User talk:Randall Brackett/Archive 4/20 2006

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

We are not in the business of 'outing' people, and we must continue to have deep and profound respect for the subjects of our biographies. ---Jimbo Wales 14:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

User:MegamanZero/TopNav User:MegamanZero/Templates/TalkArchiveBar User:MegamanZero/Talk Template

User posts: [edit]

Userboxes don't equal blogs[edit]

Describing your social or economic opinions or allowing others to acknowledge them isn’t bloging. This is, quite frankly, just being honest and exposing potential biases that we’d find out sooner or latter. Furthermore, Wikipedians have shown that political divide isn’t a factor. Republicans, Democrats, Conservatives, Socialists, and all the likes have came together in opposing your rouge, unilateral platform, based mainly on some statements Jimbo made. Self references certainly do not harm Wikipedia and are disconnected from the actual encyclopedia. Wiki isn’t a bureaucracy and self descriptive templates problems don’t match the hype administrators have been putting on them.

Furthermore, Wiki isn’t about a sole authority figure, even Jimbo, unilaterally directing things. Wiki is about a community and collaborative effort. A few Administrators shouldn’t have absolute power and Wiki must foster discussion to succeed.

Canadianism 10:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Saying you're an democrat, an republican, etc. is perfectly fine. The only problem with user boxes is when the community confuses the interests of the encyclopedia with the personification and sharing of their own interests. Go figure. That's not going to fly. When user box mania crosses into the realm of inflammatory and offensive, not to mention pure unadulterated absurdity, then they must go. Additionally, users have begun to justify the prolonged longtivity of these boxes by using the constraint of process.
Concerning templates and self reference, I think we'll have to agree to disagree here. The point of all the tools and options provided to us is to expand the encyclopedia. Mea Culpa. The community, admistrators, collaborative effort, its all for the encyclopedia. From your statement, it seems to me you're placing the community before the value of the site (Of course, I could be mistaken, however, your statement sounds akin to the thought through which it was conveyed). Good faith, hardworking admins deleted these inflammatory boxes, usually with a valid comment about an troll out to make trouble. I see no harm in deleting them. Please get back to concentrating on the encyclopedia. -ZeroTalk 15:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


I do not think it helpful to suggest he discuss things with you! It will only extend his ban. The talk pages of banned users are not a great place to initiate conversation. -Splashtalk 17:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Please see this and take note. Per the rfa page, User:Dschor is blocked for disruption. While I agree upon the concensus his probation is to be enforced, the fact that his contributions go waste are not. I constructed his articles he prepared, and I merely wish an comprimise he be allowed to his talkpage as long as his actions represent an effort to improve the encyclopedia. -ZeroTalk 17:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
ArbCom rulings are not subject to compromise, unless the Committee changes their ruling. There is no consensus on probation, since he is banned and committee rulings do not need consensus. I do not see anything in that link that I should take any notice of, since it is a banned user circumventing his ban. Enforcing an arbcom ruling is not, as you accuse below, thuggery. You should be careful of accusing people of such things, particularly the arbitrators. -Splashtalk 18:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
I said as much in my comment to the talkspace. Why should we prevent users from making good-faith and productive edits..? That doesn't make sense. And, yes, I do indeed agree with the arbcom's criteria and rulings, I'm merely making an statement of discussion pertaining to the matter. Perhaps we should make an argument of allowing him to merely construct an sandbox. I'm not making an personal attack of thuggery, merely an citation to how we should give this some thought. I do apologize if I came off as so. I'm merely trying to come to an comprimise. Do not believe we have differning viewpoints on the matter, on the contaire, I'm in full agreement, just try to assume good faith. -ZeroTalk 18:14, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
The reason we do not allow any edits from banned users is that, if we did, we'd have to have long discussions over when to revert, when to extend bans, etc. That, in cases more serious than Dschor's, would be allowing the trolls to continue causing division even though they are banned. I don't know if you're familiar with the banned User:Skyring, but this is more or less exactly the way he behaves — he fixes a semicolon in amongst trolling and someone, somewhere, tries to say that means he should be allowed to edit. The ArbCom is there to put a final end to all the discussion which usually has followed months of bad-blood and to hand out a binding ruling with remedy. There are no exceptions to bans, unless the Committee makes one; they didn't do that this time. That said, you may be able to persuade the Committee to replace their remedy with another one. This is not something that can be decided among admins and/or other editors, however, hence the fact that the talk page message to Dschor isn't the place to start. -Splashtalk 18:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay. I'm merely saying what I believe is good for encyclopedia. Allow edits for mainspace expansion and creation, and discussion regarding other areas of interest are to be ignored. You're completely correct, this situation had divulged into an probmatic area, and an ban was good. However, discussion regarding the striging of the good and bad is perfectly warrented. Thanks for your advice and consideration, and I'm gald to be on the same team. -ZeroTalk 18:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

edit count adjustment[edit]

I'd really rather not start adjusting user's edit counts. Other users have much larger "problems", in that they made several thousand edits under a different user (or IP) than they currently edit with. Also, edits (especially four edits) shouldn't really be that important... And per the Splash's comments on my talk page, Dschor is banned, not on probation. --Interiot 17:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You're correct. And, per the rfar, he is banned (I was under the introspect they were the same thing in his situation and its what I meant). If you feel its not okay to insert the edits, that's fine, but when an user is prevented from making contributions in light of an lack of disruptive behavior, there's a problem. I'm sorry that you feel that way. Consorting with such outright thuggery will not make Wikipedia a better encyclopedia. There are policies and common distinction between good and bad faith, they work, when they're blatantly ignored with the sanction of the admistrator, it's not a good sign (I am not accusing anyone, however). -ZeroTalk 17:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Weapons list[edit]

Hey, Zero. Sorry, I kinda forgot about your query the first time you asked it. But I have reviewed the list and, I must say, I'm thoroughly impressed and commend you on a job well done. Unfortunately for me, I haven't be able to contribute work of such high calibur to the Mega Man articles lately. The FF Project and I have had some major issues to discuss and take care of the past few weeks. And I apologize for not really holding up my end of the bargain on cleaning up the MM articles. Quite frankly, I'm considering putting in a request to Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games for some major overhaul, because we need for manpower. Anyway, thanks again and great work! ~ Hibana 23:32, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. No problem, and I'm sorry if I tried to make the MM articles convey an sense of urgency; I'm glad we have our own little niches in the encyclopedia to work in, that's what's its all about. -ZeroTalk 23:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


hello there! - i was just browsing around, and came across a link to this page from tony sidaway's page - i thought i'd just ask you a question.... your talk page says you've been a wikipedian for over a year now, but your first edits were only in june - did you used to have another account, and have you ever been an admin? - you seem to work hard here, and be a generally nice bloke, so i thought i'd say hi...... -—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Ahoy! Welcome to the S.S. Talkpage of Megaman Zero. Yes, indeed, I was editting from a number of IP's before my account construction, and I consider that timeframe and the length of my time as an registed wikipedian the sum of over an year. Very nice to meet you too. -ZeroTalk 12:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:P andy01.jpg[edit]

{Automated clutter removed)

Taken care of. Yet another one of the images I missed from my newbie days. Thank you for the update. -ZeroTalk 18:35, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Link revert[edit]

You reverted without explanation? --Flipkin 18:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

