User talk:A Link to the Past/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 3RR on List of best-selling computer and video games 2 VGCharts 3 Regarding reversions made Nov. 17 to List of best-selling computer and video games 4 Re: 5 Apology 6 Ghastly's Ghastly Comic 7 How DARE you... 8 Talk page 9 SSBM characters 10 WP:FILMS Newsletter 11 Reliable sources 12 Super Smash Bros. 13 Blocked (2) 14 InShanee case to ArbCom 15 WikiCast. 16 Cookie and hot chocolate 17 Metroid Dread 18 WP:FILMS Newsletter 19 Inshaneee 20 Blocked 21 Re: Block 22 Please stop a stupid edit war 23 Ripping Friends 24 Mario Kart 64 25 What you left on my talk page 26 Super Paper Mario 27 CVG Barnstar 28 {{Namco Bandai-stub}} 29 Template "fixes" 30 Slow down 31 Phoenix Wright name ordering 32 Orphaned fair use image (Image:933006 75564 front.jpg) 33 WP:Films Newsletter 34 Happy birthday! 35 Shunkan puzzloop 36 Your listing at Wikipedia:Requested moves 37 My Sims 38 STOP. 39 Trace Memory 40 Spam tag 41 Go To Hell 42 Perhaps a civil method of resolving this is in order 43 Brain Age 44 Actually... 45 Understood, and Apology to You

[edit] 3RR on List of best-selling computer and video games

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by exceeding WP:3RR on List of best-selling computer and video games. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org.

I appreciate you feel you had consensus support for your edits, but they were clearly content reverts and this is explicitly prohibited. Please return after 24hrs and continue to contribute. Thanks. Rockpocket 09:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It was certainly not a content dispute; the user WhiteMinority was linkspamming vgcharts.

Additionally, I must apologize, I did not intend to commit 3RR. I was under the impression that 24 hours had passed since my last revert. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well it was hardly a case of vandalism (the only justification for going over 3RR) as in addition to WhiteMinority (talk • contribs), experienced editors Dionyseus (talk • contribs) and Igordebraga (talk • contribs) singly reverted inbetween your revert. I accept that your intention was not to violate 3RR, but the spirit of the policy is to stop edit warring, waiting 24 hours and one minue for a 4th revert is simply gaming the system. Nevertheless, I commend you for accepting this block with good grace and, since it is not meant to be punitive, I'll lift it early on the condition your give extra consideration before reverting multiple times in future. Please be aware that if you violate 3RR again, the block may be longer. Happy editing. Rockpocket 19:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VGCharts

I have know from the beginning that VGCharts may not be the greatest source in the world, and I certainly agree that its numbers are not accurate to precision. I also do not really care whether the sales data is used here or not, as all video game sales data is ultimately unreliable, making this arguement largely pointless. I think this page really should be deleted for a lack of reliable information or at the very least radically redesigned, but I know this would not go over well at all. We do have a rather nasty edit war here, however, largely perpetrated by WhiteMinority. I have only gotten involved in an attempt to understand what is going on and how this may be resolved. Can you think of a scenario where some of these numbers would be acceptable to show something as a compromise? If not, I think we should delete the numbers as unverifiable and bring an RFC against WhiteMinority if he tries to change it back. I would fully support you in this move and act as a verifying witness on your behalf, but I will not start the RfC myself. If you are not willing to take that step, I understand, but I just want you to realize that after discussing the matter with you fully I agree with your position and feel the numbers are not reliable for the purposes of this article. Indrian 23:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• I am unsure why you have not responded to me, as I see you have been lurking around wikipedia on a couple of occasions since I wrote the above, but I am a little surpirsed due to your sometimes heated exchanges on the best-selling video games page. I would appreciate a response even if it is just "buzz off, I really do not care anymore" (though I would hope you would put it more politely than that ;) I am fully serious about supporting you in an RFC and making sure these numbers do not remain on wikipedia, I just do not want to move to a more formal stage unless I know there is support to do so. Likewise, I would understand of this futile arguement has just made you sick of the whole thing and you want to leave things where they are. Either way, please give me the courtesy of a response of some kind. Thank you for your time, and I hope I am not annoying you too greatly, as this is not my intent. Indrian 22:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm too busy to discuss things on Wikipedia right now. I have to write >13 reviews. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I understand. I just wanted to make sure I was not just being ignored. Take your time. Indrian 23:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding reversions made Nov. 17 to List of best-selling computer and video games

The duration of the block is 31 hours. Also, please see WP:POINT#Gaming the system, so that you don't do it again. Khoikhoi 09:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

What in the world?! I'm not gaming the system! At what point does making three edits make it gaming the system, no matter what? The only reason I alerted him to it is because if he did break 3RR afterwards, he would have no reason to not know better.

And what in the world AGAIN. You know, I wouldn't be so pissed at this if you didn't decide that because I was trying to keep a bad edit off of this article I was trying to game the system. Oh, and I probably wouldn't be so pissed if it weren't for the fact that you blocked ONLY ME. So let me guess - someone who actually did something wrong and made three edits and is fully aware of 3RR and should know better since he reports all sorts of 3RR violations. But God forbid that an admin be fair.

So tell me - if I had reverted an IP replacing the article's content with curse words three times, would I be gaming the system? This user blanked the contents of the page because they are unsourced - is there any policy that says unsourced content should be deleted and, thusly, made unsourcable? - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I was actually referring to your first edit, which was essentially a partial revert to this. Please note that that WP:3RR says:

"Complex partial reverts" refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time, which is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR, regardless of the editor's intention.

Regardless of whether the content was justified or not, it's best to discuss things more rather than edit warring, you might try following the one-revert rule. I didn't block Dionyseus because he only reverted three times.

