User talk:Sesshomaru/Archive 13

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
< Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 >

Yo SSJ 5 (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I uploaded the image ... Take a look SSJ 5 (talk) 20:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Ken Masters

  • I think there was a subsequent discussion where it was decided the whole names would be used. I am completely not involved, though, as it does not matter to me one way or another. JuJube (talk) 04:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Storm's Name

Storm's married name was just recently revealed in Astonishing X-Men #25 as being Ororo Iqadi T'Challa. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:00, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Kazi22 ANI thread

It looks as though your case is pretty clear cut: [1], [2]. SWik78 (talkcontribs) 20:16, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. Can we block this guy now? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 20:21, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
In all honesty, I don't think he's done anything that warrants blocking. He's allowed to have more than one account as long as they're not being used to breach policy, mess with votes or circumvent a block. He is trying to make himself appear as though he's an administrator which he was warned about before. He might need a warning about that. SWik78 (talkcontribs) 20:24, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) - Aside from also using a false signature he is repeatedly blanking my comment at WP:AN/I. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 20:28, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
What the h is going on here [3]? Bearian (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah...Now he's just being annoying. SWik78 (talkcontribs) 20:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Street Fighter

  • All the pagemoves are making me dizzy. ^.^ JuJube (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Yeah, but I think I took care of that with the last move ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 02:50, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


Sesshomaru is awarded this Working Man's Barnstar for endlessly working to help clean up disambiguation pages. -- Natalya 00:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


I filed another AN/I against Abtract for his return to stalking. He has been indef blocked for now. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:55, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for removing the template - [4]. I forgot. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't mention it ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 02:54, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting my user page from the IP vandal! —Archon Magnus(Talk | Home) 17:35, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

My pleasure ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 17:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Re Abtract

The indef block has not stuck, so I have substituted it for a fortnight tariff - of which 3 days have been served. You may wish to review the comments I have made on Abtract's talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

The consensus coming from the uninvolved reviewers was that indefinite was too severe. It is difficult, but knowing the history as I do means that my actions may be deemed to be biased - so I requested review of them. The downside is that I then have to listen and react to the views garnered. I now feel that I made an initial mistake in acting so quickly when Collectonian posted the initial comment, so I shall take the blame for that. Sorry.
The only thing I can do now is help build a case with you against Abtract for the next time (should it happen). My point is that I am aware that he intercedes in disputes you or C are having with other parties, and in articles he has not been active in - which I argue falls under WP:HARASS. He also reactivates old disputes under the claim of no consensus. Next example of that and I will take it to ANI, and request a community ban. If Abtract changes the means by which he interacts confrontationally with either or both of you I will still bring it up on ANI. Of course, especially if Abtract reads this, there may not be a next time - in which case you still get to edit without interference. As far as I can see, this is the course of action that now presents itself. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
This is exactly what we are doing now, and what I wrote at ANI and copied to his talkpage. He knows precisely what will happen if he comes into conflict with you or Coll again. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The third party admin I have been corresponding with as regards Abtract has left me this message. I suggest you review the content of Abtracts suggestion. If you need to discuss this matter I suggest you take it up with Ncmvocalist, since I am disinclined to communicate further with Abtract. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:42, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Please take a look at the agreement I've drafted out - each of you will encounter much less (if any) problems, because a user who violates the agreement will be sanctioned or blocked without warning. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Ball Template

