User talk:A Link to the Past
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for comment/InShaneee 2
I believe you had problems with this administrator in the past, and commented when I brought up his inappropriate use of blocking at WP:AN. I thought you might be interested in this RfC - you may even wish to certify it. Worldtraveller 13:00, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:B00006C29A.01. SCLZZZZZZZ .jpg
 |
This file may be deleted. |
Thanks for uploading Image:B00006C29A.01. SCLZZZZZZZ .jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. --- RockMFR 21:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, box art fair use images need a rationale. Unfortunately the number of people in the CVG project who ever even use rationales can be counted on one hand, so it's usually ignored. --- RockMFR 21:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I see. Any suggestions as to how I should establish a rational for a box art to be fair use? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:51, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, can't a rational that using a fair use image is necessary because it helps tell about the article, or something? Kind of like how a screenshot can get by because one is needed to help give a visual depiction of game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:52, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
- The rationale needs to be explicit (even more so than the template says). It's prtty generic, really, and I just added a quick one. I also resent Rock's statement that only a few CVG members know about fair use rationales; all of the CVG FA articles have rationales. That's gotta be at least 15 people. The PCP project also does a crapload of rationles, mostly through a generic template that was later deleted through TFD. Hbdragon88 00:00, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Ganon.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Ganon.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 02:50, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] In the interest of respectful disclosure
What I had figured would be a small discussion regarding the proposed move (point, counterpoint, consensus amongst editors, fin) has expanded into a incredibly large and extensive discussion. Since I respect you and you seem to have the largest role in the aforementioned discussion, I believe that it is fair to let you know about the move I did- basically, I've kept the discussion content intact but just moved it to Talk:Seiken_Densetsu/proposed_move_to_mana_series. That way the pros and cons can continue to be discussed without overwhelming the Seiken Densetsu talk page. I've also placed a notice on the main talk page with a specific link to the discussion, along with a recommendation that individuals follow it and place their opinion on the topic. Feel free to organize and reformat the page as you see fit. Have a great day. Ex-Nintendo Employee 22:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I put a AFD on List of Kirby series characters
The reason I put a AFD on List of Kirby series characters because it was just a list with links to other Wikipedia articles. Please do not take this personally, but I feel that this article is not needed in Wikipedia. Please keep contributing to Wikipedia, and don't let this stop you. Magistrand Sign Here! My Talk 23:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Koholint_Island
I guess we agree that your move was controversial by now. Next time, please follow the procedures outlined here if you still want to remove all of the information this article has. Comte0 15:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Response
In response to your question, the criteria commonly used by The Simpsons WikiProject is that characters must fulfill one of three guidelines: 1. Must have been extremely central to 2 episodes 2. If a one-timer, must have a resonant appearance 3. Must have appeared in at least 50 episodes If you still wish to merge the page, I suggest you make a formal merge request. -- Scorpion 22:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
- It's not as wide as it sounds. We could easily have 1000 Simpson character pages, but we don't (don't think that people haven't TRIED to get us to 1000, I'd be willing to bet that there are at least 200 redirecting pages for Simpsons characters). Bridging the gape between fame and notability is tricky, for example, I can guarantee you that a LOT more people have heard of Bumblebee Man or the Crazy Cat Lady than have heard of George Meyer or David Silverman or John Swartzwelder, and yet, they undisputably deserve pages while Bumblebee Man and Crazy Cat lady don't. In the past month alone, I've merged about 20 character pages (and was fought every step of the way). The way I see it is that Herb and Mona were very central to their two episodes and they are pretty well-known characters, as are Frank Grimes and Hank Scorpio. If you still wish to do some merging, then propose a merge. -- Scorpion 22:50, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Stop. Seriously, we worked hard on this, please just stop.
Regarding the Kirby edits, in case it wasn't clear. :D
I don't know what your deal is, or if you think you're 'helping', but deleting swaths of information in preference of a bloated single list is not doing it. We've already had an issue where we got a big main list deleted, so we made smaller lists so it wasn't so needlessly huge. It's nice an organized and each character gets a bit of info, because let's face it, no one criteria says which are more important than the others. A character like DynaBlade only appears in one game, but she's a well known and easily recognized figure.
There's also already a category listing the Kirby characters and sub-lists, so there's truly no need for a giant list. Other series divide things up too. LoZ has a page for enemies, and a page for other characters, and a page for manga characters and so on. They don't shove everything on one page. We want to keep things organized. Don't mix up game, manga, and anime characters. If you can think of a good way to organize it, maybe we can even combine enemies/bosses/minibosses, but everything on one page is too much. Ivyna J. Spyder 04:17, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] It's not up to you to decide
I'm not exactly sure what you gain from this. You're not making the Kirby info any cleaner or easier to sort through, you're actively deleting information because you don't deem it 'worthy' or something. You just up and removed the Halberd page! Yeah you redirected it but you didn't keep any of the information it listed. You're being sloppy and careless.
The Kirby character list was deleted once for being pointless and bloated, it'll be deleted again as we can establish, AGAIN, that it's not needed. Ivyna J. Spyder 04:30, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re:Kirby
What are you trying to accomplish? If you're trying to drive away contribution to the Kirby Wikipedia articles by sticking them into a single article, sure, keep doing whatever it is you're doing (completely erroneously several times over, I might add (lol at Lololo and Lalala being Kirby-exclusive characters). And no, I don't see Boss lists for other Nintendo franchises. I see separate articles for bosses in some cases. Would that be more preferable to you? Not being hostile, just frustrated! --ArrEmmDee 04:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Response
Keeping it on one talk page.
- It was AfDed for being too large. Not EVERY single boss and mini-boss needs to be represented, and I never stated once that I wanted to do so.
- And this AfD? Have you ever seen a character list in your life? Final Fantasy VI's character list alone is significantly bigger than the list of Kirby characters.
- And if I don't take charge, no one will ever bother to say "hey, let's make a criteria and go by it". Instead, you'll keep going with "let's list every single thing that could ever apply to these lists".
- Bosses get articles because they deserve them. Bowser, for instance, deserves it. Individual bosses from Kirby do not.
- Halberd's unimportant.
- You're the only people who have a problem with its length. If you hadn't made this AfD personal, it would be a landslide keep result.
- Oh? I don't remember a game called "Adventure of Lololo". Can you prove that these are the same characters? The best you can do is show that they are BASED on Lolo and Lala. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- I won't play argue points by numbers, while some enjoy playing pretend bureaucracy over a GPL I have better things to do, like making sure people don't come to forums I am a member of with incorrect information because the Wikipedia articles were entirely wrong. But I will say there are about 7 different character lists for the Zelda games. If you merge all those articles into a single separate one (which shouldn't be a problem by your logic), then the Kirby article contributors might have something comparable to work off of, and that would be most excellent. However, our precedences are articles like those, articles like Babylon Rogues which is comparable to the Kirby's Animal Friends page, and so forth.