As for the unsourced bit, I'm not sure if it's an official policy, but I know it's generally accepted on Wikipedia that there isn't anything wrong with removing unsourced information. See also the email by Jimbo. Khoikhoi 20:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Yes, and my intention for the first edit was to remove the numbers. I was fixing links as I went along. I was not masking my edits - why would I have to? The website was proven to be unverifiable, no one was objecting to it, and it was three days old. I waited until the discussion about VGCharts was more or less complete.
2. And? I made a separate revert of something several days old. Under your logic, I would have to be blocked if I first reverted vandalism and then reverted three times afterwards?
3. I highly doubt that it's accepted to completely destroy the article. There is no way for people to contribute to the sourcing of this article if the article pretty much doesn't exist. The user was obviously seeking to get rid of the article now that VGCharts was proven to be a poor source. AfD threats, blanking of the article, and an eventual AfD (in which he stated that the AfD was to "improve" it, to pretty much force people to source it before five days is up). When the majority of the article was unsourced but still used VGCharts' numbers, he didn't care. But when the numbers were no longer there, then he decided that the article must be deleted. I don't care that you are assuming I am acting in bad faith, I am protecting an article from being blanked. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually Khoikhoi is right, if a material is or can be challenged it must provide a source, if it has no source it must be deleted. The information can be placed back in when it is sourced. ReyBrujo also suggested that we remove all unsourced statements from the article. [1] Dionyseus 21:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

So Khoikhoi is right? Well, that's strange - he didn't say it "must be deleted". Show me a policy that says without exception, all unsourced material must be deleted. If it were policy to delete unsourced content at sight like you have done lately, then logically, anything that's added without a source right away must be deleted at sight as if it were no better than vandalism, preventing anyone but those who knew it was once in the article to source it. And if you really cared about an article being unsourced and felt that all unsourced content must be deleted, then why didn't you do so earlier? Only when VGCharts' complete wipe out from the article became highly probable did you bring it up as a concern. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:

Let me dig them up. He blocked me for "insulting" him. He warned me for calling one user a troll. He said that even if the user is a troll it's wrong to call someone a troll.. I said fine, but I showed him a diff from the same day when he himself called someone a troll. So I said aren't you being hypocritical. That led to a block!--Eupator 01:02, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Here you go, all of his responses are here:[2]. The comment for which he blocked me is here:[3]. What do you think?--Eupator 01:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

He blocked me for only one reason, he even gave a link to his user talkpage (where my last comment was) as the reason. So yeah, it was for not shutting up and just taking his accusations. The funniest thing is that he agreed with me that the said user was a troll and two days later he blocked him for trolling and personal attacks,16:58, 22 May 2006 InShaneee (Talk | contribs) blocked "Lutherian (contribs)" with an expiry time of 48 hours (constant personal attacks/trolling), when I was the first to note that (and ultimately blocked for).

--Eupator 01:37, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Apology

I don't know what brought about the sudden about face, but I'll be glad to re-iterate what I stated on the RfC: I apologize for the second block, and for the short manner in which I communicated with you. I, too, let my feelings get the best of me, and acted rashly. As I also stated there, I am well aware that you are a good, prolific editor, but you do have a problem with respecting other users. I just hope that we've both learned from this experience and come away as better Wikipedians. Happy editing. --InShaneee 14:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I've never used Vandal Proof, and you can stop stalking me whenever it's convenient. --InShaneee 14:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ghastly's Ghastly Comic

Stop trying to discredit everyone who votes keep. How old an account is, or how active a wikipedian is, makes absolutely NO difference whatsoever, and you know that. I'd like to remind you to Assume Good faith. WP:AGF

Also, from the Single Purpose Account (WP:SPA) page: "Users are cautioned to assume good faith, and to recall that all new users must start off somewhere. Further, many people with expertise in a specific area quite reasonably make contributions within that area alone." 209.86.76.75 02:03, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

If someone makes a keep or delete vote, and doesn't state why, or give evidence to one way or the other, then their opinion already is invalidated. The "Keep: It's notable"'s are just as worthy of attention as the "delete: no notability", that is, worth very little, since they're only opinions without any argument or proof or reason behind them. There's no need for you to go in after everyone else and post notes about the user with information that's readily available to the powers that be that decide whether the article would be deleted or not. (oh, and posting a comment towards my IP is a slightly fruitless endeavor, since the next time I log offline, then back online, my IP will once again have changed. As you can see from this post, it's already different, since I timed out while writing this and had to sign back in. Your change of the heart and show of reason about the article due to Ghastly's evidence shows a sign of hope for wiki, though. Maybe I'll make a username :P) 209.86.74.96 02:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How DARE you...

Calling me something I'm not. I won't take insults. CBFan (talk • contribs)

[edit] Talk page

I didn't mean to be disrespectful or anything by removing your message. I just remove messages that pertain to resolved issues, or those that I do not need to keep an immediate record of. From your own talk page, I can see that you archive messages, but for me it's just easier to keep things organized and readily available. But, whatever, I'll leave your message there. --Benten 01:05, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] SSBM characters

While it may be true that not all lists are redundant to their categories (for example, lists allow red links), in this case, it is redundant. Once upon a time, that page discussed characters such as Master Hand and other Super Smash Bros. exclusive characters but it has now been superceded by List of Super Smash Bros. series NPCs. In its current state, it imparts little to no relevant info about the characters that couldn't be accomplished by a category. If you still disagree, remove the prod tags and I'll take it to AfD for you. Axem Titanium 02:40, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FILMS Newsletter

The November 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Cbrown1023 22:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reliable sources

Hey A Link to the Past,

I don't know if you're anti-lotl or pro-IGN, or we are just having a misunderstanding, but I thought this is better discussed on our talk pages.
I am not certain what you think the sources on Wikipedia are for, if it is not to make sure that the information is correct. I mean, if it is to make sure the information is correct, then sources should be about correct information / the truth, not about the image.

Cheers JackSparrow Ninja 01:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It can be verified that IGN is more often correct than they are incorrect. As I said, all you need to know is that Wikipedia - not me - says verifiability is more important than truth. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please show me where it say "verifiability is more important than truth" JackSparrow Ninja 01:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[4] And make sure not to say "it does not say exactly that". The two statements mean the exact same thing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.

The source is to be reliable, not verifiable.

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

This talks about the information itself. The information should be verifiable, not the source. The source is the verification of the information. JackSparrow Ninja 01:24, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

And IGN is reliable. Reliable enough that what they say should be assumed to be truth. Voila. Whether or not it is true is a moot point. They are a reliable source. They are used as a source in many other major sources. Can you name a game source that hasn't been wrong about something? IGN said that Link was in Soul Calibur II. IGN was the first to say the secret characters in SSBM. They have been correct more often than not. They have verifiability. They have reliability. The odds of them being correct are on their side, not those seeking for it to be removed from Wikipedia. It is your burden to prove that they are not reliable and verifiable now. People know them. 95 of the top 100 most-clicked websites on Google when searching for "IGN" were IGN or related to it. It is in the top 200 websites on Alexa. It stands as one of, if not THE most well-known source for game information ever. Just because you dislike them does not mean you can declare them to be a bad source.