I've been insanely bold and redid the Dragon Ball template to get it down to a more compact size, and better reflect the article structure. Whatcha think? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:40, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 19:50, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Cool...I was thinking the character template should probably be combined in there as well, similar to what was done with some other templates. Do you know if there are any plans to fix up List of Dragon Ball characters so it is no longer a disambig, but a single list? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 19:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Not sure. I've actually spoken to someone about that before. Perhaps merge the four character lists into List of Dragon Ball characters? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 19:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I think that would be a very good idea. It was weird hitting the List of to find it was a disambig (which seems like a possible bad disambig). I know the List of Dragon Ball episodes isn't much different, but I'm actively working on that one. Want to take the lead on trying for the characters? I know I saw somewhere another discussion about it to. It seems like it would be a good step in cleaning up the article structure. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 23:42, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Still lack the motivation to make major updates (probably due to the whole Abtract case or something). User:TTN did ask me if I wanted to do something about it, though I told him that I wasn't into it. But doesn't there need to be consensus in this discussion? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 23:56, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Yep, seems like there is sort of consensus, but some folks are worrying about size. Maybe do it up in a user sandbox to alleviate the fears? I can understand the lack of motivation. Between Abtract and that annoying IP, I'm having a hard time finding the desire to do much work on the main Dragon Ball article. I did finally fix up the main series episode list, merging the Japanese and dub lists under a proper name with formatting and a lead and all. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 00:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Query.

The removal of the Category:Child characters in anime and manga in Gaara's page, I deemed would complicate the Gaara information. As the series and the manga progresses, their ages are also running. In Part I of Naruto, it is true and no doubt that they are child characters, thus it would be legitimate information.. but change is prevalent, the updates of information should also undergo alterations in regard to weights and biases. So I made it a point to ignite the manifestation of the process by saving and storing modifications to the page which I would consider significant so I deleted it as per Part II's behalf. As the meaning of the child now contradicts the age of Gaara now (both in the series and manga). As you will see, I did not delete the Category:Fictional orphans as that is deemed legitimate because Gaara had lost both his parents when he was still a child. That would be my point, if there are reasons and explanations that will contradicts my logic so far with wiki's rules, I apologize in advance. If at any cost, I am wrong, I will be much happy to defend the Category:Child characters in Gaara's page. Thanks. --Axxand (talk) 06:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi there, Sosshomaru. I have made the necessary changes in Gaara's page. Thanks for the info regarding that matter. Feel free to correct me as I needed more rice to eat.. (that is how they say it here in my homeland).. Thanks and Kudos to you.--Axxand (talk) 13:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Dragon Ball

As one of the most active of the DB taskforce members, did you disagree with the changes I made to Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Dragon Ball to remove outdated material and bring it more in-line with whats actually being done and the current article structure? A very new editor, whose only actual contribs have been to complain about the merge at Dragon Ball and revert my edits to the project page (3 times so far). I've twice now left him a message saying that if he disagreed, he should start a discussion on the taskforce talk page, because no one else had disagreed with the update after 9 days of it being there until he came along and decided to be a pain (said more politely, of course LOL). Thoughts? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Partial revert request

Sesshomaru, in keeping with the agreement between you and Abtract, would you partially self-revert this edit to restore the lead-in line to Saint(s) ? Thanks. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

[copied from JHunterJ's talk] J I made the edit originally because the guideline gives a sample as such, and I've been doing related changes on other dabs for consistency. User:Jerzy had undone many of my edits (including that one) so I had to re-insert it. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 19:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Whatever the reason, it's a revert of this edit, right?, so should be reverted and instead discussed on the talk page per your agreement. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
[Recopied] No, I'm following the MoS to the letter. This has absolutely nothing with reverting Abtract. But if you ask me which edit is correct, the answer would be mine. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:51, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
It is not a question of following the MoS to the letter. It is a question of avoiding a block based on a violation of an agreement between you and Abtract. -- JHunterJ (talk) 20:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
[Recopied] I'll agree to having it as "Saint(s) may also refer to:" so long as the guideline demonstrates the example here as "Rock(s) may refer to:". Think we can implement that change in the MoS without the need for WP:CONSENSUS? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:24, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not asking you to agree to the format of Saint(s) or of Saint or Saints. This issue is strictly limited to the agreement between you and Abtract. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:26, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Now I don't know what you're asking of me. I did not revert Abtract. If anything, I partially reverted him, but not intentionally. It was to undo Jerzy's "mess". How about I be bold and make the change in the guideline hmm? That'll do us all a favour. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 00:32, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
It was very clear: would you partially self-revert this edit to restore the lead-in line to Saint(s)? It does not matter that the revert was not intentional. Do that favor first. -- JHunterJ (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok then. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 19:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:51, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