They're Mexicans. Why would you remove links supported by factual edvidence without explanation..? -ZeroTalk 19:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand the lingo. What are Mexicans?--Flipkin 15:52, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
Simply put, an Mexican is an person born in territory belonging to Mexico. Equivilent to an American (born in the United States) or an Spaniard (born in Spain). -ZeroTalk 15:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)


My pleasure. (And google is love, btw, since wiki's internal engine is a complete asshole when looking for multiple words stringd) Circeus 17:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:Oh My Goddess Extlink[edit]

Please discuss at Talk:Oh My Goddess!. - Brian Kendig 20:39, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been to all the fan-sites. They provide different aspects at different levels of quality. Gateway to the goddess provides in-depth coverage and over analysis, as well as trivia. Feather provides a broad information basis thinly expanded over general topics, etc. The point of the article is to provide as much coverage as possible, as well as regards to our own. The multiple sites possess different characteristics, and as such are valuble to the reader, not to mention appealing to an mainstream auidience. Its also of note they are very useful references.-ZeroTalk 21:06, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm glad these valuable sites are out there, and I'm glad people have Dmoz and Yahoo and Google and other tools by which to find them. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a web directory. Wikipedia policy specifically discourages what you're trying to do (see m:When should I link externally). - Brian Kendig 21:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
Additionally, if you're going to link to information about (for example) Gan-chan, have it link specifically to a web page about Gan-chan, not to the top-level page of a web site about Ah My Goddess. There are many precedents for this in Wikipedia: for example, movie articles link to their IMDB entries instead of to the home page of, and individual Star Trek articles link to their corresponding entries on Memory Alpha instead of to the top level of Star Trek fan sites. I'm not aware of any other fandom which Wikipedia allows to link to the same exact site from every article pertaining to the fandom. - Brian Kendig 21:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
You seem to have your facts wrong my friend. Many other articles follow this method, and considering the popularity of the manga and series as an whole, its no wonder to realize the concensus for this.
The thinly-veiled policy (which I've seen before) that you kindly directed me to prohibits against blogs, Forums, non-neutral links and links that have little to do with the source material, which is clearly not the case here. It also states External links are a very good way of pointing to authorities reference material that supports facts in the article, as well as Where one has written some Wikipedia content by lifting facts from an external webpage then it is polite to reference that webpage and particularly now that the Wikipedia content is easily downloadable for offline or other use, it's convenient to have the material available "locally" and licensed for any use. which supports my previous thesis above. These links are perfectly constructive and expansive to the article. They assist in the task of engulfing the reader into informative analysis and expansion. And they are perfectly within policy, as well as within Wikipedia goals.
However, I have given it an small discrestion of thought, and I hear what your're saying. I agree the number of sites could be trimmed down a tad in the respective section, and I'll do as such. But this does not justify your complete eviceration of all of the external links from the articles-ZeroTalk 21:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop[edit]

I have just done a massive refactoring of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop, in order to

  • remove personal attacks, irrelevant comments, and bickering
  • make the page readable and usable for the arbcom, as at its previous size of 183KB, it was not.

As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them. Wearily yours, Mindspillage (spill yours?) 08:16, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh My Goddess![edit]

Yeah, i don't know any TV-series related sites of heart, though Belldandy angel feathers is a good all round fansite. I've got some time so i will do a search. -Dynamo_ace Talk

OK, i have got some sites but none of them are a "perfect" TV series fansite. Take a look for your self and see if they are any good.

Sorry about that -Dynamo_ace Talk

Erwin Walsh[edit]

G'day Megaman Zero,

I discussed the issue with JoanneB (talk · contribs), who is actually an administrator herself, on IRC, and we decided to go with just Jo's warning. I'll be watching as best I can, and upon his next personal attack I'll block him for 24 hours or so. I'd appreciate it, if you see something I don't, if you brought it to my attention, if you don't mind. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:18, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Ultimate Armor[edit]

Hi, Zero. We meet again...

Yes, it's about the Ultimate Armor's info of X. I know I did it rather in a sudden. The info would be better depicted here, it is a page of X4 official site.

アルティメットアーマー is Ultimate Armor.
禁断のパーツ means forbidden part(s), but is not the nickname of the Armor anyway...

And please don't ask me how to unlock the first mode, I too have never heard that it is possible... ^_^;;;; ~ Polobird 07:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Seems legit to me. An honorable edit backed by an resource even. I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you're asking of me however. -ZeroTalk 14:07, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

bicycle award[edit]

It would seem that you've taken an inappropriate liberty with an award on your user page; the original award was of a bicycle, not an Exceptional newcomer award. As there is obviously a considerable difference, I have restored it. --Moby Dick 08:15, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Considerable difference...? I was under the impression they were different awards utilized for the same purpose in regards for newcomers. Thank you for pointing that out, I changed it because the Butterfly was so much more visually appealing. -ZeroTalk 09:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Upon furthur inspection, your first diff isn't inapporiate whatsoever. That statement is a little bit naughty. It was merely an conversion of my awards into an neater format, and you neglected to assume good faith. Note I omitted to say the award was an Newcomer award, I simply replaced it with butterfly image. As such, I've reverted. Please don't make assumptions such as this again without proper discussion, its utterly disgusting and violating of another's intregirty. Words fail me. -ZeroTalk 11:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You are, of course, free to use a gallery format. However, in that diff you also changed the image and the caption to the award. As to your view that the bicycle is an exceptional newcomer award... — well, that would appear to be your own view; one you should not assume to be that of another. I suggest that you restore the original form of the award. To not do so amounts to awarding yourself an "Exceptional Newcomer" award. You could always award it to yourself as long as you give yourself credit.

And I do agree with you that "Wards" fail you. --Moby Dick 12:05, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Unbelievible. You neglected to even understand my proceeding post at all. I am not tranforming the bicycle award into an Exceptional newcomer award. Its simply there because I like the picture more, and I proceeded to change the caption to fit the image. You can't ride an butterfly. If you can find an better-looking image to swith it out with, I invite you to do so. The drab balck-and-white bicycle simply doesn't sit with me. -ZeroTalk 12:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

If you do change the award, please remove Davenbelle's signature, to show that it is not the award he gave you. Prodego talk 13:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I merely changed the image. There's nothing incorrect towards the substitution of an image. -ZeroTalk 13:18, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, however it is not what Davenbelle gave you, so should not be signed by her. Prodego talk 13:23, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
You've missed the point. I'm afraid this isn't an laudible cause for complaint. -ZeroTalk 13:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Amounts to forgery..? Oh this is just so much tosh. Take Moby Dick's conversation with me on my talk page:
  • Moby Dick falsely accuses me of inappopriate liberties on my own userpage [1]. He tells me its okay to vandalize my web page under an act of honesty[2]. He seemed to have a problem. He wanted the award kept but he had thought up some process-based reason why he should replace it without asking me the true purpose of the substitution. A good, solid bureaucratic reason no doubt, but not a reason for him to decide. It appears to me, the exact opposite of what I thought was merited on an simple transmogrification for my preferences.
  • I explained my view to him [3]--that I merely wished an better image of my own preference. I added some emphasis on the purpose of the fact it was my userpage and I withold the right to merely change an image. It was an incorrect fallacy to state I was claiming the newcomer award.
  • He replied that he thought that that didn't matter and I was still claiming the award (hoo boy!) [4]. He raised a good point about me playing with captions as an motive for mischief. He said that he thought that this was nonsense (it isn't, and I think that it's significant to note that it wasn't even the intention he summerized). He said I playing around with award images amounts to "forgery" (duh!)
  • I explained the true meaning of my transmogrification [5]. I corrected him on some points of fact (I find I have to do this a lot, it wasn't just the oringinal post). I edited my prior comment to fix an spelling mistake which he mocked me on as well. He also trollishly asked me if I recieved all my awards this way. This really is not an nice thing to do, but asssume good faith...
  • I then proceed to remove the trollish comment [6]. Moby replied that he hadn't a clue what I was talking about and proceeds to replace it with another mockerous comment about an nice conversation [7]. He again tried to reason by incorrect analogy. He thought that any attempts to change images was wrong and therefore any attempt to sabotage my userpage would be justified, only to find himself reverted. Nice try, no banana [8]. He went on a bit. He said I didn't understand the meaning of an award.

