User talk:TTN/Archive 12

Welcome back!

Thought you left for good after that last arbitration case. Everything ok? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:12, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• To reiterate the above sentiment, a hearty welcome back. May the good work continue. Eusebeus (talk) 03:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

• Darn, I thought you'd finally left for good. ;_; Keep on trucking, guy. 24.227.222.45 (talk) 04:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Good to see you active again. -- Ned Scott 04:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. TTN (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Some good news

Pixelface left. I had reported him to AIV for editwarring on WP:NOT and he left when he got blocked for 12 hours. Sceptre ^(talk) 23:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess that's pretty good. It will certainly be relieving not having to sit through his constant WP:WAX arguments. TTN (talk) 23:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

He hadn't been using WAX as much, really. Just lawyering for the removal of PLOT. Which was reverted by several users, including Masem. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I still have things to catch up on then. How's the whole thing going anyways? I've tried going over a few talk pages, but it's like staring at an orgy of words; very awkward and hard to understand. TTN (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

FICT is being relaxed a bit, but the substance is the same; it just asks that people try to improve before asking for merges. People are also asking for spinout articles where content can't be legitimately merged (example, The Unicorn and the Wasp right now), and consensus is leaning towards silencing FICT on that matter, allowing over policies (PLOT, SPINOUT) to cover them. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:16, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Also FICT still has a section for spinouts, so I guess in a way it melds together. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope you weren't offended by my gallows humor that I left on your talk page, I was peeved that you seemed to have left because of the nonsense at arbcom. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Just a reminder, it was decided that you are to be restricted from editing articles regarding tv show and video game articles for six months. I'm just saying, be cautious about what you do here. On a side note, what happened to you? Why were you MIA for so long? ZeroGiga (contact) 04:01, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Read it again, it says tv shows or characters, not video games, he can edit those if he wants. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:12, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd also note that he can contribute to or initiate any discussion on the talk pages as well. Who actually enacts cleanup is secondary to establishing problem articles, especially given the debate at the Fiction guideline. Eusebeus (talk) 22:10, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

He can actually edit these articles directly. "TNN is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly." As long as the edit is unrelated to merging/redirection/deletion, he can still edit. -- Ned Scott 22:18, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

I looked at your trimming and tweaked it a bit. As another note, when you do trimming 1. Only remove movie information if there is a consensus to do so - Keep the movie information on Death Note unless you get consensus on a talk page that it should be removed. I want the movie info to stay, and the movie characters are mentioned too. I'll ask about the Chris Britton thing, but I'll likely leave that one out. Now, when dealing with refs make sure that you don't break any of them - Preview the page and scroll down to the refs page to see if anything is missing. Also, contractions are too casual; try to spell out words in full. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the film I started a talk page section Talk:List_of_Death_Note_characters#Film_information WhisperToMe (talk) 21:26, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Why did you come back?

• I'm not saying it's a bad thing, but Wikipedia was moving rather smoothly without all the controversial and wanton content removal. - 4.156.54.55 (talk) 02:33, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
• See Special:Contributions/TTN. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 08:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

• Can you clarify what you mean by linking to his contribution history - especially since onlookers won't be able to understand your comment after any significant length of time? Returning editors are a good thing, but you'll have to pardon me if I don't celebrate the return of someone whose enormous dedication to getting his way by force was one of the greater factors pushing us towards a fall to complete anarchy. --Kizor 12:00, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

TTN I put in your talk page that your absence was because you were suspened, (see archive) and when you got rid of it you said and I quote, "my absence had nothing to do with that." So why were you away for so long?Fairfieldfencer FFF 17:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

House of 1000 Corpses

Obviously since I'm very busy with College I'm not going to be able to do extensive work on the articles. I said when my load lightens up I'll attempt to renovate them.--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, look. Here's what I'll do. I'm going to ask around for help since I'm busy myself, and if they don't improve, I'll redirect them and fix them at a later time. Does that sound fair?--CyberGhostface (talk) 16:56, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'm redirecting the articles for now.--CyberGhostface (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

An honest opinion?

Seeing as I know you're the most critical about episode articles: how do this article look: The Fires of Pompeii? Sceptre ^(talk) 21:55, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems pretty decent from a glance. Other than just regular pruning and tweaking that needs to be done, too much weight seems to be given to the individual reviews. I would trim those and try to find some more variation if possible. If none can be found, maybe just try to kill a paragraph from the reception. TTN (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking about that, to be honest. I think it's a good thing-a point that came up in an episode FA was that the reception section didn't reflect the critics' analysis enough. Sadly, ITV aired several premieres on the same night, so the reviewers went for that. Sceptre ^(talk) 22:09, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Darkstalkers Characters

I don't think you might be interested in doing such at the moment, but may I suggest that we try to merge certain Darkstalkers Characters. Even though you did add a notability tag, I believe that they don't possibly have sufficient Real World Information to stand alone, with the exception of Morrigan, Lilith, and maybe Dimitri. (And incase you were wondering, this is not an attempt to piss you off.) ZeroGiga (contact) 21:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm unable to suggest merging or redirect the articles, which is why I'm using the tags for now. If you want to get everything set up, I'd be fine with getting the list all set up. TTN (talk) 14:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

And thank goodness you're prohibited from suggesting the merge/redirection of articles. 209.195.102.143 (talk) 18:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Super transformation

Despite the tag's removal, I think there are way too many pics. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't affect the article in any negative way, so your effort should be put into other things that actually matter? - 4.156.54.134 (talk) 20:42, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks but I'd like an answer from TTN. No offense. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there really should be one sample picture and that should be it. Articles aren't meant to be galleries. If you feel like it, you should try to get the article split up into the main series article and the individual characters. I'm sure the images would be fine in those and it would take care of that pointless list. TTN (talk) 19:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Well I have asked a question at WT:C but none have replied, so I might do something. On another note, have you seen the recent activity at List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball? Characters who fail WP:NN are being added at a rapid speed. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, when an article is redirected (like Android (Dragon Ball)) what becomes of its talk page? Is it common practice to tag it for deletion or just redirect it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. Seems that "Android (Dragon Ball)" is being kept. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:08, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've given up on the Dragon Ball articles until those project members are ready to actually condense the multitude of unneeded articles. It's just a lost cause until then. TTN (talk) 20:10, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Sephiroth BCR has recently joined WP:WPDB. He'll definitely support a merger, we're in the process of getting rid of the saga pages. Join in on the discussion. I'm sure we'll get back to the lists eventually. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:45, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Regarding you recent activity in tagging articles for Notability, please see your ArbCom restriction, which interpreted broadly applies to this type of editing activity. You may want to consider to refrain from initiating notability disputes on these articles. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Going from no merging to no cleanup tags seems like a pretty large jump, even if the restriction is interpreted broadly. I really fail to see how tagging a category every once and a while would even fall close (the first group was just to get started). Unless you're personally going to enforce your warning, I'm going to continue with the tags (again, I won't be tagging hundreds at a time or anything) until multiple people are against it or something. TTN (talk) 19:46, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Question about Super transformation

Sounds like a merger proposal, TTN (referring to the above discussion). If such a merger were to occur, would it make sense to put a paragraph about the transformation (well sourced, of course) into Chaos Emeralds? They're articles that are very closely linked, but I'd rather not do it if it's not practical. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 22:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