You reverted my edit to Alucard on the grounds that "there is no reference to "Dracula" on linked page". I don't quite understand what you mean. I cannot imagine any literature, film, or anything else, that would use the word or name "Alucard" and not intend it as "Dracula" spelled backwards. The word "Dracula" itself is used three times in the article, and at least the first four entries in the disambiguation list are clearly related to Dracula - in Castlevania Alucard is Dracula's son, in Hellsing Alucard is implied to be Dracula himself, and the next two entries are to do with works of fiction that actually have the word "Dracula" in their titles. I might be coming across as hostile and I might be ignorant of a specific Wikipedia policy, but I don't understand the sentence "there is no reference to "Dracula" on linked page" for the reasons I have outlined. Thank you for your time.--Codenamecuckoo (talk) 00:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Meant to say that there was no reference to "Alucard" on the linked page. Dabs generally do not give trivial information unless there is a blue link that suggests such a thing. Dracula does not mention what you are claiming. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 21:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


Sesshomaru, I want to really apologize for constantly asking you questions. I thought you were a staff member but you are just a user. I promise you will never hear from me ever again. Forgive Me? User:KoziKaz 26 July 2008

Apology accepted. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 21:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to a Detective Conan/Case Closed wiki

I am sending this because I seen you adding the {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Userbox/User Detective Conan}} userbox on your userpage. I hope I'm not spamming you here.

I have proposed for a Detective Conan/Case Closed Wiki in December 2007, and outside for some admin issues, the wiki is close to fruition. However, I have a lack of people having wiki experience to create guidelines, to administrate the wiki, and also to create userboxes that I consider essential for a snapshot of the content.

As a result, I cordially invite you to Kudo's Bookshelf, the Detective Conan/Case Closed encyclopedia.

Since this wiki is still under construction, joining the wiki needs my approval. Please do not hesitate contacting me on my talk page.

Thank you for your attention!

--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 15:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 21:21, 29 July 2008 (UTC)


I'm sorry, I'm not understanding you. Your links explaining the "primary subject" of a disambiguation page don't explain why the page with the Japanese term for "Rabbit" should not say, "This means 'Rabbit'". Can you clarify? --UsaSatsui (talk) 03:57, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Per the MoS, you need to provide a blue link which verifies this claim. Inclusively, the Wiktionary box already takes care of that. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 03:59, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I see it. It's confusing, though, I think, not to have the word defined on the page...every entry on the page uses the word in terms of a rabbit or as a person's name. It should be mentioned somewhere. --UsaSatsui (talk) 04:05, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
How would this be: Usagi is a Japanese given name. It may refer to: * - A rabbit (etc...). Would that work? --UsaSatsui (talk) 04:09, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
If there was an Usagi (name) or something of the sort, I think that would only be ok. Well, ask User:JHunterJ. He's more of expert on dabs than I am. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 04:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Very well, I shall take my business elsewhere.  :) Thank you for the help --UsaSatsui (talk) 04:16, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Have a good one ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 04:18, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

DB problems

Probably Abtract should not have made this edit, and this edit definitely should not have been done. While the first is not a direct revert of your edit, it does seem to fall under "disagreeing to any edit". As I mentioned to Abtract, I could ask you to undo yours and then ask Abtract to undo his, but we'd end up with the current version. I'm open to other suggestions here too. -- JHunterJ (talk) 10:46, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


