB was born in Japan and the users and DB site hosts are also greatly interested in Dragonball.

So, I became very confused. What I thought about this is that there could have been an error in translating Japanese Daizenshuu to English Daizenshuu. However, I'm not even sure the English Daizenshuu really is saying that Goku's height is 5'7" and the Japanese Daizenshuu really is saying that Goku's height is 175cm because I don't have any Daizenshuus.

Therefore, I would like you to tell me FULL GROWN GOKU'S HEIGHT as the Daizenshuu says. Thank you very much. --Hilight 02:39, 9 February 2007

Regarding reversions[2] made on February 11 2007 to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows[edit]


Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Cbrown1023 talk 14:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you to be so insistent in writing this warning on my talk page. However I don't want it as I concider it totally undue.
First, it was the result of the personal vandetta of another contributor against me, as he reported the edit war way after everything was ended.
Second, the contributor that reported me has not been warned in any kind, while he was the one who started an edit war, as I've explained in the 3RR notice board: he had reverted me 3 times without any attempt at justifying his edits, without even reading my contributions to the talk page of the article.
Third, you say that "Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. " That's funny because that's exactly what I did.
Before editing anything in the article, I explained in a very detailed way what I thought of the edits needed in the talk page. I quoted various lines from various official Wikipedia policies to back up my claims. However my edits were blindly reverted, and the 2 contributors who did it didn't even bother to read my explanations in the talk page and to answer them. And I'm the one warned, and they get nothing ?
No, no, no, I'm not going to accept to be treated like this, I have been notified, it will show in the history of my personal talk page, however as I personally concider this warning totally undue, and since no one even bothered to take into account my explanations on the 3RR notice board, I will not display it. Folken de Fanel 20:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Did I block you? No. I just gave you a warning because you were one of two editors engaging in edit warring. Which is in most cases totally unacceptable. Futhermore, I also gave the other user a warning as well. I'm not going to accept being treated like this either (well, acutally I am... I don't mind you asking me about this), I could have blocked you for 3RR, but didn't, I only gave you a warning. Thanks, Cbrown1023 talk 20:30, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Please note that the above is a formal notification by the 3RR Abuse Noticeboard. Cbrown1023 talk 00:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Deathly Hallows[edit]

Hi Folken, I was reading through the now very long and tortuous chat page, and wondered how exactly you would rewrite the offending section about the meaning of hallows. There is a complication which perhaps I am silly to introduce, in that I think the section ought to go back to its original title,'meaning of deathly hallows'. We ought to be explaining 'deathly' also. But if I can put that aside for a moment (though am interested in your views), how would you organise the section, if entirely up to you?

Do you object to having a longer section explaining hallows in legends? I understand that there is at least one other mention of a set of thirteen Arthurian hallows, as distinct to four (according to mugglenet, ahem, they are ahead of us in factual content). I am not convinced that the content here is complete or accurate as it might be. Would you be happy if the section manages to present a range of different hallows? (Though I am not sure there exist any further examples, but perhaps we might say there is a celtic/arthurian set of four, and another Arthurian set of 13?)

Do you object to including a reference to lexicon or others where they present their version of the name meaning? Sandpiper 20:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't think we need to worry about spam, or advertising, just now. If I may say so, I think we may get more progress if we do not worry too much about the exact meaning of rules just now.
from your reply it might be understood that you know something about relevant legends. Do you?
I think we have an includeable fact that there exist relics of the four hogwarts founders, that Dumbledore said Voldemort was probably seeking relics of each founder and intended to use them as horcruxes, and he has already identified three (sword, cup, locket). Something like this used to be in the 'continuing plotlines' section of the article, as it is just the established main story. It is really just an expansion of the central plot which is pretty clear to everyone, and frankly, not controversial. One of the reasons I did not reinsert it there, was because the point had moved up to the section about 'hallows', and I do not like saying the same thing twice. The article really has to explain this central plot. However, I would judge it is not necessary to mention the word 'horcrux' at all in the section about the meaning of hallows. Just put that bit back where it came from in the plot section. How does this sound to you? Sandpiper 22:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
I think that perhaps the article became 'worse' from your POV while the little war was going on, and that you might have felt it better as it was before you intervened, than at the last version presented by michaelsanders?
When you speak about 'Arthurian influences on the story', do you mean specifically connecting the four founder's relics with the arthurian legend relics, or do you mean that other aspects of the Arthurian legend may become part of the story? I personally think it quite likely that Rowling may have used arthurian storylines in her books, but that is irrelevant. I don't think we should be talking about any aspects of these legends other than strictly the existence of hallows. If we can only come up with two examples of hallows, then I would suggest listing the 13 hallows and the four hallows, with references to more information. Sandpiper 22:49, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Folen, I didn't insert the revisions into the article. This was done by someone who read the arguments and made their own judgement on what was the proper course of action. You are more than welcome to propose your own amendments to the text, and I have twice requested that you do so, but as yet none have appeared. Sandpiper 02:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, okay, I've reverted myself. My apologies; it appeared that you weren't opposed to the new version, but you obviously are. Trebor 07:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Restored Comments, Deathly Hallows[edit]

Please be my guest to draw the matter to the attention of anyone you want. I myself showed the section I restored to a friend of mine because I was beginning to wonder whether the debate was stretching credibility. I was glad to find that my own interpretation of your comments was confirmed by the second opinion. Please feel free to restore any further comments you wish, but also please do not selectively edit restored text to alter its meaning. I made no error in comprehending your original postings, which I believe anyone would have understood to mean, insert the piece above, unblock the page, and then we can all continue editing in the normal way. It may be that you did not mean this, but it is certainly what you said. Sandpiper 21:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

I would agree with you that quoting both sections of the debate between us is preferable to only posting half of it. In fact, if I had had more time when I reinserted the section and its immediate comments, I would have hunted out the rest of the debate, which was elsewhere on the page, and added it too. I don't see that you can claim the section I posted is 'an old debate', since it contains firstly the text in question, and then your comments in response, which are themselves what we discuss in the section which you re-posted. The time delay between the two (perhaps a week) was simply while I waited for any further comments. None appeared.
Now as to the intention of editors. I'm afraid this is pretty much irrelevant. Lots of people do lots of things in the wide world. Why they do them is generally beside the point. It is what they do which counts. Now, in this particular case, you have quoted a lot of rules, which in your opinion preclude certain content on the page in question. However, in my opinion, in most cases you misapply those rules, so that in fact they do not do this. The issue is whether the generally quoted sources for information about HP are sufficiently reputable for their content to be explained here. I believe that they are, as do a number of others including J K Rowling. In general, sources mentioned for this page do not even claim to have 'the answer'. Rather, they are compilation pages - much like our own - which present known facts, which are considered probably important but in an absolute sense uncertain. There is absolutely nothing wrong with wiki presenting uncertain information. It is what is done here all the time. The distinction made is that it is someone else's uncertain information. In this case there is an enormous amount of it, there can be no question that it is noteable, and worthy of inclusion in any article which pretends to be properly explaining the subject.
As to improvement you requested. It is not my business to make your edits for you. Wiki does not take requests, it is open to anyone to submit the text they want. All I did was make an alternate version of the facts which had already been presented, mostly I think by lulurascal, and followed up some of the references given. I was minded to do this at some point anyway, even before your intervention. If you wanted some addition to this text, then it is up to you to do some research and come up with something which can be included. My provisional opinion was that a series of examples of hallowed places was in no way objectionable, provided it was appropriately presented, but that I do not have such a list. So if you want one added, then please produce it. Otherwise we will continue editing as is normal for any article, people add stuff as and when they find it. Wiki articles do not wait for one person to come up with some specific piece of information before continuing to develop elsewhere, especially when the person concerned has already said he has no objections to the rest of the text. Sandpiper 22:56, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
What can I say, we have a fundamental disagreement. Wiki does present unsubstantiated theories, just so long as they are widely held, or simply widely debated or respected. The issue is not whether something is correct, but whether people believe it. What eventually turns up in HP7 makes no difference to what we write about now. What we write about now is what is known now, and what is believed now. That is no different to any other topic, really. In reality, the chances of Rowling departing from the story which she has already presented is frankly remote, but her actual content really makes no difference to us right now.Sandpiper

No, I am right. Wiki cares not at all whether a theory is right or wrong, whether it is substantiated by sensible research or is frankly ludicrous. All it officially cares about is whether someone else thought of it and it is held by a significant group of people. Sandpiper 20:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Black family tree[edit]

Hi, I am minded that perhaps I need to explain my edits to details of the text more precisely. to take things in the order they appear in the text.

Observing that the relationship being debated would make James and Sirius 2nd cousins is not OR. It is essentially stating the same information in a different way, but which makes it clearer to the reader why this is important. If James=Charlus' son, then automatically James=Sirius cousin. It makes no assertion not implicit in the relationship being discussed.

'However, J. K. Rowling...'. When I write things I often use 'however', and then reading it over go through and strike them all out as unnecessary repetition. 'However' is used to start a sentence which makes a point which contradicts something said just before in the text. In this case, what Rowling says does not contradict what is stated before. Writing 'J.K Rowling has not commented' is a completely neutral way of stating that she has said nothing. It does not imply she supports the idea, nor that she refutes it. It just explains that she has not commented. If you place a 'however' in front, it implies that Rowling has somehow denied the point going before by not commenting, which is untrue. The neutral form of writing does not attempt to make an argument. Use of 'however' here is incorrect.

'Directly'. Rowling has commented indirectly. An indirect comment is one which says something about the subject under discussion, but does not address the main point. In this case, the main point is whether James is Charlus' son. She has not commented on this. However, she has given a description of James parents, which fits (or arguably fails to fit) Charlus and Dorea. Thus she has commented indirectly on the relationship, because she has given us some information which is relevant to this question. So you cannot write that she has not commented, because that is untrue. She has commented indirectly.

'Currently'. Currently is an unnecessary word which does not add to the text, and implies something not quite accurate. Either Rowling has commented, or she has not. She can not have 'currently' commented today, then tomorrow 'currently' not have commented, then the next day 'currently' have commented again. Currently implies something capable of changing. Yes, she might comment, but then that would be it. She could not then un-comment. Currently is normally used to describe something capable of changing state backwards and forwards. 'Runner number 1 is currently in the lead'. Equally to the point, currently is a tautology, because it only tries to tell us something which the other words in the sentence tell us already. If it says Rowling has not commented, then obviously that is how things are now, the current state. It does not need to say 'she has currently not commented', because that is the the same as just saying 'she has not commented'. Sandpiper 19:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me[edit]

Why did you delete the section I wrote about Cancer Deathmask? I did provide evidence & links to support what I said. Also, I wouldn't exactly call a paragraph about an old cartoon character an, as you put it, "blatant Original Research and personal essay". I happen to be an astrologer myself, & was pointing out one way of many that the show doesn't match true astrology.


