User talk:New Age Retro Hippie/Archive 12

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

Age of the Beast[edit]

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

May 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter[edit]

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

Keep it cool[edit]

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

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

Input request[edit]

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

Civility[edit]

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

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

Stress[edit]

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

WP:AN/I[edit]

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

Calm down[edit]

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

Link, why did you do the same for Toriyama? Lord Sesshomaru
Why did you not display this information before? Lord Sesshomaru

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

Last thing before I go to sleep: why did you move Kuririn to Krillin[1] a few days ago without telling anyone? Lord Sesshomaru

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

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

User page[edit]

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

android 18[edit]

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

Vague? What else is there to say? Lists are not good in an article by any means. They hurt the flow. A good article is the opposite of "an article with lists in it". Why do readers need to know every single video game she's been in? Why not say every single action figure of her? - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Need to? Most probably don't care. But as far as I know "neccessity" isn't really a requirement for inclusion in Wikipedia. Lists are only used because representing the information in prose form would make it more confusing. As for them "hurt(ing) the flow", that's why they're at the bottom.--Marhawkman 08:14, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
That's irrelevant. The fact of the matter is that lists kill FACs no less than sloppy writing. And as I said also: "short paragraphs are never okay, needs much more citations (look at KDL - THAT'S got 17 citations, and it's really damn hard to find anything about that game, so that's actually an extraordinary number for it)." Let me go through and find what I can:
  1. The Spanish dub is irrelevant - the only names that need mention are the English ones and the Japanese ones. If it were a Spanish Wiki or a Spanish subject, it would warrant the name.
  2. Short lead
  3. Total inconsistency - the title is Android 18, the name on the infobox is Android #18, and the name in the lead is Android-18.
  4. Source for the implication that they were run-aways?
  5. This line is confusing - it's unknown if it was consensual, but it is implied that it wasn't considering their disdainful disrespect for him. This is original research - you're presenting a theory as to why. That alone is reason enough to make it Start rank. But then you mention a game that says it wasn't consensual, so basically, it's unknown but known? I would say when you venture into "this article contradicts itself", that's not a B article.
  6. Presenting a theory for why Krillin doesn't call her by her real name.
  7. Where is it stated that they were manipulated into androids for the purpose of becoming absorbed by Cell?
  8. Need a source that says he was attracted to her. IIRC, Krillin did not have a significant amount of affection for her, as the statement implies.
  9. And the title? It reads like an ad. "Beauty and the monk" - don't make creative titles, PLEASE.
  10. Need a source to say that they had a child.
  11. Need a source to say that Krillin telling Goku how they had a child was, in essence, a message to fans.
  12. Need a source to verify her personality change.
  13. You capitalize non-proper nouns that are not at the beginning of the headers.
  14. Need a source to say that this alternate timeline exists, and that the events mentioned in it are true.
  15. Where is it stated that the main versions are stronger? It may be implied by how Gohan performed in the alternate timeline versus the Androids compared with versus 17 and 18, but this cannot be determined by reading the manga or anime. The only people who can determine it are the creators, who have never stated which is more powerful.
  16. Yet again, you switched from Android 18 to Android-18.
  17. Need a source to show her intentions and verify that the events of the budokai actually happened.
  18. Need a source to say that she was killed by Majin Buu.
  19. The fact that she has been absorbed twice over is very trivial.
  20. Need a source to say that she was brought back to life.
  21. Red link.
  22. The last sentence of that section lacks objectivity. It sounds like someone is trying to say "even though she seems cold and ruthless, she really is just misunderstood!"
  23. Super#17? So now there's no space in his name?
  24. Need a source for the entire paragraph regarding GT.
  25. And a source to say that she fought #17 because he killed Krillin.
  26. For one, no sources on the movie appearances. For another, that section could easily be rewritten to describe her actions in the movies.
  27. Need sources for the powers section, and for you to fix the prose.
  28. Her appearances in the video games is a trivial fact. Change it to other media, put the movies in there, mention her video game appearances (do not LIST them), and mention her appearances in other mediums such as the TCG and action figurines.

