User talk:Angel Emfrbl

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Trivia removal

I would prefer you not revert my reworking of trivia in the One Piece character articles. I won't edit war with you over it, but I would like to discuss it. See Talk:Sanji for my reasoning. --tjstrf 09:49, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I have the same problem with you in the Monkey D Luffy page, as Tjstrf said, no reason to start an edit war, but you have to at least reply in the discussion page if you want to make a major edit like this. The attacks and abilities page is limited to attack names, not abilities the characters possess. Gear 2 is not an attack, it is a state of being, just like becoming Super Saiyan (again not an attack), or the Kyuubi powers Uzumaki_Naruto, Goku. Look at their pages, these states are posted on the main page because they are NOT ATTACKS they are transformations, you can't consider them attacks. They are a part of the characters design and makeup to include them under attacks means his gomu gomu ability should also be under attacks. Please revert it to the way it was. Tinibash

The page isn't 'one piece attacks'... Its 'One piece abilities'... Gears are abilities AND upgrades related to attacks anyway, end of discussion. Angel Emfrbl 08:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I'd consider Gears to be an ability, more precisely, an attack form. For an example, Hiten Mitsurugi (I can't believe I spelled that from memory) is a style of attack, but is still considered an ability because it is a skill unique (or nearly unique) to the character. The same with the gears. --tjstrf 21:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Yeah part of it was for someone to change that ablities page to attack page. Which may happen now (finally). I did it partly to prove a point. Its okay now, someone redid the information into bite-size form. I'm not gonna crib on it now and I've made my point on the abilities page clear.  :D Angel Emfrbl 22:13, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page blanking

Hey, it looks like you're freaking out a vandal bot!  :) Are you trying to break up an article or something? Looks like you need some assistance. Let me know. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:32, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

And no, you need to be an administrator to delete pages in Wikipedia. Otherwise, you can request that the page be deleted by placing a speedy deletion request tag at the top. It sounds like you want {{db-author}}. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:45, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Ah! I didn't know this. Thanks! My knowledge of Wikipedia is not exact vast. Angel Emfrbl 16:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Not a problem. That bot that left all the warnings here is simply a program that freaks out when someone blanks an entire page - so it thought you were vandalizing. For any people that left comments here, you might want to discuss your changes with them since they appear to be pretty wide-scale changes. Good luck and let me know if you run into more problems!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a million! Angel Emfrbl 17:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One Piece Criticism

This page has been deleted, as you have requested.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  21:27, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One Piece articles

Thanks for the message on my talk page. Please take a look at the AfD nomination that covers a number of articles in the One Piece template: I've proposed that those specific articles (and potentially others besides) be deleted, on the bases that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information - as I assert on the AfD page, those specific articles are collections of unnecessary information. If you disagree, please place a comment in the format '''Keep''' [reason] on the AfD page, and remember to sign your name there too.

Please also remember that Wikipedia, as an open project, actively invites its users to be bold in updating pages and participating in maintenance projects, such as the AfD process. No offense is intended in placing AfD tags on pages that I believe should be intended. Please also remember that I have not deleted any of those pages, and will not - I'm not an administrator. Instead, I've proposed that they be deleted, so that if a sufficient number of other users believe that they should be deleted and/or merged with articles, they will be. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 12:25, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. RandyWang (raves/review me!) 12:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I am keeping that in mind... REALLY I just wasn't impressed since I and others have spent the last few weeks bringing ALL the One Piece pages up to Wikipedia standards and you randomly come in while this is going on. I'm not the only one doing these pages but I set up a lot of the information and spend a lot of time watching the series and reading the manga to compare the information and make sure things are correct. I found it encouraged others to bring the pages up to standards which is why I'm doing it. I haven't the reaction of everyone else since most peeps working on those pages are stranges to me. Angel Emfrbl 12:43, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Concerning the One Piece references

Godspeed, Angel Emfrbl. If you ever need any help, I'll be glad to help. (Kurigiri 17:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Salliance.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Salliance.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 22:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Fan Fiction nominated for an Article Improvement Drive

Because of your excellent quick catch on fan fiction, I figured you'd want to know that the article has been nominated for an Article Improvement Drive. :) Runa27 23:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] s-protection