You have been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring on Horcrux. You are also warned about edit warring on Regulus Black. Please take the time to review our WP:3RR policy, and note that a content dispute, or dispute about sourcing, does not justify violating WP:3RR (except in WP:BLP cases, which this is not). I hope you come back to editing with a better understanding of our rules, and refrain from edit warring, even when you are convinced your edits are correct. Thanks, Crum375 19:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Granger Materials[edit]

I really can't see what the use of fan theories in article, even if seperated from the main content. I mean, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a crystall ball, right ? Original research cannot be accepted unless it comes from a reliable source, and a reliable source is still self-published material with no fact-checking, right ? So, does this mean Wikipedia has become a new kind of message board dedicated to unsubstanciated theories ? I mean, now it's obvious articles exist only for speculation...Folken de Fanel 21:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Folken - What I told Michael, and what I believe is properly Wiki-encyclopedic and thus allowable, is this...
1 - Michael - just a gentle reminder: stating in the Horcrux article wording like "It has been suggested that Voldemort only discovered that it had been destroyed..." appears to constitute Weasel Wording. As a rule of thumb, if the statement cannot stand alone as factual without opening it with a conditional preamble like Some fans believe... or Critics argue that... or It has been said that..., then it is probably not encyclopedic in terms of the topic under discussion itself. Please review the Avoid Weasel Wording article for some good guidelines. If you are going to add fan and critical opinions to an article, then it probably belongs in a separate "Fan reaction" or "Critical views" section, and not in the main descriptive part of the text, which is supposed to be purely factual and verifiable, defining the topic encyclopedically with a neutral tone. I do not personally have a problem with "us" documenting what a significant portion of the HP fan base might believe, or non-canonical statements that critics might publish, but I believe such matters should be segregated from the definitive description part, which ought to remain purely canonical (from Rowling), and not be infected with outside views without a wall of separation (that is a separate section). I understand you have found a new "reliable source" containing all sorts of original research that we have taken to posting as now "encyclopedic", due to arguments back on the Hallows page. These recent edits are so unlike you that I am a bit startled and confused - I thought someone had hijacked your screen name. Anyway I hope and trust this is not about making a point with other editors who have engaged you in battle over OR and such, which is a practice frowned upon. Thanks for your attention, have a great weekend. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 15:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
2 - Follow Up: I think perhaps the proper way of presenting John Granger's published analyses within the Harry Potter articles would be to present clearly, in-situ, that they are his views, and not necessarily canonical, Rowling-based material. For example, as a parallel, if we were discussing English naturalist Charles Darwin's various theories on evolution, and especially those published in his book On The Origin of Species, and then presented additional different-view material that was not from Darwin but from someone else, but still on the general theory of evolution, then we would write that in a separate contrasting section. Something like this: "Dr. Stephen Jay Gould reworked and extended Darwin's evolutionary principles by revising a key pillar in the central logic of Darwinian evolution, by presenting Punctuated equilibrium in his book The Panda's Thumb... " (and then elucidating on about Gould's variations on Darwin's theories). So for Horcruxes, we could legitimately state something like, (again in a separate section) "Esteemed University Professor John Granger of the Muggle Institute for Advanced Potter Studies suggests in his book Who Killed Albus Dumbledore? that ..." (and then presenting his original theories and analyses). This approach is clearer and more encyclopedic (and probably less antagonizing) than just blurting out his controversial theories mixed right in with the non-controversial canonical Rowling-stated material, and finishing it off with a tiny footnote stating the page number of his new book, which hardly anyone else has a copy of anyway. I'm simply trying to find a way where we can include your thoughts, and how they should be presented for consideration, and yet cut back on the edit reversion / original-research wars, which would seem to be intractable at this point. Thanks again for your attention. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 23:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
This is my interpretation of the Wikipedia policies and guidelines regarding original research as described generally at Attribution. I believe "Self Published" in the Reliable Source section refers to, for example, if Michael published something that was not peer reviewed, and then also posted it on the Wikipedia - as a conflict of interest and perhaps pushing an agenda. It does NOT apply, in my view, to material posted by Michael but openly published by Granger, and thus open to external criticism. We can also perhaps discuss published critical reaction to Granger's work, if there is any. In any case, it should be clearly stated that any Granger-published material is his own, and not canonical and Rowling-approved, and it would be good to segregate it into special sections within the main articles, as I recommended above. The Granger material is clearly original research on the part of Granger (unless he plagiarized from some other source like or the MuggleNet), but not on the part of Michael or anyone else who chooses to refer to it. We allow many other articles that contain "original research", like the Darwin-related articles. The Granger material is (apparently) verifiable (although I do not have a copy of the book to check, and currently have no plans to get one), so it presumably meets the verifiability requirement. Neutral point of view is required of Michael the Wiki-editor (and you), not Granger's work, which can certainly be opinionated. It might be good to find some reaction to the Granger material on the various HP web sites that Rowling has acknowledged, to determine Granger's personal reliability as a source, and the plausibility of his conclusions. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 22:24, 25 March 2007 (UTC)


OK I must have missed something about Granger's material in the fury of the edit reversion wars. I thought we were discussing posting material from a published book. The Self Published Source section from the Attribution policy states...
A self-published source is a published source that has not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking, or where no one stands between the writer and the act of publication. It includes personal websites and books published by vanity presses. Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are usually not acceptable as sources (see Exceptions below).
Exceptions - As mentioned above there are a few specific situations in which a self-published source can be considered reliable. These include...
When a well-known, professional researcher writing within his or her field of expertise, or a well-known professional journalist, has produced self-published material, these may be acceptable as sources, so long as his or her work has been previously published by credible, third-party publications. Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, someone else will have done so; second, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to any independent form of fact-checking.
If Granger's material is on an essentially personal web site run by Granger, and there is no peer review or other fact-checking (difficult for speculative original research about a fictional Potter universe), then I can see the cause for a strong difference of opinion. I still think we can consider posting Granger's theories in relevant, but they must be demoted to the status of regular (if well organized and sometimes well defended) fan speculation, not expert opinion. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 00:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Michael and Folken and Sandpiper (etc).: The rules for writing articles about fiction are discussed at WP:Notability (fiction) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and at related articles linked there. Please step back, and take some time to study those policies and guidelines at your earliest convenience. The policy on writing about fiction states: "Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.". Mr. Granger's work would qualify as sourced analysis, I believe. I agree that Granger's work is speculative and original research, but it is NOT original research or speculative for us to discuss his analyses in the articles, with proper sourcing for verifiability. He is not just any fan, so this does NOT open the door to just anyone posting their original research. The Wikipedia policy not only ALLOWS us to present critical analyses of works of fiction, it essentially REQUIRES us to do so, to make good articles. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 19:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)


Folken, just because I haven't replied your screeds today doesn't imply that the issue is over. It isn't, there is no reason for you to begin an edit war there by removing text. Stop it. Rest assured that I will be returning to the discussion once I have dealt with other matters. Michael Sanders 18:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

You have been blocked 48 hours[edit]

You have been blocked 48 hours for violating the 3 revert rule on Horcrux. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR (2)[edit]

Folken, I've reported you on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR for violation of the 3-revert rule on Horcrux. Michael Sanders 23:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Alternate titles[edit]

Hi Folken. I was wandering what information you have regarding what the alternative titles of the book were? Sandpiper 23:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I understood that you placed no faith in anything posted on articles on mugglenet? Either you do consider them reliable, or you do not. Which?
Perhaps you could provide a reference, otherwise I don't see that i can simply take your OR as evidence. Sandpiper 23:44, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
I did go to mugglenet, but I did not find what you claim is there. Thus I am asking you to show me where it says this. Sandpiper 10:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for that. However, the mugglenet article says that Heart of Ravenclaw and Deadly Veil. were recently registered, but were never actual contenders for the title. It mentions Hallows of Hogwarts, but does not comment on whether it was a real contender or not, and does not comment on the status of the titles registered in 2003. So please leave the references to the other two registered titles mentioning hallows in the article. Sandpiper 11:23, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
The mugglenet article states what it states. It quotes two titles registered by 'field fisher waterhouse', and then says a representativ of someone said thewy had never been contenderras. My source, the book by Langford, quotes the two titles I mention as being registered by 'Seabottom productions' in 2003-2004. I have no idea whether these were valid titles, I merely comment that they were similart and were registered in the past. How anyone came to think them up I have no idea, but I leave it readers of the article to make up their own mind. Which is entirely the correct way to write an article. Neutrally. Sandpiper 11:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
It is a list of titles which mention hallows, because quite obviously it is in the section about hallows. I have no objection to adding any other titles ever registered which use the word so that it is exhaustive. Sandpiper 17:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't know what it means, and I am certainly not going to speculate in the page. However, it is interesting so it should go in. People would undoubtedly be interested to know that someone had suggested similar titles before. Sandpiper 17:40, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

There are still some problems with your suggestion.

  • frst, the list from mugglenet is not necessarily a complet one. Langfords book quotes 16 titles registered by seabottom productions, only a couple of which are in the mugglenet list. The inference from the mugglenet item is that those titles were registered by fisher waterhouse. Potentially there might be hundreds of others.
  • Secondly, I see no point in listing random titles unless there is an an obvious point of similarity, i.e. the appearance of what is a very rare englishs word, 'hallows'. Perhaps you miss the point about this word, that it is not one anyone uses in this way.
  • Third, I understood you to consider mugglenet an unacceptable source. Does this now mean you accept references from Mugglenet?
  • Fourth, the mugglenet article seems to imply that only three titles were registered on 5 December, and the other two were never real candidates. It does not state the other titles mentioned there were eliminated, and certainly makes no comment about different titles at different occasions.