And to answer you, I am anti-both. But I am not so blind as to deny IGN's reliability and verifiability. By the way, you asked where it says verifiability is more important than truth. I showed you. The fact that the policy makes other statements beside that is irrelevant. If you could show them to be unreliable, you would have. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

It is your burden to prove that they are not reliable and verifiable now

The same goes for, in this case, lotl - or any other reliable source you deem not well enough known.

Anyway, the point is not the say IGN is completely unreliable, which I believe I never said, but that it shouldn't be acted upon like they are holy, BECAUSE they have shown to be unreliable. Information from IGN should just be handled with cause.

Happy editing JackSparrow Ninja 01:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

LotL - unverifiable. Basically, if you can't show verifiability, how reliable the information is is moot. If they are not verifiable, they likely aren't the ones Nintendo gave the info to, but rather got the information from a site such as - oh, say, IGN. You have to show it because IGN has NEVER been shown to be unsuitable for Wikipedia. In a long debate, literally no one showed LotL to be appropriate for Wikipedia. Am I the only one who has to prove anything? I have shown that IGN is verifiable and reliable, but no one has shown that LotL is verifiable. You do not seem to understand Wikipedia policy. Land of the Legend is not verifiable and thusly is never to be used. IGN is verifiable and is to be used when appropriate. Until you can show LotL to be verifiable, it will not be included on Wikipedia. Happy editing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You are mixing up the verifiable and reliable issues again, but that's ok.

Articles should contain only material that has been published by reliable sources.

The source is to be reliable, not verifiable.

The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, or it may be removed.

This talks about the information itself. The information should be verifiable, not the source. The source is the verification of the information. JackSparrow Ninja 02:04, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

So if the source is bad, it does not matter, as long as... well, you have yet to explain why LotL is reliable. The fact that they can read what everyone else says and recycle it on their page does not make them reliable. And how can information be verifiable? The only way to tell if information is correct or not is the assumption that because a verifiable source said it, it's true. Explain to me why LotL is a good source. They are a fan site. If LotL were reliable, were verifiable, you'd have proved it by now. The Verifiability policy in a nutshell is "use only sites in which it can be assumed that it is true based on the site's verifiability". In what universe can LotL be shown to be verifiable or reliable enough? They have no standing in the industry, and as such, cannot be assumed that what they say is most likely true. And even if what they say is most likely true, it's not because they are a big site. They could be described as nothing more than a Geocities web site which merely reads everything every other site says and repeats it. So basically, LotL is the parrot of the industry. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You keep mixing up verifiable information and reliable sources. There is no such thing as a verifiable source, as it is the source that varifies. As the very first mark of the policy talks of reliable sources and not verifiable sources (verifiable is mentioned below when talking of the information), this whole discussion is based on something non-existant.

Why is lotl reliable? Simply, because they have not been wrong (yet), and have rather, often debunked rumours.

I remember IGN saying from E3 2005 untill fall this year, that there would be flying transportation, alike Epona, in Twilight Princess. I remember from day 1, that lotl said it was not the case. The game is out and, they've been proven correct.

Many more rumours have been debunked by them like that; either rumours from IGN, some magazine, or from inside the Zelda community.

Your statement about being the parrot of the industry is false as well. I've done a little research, and they were the first with news on several occasions. This years' E3 about the differences between the two versions of TP, they were the first to post that news, LATER also posted by bigger outlets. Early 2006, when Miyamoto gave some interview to Nintendo of Europe, they were the first to get aditional information from that interview, which was later proved correctly again.

Such an outlet (which they state to be a professional outlet themselves -and I have checked and they are indeed registered as a press outlet here in the Netherlands- rather then a fansite) can be called reliable because of those very reasons. They have given reliable information, and they have a record of not giving unreliable information.

I don't care if I, you or Bill Gates likes an outlet like that; Wikipedia is about facts and these are the facts about land of the legend. If that makes me a devil's advocate, so be it, but facts are facts. JackSparrow Ninja 06:43, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

AHAHAHAHA. Oh, so I guess LotL is good at everyone else being correct. LotL is a PARROT. If it couldn't get the information from all of the other big sites, it would have no information that the readers didn't already know. I guess you have a good track record as long as you piggyback on every single other web site.

Oh, my God! I can't believe that IGN could have been wrong and LotL is right. It's not possible, as IGN is omnipotent and LotL is not physically capable of being correct about stuff. You know who else has been wrong? Hint: Billions and billions of people, and more or less - Hell, exactly every single media outlet that has ever existed. And what do you mean, "they aren't a parrot because they reported on the E3 thing"? So do you mean to say that they went to E3, played it, and then went back to put it on their site? I'm really sure that a web site with an Alexa rank of <2 million got an exclusive on Zelda TP's controls. Hell, my web site is leaps and bounds more authorative, verifiable, and notable than Land of the Legend is. Hell, why is it even used over Hyrule.net? Alexa ranking for that site is around 250,000. More than 2 million places higher than LotL.

Not only that, but why in the world is this even being debated? I assume you remember that it was basically you and the site owner V. world.

And here in the Netherlands? Mind if I ask, do you work for LotL? - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:12, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Funny how you like to try and twist things, when facts are presented.

Trying to deny lotl's presence at E3, while they have shown to be there, have footage of it and all - where E3 2005 is what made them 'famous', is really nothing more then rediculing.

It's nice and all you try and use Alexa as a back-up, but anyone with the least bit of understanding of webdesign, knows that suchs things are not definite. Some ranking most certainly does not overrule the verified facts that they have (had) exclusives.

No, I do not work for land of the legend; it's called a little research. A little research like which could have shown you their proven reliability. In this case, simply looking up who they are -GameLegend is from the Netherlands, and here in the Netherlands -where I happen to be from- they are registered as press. Takes 10 minutes and saves a lot of vandalizing of articles.

