This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 18:35, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply
Look near the bottom of the page. It appears to note every Toriyama inspired creation in other works. Think you could do something using this? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:38, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
See that billboard could help out like this bus loading sign. Gee, I saw a lot of these when I went to Disney World two weeks ago.Well, there is a lot of stuff. But there nothing blatantly out there that could push out the sub section, to me at least. I think that Soulja Boy's song, if you wan to call it that, "Goku". Has more of an obvious impact as he going on a tangent about how he looks and feels like Goku. I feel that a casual mention or a quick shot isn't going to help. But I'm just a little wary about what gets up there now a days. I mean we added a lot to the abilities section and it got purged in no time. I also refrained from searching and adding the scene from this film where this guy goes to the object of his affection apartment and her son dressed in that god awful store bought Goku costume, just the jumpsuit, and socks him in the breadbasket and runs into the next room. The one thing I've wanted so badly to add here is this billboard in one of my neighboring cities for this Japanese steakhouse has an illustration of Goku sitting with knife and fork preparing to eat a stake in front of him. That would really help out the impact he's had on the American culture. Like this picture of a this Disney World bus loading sign is being used to illustrate the real world impact of Mickey Mouse. But thank for pointing this site out. It may come in handy in case they post something really big. They also might identify that scene I mentioned. Sarujo (talk) 23:20, 29 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
I understand. Still, why not mention the parody or satire scenes? There's a header for that no? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:13, 30 July 2010 (UTC)Reply
I wonder. Could the appearances in the three pornographic anime films be worth mentioning. He appears in the Sailor and the Seven Ballz 1 and 2, and in the Star Wars parody Star Ballz where he was placed in the roll as Han Solo. I have not watched either of these films, but I have seen a few G rated stills from Star Ballz. Sarujo (talk) 10:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
"Dragon Moon X"? Wow, I actually remember that crap. Well, can you build up enough enthusiasm to implement all of this information to Goku's article? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 14:33, 8 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Wait Dragon Moon X, is that another fan made pornographic site or another video? This may prove problematic. Not including the fact that a lot of people may try to remove any mention of pornographic information due to it being, well - pornographic. Sarujo (talk) 00:34, 10 August 2010 (UTC)Reply
Sarujo, are you gonna get back to this? It's been almost a month. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 10:13, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Sorry about that. I've been rather distracted here lately. Not to mention me being under the weather these last few days. I'll see what I can do when I can. Sarujo (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments3 people in discussion
I modeled the citation I added after the page for Batman which puts it there. The Batman page has been a featured article, so I'd guess they paid some attention to the formatting. Mathewignash (talk) 01:36, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
A bibliography is not necessary and very lazy. Just what does that information has and what is it sourcing? His abilities, his origin, what? Put the source with appropriate statement, and trying to take the lazy way out. Cause in the end there still going to be parts of the articles that will become tagged for citation. Sarujo (talk) 01:45, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
I can site specific thing if need be, but do not REMOVE the citation, as it's legitimate. I'll be adding more information to lots of the articles all weekend. Mathewignash (talk) 01:48, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
What is with you people? You act like a deletion is the end of the world - but it not. The history log still has the stuff. You can always re-add it. So why are you wining about, when you can take advice in improving an article. And yes, you can cite whatever you want the point is, it pointless to cite something that is esoteric to the subject. Put it with appropriate statements, that all I ask. Also it is my right to remove it. Sarujo (talk) 01:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
There is no justification for removing a legitimate reference from the articles. Removing it is an act of vandiasm. I will be adding more detail this weekend, but as the Batman article proves, the current placement is well within guidelines. Mathewignash (talk) 07:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
It's not vandalism when I point out my reason, and give you instructions on what to do. You're only deeming it as such only because you can't get your way. other stuff exists is not a valid argument. So what if the Batman article made it to FA with a bibliography and placing sources in the bottom. That doesn't prove to be the only recipe for an FA article, as you are insinuating. There are other ways to pull this off. Like I stated above, if start placing you’re found material at the bottom how will it source those key points? The key criteria will still get tagged, as need these citations. So a bibliography is the last thing that these articles need at the moment. My removal of those unreliable sources shows that the entire article have very little to stand on. You keep saying that you'll do it this weekend, yet I'm not convinced. What make this any different than those times you blew off your responsibility as a member of the project when everybody came to you with these problems that you help to create? So, why don't you do us both a favor, and tell me what these sources correspond to and I'll put them in their proper place. Cause it apparent that you're taking the lazy way out this. Sarujo (talk) 18:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