You can't actually add Semi-Protection yourself, you know. You have to get it added at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection, by an admin. --tjstrf 14:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I found out after reading about it + removed them. It was a mistake on my part, I know about it now. Angel Emfrbl 14:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One Piece

I never said there wasn't an original version; I said I'm not basing any of my edits around it. It's the English manga. I know that there are no English sources, but that doesn't mean it doesn't need to get translated. It's article consistancy. Having Luffy's attacks being called "Gum Gum" whatever in one part of the article and then "Gomu Gomu" whatever in another will just confuse the reader. I hope that explained some of it. The Splendiferous Gegiford 18:25, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Its not just soley the whole Gum Gum thing... There are others. But thats simply the one I used as an example. And going by the title of your edit you give the wrong idea. You should have phrased that better to avoid cofusion.  :/Angel Emfrbl 18:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Justyn didn't wait for the discussion to end before he changed all of them. Where's your message to him? The Splendiferous Gegiford 15:57, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The same, I haven't got round to seeing him. In fact... I forgot! Thanks for the reminder I was meant to repeat that too him too! Rats! I better tell him too! :O Angel Emfrbl 15:58, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
By the way, I really do think we should use that chart you made for the Devil Fruits in the article. It would make the article a lot easier to read. The Splendiferous Gegiford 16:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
I need to look up some more stuff on wikipedia on table building. The dub name resfuses to go onto one line. I'm taking a look at it in a couple of hours time and try and see what I can do with it. Though I already know its because of the explaination text is big. If I can't do anything to solve the problems with it, then I'll need to sit back and get everyone to rethink how we can do the page otherwise. Angel Emfrbl 16:11, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

"I don't want to hear anymore about this (We've been arguing over names for over two weeks if anyone cares). End it now! (Or at least put it off for a month so we can have a break from this!). Angel Emfrbl 18:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)"

I had to bring it up; someone else started changing all the names. So, I will drop it when everything is reverted back to the way it was. WhisperToMe 21:19, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I noticed... We also had a name vandal on here yesturday changing things like Zeff to Jeff everywhere. Most annoying. We've had a few of those the last few weeks. Angel Emfrbl 07:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Franky Schematics

Thank you for the compliment. This was the best way I could think of preserving Franky's attacks. He's one of my favorite characters and I don't want all that info to be lost. Also, I think some of the other attack lists I think could be handled like that. For characters like Zoro, his attacks could be placed in a page thats mostly about his style of fighting. It wouldn't be something that looks like listcruft because the page's main topic would be about Zoro's fighting style and not the attacks themselves. Just make an article that's not centered around a list of attacks and I doubt there will be any crufty grounds for deletion. This I think could be used effectively for the main characters since they're the ones with most techniques. Of course it may not work for the minor characters since there's not much to go around but there's probably a loophole that could be exploited. However, all of that needs alot of work that I don't think I can do alone so... Anyway, thanks for the complement.CalicoD.Sparrow 07:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One Piece filler