I don't know what more can be said, other then that it is sad that you let your own hate against some site -of all things, who hates a site...- overrule any serious talk and actions. The facts are there, you just choose to ignore them and act as if they are not there. JackSparrow Ninja 00:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies, I'm not a fan of unverifiable sites being used on Wikipedia. Konami, Namco, Atlus, they send my web site free games for the purpose of reviews. However, my website is not verifiable for use on Wikipedia. And yes, Alexa IS a judge of how verifiable a site is. It's constantly used. Has LotL ever been mentioned on major sites? In major publications? As a source? I doubt it. Ultimatum: Prove that what you say is actually true. Fail, and all you are doing is spamming the link. And no, I do have to reveal to you that without you having said why it's verifiable, there is no proof. And by the way, reverting your linkspam is not vandalism. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

From just 10 minutes of research:

• Kotaku 1
• Kotaku 2
• Kotaku 3
• Kotaku 4
• Jeux-France 1
• Jeux-France 2 lotl already
• IGN board, moderator stating lotl as reliable source in a reliability thread
• Advanced Media Network
• lotl footage linked from GameFront (germany's IGN)
• NGC France (sister site of Jeux-France)
• insidegamer.nl, the biggest gaming site of the Netherlands
• fok.nl, one of the biggest entertainment websites of the Netherlands
• Eurogamer

JackSparrow Ninja 10:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Super Smash Bros.

Mergers will only succeed when it is uncontroverisal. You are ignoring the fact that TTN disagreed with the mergert. It was not a redirect when Axem nominated the article. If he hadn't nominated it, the next step would have been to discuss on the talk page, instead of reverting TTN and redirecting it again. Axem simply stepped in and started the formal procedure to delete the article outright. You are confusing users who are checking out both articles if they are getting redirected to the toehr one. The notice keeps things simple. Hbdragon88 08:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Just so you know, the Super Smash Bros. Character article is still redundant, and will always be redundant. The Super Smash Bros. (series) article has an organized list with a check, x, question mark system. Nothing is better than that, and it's pointless to add another article for it. So just don't. Comrade Pajitnov 14:54, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please keep deletion discussion to the AfD page instead of taking it to my talk page. Axem Titanium 00:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked (2)

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

Dmcdevit·t 06:10, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I do deserve to be blocked. I have a hard time remembering not to 3RR.

This has been discussed and there was a consensus not to use the web site as a source. Despite that, he uses it anyway. The user appears to be biased towards its usage, and at no point has the user ever verified its reliability. The user does not have any concerns with the objections to its usage, so a discussion would just lead to a band-aid. Eventually, he would peel it off just like he did with the first. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, I feel it only fair for the complaintaint to be blocked as well for gaming the system, as I once was. [5] He was blocked once before for edit warring, apologized, and promised to stop. However, the fact that he just intentionally barely avoided violating 3RR shows that he has broken his promise to stop edit warring. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Commenting as an uninvolved user here: Looking at the site, I can understand why it would not generally be a citeable resource. In this specific instance, however, I believe you can make an exception since the site is effectively just acting as an image host for 5 pictures that speak for themselves. The pictures are verifiable, so it doesn't really matter if they're hosted on a fansite, wikipedia, or some guy's photobucket. --tjstrf talk 06:28, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Put it on a better source, then. I doubt a Geocities page would be a good source. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It would certainly not be ideal, but I think it would be acceptable since the images speak for themselves quite nicely. Why not just take 2 or 3 of the shots, combine them into a brief sequence image, and upload them server-side here? --tjstrf talk 07:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The reason I choose that source, besides it being the only (or at least one of the very few) to report on it, is that they provide a lot of extra information, as well as the video showing it. Extra information is nothing but a good thing. JackSparrow Ninja 10:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

As I have stated, LotL has very little standing. You have yet to show me anything to verify the site's reliability. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] InShanee case to ArbCom

Hi, I wasn't aware until recently, but InShanee has issued a ban notice against Supreme Cmdr in a manner that is somewhat concerning. I'm thinking of taking InShanee to ArbCom, but considering your involvement, I thought should check with you first. Addhoc 17:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, you'll have to wait until my 48 hour block is up. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:55, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, sorry for not realizing. Addhoc 12:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WikiCast.

In response to your test request on IRC....

Wikicast welcomes new content :-) #Wikicast for more details..

ShakespeareFan00 15:08, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cookie and hot chocolate

Hey A Link to the Past,

Now that, I hope, things have settled down a bit, I thought I'd leave you a message and some yummyness.

The reason I got upset with your, if so I can call it, apparant crusade against lotl, is that it makes the articles incomplete, or filled with tags, for no reason. As you've seen, I'm not the only one that disagreed with you on some of the 'extremer' cases as with the pictures/videos.

As I have seen that a lack of it has got you into trouble before, a little word of advice would be to do a little research before getting into an argument. In our case, all I had to do in the Triforce reference article is click the link to MIT, and the reference listing you requested above also took me no more then 10 minutes.

I'm just trying to say, if we can all -not saying I'm perfect- be a little more flexible, it would save us all a lot of stress and annoyance.

Happy editting

JackSparrow Ninja 04:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Irrelevant. I'm still waiting for something to verify the accuracy of LotL. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I see how some people dislike you...

ah well, to repeat:

From just 10 minutes of research:

• Kotaku 1
• Kotaku 2
• Kotaku 3
• Kotaku 4
• Jeux-France 1
• Jeux-France 2 lotl already
• IGN board, moderator stating lotl as reliable source in a reliability thread
• Advanced Media Network
• lotl footage linked from GameFront (germany's IGN)
• NGC France (sister site of Jeux-France)
• insidegamer.nl, the biggest gaming site of the Netherlands
• fok.nl, one of the biggest entertainment websites of the Netherlands
• Eurogamer

JackSparrow Ninja 06:44, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, because Wikipedia's about how many people like you, instead of how good Wikipedia is.

Allow me to debunk these.

Much of your content is blogs using it as a source of news because they read it first at LotL.

IGN's mention does not verify LotL to be reliable. It mentions something that only LotL did. They don't just not mention it because an unreliable source said it, they link to where it originated.

The video? They went to E3, and someone linked to it. Any source can have that done by another site.

Jeux-France mentions NP scans being linked to at LotL. (illegal, by the way)

A couple of those links doesn't even work right.

Eurogamer uses it as a source on one of the very few things that LotL isn't just repeating that was on other sites.

And, Hell... now that I think about it, these aren't even the same sites! Hyrule is consistently updated and is not similar to LotL. Are you implying that Hyrule is LotL? - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why I even bother, as you clearly have no open mind and try to twist things your way. When I show you what you want to see, you suddenly change what you want. Make up your mind.

Just before you stated they were some Geocities site AND they never went to E3.

Jeux-France mentions information, not scans. Scans are used by the Hylia, and linked to in the TP article.