You seem to be the only one who thinks these need to be removed. So I guess you know how to write an article on Wikipedia, and no one else does huh? Mathewignash (talk) 19:43, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
It appears to be the case within the project. If it wasn't I wouldn't be having this discussion with you. Rattling the cage is the best way to you or any said editor to make an effort. Even if it’s half-hearted at best. Sarujo (talk) 19:57, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm pretty sure official Transformers guidebooks can be used as sources, but they can't establish notability since they're not independent from the subject. Also, yes citations should be specific, link the facts to their source specifically, or else we won't know what information came from which source. I'm pretty sure there's a template about that. NotARealWord (talk) 21:22, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
That’s what I've been saying regarding the source. As far as I'm concerned it could be use for some kind of development if it talk about any of the franchise's creation. I wonder, is this that book that feature two-page diagram spread of Optimus? Sarujo (talk) 21:28, 10 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Please stop removing tformers.com and bwtf.com referencesedit
Latest comment: 13 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion
Tformers is a part of ENI, http://enewsi.com/newsletter.php, and their coverage in the news section is considered legitimate news coverage. BWTF is a web site written by recognized toy expert and writer Benson Yee, which means his coverage of a toy is the same as a professional film critic reviewing a film on their web site. Mathewignash (talk) 11:46, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Fine, but those are fansites and are unreliable. So those links can't stay either way. The person maybe has some importance, but the rest of the site fails. Sarujo (talk) 12:05, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
I just established that tformers is part of a news network, and Ben Yee is recognized as an "authority" in this field be the DV publisher and MSN. That's more then just "fan site". Mathewignash (talk) 13:57, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
That just one instance. If he is only notable, then it wouldn't hurt use articles he's written for those publications instead. Sarujo (talk) 14:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Also I don't see why you keep insisting that TFormers is still reliable when this discussion deemed that it was, at best, borderline. Sarujo (talk) 19:32, 11 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Borderline is not the same as "not reliable". Unless you can prove it's NOT reliable, don't remove it! Mathewignash (talk) 20:28, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
No, it means it's a last resort when nothing else is available. Any admin will tell you that any source borderline is to be avoided. But yet, the site is only being use to source random un-notable toys, which are on the chopping block right now. So it's redundant to come wining to me about it's usefulness. I'm not going to make an exception to keep a source when it being used to verify both useful and useless information just because you deem it as reliable. There are more reliable sources are out there to be used for these articles, so we should be using them instead of using thing that will prevent then from progressing to GA or FA. So don't come demanding me not remove something that should blatantly not be here in the first place. Sarujo (talk) 20:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
You put Template:Power Rangers characters on my talk page and I wanna aks: Is it really appropriate to have an article for single-season characters like Claire or Anubis Cruger? Cos if not, I'd like to bold merge em. NotARealWord (talk) 21:43, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
I believe you have me mixed up with Dwanyewest as seen here. I'm not usually involved in Power Ranger articles. But no, especially if they show no notability. Go ahead and merge them. Hey you might be what we need for the Dragon Ball work group. Sarujo (talk) 22:28, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
I'm sorry. just remove this section if you wish. NotARealWord (talk) 22:57, 14 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
I added a VERY short section on toys written in the agreed upon format from the wiki project. If you have a problem with it, bring it to the talk page. Mathewignash (talk) 23:56, 16 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
You seem to be reverting without actually reading the article. This is bad faith. You reverted because of the "over abundance" of images and "toy lists" on a page that had ONE image on it and no "list", just a section talking about the toys. Maybe you need to walk away and come back fresh in the morning. Mathewignash (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
A discussion has begun about whether the article Ultra Magnus (other incarnations), which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.