The relevance of past registered titles containing the word hallows is exactly that. that they contain the word. It is an interesting fact. Why do you object to mentioning it? wiki is not paper? Sandpiper 09:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Folken, but you are not properly reflecting the use of the quote from the representative in context. Immediately before the quote, the mugglenet article refers to just two other titles. At that point in the writing only two alternative titles have been mentioned, and on the basis of precisely what is written there 'the titles' refers to the two titles 'heart of ravenclaw', and 'deadly veil'. The person goes on to say that they often register 'spares', but he makes no comment in this quote about whether any other particular titles registered in the past were real or not. I do not doubt that they have registered many other invalid titles, but that does not say they have not registered other possible ones also. The quote therefore says nothing about whether any particular earlier titles were valid or made up. The other titles are certainly not excluded by this comment, I agree, but they also do not contain the word 'hallow' which is their unique relevance to this article. whether they were made up or not really doesnt matter, the word is what is interesting. As to fansite accuracy, how can you say that with a straight face when you are two lines above suggesting we should rely on a quote from one? Sandpiper 08:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR (again)[edit]

Just reported you for 3RR violation on Deathly Hallows. Will you stop doing this? How can someone who keeps quoting rules be so forgetfull about this one? Sandpiper 12:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR Violation warning[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

You recently were engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you made on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you resume, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. In fact, you clearly violated the 3RR. Had I seen the report while the reverts were still going on, I would have blocked you. But since you have not edited that page in over 2 days, a block now would be punitive, not prevntative. Note that the WP:3RR forbids revertign more than 3 times in any 24 hour period, even if thre is a 12 or 16 hour gap between two of the reverts, and even if the matter is discussed on the talk page, unless possibly the final revert is the result of a compromise or agreement between teh editors involved. If this happens again, on any article, you will be blocked. DES (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

claim that representatives of Rowling denied Hogwarts Hallows or Hallows of Hogwarts were possible titles.[edit]

Folken, I see that you have again edited the article and inserted the above claim. Mugglenet do not claim that this is the case. Please read what they wrote more carefully. I think you would also find that you might have more success in arguing points on wikipedia if you endeavour more to understand the full meaning of what you read. I noted that you protested against violating 3RR because the edits had been 12 or more hours apart. This is exactly another example of what I mean. The rule says 'in 24 hours'. Not what you might wish it to say. This applies to all rules on wiki. Read what they actually say instead of trying to make them mean something else. Sandpiper 22:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

you keep re-quoting what the people from mugglenet said, but you still do not seem to understand the words. It says 'the titles'. The. Definite article. I.e. those titles which we are already talking about. ie those titles already mentioned in the article. not just 'some titles', or 'all other titles', but specifically those already being talked about in the article. It says that the other two mentioned in the lead section were not candidates for the real title. It may be inferred from this that probably other titles registered in the past had been false titles, but it does not say that they were. In wiki terms, it is OR to say that they are claiming all other titles registered in the past were false ones, and in real life it would be untrue as well. That representative could have said exactly what he did in a court, under oath, despite knowing that some real alternate titles had indeed been registered in case they were needed. He may have said more than is reported by mugglenet, but mugglenet only says he denied that those two specific titles had ever been candidates. Sandpiper 18:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)


Folken, you know perfectly well that the location of the locket etc etc has been discussed thoroughly on the Horcrux article, and we have agreed there that prcisely the same information is sourced and includeable. I know you have not agreed this, butr others have. So please do not claim that you believe it unsourced. You are not entitled to delete material simply because it has no source listed, only if it is not possible to source it. In this case, the material is not only sourceable, but already sourced.

While on the subject of RAB, I notice that you self reverted to avoid 3RR. Please note, that this was rather pointless since you did not revert all your reversion, but therefore still reverted one passage four times in 24 hours. Another unfortunate mistake? Sandpiper 19:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Folken, even if book 7 is never published, it would make no difference to the fact that there exist established, widespread and even published-in-books views of some things which are likely to happen. These are noteable and have existed even from the day of publication of HBP, when Emmerson spatz and Melissa Anelli interviewing Rowling asked her if Regulus was RAB. I don't understand why you are so determined to deny that many people take this as a cast-iron certainty. The point is not whether it is really true or not, but that people believe it is true, and have said so. That is exactly what is supposed to be reported on wiki. In fact, as a theory from third parties out there in the real world, it is exactly the sort of thing which should take up the majority of articles, at least in the view of quite a number of editors. Sandpiper 21:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Evangelion characters article[edit]

Folken, since you're one of the most active editors to the various Eva-related articles, I thought I'd contact you directly about this issue. Do you agree with the action that I propose? Please get back to me. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

mission impossible.[edit]

There's really nothing that i can do. I agree with you, but those guys run in packs. Anything i try to say will just be shot down. You can try Requesting Full Protection and them asking for a peer review and stuff like that. I'm sorry. Wikipedia is just an imperfect system sometimes... dposse 18:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


Yah, well, after looking over the issue, I realized that section was a large connection of disjointed ideas, and after more research, I realized that the best thing to do was just to remove the whole bit, it's all really original research. I do think now though there's at least some semblance of the section that flows now, but that section's just had way too many hot points, it seems like every week there's a new edit war going on about that section... Tuvas 20:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, its odd that. Most of the stuff is just other instances of the same word causing the difficulty. Ought not to be controversial. Sandpiper 19:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from R.A.B.. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Funpika 22:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Michael Sanders[edit]

I not sure why you don't understand that templates and edit warring aren't the way to solve problems. Please try and do something constructive and stop relying on blind faith in policy. John Reaves (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Please start using the preview feature or thinking ahead, I don't like seeing the new messages bar every minute. John Reaves (talk) 21:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm sure people are fed up with your edit warring as well. The majority of all of your edits are reversions. And I'll "meddle" as much as I please. John Reaves (talk) 21:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

3RR (how many times is this?) RAB[edit]

just a note that I have once again reported you for violation of 3RR, this time on RAB. Sandpiper 23:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)



You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. Here are the reverts in question. alphachimp 00:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

File:Orologio rosso or File:Orologio verde DOT SVG (red clock or green clock icon, from Wikimedia Commons)
This blocked 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). Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Folken de Fanel (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribsdeleted contribsabuse filter logcreation logchange block settingsunblock)

Request reason:

Merely reverting unsourced content vandalism and spam in external links. The 3RR report is false, there are 23 hours between the first set of reverts reported. Besides, asking for User:Sandpiper to be blocked because he's constantly edit warring, and even 3 consecutive reverts can be a motive for block, and that's his case.

Decline reason:

You were blocked for violating WP:3RR. 3RR policy says that 3RR is not applicable when a user is reverting clear vandalism. This was not the case, as the other user's edits were legitimate and definitely not a clear case of vandalism. Please familiarize yourself with WP:3RR. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

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.

This fast and louse attitude towards edit warring is precisely why you should have been blocked. alphachimp 13:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Then Sandpiper should be blocked. But not me, because I was merely reverting his vandalism.Folken de Fanel 15:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
You lost me when you decided to call the other editor's good faith edits "vandalism". It usually shows a very bad case of assuming bad faith and poor judgment; this shows in the fact that the edit war was not over "simple and obvious vandalism", which "only applies to the most simple and obvious vandalism... not just obvious to you or obvious to editors of the page... [this] is the only kind of 3RR allowed" (from WP:3RR) Part Deux 17:28, 24 April 2007 (UTC)



My username is Bapti and I am a mediator ("Wikipompier" is literally "wiki-fireman" in English) on the French-language Wikipedia. I will try to solve the problems on the articles devoted to Harry Potter. Please indicate the modifications, additions and deletions you wish to see done on the articles on this page (it would be preferable if you wrote in French).--Bapti 13:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Bonjour Je m'appelle Bapti et je suis un médiateur sur la Wikipédia francophone. Je vais essayer de résoudre les problèmes sur les articles consacrés à Harry Potter. Merci d'indiquer sur cette page les modifications, ajouts et suppressions que vous souhaitez pour les articles (de préférence en Français).--Bapti 13:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Tomb Raider Anniversary[edit]

Just to clear up any confusion, I'm not denying the existence of a Wii version. It already states in the article that there is a Wii version. What that person put in the article was that "the next week" following June 8, 2006 (mentioned in the previous paragraph), Eidos announced a Wii version. That is not true. They announced the Wii version only recently. ColdFusion650 20:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

John Granger[edit]

Je préfère que vous n'utilisiez pas ma page d'utilisateur pour continuer votre argument avec Sandpiper - je lui ai simplement posé une question, parce que je voulais lire la fin du débat avec le pompier. C'était moi, comme vous le savez très bien, qui ai commencé (ou au moins, qui ai essayé de commencer...) le débat sur le 'talk page' de l'article 'Regulus Black' pour décider si l'on garde le paragraphe qui commence par 'The series has been noted as following several patterns...'

J'ai tant de respet pour les gens, comme vous, qui prennent le temps de contribuer aux articles sur Wikipedia, mais de tout ce que j'ai vu, votre comportement laisse à désirer de temps en temps. Je vous informe, donc, que si je vois un seul nouveau message de votre part sur ma page, qui ne me concerne pas directement, ou qui fait partie de votre argument avec Sandpiper, je déposerai une plainte contre vous. Merci. Libatius 11:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


Please see Talk:R.A.B.--Jac16888 12:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

and btw, when you are engaging in a content dispute with another user, you are not supposed to give them vandalism warnings.

Re:Deathly hallows[edit]

Could you please give me the link to the debate where the consensus has been achieved? Thank you. Peacent 01:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind me, I think I found the relevant discussion in archive 14. I'll read and comment shortly Peacent 16:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Since you asked, I am certainly more than happy to answer why I would like to re-add the contentious material in question.
First, for the record, I have yet to find the general consensus about your removal of information, please don't claim to have reached a consensus when you apparently did not. Your criticism of this information is, I might say, rather harsh and unwarranted. If you think this material violates NPOV, please suggest how it can be rewritten in a neutral tone that satisfies your demands (the quote from Rowling cannot be modified, though) instead of merely deleting the content. Having said that, I find the information quite impartial. It is by no means "inappropriate advertisement and praise" written in order to "promote fan speculations" or MuggleNet, it simply indicates how well-liked the Harry Potter series is. The fact that a book written about the likely events of Book 7 went straight to number second on the best seller list demonstrates the enormous popularity of the Harry Potter series and how much attention Book Seven has claimed. This material is evidently relevant. About the PoV-oriented ref, I have no opinion whether to keep or leave out this part, at worst, if it is to be left out, I would prefer to reserve these noteworthy references for the external links section.
In any case, please do not remove relevant content from the Deathly Hallows article again. I would appreciate it if you could perhaps be kind enough to give your opinion on how the existing material can be improved, not deleted. Thanks Peacent 08:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Information cannot magically becomes spam and PoV violation just because you claim it as such. Since you cannot explain yourself clearly and there's no consensus on you removing the content, please refrain yourself from editing this page, Consider this a warning. Thanks, Peacent 16:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

(indent reduced) It was very nice of you to leave the mention of MuggleNet book where it was, I did notice that. All the same, I don't feel comfortable with other relevant information being removed, thus I reverted your edits, not blindly, though I acknowledge I was rather rough. Naturally, I am willing to talk my edits over and always open to any ensuing debate.