But now Moby Dick seems to believe that we were just talking past another, and no serious discussion took place. He also seems to have mistakenly placed the management of my own user and talkpage as his own business. How odd. I believed that I had indicated that I understood his qualms and agreed with them, and that it had nothing to do with the encyclopedia, as well as any of his concern. -ZeroTalk 13:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

From wiktionary:
2. The act of forging, fabricating, or producing falsely; esp., the crime of fraudulently making or altering a writing or signature purporting to be made by another; the false making or material alteration of or addition to a written instrument for the purpose of deceit and fraud; as, the forgery of a bond.

Technically what you are doing is the definition of forgery, the bolding is mine. You should not change someone else's comment, regardless of where it is.
Prodego talk 14:44, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
The point of an award is to convey an the sense of gratification, due givings, sense of gratitude, or the like. I changing the text to reflect the image leaves this sprit intact, and futhurmore, I never changed Davenbelle's signature. I am not the only editor to do this, and it does not convey dishonesty, fradulent claims or ulterior motives. Absolutely not.
In the larger picture, it also neglects to include anyone else in its change, it does not harm the community, and certainly not the encyclopedia. I hate to say this, but it really isn't your concern (and you are incorrect in your thesis regarding the action anyway). Please return to the construction of the encyclopedia and leave these nonsensical comments off my talkpage. Please feel free to return when it actually involves the well-being of the site. -ZeroTalk 14:54, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

For the record[edit]

I would just like to state, for the record, that User:Dschor was banned for a particularly long time, for particularly harmless edits. No vandalism. No page blanking. No malicious article edits. No personal attacks. Simply for creating a template to describe an interest in an encyclopedic subject. If this is the way wikipedia intends to treat editors who act in good faith to improve the encyclopedia, the project will self-destruct. -- 04:42, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I am very shocked by the behavior of certain parties towards Dschor. As you know I attempted to inquire if he could at the least prepare edits in his namespace for the expansion of the encyclopedia. I still feel that his actions were indefensible, but I think I could have worded my criticism in more temperate language, and he did not deserve such an block. Your phrase "creating a template to describe an interest in an encyclopedic subject" is pretty close to how I feel about the affair, with the exception that I don't believe that he did it in ignorance, nor do I completely believe he did it in good faith. I find this block on Dschor completely incomprehensible, and the fact he is unallowed to prepare constructive edits laughable. -ZeroTalk 10:02, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I take it back. You're an sockpuppet of Dschor, and you're circumventing your ban. Please don't do that again, its utterly disguisting and sneaky. Quite beyond belief. -ZeroTalk 22:28, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

SNK template[edit]

Lemme know if you need help turning it into a proper template. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:29, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I do not know what you are talking about. -ZeroTalk 11:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
This. -Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 11:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
I leave it in my userspace so I can customize it and subst it to fit the situation as needed. It allows the template to operate on an varible basis in line with articles. Thanks for the offer. -ZeroTalk 11:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
You should seriously consider using an actual template, such as Template:Tekken characters (see where it's been used here). The whole point of templates is to make it possible to easily modify their appearance from a single location (no matter where they're used). It appears you've been subst'ing the template CyberSkull pointed out to you; this means that changes made in one article will not be reflected in other articles. Using templates (such as the one I linked to above) also makes it easier to edit articles (since only the template usage syntax is exposed to editors, not convoluted table syntax or HTML). You should reconsider taking CyberSkull up on his offer. —Locke Coletc 10:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Its substed for an reason. -ZeroTalk 15:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
It'd better be a damn good one; you're creating a maintenance nightmare by subst'ing it like that. Worse, each article you subst the code in has a bunch of stuff in it that normal editors probably won't care about (but may get confused by). I've fixed up stuff like this twice in the not-so-distant past; once with Template:Tekken characters (used here), and recently with Template:Mortal Kombat character (used here). It's not fun cleaning up stuff like this, so I'd strongly suggest you stop doing it (and build an actual template as CyberSkull and I are suggesting). :( —Locke Coletc 07:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
There is a "proper template". As far as I am aware, I've been the only one constructing maintenance on these articles. I purposely subst the templates so I can change the individual format and code for each character as needed. Some characters possess information and statistic categories others do not. The image formatting is also an issue I concern myself with. I am fully aware of how to make an template as cyberskull offered, I merely choose not to. However I'm only trying to improve Wikipedia, as are you. I really don't think there's a reason for us to adopt a constantly hostile tone or to make threats like this. -ZeroTalk 07:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, yes, but you must realize other editors may come along and want to change things themselves, right? By keeping it all in one template they can easily make a change and have it reflected in every article that uses that template. However, since you're subst'ing the template they'll need to edit every article individually to make the change. And this goes for yourself as well: by using a template you can go back and change the master template once and have your changes reflected on every article you used the template on. Regarding statistics/info that not all pages may have/need, there are ways to make "optional" fields which won't appear if you don't specify values for them (see Template:Mortal Kombat character for example, then look at Sektor; notice that the age/height/weight fields do not display because they haven't been specified yet). If you'd like help making a template with optional fields like this, let me know and I'll be happy to help. Regarding your final comment; as I've made no threats (and am trying to remain non-hostile) I'd ask that you assume good faith here. Part of improving Wikipedia is helping other Wikipedians to understand when they may be doing something bad/wrong. —Locke Coletc 07:31, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually I am fully aware of the aspects of constructing templates, unless it's a resurrection of some other attempt. Looking at the history of the respective articles, I see no suggestion that a person would need to make an mass change across all the articles, so an consistent template extrusion at this stage would be moot. I'll stand by and await developments. -ZeroTalk 07:48, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
    • Here's an example: look at Template:DOA Character's history. Here you changed the background color from some pinkish color to silver. If the author of this template had subst'd it as you've been doing with your template, you'd have had to have edited every page with this template directly to change the background color from that pinkish color to silver. Instead, by making one change (to the master template), you modified every article that used the template (which was considerly easier than modifying each page directly). You need to think ahead here: just because you can't imagine someone wanting to make a change en masse today, doesn't mean someone might not want to in a few months (just as you did with Template:DOA Character). —Locke Coletc 08:03, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I hear what you're saying. I, however, created this template for varible code and not consistant purposes, and I know for what purpose it will proceed to be used in its utilization. Thanks for you offer. -ZeroTalk 08:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't think you do hear what I'm saying, sadly. :( You can't possibly know how the template might be altered in the future (unless you've got a crystal ball you've been hiding; in which case, I need next weeks lottery numbers, heh). Someone may want to alter a basic part of the appearance, but they'll be forced to modify every article page directly to make the change (or worse; they'll make the change on some pages, but not others). It's really in everyones (yours, mine, Wikipedias, and any editor that ever thinks of modifying articles that have this subst'd template on them) best interests if you don't subst the template. Please keep an open mind about this and reconsider. —Locke Coletc 09:05, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I do hear what you're saying. I never disagreed with it, I'm only saying there is no point in making changes across all the templates as of now (As you can see, the templates are different for most characters). I will change the format of this in due time, as soon as I discover an way to keep my prior intent intact. Please be patient, you'll see it changed soon. -ZeroTalk 12:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay. I can make an concise template after some fiddling. The only qualm relevant as of late is formatting multiple images into the end and hiding the unnecessary ones. I'll continue on it later. -ZeroTalk 18:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop (Again)[edit]

I have just readded three proposed remedies to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tony Sidaway/Workshop, which had been removed. I have also refactored these comments to

  • remove personal attacks, irrelevant comments, and bickering
  • make the page readable and usable for the arbcom, as Minspillage recently has done.