You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Black Kite (t)(c) 23:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)Reply
A simple cut and paste edit hardly counts a revert. I never used the revert button option in those edit. An editor in 3RR territory has to activate this function, which I never did, summary shows. I suggest you know your edits before you call them spades. However, as it appears 3RR extends to making three or more of any run-of-the-mill edits in a row. Is this what you are calling foul on? Making more that three edits? As that's what those edits were. Sarujo (talk) 15:50, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Please read WP:RV. It explains to you what a revert is. You can also ask any other editor and they'll tell you the same thing. As a matter of fact go and ask a admin. And you do not have to leave talkback messages on my talk. I am watching yours. 夢追人YumeChaser 16:02, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
All you would have had to say was, it was. Sarujo (talk) 16:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
I did say your edits were reverts. You instanced that they weren't and then accused me of not knowing my edits, when in fact I knew what I was talking about. 夢追人YumeChaser 18:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
I could use them all them, as I would like to do this in one big blow rather than in small doses. Thanks for your help so far. Sarujo (talk) 12:41, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
These are the most commonly used websites I find to be used on TF bios [4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13] Alvarez, J.E. (2001). The Unofficial Guide to Transformers 1980s Through 1990s Revised & Expanded 2nd Edition. Schiffer Publishing Ltd.. p. 24. ISBN0764313649. If you want my opinion on the TF bios I think are most commonly affected I don't mind providing info. Dwanyewest (talk) 13:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
You may have them all, but if there are more, we can get them later. Yet, I really do anything regarding the books other than remove them by hand. Be warned, if this doesn't work, we'll be right back to square one. Wait, is this TFCon a convention website? Sarujo (talk) 01:49, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Some fansites simply transcribe official materials (like character profiles). Is it okay to cite said materials even if you've only seen them transcribed on a fansite? NotARealWord (talk) 16:41, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
You mean use their sources? Sarujo (talk) 16:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Yes, but without seeing said sources myself. Is that okay? I think fansite transcriptions are generally accurate. NotARealWord (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
You're losing me. Not seeing a source? Sarujo (talk) 17:12, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
For example, NTFA.net has transcriptions of official character profiles. Would it be okay to cite said profiles even though I've only seen these transcriptions, and not the actual publications that the profiles were published in? NotARealWord (talk) 17:18, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
What you would do is source the books themselves. Find as much as you can regarding those books. Name, date, publication, page number, and in some cases a direct quote. When you do always use the cite template when using such a source. There have been plenty of instances where I was forced use sources that I found through fansites. Still I would refrain from using them until I had all I needed include it in. Right now I'm stuck working on a character article on Haruko Haraharu, because the source I have is in Japanese, and I don't know where the good stuff is. That's the problem with a lot of editors, they never get their ducks in row. They'll find something and never take proper channels to include it. So it comes off as poorly sourced.
If you need a list of cite templates, let me know. Sarujo (talk) 18:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Coon vs. Coon and Friends. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Also, keep in mind that WP:GAMING is unwelcome here; what can be clearly seen and heard by watching the episode does not require citations. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
I just blocked Hearfourmewesique for edit warring, and I'm borderline on whether to block you as well. I'd suggest stepping completely away from Coon vs. Coon for a day or two, for good measure. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 19:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
I haven't edited it since I think last night. I'll just remove it from my list. Sarujo (talk) 19:53, 15 November 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Okay, I don't mean to seem rude, but what's up with constantly editing out my source showing that there is an uncut version of Kai? You do not explain AT ALL why it's a bad source. You just say it is, and then delete it. Let's look at the facts.
1) It's the OFFICIAL PRODUCT LISTING. That means it's a description that comes directly from the company itself, FUNimation. THEY are saying it's uncut, not a fan.
2) In the interest of fairness, my original source, which linked to the first volume of Kai uncut, did not specifically mention that it was uncut. So I changed it to link to "Season 1, Part 2," which DOES specifically mention that it is uncut. And that's just on the official product description. Nevermind the giant sticker that flat-out says that it's uncut: http://blog.funimation.com/2010/12/dragon-ball-z-kai-part-3-clips-posted/
You have not been clear--in the slightest--how this is poorly sourced. You just say it is, and accuse me of vandalism. However, I'm sympathetic to people only having so much room to write why they make certain edits in the edit box, so I figured I would ask you on your talk page, where you can write as elaborately as you want. Why, pray tell, are my sources bad? Unless you can provide me with a good explanation, I hardly see my research as vandalism and will post the source up again in a heartbeat. We can't just mislead people into thinking that Kai is shown on TV completely uncensored, because many fans have that impression right now. Failing to mention that it is edited on TV and uncut on DVD hardly makes the article comprehensive.
