User talk:Randall Brackett/Archive 7/3 2006

[edit] My RfA

(Spooky box removed)

• Thank you for supporting/opposing/commenting on my request of adminship, sadly the result was 54/20/7 an thus only 73% support votes, resulting in that the nomination failed. As many of you commenting that I have to few main-space edits, I'll try to better my self on that part. If you have any ideas on what kind of articles I could edit, pleas send me a line. :)_→AzaToth 09:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Economic impact of AIDS

As you are a member of the WikiProject Business and Economics, your help is kindly requested in the section of the AIDS article linked to above. Any help would be appreciated. --Bob 18:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for commenting on my recent request for bureaucratship. I deeply appreciate your kind words, and also the comments and feedback that you left me. I hope that I can improve and gain your support in the future. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Iris (Mega Man)

Hey, Megaman Zero, I just want to say - Thanks. You've added so much data to Wikipedia, and you expect nothing in return. Since I cannont actually thank you, I bestow this made up medal of peace.

See?

Anyway, on to criticisms, however few. The article is great, but I would prefer personally knowing where you got this data. -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phantom.exe (talk • contribs).

Sure you can thank me! There's a slew of awards down at Wikipedia:Barnstars, take your pick. :) Of course, your coveted medal of peace is just as honorable, you know. -Zero^Talk 23:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ramon (King of Fighters)

Um, well I just wanted to thank you for giving me the heads-up on the WikiBooks, I'll move all or any movelists I made there. Sorry for the inconvinience and thanks for your help. -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Koho7 (talk • contribs).

No problem. Thanks for being so understanding. -Zero^Talk 07:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

I left a comment..I think we have been through this now like 3 times....I'm sure I can find almost the same nonsense in other sections in An or AN/I in which the same issue has popped up...Prasi90 keeps emailing admins that know nothing about his history hoping he can get a concnesus based indefinite block overturned. It gets tiresome having to constantly explain actions...anyway, thanks for the que...I've been busy at work and working on stubs.--MONGO 06:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Felicia(Darkstalkers).jpg

(automated clutter removed)

[edit] You may delete the my self-picture I've uploaded

Hi Megaman Zero, since that I wish to protect my identity, you may able to delete my self-picture that I've put into Jimbo Wales talkpage 10 days ago. Anyway, by any means make my self-picture that I've uploaded to be delete as soon as possible. Thank you. — Emrrans ^Talk 15:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reminder

Note to self: Remember to construct the you-know-what articles and template. -Zero^Talk 00:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Spoiler

Template:Spoiler has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Chuck 00:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor Edits

Remember to mark your edits as minor only when they genuinely are (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). "The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'." Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:26, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but it was not intentional, I assure you. My preferences has been set to mark edits as minor be default and there was a neglect to pay attention to that detail on occassion. I've changed my preference settings as appropriate. -Zero^Talk 11:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler tags yet again

Okay, explain to me why the spoiler tags should not be in the articles.--MONGO 22:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. On April 15, 2006, in light of a previous objection on a article talkpage, I noted:

...We're looking at the context of "it spoils the reader despite the fact they came here to learn all about (Insert Subject)". Well obviously the articles must contain enough context because that is precisely what we do here in wikipedia: construct complete summaries! And I knew then and there that the articles were telling me clearly that this article will convey quite a bit of information, that reader will almost certainly realize an encyclopedia is comprehensive, and that the tag is inappropriate. I happen to prize over analysis, and it looked just fine to me. That's how every one of our articles should be. The only difference is that with very brief articles some people don't seem to get this is a volunteer project; they only see a paragraph or two. The spoiler is really only necessary to illustrate an upcoming movie/video game/book not released to the public, which in my view is misconceived.

....I think I have to balance that, and the possibility of disagreements concerning spoiler tags, against my personal experience that I don't see how they are constructive. In general (you know as well as I do) spoiler tags are a blunt tool, so it should be used very sparingly and never more than necessary. We're currently running the wiki as a comprehensive site of encyclopedic knowledge and I strongly believe that the spoiler warnings were unnecessary. Don't hesitate to place it back, but I question its true purpose. Its stupidly obvious by loading the page that the article will be comprehensive. No one comes to an encyclopedia to read an article's two or three opening sentences. That's silly.

Essentially what I'm noting here is that in order to keep the encyclopedia at a serious level in comparison to others such as Britannica, we must accept the fact that the encyclopedia will always have complete and elaborated summaries and it lowers the quality of the encyclopedia to misrepresent this as "spoiling", an idea that simply is not acceptable in a serious encyclopedia with a broad range of subject matter. What we're also dealing wth here is a mislead assumption by various editors and a inability to realize what an encyclopedia is really about. On June 16, 2006, User:Ryu Kaze noted: "It's a discourtesy to the readers to remove those spoiler tags, and against the guidelines." and "Is it okay to shout out the answer to a mystery film halfway through it within the theatre and then say "If people didn't want to know the ending, they shouldn't have come near the theatre"? You didn't even explain where you're being courteous, by the way.". I find this statement difficult to believe. i found it to be quite a presumption and certianly not one editors of the encyclopedia should have taken. Since when have readers complained to the foundation concerning this...? I've never found the inclusion of reports or commentary from wikipedia readers inquiring for this tag. A quick check revealed there has been no objection to this and if we take a look at discussion and progress on the German wikipedia we will find that they are doing quite well. Although perhaps, there's a mass request forum going on somewhere I am not aware of.

On June 17, 2006 User:Anetode made a very good statement on this matter, and perhaps clarified the points of this situation better than I:

"The last time template:spoiler was up for deletion, the discussion was closed per WP:SNOW. There is substantial support for use of the spoiler tag and also substantial denouncement of it, but most people just assume it as a guideline pro forma. Those who argue for the arbitrary inclusion of {{spoiler}} under headings that say "Storyline" or "Plot" often do it without considering just how dense and superfluous such usage may appear. The world doesn't revolve around netiquette, and there is a strong encyclopedic precedent against such warnings (see The Cambridge Guide to Literature in English, Encyclopedia Britannica, any professional style guide, etc.)." What is an encyclopedia style guide..?

An encyclopedia or encyclopaedia, also (rarely) encyclopædia, is a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge.'

This is why such tags must die in great numbers. They contridict the entire meaning of the encyclopedia and such actions are a complete and utter travesty to those who travel the path to making wikipedia as comprehensive and complete as possible. Noting "Simply deleting these from the basis that they're unencyclopedic after a group/moderator consensus has been reached to the contrary is pointless, rude" I'm not aware of any loss of productivity or good behavior. I assure my fellow editors that if they check the relevant discussions for what an encyclopedia is, they will find on my part a productive process of explanations and counter-rebuttals that have increased the valuie of the encyclopedia immensely. Just check my contributions and block log.

As far as I'm aware, this is proceeding with positive actions that are only intended to be for the professional quality of the encyclopedia, and advocates increased value with our competition, is inoffensive to the readers and the editors, not violating, and isn't disruption. I hope my point was seen by many and assist them in seeing I simply do what I think is best and I never make such bold actions without a clear and reasonable basis. -Zero^Talk 00:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Overly lengthy tirade aside, people in general don't come to an encyclopedia to have essential plot points of titles ruined for them. While things like a game's history and the controls of the game, or the development process of the game, are interesting topics, things like the game's end, the death of specific characters within the game itself and other details can very well ruin the entire plot. This is why the spoiler tag was invented in the first place- for people to be able to make the conscious choice as to whether or not they want those details revealed to them. There has been a massive loss of productivity, since you've unilaterally been tampering with these articles over a hundred times. If you dislike the spoiler tag, you should DISCUSS IT IN A PROPOSAL first and gain consensus- you DO NOT merely take it upon yourself to slash these articles to pieces just because YOU feel like doing it. You don't have a "clear and reasonable basis" for removal of these, only the actions of yourself against a multitude of people who feel the tag is appropriate. 24.19.96.143 01:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Fine...pick a username and edit just with that one username...using just an IP simply makes your edits look like vandalism when dealing with a content arguement.--MONGO 02:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I have a username, one I've had for over a year, but I try not to log in with it when I'm at work given that its a shared IP on that PC. I have no control over what someone else might do on Wiki when I'm off duty, and would rather not be linked with any violations it might bring. -- Daniel Davis 03:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Huh? That is all the more reason to use your username...that way, if someone else edits as an anon with just that IP, you can clearly say it wasn't you, since you'll be using only your username when you edit...--MONGO 03:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