As your words appear on that page, I'm letting you know so that you may review the changes. I have tried not to let any bias or POV I may have color my summaries; however, it's a wiki, so if you think I've misrepresented your words, please fix them. Respectfully yours, InkSplotch(talk) 14:42, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Megaman[edit]

I'll keep an eye on his edits...right now it appears to be fairly slow...I didn't notice the personal attacks though...but I didn't look very throughly perhaps.--MONGO 02:05, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


Well, if your going by that specific user and using your own judgement, then I feel the best situation is to sort by last name as I have done so since I started editng on wikipedia.--Dangerous-Boy 06:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not. I merely used that user's suggestion as to the fact that concensus is not established. I've posted an comment on the wikiproject talkpage concerning this. -ZeroTalk 06:58, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I look forward to more of your articles.--Dangerous-Boy 19:10, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Terry Bogard and Kyo Kusanagi[edit]

Looks like it might be a good idea to get those article unprotected now. Ask on WP:RFPP. --Tony Sidaway 19:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Certainly. Conensus has been reached, and the user appears to have settled down. As for his edits, he did nothing wrong. We are simply required by policy to religiously remove edits that endanger the neutruality and quality of the encyclopedia. His actions were consistent with good faith editing, but his neglect to engage in discussion evicerated any chances of us realizing the consistancy of his actions. -ZeroTalk 19:26, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Dschor (2)[edit]

Yeah...the trouble with banned users is their desire to do what got them banned and to complain that they can't do it. I hope that, now his userspace is protected, there should be much less incentive for him to edit for the next two months. Hope things are going well, Splashtalk 21:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, if not for his sockpuppetry, I would still endorse the thought of possibly allowing him to produce sandbox edits, but unfortuntly, his actions coneyed an feeling of mis-trust and violation of good-faith, and I do hope he learns from it. That is simply not right. -ZeroTalk 23:36, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Forged award[edit]

No problems. I do apologise for jumping the gun without looking deepy into your case, but rest assured, my feedback was meant to be advice, and was well-intentioned. Keep up your good work! --Deathphoenix 22:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course. Thanks for your critisisim, I know it was well-intended, and from your dealings around the site, I see you always try your best. Thanks for the reply; Cheers. -ZeroTalk 23:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Myung Jin Lee / Lee Myung-Jin[edit]

I'll leave it up to you, since I don't really know much about the topic. The older article is linked from Ragnarok Online, which is how I found it when checking out your new page :) — flamingspinach | (talk) 20:02, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I'll take care of it. -ZeroTalk 20:12, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

RFA Voting[edit]

My apologises for my caution. I feel I should vote when it is reasonably safe to do so. It appears users could be blocked, otherwise Arbcom for WP:Point, or trolling for voting, or otherwise baited into a 3r, edit conflict. I'm awaiting the outcome of the arbcom results of Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boothy443/Workshop Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boothy443/Proposed decision for Boothy443 to see if it is indeed the rules of Wikipedia to only vote an certain manner is required of me.--Masssiveego 07:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand. Good things are worth waiting for. -ZeroTalk 20:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

List of characters from King of Fighters proposal[edit]

There are a LOT of articles about KoF characters, ranging from characters with some pop-culture or gamer-culture impact (Terry, Kyo) and characters with too much story to merge (K', Athena) to...well, everyone else. Would you be interested in helping me merge some or most of the minor characters (e.g. Mignon, Alba, Heavy D!, Gato, probably many more I'm forgetting) into a list or lists, in the same way that minor characters from other fandoms are merged into lists? I've been doing this for several fandoms (Pokémon, Metal Gear, several more-minor ones), and I'd like to take on the gobs of fighting game trivia scattered all over the place and try to organize it into useful, orderly lists that can serve as introduction for the curious or uninitiated.

For some (not entirely perfect) examples of the kinds of lists I'd ideally like to make, take a look at List of Advance Wars COs or List of Johto Gym Leaders. The ideal would be something like List of Final Fantasy VI characters.

What do you think? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I see where you're going. The only problem is if the characters we speak of are minor or not. The King of Fighters Maximum Impact 2 is due out shortly, and characters such as Alba are likely to recieve an increase in information in thier respective history section. When I began the daunting task of researching and making the abundance of character articles for the King of Fighters series I noticed that every character seems quite advanced regarding analysis.

However, I do detist keeping track of all the less significant articles (such as Heavy D!), and I would like to make a list, but this series is different from say, Dead or Alive as every character can span several pharagraphs. Why, I implore you take an gander at Hinako Shijou, an character which has no bearing on the plot, yet has an ridiculous amount of character depth. The King of Fighters series is saturated with characters like this.

SNK seems to have taken an interesting spin on the amount of character depth they impose upon their cast of thousands, certainly not like other fighting-genre games. I'm currectly constructing more articles for the Samurai Shodown series characters as well (here) and here I run into the same conclusion. These characters are certainly not shallow. I really want to do what you inquire, but the characters of these series are quite difficult to pass off as minor, especially taking into consideration new iterations are relaesed constanstly. I am at somewhat of an impass. -ZeroTalk 19:03, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

If a character ends up needing their own article, the character can always br broken out of the list again into their own article. A merge isn't irrevocable.

As for characters like Hinako, characters that need that much detail don't need to be merged, but, then again, I could rewrite Hinako's article into two or three fairly brief paragraphs without losing any detail. In fact, I'll do that right now.

Hinako Shijou, introduced in King of Fighters 2000, is a schoolgirl sumo wrestler, and, along with Yuri, Mai, and Kasumi, one of the members of the Princesses of Punch team. Hinako is a joke character, and does not have a major part in the ongoing King of Fighters storyline.

Feeling pressure to master a sport at her exclusive girls' school, she settles upon sumo, and began training to build up her limbs to withstand the force exterted by a full-grown sumo wrestler. She joins the King of Fighters tournament to test herself, as well as demonstrate to her school that sumo is a worthy sport for a school-aged girl to master.

I'm more concerned with getting some agreement on the structure of such lists (one big list? Lists by team? Lists by first game?) and merging the uncontroversial characters, before quibbling about borderline cases. I don't feel the need to jump in and do a huge merge, borderline cases and all (as I did with MGS and BOF), since there are already clearly involved active editors working on these pages.