That article should be merged to the main series article as well in its current state. Unless creation and reception information can be found on the topic, it has no reason to exist. Even then, the various character articles can hold the specific entries and the main series article already has a section on it anyways. At most, you would just want a section linking to that section in the series article. TTN (talk) 20:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well that's your opinion. Just because it's not made the way YOU want it, that doesn't mean it has no reason to exist. That type of ethic is uncivil in of itself. Although you do have a point, it does require some clean-up, but not to the point where it should be outright obliterated. ZeroGiga (Contact) 15:13, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand you. Anyways, how is it just my opinion? The article lacks creation and reception, and it is unlikely to ever gain anything of actual substance. Everything, including the current WP:FICT discussion, agrees with that. Remove all of the current fluff, and you have a good list entry. Now, if it gains creation and reception, then it'll be fine. TTN (talk) 21:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's kind of why I want to tie in a brief "summary" paragraph about it into Chaos Emeralds, not the whole article. I believe that when I can start sourcing the article, these two elements are critically connected in terms of creation. I have no plans to copy the whole article and merge it into Chaos Emeralds, just a brief paragraph. I wanted to know if it would be practical to do this in addition to merging it into main character articles. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 16:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that'd be fine. I really just suggest that you work on getting the series article up to par instead of a lost cause, though. TTN (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Just to tell you, TTN, I proposed a merge of merging Super Transformation with Chaos Emeralds. You can join the conversation and comment about it if you want to. That's one of the things you are allowed to do, correct? --- ZeroGiga (Contact) (My Contributions) 14:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:AN notice

FYI, there is a discussion about you at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#TTN.2C_again.. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:Arbcom clarification request notice

FYI, there is a question about your restrictions on [1] Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Block

You are blocked one week for arbcom violoations for these edits: this diff and this diff. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:51, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

TTN (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Those two edits are basic trimming and cleanup (yes, even such a large section), which is not against the anything stated in the restrictions. If they had meant that I couldn't even edit the articles in any way besides fixing typos, they would have stated that. Deletion would refer to a completely different action such as blanking or something. Even if they somehow did mean no removal of any text, their statement is unable to show that, even if "interpreted broadly." If someone truly believes that those two edits somehow violate their restrictions, I request that they add something to the above request for clarification rather than sticking with such a loose enforcement of an already loose statement. TTN (talk) 12:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Over the last week you have 3 times removed over 80% of the "Final Fight: Streetwise" article. That is a clear violation of Remedy 1 of the Episodes and characters 2 ArbCom. This is a good block therefore, unblock declined. — MBisanz ^talk 12:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Two reverts to try to appease two different editors then a discussion with the one that reverted twice (and then somewhere else if that didn't work) seems like it's following it close enough. It certainly seems reasonable enough; it's not like they barred reverting completely. It would have been impossible to discuss with the anon (constantly changing), I didn't know if the other guy was even going to look at the article again, and there certainly wouldn't have been any response on the talk page of that article (no actual editors and those two wouldn't have looked). TTN (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You still went against your ban. And you could have asked someone who shares your views to change it for you.Fairfieldfencer FFF 13:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Oops, forgot to list this too [2]. — Rlevse • Talk • 14:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I also support the block. Sincerely, --Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:08, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I think this is a bad block since the matter was already pending at WP:RFAC. The Arbs had plenty of time to know about this, and haven't said a word about it. So instead someone goes to WP:AE, without the clarification being made. Didn't get the response you wanted from mommy, so you went to daddy.

Given that everyone, even before the case was closed, knew that this kind of situation would not be clear cut, blocking TTN without comment from the arbs seems very inappropriate. I'm particularly concerned about the possible slippery slope this causes, especially given the second diff cited for this block. Masem sums this up pretty well here. -- Ned Scott 07:32, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

oops, got my timeline screwed up in my head. Still, I do think clarification should have been made first. -- Ned Scott 07:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

This block was a little strange. TTN did a few things that could have led to him being blocked based on the arbcom decision, although they weren't what was cited for this block. What's the rule when someone should be blocked, but is blocked for the wrong reason? Should they be unblocked then reblocked? On the other hand, it seemed like the "broad interpreation" of arbcom was that TTN shouldn't be starting, encouraging, or participating in edit wars. If my interpretation is correct, then even this block has a (barely) good justification. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 07:50, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Likely, yes, I just wish we had some clarification before blocking. TTN only did what he did because he didn't see it as a part of his restriction. A clarification by the arbs would have most likely resulted in TTN stopping this action without the need to block. -- Ned Scott 08:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Can anyone try to get one of those two RFACs moving at all? If I'm going to have a bucket of crap tossed at me if I try to even remove a paragraph of cruft from now on (or revert something two times, though I received no warning that its something someone would instantly block me for), there won't be much of a point in coming back for a while. TTN (talk) 16:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Nothing to do? Start here Wikipedia:Backlogs. Catchpole (talk) 09:43, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Greetings From Bali

Hi. Best wishes. While you may have missed the drama, I'm back. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 13:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It's good to have you back. Hopefully, I can kill some of the drama on my side as well. TTN (talk) 13:42, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Terima kasih (Bahasa Indonesia for Thank you). Seen Wikipedia:Ignore all dramas? Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 13:49, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey you guys may kick out of this :D. While I believe the issue has been raised before, do you plan on doing anything about the other accounts "you" have i.e. Wikiquote? « ₣M₣ » 13:57, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I've usurped most of my impersonators on the usual wikis. I'm not going to worry too much about ones like ml:User:Jack Merridew. TTN, you may find this interesting. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 14:09, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

You think they would at least do slightly better if they were trying to impersonate me. Do you think that you could point out that the Wikiquote one needs to be blocked? TTN (talk) 14:22, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

done; see q:User talk:Poetlister#User:TTN - a 'crat there. see also Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 14:31, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• The others are already blocked. If you wish to usurp those accounts, I can guide you through it. Been there, done that, got the receipt pinned to the wall over the bed. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 14:35, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

  see also; m:User:Jack Merridew/Matrix and m:User talk:Jack Merridew/Matrix. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 14:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

  I've never really had any sort of interest in any of the sibling projects. Thanks for the offer, though. TTN (talk) 14:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

  I have accounts on most of them and will keep an eye out for impersonators of you on them; it would be useful if you made a post here that explicitly stated you've created none of these. You may wish to create preemptively create accounts on projects you may have interest in later. I found it quite interesting to branch out to the others. Cheers, User:Jack Merridew a.k.a. David 14:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Your userpage

Hi. I've requested protection because it gets a helluva lot of vandalism - if the request gets declined, you can always request it yourself. Sceptre ^(talk) 00:04, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Want to Carry On Exercising Wikipedia?

Hey there, TTN. It looks like the Pokémon articles on Wikipedia are still being merged or deleted even without your help. Perhaps you were the catalyst that started all this, but nonetheless...
When all the restrictions imposed on you expire, go ahead and continue slimming articles down, as it is now apparent that they will eventually be merged or deleted without you manning the controls. You're just following the policies which USF pointed me to, so I'll not intervene. Hell, I might even assist you if the situation deems fit. -- Altiris Helios Exeunt 09:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I can still trim articles. I just can't be the one to suggest or carry out a merger. TTN (talk) 16:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Indefinite Wikibreak

Hey. Incase you're interested, I'm taking an indefinite Wikibreak. I wish you the best of luck on your restrictions, and I hope this site becomes more encyclopedia when I come back. Oh, and I reverted the Nakoruru article back to the redirected state. See ya! ZeroGiga (talk) 06:47, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Pokemon Red and Blue regarding glitches

Not after to start rubbish or anything, but you might re-add the seafoam/cinnibar island information regarding capturing other pokemon there in some fashion with the MissingNo./M-Block (which is what Nintendo's help line called the other glitch character) as that glitch is the reason MissingNo. appears in the first place. It should be pretty simple to find a citable source, and relates a little to the game's handling. Item duplication has been related in many guides, including magazines, as a related point to MissingNo.'s whole appearance, making it the only reason mention of the glitch appeared in bulk. That should be citable too...Tips & Tricks in the letter section, Nintendo Power, and several game guides I know of have mentioned all three. But like I said, they're more important to show a fundamental about the gameplay that they fixed when Yellow was released.