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

O_O what's the "you" stuff? I didn't write the article. anyways.... you mentioned sources repeatedly. Most of the sections more or less say "this happened in the anime" or something like that. Isn't that adequate for sourcing?--Marhawkman 08:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
Not to intrude, Link I lefted a message for you at the Freeza Saga move thingy. Consider responding to it, because you are alone partly on this name changing to dub names. Lord Sesshomaru

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

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

Let the process work[edit]

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

Conversation copied here from my talk page to preserve continuity.
It's been more-or-less determined that this internet meme is nn long, long ago. It's no more notable than the Adam West Batman gif where he's carrying a bomb, or Pokeymans. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I missed that long debate in the page archives. I can't say that I've ever heard of those other two examples you mention, I guess I'm terminally square. I did look around on Google and Dogpile and didn't find a reference that I felt rose to the standards of WP:V, but what I think is frustrating a lot of the other editors is that the existing citations on that article hardly rise to that standard either. They seem to be mostly fan sites that I would delete out of other articles without hesitation. Perhaps the whole article should be stubified, or perhaps the whole article doesn't meet notability guidelines and should be deleted. Your thoughts? —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 02:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Don't be disruptive - an article having no sources =/= an article being unsourcable. After what has to be a year of that meme existing, not a single source has been provided to assert that it's a particularly notable meme. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
How is posing two scenarios in the subjunctive case in any way disruptive? I have neither stubified the article nor have nominated it at AfD, I was simply asking for your opinion since you seem to know more about these cartoons than I do. This is collaboration. I should point out that the article needs cleanup and damage control if nothing else- even one of the footnotes got orphaned somewhere along the way. Tell me, do you think tagging the article with {{Unreliable}} would be appropriate? Thanks! —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 02:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
ALL of the Pokémon articles have a verifiability problem, and MOST are getting merged. And might I ask why you even began this discussion? Get back on-topic. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi. I've replied to your comment at the article's talk page, if that's okay by you. Thanks! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 05:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Gengar[edit]

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

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

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

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

2008 in video gaming[edit]

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

Okay, I will. But why did you assume that it has to be your job in the first place? Rather than making such a reactionary move, why not make it aware to everybody that you think this article needs sourcing in a less hostile way? bob rulz 07:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
I don't really see how it's misleading. Either way, I'd just like to make it aware to you that such bold edits might be a turn-off to many who care about the article. bob rulz 07:53, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
How do you know? You just assumed that Mario Bowling was a fake game. As far as I can tell, it is, but they did have Mario Tennis, after all. Either way, as I said before, it should be taken on a game-by-game basis. Removing the entire list was unnecessarily severe for seeing just a few "obviously" fake games in the list. bob rulz 07:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
Whatever. You obviously don't care about discussing this issue further, so I'm just gonna go ahead and start the researching. bob rulz 08:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Steelix[edit]

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

Excuse me?[edit]

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

Re: Request your comments[edit]

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

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

delisting GAs[edit]

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

What were you thinking?[edit]