- And lol, who has made it personal. It's admittedly clever to paint anyone who disagrees with you as acting in an 'unwikipedialike' manner or whatever it is that the commoners here call the conduct here, but it'll just fall through because it's false. --ArrEmmDee 05:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Tiny Kong article
This article is EXTREMELY important. The reason is, Tiny Kong was more well known than Lanky and Chunky, and was Dixie's sister. --PJ Pete
The reason is, Tiny Kong is the sister of the common character, Dixie Kong. If you believe two games isn't enough for her, you can merge it into the List of Donkey Kong characters article, but it needs a large quantity of information. I moved Lanky Kong into the List of Donkey Kong characters article. --PJ Pete
Wait, I guess you were right. Tiny Kong belongs in the List of Donkey Kong characters article, because she did not make enough appearances in video game history. --PJ Pete
[edit] Kanto locations
Alttp, kudos for finally merging that **** into one big article. Second problem: serial redirects. Articles ilke Celadon Game Corner, Silph Co., and others have been turned into double redirects. I'll be working on them, but I just wanted to let you know that - it's a huge problem when merging so many articles together. I almost went crazy when repeatedly fixing the redirects for List of WarioWare developers back in August. Hbdragon88 05:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Another Archive maybe?
I have to talk with you about one of your edits, but this page is just obsurdly long. Maybe it's time to make another archive (or three)? --Shaoken 08:00, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks. In response, SA-X had a result of merge, and while many one-shot characters have articles, the result was merge, so it should be merged. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:04, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Wario5.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Wario5.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 15:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Orphaned fair use image (Image:Tinglerpg001.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Tinglerpg001.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 15:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Stop 'N' Swop merge
I'm a little peeved at your hasty merge of Stop 'N' Swop. I'm not pissed about the article getting merged — I'm pissed at how poor a job you did at merging the article. You did not deal with the double redirects, you did not remove looping links in the target article, you failed to tag the redirect as a merge, you didn't add a references section to the target article... If this is how you normally merge articles, let me be the first to tell you that you aren't helping. --- RockMFR 22:32, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
I see you've done the same great work at List of Hoenn locations. --- RockMFR 22:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Concur with Rock here. Which version of the articles did you pull out ot merge? Most of the Kanto articles, for instance, had the {{nihongo}} template on them, which are now gone from most of list articles. Some of them also contain crufty descriptions, most of which I eliminated awhile ago. Anyway, I find it rather satisfying - I just slapped {{orfud}} on 33 city images so far. Accroding to the lists, there are 36 cities, but some of them had 2-3 images (such as illustrating how Cinnabar Island looked in R/B/Y and G/S/C). Still, sterling work, and 'bout time that these got the boot. Hbdragon88 08:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- I probably removed them in the template, not realizing they were there and thinking I didn't need anything from there. Sorry. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:27, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- None of these have been suggested for deletion, can someone tell me WHY it was necessery? Don't reply here. Go to my user talk page and reply there. C'mon, I seriously need to know. TheBlazikenMaster 18:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
- Link, you really made a valid point in merging it to the series article instead of merging the information into two separate articles. I'm all for merging now. DietLimeCola 22:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Please add your comments to JackSparrow_Ninja/Source_reliability
I've opened a discussion on JackSparrow_Ninja's talk page on source reliablity in which I want to try to show him and others that his stances on reliable sources, in particular Land of the Legend, are not very founded. [1]
[edit] WikiProject banners
How would you feel about an option like this one: User:Kirill Lokshin/Sandbox/Template14? -- Ned Scott 22:14, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 16:41, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Talk:Kirby
I'm going to readd the guy's personal attack so that the admin sees it when the voting is done. I'm also going to add Kirby → Kirby (disambiguation) to your move request for clarity. Crumbsucker 05:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Kirby - Canvas Curse (Art).jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Kirby - Canvas Curse (Art).jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.
If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:06, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Films February Newsletter
The February 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. Cbrown1023 talk 22:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
[edit] 42ATC
The way I see it, general de facto guidelines establish that the NA title should be used. Because the page move is controversial, WP:RM should be used when one wants to switch to the European title, such as conesnsus wrangled from the numerous move debates on Sega Mega Drive and the relatively low-key move from Yoshi's Topsy-Turvy to Yoshi's Universal Gravitation.
Now...how much bias do we account for? Seems a bit subjective. I originally Googled "Clubhouse Games" without "DS" in the title and got a 1.4 mil hits. I re-searched "42 All-Time Classics" in quotes after discovering that the generic search was cropping up other all-time classics compilations. I later went back to do another CHG serach with DS, and the lead shrinks - now at 350,000 (CHG) vs. 140,000 (42ATC). I side with ReyBrujo's reasoning [2] as said in the Brain Age debate. Hbdragon88 04:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- I say it should stay in the article, as the changes are relatively pretty minor. I don't think a few different games and lack of WFC is enough to justify a separate article. Hbdragon88 22:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kirby?
Kirby? Well, don't know much about the kirby games, but I like to help out even on articles I know little about :) Don't know if a whole new WikiProject is in order though... I've been trying to get people to create integrated CVG taskforces rather than whole new wikiprojects so that less bureaucracy is involved. There's a discussion right now about this at Wikipedia:WikiProject reform, which stems from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council... but anyway, if you need a hand, let me know, I'll be glad to help out where I can! Cheers, JACOPLANE • 2007-03-2 00:05
[edit] AWB Q
It says that I shouldn't make more than a few edits a minute with the AWB. Is that a rule or just a suggestion? I mean, if I'm working on fixing more than 10,000 links... - A Link to the Past (talk) 14:40, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
- If you're looking at fixing 10,000 links, I would open up a bot account and, if you want autosave, request approval at WP:BRFA. What exactly is the task? My bot can do it if it's very simple, unless you want to do it with your bot or by yourself :-) —METS501 (talk) 21:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Drawcia
Please use WP:AFD if you feel an article lacks notability. Mkdwtalk 01:59, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
- Its where you can discuss redirects. Or use the page's talk page. Mkdwtalk 02:03, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Response
Because I posted several questions about it on the project talk page and nobody seemed to have any interest, so rather than do evaluation all by myself, I simply removed until there was interest. It should also be noted that I am the one who added the option to the template in the first place. -- Scorpion 07:26, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Will help a little bit
Hey, thanks for inviting me to help you out with your Kirby articles revision project. I'm actually not too knowledgable about Kirby-related things, but I'm willing to help with minor editing, like better linking or revision of messy passages. --The Macro 20:48, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Lists of MP minigames
See, there's something that really wasn't acknowledged, that the only reason anyone can say "it's not a guide!" is because is can't be a guide. There's no one to guide, and no one can guide them yet, as it's unreleased. But when all of the other MP mini-game lists are about telling how to play them, what is to be expected? There's not been a precedence to put mini-game lists on Wikipedia, and I'm sure that it surviving has more to do with people liking the article more than feeling it adheres to policy and guidelines. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:29, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
- I nominated all of the MP minigame lists for deletion on February 28 for that very reason: WP:NOT a game guide. However, I had failed to notice that the previous AfD discussion had closed only 27 hours earlier, so I withdrew my nomination. I intend to wait a month or two (until April, at least, or even May), and the renominate all the articles for deletion. I simply removed the prod because it is not a case of uncontroversial deletion (having already survived AfD once). -- Black Falcon 01:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Date stuff
One last thing: while it is true the date is modified based in our preferences, note that users that are not registered will see the article "as is". That is why we must use a consistent date format through the article; it may be confusing for a casual reader to find half the dates in American and the other half in European format. -- ReyBrujo 05:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] License tagging for Image:Kirbyspinballland.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Kirbyspinballland.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:07, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge tag for Shiny Pokémon to Pokémon game mechanics
i'm moving your post from Talk:Shiny Pokémon to Talk:Pokémon game mechanics since that's the page the tags direct you to... i encourage you to add it to your watchlist. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 18:34, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merging of Internet Channel and Everybody Votes Channel into Wii Channels
Why did you do this? The Wii Channels article is now massively long, to the extent that it's almost at the point where any new additions will take it over the size limit, and it will be advised that the article should be split. Furthermore, there's an existing discussion on the Wii Channels talk page regarding the possible merger of the Everybody Votes Channel page, at Talk:Wii Channels#Everybody Votes Channel --> Wii Channels Merger, which currently stands at seven votes to five in favour of it having its own channel. I'd appreciate it if you could contribute in that discussion before you unilaterally decide what's right and wrong for the pages. Tim (Xevious) 10:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
OK, to cover your points one by one:
- The size of an article doesn't legitimize splitting it up into smaller, less notable articles.
