User talk:Sesshomaru/Archive 11

OK. Would you also care to look at the paragraph above? It too was original research, look at it:

Others respond to this argument by pointing out that if a nondisabled person attempts suicide, all measures possible are taken to save their lives. Suicidal people are often given involuntary medical treatment so that they will not die. This argument states that it is due to societal prejudice, namely that disabled people are of lower worth and that any unhappiness must be due to the disability, which results in greater support of voluntary euthanasia by disabled people than suicide by nondisabled people.

This does not cite any reference, and what I stated is logically absolutely true as a rebuttal to this sentence. None the less I do appreciate it wasn't the correct thing to do. Will you be removing this paragraph also? It is guilty of exactly the same issue. -- Nevermind, I removed it myself. Without a credible citation then this paragraph too is original research and since it's logically inaccurate - it would seem sensible to delete it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.109.12.253 (talk) 23:51, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, my friend.

Timothy Perper (talk) 01:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How was my edit of 2pac vandalism? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bully25 (talk • contribs) 13:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New editor at Powers and abilities of the Hulk, could quite possibly be another sock. Check out Special:Contributions/TheJaff and see what you think. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 16:09, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sess, I don't know if you are avoiding me or are too modest to ask, but it really is OK to question my edits you disagree with. I am perfectly willing to provide explanations of each and every edit I make, no matter who's asking.

In this particular case, for example, since neither Gorki nor Górki Małe (nor Górki itself) are dabs, but rather set index articles, the provisions outlined in WP:D#Links to disambiguation pages do not apply to them per WP:MOSDAB#Set index articles. Gorky, on the other hand, is a dab page, which is why I left this edit of yours, which is absolutely correct, alone. Please let me know if you think I missed or misinterpreted something here—unlike some folks I know I don't tend to claim absolute infallibility and am known to admit making mistakes every now and then. Best,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 19:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Sess! As requested, here are my thoughts. Looking at the root of the problem and at the intents of the guidelines, here is how my reasoning goes.

As per WP:MOSDAB#Set index articles, [s]et index articles are disambiguation-like pages that do not obey the style outlined on this page ("this page" being MOSDAB). In other word, they are a cross-breed of disambiguation pages and lists. Like disambiguation pages, SIAs list entries sharing the same name, yet unlike them they only allow entries of one type (be it ships, places, rivers, or something else). Like lists and articles, SIAs need to contain referenced and verifiable information (i.e., if they lack that, they can be tagged "unreferenced"), yet unlike lists and articles, they contain content which is very limited in scope (i.e., all entries must share the same name). In any case, no matter how you look at the SIAs, one thing is crystal clear—the guidelines dealing with them at the current time are horribly insufficient.

Take, for example, your decision to link to SIAs via a redirect containing "(disambiguation)" in the redirect's title. Since SIAs are not disambiguation pages (they are merely like disambiguation pages), doing so is extremely confusing and misleading, because it mixes cleanup approaches of two different (albeit similar) concepts. Adding "(set index)" instead of "(disambiguation)" might be a better idea, but, again, if you consider that SIAs are more like lists than dab pages, what would the purpose of doing so be? WP:D recommends to link to dabs via redirects containing "(disambiguation)" in the title so people/bots cleaning up redirects in the future would know when a redirect to a dab page is intentional and when it is most likely accidental and in need to be fixed. But is it wrong to link directly to a list, even if it is "disambiguation-like"? Not necessarily, wouldn't you agree? While dab pages should only be linked to from other dab pages and from the hatnotes, not from the articles, a link to a list may pop up pretty much anywhere. This is less true of SIAs (a subset of lists), but it is still true nevertheless.

Applying WP:D provisions to SIAs is neither right or wrong; the correct approach is simply not documented. I don't have a strong opinion on how SIAs should be linked to (via a "(disambiguation)" link, via a "(set index)" link, always directly, or using some other approach), but I do believe that whatever the final approach is going to be, it needs to be proposed, discussed, and added to the guidelines. Otherwise you'll have many different people independently using many different approaches based just on their interpretation of the guidelines or personal preferences and having no common denominator allowing them to coordinate and unify their efforts.