We can't say that *anything* is canon or non-canon. It isn't up to Wikipedia to make judgments like that. The most we can do is say that some particular source (like the author) says the filler isn't canon. But if we do that we still need a quote from the author saying that he doesn't consider filler to be canon. Filler doesn't become non-canon just by existing. Ken Arromdee 20:31, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes but its not real facts, its something else. Argue with me all day. I don't care on this matter. I am simply not in the mood today (even the most reasonible and usually patient wiki editors have bad days)... Non-Canon stuff has its place. But not when used for proof of facts. As I said, there are WAYS of writing it out into a article, if you can't learn how to do it using any of the methods I suggested then don't add the non-canon stuff at all. Angel Emfrbl 20:43, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake for putting it on the wrong page.
Anyway, "non-canon stuff has its place, but not for proof of facts" doesn't matter--because we can't decide that something is non-canon to begin with. "Filler is not canon" isn't a decision we can make. Ken Arromdee 21:01, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Erm... 1) Filler is filler. We don't decide yes, thats the animation company. But its STILL filler whatever you say and its no good as evidence to use whatever on a wikipedia page. Look, I don't want to argue, maybe another day, as I said on your discussion page... I'm in a bad mood today, otherwise I'd go into this a lot deeper and give you a full explanation. Give me a day or two. Bottom line - Oda (the AUTHOR) did not write it, Toei did, Toei makes mistakes, therefore the information is untrusty worthy sometimes. Like the whole Chopper and rumble balls thing.
Ah! Its no good. I'm gonna have to argue about this another day, my temper is going to end up cooming out here... And I don't want to cause trouble on wikipedia. We'll discuss this another day. Angel Emfrbl 21:09, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, we cannot be sure for things like the Ocean's Dream arc, but Oda did say that the filler for the Loguetown arc would have been in the manga if not for time constraints. So it would be safe to move, say, Daddy the Father, from the filler characters page, to the minor characters page because of what Oda said on the matter. (Justyn 05:29, 10 October 2006 (UTC))
It's true that Oda didn't write the filler. That doesn't mean that the filler is no good for use as evidence about a character. You could say that the filler is no good for use as evidence of Oda's intentions for the character, however. Ken Arromdee 15:41, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
I'm in a better mood today to talk to. So resonsible me is listening. I nearly forgot I had this going on in my discussion page. Picture me meditating on a rock if you must. I'm not trying to be angry with your or have an argument here. I'm just trying to make you understand something.
Filler is just that - a lot of filler made up to bump up existing storylines, sometimes it is just that it isn't sound enough to make a good strong wikipedia statement. Toei does mistakes, which is why we can't use the filler (pay attention here please) Without backing it with evidence from the canon storyline. As I said, there are ways of getting it on a page, but filler standing alone as evidence isn't good enough. Please accept that there are ways to get info on a page, and ways not to. If you can't accept this, don't put filler infomation on a page, its as simple as that.
Take for instance the One Piece timeline... You can put filler on that so long as you write Anime only, same with Devil Fruits. As I said, Chopper + rumble balls... This was written on to the page to, adding that its different in the manga as to the anime. This is fine too.
And as someone stating, the Logue Town stuff was left out things Oda didn't have time to puyt in. This I can confirm can stand, I believe it was something like chapter 100 was meant to be the end of Logue town, Oda says it in a SBS somewhere... So some aspects of the fillers can stand alone (but again you need to reference statments by Oda where he says its okay) which rarely happens in One Piece. On another note, Oda does design the bad guys for characters in movies and things, so even though the movies are filler they are Oda's creatations.
So yeah, long story short, its okay to add fillers, but back them up with canon storyline proof, Oda's words, or the words anime only and avoid putting the word 'Filler' at all cost. Angel Emfrbl 19:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

No, no, that misses my point. Which is deciding that some episodes are part of the canon storyline and others are not is a decision which *we are not permitted to make*. We can't say "this is filler, so it doesn't count as part of the canon storyline unless Oda says so". Ken Arromdee 02:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

And I'm saying there is a difference whether we like it or not. The One Piece pages are not set up as One Piece (anime), One Piece (manga) and so forth which means we're catering for both. There is a clash between anime and manga on our pages therefore, you need to define which came from where. So while I agree we can't make these choices, we have to because otherise we get information problems. But REALLY is it that much fo a biggy to do what I've suggested? Come on, a small little note something is not filler or is from the anime only isn't much and won't effect the quality of the page. And plus, we've been doing this since before I joined wikipedia, its a tradition now. Angel Emfrbl 05:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Something you might be interested in

Please go to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Dragon Ball special abilities to share your opinion. Hydromasta231 07:03, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've done that. I am not a DBZ fan (give me a blow torch I feel the urge to burn something), but I know enough of it to make a judgment there. I don't this that article is just fancruft. Its not Liftcruft thats for sure. Angel Emfrbl 07:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Serious Help with the Franky Schematics

I know you like the concept and all but lately I've been having some real trouble with making the page better looking. I can't seem to find the time to fill in the words and look for the pictures to post for the page. Also I think with my present mood and affairs, I need a long wiki-vacation from all this editing. Could you and some other people work on it while I am gone. You made the great Devil Fruit chart so I know you can do it. For safety measures so that it won't get deleted, you can move the entire contents of the article to my userpage and use it as a workshop or something. I think that's possible. I really need the rest to do other things. I may drop in once in awhile to do stuff but nothing too major until I get back in the mood.