When I wrote you last week, I only touched on the book because at the time I thought it was the only thing that could possibly be considered irrelevant. "irrelevant" is the exact word you used in the edit summary. The other data, as a matter of fact, is undoubtedly relevant, which is why I didn't lay my justification down properly. I must say I'm surprised you find this information irrelevant, why irrelevant, could you please elaborate? Both the quote and the report of fan theories on the title are clearly related to book 7. Of course, if your pretext for the removal is PoV violation, then it is a different matter. First, "...I love [fan] theories more than I can possibly say...", it is a quote from the author and properly sourced. I don't mind the purpose of the editor who originally wrote this information, and fan guesswork in other articles has nothing to do with Deathly Hallows. This material is relevant and accurate to be placed in this article. Your argument about dispute elsewhere is rather unfair. As for the choice of title, let's say, yes, I changed my mind. Given that our readers are not all specialists in Harry Potter, there are still some people on earth who are unaware of Harry Potter and all the news, stories, etc about this series. As I'm writing now, if they take a look at the Deathly Hallows article, the title "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows " in their minds will be just another normal title of a book. We should not carry the risk that there might readers who have read this entire article but still have no idea how special "Deathly Hallows" is. Deathly Hallows is an unusual title that has received enormous attention and caused widespread speculation. "The release of the title has resulted in considerable speculation as to its possible meanings.", such statement is an absolute fact, you shouldn't by any means refute the huge fan speculation. Nowhere else in the article do we have a description on this considerable speculation by fans, I honestly cannot get why you are so determined to remove this one sentence. With this information, I'm not trying to prove that speculation must turn out to be correct, but theories are meant to reach some particular points of view, they always do. Now, about the archive 13 discussion, I already read it, then again, I don't find the consensus among all editors. Consensus isn't determined by the number of editors who are in favour of something, and your arguments didn't outweigh that of the other party.

Best, Peacent 01:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)


You are quite possibly right about the sources. However, I'll assume that the sources are reliable untill proven otherwise. As I mentioned to Sandpiper, I really have no idea how widespread a theory is, so I'm at the mercy of what people tell me on that one!--NeoNerd 12:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your removal of speculation regarding Horcuxes (see the Talk page of that article). Is there not some arbitration process by which a senior Wiki editor can make the final decision? Ccrashh 14:14, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Regulas Black[edit]

I really like the new title! :) Cheers AngielaJ 13:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Old 3RR report[edit]

Regarding this old 3RR report about the Harry Potter book article, the edit war seems to have cooled, but please let me know on my talk page if you want someone to mediate or need admin intervention.--Chaser - T 20:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Continuing the edit war at Horcrux is a really stupid way to solve this disagreement. Please use the talk page.--Chaser - T 21:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
You are coming quite close to running afoul of the three-revert rule. I will not hesitate to block you and others or protect the article if this edit-war continues.--Chaser - T 22:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi there![edit]

It's been long since you edited any of the Saint Seiya pages, where have you been? ^^ --Refuteku - T 13:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Horcrux edit[edit]

What was wrong with the addition I made? Why has it been removed without comment?

Aside from the specific issue could you please use edit summeries.Geni 19:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Solid Snake[edit]

His name is David if you played otacons ending of MGS4 he says his name is David,and He says he lives in Alaska when he spoke to Liquid on codec a.k.a Master.

Harry Potter (character)[edit]

Please try to remain civil. This is a pretty large section; I had the article on my watchlist and this reversion stood out because it said that an entire section was removed, so I reverted it as it seemed to be pretty simple vandalism (you left no other comment but "removed"). I am sorry if this was actually intended to be a serious edit, but please consider improving the text rather than removing it. It even cites multiple sources. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 03:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Melsaran said it before I could. Please learn that no one ins an edit war. Ever. If someone reverts your edit, or someone undoes a revert you did, it is time to discuss the matter with that person. if they are jerks, or you can't agree, you then take it to the Discussion page for the article. That is the way to resolve it. Edit-warring just gets you blocked and - if you cannot learn - banned from editing at all. I hope my advice helps. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 05:01, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


Oh, and before I forget...
Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 03:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Fansubs stuff[edit]

Please specify the exact Wiki policy that bars mention of fansubs. As far as I know, there is none, as a series' distribution method is considered of encyclopedic value. So please stop removing information. Also, please be careful not to break the 3RR rule. Buspar 21:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Check the project talk page - I think most of your edits are actually justified, but we might want to talk the issue out a bit before things get heated. Doceirias 22:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted most of Buspar's reverts of your edits. Most of the stuff you removed either violated WP:V or WP:EL, so there shouldn't have been a problem. --Farix (Talk) 23:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007[edit]

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Black family. Please be careful when editing pages and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. If you are removing sourced content, please explain why in the edit summary. Otherwise, it appears to be vandalism Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 01:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Anything that is properly cited is not original research - if the information is covered eleswhere, it is not original to the contributor. Please see WP:OR, WP:CITE, and original. Matt/TheFearow (Talk) (Contribs) (Bot) 21:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Dispute about Shonan Junai Gumi article[edit]

Please respond here:

I am not aware of any Wikipedia policies that forbid the mention that an anime is being fansubbed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackgaine (talkcontribs) 12:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Potter family.[edit]

Hi Folken. I've taken out disagreement to Talk:Blood purity (Harry Potter) in an attempt to find consensus. Your input would, of course, be appreciated. Cheers, faithless (speak) 13:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

DBZ movie[edit]

Hey, stop with the personal attacks. i didn't do anything wrong. since dragonballz live action film page doesn't belong, instead of deleting it, i redirected it to this article and added a section for dragonball z live action film page. -cman7792 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cman7792 (talkcontribs) 20:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Tone it down a bit, okay? You're getting pretty close to attacking user:cman7792... HalfShadow 22:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dragon Ball Z. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 22:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

(cross-posted from the discussion on my User Talk page)
Actually, Folken, thenews report is reliable and noteworthy on its face. In fact, the citation is perhaps more noteworhty in that it was prepared by a neutral party as opposed to the studio marketing wonks. Folken, you should probably allow it. I know Erik, and he is not haphazard about these things, and if (and when) something more solid comes up to either complement or replace it, he will. That's who he is. As I've told you before, you need to work with people, and not in spite of them. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 23:24, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I had tried to initiate discussion with you earlier, but you removed my comment. I am hard-pressed to have discussion with you since you do not seem willing to hear me out. Are you willing to do so now? —Erik (talkcontrib) - 23:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you willing to hear me out now? —Erik (talkcontrib) - 23:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Let me take this related approach. According to WP:CRYSTAL, "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, provided that discussion is properly referenced." Wikipedia's policy of verifiability states that the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth. I am not sure why you think that there is a reason to believe that the Variety article is wrong, though. Someone was hired to write a script, and that's not something that would be publicized. Variety has reported on similar events here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and more without official word from the studio. The mention of the project in a published, third-party source is reliable enough to be mentioned, and nothing indicates that the information is wrong. Writers and directors do come and go, you know. I don't think that the information warrants a film article, but this is part of the franchise's history in which a film adaptation was attempted, at least to the point that the screenwriter was hired. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 00:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Can you explain to me why you think that the Variety article is wrong? How do you know the studio just didn't like what Ben Ramsey wrote and put the project on hold? —Erik (talkcontrib) - 00:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
My issue is that you think that Variety has to be proven right. It's a published, third-party source, so it's verifiable. You're disputing the information from the article, but absence of information contesting a reliable source does not mean that the reliable source can be contested. It should stand alone until otherwise proven wrong, which hasn't happened yet. On a speculative note, this is because the writing process is not much-publicized beyond the initial mention of a new screenwriter. I've come across trade papers' articles that mention a switch in the screenwriters without mentioning the results of the previous screenwriter. I can find these examples if you like, but I'm just saying, there's no reason to believe that Ben Ramsey was not a screenwriter for this project. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 00:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Like I said, there's nothing to contest the validity of the Variety article, and as a published, third-party source, its contents are verifiable. There's no evidence from an equally, or more, reliable source saying that the contents are wrong. My speculative note was just a personal explanation about why there was not follow-up coverage and does not really have any bearing on the discussion. I'm going to call it a night now, though... happy editing -- just not on Dragon Ball Z! ;) —Erik (talkcontrib) - 00:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Please show me the vandalism you said you were reverting. When I checked the diffs, I found nothing that meets that criteria. I found 1 good faith edit that was not cited by a newly registered user, and I found a lot of reverting of reliably cited information, but nothing that seemed to be to be vandalism. Could you point me to a diff please?  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:03, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Final comment of the night: I requested for Cman to remove the film section from Dragon Ball Z temporarily until the AfD process goes through. We'll have to continue our hard-headed discussion involving references sometime soon! :-P —Erik (talkcontrib) - 01:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Any chance you can stop exchanging words with Cman? I've already tried to ask him to stop, since it's obvious both of your minds are set on the matter. It's not productive discussion for the AfD process at all. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 12:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion about Variety and Dragon Ball Z, seeing that our conflict is just going to carry over to the source material's article. —Erik (talkcontrib) - 12:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

AnimeSuki wikipage changements[edit]

Hi, I noticed you changed the AnimeSuki wiki page. The links you say so-called illegal, isn't true. The external links are providing access to the torrent trackers that affiliate with AnimeSuki. Please don't remove them again as they should be standing there. There is nothing illegal about them too.

Reply to discussion: Thanks for shetting a light about the editting on AnimeSuki. It is indeed I got licensed anime on my site, but also unlicensed for the fansub groups. Thus in Europe and the Netherlands there are other rules regarding BitTorrent files. As these arn't copyrighted by their owners, but make it possible to share files. Thus I think the American laws are flawed as hell, but o well, only in America right ;)

P.S.: Your talking about US laws, why does the wikipedia say "English" on the frontpage instead of "American" ? Shouldn't it be falling under the British laws ?

2nd reply: Thanks for your information Folken. Thing is still, even if it is "copyright infrigment", torrents arn't copyright infrigment. That is what the whole USA law is failing about, as torrents arn't copyrighted at all. Hash data you can't copyright, and there will always be a way to make it even more harder to proof its copyright useness. Anyhow, my tracker offers torrents, and no direct downloads to the copyrighted material and as stated in EU, it is legal (for some it's grey cause of all the scaring-off people with their torrent trackers, but those arn't anime related at all, see example PirateBay.)

Hi, it's me again. You said before that my site couldn't be shown as it was suppose to be illegal. On what situation are you pointing the illegality since wikipedia hosts also a whole website regarding demonoid and other bittorrent/fansub site's with links that shouldn't be there, but exist for years now. So infact, it is gray content and I am a victim of this issue regarding legal/illegal rights ?

Blood purity[edit]

Do not tell me what I'm "going" to do.