-
- Articles over a certain size, when editing, automatically have a header added on the editing page advising you that the article is very long, and that you should consider splitting it into small articles.
- The ones I merged had no notability on their own.
-
- That's a very strong statement with no evidence to back it up. In fact, if you looked at the Talk page for the Everybody Votes Channel, there was a great deal of discussion over whether the channel was notable, resulting in an agreement to keep the page since it is considered notable by a number of people. It also passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Can you expand your 'non-notable' claim?
- Have you consider following the teachings of "sofixit"? I merged it. If you want to trim it, trim it.
-
- I don't want to trim it; if anything I want to expand it so that it's sufficiently split into sections, as it was before, and categorised, as it was before.
- Nothing in the Wii Channel needs its own article, so you're going to have to keep trimming it to a manageable but informative size.
-
- The majority vote appears to contradict you there, in wanting a seperate article. The Internet Channel is even more notable. Again, I think you need to set out a better argument than you have done. Tim (Xevious) 14:49, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
The AfD was already overturned. The article was deleted by an admin who didn't look to see that the article had actually expanded beyond the two or three sentences that existed when the AfD was first placed. The same admin undeleted the article after he realised - and apologised for - his mistake. This can be seen in the deletion review which was linked to in the various debates. I don't think I need to prove it needs to be overturned again.
The exact text says:
This page is XX kilobytes long. It may be appropriate to split this article into smaller, more specific articles. See Wikipedia:Article size.
Following that link says that long pages should be split up into sensible sections if necessary. Sensible sections should be discussed on the pages. Of course, all articles need to be notable. And what is notable? WP:N states:
A topic is notable if it has been the subject of secondary sources. Such sources must be reliable, independent of the subject and independent of each other. The depth of coverage of the subject by the source must be considered. If the depth of coverage is not substantial, then multiple independent sources should be cited to establish notability. Trivial, or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability.
The Everybody Votes Channel has been the subject of a number of articles already, including pieces in the Guardian, the Times and the Sun newspapers in the UK (not just trivial mentions I should specify), plus articles in videogames magazines and on technology and videogames websites. So, I'll ask you again, please can you explain why you consider this to be non-notable? Tim (Xevious) 15:12, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to back up Tim here. In addition to the points he made, you never used the merge tag (as is Wikipedia policy) to solicit discussion on the changes before making them. By doing this, you effectively silenced the opposition before it had a chance to speak.
This merger is incorrect and should be reverted. If you still feel strongly about the merger, I would ask that you follow the proper procedure and apply the merge tags so that dicussion can commence. That way a concensus can be reached. Jbanes 16:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I also think Everybody Votes should get its own article. TheCoffee 15:20, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- Going by your last response on my talk page, I'm assuming that you don't feel able to assert non-notability any more. Tim (Xevious) 19:07, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- WP:N sets out very clearly Wikipedia's definition of notable. Using this definition, can you explain why you think it non-notable? Tim (Xevious) 19:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- You're ignoring the articles in newspapers, then, and also what Wikipedia itself states to be notable. Many other things may indeed deserve articles. Does that mean that, since they have no article, there should be nothing on Wikipedia at all? Tim (Xevious) 19:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Are you claiming that every feature of Xbox Live is as significant as the Everybody Votes Channel? Let alone the Internet Channel? A great many features of Xbox Live are as significant, and do indeed have their own articles. Xbox Live Vision, Xbox Live Marketplace, Xbox Live Arcade ... and if (when) they announce a web browser for the Xbox 360, I'd fully expect that to have its own article too. Tim (Xevious) 19:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Your arguments are now no longer following on from each other. If you're going to compare it to the Xbox Live situation, then compare it, and don't try and find reasons why it's different. An article doesn't have to be overly long to be split, it ought to be split where there is sufficient information on seperate areas to warrant a seperate article. According to the discussion at Talk:Wii Channels, the majority of people seem to think this is the case. Tim (Xevious) 13:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- I never claimed that the sole reason, or even the main reason, for splitting was size. Unless you can find something in the Wikipedia policies or guidelines regarding whether an article should or not exist, or be merged into a larger article, which directly backs up your argument, you'll just need to participate in the discussion like everyone else. Tim (Xevious) 13:44, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Your arguments are now no longer following on from each other. If you're going to compare it to the Xbox Live situation, then compare it, and don't try and find reasons why it's different. An article doesn't have to be overly long to be split, it ought to be split where there is sufficient information on seperate areas to warrant a seperate article. According to the discussion at Talk:Wii Channels, the majority of people seem to think this is the case. Tim (Xevious) 13:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Are you claiming that every feature of Xbox Live is as significant as the Everybody Votes Channel? Let alone the Internet Channel? A great many features of Xbox Live are as significant, and do indeed have their own articles. Xbox Live Vision, Xbox Live Marketplace, Xbox Live Arcade ... and if (when) they announce a web browser for the Xbox 360, I'd fully expect that to have its own article too. Tim (Xevious) 19:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- You're ignoring the articles in newspapers, then, and also what Wikipedia itself states to be notable. Many other things may indeed deserve articles. Does that mean that, since they have no article, there should be nothing on Wikipedia at all? Tim (Xevious) 19:19, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- WP:N sets out very clearly Wikipedia's definition of notable. Using this definition, can you explain why you think it non-notable? Tim (Xevious) 19:13, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Speedy deletion of List of recurring locations in The Legend of Zelda series
A tag has been placed on List of recurring locations in The Legend of Zelda series, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:
Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet very basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.
For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. SyBerWoLff 15:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Recurring locations in Zelda
Please don't just remove proposed merge tags from articles. If you don't think the merge is a good idea, say so in the discussion that the tag links to. The article in question was originally tagged for speedy deletion (which I turned down) but short of a merge it will quite likely end up at AfD. So a merge or a move is worth considering. But whether you agree or not, do not remove the tag. Kafziel Talk 21:22, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Unmerged
I have undone your merge of those three Zelda articles, as the merger was clearly contentious and was not discussed. Please start a merge proposal. You may wish to get input from other editors at WikiProject Zelda.
I see from your talk page that this is not the first undiscussed merge you've made lately. In the future, it would be a lot better for you to discuss these changes with other editors before you waste your time. Kafziel Talk 21:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, you do have to seek consensus if a merger is contentious. This one clearly is. In fact, in my experience, most mergers are. My suggestion to you was just that: a suggestion. If you wish to waste your time by merging articles without discussion, you are free to do so. But if the merge is undone (as I did) you must seek consensus. Kafziel Talk 21:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- And you, Kafziel, must seek another admin to protect the page, rather than protect it yourself to keep your preferred version.