When people consent to reading article sections marked "Plot" or "Characters", they pretty much accept the responsibility of handling the Dangerous Knowledge regarding, well, plot and/or characters. There is a trace of hypocrisy in your argument that one cannot simply remove the spoiler tags because there is a lack of consensus: there never was any consensus to institute a policy requiring the use of these tags! Read over WP:MOS, nowhere is there any mention of spoilers or how they should be dealt with. There is, however, a longstanding academic consensus to not treat information with kid gloves. ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 12:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Daniel, when Wikipedia has to render a lot of templates in a page, it has to be for a good reason and to justify the extrusion across multiple articles, and I understand that for many reasons, it can be acceptable to editors rather then the encyclopedia. This is my reason for the reference to the point of an encyclopedia. Although I appreciated your flawed reasoning, I'm not amused by your abuse of random IP addresses and lack of explanation where studies have shown wikipedia to be a place not for comprehnsive research. If a header notes "Story" and the reader clearly sees there's three or four phargraphs of prose, then that's quite obvious. If there weren't plot elements in such sections, we wouldn't be doing our job as editors.-Zero^Talk 09:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

"Amused"? I'm not amused by your personal attacks and your attempts to smear me (especially on another's talk page) by launching personal attacks and trying to twist my words. I use an IP at work via a dialup service that changes when the PC logs onto the internet, and as I don't know who else might use that particular PC when I leave, I generally don't logon with my username to avoid it being linked, if whoever uses it might try to disrupt. That's not "abuse", that's just a general practice of mine, and I take great offense with your labeling of my reasoning as "flawed", given that you're wording it to offend me. -- Daniel Davis 18:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry to anger you, but I do find your reasoning very difficult to comprehend. I notice that said explanation, which I asked about and researched upon, sounds pretty horrible in the description of building an encyclopedia. The encyclopedia just isn't as good at presentation in comparison to otheｒｓ that are highly regarded, and the input of "its inconsideration" doesn't possess any relevance to the goal of increasing that value and quality. -Zero^Talk 19:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of Spoiler Tags

The following refers to your removal of spoiler tags from several articles: Since there isn't consensus on whether these belong, removing them without any comment other than 'rv' and as a 'minor edit' is highly misleading. I suggest that at least you add a link to the debate. Discussing the issue at Talk:Spoiler is more likely to push towards consensus that they aren't needed while avoiding a lot of little edits that are likely to be reverted.

(remove silliness) Antonrojo 17:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Be assured that I never, ever construct vindictive edits on wikipedia. -Zero^Talk 09:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Dude, what are you doing? Are you trying to get blocked? If you have a problem with the spoiler tag this is the worst possible way you could express it. Plus your edit summaries are pretty shady. I'm amazed you haven't already been blocked for your multiple 3RR violations today. I'd advise you to chill out and take this to the spoiler warning discussion page. For someone whose been editing Wikipedia for over a year this is pretty unbelievable behavior. Nscheffey^(T/C) 07:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Not sure what you're getting at here. My actions were directed towards alleviating unprofessional tone on the overall value of wikipedia and making sure that other readers who read articles and misleading tags understood the fact that we are an encyclopedia. I noted that the majority of edits that were reverted were by new editors, many who have barely constructed a few mainspace edits, such as the anonymous IP. He trolled but I don't think it's a big deal, except in the bad effect that it had, which has stopped. I'll assume good faith and hope he won't do it again. -Zero^Talk 09:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Zero, you really should take this to a major discussion area, like the above linked spoiler warning discussion page. You've previously expressed contempt for such processes, and for someone who claims to be shooting for productivity, you're not walking the walk very well.

You've said you think such processes are pointless, etc., but how productive is it getting two to three new "Why did you remove...?" sections added to your talk page every day while you repeat the same arguments over and over? Whatever your reasoning and however valid it might be, without consensus, you're more than likely fighting a losing battle of edits that get reverted almost as soon as you make them. Now that is pointless.

In the time since our discussion the other day, I think I've come to understand more where you're coming from. I can see your point, and in an ideal situation, I would completely agree with it. At this point, I largely agree with your reasoning, though I still think that -- given that this is an electronic encyclopedia -- it could be very easy for people to accidentally stumble on information they weren't ready to see by way of links on forums or links given to them in IMs. However, given the relatively small number of situations where that would be likely to occur, we're left with people who mostly are coming to an encyclopedia, which -- as you've said -- is a comprehensive body of information. On a side note, this really should have been your one and only argument from the beginning, rather than that half-assed "the statute of limitations on spoilers has expired" argument which was possibly only your opinion on many levels.

I also think that if you're proposing the removal of spoiler tags, it should be a 100% purging, not even leaving it on the pages of works-in-progress. That kind of causes your argument to collapse upon itself, as people will be left questioning you like this: "Why is it okay to remove spoiler tags from an article for older media on the basis of this being a comprehensive tome of info, but it's not on works-in-progress? Shouldn't the argument that people shouldn't bother coming to look at that information if they didn't want spoilers also apply?"

Really, I think I've worded your argument better than you have, though, again, I agree with it for the most part. However, I usually put consideration of others even before what is otherwise sound reason. Given that -- at this point -- Wikipedia has gained the reputation it has, people do come here every day looking for surface level of information on media they've just learned about or are interested in. Perhaps they shouldn't do that, and I would even wager that with the removal of spoiler tags, people would eventually stop doing so. However, Wikipedia's user-friendly connotation would drop in the meantime, and its reputation would be hurt to a degree. There'd be some people who probably wouldn't continue making use of the site at that point, and while I do agree that -- given that Wikipedia is what it is -- spoilers are to be expected, I also think that this will be a concern for many people, and also that consensus on a sound proposal is more valuable than a sound proposal in the hands of a single individual. If your reasoning is really so rock solid (and, believe me, the way you've worded it previously could use some work; it was only after thinking about it myself, watching these other arguments for the last few days, and then rewording your general proposals in my own mind that I came to find some understanding and agreement with you), then you should be able to bring people to consensus. The fact that your ideas have largely gotten through to me should suggest that to you, though, as I've said, the way you present the thing is going to need some work, both in regard to inner-consistency and not sounding like an angry young man.

Again, if you want to make anything productive of this, you're going to have to try to reach consensus. Even the most influential of rebels would have failed without their ideas getting through to other people. "Fighting the power" requires making a new power. I only ask one thing to make the process infinitely more attractive: if -- should you take my advice -- you are able to win over a significant number of other people on this subject, propose that -- rather than the spoiler tags being taken straight down -- they be modified for a month before they're taken down to inform readers that very soon the spoiler tags will disappear. If you can do that, I can support you on their removal, as your argument concerning an encyclopedia's purpose is largely sound despite a few sketchy areas of presentation.

If you're going to make a go out of this, you're going to have to check your contempt for discussion-toward-consensus at the door. I do appreciate and applaud you, by the way, for going good lengths toward dropping the unnecessary chain of sarcasm and snide remarks. Keep that up, as it'll certainly help the presentation of your argument in a process geared toward reaching consensus.

Long story short: I agree with your idea, and I will offer my support to it in the event that you try to reach consensus on the subject and that you make the suggestion I asked for in the event that you win.

Jumping straight into "Templates for deletion" isn't the way to go, just in case I need to make that point, by the way. It might be a long process getting to that stage. Spoiler tags didn't become ingrained into Wikipedia customs overnight, but they've had plenty of nights to sit there as part of those customs, so you're going to have to be patient and start on the discussion page for the spoiler warnings. Be patient both in your demeanor and in how you present yourself, and consistently make a push for consensus, explaining with clarity what you're proposing (meaning don't leave the logic loopholes I pointed out earlier) and emphasising why spoiler tags aren't a logical part of an encyclopedia, even an electronic one (feel free to borrow any of the reasoning I used on this subject earlier). Also, be sure to throw out lots of qualifiers to your arguments, but have the reasoning that goes around them on hand and supply it right away.

Anyway, given that I've now made an entry to rival one of yours in terms of being long-winded, I think I'll stop here and hope I've made an impact of some kind. Good luck to you if you should decide to take my advice and acknowledge my request. Inform me on my talk page if you do so, and I will offer my support. Ryu Kaze 12:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm touched you would bring this to my attention and I'm grateful for the consideration. I just completed a comment on the talkpage, oh about two minutes prior to this post.