"Landofthelegend.net - Fan site with regular, reliable updates on Twilight Princess."

lotl / hyrule.net

JackSparrow Ninja 13:34, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

okay. dont see what the harm was though, link still brought you to the same place.

[edit] Metroid Dread

Looks like people have finally gotten desperate and the article is now being considered for deletion...--Claude 20:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:FILMS Newsletter

The December 2006 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Please also, if you have not already, add your name to the Member List. Cbrown1023 00:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inshaneee

Hi i've had a run in with this admin and gone through much of the dispute resolution and stuff and he still keeps acting up. I'm starting to put an arb com case together, would you help by adding your dealings with Inshaneee to the evidence, please come to my talk page to talk about this.Hypnosadist 01:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply and the diffs! I'll read them all soon, do they include Inshaneee Wheel Warring? (This is the admin crime of reverting other admins decisions.Hypnosadist 00:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

The duration of the block is 3 days. Khoikhoi 01:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I made three reversions. The first edit of the four you show are not reverts.

And watch me use my psychic powers - where I had made only three reversion in the past, which resulted in you blocking me for gaming the system, InShaneee making three reversions is not gaming the system. I guess those are the perks of being an admin, policy is not relevant. I just wish I was an admin so I could treat everyone badly and run around acting like the dictator of Wikipedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

He's right, actually. The edit summary makes it look like a revert, but the change preceding it was to a different RfC listing. Additionally, he's adding it after a new spurt of activity surrounding that RfC. --tjstrf talk 01:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Watch Khoikhoi say that I was gaming the system, anyway. Although he won't do the same for someone who did something just as bad. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, Help:Reverting states:

However, in the context of the English Wikipedia three revert rule, a revert is defined far more broadly as any change to an article that partially or completely goes back to any older version of an article.

The re-addition of this link was still a revert, and the length of this block is based on your prior history. Sorry, Khoikhoi 02:16, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

So you're going to block InShaneee then, right? Good.

Although, you could not do so... but I wouldn't want to accuse you of hypocricy, since he did the same thing as I did, which you found fit to block me for. And he has violated 3RR once before that I can tell. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:18, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You reverted 4 times, he reverted 3 times. I can't block InShaneee unless he reverts again. Khoikhoi 02:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

You do realize that you just admitted to abusing your powers as an administrator? You blocked me for 31 hours for gaming the system when I made three reversions. I guess admins are held to a lower standard because they somehow deserve the right to be bad Wikipedians, huh?

Not to worry, I'll make sure that your abuse of power is well-documented. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

(something I couldn't post on WP Talk:RfC)

You called someone a douche. You blocked someone for violating no policies (and ironically, you violated two policies by blocking for no valid reason and blocking someone for edit warring in a dispute you were involved in). You assumed bad faith and blocked me even though you could not cite any policies I violated (and in fact, existing policies on Wikipedia showed that what I was doing was not trolling; additionally, the block was punitive). You wheel warred while hypocritically telling the other admin not to wheel war. You talked down to another user who told you that wheel warring was bad, feeling insulted about being told policy like a newbie (even though you needed to be, since you did not understand what wheel warring is). You ignored Zscout when he told you not to use reversion software in the way you are using it. You created a disruption on the Paper Mario TTYD article. You accused me of stalking, and ignored me when I gave just-fine reasoning why what I did in the TTYD article was not stalking. You claimed that my user page with the Frank Grimes article in it was disruptive/bad, and refused to even acknowledge the possibility that it was not. You claimed I was baiting you with the TTYD article - which - voila - disrupts Wikipedia. You are constantly hypocritical - you always tell people not to call edits vandalism, or trolling, and you tell people to focus on the articles, not the user. And yet, I have seen you inappropriately refer to users as vandals or trolls, and much of what you've done showed you focus on the user far too often. Whether or not my accusations are "hateful" is irrelevant to the fact that they are valid on their face. Are you ever going to apologize for the vast array of things you have done wrong? - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

In response to Link's defense that the first of his four edits to the user conduct RFC page ([6], [7], [8], [9]) was not a reversion, I think Link is clearly wrong. IMHO, the first of the four edits reported by Inshaneee was clearly a reversion, as Link accurately stated in his edit summary at the time. Specifically, Inshaneee removed his RFC from the list of active RFCs here, and Link reverted Inshanee's change for the first time here, then three additional times thereafter within the next hour and a half.

I might be inclined to argue that the block is a little long if Link honestly misunderstood the policy, except (1) Link's summary to his first reversion indicates that he understood exactly what he was doing; (2) Link hasn't shown any attempt to understand and comply with this aspect of the 3RR policy in the future; and (3) this would have been a perfect time for Link to take it to the talk page, rather than making four reverts in 68 minutes. TheronJ 15:07, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm more concerned that Khoikhoi blocked me for gaming the system a while back, and let InShaneee get away with it this time. I guess admins have to stick together. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Block

According to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RRArchive32#User:A_Link_to_the_Past reported by User:Dionyseus (Result: 31h), you appear to have made four reverts. Or am I missing something? As for InShaneee, you might want to see this ("threee reverts, not four"). The same thing occured here—he had only reverted three times total. Khoikhoi 09:09, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Your block log says "3RR violation at List of best-selling computer and video games, gaming the system"... As the policy states, "The three-revert rule should not be construed as an entitlement to revert, and doing so is regarded as disruption. Doing this over a prolonged period of time leads to sanctions, and, in extreme cases, a permanent ban." Khoikhoi 20:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

No, edit warring is bad, but InShaneee has never been blocked for 3RR before. If he had, then it would make sense to block him for reverting three times on an article. The three reverts are not an entitlement, but a restriction, and he never went past that restriction. Khoikhoi 04:32, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

When has he violated 3RR? Can you cite specific examples please? And who says reporting people for 3RR when you are edit warring is a blockable offense? The truth is, it really depends. Khoikhoi 05:03, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Three-revert rule#Reverting pages in your user space... Khoikhoi 05:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

There isn't really a clear consensus among Wikipedians about people removing warnings from their talk page. Many people argue that it's ok because it's already in the edit history. For the record, I disagree with InShaneee's block for you removing warnings from your talk page. I don't think it's a very good reason. BTW, the links you are showing me are from quite awhile ago. Do you have any recent examples when he has broken 3RR/edit-warred extensively—besides the one I blocked you for? Khoikhoi 22:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not really sure what you want now. Do you want me to block InShaneee? Khoikhoi 22:37, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Khoikhoi 22:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please stop a stupid edit war

How about looking at what is editted rather then having your thehylia fanboyism take over?