- But I am here to say that I provided a link to the m:Spam blacklist that I mentioned in the landofthelegend.net topic on CVG. I'm sure you already saw it, though. Hbdragon88 22:47, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I'd like to point out once again that when merging articles, you must do it properly. Discuss, obtain consensus, merge, put the {{R from merge}} tag on the article, mention where you merged the info from in the target article, fix double redirects, etc. These things are not optional. Continuing to do these sloppy merges will result in many reversions by people like me who both disagree with the merges and don't want to clean up your poor work. --- RockMFR 00:37, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's said that I must obtain consensus? If so, I get the feeling most people who are mergists in the CVG project do poor work. Also, I made what was hundreds of edits fixing links fixing the Pokémon locations lists. If a lot of the major mergists discussed their merges, we'd be way behind in getting things merged. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] InShaneee's ArbCom case
Hi, just so you know, InShaneee's ArbCom case has started. Addhoc 17:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Deleted "cruft"?
Why'd you delete my hard-worked list of prizes in Nintendo Power. Technically, it's Wikipedia:Listcruft, but each could be easily verified. It took an hour to make and 10 seconds to delete. The main reason was
- The list is of interest to a very limited number of people
but I was just ticked because its my second run-in with you. The MySims incident was outdated information and slight bit of rudeness on my part, but in the settlement that followed, I ended with a relatively polite {{[cquote|Good, but I'm not going to accept it on the Wikipedia page without a reference.}} But you weren't done and shot back with one more thing left me particulary incensed...
| “ | Then put it up. It seems that you're just grudgenly against being mistaken in this situation. | ” |
Deep down inside, I want to say you were one of those little jerks in school that was always the smart know-it-all that always ended an argument with a haughty "I told you so!".
But I'm not. The edit will remain as is for at least several weeks, and don't leave a message if you're going to be a big jerk.
TheListUpdater 21:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Internet Channel
I have reverted your redirect. You need to post on the talk page if you want to redirect the page. -- Jonathan Williams 00:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
What makes you think it's up to you alone to decide whether the Internet channel. It's not just a rhetorical question- I'd really like to know, since it seems to me that I keep running into people with a similar attitude. Anyhow, when someone thinks something should be deleted, the proper course of action is to follow the procedure at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion. Hackwrench 03:05, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
So I guess in your world, "Nevermind" means that the sinner has repented of his sinful ways and has no intention of engaging in such conduct again? Hackwrench 04:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
If one first accepts the idea that everyone including oneself is a sinner, I don't see how such a person would be arrogant in referring to another as a sinner. What are your thoughts? Hackwrench 02:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
What did you mean when you said: "It'd be keen if you could stop disrupting Wikipedia, thanks." Disrupting Wikipedia? I haven't seen anything that could even come close to what I would call "disrupting Wikipedia". You may think that either I or Jonathan Williams were disruptive of your personal experience when interacting with others on Wikipedia, but that's nowhere near the same as disrupting Wikipedia itself as a whole. Hackwrench 20:41, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
You have a curious definition of "creating conflict". I am trying to communicate how I am different from you and elicit information of how and why you are different from me. When people learn those sorts of things about each other, conflict is eliminated. Without exchange of such information, conflict escalates. Hackwrench 20:51, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
You say: "I intended to include insults, sarcasm, and general rudeness". That's curious, because I avoid such things in my own speech, except maybe sarcasm when I don't consider it being rude but humorous. Why do you think such things are appropriate human conduct? You may perceive me as rude, but you have failed to communicate to me the criteria by which you determine rudeness, not even the portions of your criteria that apply to my communication with you. Hackwrench 20:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
First you marked out your apology and added "If you will not even acknowledge the apology and try to create more conflict, I might as well just not apologize if it serves no purpose", and when you added, "I intended to include insults, sarcasm, and general rudeness", my initial thought was that you were continuing along the line of thought that we were engaged in an adversarial situation and those were the tactics that you find acceptable behavior when in such a situation. Your latest statement has caused me to take into account the fact that you did unstrike-out the apology, so I have adjusted my understanding of the situation accordingly. However the point in continuing is that apologizing for something doesn't make everything all better in the same way that saying "please" doesn't automatically get one what one wants. In the same way that "please" is not useless when you don't get what you want, the same goes for an apology. However, an insincere "please" or an insincere apology are useless.Hackwrench 21:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re:Majora
I don't really give a crap but since you feel it's necessary to notify me every time you revert something I do via talk page, I'll tell you that your anchor was pointing to "Majora" when it should have pointed to "Majora's Mask". Axem Titanium 16:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- I am not trying to pick a fight, nor am I blaming you for anything. I am simply entreating you not to post a message on my talk page every single time you disagree with me in any way. That's what talk pages on articles are for. Rest assured. If it's actually an issue, I'll see the message there and reply. Axem Titanium 16:44, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh I see what happened. I didn't understand what you were talking about before. Either way, it's too trivial to matter. Axem Titanium 16:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Thanks
Don't sweat it. I'm not the kind of guy who gets upset over some sarcasm. ' 19:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Same here. Your apology is appreciated, though, and I know you were trying to do what you feel is best for the subject (and it probably is what's best, as far as I can tell). Just remember not to panic when stuff like that happens, and everything will sort itself out in due time. Kafziel Talk 20:06, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Myself as well, although I'm not sure what you're talking about with the # of Kirby games versus # of Zelda games thing... Axem Titanium 21:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Hmmmm... I don't seem to recall doing that ever. Guess I just have a bad memory. Whatever! Axem Titanium 21:40, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Apology
Even though I feel that you have an agenda to promote LotL, I must apologize for my attitude towards you - including rudeness, sarcasm, and insults. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:19, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Thank you, I really appreciate this. I always do my best be civil towards everyone. Should I ever have failed you in that, please accept my apologies for that. I honestly believe you are a good editor, but our indifferences on this topic seem to clash. I hope we can one day work out our differences and work better together.
- Don't worry too much about sarcasm though. As a friend of me says "sarcasm is an exotic language". JackSparrow Ninja 21:25, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, don't worry about it. I admit I push the envelope on civility all too often, as many can attest. -R. fiend 21:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Frank Grimes
You must really dislike Grimes because this is the third or fourth time you've gone after his page. I've said it before and I'll say it again: Notability isn't measured by the number of appearances. He made a notable appearance in one of the more famous Simpsons episodes and he's since been referred to several times. By measure of importance, I'd rank him above a lot of secondary characters who have basically just served as one-off jokes. ie. Sideshow Mel, Roger Meyers, Rabbi Krustofski, Hank Scorpio, Radioactive Man, Fallout Boy, Drederick Tatum, Bumblebee Man, Luann Van Houten, Jimbo Jones, Rod & Todd Flanders, Maude Flanders - And they all have pages. There are articles about MUCH less notable things on Wikipedia. -- Scorpion 22:54, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
- See Homer's Enemy for info on the episode's popularity. As for it's importance, there are entire chapters in several books - Including Planet Simpson - devoted solely to Grimes and his one appearance. -- Scorpion 23:01, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Frank Grimes
You followed the procedure for uncontroversial deletes. The objections to merging Talk:List_of_one-time_characters_from_The_Simpsons#Frank_Grimes have come down on the side of "Yes, he really does deserve his own page", and not on the side of "He shouldn't be merged because he doesn't even deserve his own page". Thus the delete is still controversial, maybe even more so than if it had been simply due to the fact that it could be merged. Hackwrench 22:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Super Paper Mario
No problem, things just got a little heated. Keep up the good work. TJ Spyke 23:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re:Apology
Hi ALTTP - you wrote: I apologize for the Namco Bandai stub debacle
S'alright. It's very easy to get annoyed if you do something that makes sense to you, then have someone come along and want to change it back. And I can understand that it does sometimes seem like WP:WSS is some kind of clobbering machine, for which I for one apologise. Hopefully the end result is useful for everyone involved in editing those game articles, though. Grutness...wha? 23:30, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Namco Bandai stub
Thanks for the note, but it's really nothing to worry about in the grand scheme of things. Everything panned out fine in the end, and no harm done. We see "debacler" on a daily basis, come by and see some time. :) Alai 01:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Okay...