True, but you do keep changing it back... so it seems that both of you are unfortunately in the wrong. There's nothing wrong with taking the higher road and leaving the page even not the way that you want it for a little while, so that consensus has been reached, leading to fewer disputes and arguments. I have protected the page for now in the form it was when I got to it - see Talk:DB#Edit_warrning_and_temporary_page_protection for my rational and general sadness. Also, just to make sure you are aware, you were one revert away from breaking 3RR (which is not even an entitlement anyway). -- Natalya 00:16, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Kamehameha-capable Dragon Ball characters

I have nominated Category:Kamehameha-capable Dragon Ball characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Human Top

That all makes sense. I've sorted it all out. (Emperor (talk) 03:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC))

Welllllll this is one of the concerns about powers in general as they can vary on a whim or to suit a story and you can often only say someone was seen doing X in one story as, even if they never do it again, we can't assume one way or the other about if this is a key/core skill. It is even trickier here as it depends on how you define flight - like a cow caught in a tornado he can spin himself up into the air and travel for a distance (although how far and how well might differ from story to story) and that is certainly something other superheroes can do - I'm reminded of the Red Tornado (although there are probably others) and I note he isn't categorised as being able to fly. It is a tricky one - I'll leave that call to you. (Emperor (talk) 04:42, 6 August 2008 (UTC))
I started it, so yes. Is there anything specific I should be looking at? (Emperor (talk) 18:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC))
It isn't marked as SIA as there are hundreds of them and I'm working through them as time allows (at the moment I'm having to focus on B-class assessments, for example). I have some more things to add there though. (Emperor (talk) 19:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC))
Effigy (comics) is easily fixed.
Also the edits to Frankenstein's Monster (Marvel Comics) seem fine but {{reflist}} is far superior to the plain reference tag so I put it back. (Emperor (talk) 04:39, 12 August 2008 (UTC))
To answer your questions:
  • Layout looks fine to me.
  • The whole Speed Demon/Whizzer business was the focus of a big debate at the time and the current structure seems the best one. The Amalgam Speed Demon is an alternative version of the main one and deserves to be linked in there. The Whizzer article is the holder for the various versions from the same company so makes sense as it stands (like e.g. Sandman (DC Comics)). The only reason I think we'd want to tinker with it is if there was another character of the same name from a different company and nothing crops up, although Whizzer (comics) might be worth hatnoting to Whizzer and Chips, but Whizzer covers them both and I am unsure if any confusion would occur. What I think it would be worth doing is clarifying the Whizzer article. There are 3 Whizzers all from Marvel:
    • Robert Frank [5] - the original and mainstream Marvel Universe version
    • Stanley Stewart [6] - the older Squadron Supreme version (the JMS revamped version is Blur (comics)
    • James Saunders [7] - who went on to become Speed Demon
Having the first and third in their own article means the second gets sandwiched awkwardly in the middle of the article, but the infobox at the top is for him (which is confusing to people - OK me). I do think this needs addressing. Best solution would be to split out Stanley Stewart to his own article and that would make the main Whizzer article a lot clearer and more focused and just generally easier to use. This would probably come out looking a bit like Ant Man, t next step on from a set index. (Emperor (talk) 01:30, 13 August 2008 (UTC))
Confusing and (if I remember correctly) it sparked a lot of discussion. That said now I look at it the split might be worth throwing out there so I'll drop a note into the Whizzer talk page and see what happens. (Emperor (talk) 02:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC))
I dropped in the note - we'll see how it goes. (Emperor (talk) 02:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC))