You're right, I can't fix the process until I build a substantial head of complaint that, garners consensus and amasses solid rebuttals. I apologize if I made offense. I take it upon myself to do these productive things, and every time I do it I'm risking my whole reputation. I'll do that only when I think it's worth doing so and I think there's a serious problem with the usual processes. In the meantime, I ceased removals and I will continue only in discussion. -Zero^Talk 12:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've come to respect your intentions and tenacity, so I wanted to help as best I could. I'll stop by the spoiler warning talk page and see if there's anything helpful I can add. Ryu Kaze 12:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... I don't suppose you're in the Cambridge, Massachusetts area if you're in the United States, are you? If so -- and in the event that you haven't been able to reach consensus before August 4 -- putting out some ideas at the Wikimania event might be a good idea. Ryu Kaze 13:00, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I would do it, but I'm nowhere near there. Ryu Kaze 13:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I currently reside in Japan and commune to Germany regularly. I'm not in the proximity of North America and haven't been since my younger adolescent years. -Zero^Talk 13:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Translations

I really know very little japanese, my knowlege of japanese script is however at much more laughable levels. You might want to chack for a native speaker or a level 3 or 4 by using the ja-category. --Cat out 13:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Do you perhaps know of anyone who can translate...? This data is really quite relevant to the article. -Zero^Talk 13:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Category:User ja-N, Category:User ja-4, and Category:User ja-3 has the list of people with good knowlege of japanese. I do not know anyone who would translate a page and ask random users/people to translate from time to time. --Cat out 13:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll look about the category and see how it goes. I'm not familiar with any of these editors. -Zero^Talk 13:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

That the beulty of user categories. Go ahead, seek out new life! :) --Cat out 13:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh, but I'm a wiki-hermit. :)-Zero^Talk 13:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User page vandalism block notice

Due to egregious, wholly disruptive, and just plain mean-spirited vandalism above and beyond the call of duty, you are blocked for 312.5 nanoseconds. I hope you feel sorry about yourself. ¬_¬ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:06, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh I enjoy a little giggle every now and then. :0 I hope you enjoyed the jest as much as I did. -Zero^Talk 03:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aura's apearences section deleted

I expect that the page for a fictional character should at leat indicate where does this character apear. I see no reason to delete this information unless you can assure me that she is in every .hack story, in which case I'd agree it is redundant. Or of she is only missing in one or two titles that could be mentioned in the character description. Otherwise, I'll revert this edit whithin the following week. --Requiem the 18^th_(email)

Yes..? -Zero^Talk 09:05, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Usually, one would Be bold and revert it themself, and leave a message on the talk page to reach a consensus. - Zero1328 _Talk? 10:04, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Requiem, I'm surprised that you claim the view of removing such a section is unreasonable. The practice of including sections of the game history embedded in summary is the most accepted format of article creation, and is well known. The links should already be provided in her history summary, and if they aren't, someone fucked up.

I'm not particularly concerned to advocate against it, as she is the central character and of course appears in every iteration. Without her, the World would most likely not exists. -Zero^Talk 10:16, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but don't you see? We were destined to have this conversation anyway. So we might as well talk about it beforehand, specially since evidently, there ain't gonna be no edits. You said -and of course appears in every iteration- that's all I wanted to hear, thanks.--Requiem 18th_(email)

[edit] WP:MOS

Not sure what you mean. In what sort of articles is this happening? Ones related to computer games? I agree with the suggestion, just trying to think of the right place to put it. Maybe Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) is the best place to discuss this? Steve block Talk 11:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't really perceive it as a large problem, merely something I believe we could stand to avoid more in the future. An example would be the history on List of Resident Evil creatures; I return every so often to find it written into the descriptions. A mock description:

"The leech is powerful and likes blood. When it sees you, it will jump on you and proceed to suck your blood"

That would be proper as:

"The leech is powerful and likes blood. When it sees the player, it will jump on the character and proceed to suck his/her blood"

Per your suggestion, I was not aware of the Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) page. I do think it would be more appropriate there. -Zero^Talk 11:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] DOA Main

RE: request for comment --

Other than it being a fine piece of work and a vast improvement over what it was... not so much. References and quotes are cited, lay-out looks good, and you didn't focus on any superfluous garbage à la Xino and his ilk. Everything's well-organized and neat & tidy.

One thing though - any luck getting ahold of sales figures & specs for the individual franchise entries, or at least the latter titles of the series? Papacha 22:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh I'm working on it. I'll add a few more sections later. Be sure to check for it on your watchlist.

I'm planning on an improvement substantial to the point where it can be submitted for WP:GA status. -Zero^Talk 22:43, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

DOA4 needs a bit of care right now - I'm putting the kibosh on the newly uploaded "X-Box Live Achievements" and trying to salvage a bit of the "Problems" area. Some of the language there is significantly slanted and POV. Ai-yah. Papacha 22:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Just a heads-up in case you miss it in the edit summaries - REF#6 is a revolving link within Wiki and takes the user to the DOA edit page when clicked. Papacha 12:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

God knows what bin I'll have to drag it out of if I need to source it, but in a recent interview with Play Magazine Itagaki named Ayane & Kasumi as the chief cast in Code Chronos. I won't feel slighted though if you choose to revert it until I pony up the article. Papacha 13:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh you're okay. I'm not going to revert. I trust you and your contributions to the encyclopedia. -Zero^Talk 17:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The wording and grammar needs some work in the first couple of sections (in regards to both flow and correct usage; examples: "DOA's most innovative additions to the genre is its countering system," the use of "Their" instead of "There" at one point, and the statement that Tomonobu Itagaki is regarded as something by the video game community for his outspoken and stubborn nature without direct mention of what it is that he's regarded as). It could also do with some embellishment on just how different the gameplay is in comparison to other fighting games/how innovative the gameplay was when the series came along.

Certain phrases in the Gameplay section need to better assume that the reader has no idea what the terminology involved means, like this one for instance: "Air juggling is a factor in the series, but is easier to execute and more favorable due to the countering system and character's recovery times, which disallows slow, technical movesets in most instances." That would also be an example of wording that doesn't flow very well.

The countering system definitely needs to be explained more with the uninitiated in mind. Assume your reader is altogether ignorant of not just this game series, but fighting games in general. Add a bit more explantion on the mechanics of the fighting system as well. Even though the article explains that this is from the fighting game genre, throw in some explanations of the basic combat premise. Your readers should hopefully be able to read this article and understand Dead or Alive without needing to look at the fighting games page. Explain the lifebars and button-input scheme in addition to the counters and how the movesets accomodate the fast-paced nature of the game (which the section does a pretty good job with, actually). To people who have been playing fighting games for the last 16 years, the term "throw" is basic lingo, but how would this sound to, say, somebody whose familiarity with games doesn't go beyond Mario 3 on the NES?: "The tag mode also implemented special throws unique to each pair of characters chosen..."? It may be a bit difficult to follow. Obviously you can't give the readers a rundown of the history of fighting games in this article, but you can change up the wording a bit to better accomodate the unfamiliar. For example, something like "This mode also allows players to implement special tag-team techniques unique to the pair of characters in play at the time..." would probably be received a lot better.

Another way to emphasise the point about fast-paced gameplay, by the way, would be something like (example sentence) "The relatively simple movesets allow attacks to flow into one another quickly," which would serve to go well with this sentence: "Their is only one button for punch, kick, throw and guard, with the player rarely having to combine more than two different input schemes together at the time." I say this because it would emphasise that while few button inputs are required to execute most commands, the player can rapidly initiate commands with relative ease.

The Inspiration and development section is quite good, by the way, but if you could possibly get some information on how the developers went about implementing some of their ideas, that would make it even better. I know you can't always find that sort of information, though. The same section was a nightmare for me when I was working on getting the Final Fantasy X page to FA status, but this section really does need more quality information. The development section should be one of the bigger sections in an article.

The Plot section needs a much better transition from overview style to main focus. It goes from giving examples of why some characters were participating in the tournament straight to the most relevant character arc, and then jumps ahead to the next game's plot, which builds off of the previous information. Most of this section is actually well done, but there's also a couple of extrinisic things that should be removed (we don't need to know that Kasumi wasn't allowed back into her clan here, so combine the fact that she killed Raidou in the tournament's conclusion to the previous sentence; also, simply state that the events of Dead or Alive 2 follow those in Dead or Alive within the following year). Overall, it's really good and I couldn't find much bad to say about it.

The Main series section has some redundant info early on that should probably be excluded and a lot more good info that should be combined with the Inspiration and development section. Pretty much the entirety of the Main series section belongs in the Development section. It not only logically fits there, but would help to flesh out a section that really should be longer. By the way, currently, this section also seems to be somewhat self-contradicting of the article, given that the Inspiration and development section previously cited Fatal Fury and Mortal Kombat as the inspiration for the DoA series. If it was stated in an interview that Virtua Fighter was also part of the mix, that should be included in the Inspiration and development section along with a reference.

The Criticism section could do with some more references if you can find them, as well as more criticism (negative and positive, if possible). It might be a good idea to turn this section into a Reception and criticism section, mentioning the series' success and positive criticism, but also its detractors' views, and how positive or negative receptions have affected the series as time has gone on.

Anyway, over all, it's an informative and well done article at the moment, and I think you should be able to get it to Good Article status fairly easily from here. Good luck. Ryu Kaze 18:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll investigate these points in the article and may make substantial improvements on them beyond what I had in mind. -Zero^Talk 18:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] By the way...

I just wanted to pat you on the back for handling the discussion on spoilers so well. For taking the time and effort to try to get it to a point of consensus, and for really expressing a desire to do something productive about the whole thing. It looks like things might actually happen. Great job. Ryu Kaze 18:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

You may also notice that during the proceeding debate I made many edits to remove spoilers from many high profile articles and provided sufficient reasoning. In view of this, many of my edits haven't been reverted. Factual arguments supported by basis of fact goes a long way in wikipedia.