When I said take it to discussion, I meant take the article's corresponding talkpage. Sarujo (talk) 00:49, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Sigh* Very well...but I'm just going to copy and paste the same thing, because I'm going to say the same thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlackPaladin (talk • contribs) 01:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Actually there are guidelines when video games have different cover art designs in different regions: "Where different cover designs are available for different regions, the one from the region in which the game has been developed should be used." Therefore, the article should use the European cover due to the fact the developer, Core Design, was British.
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I did hear it if you hear the promos and the first episodesneak peek you can hear it and i mean the song Go go power rangers is back and is "remixed" (i think.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Belrien12 (talk • contribs) 05:04, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
That's not good enough. Sarujo (talk) 15:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Anyway, while I still don't agree with your suggestion from back then, it seems that more character lists are necessary for the Transformers project. I asked for help on the issue over here, and I think you would be interested in responding or giving suggestions or something. And yes, I am posting this here because of that discussion a while ago which was the source for that quote. Also, please don't leave a reply on my talk page. Leave it either at the project talk page or here. NotARealWord (talk) 01:05, 28 December 2010 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago4 comments1 person in discussion
Who are you MAD is on Season 2 that's why I edited it who is this IP guy. MAD is on Season 2. Cartoon Network even confirmed it were did you here it was still on Season 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achmednut321 (talk • contribs) 09:20, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Trust me I am right I have TV.com says so. It is most likely that MAD is on Season 2. You'll see when it's April or something and episodes are still going on and you wonder "When does Season 1 end?" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achmednut321 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Who is this IP guy. I don't know him let alone am him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achmednut321 (talk • contribs) 11:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Okay but how is TV.com not a reliable source.12:09, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Achmednut321 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achmednut321 (talk • contribs)
What about the promos about it being on Season 2? Also Regular Show's Season 1 ended with 12 episodes so why not MAD? MAD's Season 1 ended with The DaGrinchy Code / Duck. I remember seeing a thing on top of the CN logo that said "Season Finale" when it aired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achmednut321 (talk • contribs) 12:22, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
Hmm, that's odd. But either way none or both of us could be right. Only time will tell if MAD is really on 1 or 2. Still the episode page will remain as it is since you will edit it either way.12:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Achmednut321 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achmednut321 (talk • contribs)
By the way, I saw that IP guy and he is kinda right it's stupid to fight over one t or 2 t's. But he is right although CN says it's spelled Snot the episode says Snott. Here I found it on YouTube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQ093U-ndpQ skip to 01:1112:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)Achmednut321
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Sarujo just listen, MAD is on Season 2. The magazine confirmed it. Do you have the issue? It clearly states MAD is on Season 2. They had a fold-in about Season 2. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achmednut321 (talk • contribs) 06:59, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
HOW??? I gave you a reference. The official MAD magazine. Is that not enough??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achmednut321 (talk • contribs) 07:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)Reply
I know. I did that by accident00:22, 4 March 2011 (UTC)~Achmednut321 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achmednut321 (talk • contribs)
THE OFFICIAL MAD MAGAZINE CONFIRMED IT AND YOUR JUST IGNORING ME!!!!01:16, 6 March 2011 (UTC)Achmednut321 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Achmednut321 (talk • contribs)
Infoboxes in articles about fictional charactersedit
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi, I saw your question on help desk left unanswered. Unfortunately I must admit I don't know the answer to your question. None of the guidelines I consulted seem to shed any light on this issue. Since no guideline I found specifically disallows the use of multiple infoboxes in an article, I would say if it is useful for the reader to have multple infoboxes in the article, then there should be no problem with that. I will see if I can find a more specific rule and let you know if I found something. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 19:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Well, unfortunately I didn't find a specific rule or guideline for this. But I found an article with a similar 'problem' that might be of some help. I am talking about the article Galileo (spacecraft). While in no way a similar topic to your problem there is a similar issue. The spacecraft consisted of two parts: an orbiter and an atmospheric entry probe. The article has a main infobox for the orbiter at the top of the article. Further down, in the section Galileo (spacecraft)#Galileo's atmospheric entry probe, there is a second infobox template for the atmospheric entry probe. Thus I think if the infobox templates to be added are helpful, not merely duplicating material from within the article, there should be no problem with adding them. However these are only my thoughts and I think you will have to reach consensus over this issue. I hope the example to which I pointed is a bit of help. If you can't resolve this issue or need further help, don't hesitate to ask again at help desk. I guess no one provided an answer before simply because there seems to be no clear guideline stating it is this way or the other way, but repeating a previous question (especially one not answered in a satisfactory way) should never be a mistake. Toshio Yamaguchi (talk) 20:19, 24 March 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Hi! Please preview the articles you're editing when inserting Template:Akira Toriyama, as the way you put the template sometimes looked a bit off (for example: [14]). Also please consider the natural order of the templates; for instance, in the Dragon Quest article, it makes more sense to have the Dragon Quest template before the Akira Toriyama template ([15]). Thanks! Megata Sanshiro (talk) 16:56, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