Regarding User:Abtract

If you don't mind, I'd appreciate you looking at my last post from User_talk:Natalya#Your_eagle_eye_is_needed_pls - I've crossposted to Abtract and Collectonian - I know that the three of you are having some issues, to put it lightly, but it would be lovely if we could focus a bit more on the encyclopedia. -- Natalya 01:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Per the agreement you and Abtract have, and as Collectonian mentioned to you (so you're probably already aware), you're not supposed to post on Abtract's talk page (as you did here). I think I understand why you did it, and I know JHunterJ is on holiday, so he's not a resource to help settle disputes, but it's probably not a good idea to tempt the agreement. Technically, you're supposed to be "sanctioned or blocked" - without talking with JHunterJ, who oversaw everything, I'm wary to block you, so I'll just say, don't do it! If you need to communicate something, feel free to use me or another administrator as an intermediary until JHunterJ gets back. Thanks for your cooperation, -- Natalya 11:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Could you read Abtract's thoughts at User_talk:Natalya#User:Abtract/User:Sesshomaru, and hopefully have a productive discussion? Also, I don't know how to impress this upon you more, but just because someone does something you don't like doesn't mean in any way that you should do the exact same thing back to them - it only makes things worse. Abtract seems to have given reasons as to why he made those edits; can you do the same? I know this is aggrivating (to everyone, probably), but I really appreciate you trying to get along. Remember to try and assume good faith, even when it is hard.-- Natalya 15:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


Pardon me if I'm being dense, but what the heck does WP:PIPING (in your edit summary) have to do with your reversion of my last edit? I don't see how my last version deviates from MOS:DAB. SlackerMom (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The sample there gives "Rock(s)" instead of "Rock or rocks". I'm following that for all dab pages. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 15:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
What??! That section is not about intros, it is about piping. Why are you using that as an example of intro formats? If you scroll up a few paragraphs to the guidelines for intros, the examples clearly include the style I used, do they not? Am I missing something? SlackerMom (talk) 17:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
A wiki-stalker named User:Abtract redirected the page anyway so it's moot ATP. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 17:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, I think Abtract was right, but it doesn't moot the point, it only moves it to a different page. It's too trivial to pursue, but Sess, I think you made minor edits to that page that were unnecessary since it did not violate MOS:DAB in any way. Since they were minor, I probably shouldn't have made an issue, but it can be irritating sometimes when you "standardize" to a non-existent standard. SlackerMom (talk) 17:55, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
This was discussed, with Sesshomaru, at WP:MOSDAB#Introductory line. Sesshomaru, stop editing introductory lines of the format "X or Xes may refer to" to make them read "X(es) may refer to". If the introductory line uses neither of the specified formats, then and only then should you edit it. Otherwise, the edit is unintentionally disruptive. -- JHunterJ (talk) 22:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
J, I don't know what you mean. If there is an entry with the "Xs" or "Xe" then I believe that it should be reflected "X(es) may refer to". That's all. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 22:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
This is fine; this is not. Fixing something that is out-of-guidelines is good. "Fixing" something that is already within guidelines out of the belief that the other guideline example is better is not. -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:21, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Then I suggest we edit the MoS to reflect a single method. It's one or the other, not both. Until there is a binding consensus, I will abide by that one. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 02:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
As discussed at WP:MOSDAB#Introductory line, consensus is against restricting it to a single method. There is consensus to allow both, not for just one or the other. Please abide by that consensus, and now that you have been alerted to it again, please stop making the disruptive edits. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you know about Matt Thorn's new Sandboxes?

Hi, Sesshomaru,

Matt Thorn has started several sandboxes like User:Matt Thorn/Sandbox 3 for working on several manga-related entries. Sandbox 3 is about josei manga and we're putting it together now. Your help and input would be very valuable! Why don't you look at it, and see if you can help? Thanks! Timothy Perper (talk) 20:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, though I don't know how much I can be of service. I have watchlisted the sandbox just in case there are a few details that need to be made. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 20:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Great! Timothy Perper (talk) 03:53, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Usagi disambig again.

...Oh, right, I was gonna reply to that, but then it fell off my watchlist, and...anyways, yeah, I'm OK with that. Thank you, it's been a pleasure edit-warring with you. Far more polite and civil than I'm used to.  :) --UsaSatsui (talk) 21:33, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration enforcement

Stop x nuvola with clock.svg
You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for Violation of agreement at User talk:Abtract#Agreement here. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. JHunterJ (talk) 11:18, 19 August 2008 (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.