Weasley family has long held that the Potter children are pure blood. No one has disputed this, save for random IP editors who will occasionally change it to read half blood (and as these IP editors also frequently change Harry Potter (character), Albus Dumbledore and Lord Voldemort to say that they're full blood, I think we can disregard their input). You're attempting to change something within an article where you are clearly the minority voice, and you haven't even attempted to gain consensus on the talk page. Regardless of who is right, you are clearly going about this the wrong way. Instead of engaging in an edit war where you are the only one arguing a certain point, why not try to gain consensus for your views? If you change the article against consensus, you will be reverted. faithless (speak) 00:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Sailor Moon episodes[edit]

Why have you been removing the reference to Sailor Moon Uncensored? The same page we're citing has been also cited by a peer-reviewed academic paper, so your concerns about its reliability are confusing. link to abstract of paper Please discuss this on the Talk:List of Sailor Moon episodes page. Cheers mate. -Malkinann 20:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You have been asked multiple times, by many editors, to discuss this issue on the article's talk page. You have consistently ignored them and have continued to remove the information. This constitutes edit warring, which is against the rules; if you make this reversion again you will be blocked for disruption. --Masamage 20:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I will not respond to your implication (or your explicit, libellous accusation) that I am directly involved in illegal activities, as frankly it is ridiculous and insane. Furthermore, I would never block you for "disagreeing" with the opinion you seem to think I have; I would only block you for edit warring, which is not a concept you seem to understand. Regardless, thank you for finally posting on the talk page. Maybe now we can make some progress. --Masamage 21:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: A personal attack[edit]

Here is the explanation, enjoy. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 19:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

If you check Sesshomaru's discussion page, you'll see that numerous attempts on my part, asking him to explain himself, have all been met with deletion. He has told me, on my own talk page, that "everything has been taken care of," despite the fact that all of my comments remain deleted without explanation. Or, rather, his explanation has been that I am trolling and vandalizing Wikipedia - this "trolling" is nothing more than a continued effort on my part to understand why I cannot speak, and this "vandalization" is nothing more than my persistence in asking that question, by undoing Sesshomaru's deletions of that question, in the vain hope that he will eventually respond civilly. I'm not an expert Wikipedia user, only an amateur, otherwise, I should know how to report Sesshomaru's actions. As it is, however, I expect him to delete this comment from your discussion page, as well, and can only hope that you have a chance to read it in the page's edit history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


Ah, thank you! Onikage725 (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

List of Harry Potter characters[edit]

Last time you undid Faithlesswonderboy's edit you broke the three revert rule. For you own sake you should revert yourself. Cheers. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion[edit]

Over the past months, video games and TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a few) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [3]. --Maniwar (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Daizenshū and Tien[edit]

I've been informed that you have a copy of the Daizenshū. I would like to ask a favor of you. Could you please check if it says Tien is a human or an alein. We need some help in the Tien page. Some sources state that he is a human being who became enlightened and that is why he has a third eye, but someone claims the Daizenshū says he is a decedent of an alein. Respond on my page when you get a chance. If you can't check it that's ok but please respond and let me know. No Rush, and thanks in advance. - Prede (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Any response would be helpful. If you are two busy or cannot look could you please say so on my page? Thanks in advance ^.^ - Prede (talk) 22:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Folken, I have left concerns back at the Yamucha talk page. Think you could help reach a conclusion? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 18:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


BSS is not an "illegal website," the reference is valid and there should probably be an article on the group anyway. I'm putting it back. --iriseyestalk 03:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Then why is there a fansubbing article? --iriseyestalk 21:35, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Neither does a reference to it in the BSS disambiguation. I'm going to replace it now. --iriseyestalk 23:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
More than that, it seems like you have a personal agenda against fansubs. I can see from your talk page that you've been actively trying to remove references to fansubs in several articles, and stepping on some toes while doing so...In any case, BSS is indeed notable in the fansubbing community. Most fansub activity doesn't take place on websites, which is why you saw relatively few google results, but on IRC networks, usenet, etc. Aso, I don't get 50 hits, I get several thousand. Are you trying not to see something? Why so anti-subbing? In any case, lots of illegal things are referenced in wikipedia...many things. Lots of minutae are referenced in wikipedia...many things. --iriseyestalk 18:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Edit: Also, BSS as a sub group is the fourth result out of over eight million on google. Hmmmmmm? --iriseyestalk 18:57, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
That policy is obviously in regards to articles using illegal material, such as copyrighted images, etc. There is no policy stating "articles about illegal things are prohibited." And it's not a made-up google result, dear. Do one yourself and get the same results. --iriseyestalk 15:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)



You've deleted our Benchmark from Petabyte section. This is NOT system of future use. It is already used by financial institutions and governments world-wide, and it is available for purchase from either us (BMMsoft) or Sybase, or Sun Microsystems and (for you to verify) I've included Sun's link showing available hardware. NOTE: This was not done in order to promote the product but to prove that system is already available.
Hopefully this is to your satisfaction.
In the light of the above mentioned I have undone your revision (deletion) of our benchmark (the only official 1PB full appliance system ever recorded and available for usage and sale) and placed it back in 'trivia'.

Cheers and

Best Regards

Fauxstar (talk) 07:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


Lilin vs Lilim[edit]

Thank you for your recent edits correcting the "Lilin+" thing from Rebuild of Eva 1.0 : I've put it to vote as an official standardization/convention on the Eva workgroup page. Yes, the appearance of "Lilin" in the credits of Rebuild of Eva seems to confirm that its not "Lilim" as we previously thought. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Edit summarys[edit]

Please make sure your edit summarys reflect what you have actually done. It's not a revert if you've changed the reverted text and replaced a reference with a more reliable one Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alyson Burajiru[edit]

Hello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alyson Burajiru. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

MGS5 source[edit]

I'm not sure if you're getting the information firsthand or secondhand (I'll admit I'm be getting it secondhand), but a few Japanese sites clearly state that its the May 29 issue of the Weekly edition[4]. If you knew that the source was Famitsu PS3+PSP in the first place, then it was your job to adequately cited as such to begin with. When most people think of Famitsu, they think of WEEKLY Famitsu by default and I'm not even sure if Famitsu PS3 are the first to publish scoops like these. Jonny2x4 (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

RE:MGS Next[edit]

Sorry, I stand corrected and I apologize if my initial edit comment seem a bit judgmental (I'm used to dealing with users who cite Famitsu as a source without stating which edition of the publication and which issue they're sourcing. I mistook Famitsu PSP+PS3 for the the July 28 issue of Weekly Famitsu, which was actually the issue that revealed the countdown site. I apologize again and wish you a nice day. :) Jonny2x4 (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

TMNT premiere date[edit]

Hi I'd like to thank you for chaning the premiere date on the original TMNT cartoon. I really appreciate it. I know it didn't premiere on 12/28/87. It premiered before that. Thank you very much. Drop me a line if you have anything to say. Heegoop, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

One more thing I changed the airdates on the episode list as well. The way you and I like it. Heegoop, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Eva stuff[edit]

Apparently the romanization rules make it "Evangerion" no matter what because that's how all anime series names are written; I think its kind of nonsensical but it cannot be fought. At any rate we need to start trying to take out stuff from articles that keeps getting them tagged; my suggestion was that we start off on the Asuka article, and try to make a specific list on the Talk page of this is specifically what's too-Original Research, etc. Lets start with Asuka and use that as an example. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 01:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC)


Why did you delete the paragraph that I wrote in Fansub? It wasn't vandalism. NarSakSasLee (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC) But what I said was true. I thought it was basic knowledge. NarSakSasLee (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Saint Seiya[edit]

Sorry. Neither I know Japanese, but that material would help a lot. Try requesting help in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga since there are a few users there who know Japanese.Tintor2 (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

NGE discussion about anime and manga[edit]

the manga is pretty famous, whether your opinion would like to differ. i'm not trying to fight with you, i'm trying to tell you that opinion should not be a major matter in Wiki. the fact is the manga was pretty famous aswell, and the fact that bookstores still sell there mangas means that they are very notable and important to the series.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

oh and we already agreed that the DVD cover of nge will be used. so there's no point arguing about whether the image should be used even though it was the first piece of promotional work of nge series.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

A note about your talk page[edit]

I highly recommend that you start archiving your talk page. It has messages from 2006, and it would be much easier to read if you archived old conversations. The Arbiter 15:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)


What you said might be true, might not, either way, it had nothing to do with the discussion. and saying V is a bad guy just proves my point. LIke i said, i hate you as a person, but i'm nto going to do anything to you as a contributor. i meant well, and you know that. so why not you stop acting like this and take it as a concern.

Yes i still want to END the discussion, with a real ending, i'm trying to figure out arbitration and everything. NO i'm not trying to gang up on you. i was absolutely NOT using V's comment to get back at you. AL i wanted was someone to simply "talk" to you. I know if i tried talking to you, you wouldn't listen (as i predicted, it came true).

Yes you have, constantly putting me down in discussions and getting frustrated and saying your leaving when you just come back. i accused you of uncivility even then but you didn't even deny at the time.

this is the very very problem with you inside Wikipedia. you assume the worst in people, in me, in V, and it's not really professional. you think I'm hiding but I'm as open as i can possibly be on Wikipedia. saying that means I'm actually limiting my personality in wiki and sometimes it leaks out. and i apologize for that.

i'll let this slide, but for now, i'll just give you a piece of advice. simply "assume good faith and well meaning" no matter what. Don't assume someone is hiding to get something out of something else or someone is trying to gang up on you.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

ALso just to let you know that you stopped talking in WP:EVA even though, we were having a much comforting conversation. whether you dislike me or not depends on if you return there.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

AfD reply[edit]

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Folken de Fanel. You have new messages at Bread Ninja's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.


Jfgslo has started an RFC on whether it would be appropriate to merge or redirect an article that you recently participated in an AFD for. Please join the discussion so that we may try to form a consensus at a centralized location. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Of possible interest[edit]

See ([5]) and ([6]). Regards. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 03:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

It took some doing, but the article has finally been brought up to scratch ([7]). Regards BladeofOlympus (talk) 06:28, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Your invitation to participate in a Wikimedia-approved survey in online behavior.[edit]

Hello, my name is Michael Tsikerdekis[8], currently involved as a student in full time academic research at Masaryk University. I am writing to you to kindly invite you to participate in an online survey about interface and online collaboration on Wikipedia. The survey has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee.

I am contacting you because you were randomly selected from a list of active editors. The survey should take about 7 to 10 minutes to complete, and it is very straightforward.

Wikipedia is an open project by nature. Let’s create new knowledge for everyone! :-)

To take part in the survey please follow the link:

Best Regards, --Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

PS: The results from the research will become available online for everyone and will be published in an open access journal.