Your call there. If you want help with getting citations for that, give me a shout and I'll dig through my stuff.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 22:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

It's more about weight than references. If you can provide decent sources only to provide more context to what's there, fine. Otherwise, there is no need to bother adding unnecessary details. TTN (talk) 16:45, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Technically MISSINGNO. was not fixed in Yellow; however, the standard method of encountering it (the Cinnibar Island East Coast Glitch) was. Additionally, due to other alterations MISSINGNO. actually became hazardous in Yellow, and it ceased to cause item duplication in that game. So while the glitches that facilitated/resulted-from a MISSINGNO. encounter were fixed, MISSINGNO. itself is still existant. Oh, and the names are MISSINGNO. and 'M (also written as ###'M### where # denotes a glitch character). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.166.80.198 (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Jericho characters

Hi.Can you help with some trimming in the List of Jericho characters? -- Magioladitis (talk) 09:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll look over it. TTN (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks already better. Keep going. I'll make short changes after that. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:28, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't touch "Emily Sullivan" yet. There is a discussion for that character in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Emily Sullivan. We can trim after discussion is over. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:29, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Ben Kuchera

Interesting bit, but regarding him solely being a "random blogger" as you stated, the fellow was interviewed for NPR's Weekend Edition. Now I'm not an expert, but that does put him above "random blogger" status as a source, no?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe in cases where his personal opinion is being cited, but it doesn't really make a ten second vanity clip on American Idol any more relevant. TTN (talk) 16:24, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

It's more his reaction in regards to that clip. The clip itself is relative more to Jigglypuff's song, which amongst various versions is one of the character's trademarks. Additionally the guy is a source for the opinion that in Brawl the character is a joke character, or more or less difficult to win with.

By the way, I don't know if you've been keeping track, but did turn up two journals that cited the character, one in the context of gender definition on a psychological front and another on the character's context regarding infusing a love for drama in children...though I can't access the full bulk of that journal just yet...Either way, you can agree that these would help constitute a larger reception section no? (Also, RSVP about the bit above regarding the glitches)--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:34, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

The song should be noted somewhere, but the clip is still just trivia. If they had spent five minutes on it, that would be one thing, but the small clip provides no more notability to Jigglypuff than a clip of Ievan Polkka would for the internet meme, Loituma Girl. Now, if the song had some sort of non-Nintendo commercialization, that would be another story. Books, journals, articles, and other things like that are better attributed to the overall impact of the series. Unless it's like twenty pages dedicated to Jigglypuff, there is no point in singling it out. TTN (talk) 16:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

AE thread regarding Sonic the Hedgehog characters

A thread concerning your recent posts to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games has been started at WP:AE. The AE thread is visible here. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 02:17, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked

You explicitly violated your ArbCom restriction. Also, you quite obviously have skirted the edges of your restrictions in other edits.[3] here. Your last block for the purposes of arbitration enforcement was less than a month ago for a duration of one week. Taking that into consideration, you are blocked for two weeks for violating your ArbCom restrictions. After you return from your block, I strongly recommend that you tread carefully and avoid even coming close to the boundaries of your restrictions. Vassyana (talk) 06:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It's a shame the administrator didn't catch the discussion you had with some of us here (the whole last section). Worse yet, you couldn't even inform the active members of the Sega Project that you were starting a separate discussion elsewhere on the Video Games project page. It looks like you were trying to find your consensus elsewhere given that several members of the project (including myself) opposed what you were proposing. Of course, that's solely my opinion, I can't say exactly what you were thinking because I don't know. Now, to use your own words in another way, you can sit back (I would say shut up, to use your own words, but that might be considered a personal attack in this case) while I and other users "put up". On the lighter side, you have convinced me to reread WP:FICT again, and I'm probably going to review my opinions on a lot of fictional material, but I will not change my opinion on this matter. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 14:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI, your block is being discussed on my user talk page. Vassyana (talk) 00:21, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I have asked for wider review of this block at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Request_review_of_2_week_block_of_User:TTN. Eusebeus (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Not only has TTN not violated any of his restrictions, he's actually doing something we specifically saw that he had the right to do, which was to engage in discussion. This is a seriously bad block. -- Ned Scott 03:59, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what's wrong with these people, TTN. Despite what's been said about you, you've always followed the rules to the best of your understanding. Everyone thought that you were allowed to make proposals in the talk namespace, and I know you wouldn't have done so if you had thought even for a moment that it wasn't allowed. This is beyond absurd. I stand by a previous comment I made, that I would look into any request you would like to make to me about any fictional article. Feel free to send it directly to ned (at) nedscott.com. -- Ned Scott 06:06, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

This is not a talk page edit. It is a project space edit proposing a redirect. The ArbCom restriction explicitly forbids such edits. Vassyana (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

-- Ned Scott 06:32, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Can someone post my interpretation of the restrictions on one of the discussions, and have some people apply logic as to how it is pushing the boundaries enough to warrant the block instead of a more "delicate" actions?

I go with that I am not allowed to merge, redirect, or delete articles, and I am not allowed to make requests for such actions on articles or project pages. I am allowed suggest such things on the pages of the articles and projects, and contribute to XfDs and other similar discussions. I started discussions on a few projects, so that shouldn't be a problem. If someone really, really wants to be literal about the fiction noticeboard (it is an open forum like any talk page) not being acceptable, fine, but that should come with a warning rather than a block. Until they clarify it otherwise, this really seems unwarranted. TTN (talk) 18:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• I'll do it. Where would you like to have it posted? AN/I? Thanks Katz. I cannot believe that this absurd block was not reversed. Is this whole goddam place on crazy pills? This block is among the worst I've ever seen. Eusebeus (talk) 19:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Already posted to the main discussion. Cheers. --Ckatz^chat_spy 19:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

TTN, please note that the few uninvolved administrators who have commented have endorsed the block. It is not reasonable to try to argue that the ArbCom meant for a narrow restriction or that one kind of space is really another kind of space. For example, if the ArbCom meant to prohibit starting XfD discussions, but permit requests on noticeboards (a large and active part of project space), it is extremely doubtful they would have widely refered to "project pages" or said the restriction is "to be interpreted broadly". Continuing to initiate merge/redirect/etc discussions, when the clear purpose of the ruling was to sharply limit you from doing so, is certainly (at the least) pushing the line. You are welcome to contribute to merge/redirect/etc discussions "initiated by another editor". If you will agree to avoid initiating such discussions at all and agree to not get others to do it for you, until such time as the ArbCom clarifies your restrictions, I would be willing to unblock you immediately. Vassyana (talk) 23:36, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Can someone drop me an e-mail after it's done? TTN (talk) 12:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

All set. Thanks! Vassyana (talk) 15:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, welcome back

Edwardadrian 08:43, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Apology about the Sonic characters

Hello, TTN. I think I owe you an apology about the little debate we've had over the Sonic character articles. Having just read over the category that you put up at the WP:VG talk page, I did not realize that there were so many character articles. In reality, I was arguing mostly about four characters: Cream the Rabbit, Blaze the Cat, Silver the Hedgehog, and Rouge the Bat, which I believe that I can find the respective notability information for if I look hard (though it will take some time). Fairfieldfencer will probably want to argue with you about all of them, especially E-123 Omega. I believe back in the archives of WT:SEGA, we have something where I said what I wanted kept during the first discussion and I just assumed you knew who I was talking about. For that, I offer my sincerest apologies for this miscommunication. As for the other articles, I'm not sure what we should do with all of them, as I'm rather certain there's probably not notability information for them out there. When you're past your block and all the other confusing administrator action that has led to a debacle, I would be willing to talk with you again about these four articles and the rest of them separately, as I would like to help with a merge of the rest. If you decide to respond to this, please notify me on my talk page, but we can keep the thread here. Thanks for your time. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 19:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