Sesshomaru (block logactive blocksglobal blocksautoblockscontribs deleted contribscreation log change block settingsunblockfilter log)

Request reason:

There any way of getting out of this contract? Signing it didn't make things better. Or what if I adhere to JHunterJ's newest proposal? Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 18:28, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

First wait out this correctly applied block, then renegotiate the contract. — MBisanz talk 19:31, 19 August 2008 (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.

Satana (comics)

They are two I've had my eye on for a bit:

  • This came up on the Comics project talk page - there is another Satana at DC [8], which I note on Satan (comics), they are a lot more obscure but as they have no article I suspect it'd be worth turning Satana (comics) into a set index.
  • Siren is interesting - I was looking at that one only the other day (when something pops up on my watchlist with disambiguation like that I do check them out). There is a Siren in the Ultraverse#S [9] and there appears to be a Siren series from Image Comics [10]

So yes they do deserve to be where they are and the "(comics)" articles should probably made into a set index each. (Emperor (talk) 12:33, 19 August 2008 (UTC))

Yes. (Emperor (talk) 17:51, 20 August 2008 (UTC))
I didn't say when. It'll be whenever I get around to them, unless someone else does it first - so if you an to get stuck in then don't let me stop you. (Emperor (talk) 01:01, 22 August 2008 (UTC))
OK should be done now. (Emperor (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2008 (UTC))

National Vagina Day and V-Day

Hi, there, I have a confusion over these two above. My confusion is whether National Vagina Day and V-Day are same or not. While this paper states V-Day as an abbreviation of National Vagina Day, I found no mention of the term "National Vagina Day" in the article V-Day. This is why I am not sure if these two are the same events or not. I have asked another user, but he is not sure of it. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:45, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but why did you think these two are different. I am asking you because you are from the United States. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Exactly this is the point of confusion. While reading the reference it appears to be the same, the no mention of this in the article makes me suspicious. I asked it in Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Miscellaneous#National_Vagina_Day, but the people there seem to be taking it jokingly and lack of understanding of the topic. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 16:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Dante (disambiguation)

Hi there. The Commander Dante article linked on Dante (disambiguation) no longer refers to the fictional Warhammer 40,000 character any longer - if you can find a better way to word a description of the real person described in the Commander Dante article, please feel free to do so (I must confess that I couldn't think of a way to do so). Cheers. -- JediLofty UserTalk 18:28, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Neutral ground

I invite you and Abtract to User talk:JHunterJ/Abtract Sesshomaru Neutral Ground. -- JHunterJ (talk) 23:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

take a look at this

found this comical little page... Veggetto

what do you suppose should be done with this? i've half a mind to turn it into a redirect to the List of Saiyans in Dragon Ball#Vegetto page —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krishvanth (talkcontribs) 17:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated it for WP:AFD. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 19:34, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Good good. And article [Vegeta] could use a couple of improvements. Do take a look. Krishvanth (talk) 16:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
Vegeta looks good. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 02:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Never mind. Looks like someone got to it before you did. (Krishvanth (talk) 10:32, 23 August 2008 (UTC))

Dragon Ball Z: Infinite World

As you may already know the Infinite World article is getting alot of users adding characters to the character list without references to help back them up. I've already added a hidden message, but people keep add them. Do you know anything that can be done to get the message across? Sarujo (talk) 22:30, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd continue reverting (they may stop eventually). But label it vandalism each time in your edit summary and/or request semi-protection. That's what I do when persistent editors keep re-adding unsourced "nonsense" to a page. Lord Sesshomaru (talkedits) 02:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank for the help, but out of curioustiy should we keep the source for Super 17? As it's a really, really bright image but you can tell it's Super 17. Sarujo (talk) 06:33, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, someone else removed it. I guess I'm going to have to resort to semi protection. Sarujo (talk) 18:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)