UPDATE: This is the second and final notification for participating in this study. Your help is essential for having concrete results and knowledge that we all can share. I would like to thank you for your time and as always for any questions, comments or ideas do not hesitate to contact me. --Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Science2.png Research Participation Barnstar
For your participation in the survey for Anonymity and conformity on the internet. Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2012 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Folken de Fanel. You have new messages at SudoGhost's talk page.
Message added 21:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

SudoGhost 21:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Raaaar D&D[edit]

Hey, FdF. I just wanted to throw my two cents in regarding your developing pattern of hostility with D&D monsters and whatnot at AfD and on people's talk pages. I don't think you're nearly as wrong as a lot of people do, but it's pretty clear that you're getting way frothy about it, and I haven't seen that end well for anybody who isn't named Malleus Fatuorum. I really recommend a step back, a deep breath, and less construction of contrary opinions as reflecting people's belonging to monolithic labels. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the invite on the Lamia merge topic, I recommend you take part in the WP:NOT discussion about fixing GAMEGUIDE.--Joshuaism (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

I realize you don't want any D&D articles on Wikipedia, but given your history of warnings and blocks for edit warring, you should rethink your methods. You boldly redirected articles; you were reverted. That means you now need to use the talk pages to discuss your proposed edits. Immediately re-reverting is unacceptable no matter how much you hate the articles in question. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Please create some content[edit]

Compare these two lists: article space and everything else. Maybe you should go create some content, instead of spending all your time on Wikipedia trying to eliminate it. You have added literally nothing to this encyclopedia in years. Torchiest talkedits 01:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Your premise is that removing unappropriate content would be "eliminating" wikipedia. I believe on the contrary that gettting it rid of unwanted content improves its overall quality and reputation.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:03, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Getting rid of other people's work is a lot easier than making your own. And calling it "unwanted" reveals your clear WP:IDONTLIKEIT mentality. Torchiest talkedits 14:33, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia is neither my personal blog, nor yours. It doesn't matter what I like or don't like, or what you like or don't like. What matters is what Wikipedia doesn't want to be.Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Dont fall for it[edit]

The baseless accusations of sockpuppetry are as meaningless as the assertation that "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." doesn't apply to fictional elements. Do not fall for it. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

About Niemti[edit]

You might not understand this sir, but he didn't come there to give his opinion but he actually ca,e there to annoy me. You even read what he said. An article can't just be deleted because it has very low amount of references. Calling him a "bully" was no personal attack but I was actually telling other people the truth about him. I have nothing against you or others my friend. I only don't like Niemti because of the way he talk with people and his utter rudeness plus those blocking warnings about edit warring he gave me. I already had told him that I do not know many of the policies of Wikipedia and if I committed a mistake it was not at all intentional. Instead of removing the warning he gave me another warning without any reason just because i removed the earlier warning as it was without any proper reason. And when I asked the administrators to ban him because of his improper behaviour they instead warned to block me cause of a single personal attack. What am I make of this? Tell me. Should i keep getting bullied by him and say nothing!! And then be accused of indiscipline and throwing tantrums. Why? Just because I'm a newbie!!? --MegaCyanide666 (talk) 10:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC)


It is unfortunately going to take watching and reverting. Adding a hidden message/comment on the page may help.

After multiple recreations, perhaps a request for comment might be able to generate a consensus for a mass application of permanent semi protection, but there would have to be evidence for repeated mass disruption for something like that to pass. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

The same acts by established editors who should know the fuck better... well I dont know about that. -- The Red Pen of Doom 22:42, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

D&D redirects[edit]

This is just a courtesy notice that I am in the process of undoing all of your recent redirects. There are several reasons for this:

1) Per WP:OTHERSTUFF, your citation of a different AfD do not give you "consensus" to redirect articles covered per that AfD.
2) You have been blocked previously for edit warring, although I note that this has been a while. Consider this an updated warning that 3RR is not a license to redirect things up to three times in 24 hours. In fact, re-redirecting without a discussion is generally considered poor form, per WP:BRD. If you'd like to redirect an article, you're clearly capable of using the AfD process. As can be seen by the variety of editors who have undone your redirects, there is good-faith disagreement that your redirects are improving the encyclopedia.
3) You have in at least one case engaged in uncivil behavior per WP:VAND#NOT in your edit summary while redoing a redirect here. Please do not do this in the future. This mischaracterization calls into question your understanding of policy and motivation for these redirects.

I will be adding to this notice if I find additional issues with your redirection spree. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, yes, 4) WP:Fait accompli applies to large number of repetitive edits. If you want the notability of any particular fictional creature adjudicated, by all means bring it to AfD where appropriate notability can be established on a per-creature basis. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

And again....[edit]

Please stop edit warring on Raistlin Majere and Goldmoon. Neither article had ever been tagged for a merge, which makes any supposed consensus about them, held only at the talk page of the target article, invalid. In the mean time, at least one additional RS has been added to each article. Furthermore, three separate editors have recently reverted your unilateral merges. Please do not try and tell me you have consensus: you do not. In that discussion, current consensus is 3:2 against such a merger. Jclemens (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC)


User:Hobit#There is a beach with children building sandcastles

Inappropriate canvassing[edit]

Please do not WP:CANVASS other editors, as you did here, in an attempt to influence consensus by recruiting editors of a known, similar viewpoint to a discussion. Jclemens (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

restoring redirects consensus via request for comment[edit]

I think the cleanest way to deal with the silliness is just conduct a request for comment to formalize the consensus that they claim is lacking. I have started with a sample wording below and then we can determine the best place to post it.

As has been done long ago with non-notable Pokemon creatures, is it appropriate to convert the many articles about fictional D&D creatures that have only Primary sources of TSR, WOTC and/or publishers that are tightly related to WOTC's the d20/OGL (such as Piazo and Pathfinder and Necromancer and other sourcebooks and game materials) be immediately redirected to the article about the sourcebook in which they appear? (examples include: crawling hand, hydroloth {the categories}

appropriate wordsmithing as necessary to address any potential wikilawyer points within the RfC -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

That sounds good, we should also point to the death watch beetle AfD and others like Cyclopsin, Apparition, etc to show that these articles are unlikely to survive an AfD (and maybe note that this is mainly about a specific and recent flood of articles hastily created by IPs, who don't seem willing to consider consensus and AfD results before clicking on the "save page" button).Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Note that you may wish to strike [9] or take it to the talk pages. the walls of text at these AfD's may be hindering people from joining the discussions to gain a wider consensus that can be legitimately widely applied. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


The essay you're citing to argue for the mass discounting of the positions of participants in that AfD notes in the lede that it shouldn't be used as an argument to discount people's positions, only to encourage them to provide fuller rationales. As such, it's not a compelling proposition (the same doesn't really apply to the "bad faith nom" position, but counting or discounting that doesn't affect the outcome anyways). WilyD 09:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

  • As a closing admin, though, I'm not trying to make the case for one side or the other; yes, if I attack the keep votes and accept the delete votes at face value, it looks kinda one sided, but the opposite exercise would lead to the opposite result - really, only one or two of the deleters tried to address MOZ's position - the rest weren't much more than a "per nom" functionally - it doesn't make sense to require people to be wordy for the sake of wordiness. Evaluating the strength of each side with equal vigor leads to them being comparably strong. Realistically, in a "purely by the policy" decision, whether the sources are truly independent or not is pretty marginal; one could realistically conclude either way (thus in a decent sized group of people, several fell to either side), and as the closing admin I shouldn't be substituting my own opinion for that of the discussion. The discussion didn't come to a consensus on whether they were independent or not - and the rest followed from there. Whether they are or not is not so clear-cut that I can disregard one position or the other. WilyD 16:46, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Don't bother[edit]

He's just going to continue with that condescending attitude because he knows it gets a rise out of people. Reyk YO! 22:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Please repudiate implied threat at my talk page[edit]

I get that you probably meant to repudiate your implied threat to damage Wikipedia at my talk page, but I'd really like to use such a denial as a basis from which to continue examining your contributions and providing you appropriate advice about collaborative, good-faith editing. You're invited to return to the conversation. Jclemens (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

List of Zoey 101 characters[edit]

"Keep" is bother numerically stronger (i.e., more editors support it), and policy-wise stronger (Article size says you probably need to split it, while AVOIDSPLIT et al. suggest the way the article's been developed isn't ideal). Although in both cases the edge is perhaps not overwhelming, it's still there. The crux of your argument depends on a judgement of what's "excessive", which is necessarily subjective, and siding with the minority position in that regard would require a compelling argument that it's excessive (and I'm not sure what such an argument would look like, but it's certainly not in the discussion. It's merely back and forth assertions).

Beyond that, closing based on some hypothetical future article which may or may not ever exist (some shrunken version of the list which doesn't exist, and may never get a relevant local consensus, doesn't have a consensus at the AfD, etc) would also require a much more compelling proposition, especially in the face of superior numbers (i.e., it couldn't just be based on subjective interpretation of a couple adjectives). Even if the list was cut substantially - and made into a stable, consensus having version as such, it'd still have to be cut by ~half before a merger is not a bad idea (and until such a versions exists, who knows how much it would actually be reduced - or whether such an attempt would result in it being expanded, or any manner of things), while a third, say, would still be an enormous reduction, but probably still shouldn't result in a merger, etc. WilyD 05:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Err, I'm not sure why it's not clear, but a) DGG mentions the problem of article length, even if he doesn't explicitly link it. Article length also really isn't much of a consideration in my close, it's just a reminder for anyone who might want to find a consensus for merger not to forget my poor grandma reading articles on dial-up. That the article reached it's current state in a way that's maybe not ideal isn't really relevant to current considerations; what would I say? WilyD 10:06, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
If you want to engage in normal editing there, you should just do so. Even if you want to postulate that merge has a slightly stronger policy position than keep (which I don't buy, but let's say), keep has a slightly stronger headcount than merge, and it's more of less a "no consensus between keep and merge" - which isn't really a thing, because keep and merge are essentially the same thing anyhow, but let's say - in which case it would still default to keep - and in which case you could still merge if people locally agreed (exactly the same situation as now). So there's not anything worth arguing over. If you want to develop a consensus to merge, go do it. AfD is irrelevant to merging. WilyD 07:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit warring[edit]

Please stop edit warring on Raistlin Majere and Goldmoon. Jclemens (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Raistlin Majere[edit]

I know you're intent on edit-warring to preserve that as a redirect, but please don't remove sourced information in interim edits, as you did here. Simply restore it as a redirect in one edit, so that if and when it is permanently restored, all the previously added information is available in the most recent version. Thanks. —Torchiest talkedits 21:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Villains in Mighty Morphin Power Rangers[edit]

Seriously, please stop badgering the opposition. "Do you not understand what Wikipedia is not?" is hardly a collegial thing to say, and it won't further your cause which, in this particular case, happens to be mine as well. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

  • OK, you're doing it here as well. DGG is a highly respected editor and his comments are in fact based on "policy", or whatever that goes for. I happen to disagree with him in this case, but I find it very difficult to be on the same side as you in a deletion discussion where you are patronizing someone and then telling an administrator to discard the argument provided by DGG (who is also an admin, and well aware of the guidelines and policies). I urge you to take that back, and to adopt--in the future--a more hands-off approach in such deletion discussions. Drmies (talk) 20:28, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Criticize or create[edit]