Anyway, the bottom line: if the members of the Disambig Project start working on improving the MOSDAB part dealing with the SIAs (it is currently awfully vague and confusing), that'd probably be a better course of action than having to put out various fires popping up here and there and having nothing in the guidelines to support your position. Please let me know if this addresses your concerns or if you have further questions. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 15:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i am bothered.. i have been editing some pages in the wikipedia (but some of them are just minor edits and grammatical edits).. i know that it is mandatory for wikipedians to cite references on their edits.. but i do not know that one should have citations to really edit information (regarding the yuyu hakusho page). my mistake! i will be better and surely to cite references next time. —User:Axxand 05:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you marked a couple of these for cleanup; just to let you know there's a mini-project underway to merge these all under "Ace (disambiguation)". Regards, NapoliRoma (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you remove words like "BBC series" in favour of "media" which seems less helpful. Why is this? Abtract (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which dab(s) are you referring to? You may respond below. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure off the cuff but you have done many similar edits and you may well be right but "media" appears to me to be less useful than something more specific ... I will go back over the last few days and see if I can find examples. Abtract (talk) 22:14, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I have no real means of finding it but I'm pretty sure it was a Dr Who character or episode that did read "from the BBC series Dr Who" which you changed to "from the Dr Who media". I'm not saying you are wrong but the former seems to me more helpful so I am wondering what your reasoning is? You do this sort of thing all over the place so you must know what I mean even without a specific example. Abtract (talk) 15:28, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've been busy in my exams and wasn't able to contribute to wiki that much. In response to what you said here, yes AWB can change all that.  UzEE  14:16, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi sesshomaru. How many genres must an anime have? Fullmetal Alchemist (which I am currently cleaning) has like 5 genres in contrast to InuYasha and Naruto that have 3. Thoughts? Sorry to write in your talk page, just wanted to get your attention, delete this if you want and answer in my talk page.Tintor2 (talk) 15:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New info here--Tintor2 (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Saxnot has reported me and you for "vandalism and copyright violations" . This is nonsense. We have not posted any pictures, violated any copyright, nor vandolized any pages. This is the same user, who has been trying to put Tien as an alien, and vandolizing the talk page of that artcile,and has been ingaged in personal attacks against me. (and like I said, if we find out he's an alien, we put that up there). Anyway the thread is here WP:ANI. - Prede (talk) 00:27, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware of this one. If he continues disruption, it won't be long until he is blocked, both the ip and the account. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok just making sure ^.^ . I replied to the thread already. Explaining how he attacked me, and has vandolized the talk page. - Prede (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 00:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That guy just won't listen and think he is the smartest guy in the world (some complex maybe?). He's got some nerves I tell ya. Also personal attack on me (calling me dumb and aggressively denied all the fact I laid in front of him), and would continue to spam the talk page of Tenshinhan article if I didn't stop the whole thing. I say we report him. SSJ 5 (talk) 00:03, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please add your comments regarding the decision to move the article from Wuxia to Wǔxiá. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC).‎[reply]

Just checked the peer review project page, and there are a load of suggestions on how the article can be improved. If you've already looked since the 18th April, you can delete this :P --- Krezos (talk) 15:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. - Philippe 22:45, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has been suggested to me that you were removing vandalism from the article, not in a content dispute. The way I read it, it looks like a content dispute. Vandalism requires ill intent, and those statements appeared to be well-intentioned, though misguided, attempts to improve the encyclopedia, so this appears to me a classic content dispute. However, I'd like to give you the opportunity to explain to me how it was vandalism.

If you can, then I'll remove the block and so note your block log. If you can not, however, then the block will need to remain, and I'll remove your rollback rights, since you used the rollback tool in the course of a content dispute.

I'm truly listening with an open mind and hope that you can convince me this was not a content dispute and was vandalism. - Philippe 16:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. The anon repeatedly inserted an unsourced statement to an already cited sentence. While probably not clear-cut vandalism, it certainly compromised the integrity of the ref.