So what if there are alot of articles. What's going to happen? Are we going to run out of cyberspace?Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I went to all the articles on the disambiguation page at Sonic the Hedgehog and put the "otheruses" template on them so they would all link to that page --Enric Naval (talk) 14:28, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not the number of articles, FFF, it's their quality. Unfortunately, most of these articles are unlikely to turn up any information about their notability. If they do, then by all means the articles should stay. The four I've pointed out I think can have validated notability. Most of the articles were created with a bunch of plot summary, and that's not good to anyone. I know I would like the information to stay just as much as you, FFF, but we are here to make an encyclopedia, not a plot summary guide. That's why we read the comics and play the video games, for the plot. Red Phoenix ^{flame of life...protector of all...} 21:31, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Don't give up yet

I noticed there are 12 active arbs for the request for clarification, which means a majority of seven is needed for those proposals to pass. So far only three have commented at all, and there's been little activity since then. I know this must be disheartening to you, since some of them don't seem to be listing, and ironically have failed to actually give clarification once their attention was gotten, but don't give up. The only way to dispel the assumptions is to prove them wrong. If you have any comments, diffs, edits, whatever, that stick out in your mind that would help prove that assumption wrong, start listing them. I'll try to do the same. -- Ned Scott 08:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I've learned that attempting to personally dive into things like this just screws them up more, so I'll just let it play out. Hopefully it'll turn out well. TTN (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Begging for trouble

Please ... I started to slowly clean up Drake & Josh. That wholesale slaughter may be/probably is justified, but is just going to solidify the case for a topic ban against you, and maybe me. Please revert it, and I'll see if I can take care of the problem slowly without causing an explosion.Kww (talk) 15:10, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

TTN, you're not helping your case if you continue removing character lists or short-ish episode summaries from episode lists. If you really feel there is too much unsourced cruft, then trimming is the solution (you're good at this!), not nuking. – sgeureka ^t•c 15:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

In the case of Drake and Josh, it was a trim. I just moved the non-crufty details of the five main characters and the only characters that I could actually tell were recurring to the main section. There is certainly room for expansion by someone familiar with the series, but that's about the area where it needs to go. I really doubt I would get any better of a response had I just removed the unimportant characters or trimmed them down to one or two sentences. That's going to be the end result either way, so I would hope that anyone looking over it would be able to figure that out. TTN (talk) 15:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I actually like cast&character lists on wikipedia (obviously this only works for TV shows with actors, not videogames or anime) because then I don't have to go to IMDb, so that's where my concern was coming from with your "trim". Coincidently as of today, I am reconsidering merging a long cast list of one of my articles into the plot summary like you did for D&J, but I haven't yet decided if that's truly the best way to go. I also missed this edit summary of yours and was concerned to never see the episode summaries again; I would have preferred you to fix the LoE by season instead of removing all the plot and only slowly re-adding the plot later. YMMV. – sgeureka ^t•c 21:00, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I never really noticed that was a standard within featured articles film and televison, so eh. I personally find paragraph format to be more appeasing (the actors were kept in parentheses if you didn't actually look at). The summaries on that list were complete trash, so even if I wasn't going to bother replacing them, their removal is an improvement in itself. It also allows for easier and less congested editing. TTN (talk) 21:15, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

RE: Trimming the Dragon Ball lists

All I have to say is, what took you so damn long? I think, after you finish the trims, it would be bold if I merged the Saiyan list, the alien one, the supernaturals, and Earthlings into a list of Dragon Ball characters. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:26, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

The anons and newbs can be a burden, I agree. We'll just "rv" them if they get in the way. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I've called for backup, an anon has started fighting back on List of extraterrestrials in Dragon Ball. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:09, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Uh, what? -- Ned Scott 05:36, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

What is that in reference to? TTN (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, feel free to arrange it any way you wish. Personally, mention of a Latino or any other voice provider, who is not English or Japanese, shoudn't be there. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

The unsourced puns should go also. I think the obvious ones, like Burdock's, are ok. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:33, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

What a surprise. Think that's the same Zarbon vandal from Dragon Ball wiki. Heh, I'm pretty sure User:Yamla will block him once he sees the message. Oh, did you agree to removing Burdock from the Saiyan list? I don't think it should be taken off like that. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:32, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

hello. I would like to point out that I am not a "sockpuppet" or anything else of that nature. i just looked at what the other members mentioned on the talk pages and I noticed that broly and bardock are two more characters who have lesser appearances, categorized as non-canon, or whatever the case...I just thought I'd bring that into attention. That was all... 207.38.206.178 (talk) 04:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

E-123 Omega

TTN, since the merge was your idea I would like your appinion on E-123 Omega falling under the keep category. And I'm watching your talk page so you can reply here and not on mine without worrying about me missing it, (since you don't like holding the same discussion in two different places).Fairfieldfencer FFF 08:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Without information related directly to the thought process behind creating and evolving the character and information directly related to how the character was received by critics and others, the character does not require an article. Only the seven characters I pointed out have enough potential to obtain information like that, and it's not even guaranteed that it will happen for all of them. In that case, it is even more unlikely that this character will have received any, so I would have to say no to your question. TTN (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, ZG here (Sry, offline at the moment). I agree that Omega doesn't have enough info to warrant an article here, neither does Cream and Silver. However, we could salvage Blaze, Rouge, and the Chaotix before we decide what to do with them, but just get rid of everything else. (ESPECIALLY Eggman Nega, who doesn't even have enough SOURCES to stand on his own. There's no reason for that fat f*ck to get his own article.) 71.161.133.35 (talk) 19:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You're putting a B-class article against 3 Start-class articles? Which has twice as many refs, (actually it has more refs than those 3 articles combined). Don't get me wrong I want those articles to be kept as well but really, what do you think stands the better chance?Fairfieldfencer FFF 19:18, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Would this article fall under the keep category? Lien-Da.Fairfieldfencer FFF 07:50, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Aliens List

[4] You wanna defend yourself or should I? I'm not exactly having a gay ole time trying to discuss changes I didn't make. I'm thinking a protection request may be justified here.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 03:39, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:RFPP might be a good idea. I'm starting to believe 207.38.206.178 and 72.229.48.178 are the same person and, according to TTN on my talk page [5], this is a banned user we're dealing with. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:44, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

If that's true, and he's done reverting, it may just be better to take it to WP:AN/I. It isn't really the article that's the subjectanymore, but a user trying to dodge a ban.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 03:48, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't have any clear evidence that 207.38.206.178 is a sock or meat puppet, just a suspicion ATPIT. However, 72.229.48.178 definitely seems like User:Zarbon aka "Prince Zarbon". Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:55, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I actually remember that guy. Shows how old I am.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 03:59, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

It would appear the anon has some obsession with the character Zarbon [6]. Think we should notify an admin about possible sockpuppetry? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:06, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say we should, yeah. Did you have someone in mind?--Koji†Dude ^(C) 04:08, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

We need someone who has dealt with him before. Since you've known him longer, do you recall any sysop in particular? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:11, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

User:Deskana was highly involved (I think he also performed the original check user) but I'm not sure how quick to respond he would be. He's a Crat/Arbitraitor now, and isn't as active as he used to be.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 04:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Deskana??? He never answers my concerns. No offense but I fail to see that as true. Actually now that you mention it he was quite busy around the time I met him. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:21, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