You're right, I can't tell you how to spend your time on Wikipedia. But the amount of time you've spent trying to get stuff deleted, combined with your refusal to accept the results when they go against you, seems like a sad waste to me. Compare: you and me. If you ever feel like creating instead of criticizing, I'd be happy to help you, as I did when you started working on that GA last year. —Torchiest talkedits 01:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

And Folken, I get that you want to delete or at minimum redirect all sorts of things, and I get that it is about more than just meeting policies, because you really honestly believe that the material doesn't belong here to begin with. This is not a unique position, and I have encountered it from numerous other users before. But I have yet to see anyone as... fervent in obstructing other users as I have seen from you. I wonder why, why is it such a big problem for you to tolerate the very presence of any of this content and the users who create, add to, and defend it? I just don't understand. I do what I do because I find this material interesting and I have a passion for working on it, and I am sure others out there are also interested in it (or so I tell myself), and I am always excited when I am able to add good sources to articles. But you don't seem to derive any of that sort of joy from editing Wikipeda - unless I am just reading you wrong - and the only thing I seem to get from you is frustration that you don't get more support more often (thus all the DRVs, badgering dissenters at AFD and closers of AFDs on their talk pages) and that you have so much opposition for what you are trying to do (removing content). I have helped to get several articles to GA, and a handful of them mostly through just my own work, and I tell you that is a very rewarding feeling. I know I can't talk you out of your pursuits, and I'm not even going to try, but maybe you want to consider adding to your "resume" some solid article work? Panzer Dragoon has a ton of potential, and I see that Torchiest was more than willing to help you on it, and I don't know why you stopped working on it. Getting a GA or even better an FA is very rewarding, improves the encyclopedia and its content, and earns you the appreciation and respect of other users without any controversy or having to battle for it. Just something to think about. BOZ (talk) 04:43, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment[edit]

RFC/U discussion concerning you (Folken de Fanel)[edit]

Hello, Folken de Fanel. Please be aware that a user conduct request for comment has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Folken de Fanel, where you may want to participate. BOZ (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

A couple of follow-on questions:
1) What other names have you used to contribute to any Wikimedia project?
2) What other blocks or bans have you been subject to, aside from those on en, es, fr, it, and pt wikipedias under the username 'Folken de Fanel'?
Thanks, Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
Do you realize that continuing your WP:IDHT behavior can lead to consequences that would prevent your participation in the problematic topics? You have a chance to answer for your pattern of disruptive behavior across multiple language Wikipedias. I strongly urge you to strike your defensive response, take whatever time you need to contemplate the criticism, acknowledge the pattern of behavior and your willful concealment of sanctions on other Wikipedias, and chart a way forward. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 14:26, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
On en:WP, I don't have to answer for any kind of behavior on multiple language wikipedias, and no one on en:WP has any business asking me to answer for it. As I've said in my response to the RfC, and as was backed by Reyk, I haven't done anything on en:WP in the recent months or years that could be considered "disruptive behavior" by any non-D&D fan. BOZ and you are trying to make such a big case of my past on other wikis that it becomes terribly clear you have NOTHING against me here...
The only way forward that I can see is for D&D fans to accept that many D&D articles don't meet our inclusion guidelines and need to go. I am all ready to let competent users develop articles that have potential, but the truth is that these competent users such as BOZ and Torchiest seem more interested in wasting their time fighting tooth and nail for every single little stub of trivial D&D monster (while knowing there's no chance for these to become anything) than actually improving those articles that could be.
Seriously, how come there are only 29 FA and GA out of the total 5 f*cking thousand D&D articles ? And how many of these 29 articles are monsters ? And BOZ is boasting of having made a GA out of Dwarf...but he can't even realize that had I not drawn the attention to this article by redirecting it, no one would even have bothered to work on it. And you know why that is ? Because people like BOZ have let the D&D project degenerate into an all-inclusive fanwiki, a fan-shrine to everything D&D, even the most insignificant monster from the most obscure module, which made all competent users completely unable to distinguish between what is trash and actually deserves to be worked on. This is not even me making a quality assessment of D&D article, it's just friggin' common sense that so much D&D articles are NOT manageable in any way. Sacrificing maybe 3000 articles could allow them to make hundreds of GA, but the problem is, they have let themselves be blinded by their passion for the game. This is even more a matter of concern regarding BOZ, who (from what I remember) is even involved in off-WP and to some extent off-line D&D project. They are now unable to have a neutral view on the subject, because they're dedicated fans and don't know when to stop. I've seen it when Torchiest came complaining to me: he feels that I "don't like" D&D and that I redirect articles out of spite, to hurt D&D and by extension, its fans. But Torchiest got it all wrong: he and others like D&D too much so that any questioning of the WP articles are hurting them personally, because they can no longer differenciate their passion from the work being done on WP. That's one of their greatest strength, and greatest failure. Also, they poured so much of their personal passion into their writing, that they can no longer understand that the article are not theirs', they've become so possessive of the content they created that they can't even accept the slightest criticism, because they feel any criticism of an article is somehow an attack on their status of D&D erudites. Yes, I'm convinced this is a friggin' ego issue, and it's not limited to D&D, every fictional work on WP will give birth to this kind of conflict.
And so here we are, with a pathetic RfC against me because BOZ didn't want to ask for an uninvolved consensus assessment on the Caramon Majere discussion. Indeed he didn't to risk anyone confirming my assessment (because he knew I was right), and rather tried to get me out of the way with the RfC. But my god, do you really think I'm impressed at all by that ? If you really had something on me that could have gotten me blocked, it would have been done long ago at WP:ANI. The RfC is gonna fail, and I will stay, and I won't just think WP:GNG doesn't apply to fiction just because you want me to. We'll continue to argue about D&D, and the only way for you to obtain anything out of it is to give up your D&D fan ego, and to start compromising with me. Because if you keep on using your passion as fuel against me, you'll only get angrier and angrier, and you'll end up saying and doing things which will only be detrimental to you.
I don't know, for example you could take a look at which article you honestly think you can improve to GA, and let me redirect the bunch of useless monster stubs we've been fighting about for months. That way you wouldn't have to worry about all that trash you could never do anything with, and actually establish a battle plan to actually work on GAs instead of wasting your time textwalling in AfDs or merge discussion, or in ludicrous RfCs (time that you're not using to actually write articles, need I remind you?). I honestly don't want competent users such as BOZ to suffer from the backfire of a useless RfC, and that's the only way we can work together. Each of us has to let go a bit of something: I might let you keep and work on a substancial monster article that I considered worthless and tried to redirect, and you might let me merge a substancial monster that you just thought looked better in stand-alone. Otherwise, it's going to be a succession of fights that you will ultimately lose: I don't have anything personal to put into these fights, whether it is D&D or Harry Potter it's the same to me. But you are D&D fans and you risk going too far to protect your passion...You're bound to make mistakes out of desperation and anger. All the community will see is a group of fans unable to accept the inclusion standard, will shrug it off as yet another ridiculous inclusionist/deletionist bickering, while the huge level of exaggeration and hatred you display against me will only draw attention on you.
As for you Jclemens I don't want to have any further interaction with you. I've had enough of your intolerance and your constant battleground mentality. And to tell the truth, I'm not even sure you care that much about D&D or anything fiction-related: you've just found in me someone who doesn't cower from your harsh tone and your sysop aura, and you don't like it, maybe because as a sysop you're used to have the last word. Maybe working on fiction just gave you this feeling that passions of fans could be more important than the WP rules and guidelines, and you're unable to differentiate your technical authority as a sysop, and your opinion in purely editorial debates in which you don't weigh more than anyone else. Whatever it is, I don't care, the fact is you have a problem, as others have noted before me, and I won't let you have your own way with me just because you don't like me for one reason or another. This farce has to end at some point, and I'm sure you've better to do on WP than trying to make me "fall from grace". Leave me alone. Or don't, and we'll settle it at Arbcom (where I'm not sure you're ready to go, considering you utter reluctance to even open a case on me at WP:ANI).Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:05, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
You should search my talk page archives for sections with HighBeam and D&D in the headings, and count up how many dozens, perhaps hundreds, of references BOZ and I have added in the past eight months to D&D-related articles. That's our preferred way to spend our energy. —Torchiest talkedits 08:49, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Adding refs is one thing. Adding independent and significant refs that make an article notable and pave the way for GA is another. How many of these "notability refs" have you added to the monster stubs you've been fighting for tooth and nail at AfD ? Because that's clearly your preferred way to spend your energy.Folken de Fanel (talk) 16:48, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
  • Since the RfC/U on you will be eligible for close in a week and your statement in your own defense remains completely unsupported, you might want to consider revising it. Here are a few bits of advice:
    • By posting a link to Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive762#Jclemens_and_personal_attacks, you're actually reinforcing my statement about you being willing to let other people be indignant about sockpuppetry allegations when you yourself were a participant in that discussion and, at the time I made the statement, had been banned from at least one Wikipedia for sockpuppetry.
    • Your over-the-top language isn't helping. Things like "Jclemens has delivered a particularly hateful and violent attack on my person" are undoubtedly alienating people who might otherwise take your side. Not sure if this is a language issue or not, but your statement comes across in English as if I've physically assaulted you, which we both know never happened.
    • You continue to focus on the particular content disputes on English Wikipedia, which is out of scope. The RfC/U is not about any fictional element or topic--it's about your choice of interaction styles across multiple topics and multiple Wikimedia projects, and the cumulative sanctions that have been imposed to date.
What you do in your own defense is your own business, but I don't think I've ever seen an RfC/U look so one-sided ever. I think you owe it to yourself to rethink your statement and make an on-topic, non-hyperbolic statement that actually addresses the complaint, but again--that's your call. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 03:38, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Pixie (Dungeons & Dragons) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

RfC discussion moved to talk page[edit]

I'm in the process of moving this To the RfC talk page. Threaded discussion is not allowed on the main RfC page, nor is it appropriate for you to alter or expand your statement after others have endorsed it. You may want to revisit the statement on the talk page and alter it appropriately, as it will not appear immediately under your prior statement. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Neon Genesis Evangelion[edit]

Due to the insular nature of the WikiProject, I have opened my proposal up for debate at AFD.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

I see you use "(s)he". I'm male.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Panzer Dragoon[edit]

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Panzer Dragoon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Time2wait.svg This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Red Phoenix -- Red Phoenix (talk) 14:06, 6 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Panzer Dragoon[edit]

The article Panzer Dragoon you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold Symbol wait.svg. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Panzer Dragoon for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Red Phoenix -- Red Phoenix (talk) 15:56, 7 August 2013 (UTC)


This is your only warning. No personal attacks. I've removed your purely off-topic personal attack at me. You say "act civil", but it your behavior also needs to be checked. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Panzer Dragoon[edit]