I hope my obsession with this matter explains adequately why I chose the side of the debate as I did. And if not, please by all means we shall discuss it further; I could be still persuaded that the actions I have just performed was not the best thing for the encyclopedia. As I suggested, I will stick to it for now and if things go awry, pratice of good advocacy is the preferred course of action. -Zero^Talk 18:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Grammar

See above. ;D - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 22:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry. What are you speaking of..? -Zero^Talk 09:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Issues of spelling. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 21:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware. I make numerous spelling mistakes due to my carelessness. And how is this relevant...? -Zero^Talk 21:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moving templates

Please use the move command to move pages like Template:Mega Man X Series, so as to preserve the editing history. Its the tab marked "move" in the default skin. Kevin_b_er 22:59, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please understand that isn't possible in this situation. The preferable move target is Template:Megamanx, which was moved to the current location presently. I've no idea why. When one attempts to execute a move to a pre-exsisting page, an error is encountered in the software. -Zero^Talk 23:20, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I got it moved back to Template:Mega Man X. That may be a more appropreate name stylistically than Template:megamanx. Can't move it all the way back to that first template due to how the person who moved it did so. You can request the overwriting move at Wikipedia:Requested_moves so an admin can delete the edits you and I made to Template:megamanx. But in any case, it is still best that the edit history be preserved for the original page. Kevin_b_er 23:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh you didn't move it back at all. What you've accomplished is the creation of an entirely new template name with, currently, two redirects for no concieveable reason. I've no idea why we have this situation; there is only one template for the articles and so there is no need for an "stylistically correct name". The template is also out of common convention with the other templates in use for various other series. -Zero^Talk 23:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

There were already two redirects when I got to it. {{megamanx}} was moved to {{Mega Man X}} then moved again to {{Mega Man X Series}}. Then {{megamanx}} was redirected over {{Mega Man X}} to {{Mega Man X Series}} and I reverted the last one. Still can move it back to {{Mega Man X Series}} without an admin, but I can't get it back to {{megamanx}} w/o an admin doing it. Its not that hard to get the templates to all point somewhere, and {{Mega Man series}} (no X) is a template used in mega man articles. I can help fix redirects, and I can publish a request on the requests for page moves. Just let me know. I just don't want to kill the edit history for any reason on an article. That's what page moves were created to solve. Kevin_b_er 23:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This isn't an article.

Kevin, I know you mean well, but please stop giving me advice on how to edit and function within wikipedia. As editor with well over a year in editing experience and about 15,000 contributions, I am not a newcomer to this website. -Zero^Talk 00:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Technicality, its a 'page' with an edit history. I still ask, where do you think it should go? I'll do the redirect fixes if it goes somewhere besides {{megamanx}} Kevin_b_er 23:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I've lost patience with this. Kevin forget it, I'll take this Wikipedia:Requested_moves and do all the necessary clean-up work myself. -Zero^Talk 00:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I let you down then. Kevin_b_er 00:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Don't alter other user's comments

I've rolled back your changes to Bunchofgrapes' edit at WP:RFAR. Eternal Equinox has played us all a merry song and dance about his/her gender, and some people have gotten in the habit of calling the person "she", after the original incarnation User:Hollow Wilerding who was supposed to be a female schoolteacher, others say "he" after the claims the current incarnation Eternal Equinox makes about gender. It's not for you to say which choice Bunchofgrapes should make. Do you have access to information about the person's real gender...? If so you should tell BoG about it and ask him to change it. Or just possibly, change the text by means of strikeout, so that the reader can see a change was made. Never change another person's signed comments silently over their signature, so that you make them say something they didn't. Bishonen | talk 12:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC).

I'm not sure what you mean. However, I would appreciate if you went back and, perhaps, reconsidered your very hostile words and restated your opinion in a form that does not look contary to a editor that simply attempted to fix what I presumed to be a reasonable mistake.

I don't understand why you think the process of amending mistakes in good faith is an unacceptable action for editors of the encyclopedia. I would also go so far as to state that your claim that the "..so that you make them say something they didn't." is manifestly false. This is not the first time I've seen and amended a mistake such as this. Can you see your problem here? You cannot make these arguments unless and until you can justify the claims upon which you base them. -Zero^Talk 14:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You're not sure what I mean? "Don't change other users' comments" is what I mean. Correct articles, don't "correct" comments. Don't you know this, really? Of course I understand that it was done in good faith, but it was out of line. As for my "very hostile words", I thought it civil to explain why I'd rolled you back, and I'm sorry if it sounded hostile. Now I wish I hadn't wasted my time. Goodbye. Bishonen | talk 14:21, 29 June 2006 (UTC).

Meagaman...Bishonen is definitely a good egg...please do as she requests...thanks, dude.--MONGO 14:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Is that true, Bishonen? Do you suspect me of being out of line in the manner of correcting what I thought a simple error...? Do you think I really subscribed to Wikipedia in order to change that of another's statment and place words in another's mouth..? If so, perhaps the history of my various spelling corrections on statements and other minor refractors may go some way towards allaying your suspicions. In a situation on User talk:Locke Cole, I changed an editor's mistake of naming User:SlimVirgin a male to female and thus far there has been no uproar. You can see that after looking at many of the statements on the rfar many editors refer to the editor as a she and thus I thought it was a simple mistake by Bunch of Grapes (look at the statements on the page). Hardly what I'd call changing a comment! -Zero^Talk 14:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Megaman, it is best if you not alter others comments, either their spelling erors or other things they say...simply point these out on the editor's discussion page...or wait until the conversation or action has long since past (like after it goes to archive) before making any spelling changes. This Eternal Equnox character has been a big thorn to a number of folks, so best just to stay away from it altogether...peace!--MONGO 15:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm reasonably sure that I've acted in the spirit of helpfulness here. The encyclopedia is a wiki and the point of a wiki is to edit to improve in various manners, and from what I've seen its been pretty acceptable on Wikipedia. However, I do see how this user can be a troublesome subject for Bishonen and if it should prove a great problem, I'll probably confront them with it. Until then, I'm done. -Zero^Talk 15:20, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Just try to be a little more careful in the future that any changes you make to other people's comments really are simple noncontroversial fixes. I appreciate Bishonen rolling back your changes (any time I'm taling about EE or HW, I struggle with what pronoun to use, and I was trying to be polite to EE by using "his" current stated gender) and I also appreciate that your changes were meant to be helpful. You overreacted to Bishonen's polite explanation of why she reverted your changes. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd certainly admit to an overreaction if I wronged her. Her comments, while I'll not hesitate to conceed were in good faith, gave me the strong inclination of a chastized message and, this compounded with the usage of rollback on a good faith edit intended to assist an fellow editor was exceptionally inflammatory, and something that I really did not appreciate.

I will take more care in my edits of talk page comments and I apologize for my haste in the matter. -Zero^Talk 21:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You da man!...It's not even a blip on the radar...best wishes.--MONGO 21:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Claymore (manga)

According to the history page for Claymore (Manga), you are the major editor for that page. However, there's already an article on Claymore which is titled Claymore (manga). I've already tagged your article to merge to it.--Janarius 00:00, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Good Lord Janarius! What are you saying..? That I made a completely new article whilst there was a pre-exsisting one and therefore making my creation redundant..? Oh dear. I really need to pay attention to these things. :)-Zero^Talk 00:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Hold

Dear Randall, if you had read, or even discussed, the use of the On Hold tag, it is to mark articles that have "minor quibbles", things that can be fixed quickly, that the article would otherwise be failed for. After you've sorted the problem, you remove the tag. You do not give me grief on it. ;) Highway ^Batman! 11:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't give you grief on it. Taking note of the fact we were presently online, compounded with the fact you (presumebly) posessed the article on your watchlist I left a note on the talkpage shortly after your comment verifying it was complete. To have the article still on hold days later was a travesty. -Randall Brackett 12:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Woops, forgot to watchlist it. : C Sorry for the confusion. Are you and Zero the same person? Highway ^Batman! 12:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes. You can address me as Randall or Zero, if you'd like. Never megaman. Never Randy. -Randall Brackett 12:18, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prodded subpages

I'm pretty sure that you can request speedy deletion on those. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 16:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

They were used for articlespace preperation, so I'm prodding in case there are any objections. Two of them contain content retrieved from deleted article histories. -Randall Brackett 16:30, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] An odd edit

Interesting. But why are you posing as a different editor? --Cat out 12:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Its not a viel. This is my real name. I've experienced quite a bit on wikipedia, I believe and I felt it okay to begin using my legitimate title. I also tired of editors calling me "megaman". You may still continue to call me by Zero if you feel it necessary. I won't mind. -Randall Brackett 12:50, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I'll go with the wind then.

Randall, in that case you sould login as megaman zero and post something on your megaman zero username and talkpage pointing to your current username. You should have one userpage and usertalk page so as to avoid confusion and impostoration suspicion. :)

--Cat out 12:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't work that way anymore. I requested Angela to move my account, contributions and related data over to my current username. She and I also avoided this by execution of redirecting all relevant talk and user pages to this and I moved all my subpages yesterday. If people are suspicious, they can merely ask. I need only to tell them this.