So, how do you think these lists should be structured? Unless we want to do just one "minor characters in KOF" list, the lists are going to end up including short, stubby descriptions of even the characters who aren't merged into the lists. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:25, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

  • I see. I find this an difficult subject to pass WP:BOLD upon. Construct articles from scratch, make redirects into larger articles, do research, I can make due with all of this. However, I won't pretend to know how we should handle this subject-I'm simply on both sides of the matter. I wish we could inquire an second opinion on the subject, but alas, I seem to be the only one overseeing these articles for the most part (which is most likely why you came to me). I suppose the only suggestion I can make is merge all of the characters from the Ash saga into an list (save for Shen Woo and Ash Crimson), as they are all stubs. -ZeroTalk 19:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, let's decide the structure like this. Which do you like best?

  • [List of major KOF characters] and [List of minor KOF characters] (or splitting this into "major," "minor/recurring," and "minor/one-off")
    • This is how most smaller fandoms do it. If we don't have many minor characters, this could work.
  • [List of KOF characters appearing in foo saga], [List of KOF characters appearing in bar saga]... and [List of recurring KOF characters]
    • This aids in keeping the characters in related stories together, but you end up with a LOT of important characters getting dumped to the recurring list. That said, since so many of the recurring characters will likely have their own articles, you can just have sectstubs with {{main}} links pointing to the comprehensive articles. This is how the Metal Gear Solid characters are arranged.
  • [List of KOF characters introduced in foo saga], etc.
    • This is a variant of the above list. It eliminates the recurring list, but minor characters who nonetheless keep popping up (e.g. King, that one kid with the riceballs who idolizes Kyo) don't get mentioned in the later saga articles. Then again, they wouldn't get mentioned in any saga article if you use the appearing idea.
  • [List of KOF characters introduced in foo game], [List of KOF characters introduced in bar game], etc.
    • A lot more granular, and allows for side-story (Max Impact, Dream Match) characters more easily. Then again, it means you'll have a LOT of lists, and no really good place to summarize the story of the sagas.
  • [List of members of foo team], [List of members of bar team], etc.
    • Probably not workable, but I thought I'd toss it out there.
  • Something else

While I'm on the subject of KOF, how about we condense the plot summary of each saga down to articles on each saga, and remove most of the plot summary bulk from the character articles? Between all of the character articles, I think we have the story of each saga described in detail in (at least!) quadruplicate.

Last but not least, can you make a subpage or something for this discussion, or can we take it to my talk page? The formatting on your talk page is a bit of a pain. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I've continued the discussion here-ZeroTalk 20:21, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Megaman Zero and his forged award (Transfered from WP:AN/I)[edit]

I attempted to have a discussion with Megaman Zero about his editing of an "award" on his user page -- he had changed a weird "bicycle" award into first an exceptional newcomer award and then, in response to my talk, a series of motorcycles (?). He has also edited the post of the user who originally posted the award.

More seriously, he has turned to simply deleting my posts [9] [10] [11] from his talk page, as he does not seem to want to acknowledge the issue.

User:Prodego has also commented to Zero that what he's been doing amounts to forgery.

Just to be clear, I did edit Zero's user page twice [12] [13] to restore the original award; once along with my original post to his talk page and again after he first deleted my talk. This was what attracted Prodego to the issue.

I have again attempted to restore my comments to his talk page, but at this point expect him to simply delete them again. Please see:User talk:Megaman Zero#bicycle award and this oldid in case he deletes my talk again. I'm done trying to have a talk with an American teenager about ethics, but hope that others will comment on his, and my, actions.

Thank you,

--Moby 09:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

I urge both parties not to be a dick. Alphax τεχ 09:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Better? Thanks for the interesting link. --Moby 10:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Its okay. I will delete his post, and I will continue to delete it. It offended me, and furthrmore, is an false accusation on my intregrity. I don't tolerate trolling, especially when it deverges from the subject of the well-being of the encyclopedia. I made an in-depth expanatory thesis concerning this on my talkpage.
Moby Dick is most likely an nice chap, but he's taking this furthur than it needs be and the situation amounts to nothing. I've a mind to delete the whole conversation, as it amounts to nelligible content in concerns to the encyclopedia. I also decline to take advice from an user with an scat 100 edits who proceeds to accuse me of untrue fallacies. -ZeroTalk 09:51, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion, altering another user's signed comment is not appropriate. — Knowledge Seeker 10:08, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree, but it was in Megaman's own talk page, not in an article discussion, and IMHO, User:Moby Dick will now see that he shouldn't edit anyone elses userpage without their permission aside from reverting vandalism. Hopefully these two can "shake hands" and this will end it.--MONGO 10:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I fail to see how it matters whether the comment is on an article talk page or a user talk page. User's signed comments should not be altered, with the possible exception of obvious typographical errors which you can be fairly certain the user would not object to. — Knowledge Seeker 21:29, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Altering comments refers to blantent transmogrification of another user's text. I had simply deleted the entire content completly as divisive and inflammatory comments, and this was a action I took under the guidlines outlined under WP:RPA. I don't beat around the bush. I just do it.-ZeroTalk 18:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
In one of my deleted posts to his talk page I stated that the misattribution was the crux of my complaint. I have already said to Prodego that I will not edit Zero's user page again. --Moby 10:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. Hopefully we can place this behind us and proceed to be on more friendly terms in the future. I was quite dissapointed to rub you the wrong way over something as nonsensical as this. I really hate to engage in concerns that don't involve the well-being of the encyclopedia, as well as offend others. That's silly. -ZeroTalk 15:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
You could help this by restoring my comments to your talk page. --Moby 07:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Certainly not. I cannot restore inflammatory content. -ZeroTalk 11:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
diff --Moby 12:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. Certainly I intend to go on deleting trollish and inflammatory discussion where it traduces the rpa policy or the civilty policy. What of it? I'm not in your club and I don't have to subscribe to its rules where they diverge from those of Wikipedia. -ZeroTalk 14:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm curious what you meant by the American Teenager/ethics comment? Rx StrangeLove 15:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
In the course of reading his user and talk pages (including some of the history) it became obvious the Zero is a teenager and is an American. And it is my view that his actions — messing with an award as well as deleting my comments — are highly unethical, something I don't see much of in that group.
My original complaint to him was about his having obviously changed his user page to imply that a user had given him an "Exceptional Newcomer Award" when this, in fact, is not the case. It is also highly unethical of him to have repeatedly deleted latest diff oldid about half of my comments on this subject and gone on to post his own extensive spin on this both on his talk page and now here. --Moby 07:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe he's refering to my exhaustive thesis which I've copied over from my talkpage:

Amounts to forgery..? Oh this is just so much tosh. Take Moby Dick's conversation with me on my talk page:

  • Moby Dick falsely accuses me of inappopriate liberties on my own userpage [14]. He tells me its okay to vandalize my web page under an act of honesty[15]. He seemed to have a problem. He wanted the award kept but he had thought up some process-based reason why he should replace it without asking me the true purpose of the substitution. A good, solid bureaucratic reason no doubt, but not a reason for him to decide. It appears to me, the exact opposite of what I thought was merited on an simple transmogrification for my preferences.
  • I explained my view to him [16]--that I merely wished an better image of my own preference. I added some emphasis on the purpose of the fact it was my userpage and I withold the right to merely change an image. It was an incorrect fallacy to state I was claiming the newcomer award.
  • He replied that he thought that that didn't matter and I was still claiming the award (hoo boy!) [17]. He raised a good point about me playing with captions as an motive for mischief. He said that he thought that this was nonsense (it isn't, and I think that it's significant to note that it wasn't even the intention he summerized). He said I playing around with award images amounts to "forgery" (duh!)
  • I explained the true meaning of my transmogrification [18]. I corrected him on some points of fact (I find I have to do this a lot, it wasn't just the oringinal post). I edited my prior comment to fix an spelling mistake which he mocked me on as well. He also trollishly asked me if I recieved all my awards this way. This really is not an nice thing to do, but asssume good faith...
  • I then proceed to remove the trollish comment [19]. Moby replied that he hadn't a clue what I was talking about and proceeds to replace it with another mockerous comment about an nice conversation [20]. He again tried to reason by incorrect analogy. He thought that any attempts to change images was wrong and therefore any attempt to sabotage my userpage would be justified, only to find himself reverted. Nice try, no banana [21]. He went on a bit. He said I didn't understand the meaning of an award.