I apologize for being kinda harsh too, anyways, it's all over, no need to get into another argument. ~~Eugene2x Sign here ☺ ~~ 03:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Apology
The apology was really not necessary, I think, you were just acting as you felt was best, and for the most part probably is the correct method, and I was just sort of hesitant at the idea (I still sort of am, but I've not been active enough on Wikipedia lately to really do much in the matter), and in your abruptness there was a sort of confusion and frustration. I'd actually like to apologize for my stubbornness and assuming behavior in the AIM chat and article votes.
On a similar note, I am on my weeklong Spring Break right now, and while I don't know if I can commit myself to helping start the WikiProject: Kirby that was proposed, if you have any ideas with regards to what might be done or need help with things you are already doing, feel free to request assistance and I will try to make time for it and try my best. --ArrEmmDee 03:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image tagging
Tagging images with no-source is fine, but it's a really good idea to leave a message on the uploader's talk page, to make sure they can address the problem within the time period.
Secondly, {{Orphaned fairuse not replaced}} is only appropriate for images that are actually fair-use, and isn't appropriate for images that are licensed as public domain or otherwise as a free license. --Interiot 04:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Check all the images again, please
You've tagged numerous images for having no source even though the source is clearly listed (e.g. Image:Kidicaruslogo.gif, Image:Wii Shop channel.jpg, etc). Please go through them and remove the no source tag from the ones that are actually sourced. Thanks. --- RockMFR 05:10, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image tagging for Image:041210_legend_zelda_four_sw.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:041210_legend_zelda_four_sw.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Deleting comments on my talk page
I am very mad that you deleted a comment addressed to ME off of my talk page. If it was addressed to you, then you can delete it. Just because it's ABOUT you, doesn't mean you have a right to it. Although I haven't looked too much into it, any good you've done for wikipedia doesn't give you the right to terrorize other people and pages that you have a problem with. Deal with it another way. Think about it, ok? No one's trying to make you the ad guy except you. Drop the tough guy act, and people can 'love' you. Ok? Lamename3000 05:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Virtual boy sources
I could have sworn that I had the source mentioned for all of those pictures, but I uploaded them a long time ago so I guess I just wasn't in the habit of doing that yet (since I got tired of obviously good fair use images being deleted for not having sources). The source is [www.vr32.de Planet Virtual Boy] btw, which has a ton of sources for every Virtual Boy game made. If you want to work on an VB article, it's literally a one-stop sources for all the references you'll need. If you're interesting on working on an article, drop me a line and we can team up and try to get something to GA status maybe.--SeizureDog 05:34, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- I see. Well, back in the day I hated sourcing screenshots because I felt that it was stupidly obvious who owned the copyright on then and that it didn't really need to be mentioned. It's also dumb because the place you find a screenshot is rarely the person that actually took it anyways, since many are just given out in press packets to sites that proceed to watermark someone else's screenshot. I still rather feel that way, but oh well. Good luck on the Kirby's Dream Land article though. I will say that you should probably try to get a print source in there if you can. Reviewers like that. I need to find somewhere only that has scans of old Nintendo Powers. That would be nice on many levels. --SeizureDog 05:53, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Apology regarding Wii Channels
Accepted, but really not necessary. You argued your side in an entirely civil manner. I really hope that you will take part in subsequent discussions. Tim (Xevious) 12:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Numerous edits in the "Mother series" of game articles.
I noticed that you made edits to all the game listings in the Mother series, and I feel that the edits were made quite hastily. You cut out much relevant material, and while I will assume good faith in your desire to edit, the edits have been reverted because of the negative effect they had on the quality of the articles; in the future, please do a little more research and have a little more consideration before making further edits to these articles and others like it. --PeanutCheeseBar 16:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- If it was only a single game (and not a series), I could understand not having a list; however, you made some mistakes in that:
- PSI actually has some storyline significance to each game in the series, which has sadly not been expounded on.
- You had not bothered to reference even SOME of the content within the list, which defeats the purpose of even keeping the article around.
- You did not open it up for discussion on what could be done to improve it, but rather you blew away the whole article and redirected it. You do not have the "final say" in what is fit and what is not.
From some of the other comments on your talk page, I can see you have a history of doing this. I will ask you once again to please refrain from doing so again without taking the proper channels, as blanking pages can be construed as vandalism. --PeanutCheeseBar 17:39, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I also stated that the significance of PSI has not been expanded upon; however, rather than completely remove it from the picture, you can improve the quality of the article by showing how important it is. In the future, please open a discussion on the talks page of each article that you take issue with. --PeanutCheeseBar 17:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Regardless of whether or not you "care" about the article, you alone do not have the authority to decide what stays and what goes; to do so is unencyclopedic and uncivil. --PeanutCheeseBar 17:47, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
I have already stated twice before now (in this discussion, no less) that more relevant information exists concerning PSI that has not been added to the page; that aside, you can feel free to "point out" things all you like, so long as they are within discussions. There are guides for Final Fantasy classes and magic (not to mention other games), and it is not your "job" nor do you have the authority to single-handedly make these decisions. --PeanutCheeseBar 18:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
...and as I said, there should be more content concerning the importance of PSI in the Mother series on the page, but there is not. I will make the effort to improve the page, since you have nothing constructive to contribute. --PeanutCheeseBar 18:03, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Why write the same content in three articles when we can write it in just the one and link to it? Removing it is not an "improvement". --PeanutCheeseBar 18:08, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- Where is it Wikipedia policy to "be bold" and massively wipe out content? I have no problem with your "boldness" so long as it is constructive (which you have not been), and so far you have not given me adequate reason why you are inherently superior to other users, and thus why you don't have to engage in the conventional measures that most other Wikipedians do when they take issue with an article. --PeanutCheeseBar 15:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- The be bold policy lets the user be bold, period. If it doesn't violate policy or guidelines, what do you bring up? And PS: The fact that you don't like it when I merge "your" article doesn't make it unconstructive. Based on the participants of the AfD, I'd suspect that my blanking of the PSI List article was very constructive. And I like how you say that I am claiming superiority to Wikipedians because I, like many other good Wikipedians, don't say "hmm, I guess I should assume that my edit will be controversial, so instead of being bold, I'll ask for permission for anything I do on Wikipedia". You make it seem like "being bold and not asking for permission whenever they want to do a merge" is an uncommon concept on Wikipedia, when plenty of people do it. Few of my merges are considered controversial, so you're basically complaining that I don't ask permission before I do anything. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's not 'my' article, and that's not the issue; I simply don't appreciate the fact that you do this to as many articles as you do, despite the objections that are raised. Truth be told, I wouldn't have had as much of a problem with it had you not been so overtly arrogant at the start of this discourse. That aside, for what it's worth, it does not lend any more credibility to you when you compare yourself to "good Wikipedians", because it only adds to your arrogance (which certainly does not help the discussion at hand). Your boldness stems not from your desire to improve Wikipedia, but rather from your arrogance. The end result is that you show me an increasing amount of arrogance and excuses as to why you can do this and that instead of answering my questions, and I in turn will refuse to answer yours. --PeanutCheeseBar 16:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, right. Because the judge of my character is not myself, but a jilted Wikipedian who is upset because I redirected an article he liked. Do you know how many merged/redirects I've done? Compare that to how many objections have been made, and read more policies while you're at it. You never read what I say, so what difference does it make that you refuse to answer what I ask? Few, if any of my moves were clearly controversial. To say that they are is not only speculation, but baseless speculation at that. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, but you're quite wrong; I DO read what you say, and much as you choose to ignore answering my questions (with great contempt, I might add), I simply decided to "play by your rules" and I decided to ignore yours as well. As for your opinion of yourself and whether or not your moves were controversial, they are just that, opinions. Opinions often stem from fact, but facts don't necessarily stem from opinions, and that seems to affect both your editing skills and your attitude towards others; I am afraid that your refusal to acknowledge that is a shortcoming, but it is one I hope you overcome at some point in the near future. --PeanutCheeseBar 17:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- You've been refusing to answer my questions much longer than I have of you. You never showed me a policy where I should say "if it is possible that someone MIGHT not like my edit, I shouldn't make it", you never told me who committed meatpuppetry (which you HAVE to do - not doing so is out of the question, lessen you wanna get in trouble for making attacks). My merges are uncontroversial by the simple fact that there is rarely ever anything to indicate that a merge would be opposed. What about that do you not understand? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, there's nothing among what you're saying that I don't understand, it's just that you're mistaken in thinking that you've been asking the questions longer (you still haven't explained to me why two years of editing can justify the ever-changing (and sometimes invalid) reasons you present for making changes that have upset a lot of people), and I simply do not appreciate your hostile attitude that has been ever-present in this matter. Judging from your past, I can see where you've upset others with your attitude, and eventually come to apologize to them, so I know you're not all bad; however, until you can be a little more level-headed and less hostile, I'm just going to ignore you. --PeanutCheeseBar 20:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Bitter Wikipedians usually DO read into things a bit more deeply. My actions with merging articles violated no policy or guideline. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:07, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, there's nothing among what you're saying that I don't understand, it's just that you're mistaken in thinking that you've been asking the questions longer (you still haven't explained to me why two years of editing can justify the ever-changing (and sometimes invalid) reasons you present for making changes that have upset a lot of people), and I simply do not appreciate your hostile attitude that has been ever-present in this matter. Judging from your past, I can see where you've upset others with your attitude, and eventually come to apologize to them, so I know you're not all bad; however, until you can be a little more level-headed and less hostile, I'm just going to ignore you. --PeanutCheeseBar 20:17, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- You've been refusing to answer my questions much longer than I have of you. You never showed me a policy where I should say "if it is possible that someone MIGHT not like my edit, I shouldn't make it", you never told me who committed meatpuppetry (which you HAVE to do - not doing so is out of the question, lessen you wanna get in trouble for making attacks). My merges are uncontroversial by the simple fact that there is rarely ever anything to indicate that a merge would be opposed. What about that do you not understand? - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, but you're quite wrong; I DO read what you say, and much as you choose to ignore answering my questions (with great contempt, I might add), I simply decided to "play by your rules" and I decided to ignore yours as well. As for your opinion of yourself and whether or not your moves were controversial, they are just that, opinions. Opinions often stem from fact, but facts don't necessarily stem from opinions, and that seems to affect both your editing skills and your attitude towards others; I am afraid that your refusal to acknowledge that is a shortcoming, but it is one I hope you overcome at some point in the near future. --PeanutCheeseBar 17:24, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, right. Because the judge of my character is not myself, but a jilted Wikipedian who is upset because I redirected an article he liked. Do you know how many merged/redirects I've done? Compare that to how many objections have been made, and read more policies while you're at it. You never read what I say, so what difference does it make that you refuse to answer what I ask? Few, if any of my moves were clearly controversial. To say that they are is not only speculation, but baseless speculation at that. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- It's not 'my' article, and that's not the issue; I simply don't appreciate the fact that you do this to as many articles as you do, despite the objections that are raised. Truth be told, I wouldn't have had as much of a problem with it had you not been so overtly arrogant at the start of this discourse. That aside, for what it's worth, it does not lend any more credibility to you when you compare yourself to "good Wikipedians", because it only adds to your arrogance (which certainly does not help the discussion at hand). Your boldness stems not from your desire to improve Wikipedia, but rather from your arrogance. The end result is that you show me an increasing amount of arrogance and excuses as to why you can do this and that instead of answering my questions, and I in turn will refuse to answer yours. --PeanutCheeseBar 16:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- The be bold policy lets the user be bold, period. If it doesn't violate policy or guidelines, what do you bring up? And PS: The fact that you don't like it when I merge "your" article doesn't make it unconstructive. Based on the participants of the AfD, I'd suspect that my blanking of the PSI List article was very constructive. And I like how you say that I am claiming superiority to Wikipedians because I, like many other good Wikipedians, don't say "hmm, I guess I should assume that my edit will be controversial, so instead of being bold, I'll ask for permission for anything I do on Wikipedia". You make it seem like "being bold and not asking for permission whenever they want to do a merge" is an uncommon concept on Wikipedia, when plenty of people do it. Few of my merges are considered controversial, so you're basically complaining that I don't ask permission before I do anything. - A Link to the Past (talk) 15:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Prime box
Not my version anymore. You should ask the guy who overwrote it this last January with the better quality version. K1Bond007 19:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Source needed for image
I didn't actually upload that image. You could contact the first uploader you can see at [3]. I just reduced the image size because of its fair use-ness and unfortunately, deleting the older, larger images causes it to make it appear I uploaded the images. There's little one can do to determine this, except by looking at the logs (which will only tell you this is the case) and the history to determine who created the page and is therefore the uploader, but that kind of detailed work isn't possible on every image so I don't mind the notices, though I often ignore them. Please notify the true uploader of this image. --MECU≈talk 19:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Deletion discussion
I replaced your prod tag at PSI List (Mother series) with an AfD tag. The deletion discussion is here. You may want to participate (but please remember to keep your cool!) Kafziel Talk 20:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image:Rin IS Phoenix Wright!.JPG
I got it as part of a CG art .zip download pack, so I can't directly source it. Still has fair use rationale at least. --SeizureDog 21:36, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
- So say that, point to the .zip. I did the same thing (pointed to a not-easy-to-find zip file) here. A source can be anything from "I scanned the box cover" or "I started the game up and grabbed the screenshot myself" to "I scanned it from X edition of Y magazine, on page Z". Sources don't always have to be a URL, though they should be as specific as possible. --Interiot 21:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Do not tag box art as no-source
Please see User:Hahnchen/Archive5#Image:Exotica_II.jpg for more discussion on why box art does not necessarily require a source as long as the copyright holder, in this case, Nintendo is properly attributed. Image:MetroidPrimebox.jpg. Whoever presses "scan" or "print screen" is largely irrelevant. - hahnchen 16:58, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm sorry if posting this new message up here makes it a bit harder to find, but you might be interested in this thread about sourcing information for screenshots. Wikipedia_talk:Image_use_policy/Archive_8#Do_screenshots_need_additional_source_information.3F - hahnchen 20:54, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Apology
I don't completely agree with some of the statements that you've mentioned, but I'm much more inclined to listen when you're civil about it, and saying you are sorry goes a long way to show that. I graciously accept your apology, and I want to put this behind us, for the good of all parties involved. To that end, if a dispute between us should arise over another article or otherwise, I hope we can be this civil when dealing with it. --PeanutCheeseBar 23:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image tagging for Image:AnnHM64.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:AnnHM64.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Improper image tagging
You recently tagged Image:Samus's cameo in Galactic Pinball screenshot.png as lacking source information, but this is not the case. —Remember the dot (talk) 16:58, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
(replying to message on my talk page) — What web site it came from or who took the screenshot is helpful information, but it is enough to say that the screenshot is of XYZ video game. The person who took the screenshot does not own copyright over it. Only the creator of the video game (Nintendo) owns the copyright. It would be great if the web site it came from was given on the image description page, but there is no reason to delete the image simply because its description lacks that information. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Light and Dark Suits