I did do all that, yet I figured that somebody would go behind me and modify it. Which I was right. So everything turned out for the best. Sarujo (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Hello, Sarujo. You have new messages at Moonriddengirl's talk page. Message added 04:30, 27 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.Reply
Latest comment: 13 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sarujo, my image advice to you on Moonriddengirl's talk page wasn't that accurate as the statue applies to freedom of panorama. See another user's response there. Sorry for the inconvenience, if you need help with fair-use, let me know.--NortyNort(Holla) 12:17, 27 April 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago15 comments3 people in discussion
Hey there! I find that you reverted few edits of mine. One being the addition of this image. Please do not change it back to the image you uploaded because it has a higher resolution. As far as the addition of DVD release dates is concerned, I added the regions only after I saw that various episode lists feature all the 3 regions. Anyway I would like your input and hopewe can continue to better the episode list. Do care to leave a talkback! GaneshBhakt (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
First off, no guideline stipulate that all non-free images must not be in high resolution. Mine was more adequate is it is of a smaller size.
Second, in regards to your including the listing with all possible DVD regions, no other stuff exists is not a valid rationale for anything. Sarujo (talk) 20:31, 11 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
If you are saying that the DVDs that will be released in Region 2 & 4 are not notable enough, Wikipedia has, unintentionally, set a precedent for inclusion or exclusion when notability is contested, and in these situations this type of argument may be worth introducing. Please reply. GaneshBhakt (talk) 06:24, 14 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
What are you wanting me to reply to? Sarujo (talk) 07:22, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
You believe that the DVDs that will be released in Region 2 & 4 are not notable enough. I want to know why? GaneshBhakt (talk) 07:31, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
It's not my belief. Don't address the situation like I inventing the rules as I go along. I take offense to that. Sarujo (talk) 07:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
"It's not my belief." If it ain't, don't revert my edit again. GaneshBhakt (talk) 08:54, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
I have reverted you edit. There is not even an announcement that the DVD will be released in Region 1. You have just assumed it. There is no harm in assuming that the DVD will also be released in Region 2 & 4. GaneshBhakt (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
I never assumed anything. I just never bothered to removed the section. I'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from second guessing my intentions. Yes there is harm, it fall under crystal. I also appreciate that you not lower my action as bad faith when I have all the best intentions for the list. Sarujo (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
If you are to be believed, then even DVD release for Region 1 falls under WP:CRYSTAL. So we have only two options. Either remove the DVD release thing entirely or have all three regions. GaneshBhakt (talk) 12:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
I enter this discussion upon request by GaneshBhakt. Sarujo, can you provide a source which says that a DVD release is anticipated at all? Now, I am not well versed with American shows and their DVD releases, so I do not know whether it is standard practice to release DVDs after completion of the series. If that is so, I need clarification on whether the released DVDs are for Region 1 only. Thanks. Lynch7 16:46, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Okay, why is everybody convinced that I was insisting that the show will be released on DVD? I never said that it was. I stated that I just never bother to remove the section. I don't know anything regarding the show's release to home media except for the digital downloads from online stores. Just because you fail to remove a template section doesn't make you an authority. Sarujo (talk) 16:55, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
I apologize if I come off as rude, but it's frustrating when people ask to verify claims you never made. Sarujo (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
You leave no choice. Please chose one of the options below. I agree with both, but the question is which one do you agree with.:
We remove the whole DVD release thing as it is unsourced and only add it if a reliable source verifies that the DVD has been released in a particular section; or
We have all three regions in the DVD release section and remove progressive Regions if DVDs are not released. GaneshBhakt (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Didn't Mike Wazowski remove it already? It's best to remove it all until any announcements are made. This isn't a news site. Sarujo (talk) 17:40, 19 June 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Why can't we just leave the Article. Some of the stuff that you put in are still there. I am using reliable scources to back up my information on everything that I put there. There was an Interview with the Developers of the Game and I used the answers, from the questions during the interview, to add in extra information in the Game. Also, for the characters list, there have been demo gameplays from the Japan Expo so there are some characters already confirmed. Im not saying that this is my article but you are reducing a bit too much information. If you want to reduce it, could you atleast reduce less of the stuff as there is not ENOUGH information, even though the sentences you right is very informative — Preceding unsigned comment added by Munem939 (talk • contribs) 10:28, 1 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Sorry, I didn't know anything about the template. The template was fill out as an unsourced episode (the episode was written 2 times). --WikiEditor44 (talk) 00:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
I apologize for my irrational talk and my underestimating of your Dragon Ball knowledge. Only after I saw you liked Dragon Ball I gained respect for you. I hope you will forget that crap had ever happened. Also, tell me on my talk page, what sources are reliable?