But now Moby Dick seems to believe that we were just talking past another, and no serious discussion took place. He also seems to have mistakenly placed the management of my own user and talkpage as his own business. How odd. I believed that I had indicated that I understood his qualms and agreed with them, and that it had nothing to do with the encyclopedia, as well as any of his concern. -ZeroTalk 13:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

-ZeroTalk 15:59, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like the award, you either leave it on your talk page or you remove it completely. Changing the image is like painting gold over your silver medal and pretending you came first (to put an Olympic spin on it) or giving yourself a Barnstar award and trying to claim some "fame" off that. There's nothing wrong with removing an unwanted barnstar from your page (someone's done that with a barnstar I gave him), but there's everything wrong with changing that barnstar into something it's not. Maybe you should have asked the person who gave you that award to change it to something else, and letting that person do it. --Deathphoenix 16:20, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Deathphoenix needs to do his homework. I've already made an exhaustive summary of my intent which is almost the direct opposite. Could you please tell me how you came to your conclusion out of thin air..? Its quite baffling. I' m afraid you don't understand the situation at all. I merely changed an image. Its not an barnstar at all. It also not an attempt to change the award to an higher presitige of status. Please understand the entire situation before making utterly incorrect comments and accusations such as that in the future. -ZeroTalk 16:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
Fine. No more comments from me about your actions in this regard, except for one. Sorry. --Deathphoenix 17:00, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe you had it right before you struck the above out; please see my above post and these: latest diff oldid --Moby 07:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Stirring words from an editor that has not constructed one edit to mainspace in the course of this entire ordeal [22]. I have explained my actions in full on the my talkpage and here. Please assume good faith; of course I'm not going to assume you are taking this to the extreme, though possibly somebody else will. Please get back to working on the encyclopedia and reflect on *why* exactly you are here. -ZeroTalk 08:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
The greatest discovery of my generation is that a human being can alter his life by altering his attitudes.William James
--Moby 09:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely! When I screw up, I don't sit around and wring my hands. In the meantime, I've more articles to write. -ZeroTalk 14:23, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you'll get anywhere by adopting these antagonistic attitudes towards me or pursuing this nonsense. I'll certainly continue to assume good faith in regards to your actions, but I expect the same from all others involved. I'll not give this misled situation anymore of my time, and I humbly inquire the same of others. We're here to increase the productivity and educational value of the encyclopedia, not discuss kindergarden issues.

Your contributions in article space are quite noteworthy. Unfortunately, you are trolling, as exemplified by the actions you concern yourself so much with, and such actions are becoming far too common on Wikipedia, and they must die. I invite you back onto my user and talkpage with civilty and legitimite concerns in regards to the encyclopedia. Hopefully you will undoubtedly learn these in your experience here, and meanwhile you will, I hope, find time enough to construct more of your productive edits. I wish you the best.-ZeroTalk 14:46, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


Actualy it is failing unless I dont get 2 support vote per oppose. --Cool CatTalk|@ 00:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I see. I do hope everything works itself out. -ZeroTalk 00:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

List of Mavericks[edit]

As much as I'd love to help you, I haven't actually played any Megaman X games, so I can't. Sorry. Wolf ODonnell 12:10, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

That's a shame. We make such a good team on subjects pertaining to this. I recomend you play some X games in the meantime. -ZeroTalk 12:36, 4 March 2006 (UTC)


I noticed you advocated not merging this with Orochi. I personally am in favour of simply removing the "article" from Wikipedia, as per the reasons I gave on the Talk page, but from what you said I think you might disagree. Any input? elvenscout742 18:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I've heard the term utilized in some context. I'm no expert, so I have no idea if its perfectly valid. I'm just positive that it does not warrent an merge into Orochi article. If you can't find sources for it, or you cannot verify the term being justified, I would support an deletion of the article. -ZeroTalk 18:22, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a big fan of most anime, including Naruto, but a Google search seemed to imply that Hachimata has something to do with it. elvenscout742 11:35, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

If it is anime related, then its still valid. It should be inserted in the anime article which it originated from, or if it spans across several anime series, then it should remain in its current format and its anime origins should be made an note of in the article. -ZeroTalk 11:50, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I understand that, but if it is anime-related then it needs major changes to be made. elvenscout742 07:57, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course. -ZeroTalk 08:13, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I've constructed an copy edit and made the addition of links to distinguish fact from fiction on the Orochi article. I also left an note on the respective talkpage. -ZeroTalk 20:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Your Talk Page[edit]

Hi just wanted to let you know I find your talk page almost impossible to read since all the text is centered. Just thought you'd take it into account next time you do a redesign. Mike (T C) Star of life2.svg 05:21, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the constructive input. I'll take it into account. -ZeroTalk 05:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
100% better!! When its aligned right its way easier to read. Mike (T C) Star of life2.svg 17:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Looking for articles to work on?[edit]

Hello, Megaman Zero. I'm SuggestBot, a Wikipedia bot that helps new members contribute to Wikipedia. You might like to edit these articles I picked for you based on things you've edited in the past. Check it out -- I hope you find it useful. -- SuggestBot 16:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

...I seem to have editted most of these articles. -ZeroTalk 16:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, I'll look into it. I thought I was having it throw edited articles out of the list, apparently not well enough. It's a little dumb on how it decides what you've edited still. -- ForteTuba 16:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
More info. Some of the articles you'd already edited are redirects, which the suggestbot doesn't try to handle intelligently (yet). Also, it only grabs your most recent 500 edits when making suggestions, mostly to reduce the load on the WP server, so it recommended some items you had edited more than 500 edits ago. Since you edit a ton, this means it only went back to March 1. :) -- ForteTuba 21:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

User:Cool Cat "What are you looking at?"[edit]

I've noticed the insertion of your faied rfa's recently. Are you okay..? I know you're dissapointed, but keep your head up. I'm sure things will turn around eventually. -ZeroTalk 16:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I asked jimbo what he thinks. I am going to pursue this, kinda. I'll determine if I should seek adminship based on jimbos comments. --Cool CatTalk|@ 19:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
I hope your appeal for your rfa preregisites goes through as well. I also would like to see you find the answers you are looking for, and always, I'm glad to have you as an fellow wikipedian. Please don't think lower of yourself just because you lack administrator status. You're still an excellent contributor and an valid part of the project. -ZeroTalk 20:01, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Is Mega Man dead?[edit]

Hi Zero you probaly have no idea who I am, but Im one of those devoted Megaman fans w/ a big question on mind?Is Megaman series closing its curtains? Last year, many new Megaman games were introduced (Maverisck Hunter X, Zero 4, BN 5's) but this year few games are coming out. Probaly the only thing keeping this series alive is unfortunatly the Exe series. So in the next years will we expect Megaman Battle Network Series only w/ the Zero series as a shadow? If u reply i would be grateful - 12:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