Its not as if I've become a different editor. If not by username, many editors should surmize recognition by simple observation of my communication and writing style. -Randall Brackett 13:10, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] OA additions at Ayane ~~

Feel free to add examples if you'd like, as if there's one thing I'm not it's a Ninja Gaiden guru. Papacha 14:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh its okay. I've seen your edit summary. I'll dispose of this in a minute or two. -Randall Brackett 15:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool. Though I'm no slouch at yammerin' about subjects I should keep my mouth shut about, I didn't want to create a continuity error (any more than what's there already). Thanks much. Papacha 15:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] For you

Winaah!! -Tom Harrison ^Talk 16:29, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh you fellows have always given me a giggle everytime a new theory pops up. I thought at the very least I could depict where the humor derived from. -Randall Brackett 16:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moby Dick

It certainly appears that way. Though so far he only has 3 edis on commons which isnt exactly disruptive. Also En.wiki rules dont apply to commons. So there are a number of loop-holes in policy. --Cat out 18:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

You'll not be surprised to discover I happen to look upon this with a sufficient measure of disgust. This kind of behavior should never be tolerated in wiki society and I'm complacent to discover the proposed decision is coming to some very reasonable remedies on the issue. It would be sheer idiocy to permit this editor to run loose about the wiki. -Randall Brackett 18:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

His is one vote, in the aftermath I got two support votes and a person identifying moby dick as a stalker. Davenbelle opposing me recieveing a barnstar was a turning point in the previous rfar. I think for this case his edit only strengthens our argument. --Cat out 19:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Armor King

Contrary to what you may think, I'm not here to contest the inclusion of the current infobox image, but just to say thanks for taking the time to explain why it's there. Cheers o.s.p 22:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I think fair use really has gotten to a unacceptable level. Such explanations of depiction go a long way in improving the value of the encyclopedia. -Randall Brackett 23:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Memoirs of a Geisha

Hi Randall. I'm wondering why did you revert the spoiler warning on Memoirs of a Geisha. I think the events at the end are quite dramatic, and we're supposed to have a spoiler warning. deeptrivia (talk) 06:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm reading the discussion page at Wikipedia:Spoiler warning now. IMO, for a story as dramatic as this one, it's a good idea to have a warning, but I'll wait until more users give their opinions. deeptrivia (talk) 06:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Dramatic..? Wow!! I really don't think the story was created with that intent in mind. Although, others may disagree with my assesment. -Randall Brackett 06:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

(removed silly {{subst:Civil}}template)

Your comments here were highly uncivil and wildly inappropriate. It is amazing to see someone violate WP:NPA, WP:AGF and WP:CIVIL so blatantly while on the topic of an Rfc/RFAr that accuses someone of the same violations. I am speechless. Al 08:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't play me for a fool. -Randall Brackett 08:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility 2

Please do not remove civility warning tags. Also, please assume good faith when responding. Just because I'm down doesn't mean you get to kick me, understood? Al 08:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your suggestion that initiating an RfC at this point and in this way is appropriate. If you have problems with my behavior, do bring them to the talk page in the first instance. Do not use silly removals and templates. Just because an editor for his own reasons likes to make a noise on various facets of wikipedia does not mean that this will be cited as acceptable. I do need to be told, person-to-person, what your problem is with my actions. If I do not have this courtesy, then I cannot hope to address the problems. Such personal disputes cannot be solved through "civilty warnings". -Randall Brackett 08:33, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You're allowed to agree or disagree, but you are required to remain civil. You have thus far failed to. Is there any lack of clarity about which of your remarks are uncivil and why? Al 08:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you misunderstood my remark, there. It was intended as a logical statement in view of my disagreement on the subject. Does it really sound like a personal attack..? -Randall Brackett 08:59, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

It is indistinguishable from a personal attack, and I'm not the first to notice that; ^^James^^ commented along the same lines, as well. Al 09:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

To clarify, we were discussing your outrageous demand made previously on the arbitration page. You have been blocked multiple times and exhibit some of the most disreputable behavior since the days of Robert the Bruce, then requesting the removal of the case in view of a dubious rfc after multiple violations. Of course I didn't really think I should be permitted to construct derogatory comments, I was demonstrating what an absurd demand it was in view of your previous behavior (which can be clarified over at User:Tony Sidaway/Sandbox/Alienus). -Randall Brackett 09:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Aside from once again asking you to be civil, I have no comment. Al 09:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your comment at Alienus' RfAr

Hi Randall. I'm curious about your suggestion. Given that Alienus believes he has not made any, how would you expect an attack parole to work? Jakew 10:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Jake, I happen to agree with you. If there has been no RfC by which the community explains itself, a parole would be useless. That's one of the reasons I've called this RfAr premature. Al 10:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, may I remind you of my draft RfC. As you know, it wasn't released to the community, but nevertheless you did respond. In doing so, you made a lot of accusations yourself, but you did not even address the issue of your behaviour. (I suppose that one could consider your statements that you were proud of pissing myself and others off, and that you invoked WP:IAR as justification to be "addressing" the issue, but it is unsatisfactory at best.)

That is the problem. If you ignore or deny your incivility, you can't convince anyone that you're able to change. And to address your point directly, if you ignore the evidence presented the first time, what is the point in presenting it again? One has to conclude that presenting you with evidence of your inappropriate behaviour simply does not work. I'm reluctant to agree with your call for an RfC for that reason. Jakew 10:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

My take on that RfC is that it's rotted on the vine and become irrelevant. As for complaining that I didn't necessarily agree with every accusation, that's quite vacuous as it assumes that they all had merit. It's important when entering into any mediation process, including an RfC, to put aside the notion that your side owns every square inch of the moral high ground. There has to be a mutual recognition of errors. Al 10:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, let's assume for the sake of argument that it's not only outdated but actually deceased. The fact remains that it was once current, and you did respond in a particular way. Now, given that the requirements for CIV and NPA are absolute, and there are no valid excuses for violating them, let's (mentally) delete any excuses - effectively "I was provoked because..." What remains? The answer is almost nothing. It's a distraction to talk about ownership of square inches, because you haven't addressed any inches. Jakew 10:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that, at best, the old RfC has been subsumed into the new, and it's not clear that it makes more than a ripple in doing so. How I responded back then is therefore not particularly relevant to how I might respond today, nor is it a foregone conclusion that my response was incorrect in the first place. Let's not forget how toxic an environment the circumcision-related articles are and how many casualties it's created so far. Al 10:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Alienus, interesting as it is to discuss such philosophical questions, it seems unnecessary to frame the issue in such an abstract manner. There is no need to consider whether it is a "foregone conclusion" that your response was incorrect. Nor do we need to speculate about how you "might" respond today. We have the facts. Let's go to the simpler, more direct question: was it incorrect? What is your view of this particular conduct today? Jakew 11:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

We don't have the facts, as we've never seen my response to the current RfC. If we want to, we need to put aside this premature RfAr and get this RfC on the road. Al 11:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I do recognise that Alienus does not usually act in bad faith. His actions, however, were damaging to the encyclopedia and could not be permitted to go unchecked, lest we end up with a proliferation of unsolicited personal attacks and behavior. I think the arbitrators consider these things and act in the best interests of the encyclopedia at all times; when in the situation of the final level of dispute resolution remedies are no longer simply enforced by act of administrator discrestion they are dictated by mandatory pre-existing findings of fact and the community.

The bottom line of it all is that I do not find it a paticular problem to have a viewpoint on a subject, within reason, on wikipedia. The introduction of offensive expressions of opinion, particularly through that of the defense of users that would bring ruin to this project poses the most severe danger to the encyclopedia. I'm not sure of the final decision that the Committee will conclude to, but as there are similar cases, I have a good idea. I believe the point would be to discourage Alienus in this pattern of behavior while still having his productive contributions. In this situation, should his behavior cease in that respect then he could request an appeal. -Randall Brackett 10:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm not entirely convinced, but thanks for your explanation. Jakew 10:47, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This is where WP:AGF comes into play. Al 10:53, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Quite so. Jakew 11:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

As shown by our civility discussion, it is quite possible for someone to be uncivil unintentionally. In fact, what qualifies as uncivil sometimes depends as much on the reader as the writer.

Case in point: Recently, I made an entirely humorous comment on my talk page, to the effect that I'm grateful 24 hours a day that I'm not the other person. That other person understood it as a joke and was not at all offended, but someone on AN/I took it seriously and brought it up as an example of how prone I am to personal attacks.

Now, I always edit in good faith, but I spend most of my time on controversial articles. If I had a sudden-death attack parole, it would only be a matter of time before something I said was taken as an insult, and I'd be gone. Since I have little interest in adding to Wikipedia's already impressive store of Buffy the Vampire Slayer trivia, I'd effectively have nothing to contribute to the project. In this way, a RfAr would be counterproductive. Al 10:26, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I don't doubt that your actions were in good faith, as were mine. The civility issue is one that we both need to work on. The situation reveals itself in that this is a common perception with you and thus you must modify your behavior to suit these requests, if not to keep everyone from having justification based upon previous behavior. Meanwhile, when presented with your allegation on the talk page, you flatly deny any of the violations are legitimate and this is not a good thing to do. -Randall Brackett 10:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

This is where feedback comes into play. Rather than each of us making our statements then retiring to our respective corners, we need to respond directly to what has been said and work together to come to a consensus.