For the majority of the time I used the undo feature (this is the reason as to why I reverted the edit in the first place): [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9],

Uses of rollback (last diff was the most valid): [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]

Query: how does reverting original research differ than reverting vandalism? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:24, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And as far requesting protection and blocks go, I did two reports, both of which were not granted and/or seen so I kind of took it upon myself to revert the unconstructive edit, alerted a sysop (User:Caribbean H.Q.‎), and reverted twice with the undo feature before "giving up" for the night. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:33, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There's a long way between reverting unsourced additions (content) and reverting vandalism. Vandalism, by very definition, requires bad faith, and I don't think that's proven here. Regardless, I'm going to lift your block. You clearly thought you were acting for the good of the project, and given that, I see no reason to continue the block. I won't remove rollback, either, since you obviously used undo for most of the reverts. Getting an admin to protect the page was the right move... in the end, I unprotected it when I blocked the two of you, but I'll keep a close eye on it, and you can always ask me to protect a page as well as using RFPP. Sadly, I'm online entirely too much. I'm lifting your block as my next action. Best wishes, - Philippe 20:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Best bet in circumstances like this is to drop a note over the the Comics Project and someone else will usually be able to look into this and take the relevant action. If nothing else then a few more people on the case spreads the load and stops any well-meaning editor from over-stepping the line while trying to do the right thing. I can also protect a page if needed as can a few others in the project. (Emperor (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks guys. I'll kind all of this in mind from here on ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:19, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What was lifted exactly? I'm still unable to edit pages. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:23, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I found and cleared one autoblock that was still in effect. Try editing now.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 21:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that worked. Thanks, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:31, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I hate autoblocks. - Philippe 21:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok. What exactly is an autoblock? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the anon returned. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:47, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got that one, and the later one you advised me about. It is clearly vandalism, as the ip is hopping addresses to replace non-consensus text, so I have sprotected for 72 hours (please remove the template when it expires). If it still happens after expiry please let me or Philippe know. It is better to do it this way than edit warring and running the risk of picking up a block yourself. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:57, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sesshomaru, please accept my apologies - for some reason I didn't realize that you had asked a question here. An autoblock is an option that we set when blocking someone. Essentially, it blocks any accounts from logging in from that same IP address, in an attempt to prevent folks from just hopping on again with a secondary account or something. The problem is, when we clear a block, it doesn't automatically clear an autoblock, and the tools available to admins to clear autoblocks are... unreliable at best. In this case, I didn't get the autoblock clear, so it prevented you from logging on, even when the block was lifted, because your IP address was still blocked.

Also, I second LessHeard's comment above - you should feel free to drop a note on my talk page and let me know if that guy returns. I can protect a page pretty quickly if I need to, and because I have no life, I'm usually online. :-) - Philippe 20:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Latin pop seems ok as she seems to be a big name in that genre. You can bring it up on the talk page if you think otherwise. Just as long as it's not an unnecessarily long list, it's ok. Spellcast (talk) 07:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anything else to be cleaned up other than the primary topic separation and unlinking the extra bluelink in the Tomb Raider entry? Deiz talk 07:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The descriptions may need to be shortened, the wiktionary box should be looked into, and any periods should be removed. Other than that, it's pretty much OK. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh... Why do I have to keep doing all the work for you? How hard was it to find this (see under #1, Intro line)?

Don't know if this is qualifies as consensus proper, but with two people supporting this wording and the rest of the world silent or indifferent, I guess it would have to do. If you take ten minutes to read through all of it, perhaps you will even understand the reasoning behind this solution (hint—we are writing an encyclopedia, so encyclopedic goals beat formalities such as MOSDAB every time). Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said, it's not so much about consensus, as it is about factual correctness. Please do not mangle geographic names just because MOSDAB says you can.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 20:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sess, it was not my intent to "belittle" you. Your work on cleaning the dab pages is very much appreciated. The only message I am trying to get to you is that while the dab guidelines are important for achieving consistent formatting, they should never be viewed as having a higher priority than encyclopedic content. There are very good reasons not to stick to each and every letter of MOSDAB on the Baykal dab page; I hope you'll understand what they are if you keep an open mind. I provided numerous explanations to that effect on the talk page.