Huh, I thought I did, though maybe my internet fucked up and I forgot to resubmit or something. Oh well, I'll keep an eye on it for ya. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

3RR warning

Nuvola apps important.svg You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Ganon. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. I have declined your request for page protection because this a dispute between two people that is being discussed on the talk page. Be aware that both you and User:A Link to the Past are each one revert away from violating 3RR. Thank you. KrakatoaKatie 06:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

A plea from WikiProject Media franchises coordinator

Dear Sesshomaru...I am writing today to ask for your participation in WikiProject Media franchises. You seem to have some interest in it, since you took the time to stop by and discuss the naming convention. It is just Emperor and me at the moment, and we could really use some additional editors to help us get articles identified as ones for the projects attention and assessed as such or written from scratch. Even if your only involvement is to keep an eye on what we are doing as a liaison from another project, that would be extremely helpful. I do not know everything there is to know about all the naming conventions, infoboxes, etc from the other projects, so I would love to have a core group of editors to help me coordinate this better. So, if you are willing to spend a little time with this project and help me figure out just how far and wide this project could, should, or would be; I would be extremely grateful.

Thank you. LA (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 07:47, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Angel (comics)

Yes that seems fine on the piping front. You do have a point on the overlinking front. There aren't any broad style guidelines (as some of them use their own unique formatting, although sometimes I suspect they might be making it up as they go along) but I offered a few general ideas which suggested flexibility in formatting like, using nested lists, etc. (although largely keeping to WP:MOSDAB) When it came to linking my thoughts were that it'd make sense to have more than one link per list item if it helped people grasp which character is which (when they are all going to be rather similar) so it might help someone if you linked in a well-known creator (like linking in Neil Gaiman at [Sandman (comics)]] or a team/title they are closely connected to but only go to 3 links if really necessary. Looking at those two examples I'd suggest the Marvel Angel is overlinked. I'd cut it back to just the first link. Where it would work to add a link like the Archangel (comics) one, would be where it goes to another SIA page, or another page on that identity (that is a longer article), for example Goliath (comics), Giant-Man, Ant-Man and Yellowjacket (comics). So bottom-line - I've overlinked in those articles and we only need the one link to the same article. It might be worth working up a few simple guidelines for comics SIA as there are plenty of things you learn from experience (that being one).

I've had a look around and there doesn't seem to be much of a problem with Doctor Strange that needs another page - it seems to all be covered with the hatnote. Although I might be missing something. (Emperor (talk) 19:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC))

I've unlinked Angel (comics) leaving what I think are the useful secondary links.
Thing is Hugo Strange wouldn't go on Doctor Strange SIA - he is on Doc Strange because he was Doctor Hugo Strange, hence the potential confusion. Doctor Strangefate is actually another version of Doctor Strange and is listed in the correct place on the page Doctor Strange#Amalgam Comics. Hence all the variations are dealt with in the right places (you wouldn't, for example, hatnote to Doctor Strangefate if there was no Doc Strange). I am open to suggestions but I think putting in "Doctor Strange (comics)" is only adding an extra click to proceedings: Arriving at Doctor Strange you might be looking for Doc Strange which is a click away, if you ended up on Doc Strange looking for Hugo Strange, then that is a click away. Doctor Strangefate is listed under other versions on the Doctor Strange page (it would also be an unlikely character to go looking for via Doctor Strange (rather than directly) and if you did you'd be looking for him as another version. It might be worth though keeping an eye out for other Doctor Stranges elsewhere, with an eye to a disambiguation page if need be. (Emperor (talk) 22:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC))
Those Human Top edits look fine.
I wouldn't as you can bet it'd get speedy deleted as being a redirect from an unlikely search term or some such (I've seen others bite the dust for that reason). Stick it on your watchlist and if anything happens you'll know. (Emperor (talk) 23:27, 25 August 2008 (UTC))