A question we'll all likely find the answer to at E3 this year, provided Tony and Cool Cat don't simply get drunk and pass out at the bar like I know they will. Well, Cool Cat at least. One look at the cat-girl booth babes, and he'll be fried like an egg.
And Tony..? Chances are if he makes it to the Capcom booth at all, it shall be after staring at the lastest british software for an hour.
'Course, I am not one to talk, two years ago I spent the better part of the duration, staring crosseyed at the giant Harvest Moon Cow at the Natsume booth, trying to use the 'special Zero magic' (SZM) to will the cow from the booth, and into my room at home, a thousand miles north.
Anyhow. As for my personal opinion on the subject at hand..? Battle Network is coasting on momentum, now. After the impressive showing of Zero 3, Zero 4, and X8, I doubt Capcom will want to put its blue eggs in one basket, so we should be seeing some impressive new titles this year if my guess is correct.
Among them, I'd imangine perhaps the first glimpse at Mega Man for the next gen handhelds and consoles. Battle Network DS is an shoe-in to make an appearence, next to the Super Adventure Rockman for the X-Box 360.
However, what I'm really looking foward to is Battle Network 6 for the Nokia N-gage. Excellent stuff. I mean who can honestly say they spied that one arriving? N-gage, chap!
Look lively, lad. This year will be a doozy, the kind that happens only twice in a decade. -ZeroTalk 16:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Captain N[edit]

"I recently viewed a website to learn more about an old show I watched as a kid known as "Captain N"... I think you know what I'm talking about. If you don't, it was a show about a kid who is a master of video games and gets sucked into "Video Game Land" where he fought evil villains such as mother brain(metroid) donkey kong(Donkey Kong) and wily. And of course with every villain there has to be a hero, yes I'm talking about Megaman. He was one of the heroes that was a permanent sidekick to the main character. But after recent study I have found what appear to be the crappiest bunch of TV cartoon creators since Muppet babies. The characters are horribly design and look nothing like the characters they are based on. In fact Roll is called MegaGirl?!!?? And Megaman.... oh my freaking god, alright take Megaman smash down to about 2 feet, put goggles on him and paint him green, then give him a bunch of crap he doesn't need to look cool, oh yeah and make him say "mega" before every word, and bingo! You got Megaman. It's like he had a Style Change to frickin gay mode. Anyway, I don't know if this has any relevance to you, but behold the disgrace Captain N has put on Megaman. -Seandoug 12:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Seandoug, if nothing else, your talkpage message taught me an very important lesson. Its not an jolly good idea to have run-on sentences in your queries, it really hurts my eyes.
Now, back on task...where was I again? Ah yes...Captain N, this show takes me back to my microchip years. Looking at that lovely green runt brings tears to my old optical sensors...
The dull, Capcom created version
The improved Captain N version
You need to percieve the beauty, and ingenious inherenet in the Captain N redition of Mega Man. Terrible..? This design is an beautiful example of what the original lacked. He's pudgy, sexy, and dons an mask, like super heroes are supposed to. He still neglected to recieve the cape, but if Captain N had lasted another season, he would have.
Not only that, if you look closely, this Mega Man is an amazing portent of what the future would hold, for if you look closely, isn't that...?.. Why yes, he appears to be holding an battle chip in his petite little hands! Just how far ahead did these people think..?
In fact, he was so far ahead of his time, he has innovations to be found in other future gaming series. In fact, if I'm not mistaken, this sexy little green beast is equipped with an handheld version of Mario's infamous FLUDD..! The people who constructed this show are clearly geniuses of the highst calibur.
Its like my former mentor said, Seandoug. A big, stupid, idiotic loser is only what you percieve of him. You must examine closely and see him for the beautiful creature he is. -ZeroTalk 16:30, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

"Ansatsuken" Article Up For Deletion[edit]

Hi, Megamman Zero. I started up the Ansatsuken page. I appreciate your input in the development of the page, and I hoped more users could get involved to make the article more accurate and informative. However, the Ansatsuken page is up for deletion as of March 6th. The issue was the one I was worried about, which was what the definition of what "Ansatsuken" is. I tried to emphasize the fact that Ansatsuken is a generic term used in everyday Japanese conversation for any hard martial arts, and the title of the article was for want of a better name. The user who marked it for deletion still considers it an issue, saying he studied in Japan, and cites the very reason for why I overhauled the article in the first place. I put my five cents in, but the vote so far is 6 for deletion, 7 for keep, with the majority of those keeps being weak. Could you please take a look at it again and add some of your input on the "Ansatsuken Deletion" talk page? Maybe a better name for the article or changes that could be made to the structure? --BB Mofo 19:52, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

We shouldn't delete articles like this. I'm going to place in my two cents and post an inquiry on this fellow's talkpage. -ZeroTalk 11:51, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your help and the suggestions that you've provided. Many of the weak keeps have a valid point though, and I am going to add cites to the articles. I have a feeling the definition of what "Ansatsuken" means will still be an issue in the future. I'm probably going to have to put a bigger emphasis on the fact that it is a description of Ryu's martial art, and not the actual school name. Also, several users who posted under the delete are still under the impression Ryu practices Shotokan. I'm going to have to atleast talk about Capcom USA's hand in this. It might also be best to rename this "Ansatsuken (Street Fighter)" BB Mofo 13:35, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
My suggested name change is "Goutetsu-ryū Ansatsuken". Here's my submission for replacing that first line that really bugs me (pending article name change). What do you think?: Evan1975 20:11, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

This artcle refers to the fictional form of martial arts practiced by Ryu, Ken, Sakura, Sean, and Akuma in Capcom's Street Fighter fighting game series. Although early Capcom materials glibly stated Ryu and Ken practiced Shotokan or Kyokushin, this was later retconned. No official name has been given to this style, it's only known that it was originally an assassination style created by Goutetsu. For that reason, this article is titled Goutetsu-ryū Ansatsuken (Japanese: 轟鉄流暗殺拳 Goutetsu Style Assassin's Fist).

That's lovely. I'm in full agreement with this admeddeum. -ZeroTalk 05:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

DOA: Zack[edit]

Why did you revert my edit on the character Zack!?
Atleast you could have left the information about Zack's tag team partner

>x<ino 00:28, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not the place to construct indescriminate information. Your thesis and descriptive composistions could also use some work. -ZeroTalk 05:36, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Image:Lei Fang.jpg[edit]

I noticed you uploaded a different pic to Image:Lei Fang.jpg. The original image was to illustrate Lei Fang in CGI, which your edit was not. --Philo 13:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Certianly. I also see you've reverted. I uploaded the new image to illustrate an full bodyshot of the character, as to stay consistant with the majority of the rest of the articles. The CGI scene also doesn't depict this, so I replaced it with an newer, up-to-date Ultimate rendition. The CGI images also don't have source information, so they could be deleted at any time.-ZeroTalk 14:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)


Its not going to occur. Please review the process taken by Fadix and yourself. None of the qualms appealed have indicated an attempt at dispute resolution, and therefore, this rfar will be rejected. I've removed the bogus link. Please don't put it back. -ZeroTalk 20:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You have no idea how many times I atemted to discuss thnsg with him. Please do not dictate my talk page. --Cool CatTalk|@ 20:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
I was aware of lots of loose talk on WP:AN/I and I looked through your "discussion" extensively in diffs. Such accusations are not the way to resolve disputes. Do you want this rfar to happen..? -ZeroTalk 11:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Prasi90[edit]