• The Nintendo Power July reference is fixing
• The Hylia links are dead
• And I have no idea what that neoseeker forum is doing there...

thank you JackSparrow Ninja 07:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove links to thehylia with no reason, and do not mask your edits to seem like you are actually doing something different from what you actually are doing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It are dead links... JackSparrow Ninja 07:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ripping Friends

I understand your concern about the Ripping Friends article. I did not write the sections you tagged with fact templates and I am in the process of veriying these comments. If they cannot be verified they will be removed. My main concern is that you removed the episode descriptions from the article. I have re-added them for now but I must implore that before you make such sweeping deletions that you discuss them in the talk page first. You added the POV tag without pointing to the reason for it and now you've deleted the meat of the article. If you have a valid reason for wating to delete the episode description, I'm all ears. PLEASE consult the talk page on the article before you make such changes. That's all I'm asking. --Thaddius 12:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mario Kart 64

What in the world are you doing? You are NOT improving the article by deleting entire sections, you are destroying it. This is excessive deletion and now the article is slowly going to become a stub. Just look at it, it's a mess, even worse than when it was removed from the good article list. Please refrain from these tremendous edits just because you think it's the best way to go. I've made my point. ~~Eugene2x ^{Sign here} ☺ ~~ 20:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What you left on my talk page

It seems like you haven't read WP:ATTACK. I see you have made tons of personal attacks against other Wikipedians, and you need to remain CIVIL. There's just no point in arguing about this. We can go on and on with a useless discussion regarding MK64 and get nothing out of it. Now please refrain from making attacks on my talk page. ~~Eugene2x ^{Sign here} ☺ ~~ 21:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Just stop. Did you read what I just said above? "We can go on and on with a useless discussion regarding MK64 and get nothing out of it." And what attacks did I make? I was just trying to make a point. Clearly you are the one who needs to spend more time reading WP:ATTACK and not just blabbing away and making attacks on talk pages. ~~Eugene2x ^{Sign here} ☺ ~~ 21:23, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Sigh... All I wanted was to try to make a point. Instead, I got this damn argument from a Wikipedian that's notorious for making personal attacks. Now PLEASE STOP or I'll be forced to have an admin have this issue resolved. ~~Eugene2x ^{Sign here} ☺ ~~ 21:43, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

And no, saying that you were possibly destroying an article is NOT a personal attack. It was simply a point I was trying to make. You have absolutely no reason to call what I said a personal attack. ~~Eugene2x ^{Sign here} ☺ ~~ 21:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Stop it, okay? I was just trying to make a point. The only thing the attacks will do is earn you a block. ~~Eugene2x ^{Sign here} ☺ ~~ 22:06, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Super Paper Mario

I can't do it myself right now (i'm stuck using the Wii Browser for now), could you change mentions of "Wii-mote" in the article to "Wii Remote"? TJ Spyke 03:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CVG Barnstar

		The CVG Barnstar
		Although your work might not always be appreciated by the masses, it is clear to those observers who matter that your contributions are truly invaluable! Thank you! JACOPLANE • 2007-01-24 00:51

[edit] {{Namco Bandai-stub}}

Hi - I've just taken this renamed stub type to WP:SFD. If you're going to rename a stub type, it wopuld be useful to run the new name past SFD (which is for deletions and renames) and even if you don't, please use a name that is compatible with the naming guidelines (I've moved it to the NG-standard name of {{NamcoBandai-stub}}, BTW). Grutness...wha? 04:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template "fixes"

Stub template names aren't supposed to contain spaces: see WP:WSS/NG. You've also left the stub category name inconsistent with the template name -- if anything, it would have been more logical to change the former, and leave the latter as-was. Might have been a better idea to bring this up at WP:SFD. Alai 04:54, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slow down

You're editing at bot-like speeds. Slow down, or someone may block you as an errant (or at least, unauthorized) bot. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

• And as these edits are pre-empting an on-going *FD discussion, they're really rather pointless, especially if that ends with yet a third change to the same articles. Alai 06:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Helpful advice. You were flooding the anti-vandalism channel feeds, and a few users were getting annoyed already. The edits are harmless (perhaps pointless, as said above), just spread them out apart a little bit. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:26, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • I felt that since Namco is no longer a company, it should now be a Namco Bandai stub. And I made the second move because they went against template guidelines. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    • But regardless, if I didn't do this, I might not have made Over the Hedge (Nintendo DS), Bust-a-Move DS, Puyo Puyo 15th Anniversary, or Tamagotchi Connection: Corner Shop 2 - so it wasn't all bad. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL! Did we finally get that barnstar made for people who edit so fast, they get accused of being bots? ;-) --Kim Bruning 08:37, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Working man's barnstar? :P - A Link to the Past (talk) 10:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Phoenix Wright name ordering

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phoenix_Wright:_Ace_Attorney&diff=101265730&oldid=101245200

No, see, A Link To The Past, what we do on most anime articles is we ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS put the Japanese name FIRST when we show both names to reduce any confusion whatsoever. Then we put the English name. Of course, I am still describing them by their English names, so this will not be a problem. WhisperToMe 23:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I spot-checked several anime articles, and all of them were English name followed by the Japanese name with the Japanese kanji symbols. I'm pretty sure that's right in line with WP:UE.--Masem 23:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Case Closed characters is one... let me get some more... WhisperToMe 23:27, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Yu-Gi-Oh! main characters - And another. WhisperToMe 23:30, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I checked InuYasha, Naruto, Spirited Away, Neon Genesis Evangelion, and Excel Saga. English before Japanese is also consistent with JPRGS like Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy VII. Also, SPECIFICALLY on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga, it says "Characters' names should be given in western order." --Masem 23:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Wait... no, no. None of these series are relevant, because the Japanese names for the characters ARE the English names. I am talking about series where the entire names are changed for the English versions. WhisperToMe 00:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure regardless if the name's the same or it's changed for western audiences, "Characters' names should be given in western order" pretty much sets the order. --Masem 00:03, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

As I said earlier, that has NOTHING to do with what I am talking about. I am talking about when a Japanese name (which IS ordered in English order) and a completely different English name exist. WhisperToMe 00:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(Japan-related_articles states that the format "English (Japanese characters rōmaji)" should be used for any Japanese term put into WP. I understand that the names for characters for PW are different in English as they are in Japanese version, but most of the people using WP are going to be familiar with the English name (whether a translation or a localization) over the Japanese name. --Masem 00:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but that determines how the names are used within the text, not necessarily the order of the names. The reason I use Japanese names first in all of the articles based on localized Japanese products is to provide a consistent, quick method of saying "Oh, this is a Japanese name... and this is English!" WhisperToMe 01:54, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Or, "this is the name that is familiar to me, since I'm English. Oh, and that's the Japanese name, huh? Neat." That is how it should be.