I just put together the two promotional images of the suits that have been on many game "magazine"-like sites since the game came out. I provided the information that they were Nintendo's promotional images when I put up the image. Concidering the amount of them that were scattered about, I wouldn't even hazard a guess that any site owned them unless Nintendo actually kept them on a permanent site. Angel the Techrat 05:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Found a good sales source
I was just talking with an anon about that. As you can see, I removed two image references. I (personally) can't clearly distinguish the "Million seller" wording from those images. Note also that I am against them because it is easy to edit an image to add the logo, and because I really believe we can get a better reference than the cover of a game. There must be some "Players choice" list somewhere. -- ReyBrujo 05:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, with a good resolution, and being able to link to a static page (and not a photobucket or flickr one) with the image, I guess it may be possible to accept it. My suggestion is to put all the games that are referenced in this way in a subsection for every console (as in, "Here are the milion sellers without a better reference". I suggest getting some feedback at the WikiProject to see what they think about that. -- ReyBrujo 22:49, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image tagging for Image:Big_Octo.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:Big_Octo.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kirby title
The title I used is used throughout Wikipedia to refer to lists of episodes, publication information, etc. WhisperToMe 17:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Reply
So it was you who added the tag? I though it was the bot malfuntioning again, so nevermind me you can just add it back if you want. Dark Dragon Flame
[edit] Pop Star-related
What do you mean that we don't need a list of all the Popstar locations and the Mirror World locations? The people might want to know all the locations there. If Kirby's Rainbow Resort still had it's map of Dream Land, we'd sort the location there. User:Rtkat3 (talk)
[edit] Image tagging for Image:Dkjr.gif
Thanks for uploading Image:Dkjr.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Ex-Nintendo Employee
User:Ex-Nintendo Employee is a sockpuppet of User:Doom127.
[edit] Kirby GCOTW
Sorry, but I removed the Kirby article you re-nominated. As stated at Wikipedia:Gaming Collaboration of the week/Removed, you have to wait a couple months before renominating. Thunderbrand 21:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Your humor is not funny.
Your joke is not funny, especially considering the massive backlog at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. Please do not use that type of humor again. There are more than 200 pages that need to be examined and possibly deleted as of this time, and jokes like this do not help it at all, interfere with our work, and really annoy some of us. Jesse Viviano 04:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Before you get an anuerism, Jesse, it might be helpful for you to check the person you're warning and see if they're an experienced editor or some newbie. It might not be funny, but it was obviously put there with a purpose so a more tactful method than GIANT VANDALISM WARNING TAG might be helpful. Like maybe an "Excuse me, what do you think you're doing?" --tjstrf talk 05:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Banjo-Tooie Screenshot
Nope, the screenshot at [4] was a promotional image released to the public to generate hype for the game. I didn't take it myself, so I don't know if it's allowed to be on Wikipedia nowadays. I uploaded it a while ago when the rules for pictures were more lax. --pie4all88 06:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] AfD Comment
The objective is not game guide material. If the controls were given, THEN it would be game guide material, but they aren't. Also, a game guide would give advice such as "in the tightrope game, put the Wii remote on the floor to win" (that was random, I know) which the list does not do. Bowsy (review me!) 19:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
- Does what I have done here help? Bowsy (review me!) 09:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] I noticed
I saw that you had started a discussion after I reverted, which is why I did not revert again. I object to your starting the discussion late enough to divert interest away from original commenters on the Afd such as myself, you should have begun the discussion either immediately after the Feb. 15 Afd ended (on feb. 21) or waited a few months to begin a merger discussion again.
I will, however, respect the result of the talk page and not interfere with the merger. In the future I hope you will be more open to differing opinions.StayinAnon 20:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] A-class
Most likely; I'd assume that an occasional questionable point might be able to slip by if it's minor. — Deckiller 02:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Image tagging for Image:ElliHM64.JPG
Thanks for uploading Image:ElliHM64.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] {{Sonic games}} inclusion criteria has been drafted
An inclusion criteria for {{Sonic games}} and related templates has been proposed at Template talk:Sonic games#Totally new inclusion criteria. You are cordially invited to discuss the proposal. —davidh.oz.au 22:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Umm... Spectacle Rock?
Admittedly, I haven't been following the Wikipedian debates of late. However, I was reviewing the history of the Spectacle Rock and saw that there was a small argument about merging the article or not, which took place about two weeks ago. Then, I see that you merged the article seemingly without warrant 2 days ago... Was there a discussion forum on this action? Or did you just decide enough time had passed to justify your move? Just curious.
-Tryforceful 02:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- (In reply:) By that token, can anything really be affirmed about Spectacle Rock, besides the fact that it's named in the original The Legend of Zelda (and somewhat so in The Wind Waker)? I think it's pretty obvious that Nintendo keeps programming it into the games. A symbol in the fashion of two, equally-sized, horizontally-depicted, eyeglass-resembling rock outcroppings is pretty unique and noticeable, I'd say... Though the LA picture I provided may not actually be of Spectacle Rock, it's pretty obviously a reference to it. Doesn't that warrant reference? --Tryforceful 03:12, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I wasn't aware my life was at risk :). I guess my point is, when it comes to knowledge, a lot of times there's doubt as to its verity, even if it's a sliver of a doubt. So in those cases, should the knowledge in question always be excluded from Wikipedia? Since it's a fine line, I'd think that a place like Wikipedia, which is essentially a compendium of knowledge, would opt to include it rather than exclude it. --Tryforceful 07:32, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Kirby's Dream Land
Have you considered an attempt to get this article Featured? Despite our frequent arguments, I have to admit that you've done a really good job with this one- it's really turned into something exceptional. Ex-Nintendo Employee 12:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
- Well, when it gets to the point where you feel it can be Featured, let me know and I'll endorse it. Ex-Nintendo Employee 21:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Naruto: Ninja Council 3
Thanks for your help on that redirect page. I feel like I'm fighting a losing battle when it comes to that game's American release. I'm fighting against about 4 users who keep making that OR. McKay 22:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Prodding
Re your message about reverting the removal of proposed deletions, given that a proposed deletion notice is removed without comment, we do not know whether this removal is in good faith or bad. This is because making this determination would require knowing the motivation of the person removing the notice, which is something we also do not know. In any case, policy specifically states not to revert contested proposed deletions. Spacepotato 00:48, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Re your second message, given that the template {{prod}} is removed, the simplest explanation for this, and the explanation which assumes good faith, is that the remover is contesting the deletion. Also, keep in mind that a given IP address may be used by many anonymous IP editors, and vice versa. Spacepotato 07:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Re: AbleNET
Thank you Santavez 01:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Pokerus
the discussion had lost steam apparently and the move to game mechanics was never agreed upon. i took the silence as agreement to leave things the way they were. As i have previously argued, topics like this have no place in an article discussing mechanics, additionally it opens the gate for allowing more irrelelvant content to get dumped at the mechanics article just because someone doesn't want to put forth the effort of properly describing what they're talking about. The encyclopedia should not be miseducating people. i had a similar problem with an editor who wanted to create Category:Breeds of rats. The first problem was that they didn't know the difference between a breed and species, and the second problem was that rat and mouse are non-scientific names given to a rodent based on size, and is largely subjective (there exist a couple rodents whose common names contain either rat or mouse). The final solution was to keep things the way they were because we should be using the opporutinty to educate people rather than letting them go on to believe falsehoods. This is the same case, the pokerus is a feature or event that operates like an item, not a mechanic and we shouldn't use the list articles as dumping grounds. -ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 18:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject Nickelodeon Bot?