For example, there's actually quite a bit of disagreement among editors as to whether calling Jossi an edit warrior was an attack, as opposed to a relevant fact. Now, it might be that I shouldn't have used that phrase, or it might be that I should have, but we're not going to figure this out with an edict handed down from above by a committee. This has to involve actual communication and compromise. Al 10:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Suits me. However, the Committee does accept the case. The evidence proves to be very strong and hopefully you and Wikipedia can learn from the conclusion gathered. As for communication and feedback, I have a lot of sympathy with that position; I have been accused as such on many occasion and this misled point of view has been used to destructive effect on my third request for adminship which I took very much to heart [1]. But at the moment it's easier to justify continued personal attacks because they are more likely to be in support of previous patterns, and hence offend, other editors. -Randall Brackett 11:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

By design, the RfAr is not a place for feedback. It is not a communication with the community, but rather a hearing where I am put on trial by the community and face nothing short of the end of my contributions to Wikipedia. This is not helpful.

Nobody has placed a gun to the heads of the ArbComm committee members to force them to rule on this. If the people who brought the issue to them generally agree that the right move now is an RfC, then the RfAr can wait. If the RfC does what it's supposed to, the RfAr becomes irrelevant anyhow. Al 11:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest you discuss this in detail with Tony Sidaway, as I currently endorse the case and thus it would be inapropriate for me to advocate against it. He's reasonably sensible so long as its not tea time and I think speaking with him is your best chance. -Randall Brackett 11:30, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand. If you're saying that you still think an RfAr is more appropriate now than an RfC, then of course it makes no sense for you to advocate again the RfAr. On the other hand, if you mean that you don't think it's appropriate to jump to an RfAr but you've endored the case so now you're stuck, I don't see why this would be so.

You certainly have the right to change your mind. In fact, that's the only way we'll get this RfC; if enough of the people who asked for the RfAr instead go for the RfC. Al 12:42, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

(In case I didn't make it clear, I've already dropped a short note on Tony's user talk page. He has yet to respond.) Al 12:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you believe you would accomplish by attempting to convince me. I did not file the hearing to the Committee and thus it would irrelevant if I changed my view on the matter. I have no more power in wikipedia than anyone else. -Randall Brackett 15:32, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm putting forth what I believe is a persuasive argument, intended to persuade whoever reads it, not just you. Of course, as you're a user who has comment on the RfAr, if you were persuaded and made a further comment to the effect that you prefer an RfC to an RfAr, every bit helps. Al 23:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Zero, I thought I'd let you know that I've left requests for further comments regarding the spoiler discussion on the talk pages of the Final Fantasy, Halo, Elder Scrolls, Mortal Kombat Warcraft, Digimon, Zelda and Nintendo WikiProjects. This being the case, we should be able to get comments from members of all the video game WikiProjects this really applies to, or, at the very least -- in the event they choose not to comment -- someone from all of those projects will have had the opportunity to weigh in on the matter.

I'd like to compliment you again on the progress that's been made on this matter. If we're successful in getting the spoiler tags removed from all the video game articles, that would be a useful step in the direction of getting them removed from the rest of the articles where they shouldn't be. It makes sense for us to start here, though, given that the video games articles are probably our nearest and dearest (I know they are in my case, anyway, at least as far as Final Fantasy articles go). See you later. Ryu Kaze 22:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate your decision to make the effort. They're on my watchlist and I'll keep an eye on it. Currently, I'm awaiting more input on the CVG talk and if clear concensus is reached I'll request mass removals with Durin's bot. -Randall Brackett 23:28, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. It's really kind of ironic that I've turned out to try to help so much. But when convinced that something's logical and that someone really wants to push for it effectively, I'm eager to lend a hand. I'm in this with you to the end, Zero, win or lose. Ryu Kaze 23:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I really don't think its about winning or losing. Its about the process of convincing our editors that this specific content is inapropriate and sometimes harmful to the intregity and spirit of the encyclopedia. I don't reasonably expect to have this occur widely across the wiki anytime soon, although I have a paticular failing in that I'm immensely stubborn on issues like this and I don't quit until something reasonable is done. -Randall Brackett 00:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Namco characters

Could you do me a favor and point any non-Tekken characters using the Tekken template to Template:Namco characters? It's just a redirect right now, but I'm going to do some sleight of hand to keep the old template on the other pages while converting the actual Tekken characters. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that seems like a good idea. -Randall Brackett 09:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legend of Zelda Categories

As someone who has previously voted or commented at the recent CfD discussion about the naming of Legend of Zelda categories, I thought I would let you know that I have started a new discussion in an attempt to reach a consensus. The current position of having 2 sets of categories serving the exact same purpose is unsustainable, and we need to reach a consensus on which set should be removed. If you have previously voted on this proposal, I would ask you to reconsider your vote, and ask yourself whether you are willing to give a little ground in order to reach a compromise. This is a generic message I am leaving for everyone who took part in the previous discussion. Thank you for your time. Road Wizard 14:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Further to my comment above, I am letting you know that Proposal 1 (merging all game sub-categories) has been successful, and I will be relisting it at CfD later today. Of the renaming proposals, only option 7 appears to have gained a consensus in support. However, I am going to leave that discussion open a few more days as we have had a related proposal (No. 11) that has not yet been discussed. Please use this time to consider whether you wish to support or oppose the new proposal, or in any way change your previous vote(s). I will be reassessing the situation at about 18:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC). Road Wizard 20:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heihachi

Why did u take away the information I added regarding Heihachi?? What's the reason? Aeneiden-Rex 12:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about your reasoning here. Editors are already bound by policy to remove speculative and original research from article space. I don't think any one needs to state an elaborate amount of reasoning for defending the encyclopedia. For instance, deletion of biased additions happens every day, as does removal of such original research and poorly written information from mainpace. This intensely annoys many people, but it still has to go on. Nobody owns any part of Wikipedia, your contributions only exist in an article insofar as it advances the project. As one becomes an experienced editor, one must take these facts on board. -Randall Brackett 12:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

What are u talking about?? I wrote that Heihachi was the winner of tekken 2 & 4 because I couldn't find that information anywhere else, and u deleted it, why? what's the reason for thar?? Aeneiden-Rex 12:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Noted. Please take this to Talk:Heihachi Mishima. -Randall Brackett 13:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steve

what are you doing? Why are u deleting everything I write. Speculations about Steve's father is not crap. What's the matter with you.Aeneiden-Rex 13:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The encyclopedia comes before the speculative views of a subject's fanbase, every single time. The encyclopedia is the matter. Inserting silly fandom views in encyclopediac articles must not be mistaken for participating in the production of an encyclopedia. -Randall Brackett 14:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Then why are u not taking away all speculations on the Devil Gene article?? A lot of Tekken-related articles here contains a lot of speculation why are u not deleting them? Aeneiden-Rex 14:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a little naughty. Why would you presume I have gotten to it given that its not even on my watchlist..? -Randall Brackett 14:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Almost everything that is written on the devil gene article, I don't know who wrote it, contains only speculations and the authors way of interpretting the story, thus it's not official in any way. So if I should go by your view of "silly fandom views", that should be delete as well since it's totally un-biased and pure speculation and thoughts from a fan.Aeneiden-Rex 14:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I just finished cleaning up the article somewhat. If you still see some unfounded views, I'd advise you to remove them. In my edit, I removed the reception nonsense, elimated some weasel words and fixed the article to essentially output observations witnessed in the storyline. -Randall Brackett 14:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank You, but one more question: Can I write that Heihachi was the Winner of tekken 2 & 4, without that "fans-believing thing". Cause I can't find that information anywhere else. Aeneiden-Rex 14:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

It appears for the second tournament, that would be unnecessary: After winning the contest, he has a showdown with Kazuya, and defeats him. Afterwards, he tosses Kazuya, who had proven to be much too dangerous, into a volcano and kills him."

For the fourth, you were correct that there was lack of his victory in that tournament. I wrote: "With Jin captured by the Tekken Force, Heihachi faced Kazuya in the finals of tournament and defeated him. He then led Kazuya to his Hon Maru compound where Jin was being held captive." -Randall Brackett 14:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank You.Aeneiden-Rex 14:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Unrelated subject: I disagree with the deletion of the Endings sections. That information about as encyclopedic as you can get within the Tekken series, even if some of the endings are non-canon. King Zeal 15:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Mega Man series

Wow, new userpage, huh? Just wondering if you've been keeping up with the news of the Shin MegaMan DS series that I just discovered an article for. Hope everythings all right. See ya. ~ Hibana 23:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was aware of the series but wasn't aware we had created an article yet. I have placed it on my watchlist. Thank you for the notification, it was much appreciated. -Randall Brackett 23:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gackt

Is there a KOF character, male or female, that doesn't look a little bit like Gackt? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:10, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I revert that nonsense everytime I see it. Recently I reverted some superman crap on Clark Steel. Whatever next...? -Randall Brackett 08:15, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think the Superman stuff is real. I vaguely remember something about that from some old Ikari Warriors fluff from back in the day. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting ready to flip Template:SNK character over to GenCVGchar, but this one is going to take a LOT of work. Can you do me a favor, by doing something that needs to be done anyway, and move all of the image2/caption2s down the article to the relevant part of the article?