As for the layout, I have no strong opinion about it; so I'm not sure why you mention it to me. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 14:25, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, now that I think about it, I think because the talk page doesn't have any significant content that it should be deleted (I didn't read it over before I removed the tag, so I didn't know it was just one sentence. lol). I'll put the tag back up.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 18:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay... I think I fixed most of the redirects, I probably missed some though. I created a lot that didn't already exsist, too. You could look at my contribs and make sure I didn't screw anything up if you like. I'd do it myself, but I'm tired as hell right now. I'll get to it tommorow.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 05:15, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism on my page. I rarely check it myself. --Tom (talk - email) 01:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I missed that part. Done. --Tom (talk - email) 11:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps. If you feel they are malicious or against policy, you can always request a checkuser. Otherwise, I don't know what else to say. --Tom (talk - email) 20:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will. --Tom (talk - email) 20:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what I put down was based on the Remastered version of Dragon Ball Z, not the Ocean dub. In the remastered version, what I put really did happen. Maybe you still haven't seen the remastered one and thought I was referring to the Ocean dub. Jienum (talk) 10:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for correcting my mistake at Acid; I didn't know the link should go to Acid test (disambiguation) - and now I do! Thanks. -- Natalya 11:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Following a discussion with the above editor regarding reverting your talkpage the idea of mediation between the two of you was raised. I regret that I did not follow this up, but upon coming back to their talkpage on an unrelated matter I note that Abtract is willing to consider using this service. I therefore suggest and recommend that you also consider taking up mediation, unless you believe that there is no longer any present need. Please remember that mediation is always available should there be future concerns between the two of you. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll seriously consider it if User:Abtract becomes a major problem. Until then, I don't believe it is needed. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Please do not post any further messages on User talk:Abtract - any alleged policy violation should be reported to an independent third party (which can be me if Abtract agrees) or appropriate noticeboard. They are within their rights to request that they are not contacted there. WP:3RR does not apply in regard to an account removing messages from their talkpage; as it is removed it is assumed that the account has read the content and they are then free to do as they please, although archiving is preferred. As it appears that there is a discussion at Bleach then I don't think that mediation should be commenced until that matter is resolved, but once it is I urgently suggest that it is. I have no idea about how one goes about it, but if both parties are willing I will investigate and report back - you can then decide whether to pursue it or not. I shall copy a link to this message to Abtract, but would suggest that you both use my talkpage in regards to this matter. I would also comment that I will be absent from the computer this evening UK time, as I will be watching the Chelsea vs. Liverpool soccer match and will likely be not on best form no matter what the result, so I shall not be checking back until tomorrow my time. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 12:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I have reviewed Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal, and suggest both parties do as well. If you wish to proceed then one or both of you should apply. I would comment that there does seem to be a backlog.
• However, I would comment that it appears to be a voluntary procedure to be initiated by the parties concerned regarding the disputed article(s) concerned. Whereas the source of your disagreement may have been on one article, it appears that it has spilled over to a general scenario of accusation and discontent - I am now not sure that mediation is the appropriate response.
• Under the circumstances, I will act as a go between for any problems between the two of you - on one proviso: I shall not block or warn either of you - I will only try to help keep both accounts editing productively. I would ask that both of you really try to avoid each other, that you ask for any other party that may be involved for their opinion and allow them to judge, that each takes the other at their word and try not to let (interpretation of) past actions taint your attitude toward any current or future proposal which seeks to diminish conflict.
• I think the only other recourse, if mediation or the above is not acceptable, would for me to post a request at WP:AN requesting community input. Again, I would seek to be a neutral facilitator in that case. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't aware. Thanks for the links. While it certainly appears that Abtract has attracted criticism from other parties, I think it unfair if he was to be left to defend himself alone - so I would like to continue to act as a go-between, and even try to act on his behalf if it has any chance of allowing the two of you to contribute usefully. I think that you and I have sufficient knowledge of each other to realise that we both want what is best for the encyclopedia, so I don't think that me volunteering to continue to try to help Abtract will be taken to mean that I don't believe that you are sincere in your complaints and your position in this matter is incorrect. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 20:28, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added some quotes from various comics to the discussion at WT:COMIC to keep it all in one place. Hope it helps. Hiding T 10:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bleach. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for warning yourself :) Collectonian (talk) 00:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like to be fair. Reason why I haven't warned myself for my reverts at Bleach (manga) is because of the discussion I began on it's talk page. Thank you for backing me up ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Sesshomaru,