VegetaSaiyan (talk) 22:49, 9 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
--- Man your battle stations. Frieza's coming.
Your apology means nothing when this edit, which has been identified as you, shows your continuing incivility. So you can save the false sincerity. If I were you, I would walk a chalkline from now on. As, like I said before, these act will get you into serious trouble. Just because an article is not getting edited as you'd see fit, is no justification for these actions.
With that being said, if you want to know what meets the criteria of what can be used as a reliable source, then go and read this or for a more direct approach, go here.
What the hell does that crap supposed to mean? I logged out of Wikipedia for the day so I could let my brother edit stuff on Wikipedia. He told me that he made some "funny" edits to talk pages. I thought that he was talking about an article, but instead he went and polluted my talk page with stuff about my addiction to Dragon Ball, misspelling anime (on purpose). It was luckily removed, but he went and crapped it up again. I wondered who the 71.blah-blah-blah IP was, and I saw that he had been warned by the SoCal SuperEagle. I went back and browsed the Wiki, then left the message to you. A curious question: how did you realize the fact that my account was from the same computer as my IP address?
If you do not believe this (which I do not think you will), and do not wish to end the feud, then... well, I'd just say that you were Vegeta attacking Goku when the Saiyans first arrive on Earth. VegetaSaiyan (talk) 00:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Admins and other privileged editors can detect these things. Still, I will take your word for it and say that if you are trying to behave, then you need to get problematic home issues in order. Otherwise, it will lead you to being blocked over an issue that you did not cause. So heed these words. Sarujo (talk) 09:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Sarujo, why do you have to be this way? You're so uptight and serious about things. It makes me wonder how you spend your weekends. I was just saying that in my comment. It just makes me mad. I mean they changed the intro and you didn't believe it was Season 2. That's just...weird. I can't put it into words, but sometimes you just make me mad. I'm sorry for being a jerkLocalSents447 (talk) 02:58, 11 September 2011 (UTC)LocalSents447Reply
Apology or not, those type comments are not necessary and I will ask you again to refrain from them. Unless you'd like to have a visit from Admins. Wikipedia is not a battleground or a soapbox just because you don't like the article's current flow. Still, regardless of what you think, these are not my personal preferences, but rather the rules and guidelines put into place by the founders. Like it or not, it's what we must follow. So if you have a problem with that, then you need to take it up with them.
Now, I have explain this countless times, reliable sources are need to verify these claims. Which something you and every other editor and IP have failed to do. What who said where is irreverent. What is reverent, is that you can proper verify the information you are bringing to the table. Saying it happened, they said it, or it's out there on talk pages and edit summaries is not verify nor is it a reliable source. Sarujo (talk) 08:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)Reply
I'm sure somewhere on the MAD blog, it says Season 2 started with "Rioa / Thomas the Unstoppable Tank Engine". I saw it on the back of the new issue, but I can't seem to remember the name it was idiot-something.LocalSents447 (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2011 (UTC)LocalSents447Reply
Latest comment: 12 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I assessed your request for Back to the Future: The Game, and rated the article B-class. The article's plot could still do with being trimmed down, and I'm not convinced the table for the individual instalments needs to be quite as big as it is - the information there could probably be presented a bit more succinctly, I think. GRAPPLEX 18:56, 3 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
No, I don't. Either way, editors are now crying foul over such images as they believe such images confuse new fans. Sarujo (talk) 16:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)Reply
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Coon vs. Coon and Friends. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Also, keep in mind that WP:GAMING is unwelcome here; what can be clearly seen and heard by watching the episode does not require citations. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 18:15, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