When I was active here, he was sort of the deciding commentator on just about any problem we had. We (or at least I) looked to him for advice and admin tasks like protecting and blocking. I think he might not like you because you put Lord in your sig. He used to do that.--Koji†Dude ^(C) 04:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

You're kidding about the Lord part right? I only added that cognomen to my sig because Sesshomaru is respected by Jaken as "Sesshomaru-sama" ("Lord Sesshomaru" in English). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

No, he used to do that.[7] Not sure if that would be why he doesn't like you, though. :-D --Koji†Dude ^(C) 22:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Let me point out again that I am not any other person. I just wanted to mention that broly and bardock are lesser characters, that was my only intention. sorry if anyone got the wrong impression. 207.38.206.178 (talk) 04:13, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

also, i don't have an obsession with zarbon. i like all the people on the page. i just noticed that a lot of information was recently removed from the profile and i decided to bring it back. was that an error on my part...? 207.38.206.178 (talk) 04:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

TTN, since we're letting "Zarbon" have his image (pun intended) can we also list Coola's? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:38, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Go ahead if you want. If someone ends up merging all of them, they'll have to be abandoned for a group image, though. That's why I removed them in the first place. TTN (talk) 18:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Should the links for King Vegeta and Vegeta Jr. be deleted? The characters are not listed here anymore. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

You can either find new places to redirect them or you can leave them to be deleted later. TTN (talk) 13:04, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you going to assemble more redirect lists for Sephiroth? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:29, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, is this ok? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:09, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'll continue to make lists as I finish trimming. Unless you have a source to back it, it is original research despite how obvious it appears. TTN (talk) 18:11, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Re:Redirects

Yeah, just make a list on my talk page and I'll run through them. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 00:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Kept a couple of history purposes. Others were semi-useful redirects. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Just deserts

I said there were worst people on wikipedia then you. I've been proven right, a lot of the pages for One Piece are in AfD. Oh wells, you know if we had waited until now to try to organise the pages, we might had won that battle with Justyn. Anyway, I'm not having a go at you for those events. I admit I back down from things when the pressures on, but I'm not even fighting these AfDs now, I admit I did let you pressureise me and I also admit I overeacted last time because of real life stress coming over to wikipedia at the time. The only thing thats happened since I disagree on was a website claiming wikipedia stole its information, when we didn't, and now a page got CSD on copyright infrindgement basis... When there was nothing wrong, the one who did delete it didn't check it was correct to be CSD.

Well, its out of everyone's hands now and I don't see the army of people trying to fight the AfDs happening. I'll be glad when its over and we're back on par with the rest of wikipedia. The only thing keeping some pages alive are ISBN codes and interviews which Justyn got on the page. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 09:21, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

SWAT Kats question

Hi, I'm the guy who is working on the SWAT Kats pages. I want to condense them into an episode list like you said, with just a summary and the production details, similar to List of The X-Files episodes. Would this be appropriate?

If so, should I create the episode list on the main SWAT Kats page or give it its own page? It is only two seasons so it wouldn't make the page overly long, but I think it would fit better as its own page. What do you think? Moviemaniacx (talk) 13:43, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Little Help

Been well over a year since I last AfD a page: Beyblade timeline I know this is fancruft, but as you know, loosing articles isn't my strong point. Any advice here? Wikipedia isn't a place for Timelines, I've been too busy with OP pages and looking at whats what I've only just remembered I was meant to put this on AfD. I would AfD for reasons: plot and fancruft on the deletetion policey thingy. Anything else that you'd throw at this page? Angel Emfrbl (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Just the fact that it is a timeline article is enough to get it deleted. TTN (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Why? Ford MF (talk) 19:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have personally seen at least fifty separate timelines and plot articles go through the process, and not one survived to my knowledge. They just do not have the ability to serve as anything more than useless vehicles for cruft that can easily be summarized in the main article. TTN (talk) 19:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

As a Beyblade fan... Even I have difficulty swallowing this one. Its not very helpful, its hard to understand and I'm going "WTF?" at it all the time I look at it. Thanks for the advice TTN, I'll AfD that ASAP. The whole Beyblade article smay have to be sorted out, little bit concerned that no one has paid attention to whether their actaully useful or not. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 20:50, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay thats been AfD, don't know how this will turn out, as I said, when it comes to AfDs, though I understand the guidelines and stuff behind them they've never been my strong point. Trouble is, that was the EASY article. Sinc eI'm not too strong on this, how would you recommend I deal with this? I've got quick a few articles I want sorted here, and I'm just a anti-vandal editor mostly.  :-/ Angel Emfrbl (talk) 21:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Group images

Have you tried a Google search? Found some good ones there, though nothing specific in mind. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Can you help me do a little more trimming at the Earthlings list? Fancruft has been re-added and there's even a false reference that says Chaozu's power level is 610 [8]. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:48, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm just doing it in chunks. I'll be getting to the rest fairly soon. You may want to explain to Zarbon that the information he is trying to keep is original research, among other things. TTN (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll ask him to see our conversation, he might even reply here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:38, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In response to your message, I left a reply at Zarbon's talk page which explains why I won't be doing major edits to Dragon Ball articles. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:29, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

TTN, what was the reason for this change? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:35, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

If a redirect to a list entry of a minor character requires the disambiguation page message, the redirect should go there instead. TTN (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. What other "Chichi" is out there? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:20, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

There's the main disambiguation page. As long as the note isn't added back, it really doesn't matter either way. TTN (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The disambiguation is titled "Chi-Chi", not "Chichi". TTN, that hatnote was legitimate. See Furiza and Alakazam as precedents. May I put it back? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:00, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Chichi is a plausible term to enter while searching for that page. Because the character doesn't have an article, there really is no reason to give precedent to a list entry (the character also can be spelled as Chi-Chi anyways). The disambiguation page should be given the variations, while a couple new redirects with the (Dragon Ball) tags are created for the list entry. People looking for the character in that context won't need to go back to the disambiguation page. TTN (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I still fail to see your point. "Chi Chi" is from the English dubs, "Chi-Chi" is in the Viz manga, and "Chichi" is used in the Japanese audio English-subtitled Dragon Ball DVDs. I'm trying to have "Chichi" as the name of the section since it appears WP:DBZ is still using the 'most accurate names', and there is no article specifically named "Chichi". Do you follow? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

He saying that Chi Chi and all its variations are logical alternative spellings to each and every entry in that list, even if they're not "officially" spelled as such. It better serves the reader to direct every variation to the same page, rather than have different variations shooting off in three different directions only to point the reader back to the disambig page. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:34, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Well that actually makes sense. Thanks man. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

List of Characters in Pirates of the Caribbean

Hi! I'm really glad to see the work you've done! Good job! Just one comment: I think it's better to list out all of the characters rather than condense them. The title does say "List of Characters in Pirates of the Caribbean," not "Characters in Pirates of the Caribbean." I can't change it because the undo tool isn't permitting me due to "intermediate conflicting edits." If you could change that back, then great. Thanks! BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean} 20:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the point of character lists on the site are to provide overviews on the most important and relevant characters. If they're not prominent characters, they either don't need to be included or they can be summed up like with Barbossa's first crew. You can find a few examples within our featured article and featured list pages. I imagine that if the list is developed, it will likely go the featured article route. TTN (talk) 20:53, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, that's great. Sorry about this - I was just trying to use a different viewpoint. And thanks for your time! BlackPearl14^{Pirate Lord-ess of the Caribbean} 01:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Re: Mewtwo

In all honesty you can't possibly be serious about getting that part of the pokemon lists to FL status. There isn't enough *said* about those individual entries to warrant notability for quite a few of them. Try for example proving Dragonair has notability, using references beyond the game and anime. Or most of the ones beyond Mew. All you have there is a big pile of info with a few possible good articles that can be carved out of the whole mess riding on some degree of notability.