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

Which part of that is assuming bad faith? Was there controversy? Yes. Was there already an existing discussion on the subject? Yes. Did you portray the move as being uncontroversial? Yes. Which part of that is factually inaccurate? That the discussion predates your listing it as "uncontroversial"? Because even I know how to read times and dates. Or that five people disagreeing with you counts as "controversial"? Bladestorm 21:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
And... you couldn't have simply explained that your statement was moved out of context, in lieu of the oh-so-helpful "You are a bastion of assuming bad faith"? You thought that was going to explain it?
More often than not, when a person's statements are inappropriate, or in the wrong place, it's because they put it there. Yes, that wasn't the case here. I fully and entirely accept that. But it sure as heck doesn't make me the 'bastion of assuming bad faith', simply it never occurred to me that somebody else had relocated your listing. But, instead of explaining, you preferred to simply insult. To allow me to believe that things were just as they appeared, and insult. No correction, just insult.
And now, you continue to keep adding further insults in the main discussion on the move. As many jabs as possible. (Yes, I intend to acknowledge my mistake there. I'm just doing it in person first) But, seriously, all the accusations of bad faith? From the person who's constantly asserted that anything but his own version of anything constitutes 'damage' to articles? That all arguments against you don't even count as arguments at all? Do we really want to go over the full list of every insult, dig, put-down, dismissal, and act of incivility you've committed in the last couple of days? I won't link it, because I hate linking essays, but try Assuming the Assumption of Good Faith once in a while. When somebody sees what looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, don't get too mad if he doesn't recognize it's really a cleverly costumed pheasant. Bladestorm 21:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
I replied to my new message first.
I assure you that (though it sometimes pains me to do so) I always read what people say before I reply to them. That does not mean that I always refer to a person's "Contributions" list every bloody time I'm going to reply to them, just in case they choose to disclose information in one location but not another. Had it ever occurred to you that, just maybe, my talk page should've been the first place you could've put the explanation of my mistake? Or, more generally speaking, what was the purpose of simply leaving, "you are a bastion of assuming bad faith", with no explanation, on my talk page?
I am the first person to want to be corrected when I'm wrong. But simply leaving an insult, with no clarification, really doesn't correct me, does it? You left an insult, I replied to it. Once you pointed out the mistake, I confirmed and admitted it. No backpeddling. No "you misinterpreted me". No attempt at all to pretend I wasn't wrong. But I did, and always will, address messages left on my talk page before bothering with other wikipedia business. When people directly address me, I directly address them back as a top priority. At the very least, you could've linked me to the project page where you pointed out my error, instead of leaving just an insult. You know full well that just an insult isn't going to accomplish a thing. (Let alone repeated further insults and accusations before I have a chance to respond) Bladestorm 21:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
That was a mistake. I sooo won't pretend it was anything else. I do think it was a very easy mistake to make. I also think that correcting me would've made more sense than just insulting me. Or heck, at least you could've done both! Something to the effect of, "hey numbnuts, someone else moved it on me! be more careful next time!" would've been far more appropriate. At least then, it neither implies that I'm severely lacking in integrity, and, more importantly, it actually lets me know what I've done wrong. Bladestorm 21:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Um... you mean, when
  • I asked Anthony Appleyard (the person who performed the move) why it had been moved, and he copied your request to my talk page; which had been filed as an uncontroversial move.
  • I saw it still listed under "uncontroversial moves", with your signature.
  • When I pointed out that it couldn't have been uncontroversial to Anthony Appleyard, and he reverted the move, but didn't correct me about you having listed it as uncontroversial.
Uh, no. I can honestly say that it never crossed my mind to ask if you'd listed it. (It was presented to me as being from you. And was located under "uncontroversial".) Again, I'm still admitting I was wrong, but I do maintain that it was a pretty dang easy mistake to make. And I especially maintain that, if you were going to go to the trouble of insulting me, you could've at least let me know why you were insulting me. It may be hard to believe, but I really do want to know when I'm wrong. Bladestorm 21:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
It's an unusually short jump. An incorrect jump, yes. But an extremely miniscule jump to believe that an entry bearing a person's name, under a particular heading, cited by the third party who acted on it, was just as it appeared. Frankly, I don't think that my not even considering the possibility that your comments had been tampered with is really evidence of ill-intent. The fact that such misrepresentations don't even occur to me might be a sign that I'm naive, but not that I'm predisposed to assuming bad faith. And, yet again, for the umpteenth time, responding with just an insult, with no desire to correct me, really doesn't accomplish anything. If nothing else, seeing that I made a really easy mistake and just jumping to the conclusion that I must be a "bastion for assuming bad faith" isn't much better. Bladestorm 22:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

STOP[edit]

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

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

Drop it[edit]

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

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

"Libel"[edit]

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

The claim that I was disregarding guideline because I didn't like it. Because that is patently false, it's libelous. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:01, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
It needs to be "damaging to your reputation"... which is quite a logical jump. --Deskana (talk) 00:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I do not use "Ignore all rules", like he claims I do (in not as many words). To say that I do is damage to my reputation. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Using IAR does not damage one's reputation. --Deskana (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Using it improperly does. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
If you're correct, what he's done is illegal. This means you can sue him for defamation. Do you think a court would really accept that your reputation was damaged because someone said you ignored a rule? Especially considering that your user account consists of a pseudonym, and not your real name? --Deskana (talk) 00:13, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
It damages my reputation HERE, because I do not use Ignore all rules improperly, which he implied. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
You didn't answer the question. --Deskana (talk) 00:18, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
You said as much about me. Should I be suing you, then? Onikage725 00:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I guess I was mistaken when you flat-out stated that you're enforcing Ignore all rules, and THEN stating that you were fighting for Son Goku because you had a personal dislike of the FUNimation version? You clearly were ignoring all rules improperly, because you haven't shown any factual basis to ignore the rule. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:32, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I didn't say "I don't like the dub." I said "the dub is inconsistent." I've seen the entire dub. I watch the redub with and without the newly spliced in Japanese soundtrack, just to compare (in addition to watching the Japanese version). I just watched the dub ep that was on Toonami this last Saturday. You misquoted and misrepresented me in the same way you claim you were treated. So should I be accusing you of libel? Onikage725 00:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Please stop removing talk page comments you don't like. In particular, this is not libel (nor is it uncivil, defamatory, vandalism, or potentially revealing personal information, the other reasons one might remove a talk comment.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

"Evolutionary stone"[edit]

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

The pagemove[edit]