Likewise, who was doing character design on KoF before Falcoon? I was planning to add the character designers to the template, but I don't remember who was doing character design before that.

Er, actually, would you be willing to just fill in the creators character by character? Seems like you'd be the one who'd know that. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy vandalism warnings

I noticed the comments about reverting vandalism without warning vandals at your RfA. You might try some of the tools at this section of the CVU page. I use the RC Patrol Script, which I've been very satisfied with b/c it let's me do almost one-click warning and reporting. Hopefully one of them will be helpful for you. Cheers and happy vandalfighting!--Kchase02 T 03:48, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. This looks to be very helpful. I'll take a look.-Randall Brackett 08:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

This is the main quote that made me wary of your confidence:

"However, I must conceed I do not feel confident in my charisma to pass the rfa placed before the community."

There are other points in your nom statement that seemed like you were not confident, but this stuck out most. Good luck, though. --WillMak050389 04:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Well I'm not popular fellow. Put yourself in my shoes. I'm a realist, and being a person who sometimes has problems people percieve as larger than they really are I think I was being honest. I don't think it has an bearing on my confidence in becoming an administrator nor does it relfect the work I'm capable of. But thank you for explaining and I accept your reasoning with gracious thanks. -Randall Brackett 08:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Diamond Age reorganization

Dear Randall Brackett, You reorganized The Diamond Age. It is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels and had been structured according to the project recommendations (template) to streamline articles on novels. Of course it is ok to deviate from the template, but I have to say I prefer a short introductory paragraph followed by clear section headings, to separate out levels of detail. I would argue for going back to the original structure. Would you mind discussing the change on the article's discussion page? Thank you! --Jottce 08:54, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. I thought it merely flowed better and expanding the opening pharagraph seemed like a great idea. I'll step back from this and allow the wikiproject members to make their decisions as necessary if I acted in error. -Randall Brackett 08:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll simply insert the section heading then. I think it's a good idea to move it to the top though, as you did. Best, --Jottce 09:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your RFA

Hi Megaman Zero Randall, I'm sorry for sorta acting a bit like a Devils advocate on your RFA. The only reason I maintained a discussion like that, is because I was the first oppose. If I find something wrong, as the first oppose, I usually try to maintain an open mind about all possiblities and reasonings behind an editors logic so I can support a statement I am making or try to make an editor see an logic where I'm coming from. I'm sorry I ruined as much as I did, but I think as soon as you fix the minor complaint I had, I would even consider nominating you for adminship again (perhaps November?). But anyways, hope you don't feel that outcome has discouraged you any.. — The King of Kings 14:20 July 09 '06

Oh no worries. I really think it takes a little bit away from me every time I fail a nomination and it makes it more and more difficult to get up again. : ( I really don't even assume good faith for the process anymore as its been beaten into me that I'm bound to fail. I'm not sure, maybe I should just give up. -Randall Brackett 15:13, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to pull a Yoda here: If you think you will fail, you will undoubtedly fail. (okay, so my grammar is better than his). I was disappointed to see you yank your RfA after less than 24 hours, because it was at 9/9; a lot could have changed going forward. I hadn't had a chance to review your recent contributions yet, as I actually went to bed for once, but you seem to have come a long way since the first time I met you as Megaman Zero. Feel free to let me know if you come up to try again in a couple of months, as I don't always watch WP:RFA as closely as I would like to. -- nae'blis _(talk) 16:40, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Damn man, you would have had my vote. Though maybe it's best you pulled the RfA before they see where scum like me sides. ^_^ Papacha 01:27, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I know what you mean and I am very pleased to have your endorsement, particularly in these terms. -Randall Brackett 11:05, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Devil Gene

Don't you think the section "connections between devils" is kinda unnecessary? I mean it doesn't really contain any biased information, it's just the way King Zeal (I think he wrote it) interprets the story, it's only his point of view and theories. Aeneiden-Rex 11:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any pressing reason to remove it from the article--but it may well be an instance of original research, which is not be a good idea. However removing the section in the article would be okay with me. I'd suggest you take this to his talkpage. -Randall Brackett 11:09, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all, let me start out by informing you, Rex, that you have the definitions of "biased" and "unbiased" reversed. Biased means to be unfair and one-sided; unbiased means to be fair and impartial. Therefore, saying that the information in the section isn't biased is actually a good thing. However, I don't think that's what you meant, so I'll move on to my second point.

The article is written not based on my interpretations at all. I used to frequent the http://www.tekkenzaibatsu.com message boards and what's typed in the article is actually what the consensus of theory was after weeks of debate on the subject of the Devil Gene. Of course, that was a year ago, and if the theories have changed, I don't know. However, if you have any new ideas or find what I typed in there to be lacking in any way, I would appreciate it if you had the respect to talk to me about face-to-face instead of trying to rally a third party behind my back. It just asks a little bit more respect.

Now, with all that said, I will also state that I think the way to handle the situation is not to go editing other peoples' comments or deleting entire sections of info unless you have concrete proof that the information is false. Just having a different interpretation of the story doesn't justify editing out others' edits because if you're trying to be unbiased, then you'd want as many people to state their case as possible, right? Therefore, I think we should talk about a compromise before we started editing whole paragraphs, sections, or articles. Agreed? King Zeal 12:14, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not following this. Take this to the article talkpage. -Randall Brackett 13:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-Strike maps

Hi Randall. I hadn't finished putting Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Counter-Strike maps together, and you voted before I finished. As I hadn't finished, what you voted on is not what is now there, so I removed your vote. Please feel free to revisit the AFD. Thanks, Proto///type 14:26, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. -Randall Brackett 14:29, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Aesthetics

For character images, concept artwork or renders? o/s/p 15:18, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about...? -Randall Brackett 21:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I was asking what you think would be more appropriate for illustrating characters of the video game variety. o/s/p 11:36, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I think its a matter of leaving it to the editor who implements the image. -Randall Brackett 13:03, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stitch (Lilo & Stitch)

Restored changes to the infobox for Stitch (Lilo & Stitch). The new image is better - it's more clear and it's not like Stitch runs around in his space suit for the majority of the series. He's a Disney character so the Disney character box is more appropriate. All the other info from the box should be mentioned as prose in the article. Have a good one. --Jtalledo (talk) 04:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No thanks. I have restored the latter and I've replied in detail on the talkpage. -Randall Brackett 10:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

What argument? That picture was on the official series web site. The other one doesn't even have a source. I was restored the other image in the "history" section but you reverted again. Between this and removing spoiler notices when no consensus has been reached regarding them, this is very disconcerting. --Jtalledo (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your logic here. But yes, thanks for coming back to me on that one. The capacity of the image is covered by Wikipedia:Fair Use. You can upload a image there saying its from the official site, but it really doesn't matter as all we need is a image. Uploads of various imagery to depict minor changes in an character is somewhat deprecated, but tolerated. Remember that wikipedia isn't a gallery nor is it bound by any policy dictating what templates are required on our character articles. It's assumed that editors are perfectly capable of using their reasoning in matters such as this and its what I have done. -Randall Brackett 12:02, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I've done the same thing - but here the case is pretty clear - Stitch is not a superhero, he's a Disney character. I guess there's no reasoning with gunboat diplomacy though. --Jtalledo (talk) 12:13, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I take serious offense to that false accusation and I ask you retract your comment immediately. In the quibbling of reverts, I merely reverted twice and I've left it at that. In your comment, You've only clarified you wish to edit within the boundries of the series and I'm not seeing that. How the character can't be considered as such is beyond me. -Randall Brackett 12:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler warning comprimise

Sorry for having made that suggestion in the spoiler discussion involving the on/off thing. I really regret having done it now. I was so determined to find a way to get those things off of at least the default presentation of the site so as to ensure some measure of professionalism and integrity be preserved (which began to look like something that would only happen through a compromise), that I was momentarily blinded to the other negative aspects of the matter. I apologized to the encyclopedia as a whole already, but I feel like I owe you a personal one given that it was you who got me into this camp in the first place. I'm now once again firmly behind seeing them go down based on what they truly are: a NPOV and censorship violation. See you later. Ryu Kaze 15:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure why you're apologizing to me. I only have a problem with the comprimise in that people are still yet attempting to pursue the matter of retaining utterly useless content, which editors across do infrequently but with extraordinary consistentsy. That editors feel able to sway anyone to read or not to read on this wiki at any time dismays me; that people regard it as a courtesy is even more far-fecthed. If one could persuade editors to respect the policy in support of neutrality and recognise that this behavior sets a bad example for the encyclopedia's proffesional image, I think that would be a great service to Wikipedia. Even if the template was useful for people on other websites which endorse ignorance, Wikipedia is not the right medium with which to deliver them.