You commented on a recent vote by Prasi90 on Adrian Buehlmann's RfA, noting his numerous vandalism offences and blocks. A request for comment has been created, and if you wish you may look at it and sign your name if you endorse the comments. Many thanks. haz (user talk)e 20:35, 14 March 2006

Regarding DOA character pages[edit]

I see that you have removed the spoiler tags in some character pages. The question is, why? Those sections contain plot details and yet you removed the spoiler tags. --Snkcube 06:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

There’s little reason for the template's insertion. The articles merely explain the character's history, and don't accurately "spoil" the reader, so the definition is moot. I also removed them for formatting purposes; they interrupt the subsections and the image placement. -ZeroTalk 10:57, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
I see. Well, I guess I'll leave the templates alone then. --Snkcube 03:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Would you please vote on this[edit]

Category:Fictional American comics characters to Category:Fictional Americans in comics and the one below it. Thanks --- Lancini87 23:26, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm estatic that you've inquired my humble opinion, but I really, really try to avoid ever participating in the deletion processes. Recent changes in the construction of concensus is slowly diverging away from wikipedia's goals, and I figure that once an request for deletion or undeletion gets to that point it doesn't need help from me. -ZeroTalk 05:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways, from comparing articles that need work to other articles you've edited, to choosing articles randomly (ensuring that all articles with cleanup tags get a chance to be cleaned up). It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 17:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Extravagant. I've moved it to my previous requests page. -ZeroTalk 17:47, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Extravagant how? Bad to put it right on the talk page? -- ForteTuba 21:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Hehe! No, I meant no offense, I was merely using the word to describe how I was content with the new list Suggestbot provided me with. I just somewhat dislike automated messages, so I transfered them to the original page with my previous suggestions. -ZeroTalk 21:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Cool, I'm a big fan of content, and was worried that some people would find the new delivery mechanism a little on the spammy side. Glad you like them. -- ForteTuba 21:50, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Re: Copyright violations and encyclopediac images by User:Fx sever[edit]

Well all his images seems to have been uploaded to commons where I have no admin powers. I see they have all been tagged for deletion alrady though so I asume they will be taken care of. I'll leave him a message that makes it more clear that the images have been removed for copyright reasons rather than personal taste, and we'll see what happens from there. --Sherool (talk) 10:38, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

I have already done all of that. Hopefully, we can dissuade him from the belief that wikipedia exists to uphold one's personal tastes and that copyrights are no minor matter. -ZeroTalk 10:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I really appreciate the defender of wiki award you gave was very kind, but not sure I completely deserve it. As far as IP (talk · contribs) goes, there have been a lot of edits by this IP and not all of them are it a proxy?, for if it is I'll block indefinitely. Again, I really appreciate the defender of wiki award...very kind.--MONGO 09:15, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Of course. I really appreciate your assistance in keeping the wiki clean of vandal mongering. -ZeroTalk 09:36, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Copyvios[edit]

Well... I though that I could WP:AGF but after invsetigating a bit, I decided I should not. User has been warned many times before, he simply deletes the warning. I have temp blocked the user for one week. See King of the Dancehall (talkcontribs). ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 17:44, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Well it's good that you did that. If he's been deleting warnings and constructing copyright vios, that's quite unacceptable. If he continues to fuck with it, I recomend a indefinite block. Still, are his image contributions useful..? If so, we can still go about fixing them. However, the prime motive here to to get him to understand that this is serious business. Such blatent contempt of wikipedia policy will not be tolerated. On review of his other actions, blanking the talkpage is pretty bad and merited a stiff warning to pull his socks up. But copyvios with clear knowlege of infrigement is extremely indecent, and he needs a jolly good finger-wagging for that alone. -ZeroTalk 17:53, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Actually, on second thoughts, I will unblock him. Let's see if he/she is amicable to give a hand in the cleanup. Fair enough? ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 18:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't see why not. Its always fair to give other people another chance; if I remember correctly, I had copyright and fair-use policy flogged into me before I got the idea. This fellow may just need some coaxing. -ZeroTalk 18:08, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes. That was my experience in the early days as well... We shall see if user responds nicely. ≈ jossi ≈ t@ 18:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for reverting the {{POV}} tag and leaving an explanation on the Talk page. I appreciate it. You are of course right, it was silliness and vandalism. I was erring on the side of caution and assuming good faith, but it was obviously wrong in this case. I've reverted a couple of vandalisms to Chris in the last few days myself. I don't know why this article is such a vandal magnet, weird. Anyway, thanks again, Gwernol 19:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Thank you for assuming good faith, that's always a good thing. However, this article is consistently vandalised on a daily basis, and attempting to comprehend why is good question; one that leaves me quite utterly baffled. This one was odd, but the dead give away was this fellow's addition of a {{POV}} template was to a disambiguation page, no less. -ZeroTalk 20:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


Why did you revert my edit to User:Raul654? —Guanaco 18:39, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Whatever Raul writes on his userpage is his concern. If he believes the fact he is "widely known" on wikipedia, then allow him to say so. It is his userpage, and with things such as that, it would be proper to inquire his humble opinion beforehand. Also, the statement you removed seems to be a jest or in the sprit of factiousness, so there's no need for a removal to keep it factually correct. -ZeroTalk 18:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Just for the record the statement in question was not added by me - [23]. (It would be extremely pompous to say so about onesself, IMO; I thought the fact that it's written in the third person would have been a giveaway to this, but Megaman's comments suggest otherwise) Raul654 21:42, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
I take it back then. However, its not inflammatory, and it tickled me. I didn't see a reason to remove it other than the fact it was a little silly. -ZeroTalk 04:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Ditto, which is why I left it there after Nic added it :) Raul654 04:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Samurai Shodown 64[edit]

The article is not extensive on information that is important to video games. from WP:Stub

Another way to define a stub is an article so incomplete that an editor who knows little or nothing about the topic could improve its content after a superficial Internet search or a few minutes in a reference library.

The article lacks information on the story, addition or removal of characters from previous games. Items that could be solved with a cursory internet search. These are items that are prevalent in all teh other samurai shodown articles--larsinio (poke)(prod) 17:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm absolutely confused as to what you mean. The article includes all of those things and is one of the most expansive I've seen, especially considering the fact it had low distribution only in Japan. In reality, a wikipedia stub is described as: Wikipedia entries that have not yet received substantial attention from the editors of Wikipedia, and as such do not yet contain enough information to be considered real articles. In other words, they are short or insufficient pieces of information and require additions to further increase Wikipedia's usefulness. The community values stubs as useful first steps toward complete articles. That's an interesting comparison to your viewpoint on a stub. I suppose next thing you'll do is say that Capcom vs. SNK 2 is a stub. But seriously, look at the policy.
Please don't put the template back. -ZeroTalk 17:43, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I understand the policy, i was doing cursory checks on all the articles, and I made a mistake and i was trying to post-op validate my initial activity. Sorry man. It just didnt look complete enough thats all But whatever... sorry I was just trying to go through Category:Versus fighting games, dont worry i won tput it back--larsinio (poke)(prod) 18:03, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
No need to be sorry. Just please promise to learn how to recongnize a stub when you come across one, as well as review policy. And, please don't remove my comments from my talkpage. -ZeroTalk 18:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)