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

I've blocked you anyway. You've edit warred across multiple pages and caused a lot of arguments. Step away from the computer for a few hours, cool off, and come back with an objective mind. --Deskana (talk) 00:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Ahem. I'd love to see a blocking policy that says I cannot discuss something. The fact that a discussion is going nowhere is not a reason to block. How do admins get into this position when they block for punitive reasons instead of preventive reasons (especially when you are involved in the dispute)? Should you be blocked for WP:COI, when you work often with the side opposing me? You threaten to block the discussion from continuing (which is advantageous only to the side that you have consistently assisted in the past), you threaten to block me for continuing the discussion (again, advantageous to the other side), and then block me after edit warring with me on multiple issues as well as participating IN the discussion I was blocked for in particular. Did you even read the blocking policy? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Post an unblock request then. I'm taking three hours to cool off, too. --Deskana (talk) 00:48, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Might I add that in blocking me, you have the conflict of interest in the edit wars, because I cannot revert back to my version in the event that you revert back to yours.
Also, you have a COI because you are defending the opposing side and using my claims of libel against the opposing side as reason to block. You clearly should have gotten an unrelated party to do the blocking.

See, I hate it more when there are loopholes in the blocks which could have been easily avoided by the admin mostly by getting a neutral admin involved. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:53, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi! I'm a neutral admin. You are on tilt, removing other people's talk comments, overblowing things as "libel," getting into huge pagemove fights, revert warring all over the place, and so on. The block was a good idea. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:56, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
In addition, I would not have blocked you with the intention of reverting your edits. I am not blocking you to gain an advantage in a dispute. I am blocking you for "edit warring across multiple pages, false accusations of libel, causing arguments. " because "you need to cool off". --Deskana (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
By the way, the next step is to dispute that A Man In Black is a neutral admin. That's typically what happens in cases like this. --Deskana (talk) 00:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
AMIB has blocked me for 3RR for edit warring with him, in which he barely skirted on the edge of 3RR, which is considered a violation of 3RR. And then later, pledged to quit Wikipedia over getting blocked for 3RR. I view him as non-neutral because he has a double standard and blocks people for things he does as well. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
POST AN UNBLOCK REQUEST --Deskana (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
One of the more recent times I've done that is when I got blocked for 3RR. I argued that the blocking admin had a COI, and it was refused because the block had ended.
It was AMIB who I was speaking of, by the way.
By the way, shouldn't you be cooling off? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
And this page is now protected. I've told you what to do, you chose not to. So I've done it for you. The page protection expires when your block does. Then you can report me for whatever you like. --Deskana (talk) 01:10, 21 June 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.

New Age Retro Hippie (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)


Request reason:

This user insists the blocking administrator, me, has a conflict of interest. Fellow administrators are urged to review the block reason and the users most recent contributions before unblocking. --Deskana (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Even if the block had not already ended, this was clearly a legitimate block. — Yamla 14:17, 21 June 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.

Delete this if you wish[edit]

I'm dropping the same message on both of your talk pages.
Uucp, you've already made two reverts today. Link, you've made three.
Neither of you have posted a single word on the Larry the Lobster discussion page.
Please discuss it there. Or ignore me if you wish. Just a suggestion. Bladestorm 20:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC)


Non-free use disputed for Image:1558908374.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg[edit]

Warning sign This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:1558908374.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our Criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 10:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Wart_Nintendo.jpg[edit]

I have tagged Image:Wart_Nintendo.jpg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 21:11, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Brain Training boxart[edit]

To prevent people from re-removing the european boxart (btw, is it technically 'PAL' if it's functionally interchangeable with both north american and japanese systems?) without discussion, there should be a discussion started somewhere. I added one to the image's discussion page, somehow not thinking that it might be better to discuss on the Brain Age talk page.
So, where should it be? On the image's talk page, because the need for the image under fair use is disputed, or on the article's talk page? Bladestorm 21:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, um, did you actually see this question? Or are you just taking some time to decide where you'd like to address the issue? Bladestorm 22:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, but after the IP editor started reverting again, I felt compelled to make the decision for you, and start a discussion on the article's talk page. Bladestorm 22:33, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Was busy. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:35, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Discuss changes[edit]

Please, try to discuss major changes before making them. No discussion will simply initiate an edit war, which may result in a block. Sr13 21:47, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Reply to your question[edit]