The article Panzer Dragoon you nominated as a good article has passed Symbol support vote.svg; see Talk:Panzer Dragoon for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Red Phoenix -- Red Phoenix (talk) 15:07, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Congratulations! Getting your first GA is always the hardest, and you should be quite proud of your accomplishment. Jclemens (talk) 00:56, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
Thanks ! Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:26, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Wanted to drop in and add my congratulations. It's a satisfying feeling. —Torchiest talkedits 03:32, 25 August 2013 (UTC)


Two days ago I opened up this formal move request based on the suggestion I initially made at WT:ANIME. As you contributed to the original discussion, your input is welcomed at the new one.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

A good idea indeed[edit]

You probably should be our go-between. I try to understand Ryulong's side, but even when I offer compromises I feel that he doesn't want to see it from my viewpoint or budge on the matter. The fair example is the GITS debate which I asked for the status quo for 5 months before Only in Death took the dramatic action needed to get to that point. NGE is different; but given how Ryulong has expressed desires about removing, combining or dropping entire pages and done so without AFD I simply am wary that if this move goes through it will be right into merge territory or deletion. Our views are completely different, but something needs to be done to resolve the organizational dispute, because this will likely impact other pages as Ryulong pointed out. It seems that he likens it to a battle for a new standard, and not a simply case by case issue. That view complicates the matter, but there may be truth in it, many pages would be better served with a hatnote to an adaptation, but few need franchise or topic overviews. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Note that I'm not offering any kind of formal mediation, I just want the NGE issue to be finally over. Apparently you can no longer talk to each other, and since I basically have the same view as Ryulong (at least for NGE) I may be able to help a bit. Note also that I'm not against franchise articles as primary topic in some cases, I just don't think this works well for NGE. Anyway...
  • Reading Talk:Neon_Genesis_Evangelion_(anime)#Requested_move_21_August_2013, Ryulong has dropped any intention of deleting or merging the NGE (franchise) page. Looking at the users supporting the move (Calathan, KnowledgeKid87, me), none of them has proposed for (franchise) to be deleted or merged. I can thus assure you that this discussion will not allow Ryulong to delete the page one way or another. From then on, you just have to assume good faith and let him edit the franchise page.
  • As for your other propositions, I'm perfectly fine with a hatnote to (franchise) in (anime), and to mentioning a few of the spin-offs, maybe in a short paragraph in the "Legacy" section, without being redundant with the franchise page itself (but we can work that out later).
So, do you have any other problem with the proposition ?Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:10, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
No, while I disagree with the move, I'm willing to let this be swapped as a sort of a trial basis until the pages can be improved or the view count becomes reason enough to move back. I'd be monitoring it for 2½ months, if the resulting shift is bad than I will swap them back. While this if going on, I want Ryulong to engage in formal mediation to end the conflict and draft a set of guidelines for future cases. This will not be solved completely until this is done. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm fine with the trial approach. 2 things though:
  • There is a formal discussion going on and you and Ryulong are not the only participants. If you want to make the change back, you'll have to go through the same discussion process and obtain a consensus before you can swap the pages again.
  • As I said, I'm only here to facilitate a consensus on NGE only, everything else between you and Ryulong will have to happen between you two. I can only encourage you to be open-minded, assume good faith, and not to let personal issues impact articles.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

My switching of sides will only be on Ryulong's acceptance to binding mediation. That is the only way this will end, and if there is no agreement to resolve this than it is Ryulong who does not want to engage in its resolution. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Sorry I wasnt there to clarify myself[edit]

Looking back at things from before my holiday break, it seems that my words and comments were misinterpreted. Hope things are going well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and don't worry, real life and holiday breaks are far more important than WP ^^ I'd just appreciate if you could drop a word to the RfC closer, only when/if you have time, in case things were ever to escalate again. As for me, I've given up trying to reason with our friends at the D&D project and keep to my recommandations at AfD. I've also begun working on other topic areas (anime/video games), but wherever I go I seem to stumble upon "controversial" users ^^ Hope you have enjoyed your time away from WP, and welcome back !Folken de Fanel (talk) 19:41, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion[edit]

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)


Thanks for taking the time to add back sources in when you trimmed a questionable reference from the article. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

You are tangentially named at ANI[edit]

Information icon Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 04:11, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia[edit]

Hi. I see that you have been merging and redirecting articles about fictional elements. Looking at some of your recent edits, your edit summaries at the destination pages are missing valid wikilinks (e.g., [10], [11]). The source articles can be determined, but having an explicit and unambiguous link back is important. Please see the examples at WP:Merging#How to merge and review WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok thanks, I'll take that into account for next time.Folken de Fanel (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
If the article has been merged in the past, and you are only redirecting at this time, please make this clear by including "already merged", "previously", or similar wording in your edit summary. For example, I'm not sure if either of your redirections of Annis correspond with a text copy. Flatscan (talk) 05:00, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Misleading edit summaries, redirecting under claim of merging[edit]

Please do not make misleading edit summaries and your edits broke dozens of links across dozens of pages without checking about the content and whether or not it had been merged.[12][13] Of all the pages broken, many included pages which follows the "See/Further" like the Drow deities pages. These edit summaries are highly misleading redirects and created a lot of problem. Please do not do this again. Since the pages have to be independently verified, checked for improvement and functionality, I'm leaving these up until I can do the merges properly. In the purposes of PRESERVE, do not redirect them out via edit warring. You did not conduct the mergers and from 23:42 on October 4 to 00:04 October 5, you redirected over 30 articles.[14] Please do not do this again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I've made a notice at WP:AN. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:37, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Look, I'm sorry if I offended you[edit]

I'm sorry if I offended you with that post. I removed it. Look, I want to work together. I didn't like your method and your actions, rather than work together you made me your enemy despite working for the same goal. The AN matter was so you wouldn't mess up the merge; I don't got the time of day for this kind of schtick, but I wanted to try and repair our rocky relationship. Friends? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Ok, but there are a few necessary steps to take so that we can ensure this kind of pointless dispute won't happen again:
  1. I note with satisfaction that you have removed a problematic comment at the AN thread. However, this comment of yours is still there and is as much offensive as the other one (if not more), so I ask you to also remove it.
  2. You shouldn't assume that I would "mess up the merge" or edit war about it. Why would I do that ? Last time, I reverted you because you reverted my merge without a proper edit summary or a clearly understandable explanation on my talk page. You then accused me of "abusing an AfD consensus and a discussion to merge", which was false. There was consensus at AfD and the talk page to proceed to the merge and so, per your inital comments, I was correct in reverting you. If you had just told me on my TP that you wanted to merge the articles your way, with sufficient explanations (both in the "Hag" case and the 2010 merges case), I would gladly have let you do it. You have to understand that assuming good faith is a very important part of the good relations between users, and is not optional.
  3. You had no need to rush to AN, and you had no need to rush to revert me before. You have to learn to take a few steps back before performing any rash actions you might regret later. In both cases about D&D reverts, had you just taken the time to read the related discussions, and simply communicated instead of threatened/assumed bad faith, there would have been no problem at all. Too many situations in which you were involved have needlessly degenerated because of misunderstandings.
  4. We can of course work together, but we will assuredly disagree on certain points (such as the necessity to merge some articles). When that happens, you should not take it personally, but instead keep your calm and avoid rash judgments or wordings that could be considered as personal attacks. Unfortunately, anyone stepping into WP should expect to face a lot of editorial disputes, and (almost) none of them has to degenerate into an all-out battleground. Steel yourself for them, and they might go more smoothly for you than they have before.
If you agree with these few basic principles, then I don't see why we couldn't manage to work together. I said it before, you're a valuable user per the good content you have provided in articles. You have done some great work. You just have to find a way to peacefully deal with disagreement. What I wrote here is mainly about you and me, but I guess following these principles in your dealings with other users (for example at WP:ANIME) will also be of great help to you.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:57, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Much of the conflict has been spurred by bad faith accusations which I take offense to. As long as you do not continue to chide and belittle me - especially when we are equals - then mutual respect should not be a problem. You will not always get your way either, but I expect that such messages in the relevant talk pages be attack-free. The A&M matter is really a hotbed of problems simply because there is no respect and no willingness to engage in policies. I strongly feel that mere numbers in a shouting match means nothing; it may be a school-thing, but this is not a school. We are scholars and academics, are we not? I'm quick to defend the fruits of my scholar work... as is the norm and the way upon which I was taught, but I apologize if this is runs across as zealotry when it is pragmatic. I'll try to keep it in check, but it is best not to be onesided - we should both agree to a type of message that says when the other is provoking a more emotional response in the other. And it should not be NPA or something... do you agree and do you have a suggestion? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 22:31, 18 October 2013 (UTC)
Of course I completely agree with the reciprocity of WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, but I do not see where you would have been chided and belittled, nor accusations against you made in bad faith (if that's what you meant). All I did was to provide a proportionate defense against your accusations, but there was no ill intent in that. But of course, in and of itself, you shouldn't be chided and belittled, and neither should I. By the way, I see the comment I asked you to remove from AN is still there. I don't think we need to set a particular type of message if a more emotional response is provoked, because we're here specifically to prevent that from ever happening again, but if the need does arise then I guess "You have commented on the contributor and not on the comment, please remove it" should be enough.Folken de Fanel (talk) 00:24, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I have removed the remaining personal attacks from the AN thread. I consider this case closed and hope we won't have to to come back to that. Let's focus on editing now.Folken de Fanel (talk) 11:30, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
I just noticed it was still there and I removed it; seems it was re-inserted and I didn't check in and I reclosed it as we have resolved our differences. And yes, I agree to the content not contributor aspect. Let's not waste any more time with this... we both got enough work to do that we can't be fighting all the time. Too many D&D articles left unmerged and all! :D ChrisGualtieri (talk) 11:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

WP:AN thread tangentially concerning you[edit]

I've resurrected your call for sanctions, though on different enough grounds that it's only a continuation of the same thread for contextual reasons. --erachima talk 15:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi. Chris withdrew his own report on me (which is not the same as your closing someone else's thread at VPP) and followed it with immediate apologies and retraction of personal attacks so I didn't regard it as a bad faith action. He acknowledged his problematic behavior and agreed to solve it on my TP, which was enough for me. I don't see the need to resurrect that particular call for sanction right now.Folken de Fanel (talk) 21:33, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

Roll call![edit]

SEGA logo.svg Sega Task Force Roll Call!
Member of the Sega Task Force of WikiProject Video games, are you active and editing Sega articles? If so, please answer the roll call at WT:SEGA! Make sure to check out the Sega Task Force's pages and utilize its pages, including the community talk page, review department, and free image gallery, all of which can help you with your article writing! Happy editing!
Roll call initiated by Red Phoenix build the future...remember the past... on 02:27, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:55, 23 November 2015 (UTC)