On a sidenote in case you didn't know, I believe Justyn's also doing a similar concept with Zoro's attack page. He could sure use the help.CalicoD.Sparrow 15:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Rest well, I'll see what I can do. I can't make any promises, but I can ensure you I will try. Angel Emfrbl 16:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Better hope none of the in-universe article deleters see that page... it's pretty much horrid and rather speculative besides with the right/left arms usage. --tjstrf 18:33, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Don't mention them... They've been taking apart every wikipedia page lately. Their all baised too, a lot of those doing it (note: I did not say ALL here). They crib about our pages yet when you look at a few of theirs... Not much better. Its hard to create a wikipedia page now thanks to them. Until 3 months ago, they weren't a problem. Now we've been working hard on these pages for over 3 months, suddenly here they are. Angel Emfrbl 19:34, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
If theirs are not much better, bring up the fact that they don't have room to talk. They delete ours and keep thier own that do the exact same thing, they're hypocrits. (Justyn 20:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC))
I wish I could link to some of theirs, but I'm not looking to start an argument here on wikipedia. I've had enough arguments here lately. Besides, I'm trying to avoid trouble here. All I can say, is next time they try to delete things, check up on a few of those against, you'll see there are many hypocrits on wikipedia. Angel Emfrbl 20:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
The page that I'm working with had been around for some time, I'm just making it better, and the page in question is still being put togeter; Rome was not built in a day. (Justyn 18:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Mortal Kombat

Thank you for your recent contributions to one of Wikipedia's Mortal Kombat articles. Given the interest you've expressed by your edits, have you considered joining the Mortal Kombat WikiProject? It's a group dedicated to improving the overall quality of all Mortal Kombat articles. Here's some project-specific information for you:

If you have any questions, see the help pages, ask at the MK project talk page, or feel free to ask me on my talk page. EVula // talk // ☯ // 16:19, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mihawk

Actualy, the user before me put it up, I just made it hidden untill it could be proven, or disproven; I just wanted to save whoever would do the editing some time so that all that stuff would not need to be reentered, and, highlight the information that would need to deleted should it be nessicary. The bit about Franky joining just needs to be stated in the manga, but it's pretty obvious that he is. (Justyn 18:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC))

[edit] That banner

Eheh.. Forgot my moniter was bigger than the norm. Sorry for the troubles. -- Liqiud 03:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Writing problems

After reading your user page, I'm guessing that you are not that good at writing in 3rd century Mandarin, too. Does it really matter? Everyone has writing problems; it's your thoughts that matter not your ability to put them in one or another communication form. Before posting, try running whatever you write through Microsoft Word spelling and grammar checker. In fact, most clean-up editors copy an entire Wikipedia article into their Microsoft Word program, run the spelling and grammar checker, and then use the results to clean up the Wikipedia article. Also, by using Microsoft Word spelling and grammar checker, you will see yourself making the same mistakes and thus learn to correct one mistake at a time.-- Jreferee 14:16, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject One Piece

Sailor Moon has her own WikiProject, see Wikipedia:WikiProject Sailor Moon. Have you thought of form a Wikipedia:WikiProject One Piece? --Jreferee 14:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use

Devil fruits images: can't argue fair use for images being used as mere illustration. AS in the WP:FU official policy states:

8. The material must contribute significantly to the article (e.g. identify the subject of an article, or specifically illustrate relevant points or sections within the text) and must not serve a purely decorative purpose.

Further this is clarified with a counterexample of what fair use is NOT:

An image of a Barry Bonds baseball card, to illustrate the article on Barry Bonds. A sports card image is a legitimate fair use if it is used only to illustrate the article (or an article section) whose topic is the card itself; see the Billy Ripken article.

So I removed the images from the article. -- Drini 18:17, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You CAN INDEED use this photo.

HOWEVER

fair use photos must provide commentary on the article. Only free license images can be used for illustration. Anom8trw8 00:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of One Piece episodes

I don't know what's up with that vandal, but some of the stuff he writes is true, and some isn't. I reverted some of his stuff yesterday. I believe Geg and I have fixed all the mistakes he made, and the info in the OP article is now all correct. - Peregrinefisher 22:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/n/g/User_talk%7EAngel_Emfrbl_46cc.html"