That's a fair question, and very politely phrased, so you deserve a fair answer.
I actually never argued that the first title should be used. My concern was, specifically, "the (official) version used in the earliest significant contribution" (yes, I know you don't like my choice of words, but I'm just accurately expressing my concerns, in my own words). Not being familiar with the european title, I'd never considered "Two Memories" a subtitle, and thus never considered "Another Code" a valid consideration at all.
As of your describing "Two Memories" a subtitle, "Another Code" is a valid title. However, I still don't consider that old version a significant contribution (or, to phrase it like MoS, I don't think the person who first called it "Another Code" was making a major contribution).
Personally, I'm of the opinion that the presence or absence of a 'stub' classification is the most objective measure of whether or not an article can be considered to have substance. In this particular case, I'm not sure that's the best, or only gauge of the article, but I'd say it's the most objective.
Failing the 'stub' test, the earliest version that's got substance, but still had a stub descriptor, was the one that moved it beyond a single paragraph. That version (as well as several versions even older than it) used, "Trace Memory".
At any point up until then, or even arguably up until the 'stub' descriptor was removed, I think it would've been entirely fair to move the article to "Another Code: Two Memories" (or, "Another Code", if you don't like subtitles).
However, once an article has some significant substance, it shouldn't have its style changed without consensus.
My problem with your actions (referring to your moving it to "Another Code: Two Memories") wasn't that I cared if it's at that title, but rather that, when there's a disagreement, one needs to achieve consensus before making a controversial move. I consider it to be analogous to a style issue. I wouldn't want an article changed to all american spellings without consensus. (Although I've also reverted edits restoring to american spellings if that was the previous stable version)
I didn't get involved with the Trace Memory article until I noticed move-warring (is that an actual term?), with several moves within just a few days. If you'd made the first move, and nobody'd cared for, say, a couple months, then I would've defended the "Another Code: Two Memories" version as being the "stable" version, even in spite of the first-major-contributor argument, simply because it's primarily a style issue.
I hope that explains my position. If not, feel free to ask for clarification. Bladestorm 22:01, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope I haven't given you the impression that I was criticizing the earliest versions of the article. However, I don't think the article had any substance at that time. The fact that it wasn't even possible at the time doesn't actually change that fact. I simply don't consider one paragraph to be an article. As for whether or not it's still a stub, well, the tag was removed, and that was left uncontested. To be honest, I didn't think the stub descriptor was even necessary as long as it was there. I don't consider a 'stub' to be any article that can't be improved. That said, it's been relatively stable for years, and we tend to discourage significant style changes of stable style versions. Obviously, it's more than fine to discuss style changes, but that discussion should precede the move.
To comment on something you said on spyke's page (like I said, I didn't want to fill up his page any more without his invitation to do so), if someone were to change to the 'Queen's english', and it were to go a significant length of time without change, it should stay with that style. In any event, my primary objection was to performing the move without discussion or consensus. (Edit summaries really aren't the place to discuss contentious issues) Bladestorm 22:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Wiggler1.jpg[edit]

I have tagged Image:Wiggler1.jpg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 09:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Hm I stand corrected.[edit]

But when this article was made the US release was first and according to the WP:Policy you should use what the creator of the article used.

Response[edit]

In case you haven't noticed September is in Fall.

Warning[edit]

Stop hand.svg

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. --Deskana (talk) 01:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Ab-use of "start" class[edit]

Re: [2]: Maybe there is a Wikiproject page that should be changed, but having every article be "Start" class just because it does not cite references or does not meet litmus standards is unproductive. How exactly is an article that is above a stub but not as lengthy and well-written as this article going to be classified? How is it useful to have, for example, Salt Museum, Northwich classified as Start with Apple II also classified as Start? They are not in the same league. Equating articles that are so vastly different in quality helps no one and defeats the purpose of the classification system. A lack of references is a deficiency, but it does not send an article to Start class and as such belongs at least at B, or at some newly created class, and the same is true for other deficiencies. —Centrxtalk • 01:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry[edit]

I didn't mean for this to happen. My stupid brother always tries to ruin Wikipedia! I need to change my password. I'm sorry if you got offended in any way. Also i agree with you about the dates. --Coconutfred73 03:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

...for the barnstar. utcursch | talk 04:27, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Artwork_2.jpg[edit]

I have tagged Image:Artwork_2.jpg as a disputed use of non-free media, because there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please clarify your fair use rationale on the image description page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 09:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Sonic Rush Adventure[edit]

You have obviously violated 3RR with your edits to the release date. So stop now, any source that confirms a release date, be it Sega or IGN or Gamespot, or from a retailer's page is good enough. I would stop now before anything bad happens... 阿修羅96

Proposed move[edit]

Btw, don't forget to vote (either support or oppose). :)
I haven't voted yet, because, after going over the arguments on both sides, I find myself not quite prepared to commit yet. But I assume you're pretty much in favour of the move. :) Bladestorm 18:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)