And, it is irrelevant that anime articles do that. For lack of a better term, the editors are "Japanophiles" - even though this encyclopedia is for people who speak English, they give Japanese details preference for animes that exist in an official English form. If I feel like it, I might work towards fixing this problem. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:933006 75564 front.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:933006 75564 front.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 06:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:Films Newsletter

The January 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Nehrams2020 07:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Happy birthday!

Two decades down, six or eight more to go. Have a great year! --tjstrf talk 08:18, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Shunkan puzzloop

Don't be facetious, it doesn't help your cause. Of course there is a perfectly valid reason for the article being at Shunkan Puzzloop and that is the fact that the 'English title' is not Magnetica. The English title is Actionloop. This sort of thing has arisen a few times in the past and going with the Japanese title is usually the best solution.--Josquius 21:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Because if I moved it to Actionloop that would just cause yet another European-American argument which is what I'm trying to avoid.
For the rest of your comments...Why are you being so facetious anyway? I hate to use the same word twice there but its the only suitable one. I suggest you look at England.--Josquius 21:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Stop the dumb strawman questions. You know perfectly well that is not what I said.

The English title is Actionloop however the North American title is Magneta. Both of these are English language titles thus there is no one English title.--Josquius 21:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Or use the European title. Its the most accurate to the original Japanese.
Just because you (an American) say the American title is the best doesn't make it so.
The simple solution is what I am trying for here however you are screaming in the face of logic. Wikipedia naming conventions are to use the original title- which in this case is the Japanese version.
I don't think you will be the only linguistic nationalist about here and having it at the Japanese title satisfies the Nihonophiles a great deal (who are likely to be the ones interested in the article) and shouldn't annoy Europeans and Americans too much for using the others title (at least it shouldn't you are being the exception to the rule)--Josquius 21:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

For God's sake see some perspective man! I am getting the strongest feeling that you truly are just trolling me here.

So Magnetica is recognisable to regular English speakers is it? So if I go out onto the street and ask people if they know what Magnetica is they will all instantly say its a DS game? No I don't think so. Its more likely they would guess its some sort of ice cream.

To fans of the game/genre/DS/some other computer game related category however- the people to whom this article is aimed...Well yes the Americans would realise what Magnetica is straight away. However its also likely anyone with any degree of knowledge would know the original name was Shunkan Puzzloop. European fans who stumble on 'Magnetica' however are going to be left totally bemused. They won't have the faintest idea what it is. And vice-versa for Actionloop.

You are apparently immune to logic though so...I know I'll use your quasi-reasoning line. "Generally, article naming should prefer what the majority of English speakers would most easily recognize, with a reasonable minimum of ambiguity, while at the same time making linking to those articles easy and second nature." English wikipedia is not aimed solely at those who speak English as their native language, it is in essence THE wikipedia. The multinational one. There are more people in Europe then the US so maybe we should use the European title? Would you like that?--Josquius 22:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't patronise me padawan. You are the one who is verging on trolling here, not I. It seems that you are somewhat ignorant of the way wikipedia works also. Just look around, you will find this place is full of people to whom English is not their native language. Finding wiki pages is difficult but there is a page floating about somewhere that specificly states that due to English's status as the world's second language and the very small no. of articles in many language's wikipedias this is the world wikipedia.

To go off topic for a brief moment here I must reiterate...Stop the stupid strawman questions. To make two points in one and return to the 'world wikipedia' concept we have here: User:Dwaipayanc is Indian, User:CedricD is Belgian, User:Emc2 is Italian. Are you trying to say that these people and many,many more do not exist? As you will find they probally disagree...--Josquius 23:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What on earth? You truly are trolling here. I have never once mentioned race. And I'll think you'll find that the fact that this is the English language wiki and not the US wiki makes it multinational from the get go let alone all the non-native speakers who are here. IIRC one of the top three highest ranking people on wikipedia right now is Polish actually--Josquius 23:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Race isn't the same thing as nationality. Despite what some groups would will on the world you can get Britons of every possible colour and creed. Likewise for many other nations of the world too.
Proof? I've just shown you proof!
And what on earth are you babbling about articles in different languages? You are really missing the point here. The English wikipedia is based at a international ENGLISH SPEAKING audience. Nationality matters as you are trying to argue that these people do not exist and this wikipedia is solely based at the countries of the world where English is the first and only language which is just wrong.
Look here's some more people- a Bosnian: User:Dr.alf, this man is Israeli: User:A&D and this one would appear to be Portuguese: User: Cesar Moura.--Josquius 10:39, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Here is more concrete proof since my more anecdotal evidence no matter how strong seems to have little effect: English_Wikipedia--Josquius 10:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your listing at Wikipedia:Requested moves

Don't list articles such as Magnetica to be moved in the uncontroversial section of requested moves if there is a debate about it. --DanielCD 23:28, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My Sims

What on Earth gave you the thought that My Sims is on Nintendo DS? It says that nowhere on the official page! I deleted it, and that's really weird, considering you have considerable knowledge of Nintendo stuff, you put that. I deleted the NDS part, but...why? TheListUpdater 20:35, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Good, but I'm not going to accept it on the Wikipedia page without a reference. TheListUpdater 21:46, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] STOP.

The simple fact that you add the link despite the fact that it's using Wikipedia as its source is becoming annoying. Stop spamming Landofthelegend. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? How is Wikipedia used as a source by lotl? JackSparrow Ninja 22:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I dunno, by the simple fact that the only web site with these exact figures other than Land of the Legend is List of best-selling computer and video games? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:29, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you reverted your reversion. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

That's why I do a little research when it comes to news like this. Since they are the only one having (gathered) information about the most current TP sales -whereas the released list itself does not contain said information- they do well as a source for the most current TP sales.