Maybe if the list ended at Mew it might be possible, but it doesn't, and where it continues the craze was more or less dying. If you notice major areas discuss the original 151 more than any mention beyond that. And even then it's selective.

In all honesty I didn't want your opinion on the article. I know your opinion on these before they get out the gate ("they can't be notable"), which is why I didn't drop you a note about it.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

To reword something, the above wasn't meant to sound rude: I'm just still in the process of working on this and would rather not worry about your take on it just yet. I still have sources and information to sort out and try to shuffle around. Your interests lie more in the lists, mine in trying to make informative singular articles :\--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:48, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you may be missing some of the point as to what covers notability. Going off WP:FICT (which is still a proposed guideline but from the looks of things the point I'm citing isn't being argued):

Elements of a work of fiction, including individual stories, episodes, characters, settings, and other topics, are presumed to be notable if there is significant coverage of the element(s) in reliable secondary sources. For fictional elements, this will typically include the real-world context and analysis of the elements, and can include influence and other aspects of its development, critical reception of the elements, and popularity of the element through readership/viewership ratings and marketing. Notability of an element may also be shown through secondary-source analysis of the main work of fiction, citing the importance of the element to the work. Reputable academic studies of individual elements may also demonstrate notability.

Which is what the quotes used are doing: they're discussing the character as a villain and/or as a character and their weight in the fiction. Not to mention the scope of some of these goes well beyond the film's scope such as the Animerica article that discusses Mewtwo in the context of the anime as a whole to that point. Heck Animerica and Sight & Sound both did a lot of discussion on the character alone, so it's hardly insignificant discussion that can just be shoved somewhere.

If you are interested in sources that discuss the first film though I'll be more than happy to toss you a ton that'd work for the subject itself. Point being to all this though while it's still a discussion of the anime, it's discussing the character in terms of its weight, effectiveness and style. That satisfies WP:N.

As for your comparison between the Pokemon lists and List of MGS characters, there's a significant problem there. Many of the sections in it point to other sections regarding recurring characters (take Roy Campbell for example), allowing the more bare bones one-shot characters to stay as bare bones. How do you plan to replicate that when every character from one game appears in the next here, and you can't split off unwanted parts for the more significant ones?--Kung Fu Man (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Zarbon's Appearance

This is for proof of description based on one word: handsome. This word should not be removed from Zarbon's profile, as you have been doing. This does not qualify as trimming because it goes against the initial titling of the character. For more on this official namesake, please refer to Episode 53 Title, where it is the most descriptive terminology to maintain the character's persona. Hence, the other word used to describe him is "demonic", and these same words are used in the manga. This is essential to maintaining the true descriptions and therefore, this should prove that this is above fancruft or opinion alone, the character is specifically and distinctly described as such. Zarbon (talk) 04:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Sonic comic characters

You cannot possibly believe this or this is an acceptable way to trim an article. Please don't do it again. You've been here long enough to know how an article is supposed to look, regardless of the fact that your primary concern is to merge the lot of them. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:32, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

So they're supposed to look crufty and like complete junk? If they don't have enough information to require a lead, they don't require a lead. If they don't have enough information for sections, they don't have enough information for sections. This mainly goes back to your "junk information is better than no information" philosophy. I really doubt anyone actually plans on merging them any time soon anyways. I mainly want to get rid of the cruft, and if someone actually does something as the end result, that's good too. I did forget the fictional character part though. TTN (talk) 03:38, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll admit they're bad, but that doesn't give you an excuse it replace it with something that looks just as bad. You cannot replace one pile of shit with a smaller one and claim you've cleaned it. If you want to trim it, make an effort. It'll take you maybe five to ten minutes to obliterate the rambling plot and OR into a 5 KB article. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Case in point, I spent twenty minutes clearing the plot of A.D.A.M., ten of which I spent getting dinner. You can't merge articles for a while yet, so you really have no excuse to take a few minutes to leave an article with some sort of structure. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 04:19, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I really fail to see how having many paragraphs of unnecessary plot details helps the article in any way or leaves it looking any better. The plot is still just as unnecessary as it was before, and having bloated sections just make it more aesthetically pleasing (to yourself) is rather silly. Two paragraph stubs certainly aren't uncommon either, so I'm not really with on your "you know how an article is supposed to look" mindset. If there isn't anything to write about, that's just how it stands. There is no reason fill it out for the sake of having it filled out. TTN (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles are supposed to have a lead of some sort and aren't just two paragraphs of plot summary. You know that. So yeah, what you did is not how you write proper articles, and having a slightly longer trimmed article is preferable to the mess you made of them. Don't try to use stubs to excuse your behavior, because even a stub is clearer than what you did. You can take a few minutes to do a decent job. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 15:55, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I already mentioned that I simply forgot the "x is a fictional..." mainly because the first article didn't have it. I would have realized it and fixed it soon enough. If you're talking about a literal lead to sum up the subject, and then have it move on to relevant sections, again, the point was to stub it. I don't know where you got the idea that they were written in past tense. In the end, we're talking about two sides of a crappy coin. Both suck, so why push so hard to polish up your side when it's still covered in rust? TTN (talk) 16:09, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you changed that. Articles also aren't supposed to be six paragraph or plot either, so what's your point? TTN (talk) 16:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

As it stands I actually agree with TTN. The articles don't really deserve stand alone as much, and they aren't citing sources at all. Where's third party discussion of them? Any at all really? The only reason I haven't "been bold" and just merged them outright is because the material would be better worked into the directed articles at the moment than dumped in them.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:13, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

He isn't arguing that they deserve to stay. He just believes that too much information was removed, even though its all just plot in the end. TTN (talk) 16:16, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Well I'm at the least arguing it is a bit out there for them to stick around in some cases, such as Tails. It's better suited to have alternate versions of a character, even if major in another continuity, to remain in one main article so people don't have to bounce around everywhere. (last bit directed at him because I know he's going to be ticked about the merge I just went ahead and did and come at either you or me about it).--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with a merge. In fact it's probably best. Now to TTN. Your two-paragraph version is a glorified list entry, nothing more. It contains no context whatsoever. That is why it's bad. Your trim of the Futurama articles, though somewhat hamfisted, is a proper trim, because you left the reader with some context. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:01, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

How exactly does your version (using A.D.A.M. now) add anything more than the "glorified list entry"? It just has three more paragraphs of plot, an unnecessary description paragraph, and an OR personality section. To say that you prefer it that way is one thing, but it say that it is better than completely stubbing it is rather ridiculous. Neither is exactly ideal for an article, so why stop work from actually getting done to fulfill what seems to be your personal mission to "keep me in check"? TTN (talk) 17:52, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

If I felt like keeping you in check, we'd be talking a lot more. I don't care about most of what you do, but some of your edits are simply so mind-boggling that one can't help but intervene. I shouldn't have to spend this much effort to tell you why your version is bad, but I'll go into detail just to make the point.

A.D.A.M., the "Autonomous Digital Assault Microbe", is an artificial intelligence created by Dr. Eggman. After getting into some minor conflicts with Sonic, Tails, and Bunnie Rabbot, A.D.A.M. pretends to work for Eggman while acting as a being known as "Anonymous", who manipulates Mammoth Mogul and Ixis Naugus and and various other events. His plan is eventually revealed, and even though Eggman destroys A.D.A.M. main programming, he manages to transfer himself to Tommy Turtle through the use of nanites. He soon sets off to collect all of the Chaos Emeralds with the help of the captured Tails and Shadow the Hedgehog. He eventually does battle with Sonic, Tails, and Shadow in his own Super Form, but after the Emeralds are moved to the "Zone of Silence", he and Tommy are vaporized by the Egg Fleet.

A.D.A.M. has control over Eggman's computer and therefore every robot he owns; he can also spread to other computer systems that connect to Eggman's databases and control them as well, though this control can be compromised if A.D.A.M. is distracted. He also controls an innumerable number of nanites, which he can use to infect and control virtually any mechanical device. Upon taking possession of Tommy Turtle's body, A.D.A.M. gains all the bionic properties granted to Tommy by his shell being fused together with nanites, such as the ability to sprout metallic wings.

What series is this from? Television, comics, video games? I can't tell. There's also the fictional character thing, but you already noted that earlier. Moving on, manipulates events for what? Other than that, you've chopped the article into an unnecessarily short stub that leaves readers wondering what it's talking about. That is why your version is bad. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 18:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The statement I'm talking about is "X is a fictional character in y", so that's covered. It would take like half a sentence to clarify that statement, so that's certainly no reason to provide three paragraphs of plot. If anything else was really that confusing, I'm sure I could have just rewritten it again. That's really the maximum amount of plot summary the character requires, so I don't see how it's "unnecessarily" short. There was still room for expansion by someone that actually has some idea about the comic series anyways. Sticking with the basics is much better than leaving it with way too much unnecessary plot. TTN (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The basics are much better than excessive plot, I'll agree with you there, but plot so limited that one cannot comprehend it isn't good, either. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:11, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

List of Jericho characters

Hi again. Since you are very good in trimming, can you please do some more trimming in List of Jericho characters? After trimming, I'll add the references missing and the article will be good. I want to remove this tags on the top. -- Magioladitis (talk) 12:03, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I guess, but could you arrange the rest of them beforehand? Characters that appear various times should go under a secondary characters or supporting characters header. Characters that appear only a few times, but still have a fairly important role should go under the minor characters. Characters that only appear once or twice with absolutely no importance to the story should just be removed. That'll help me figure out how much space I should give them. TTN (talk) 14:07, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Just treat all characters under "Minor characters" they same way. I'll try to remove all characters who appear in a single episode. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:50, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

"Main characters" don't need any cleanup. I removed all the minor characters that appear in a single episode. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I've gotten some done for now. I had it over halfway done, but I screwed up. I'll grab the rest later. TTN (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

What are you doing to the Marvel character pages?

Your "timming down" of the Marvel character pages are not helping said articles. In fact, it looks like you are intentionally dumbing them down to a fourth-grade level. You completely removed all important information from the "In other media" section of the articles claiming that you are "removing useless plot elements". Okay, tell me this: Why, in the "Spectacular Spider-Man" did Eddie Brock slowly start to hate Peter Parker? You have to give me all the reasons. Kalas Grengar (talk) 22:18, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

The point of the other media section is to provide a brief overview of the character in other pieces media. If someone actually wants to look it up, they just have to look at the article or character list for whichever piece of media that interests them. TTN (talk) 22:26, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You.... ... actually. have a point there. Sorry. Kalas Grengar (talk) 23:09, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

To interject something, you might flesh it out just a tiny bit more there: it is pretty hard to follow, and he was presented somewhat significantly Spider-Man: The Animated Series, a lot more than the film's handling of the character (which is odd given the much larger film section). I should have the episodes from that series on a disc here somewhere to offer citable lines if you're alright with me expanding it a little.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:56, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That series has a character list, so any specific details can go there. TTN (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a question

Did you have any runins with this guy by any chance? He just put something on my page (telling me to stay away from AFDing Sonic articles or I will be RFC'ed) and I reported him to Sephiroth. As for the Sonic articles, even though I didn't like the way to talked to FFF the other day, I'm on your side for this one. The 3 articles I nominated don't need to be here, correct? ZeroGiga (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Most likely, he sounds familiar. Normally, I would have suggested that he switch between wikis in order to fulfill his needs, but he really has no place here. He only edits articles related to the series, he is unable to understand the concept of encyclopedic articles, and he is not willing to even live with it one tiny bit. He belongs on a site where every minor palette-swapped enemy can have an article, not one based upon the concept of establishing notability with secondary sources. TTN (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

TWEEY Character section

Can you give me an example of how you'd think you'd summarize the characters in The World Ends with You; I think by "group" (Players, Reapers, etc.) makes sense, but I also have the added problem of both japanese and english names and two different voice actors to include. --MASEM 01:27, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you plan on a small list format or paragraph format? Just one paragraph/small list section for each of the two groups would work. There aren't any major characters that fit outside of those two groups, right? With a small list, Neku Sakuraba (桜庭 音操, Sakuraba Neku) - Voiced by: Kōki Uchiyama (Japanese); Jesse David Corti (English) could work fine. I don't really know how you would handle them with paragraphs. You could possibly place them in parenthesis after the character names in the plot summary to avoid having bulky paragraphs. Though, the main character could just be small enough to contain all of the voice actors. I don't really how much you would want to include on the characters. TTN (talk) 13:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Son Goku (Dragon Ball) and Son Gohan

These look like fruitful candidates for WP:GAC, like Yamcha was. What are your thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:23, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say that none of those are GA material. Yamcha has a few good sentences of real world information, but the rest is either trivial or filler that doesn't really establish independent notability (merchandise). It could easily be merged. Gohan is in the same boat. Goku has even less than that. Really, all of the Dragon Ball characters, aside from Goku, really just belong on a single list. They just don't have it at this point in time. TTN (talk) 03:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

When do you think you'll get back to that? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:49, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Initiate a RFC

Do it now, lets get this over with. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

To give you fair warning, I will indeed be compelled to initiate one on you as well given the Episodes and Characters ArbCom and frustration with all of these mass nominations for deletion or we can instead discuss civily elsewhere and see if we can work things out. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 04:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

We're not talking about our deletion philosophies here. The point is the manner in which you participate in AfDs that is the problem. Trying to threaten him with an RfC is not constructive nor will you accomplish anything by it. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 05:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I would NOT be willing to change anything as a result of an RfC iniated by those on the other side of inclusion/deletion spectrum, especially were it initiated by anyone who goes just as much back and forth with me as I do with them or who have been warned or sanctioned for their own behavior in such discussions. I would be open-minded to constructive criticisms made User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions, but at the same time I hope that those willing to criticize are also open to feedback as well and should a proactive and civil discussion not accomplish anything, than we can try mediation elsewhere as we did with the Episode and Character Arbcoms, but it would be really lame to say the least to not try this offer first and it would make it really hard for me to respect a refusal to accept this invitation. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 05:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

TTN, I am not sure how to phrase an opening of a RFC, so please do me a big favor and start one soon, so that we can have this discussion and then this discussion can be over, I would really like to get back to building/cleaning Wikipedia :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I absolutely will not respect or respond to any RfC if efforts are not first made to discuss with me at User talk:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles/Deletion discussions. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 06:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Gather diffs. Check his talk page archives. He's been asked nicely by a number of admins since he created his account to tone down how he behaves at AfD. He's also been involved with a number of AN/I's for other users which basically started because they lost their WP:COOL with him and went crazy. The admonition that he not simply copy/paste as a response to AfDs has been there since like 2007 (I think, check his talk page archive and contribution history). Spartaz asked him very nicely on more than one occasion to tone ti down, as have a few others. Check the last AN/I that got filed against him (johnnymcninja), it went down in flames. Be very deliberate. Protonk (talk) 21:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Protonk, weren't you also asked to stop harassing me? --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not fucking harassing you. Responding in deletion discussions and asking that you treat other contributors with a modicum of respect isn't harassment. Remaking an article so that it can be saved from deletion at your behest isn't harassing you. Informing other editors that they ought to proceed carefully when initiating process based disputes isn't harassing you. I have just as much a right to talk to these people as you do. If you want to accuse me of harassment, then do it. DO IT. If you want to make veiled suggestions and plant innuendo, I can't be bothered. Protonk (talk) 21:36, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