I noticed you removed the "All pages" link ({{lookfrom}}) from the Fun (disambiguation) page, explaining it was per this discussion. This link is actually unnecessary in articles about given names, since the infobox template ({{Infobox Given name 2}}) already contains it. However, in the disambiguation pages, it may be sometimes useful. Korg (talk) 22:53, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to reinsert the edit if you think it was appropriate. (I stopped removing these tags anyway.) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:16, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thank you. Korg (talk) 10:46, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've got the editor to calm down and start reverting, I would appreciate your viewpoints on that Powers and abilities of the Hulk page, since you've been there longer than I have. I just wanted to let you know there's a discussion going on there, thanks! Redrocket (talk) 23:45, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well now that we know for sure that the "7th Daizenshû" says that he is an alien, but then the 4th Daizenshû , list him as a human/earthling what should we do once and for all? Put Alien/Human for species, keep it as it is , just put alien? I am completely unsure of what to do now... - Prede (talk) 23:54, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean you will source the Tien thing in a little bit? That's cool take your time. Or do you mean the Case Closed Survey thing? Either way no rush ^.^ - Prede (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As I and gamer junkie have apparently been slashing each other's throats to try telling each other (weirdest case of an argument over two people who agree I've seen in a while...), if the series doesn't refer to the thing as a zanbato, it doesn't go on the page. It's not List of oversized swords. Previously the Zabuza page had referred to the weapon as a zanbato, so I'd thought it was correct, but the new version calls it a giant kitchen knife. So a reference to exactly where it's called a zanbato would be good. --erachima talk 19:17, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thought so ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:19, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you come over to the Dragonball (film) disscussion page and settle this dispute about the poster. I've got citation about how FOX has said the poster is fake. This other guy has a citation from some website that speculates that it's still real and a few pictures (obviosly could be photoshoped). We both have citations, but I think mine are better. I'm not clear on the rules, and I think you could help the situation better. Thanks.--FUNKAMATIC (talk) 18:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:54, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated MOSDAB (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Cenarium (talk) 19:24, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not replying much sooner. I've been away for awhile and expect to do very little Wikipedizing. I've got a growing number of commissions to full for art, which is way cool.

Stay cool. Wryspy (talk) 07:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In case you didn't see it on my talk page, I've started an RfC/User on Abtract. Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abtract. Collectonian (talk) 20:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sense you helped us when we decided on Case Closed genres, I thought I'd ask if you wanted to paticipate in this conversation/survey about changing the names or not. The aurgemnt is should we keep the movies named "Detective Conan_____" until the are licenced into english THEN change the titles to "Case Closed_____" or should we stay consistent with name titles and keep them all "Case Closed_____" . If you don't know too much about the show though it's ok. Just trying to get more people's opinion on this. - Prede (talk) 02:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's my shot at it. There are several I'd consider removing, but they're gray areas, so it's probably best to leave them be. Hoof Hearted (talk) 16:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I agree the primary topic could probably be trimmed. Although I think it's all relatively important information and I occassionally meet resistance in some of my more drastic changes (see my current discussion about Wizard). There really isn't anything in the MoS that says the primary topic should be brief. Still, I won't object if you shorten it. Hoof Hearted (talk) 18:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead and shorten it. One thing I don't like about Rain (disambiguation) is all the non-notable(?) songs. What do you think about my proposal at Talk:Rain (disambiguation)? Note that I basically went ahead and removed all "non-singles" at Pain (disambiguation) and I think it helped (removed 25 questionably notable entries). Hoof Hearted (talk) 18:10, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I put this article up for deletion because Seripa is not notable enough in the series to have her own article. A mention of the List of Saiyans in Dragon Ball is fine. I wondered if you agreed or disagreed, as even though I read deletion policy, WP:FICT and so on, you have far more experience than I do here. Link: Seripa (Dragon Ball Z) --- Krezos Farland (talk) 19:44, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. She only appeared in one movie. Why the hell does she need a page in the first place? It's not like the creator's actually gonna find any sources to keep the article up. ZeroGiga (talk) 05:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoping you could be an extra set of eyes on this page. BBiA, reverted the merge of this page, which was done after 5 months without any contention. He has not provided any rationale, and has not unmerged the Alt version from the Megaton Man page, which leads me to doubt the good faith in his edits. Thanks for any consideration. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 20:17, 7 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Thought you would be interested due to your involvment with previous contentious edits by User:Brian Boru is awesome. No need to follow-up, just thought you might be interested. -66.109.248.114 (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