Please respond to this discussion. — JuWiki (Talk <> Resources) 00:03, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Action Half-Life
After reading other users comments, I see that the aggressive editing and persistence is not isolated. Frankly it is discouraging to see this kind of cookie cutter treatment. I can only imagine this is to establish and maintain a history of successful and large alteration edits. Yes we are talking about a list of weapons and items, but not a guide. If you are concerned about it having some kind of guiding or tutorial value, why not take the time to edit the language, or let me do it, or discuss it? The adheration by many to "the policy and rules" of wikipedia is a farce when one of the pillars of its design is its own flexibility and lack off such guidelines. I have previously provided a list of similar articles with the same flaw that you have identified. They will need to be revised. I wish you all the best in your endeavors. WarBaCoN 05:43, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
- I just want to see the article, as with any suitable article, improve, not get picked apart. Obviously you have experience with these things and I value that, but honestly it's hard to value the approach to it. Kind of grim reaper-ish, and quite frankly it's discouraging. That's not to say I don't understand, it's just not going to ultimately benefit the article, certainly not through me anymore. WarBaCoN 06:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I would not include a guide, but I would include a list/overview of weapons.. these are what sets fps games apart from each other in general.. and this is what made this and a few other games unique for the time.. you might as well say that an article can exist on a game, but it can't actually talk about the in game experience.. it's kind of like an overview of abilities in sonic the hedgehog's article, or kirby's.. I could call those a guide too if I wanted.. or whatever.. I see no strength in the argument other than some precedence and a vague rule about video game guides. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WarBaCoN (talk • contribs) 17:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC).
-
-
- The only reason I point to other articles (precedence) is because you originally had referenced criticisms in prominent articles. If you are going to say levels = weapons, and so on, I can point to the featured article on the game F-Zero GX which lists both "Techniques" and a table of levels, and has a further article to detail the in game levels/worlds. Or good article Star Fox 64 overviewing vehicles.. Or featured article Half-Life 2 with (condensed) weapon list and so on.. or countless articles listing characters, classes, ranks or other classifications referencing the game alone. I contest that unless you are planning to try for a featured or good article rating on this (which I can safely assume you will not), it isn't grounds for this much rigidity on your part. Even still, I think at best your point is derived from a guide for the "ideal article", not a rule set for all articles to adhere to, and going around deleting all lists of items, weapons, levels, enemies or whatever from articles would be in error. Not to mention the definition of a guide is much more defined than that of a list, but you use the words interchangeably. At this point I only debate to try to see some shred of flexibility in your adherence to this undefined, outside of precedence, "rule". I found only one reference to this stating that video games guides are not allowed, with no definition or details beyond this. To the majority, a guide is something that directs a player on how to play a game successfully, and does little to detail the game in terms of content and experience, as that is what you would find if you were to search for video game guides elsewhere. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WarBaCoN (talk • contribs) 21:19, 29 March 2007 (UTC).
-
-
-
-
- You are saying that it is against the rules to list in any way, the weapons, items, levels in a game, and I think I have shown that that is not the case. To compare it to vandalism is a slight, where vandalism has no regard for the article. WarBaCoN 16:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- This is addressed currently in WT:VG#Game Guide definitions, and shows a lack of consensus as to what a guide is, and certainly not a clear cut no items, weapons, and so on, rule. I remain in disagreement until something clear is outlined, which is not the case currently. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by WarBaCoN (talk • contribs) 17:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC).
-
-
-
[edit] March WP:FILMS Newsletter
The March 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated notice by BrownBot 23:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] A-Jax and game guides
I saw you had removed a section on the available powerups in one of the old games, A-jax (assuming I'm getting the name right). I have seen many other games describe available items in this genre. What makes some information a game guide and other information just encyclopoedic? I would agree that describing in detail how to acquire said powerups would be vital, but not just saying what is there. Note that other games have had the quantity of such items mentioned as unique or not--one example is the old Commando game. IL-Kuma 06:17, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
In response to your request for clarification..I have seen some guides with what appear to be encyclopedic lists ('These are available from this'), some that have NO information at all, and some that give too much information ('Go to square 43, shoot NW three times ... '). The most typical are the list of what is in the game, as a way to contrast available items with other similar games. I rarely see overdescriptive items, and the stripped-list ones are only after someone had removed all mention of the abilities. I'm planning to add a few more items to the gameplay descriptions, but was also planning on mentioning the available items. At what point is a list a guide and not just a list? IL-Kuma 06:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
You indicated your opinion that powerup descriptions are in the theme of game guides, which WP:NOT#IINFO cites as outside of Wiki's scope. However, I do disagree with the total removal of descriptions, as it can differentiate one game from another. The project page does not address this issue, though. At least, not that I've seen yet. Personally, I think a brief description would be warranted; I do understand that a lengthy treatise on how to acquire a laser upgrade is outside of Wiki's bounds, but a list included in the description of its gameplay would be more description than how-to guide. There is a differing line somewhere--otherwise, one could argue that a list of scoring would count. And while an enemy-by-enemy description is iffy (I would let it in), some games are cited as 'one enemy equals one point'--and that description WOULD fall under scoring, and if all scoring is removed as a game guide, then what to me is an important disticntion (games that score conventionally vs games that only score kills--compare Final Fight to The Simpsons arcade game) would be removed entirely. IL-Kuma 06:52, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] List of Wii games
Hey there a Link to the Past (such a cool username, btw),
I've noted that you've contributed before to the List of Wii games. Just wanted to let you know that the list is getting ready for Featured status and is currently undergoing a Peer Review. If you can take a moment to look over the article and add your suggestions/comments for improvement here, it'd be much appreciated. Thanks! -Digiwrld1 21:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
- Speaking of List of Wii Games, I re-assessed it as A-class. You bumped it down to B-class because it hadn't passed GA, and usually I'd agree with you, but lists aren't allowed to even be submitted to GA, and there's no such thing as a GL. Lists are kind of awkward in the assessment scale, some projects don't even bother assessing them, creating a List-class for them. Anyway, looks like it will be in FLC soon, so it won't matter one way or another. --PresN 22:57, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] ????
What do you need?
[edit] Editor review
I reviewed you. YechielMan 16:16, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Console wars sales figures/sources
I looked at WP:ATT about said source, VGCharts. It appears that you are correct about proper sources. Do you know any better ones, such as numbers released from console manufacturers? I invite you to discuss this on the console wars talk page.--Crossman33 18:14, 8 April 2007 (UTC)
![[3]](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image:Metroid_1.jpg&action=history){kind=link}
![[4]](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Banjo-Tooie_N64_Screenshot2.jpg){kind=link}