What you are doing is derailing the AfD discussions to be about editors rather than the articles in question and that is unacceptable. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm only asking PLEADING with you to take other wikipedians seriously (and by this I mean even those who disagree with you). I'm asking you to participate in those debates, not copy and paste responses. We both know that you are a tremendous credit to the encyclopedia. You have improved or saved more articles than I have ever edited. Someone needs to be "that guy" and fight for inclusion of articles. I don't begrduge you your position. I'm just begging you to please tread people like me and TTN (among others) with some respect. I've stopped that as of the 100 japanese list and the other back and forth we had today. I won't beseech you to respect other editors in the AfD debates from now on. But that isn't the point here. I'm not harassing you. These editors are not harassing you. Don't falsely accuse me of harassing you. Don't avoid the issue when I ask you to substantiate an accusation of harassment. Protonk (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You have been told by admins to bury the hatchet, not prolong the dispute, needing to step back, and not create frivolous RfCs. We avoided each other for a short amount of time and then you just went right back to it; now as your user talk page shows, I have made efforts to interact with you civily if you absolutely can't avoid/ignore me, but if you are just going to keep enflaming things, then I strongly urge you to follow four others' advice above and disengage. As far as AfDs go, then I hope you are willing to challenge nominations that are exact copy and paste rationales as well. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Right. And I basically have. As our talk page has shown, I'm more than happy to work with you on things we might agree upon. We can also get along perfectly well. It fucking unnerves me that this is all well and good until I suggest that these folks proceed carefully with an RFC. Then it is harassment. Then we bring out the diffs and the high-handed language. THEN I'm supposed to have buried the hatchet. THEN it is harassment. These people are free to ask for some relief from your actions, which they (and I) perceive to be uncivil. I am free to perceive your actions as being uncivil. You and I have corresponded before. You know I'm a human being. I know you are a human being. You know we both feel strongly about wikipedia and we both tend to wear that feeling on our sleeves. Don't turn this into a process issue. Don't make about me and you, like you made my last complaint. This isn't about me and you. If I met you on the street, I would shake your hand. If I run into you in AfD, WT, or articlespace, I'm happy to work with you. I can, however, offer my advice to these editors as to how best to ask the community to step in if you refuse to treat them with a shred of respect. Protonk (talk) 23:18, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I would be able to take these things with far more value if those involved did not show arguably worse incivility against me or others who disagree with them in the same arguments or if those involved were willing to treat me and others who argue to keep with respect. Many of those involved here have been going back and forth with each other across many conversations with little more gained than ill will and in some cases arbcom sanctions and admonitions. I can't regard advice to me as fair or unbiased if it ever comes from accounts that have been warned or blocked multiple times for incivility or who outright declare they are unwilling to ever argue to keep when I have actually argued to and nominate to delete well over 40 articles now (as you are not an admin you can't see for examples any that I have placed speedy tags on). I am willing to assume good faith, but not at the expense of being naive when I've been around long enough to know when something from some is indeed pointed or single purpose in nature. Please look over the various arbcom disputes to see just how intense these disagreements and if you want honest and friendly advice, you will be doing yourself the biggest favor by doing everything you can to not join in that dispute or to enflame it any further. Consider for example, 08:49, 16 January 2008: In this edit, Jack Merridew uses such language as "sin" and "Their day will come" when discussing his opponents in this arbitration case. Such religious fanaticism (something also expressed by other editors on that side of this disagreement) and extreme assumptions of bad faith have NO place on Wikipedia and cannot be tolerated. Yet, notice in the arbcom how many came to Merridew's defense only to after the arbcom closed and myself and White Cat who were correct in the end be laughed down in the arbcom have this result. If necessary, I could provide appalling diffs regarding any of those likely or willing to pile on in some kind of hypothetical RfA against me, which is why there is no way such a discussion could possibly be constructive or I could ever take it as being fair and unbiased. Sure, some neutral editors might comment, but please check through the arbcoms and similar discussions of times past to see how partisan and unfriendly they devolve and how in some instances those who wanted them wind up being the ones sanctioned in the end. I know you and I can cooperate. I know Judgesurreal777 can be reasonable and I know that some others have potential as well and all I hope is that those involved look at the constructive efforts, focus on those, and realize when they aren't going to get anywhere arguing with certain others and it is therefore best to instead focus on convincing other participants (like DGG says, convincing the audience, not the opposition) instead. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

(comment) here was the WQA I filed originally. It formed the shell for the RfC, but the RfC was deleted. Start with this history link and then click (next revision to see what happened to the WQA. WQA history. Protonk (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

And you were instructed to not file such frivolous reports and to avoid me, which didn't last long apparently. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 21:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

this conversation isn't between me and you. this is between me and TTN. If you have something you want to say to ME, say it on my talk page. Protonk (talk) 21:56, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

You may not be aware of the length of the dispute among these various editors. See here for example and before that here. In these discussions (AfDs) we are supposed to stay focused on the content, not threaten each other with admin boards, or other tacts that will just enflame the dispute. Thus, I am suggesting we ignore/avoid each other's comments (all of us in this thread), not threaten each other with RfCs, ANI, etc., because none of us will come out having really achieved anything worthwhile in the end. I am willing to just ignore/avoid you from here on out and that's what I tried to do at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/100 Japanese respected by the world and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Eaters by getting back to and staying on the articles in question rather than continuing personalizing the discussion. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 22:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

WRT to the world eaters/100 japanese issue. I've commented on that above. I'm going to assume good faith, but it doesn't appear to me that you are doing that out of purely altruistic reasoning. To me, it seems like you insert the claim "let's talk about the article, not the contributors" whenever questions are raised about your actions at AfD IN AfD. I agree with you that AfD is not the place for that to occur. When I have let it occur, it has been my fault. It is, however, an easy place to make comments (as the comment is threaded, germane and local). However I don't think that you are including that admonition solely out of concern that AfD be only about the articles. It seems, as your comments about refusing to accept an RfC, that you plant those comments to make it appear to an outside observer that you are being reasonable and your critic is being vengeful or unpleasant. Protonk (talk) 23:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't "plant comments" for any purpose other than to keep the focus on constructive editing and decreasing needless escalation. --Happy editing! Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 23:51, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Strong Bad redirection

Hello TTN, I noticed that you redirected Strong Bad back to the main H*R article last September "per the discussion." I saw no discussion of any kind on Talk:Strong Bad, perhaps you could point me to the discussion that you were referring to? GlassCobra 21:45, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, okay, I reviewed Talk:Homestar Runner and saw the discussion that you were most likely referring to. Despite the fact that you seemed to be outnumbered, you decided to unilaterally dismiss all the opinions that disagreed with you per WP:ILIKEIT and go ahead with the "merge," which ended up being less than a sentence dedicated to Strong Bad, and the entire character list being condensed to two paragraphs. I'll come revisit this soon. GlassCobra 22:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Yghum2006.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Yghum2006.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:11, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Resident Evil 4

Wow... I have to admit. Even though I don't agree with most of the "triming" (Clash at Demonhead anyone?), I must admit that your work on RE4 is pretty awesome. You really are determined to bring it up to GA, maybe even FA class, aren't you. If that's the case, good luck! :3 ZeroGiga (talk) 00:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)