An article that you have been involved in editing, No. 18, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/No. 18. Thank you. ZeroGiga (talk) 08:55, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take it to the administrator's noticeboard or somewhere similar for more input. --Tom (talk - email) 22:46, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ZeroGiga (talk) has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

BarnSakura for excellent edits I hereby award you the Anime and Manga BarnSakura for your excellent edits at most anime and manga articles, and all the help you gave me! Tintor2 (talk) 16:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Started a new discussion here. Feel free to join.--Tintor2 (talk) 01:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think so. It may merit a mention in Street Fighter (series) but not in the character articles. JuJube (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dunno, they seem ok. JuJube (talk) 03:00, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The only games I'm aware of that uses only "Bison" instead of "M. Bison" are X-Men vs. Street Fighter and Marvel Super Heroes vs. Street Fighter. AFAIK, all others use M. Bison. JuJube (talk) 21:08, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Possibly (not 100% familiar), but the animated versions hardly qualify for common names. JuJube (talk) 22:15, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I agree with the link for Marques Houston. The example used at WP:PIPING indicates that a link to a redirect *can* be valid, but creating a redirect purely for the sake of it seems counter-productive. The example used at WP:PIPING is an instance where the redirect brings the reader directly to the subject in question, a part of a larger article. (There is no Delta Quadrant article itself, just a part of Galactic quadrant.) The correct destination for the link in question is Marques Houston and there seems no valid reason to link to anything else.

Also, there's no need to keep adding his birth year per MOS:DAB: "The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link." The year of his birth (and naming him again) are extraneous. Rhindle The Red (talk) 16:17, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As explained in the edit history, that's "Mayouyou", and it mean's something like demonic ghost (or, looking at the katakana, "Devil Yo-yo"). Furthermore, it's not even used as any character's name on the Japanese Wiki.

What the Japanese Wiki article does use is 鈴駒（りんく): ri-n-ku.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 20:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm considering moving "Vizard" to "Vizard (Bleach)" so that I can categorize the "Vizard" redirect with Category:Surnames (Steve Vizard's page suggests Vizard is a surname, and such categorization Harrisson isn't unheard of). The creation of Vizard (disambiguation) would be nice, mainly because I'd like to list the Vizard-related links on a dab:

• Vizard (Bleach)
• Vizard (Shakespearean English)
• Steve Vizard

Problem is, I don't know where or how to begin. Sorry if this is too confusing. I'll reiterate if needed. Please reply below, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at WP:MOVE. If that doesn't help, let me know what other help you need. (John User:Jwy talk) 14:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello!

I was wondering why you choose to delete the article on [Batman vs. Dracula]. It appears several editors spent a bit of effort working on this article. It's not where it needs to be to be up for Wikipedia standards (cut the quotes and trivia section and trim down the plot), but the fact that it's a Batman movie, the first to be based off the animated series and a quick Google Search pulls up several sources that both establish the notability of the subject of the article and could be used to improve the article.

May I suggest working to improve the article, or, at least, giving others the chance to do so? TheUncleBob (talk) 01:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But im not for sure how to use walmart as a source. I have been to three different walmarts one local and two 1 hour away and they both have the dvd. Can you help?LifeStroke420 (talk) 05:10, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See i thought maybe it did to but i was wrong. Im just gonna leave it alone as its not that big of a deal to me. Thanks.LifeStroke420 (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps putting the actor/actress with the most prominent role as the blue link? I checked IMDB, Movies.com, and Allmovie, and they all list Jay Underwood as the first star. Additionaly, Allmovie had a movie poster, and Jay was the first billed actor. So, if I had to decide, I'd go with him. Do you think that makes some sense? -- Natalya 20:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! Glad I could be of help. -- Natalya 20:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]