Cheers JackSparrow Ninja 22:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Research? With very few exceptions, the contents of LotL are the same as the list on Wikipedia. And how did they come up with that extra 1.5 million copies for TP? Do they have secret sources, or what? You show me how they came up with an extra 1.5 million copies - when it is obvious to most everyone (with the exception of those who put links on Wikipedia for reasons outside of improving it, such as when someone just feels like spamming a web site) that LotL merely took the list from Wikipedia and repeated it without stating where they got the information. This list was created by Wikipedians, not LotL. You can't just get this list anywhere - it was made with a wide variety of different sources. So no matter what, this list was not made by LotL and it was not made by anyone outside of Wikipedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:06, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I question your judgement if you think that one - LITERALLY one difference between the lists is enough to claim that LotL's is not from Wikipedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you even look at the link I gave you? Here's the top result, stating exactly that list. It's industry news, unless you beleive Gamasutra (among others) is also ripping off Wikipedia. [10] JackSparrow Ninja 23:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Uh? How the HELL is this industry news?! It was CREATED by Wikipedians. Are you implying that, by 100% coincidence, the Wikipedians made a list of best-selling game franchises using a variety of different sources, and a completely different web site used those exact same sources? Why should I trust GameSutra, which doesn't even reference where they got their information? You have managed to fail at giving me reason to believe that LotL didn't get this from Wikipedia. This is information created on Wikipedia. It is your burden to prove that the information on this source isn't from Wikipedia, not mine. And the simple fact that it is almost completely the same as the Wikipedia list gives VERY strong reason to not use the link. If you can't even begin to show how the list isn't from Wikipedia, then how can you argue that it be kept on Wikipedia? I've done a great job showing that the list is from Wikipedia, and in response, you do nothing to explain why LotL couldn't have taken the list from Wikipedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:57, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, Land of the Legend's usage at any place at any time in any situation is highly disputed. But when you refuse to allow it to be removed as a source regardless of the fact that you have nothing to verify that the information is usable and I have a very good reason why it's a bad source, you're not exactly looking at a Barnstar for civility. How about actually explaining why Wikipedia cannot handle not having LotL on it, and why this list cannot be the same list as that found on Wikipedia? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If you believe Gamasutra [11], GamesIndustry.biz [12] and Forbes [13] all use Wikipedia when reporting on best-selling games lists, I don't know what to say anymore.

I'd say, go over to those guys and congratulate them on being famous. JackSparrow Ninja 00:37, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

...Yes, because if Forbes says it, that explains why they're almost exactly the same list. There is no logical reason for them to be the same other than the originating source being Wikipedia itself. You still haven't explained why they're the same, so how can you justify using these sources when there is a major concern over them? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:40, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Why do you think they're the same? Because they're correct perhaps?

If two metereologists say it's been 50 degrees today, does that mean they've ripped eachother off? Or maybe they're just both correct. JackSparrow Ninja 00:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Because for them to be the same, they would have to use the exact same sources? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Or just having the correct equipment that allows them to make direct measurements.

Do you know what information media outlets get from publishers? Better yet, do you know that nor the publishers, nor some other industry source, have released said information?

Famitsu magazine has just compiled a list of Japanese all time best selling games. Are you gonna acuse them of using Wikipedia as well? JackSparrow Ninja 01:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

...What?

Explain how that is an apt analogy. Did I say "it's a list of games with sales mentioned, must be stolen!"? No, I pointed out the fact that "these two lists are exactly the same!". It is hardly an apt comparison. How can you argue that these are different lists? No matter how well-documented sales are, there is no way that two groups could make the exact list using different references. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:09, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's assume good faith and say that the Wikipedia list is well references, and thus correct.

If it is correct, how can it be any different from another correct list, also using publisher information.

I don't understand, please explain, how you can say that two lists can no be the same and correct. It's either the same and correct, or not the same and one is incorrect. JackSparrow Ninja 01:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

What's there to understand? No list can be 100% complete. The odds of them ending up with a 100% same list by pure coincidence are almost nonexistant. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

If it was a total list of single game sales, it might be correct. However, we're talking about numbers of series though, big more important things. Nintendo, for one, releases a list of all-time sales of their series every year. And like that, there are more publishers gladly willing to pimp the sales numbers of their top-selling games and games series.

If we'd be talking about reports only from small-time press, the assumption could be somewhat justified. However, Gamasutra, Gamesindustry and Forbes do not fit that describtion. Accepting that it might be an annual publisher report is a more elligble assumption then assuming three big outlets copy a list of wikipedia. JackSparrow Ninja 01:29, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Trace Memory

You know fully well my response and requests, so I'm not going to bother. I don't care about what the Mega Drive/Genesis editors did. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 04:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Spam tag

I removed the spam tag you added because it was royally screwing up the page, not because of my opinion regarding the tag itself. Go back and look at the version history and look at the actual page and you'll see what I mean. E946 08:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Go To Hell

[edit] Perhaps a civil method of resolving this is in order

Well, I was going to post here so we may swap Emails and perhaps come to a reasonable conclusion of this whole Dark Link war that is raging at the moment without cluttering the talk page with our useless struggles. I'd put up the page anyway but I know full well that you'd tear it right back down, and thereby a bigger war would be started. You seem to be a very aggressive, but intelligent person (and I see you get in more than your fair share of verbal brawls), so if you do agree to these terms that drop me an answer on my userpage. If you don't, then, well, I can continue raging this war as long as you'd like. Lord Zymeth 22:31, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brain Age

Why did you move this to the European name (and then edit that so it can't be moved back)? You provided no source for how it has done in the UK, while I can provide a source for how it has done in North America (at least in the US). The game has done really well in the US, even making the top 10 games of 2006.

Also, since you deleted Cuccos from the Zelda enemies page, you should fix the redirect (since "Cucco" redirects to he Zelda enemies page). TJ Spyke 03:11, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Actually...

If you've read WP:AGF recently, it's been downgraded to a guideline, and is no longer official policy. Hbdragon88 04:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Now you're just being uncivil, which is policy. Hbdragon88 04:22, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

A link to the ArbCom decission that did state that such moves can be reversed without requiring a disucssion is not substaniating my claim? Hbdragon88 04:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, perhaps that was a bit over the edge, obviously the right thing to assume was that you were only fixing the redirect. Hbdragon88 04:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Understood, and Apology to You

Thanks alot, that means a lot to me. I am sorry too that things were so heated. I never thought you were wrong in believing that SPM was headed for Wii, and I wish I would have stayed out of the argument once I had stated my point. It was highly unneccisary for me to continually try to argue. Thanks for taking the time to write to me! Have a great day. --Ira-welkin 04:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC)