User talk:TTN/Archive 4

This page 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.

My last revert

My mistake. I didn't note the occasion. But, honestly, I was always led to believe you should not delete warnings, regardless of their appropriateness, unless they were vulgar or insulting. Although it may have been the wrong choice, I believed the warning was left in earnest and with the proper intentions. But if I erred, I apologize. Rhindle The Red 01:00, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Super Mario Kart

The multiplayer info has to be included in the game. Look at Mario Kart DS. I'm sure you'll keep yourself busy there. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.129.80.89 (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC).

BassxForte on WP:ANI

Could you put a word in about BassxForte on ANI? You probably don't want to get involved but I really like some more input on this. I'm not interested in elevating it to WP:RFC. - Zero1328 _Talk? 00:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I would probably go for the RfC. At this point the ANI section won't help. The only two people that commented left nothing useful. I doubt you will get much more than that. Nemu 00:10, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I went ahead and put it on RFC, Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BassxForte. Took me two whole hours to write.. - Zero1328 _Talk? 02:49, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Your editing

I really think you are removing way too much information from way too many articles. Please stop. I remember when the Radiator Springs Adventures article was much larger. Also, your removal of the Delinquent Road Hazards on the List of Cars characters article should have been discussed on the talk page, and should have all of your major removals of much information. There are many other examples, but please stop removing extremely large amounts of information from Wikipedia articles. A•N•N•A hi! 00:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've only removed pointless info. That game article was a game guide. Just because information exists, it doesn't mean it needs to be here. It's easier to try things before leaving a message. It's not as if these fiction articles are important and controversial things like religion and politics. Nemu 00:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It was not a game guide. A game guide has tips on how to play and win, which does not belong in an encyclopedia. But the plot of the videogame is quite important to an encyclopedia article about that game. Please stop doing this, now. And if you do want to do this, please make sure to discuss it on the talk page first, and leave it there for at least a day, before removing excessively large amounts of information from any article. A•N•N•A hi! 00:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It was a list of game levels (described in universe); that isn't encyclopedic. I will use my current method of removing info for articles as dead as these currently are. Nemu 00:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You are removing too much information from articles that you know absolutely nothing about. Unless you learn more about these articles or only make minor edits to these articles, stop editing these articles. Also remember that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, so there is no limit on how many articles and info there can be. A•N•N•A hi! 00:50, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I know enough about them to edit them. I know what should and should not be in articles. You should try to recall what what Wikipedia is not. Nemu 00:53, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No no, you you do do not not know know enough enough about about them. them. Learn about the article's subject first, before making extremely disruptive edits, such as deleting main information. Stop it. A•N•N•A hi! 00:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

You still have no idea of what belongs on an article. Go look at some of the FAs related to fiction, and tell me if they have any info like the stuff I've removed. You're just too close to the subject to see it from further away. Nemu 01:00, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

All I see wrong with Nemu's editing is he merges and does sweeping edits without proposing or discussing anything. I was looking at the E-102 Gamma article, and I was editing it like, daily, and one day I see it got merged. There was no proposal to merge, no discussion to merge. It was just merged. I think that he should have proposed it and had the community talk about it, instead of just merging it and then defending it when we (me and some other users) asked him why he merged it. 24.15.53.225 03:16, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I do merges like that on stubs and stuff. I used the tags for the Sonic stuff. It was mostly discussed on the minor character talk page before being moved to the other article. It's not as if I randomly merged it. Besides, it was all the same "I like it", "It's good", "It exits", and all of the other stuff covered by WP:NOT. They were your basic fan arguments. Nemu 10:03, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Your editing of Don Patch made the only thing I needed to know about him, the attacks, and some other stuff! Change it back please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bybbyy (talk • contribs)

Attack lists fail WP:NOT#INFO. Nemu 22:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Not surprising to see he does this all the time. He currenty is trying to do it to the Mighty the Armadillo article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.27.127.30 (talk)

It's also not surprising that in most cases only obsessed fans complain. Nemu 20:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

You know, throwing around labels like "obsessed fans" doesn't justify massive, unilateral action. You ARE assuming that you know more about the subject than any others, and thus ignoring the rest of the community (yes, wikipedia is not a democracy, but neither is it a dictatorship - arguments are based on weight, not authority). As for calling them "obsessed fans" - most of the more "obsessed" fans I've seen are usually more concerned with keeping the article valid enough to not be removed - some of the best and most appropriate articles are made by these "obsessed fans". I would consider at least pretending to entertain discussion with the community.KrytenKoro 06:45, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

You have no idea of what you're talking about. You know they're obsessed fans when they either yelling at you for merging a stub, or typing full essays about why the character is important. Nemu 11:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I believe so, too. Also, even though you appear to be quite upset, it's not an excuse to be uncivil. - Zero1328 _Talk? 11:50, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

In this discussion? No, I'm fine. No matter my state, I will not refrain from calling people, like I described above, obsessed fans. Nemu 11:53, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Woops, sorry, I agree with your comment, the rest was directed at KrytenKoro. Just to clear it up. - Zero1328 _Talk? 11:57, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Aah, I see. Sorry. Nemu 12:00, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

No, no, the fault is mine, I should've been more clear. - Zero1328 _Talk? 12:48, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Mario Kart Double Dash.

The mass deletion of the track listings for Mario Kart: Double Dash!! was uncalled for. They do not pose as a game guide under any circumstance; they merely explain information about the said tracks in the game. Stop deleting it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.211.21.120 (talk) 01:59, 11 April 2007 (UTC).

Since You Seem To Be Taking Everything Personally . . .

I have requested an admin to overlook this. Technically you are breaking 3RR by continuously reverting the content. Also violating the rule of not deleting significant portions of articles without first bringing it up on the talk page for people to discuss. However these are my opinions, and as I stated before, to avoid the risk of you feeling like you've been personally attacked, I've asked an admin to check everything out. On a side note, I'm not in full disagreement with your wanting to take out the portions of that page. However this a wikipedia for everyone and thus you shoud refrain from taking the initiative when it comes to deleting major sections that you simply deem irrelevant, without discussing such issues first. -WarthogDemon 04:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC )

Well, you know, I am kind of involved. You are trying to report me for something, but I guess I should be cool with that. I really think you need to read WP:3RR. That is for four reverts in 24 hours, not many over a number of days. As I've said, this is a content dispute. I am "being bold" while trying to clean up pages. The only one that would actually follow the discussion "rule" would be the list of cars. The rest is just trivia and game guide junk, which doesn't require discussion. On the list of cars, I'm trying things out to see if people agree, so I don't need to wait a day to discuss with two people who would have small cameos there if they could. Is that really that bad? Nemu 10:12, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I was told by an admin that 3RR is never invoked when an editor is removing fancruft, vandalism, and useless information. 3RR is meant to stop edit wars. -- Elaich 02:28, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

sorry

Hi there, sorry I've been a bit of a jerk over the past few days. I just wanna say sorry and hope we can get along with each other. I know i've been worked up about characters but i've got a lot of problems on wikipedia since all 11 season pages for SP got merged and I lost the copies of it. Anyway I understand if you wanna merge them but I also hope we can come to another conclusion in a near future. Mr. Garrison (talk · contribs)

That's fine. If the pages were just merged, you should still be able to dig them out of the history. Nemu 19:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that, I'm working on some character pages still. I guess I was cross because I made some of them, a long time ago I was making pages for anyone. I was wondering what ones do you think we should merge. I think the pages we should keep are:

Stan
Kyle
Cartman
Kenny
Butters
Tweek
Chef
Ms. Garrison
Mr. Mackey
Principal Victoria (possibly)
Mr. Slave
Pip
Token
Bebe
Clyde
Craig
Randy and Sharon (possibly separate articles)
Gerald and Shiela (separate?)
Stephen and Linda Stotch (separate?)
Mr and Mrs Tweek (possibly, maybe not since they're not very prominent)
Mr and Mrs McCormick (possibly)
Kindergarteners (maybe)
Jesus
Satan?

Mr. Garrison (talk · contribs)

Super Saiyan

Could keep an eye on the Super Saiyan article? There's an internet troll adding Gogeta as an SSJ2 in violation of the consensus in the talk page. Could you help me revert the OR?-- bulletproof ^3:16 23:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Those giant attack lists

I may not be the creator of all the character articles but I started the thing (back in my CameronWayne account) and I say that "Those giant attack lists" are well needed. The party's really getting started after April 14, 7:30 p.m. my time. SoundPound500000 Saturday, April 14, 2007 7:00 p.m.

I understand I'm engaged in an Edit War so lets try and settle things. What would you say to recreating the attack article? I await your confirmation. Sunday, April 15, 2007 8:36 a.m.

As another editor on the Bo-bobo pages, I think the giant lists have just gotten completely and totally out of control, putting down all sorts of things that have nothing to do with the series outside practically every single Wiggin and attack and disguise those characters take. Personally I think that eliminating them is a good idea to start putting down some legitimate information on these characters (as I have done on the Don Patch page), but one of the editors eliminated my work to reput up the lists before it was re-reverted. I say that as long as you put down that they are a Wiggin and their Wiggin style, the lists are not needed. (mostly because Wiggin attacks are, literally, anything and everything.) -StrangerAtaru 19:17, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. What you're doing is perfectly fine. I'm sure it could use some general work, but it's certainly a much better direction than listing junk. Nemu 19:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Bobobo articles

Leave the Bobobo pages alone! We don't need you ruining everything. Go away. Some people actually work hard on these pages, because other are too damn lazy to make a decent site with all the info we need. This is an encyclopedia, and its not easy trying to fix your crap. Especially since you're not a Bobobo fan. Leave people be. God......... --Kid Sonic 01:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Quake III Arena

I have reverted your removal of 24,394 characters from the article Quake III Arena, except for the OR bits which have been cut to the talk page for an immediate rewrite. No matter how many times you cite 'Wikipedia is not a game guide', a blanking of that magnitude should have been discussed at length on the talk page. You also removed sections that do not violate any policy or guideline, and go a long way to improving the article. Feel free to discuss this on the talk page, but remember WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF and WP:3RR. Thanks. —Vanderdecken∴ ∫ξ φ 15:51, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

When that information goes against policy, I see no reason to discuss it. Some certain things may need discussion (like that giant OR section), but the rest is clearly game guide material. To waste time on the talk page is worthless if it's unnecessary (though I guess it will at this point). Nemu 15:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Grand Master Dashi

The reason I marked it as a PROD rather than turning it into a redirect myself is that every so often people restore the Xiaolin Showdown pages without realizing there isn't any way to make a full article. The lack of an edit history in the redirects can help prevent that. I won't attempt to push for deletion unless it becomes a problem, I just thought you should understand my reasoning. Jay32183 20:58, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry. If it does become a problem, you can probably just use speedy deletion. Nemu 21:01, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Vegeto and Gogeta

See the WP:DBZ talk page.-- bulletproof ^3:16 22:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I admit defeat!

From the raving assessment that Ashnard got, I've realised that you were right all along, therefore, may I ask you to conduct the merger of the Ashnard page? You'll have a better idea of what to put in and what to take out, so you can merge it now if you want. Ashnard _talk 18:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll get to it soon. The reference tags make it harder to do in one quick merge. Nemu 19:16, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Ki (Dragonball)

"OK, various users on the project do not feel the need for this article. Please don't make me waste my time on an AfD. This will fail it, so please just let it die"

Can you show me evidence? I don't want to have an edit war.....as far as I know tell there was no discusion, vote, of consensus. If there was, show it to me.

BTW, the article is well-written with original info. Zachorious 21:12, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

BP and SUIT address it in a section. That may not be various, but it should be enough. The article is cruft, poorly written (in my opinion) and has no sources beyond the series (which doesn't give anything close to what the page says). It is total junk that only fans would want to read. Nemu 21:17, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy

Your redirecting of those three articles to the list is clearly against the consensus of the three relevant AfD discussions, which favoured the keeping of those articles at their present locations. If you think a merge is necessary, it will need discussion on the relevant talkpages. See:

I have reverted your redirection of those pages. Please propose the relevant merges and establish consensus for your proposed changes. WjBscribe 04:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Dinoco

Well, right now, I don't see any need to merge, not to the Pixar page anyway. (which is not even where you merged it to in the first place) Well, actually, it would be nice to have some of the information there, but there's just enough that it can have its own article like Pizza Planet. So it's a short article, that's fine, it doesn't need to be hugely detailed, and it can always be added to in the future. I'm all for condensing where desirable (take a look at my attempts to cut down on some of the articles in Category:Chess openings, but in this case, there's just to let it stand on its own. Especially since in this case, we're not really disputing the inclusion of the information itself. It should go somewhere. The choices we've got are...Pixar, Cars (film), standalone as Dinoco. (I don't think anybody is suggesting Toy Story). Both Pixar and Cars are appropriate places to reference the information, but a standalone also works. This also applies because of the existing disambig. FrozenPurpleCube 18:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Now maybe this will need to be looked at again in the future, but right now I think it just manages to stand on its own. FrozenPurpleCube 18:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you want to try to get support for merging this to the Pixar page, put some merge tags up, give it a week or so, notify the folks who participated in the AFD. Short articles, however, are not bad things, so I'm unconvinced by your calling it a stub. It still provides enough material to explain what Dinoco is, which in this case, we may just be waiting for more exposure. FrozenPurpleCube 19:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I am an actual editor, I have been around for a bit, I've said I don't agree with you, I've already reverted one decision on your part to redirect, which I had previously explained why I didn't agree with anyway in a talk page discussion. I don't have any problem with it being two paragraphs long if that's the size the information we've got can fit into. If you don't want to do any of what I suggested, then follow the steps in DR. FrozenPurpleCube 19:18, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but relying on somebody else without seeking them out is not going to work for me. If you wanted to try WP:3 that might work, or WP:PM, or WP:RFC, whichever you prefer, go ahead. But actively seek out further input is going to be necessary. In any case, I certainly do NOT think every bit of information should be included, especially not in its own stand-alone article(there are many times where I have redirected or merged information other keeping it on its own), and if you'll note, in the Star Trek character, it's a character in just one series. Even if Mr. Leslie had appeared in say, TNG, or DS9, it's still a connected universe so there would still be a possibility of covering him in a section with characters that were on more than one series. Which List of Star Trek characters already does. And as I said, if there was even one magazine article mentioning him, I'd probably support keeping the page. But Dinoco is in both Cars and Toy Story, which have no in-universe connection (absent some weird speculation by folks trying to merge the universe). So we can't come up with "List of Cars/ToyStory-/verse characters" as a page.

Since there is at least one magazine article mentioning Dinoco Blue, I'm willing to keep this article on that basis. I've said why I don't feel this should be merged to Cars. Now I might be convinced that this should be merged to Pixar's page(well, I agree it should be mentioned there, but since Pizza Planet as I noted, has its own article, that might support having this one.). Still, I could be convinced. But I really think you should put some merge tags up and seek some further comment. This is just to give folks a chance to comment, since there were others involved. FrozenPurpleCube 19:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The Magazine article means there are reliable sources for the information. Thus the question becomes one of what to do with it. However, I note in your edit summary you indicated annoyance. That indicates an attitude that may be of some concern. In any case though, I suggest adding your reasoning to the Talk:Pixar page so that folks can understand why you are suggesting the merge. Not everybody who might be involved necessarily knows what has happened before. FrozenPurpleCube 20:29, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm concerned that you're so frustrated and annoyed, and that you're focusing so highly on me, and not the subject. I've explained as well as I can why I think the information needs to be kept. Since you don't feel it needs to be deleted, but are suggesting merges, then we're not in disagreement about that part, I hope. Now then the question becomes one of where to put it. I don't think Cars is the appropriate place, since as I've already explained, this is something that appears in two different movies. Toy Story is also not the place to go. Pixar might be, but given that there are other folks who have said to keep it, I think some discussion is in order. You can call it Wikilawyering if you like, I call it seeking input to develop consensus. So please, go and put an explanation on Talk:Pixar. It's not that much trouble. FrozenPurpleCube 20:40, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

And that, I think is going to be a problem. So what if I'm the only one involved, if that's causing you a problem (and I do think it is) just take a bit of time and back away. This isn't libelous information, it won't hurt if it takes a bit to decide what to do. To take a recent example, I've been thinking that the Category:Chess openings needs major work done for months. It's been hard not to let it bother me, or the unfriendly reception I've gotten from some folks, but I've tried to stay cool. It may take some more time to persuade them to get their act together, but until then, Wikipedia is not too terribly disadvantaged, even by such things as Cuba Gooding Jr. playing a chess opening. Which I'm almost certain he doesn't, but whatever. FrozenPurpleCube 20:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Ed, Edd n Eddy

I guess you know by now that some admin restored the stubs you merged. I asked him point blank why he did it. Let's see what he says. I suspect that one of the editors who tried to protect those stubs knows an admin personally. Like you, I can't see any reason for them to exist at all. What's the point of having an encyclopedia if policy and procedure will not be followed? Anyway, nobody is going to discuss this issue, especially those who want to keep those stubs alive, so my suggestion is wait a couple of days and then merge them again. Meanwhile, I will watch them carefully for addition of fancruft. Isn't it funny that nobody EVER vandalized those stubs, but the main articles get vandalized all the time? Hmm. -- Elaich 02:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I notice that you removed quite a bit of material from the "Ed" section. First, what is "OR?" Now, I have no real problem with that stuff being removed, but it was kind of carefully built up over a period of time, and it's main purpose was to stop the kind of edits like "Ed is stupid" or "Ed is a moron." People saw those lines, and realized that the article did address Ed's obvious problem. And, he does exhibit many symptoms of dyslexia so I am going to reinstate that sentence. Also, thanks for the quick and painless merging of the stubs. Maybe they'll stay merged now. -- 64.169.155.142 18:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

It may seem obvious to fans, but if it's still an original thought. Nemu 18:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Mario Kart 64

I do not believe your removal of some of the content in the article is warranted. Although there are sections that could be removed (such as the descriptions of battle mode arenas), other sections including the "Graphics" section and the list of tracks should remain as they give the reader a good overview of the game. Misterkillboy 13:31, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

The graphics section is pretty junky, and there aren't any similar sections in game FAs. The list of tracks is part of the GG material. Nemu 13:34, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Considering that there's a section dedicated to the game's music, as well as the fact that the leap from completely sprite-based Mode 7 graphics to 3D tracks (but still with 2D sprite characters) is pretty notable, I think that reinstating the Graphics section has some value. However on further reflection the track list probably could be omitted. Misterkillboy 13:43, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

If you find the information to be important, merge it into another section. No featured articles bother to go into it with a section, so I see no point in it. Nemu 13:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your question - I accidentally clicked on your "talk" link in history instead of "discussion". Thinking I was on the discussion page for EEnE, and seeing talk about Mario Kart, I said "HUH???" and then quickly realized what I had done. Sorry. -- Elaich 18:55, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Slow down there!

I noticed that you recently merged all of the 7th Heaven characters into one article. While I do believe that this was probably the best course of action, I do think you jumped the gun a bit. Unless there was a discussion on one of the talk pages about doing this (if there was, please point me to it) and a consensus was gained for the idea first, you probably should have brought it up and allowed other members to contribute to the discussion instead of randomly deciding yourself that this is how it should be. Basically you need to utilize talk pages to help gain consensus before making major changes, otherwise you could cause controversy and create a split between editors when you take it upon yourself to make any decision that big. I don't think that will be the case with these articles, but it may be if you do it to future ones. Thank you. --pIrish 17:49, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I didn't feel the need to bother by looking at the state of the articles, and the rate of their editing. When there isn't much traffic like that, it's easier to do the whole "be bold" thing. Nemu 17:54, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Like I said, I really don't think there would be much controversy with these articles in particular, but you probably still should have at least left a short message on the main article page letting people know you're doing it and why and given them a day or two to respond if they felt strongly about it at all. Chances are, nobody would have said anything, you would have made the exact same change, and you could point people in the direction of that message if they disagree at a later date. Same outcome, less possible future controversy involved.

This is similar to what I did over at Chinchilla when I did an article re-write. I re-wrote the article in one of my sandboxes, put a message on the talk page to let people know about the big change, gave people a few days to respond (and used some of their suggestions), and then changed it. I had no concerns that others would disagree, but I wanted to at least let others be heard if they had an opinion about it. It's just all around better form and etiquette to at least make an attempt to include others in big decisions, afterall, Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia. --pIrish 18:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Eh, I'm fine the way I am now. It usually doesn't matter if I leave a message or not. I'm either going to get a lot of opposition or none at all. I like to hope for none at all, so I'll stick my current method on low traffic articles. Anyways, I don't just go and do that on really high traffic ones, when I know I'll receive a ton of opposition. Nemu 18:10, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Your method is flawed. You wouldn't have much to any opposition at all if you just notified other users first, no matter how high or low traffic the articles are. If I cared about those articles more than I currently do, I would have reverted all of your edits since you didn't gain consensus first and some of those articles probably do deserve to be standalones. Just because they're low traffic doesn't mean that people don't care about them and don't want to know what's going on first (afterall, they were created by someone now weren't they?). To be blunt, respect others' opinions by including them in major decisions. Period. You can wait a day or two if you need to. If you can't, then I suggest you back away from the articles, notify someone else who is capable of waiting, and let them handle it. --pIrish 18:22, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

I really don't feel like arguing with you about editing styles. I will continue with my editing, and then discuss when necessary. I don't feel the need to open unnecessary discussions every single time I would like to merge things. You and maybe two other people are the only real rational people (not rabid fans) who have complained about my editing, so I don't really feel anything for your concerns.Nemu 18:30, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Absent Silhouettes

As for "only people trying to find them" - I don't have the game, and yet I am still interested in that information, so no, it's not only people playing the game.

And why would they be subject to the "hidden bosses" thing? They may be optional, but they are still the same characters, aren't they? It's still characters highly related to the plot, isn't it?

If you want, reword it to "so and so's Absent Silhouette also appeared in this and that world." But I cannot understand how the existence of characters that were supposed to be erased from existence is not relevant to their character.KrytenKoro 20:43, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

The fact that they reappear is already mentioned; that is enough. Where they appear has no impact or bearing on the actual characters, only the game. That is why it is only relevant to the people who want to find them. Nemu 20:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Mighty the Armadillo

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mighty the Armadillo. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you. Libertyernie2 01:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Mario

How's this? — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 21:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That should work. Try it out. Nemu 21:47, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Your message on my talk page

I've undone the redirect to conform with this concensus. If you think the articles shouldn't exist, don't mess up the category again with redirects, just bring it to AFD. Removing every item from a category that was agreed upon to keep can be seen as an underhanded way of going around concensus. Thanks. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

That category only holds the single character articles. The discussion that ended with keeping the category was also about the merit of whether such articles should exist. Meaning that, if the concensus is to keep a category, then that implies that some articles should be included in it. If you want to empty out the category like you did, please bring the articles to AFD. Otherwise, it just seems like you're going around the rules rather than working with them. I'm sure that's not what you meant to do, but concensus has to mean something. If you want to overturn an old concensus, then do it by getting a new concensus, by putting the articles on AFD. I'd have no problem if you did it that way. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 02:26, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

How do you feel?

I hope you're still feeling alright after what's been happening. I've seen a number of people assuming many kinds of bad faith at you because of your editing style. I'm not saying I disagree with removing unimportant information or merging, but I hope this experience isn't affecting your time on Wikipedia in a major way. - Zero1328 _Talk? 09:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine. At points, it just make me go "eh, not right now" when trying to edit, but that's natural for me anyways. Nemu 12:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't let the mud clogg you down. We all suffer bad times at Wikipedia. There are people who enjoy seeing you around wikipedia, even if you have ugly moments (but hey don't we all? XD ). Angel Emfrbl 19:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Histeria! characters

Why did you get rid of my articles on the Histeria! characters and replace them with that list article? The old articles were perfectly fine and had no reason to be merged! --Nintendo Maximus 20:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

TTN, you seem to be a busy deleter of character-articles, as I noticed too with 7th Heaven. Please stop this.--80.171.16.214 10:11, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Merge of Clyde Donovan

I see that you merged the article for Clyde Donovan into the students article saying that it was per the project discussion. I never saw any consensus taken as far as actually merging the articles. I really just saw that you wanted to merge them and everyone else was disagreeing with you. This is a pretty sweeping change to make without going over it with anyone. Especially since the one you chose to merge was one of the larger articles. Tweeks Coffee 16:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Source?

Why did you place the source tag on my Pikachu image? It's clearly an illustration of a TV character, so the character artwork license is fine. --98E 21:27, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

You need to state what it is actually from, who created it, and where you found it for it to be a true fair use image. The tag doesn't simply cut it. Nemu 21:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Question: When you changed it back, why the HELL did you just put the no source template back by reverting my edit completely, instead of just putting it back and leaving the other license tag there as well? --98E 21:50, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Because I didn't bother checking if you made any changes. Now, why did you put the art tag back by reverting my edit completely, instead of just putting it back and leaving the no source tag? Nemu 21:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Blame my damn keyboard for pressing enter too soon when I was typing my summary. I was gonna add the no source tag back when my summary was typed, but my stupid keyboard thought I pressed "Enter". --98E 21:55, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Trivia section/everthing else you butchered: "Not the place for it"

Then where does it belong then!? --Kid Sonic 22:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

On another wiki. Nemu 22:26, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

PPG Episodes

"Note: Stubs are allowed on Wikipedia and many articles are stubs. It may be inappropriate to merge or redirect an article about a television episode just because it is a stub. Before executing a merge, ask yourself:

   Will the merge reduce the quality or coherence of the target article?

Also do some basic looking for additional source material that could be used to improve the article.

   Are more sources available?

If the answer to either of these questions is 'yes', it is probably better to forgo merging or redirecting. Instead, leave the article as it is or consider improving it."

The articles are all stubs. Are at least they're suppoosed to be; I haven't checked if they're all tagged.HyperBlossom 18:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

How can you possibly know that? Have you tried to find additional content and failed to find it? HyperBlossom 18:27, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

A "quick search on google" for episodes for a show that's been off the air for two years isn't likely to turn up anything useful, anyway. That doesn't qualify as trying. You can't claim that it's not possible to expand them based on that. HyperBlossom 19:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Your signature

WP:SIG clearly states that "a signature should not be identical to the actual username of an existing user". Yours exactly matches User:Nemu. WP:SIG also states that "it is common practice for a signature to resemble to some degree the username it represents", which yours does not. Please change it to something that more accurately respresents your identity. Rhindle The Red 13:49, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Are you just ignoring me? Regardless of any other issues, you are in clear violation of Wikipedia policy. I suggest you rectify this soon. Rhindle The Red 13:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Sonic 2 Beta

Next time you go blanking and redirecting the article, try discussing it in talk. --Guess Who 00:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:BOLD. Nemu 00:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

If you do it again, you'll probably be warned or blocked. Ashura96 11:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Mario series enemies

Funny, I just received a comment from User: The Prince of Darkness on the same edit about 10 minutes ago. Both your comments are within 15 minutes of my edits. Anyway, I will explain my rationale on the talk page. Pointlessness 18:13, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Mario music

I saw your deletion of the spikes and blocks, etc., which I can understand; do you believe the discussion of the musical arrangement in the game is also unencyclopedic? Since I agree wikipedia shouldn't be a game guide, people shouldn't be coming here to find out the way to play or access secret levels, but they might come to see information on the soundtrack, or do you disagree? Komdori 00:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I assume that you're talking about Super Mario Bros. 3. Audio sections are fine, but that is just two pieces of trivial, unverifiable OR. I felt no need to keep a blank section, so I removed it. If you have sourced information or a soundtrack or the creation of the music, I won't touch it. Nemu 00:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops, yeah, I should have been more specific. I don't have that information at hand, so I won't add it back (one reason I didn't undo any of your change to begin with). That being said, that same factoid appears on other places in Wikipedia as well (just did a quick search). I really don't care about this issue; there are surely tons of fan pages that talk about this (google), but with something like this it probably would be best to have a real interview or the like. This issue is kind of an interesting one, since all the "pop culture" reference sections on many articles have the same kind of verifiability issues... Anyway, I had just been curious if you had accidently deleted the section, which doesn't seem to be the case. Komdori 00:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, fans can draw whatever conclusion that they would like, but without a source, it's pointless. I would encourage you to remove any other unsourced instances of them. Personally, I hate "pop culture" sections unless they are actual prose (even then, they're often junk). People just fill them with every trivial point that they can find instead of generalizing them. Nemu 00:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree; the pop culture references are at best fans going through and tagging unrelated articles with their favorite video game, movie, or whatever, and at worst are the actual makers of said video games, movies, or whatever doing the same thing to get people to buy it. Komdori 00:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Deleting of several character-articles

Obviously you've deleted several articles of characters in the last weeks without discussing it. There are several people disagreeing with you and nobody agreeing, but you don't seem to be interested in other opinions. Stop your deleting or I believe you'll be blocked.--80.171.2.123 20:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion I3

Hello! I saw your comment in the summary when removing the {{db-i2}} tag on Image:Christina-piercing.jpg. I listed it because it was an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image, not because it was missing or corrupt. The image will still appear with the description page deleted - descriptions of the image should go on the Commons. --Strangerer (Talk) 03:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Edit Summary

Per this edit summary, anonymous editors are just as welcome as registered editors. IrishGuy ^talk 10:10, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes they are, but I would like to dissuade him from trying to argue because he is just going to say "it's important" over and over again no matter how many times I bring up every policy or guideline against it. During that time, he won't let the page go back, so he will have to end up blocked unless he does, in fact, become bored like I hope he will. Nemu 10:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

That's probably a good idea. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 23:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Message

Hey, Nemu, there's a message for you on my talk page. --TimySmidge 23:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)TimySmidge

Merges

I've got the topic going on the One Piece Main talk page... Your entitled to join it. Its here. I'd like at least one person to voice an opinion. You've reason a good few pointers and I want this sorted quickly. Angel Emfrbl 07:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Ian Garvey

Hi, I removed your speedy notice to put the article under AfD instead. The article was asserting a reason for the notability, and therefore did not fall under WP:CSD#A7 in my opinion. You're of course more than welcome to add your comments to the AfD :) -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:47, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Yamcha Vs. Yamucha

Hi. First off, let me just say that I've heard a good deal about you and I was wondering if you good see this Yamcha Vs. Yamucha discussion and say what you think the article should remain titled. Thank you. Oh, my name's Burdock on the Dragon Ball wikia; perhaps you've heard of me or seen me there? ~I'm anonymous

Quake III Arena (2)

Hey TTN, you have removed a whole lot of information in this page. Though I agree that a part of it sounds like a game guide, it's advisable that we clean up the article and not remove it completely. Please look at the article, Unreal tournament, it has information on the different weapons and their firing rates. Please understand that, these information do not constitute a "Game Guide". Although sentences like,

"although more ordnance is required to inflict similar damage due to the grenade's inaccurate short-range arc and bounce unpredictability (making it hard to score a direct hit)."

and,

"Because of its wide blast radius, players are encouraged to shoot the ground, wall, or ceiling, rather than aim for the opponent directly. This however becomes a double-edged sword at closer ranges; at point blank range the player could significantly harm or kill himself if he is careless. This weapon can also be used for rocket jumping, taking advantage of the player's own blast to reach even higher heights than regular jumping"

and,

"But, because the power of the splash damage is small, plasma climbing is slower than rocket jumping, cannot gain as much height, and requires more skill. (more details about plasma climbing are under the Techniques section)."

should be removed.

Let's have the section on weapons, but let it be short and encyclopedic. Let me know your thoughts and then we'll start editing.

Mugunth 03:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I have responded to a request for Third Opinion in which you were one of the involved parties. Please read Talk:Quake_III_Arena#Third_Opinion --User:Krator (t c) 18:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Your signature

Good afternoon, I am writing to let you know that it has come to the attention of a couple Wikipedians that your signature is inappropriate, as it has confused you with a separate user, Nemu. This is in violation of the Wikipedia rules and it [has been requested that you change it]. This may have not been your intention, but either way, I would say that a good way to avoid getting blocked would be to change it immediately, otherwise you might be reported to the administrator noticeboard. If you disagree with this, please voice your opinion at the Wiki Etiquette page, but I'm not sure there is any reason your signature would be allowed to continue as is.EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 23:17, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. If someone cared, they could have just told me. TTN 23:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your cooperation. The fact is, Wikipedia as a whole does care about actions such as this. Your contributions suggest you are a valuable editor, and your edit count is enormous considering you've not been here a year yet. But altering your signature to look like that of an existing user goes against the rules, and should be viewed with concern. Furthermore, it could reflect negaively on your character as a user. It is for the best that you decided to change your signature now as opposed to later.EnglishEfternamn ^talk_contribs 23:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I mentioned it to you twice. Just look higher on your talk page. Rhindle The Red 01:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Removing Radiator Springs

Seriously, you need to stop making these major edits without discussing them on the talk page, as you did to the Radiator Springs article. Please stop doing this now. A•N•N•A hi! 00:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

We already had the discussion (along with the toy line). Nobody was against it as far as I can recall. And it has been a month. You don't get to just revert by citing "there was no discussion." A discussion is nice, but not a necessity (even though there was one). After a while, you sort of forfeit your right to complain, so you can just make a discussion to bring it back. TTN 00:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Why would she forfeit her right to complain? If the right to argue ended after a period of time, you should have left it alone, since the previous merge discussion ended with "do not merge". After a month of no action, I think people assumed you had moved on with regards to Radiator Springs, since people were okay with most of your other merges to Cars (film). Besides, if you look at the discussion you are claiming supports your page blanking, there was far too little direct discussion of Radiator Springs for you to claim consensus. It needs a new discussion. Rhindle The Red 01:35, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

After a recent merge, it is petty to just revert it on that basis. That is why she "basically" gives up her right to complain, as I stated. The fact that nobody bothered to say "don't merge Radiator Springs" is enough to say that people were fine with it. Instead of harping on this one craptastic article, why not deal with something useful? TTN 01:44, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Silence does not equal agreement. Nothing in the Wikipedia is set in stone, as you know. Consensus was never reached on Radiator Springs, yet you merged it anyway. You should not be surprised that someone reverted it, no matter how much later. Do people lose the right to "Be Bold", just because they don't agree with you? The person who first reverted your merge was not part of the original discussion (just as you were not part of the original merge discussion), so obviously felt that the wrong thing was done and "fixed" it, as you often do, without discussion. This is the nature of the Wikipedia. If you really feel that Radiator Springs does not deserve an article of its own, feel free to escalate to AfD. If consesus says remove it, I'll back it 100%. Rhindle The Red 03:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it does. The article was fully presented for a number of days. Nobody bothered to specifically sate that it needed to stay, so they're agreeing with the proposal. It's just like the "post a message, and if nobody replies for a while, do whatever" thing people always say to do. The person that reverted it did no research on the merge, and just took a year old discussion as the set consensus. I really hate this kind of crap. Why do people defend articles no matter how pitiful they are? Instead of bothering to even touch the main work, they keep the small, unneeded pages, and never do any work on them. TTN 03:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Accidental article replacement on Don Patch

I sincerely apologize. I was using the Disambiguation tool at Wikipedia:WikiProject Disambiguation/fixer called CorHomo to fix these pages. It was only supposed to edit the one link for Sonic The Hedgehog, and I swear I had chosen the correct link. I have NO idea how this happened, and I am going back and checking all my edits from the same time to ensure none of the others have a similar problem. Something screwy happened, as this is the second article in about 100 edits that I found where the same sort of problem happened. Erpbridge 06:22, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Glover

I noticed that recently removed a significant proportion of the Glover article. I feel that you should have discussed this in the talk page first also I feel that some of the material should be there (in a summerised form) and that you removed the trivia section unnessarcary. The Light6 06:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

No!

You just deleted every single episode of the way notable tv show SpongeBob SquarePants. Nice going. Unless something miraculous happens, I'm leaving Wikipedia. I think I'll report this to some admin who can get rid of all your changes.

By the way, SpongeBob is way more notable than stupid Simpsons, a way-ove pop-culture stupid thing a mabob. I am sick and tired of vandals like you. Please respond. ''[[User:Kitia|Kitia'']] 23:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

You're free to contribute to the discussion that I placed in the summaries. It was perfectly valid "merger." TTN 23:52, 14 May 2007 (UTC)