On the comprimise, it would be better than this utterly painful mucking about on perfectly good articles, which, as it seems is never going to give a full support of the removal of the templates a fair whack. -Randall Brackett 15:47, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

But I would think the compromise would be even worse-looking to you given that your focus is largely on the professional presentation of the encyclopedia. Mine's mainly been with regards to the integrity issue. For you, going about things in that way would be a horrible idea, as it is to Jimbo (probably for the same reasons), right? It would only be further reinforcing the notion that we endorse protecting people from knowledge, which is the antithesis of our purpose here, and not something any encyclopedia worth the paper or webspace it was written on would do. Ryu Kaze 15:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Good point about the spirit of the policy, by the way. Getting tangled up in semantics is probably unwise. Ryu Kaze 15:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I would support the comprimise, but Jimbo's suggestion is far surprior and sensible. -Randall Brackett 16:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Darkstalkers

Hi, are you the guy who removed my additional info about Sasquatch from Darkstalkers? If not, you can ignore this (I'm still new to how this message system works), but if you are I figured I'd let you know the source of the material, as you said the source was not given.

http://www.gamefaqs.com/coinop/arcade/game/583725.html

The "plot guide", as the name suggests, lists the plotlines and info on individual characters from Darkstalkers, translated directly from the Official Capcom books. As such, I think the information is pretty valid and deserves to be posted on Wikipedia.

Please respond, -Faeros 16:24, July 13, 2006

You're right, I goofed. Your addition was perfectly in order. However, I would contest my actions were suitible given the circumstances. The edit was constructed through the IP 193.60.199.37 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log) which currently has many inappropriate edits and has reached multiple warnings.

As for the formatting, my personal taste is for articles with a bare minimum of straight facts and organization. It shouldn't be necessary to add more than is present. I've reverted in the time being for reasons I've outlined in the edit summary. If you insist upon the inclusion of this data I implore you to rewrite it after reviewing our guidelines for article construction. -Randall Brackett 16:39, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I edited some Darkstalker articles from a college PC, sorry about that.

I would've given an external link, but for some reason doing so seems to result in an error message. So, I figured I'd try and add the data myself (cleaning up the grammar as I went), as this is a fair bit of information that some fans might not have heard of previously. Sorry if I've caused any undue stress.

If you like, I could try and set it out in a more story-esque fashion as opposed to individual sections and bullet points. Would that help? -Faeros

Sure. Implement this and I'll see how it goes. I'm certain the external link didn't operate because a direct link was created to the FAQ in the URL specification. I'm pushing for this to be simply linked in the mains series article if this doesn't format well. -Randall Brackett 23:58, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] {{deletedpage}}

Barring a future successful RFA, please don't use {{deletedpage}}, as you can neither delete nor protect pages. Pages can always be tagged with prod, redirected to an appropriate page, or tagged for speedy deletion as a recreation. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No hassle. I blundered over that. My apologies. -Randall Brackett 01:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ryuusei no Rockman

I'd just like to point you to the general direction of Ryuusei no Rockman, if you haven't noticed. It's a copy paste from Fireman's report at Atomic Fire. - Zero1328 _Talk? 02:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, this is on a tight leash. Things aren't too bad; I'll just make an entry on Wikipedia:Copyright violations. -Randall Brackett 06:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:Remastered Tracks Rockman Zero 4.jpg

Just wanted to let you know that I'm saving over your image. The image is actually of the calendar included, and vgworld.com redirects to The Emulator Zone for me. - Zero1328 _Talk? 07:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. -Randall Brackett 07:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Randall Brackett/Test

I've placed your design here. If you want to get consensus to change the design, you can use your test page as an example, instead of inserting it into a template transcluded into hundreds of pages. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. You only needed to assist. -Randall Brackett 07:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I was interrupted twice by you reverting. ¬_¬ - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding the Rockman ZX section on Alouette's Page

I chose to add spoiler tags since another user felt it was necessary to delete a section on Model V on Dr. Vile's page because it was a major spoiler for US audiences. Because the same applied here, I figured it was better to be safe than sorry. ~ライケン

I deleted them because I thought it a speculation and a hoax. -Randall Brackett 08:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, while the game does not outright say "Prairie is Alouette", it is implied in the same way that it is implied that Zero was originally constructed by Dr. Wily. At any rate, the part about Prairie being a Repliroid alive for several hundred years alone probably counts as spoiler, since it's only revealed about halfway through Van's storyline. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ライケン (talk • contribs).

You already know my posistion on these horrid pieces of unencyclopediac trash. I don't see, how, as a rule, simply because information is there it must be inturrupted by spoiler tags. -Randall Brackett 09:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Quite frankly, I agree that the spoiler tags should not be needed - if you're looking for information on something, you shouldn't need to be warned you're going to be told about it. However, a recent experience showed me that it might avoid conflicts if they were added, so I saw no reason not to. Thus, my use of the tags on the section on the Alouette page. I am not particularly attached to the tags and won't bother re-adding them, but I thought I might explain to you my reason for using them, as you requested in your edit summary on Alouette's page. That is all. ~ライケン

[edit] Bits and bobs

Ok, I feel we need to address certain issues that have us in disagreement so we can both be more productive from this point on.

First of all, abuse of fair use is rampant within the CVG space and we can usually avoid it by lessening unnecessary images and provide descriptive captions that both explains and ties the image to a chapter within the article which the image will illustrate (only if absolutely needed I might add). This chapter should obviously consist of more than one or two sentences as this is arguably not going to be covered by the fair use doctrine. For instance, an image titled 'gameplay screenshot' next to a section about gameplay (or any other for that matter) isn't helpful and I'm sure you'll agree. The same practice applies to images that are of no relevance such as game covers used outside the infobox - simply because they're not being discussed, they are more likely to be fair use in an article that specifically talks about covers in general.

Of course, I could replace and correct all these instances myself with something usable but there's a dizzying array of interests and there's no possible way that I can know what might look best or not in the cases of all of those interests. Consequences of leaving images for the sake of decoration can be discussed, but currently other language wikipedias employ a much stricter fair use policy that prohibits them from using any of that variety at all. Leaving images for the sake of decoration isn't going to work until someone eventually corrects the use and placement of these images either as someone else will be along to remove them. The purpose of these images are to aid in identification and illustration if absolutely needed, and not the other way around. The Fair use policy is quite clear on this (see WP:FUC for a complete list of criteria).

I should add that if there were indeed leverage to include all these images I've removed lately I'd argue for their inclusion. But this is a policy, and not just a guideline.

Next on my list is the use of {{Infobox Arcade Game}}. This is a widely used template on video games that were originally released in arcade form, such as Pac-Man and Donkey Kong, including the Tekken series. And my reasoning for implementing it was purely for stylistic consistency and arcade buffs such as myself find the added information about its arcade form of interest. Such as arcade system, monitor orientation etc.

And lastly, regarding {{General CVG character}}, if there is indeed an issue with how images work then it needs to be presented very clearly. I wasn't criticising you as an editor, but it was presented in a fashion that indicates there might be different purpose behind the proposed changes to the template in question as the image issue isn't at all obvious.

This was all written in a haste and I apologize in advance if I left something essential out of the discussion. o/s/p 15:58, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I'll try to stop saying things that might be concieved as difficult to comprehend, but you know you're an incredibly straightfoward guy. What is wrong with saying that you'll have to accept that policy is really an ends to a means and not something to be followed simply because its there? It is a fact that fair use imagery is a major issue and that you were at that time attempting to eliviate the amount amassed in various articles. I've never opposed you on this other than the view that you sometimes did so in an almost robotic fashion without any paticular reasoning. Your recent uploads of promotional artwork for video games is also something I find suspect. You claim to uphold the spirit of fair use, yet you upload and replace competent images with redundant ones. Elisiac was not justified in his accusations on your talkpage, but it did make me wonder what you were up to.

On my removal of your arcade box, it was because it seems to be in the nature of an irrelevant edit (paticulary the ugly image which had no informative value). You raised these events from weeks ago, and used it to imply an ongoing and chronic lack of respect for policy. I of course removed it as an irrelevant bit of silliness, while keeping the relevant information needed for the article.

On the template issue, I'd draw the line where a user constructs a argument to imply that I would change a competent design for personal reasoning [2], especially given my contribution history and dedication to the encyclopedia. Your comment, in some views could be considered slander; at the very least it breaches good faith. -Randall Brackett 16:43, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't quite make sense to use cover art of ports to identify an arcade game as they often represent an altered product. The nature of eliashc's complaint concerns replacement of title screens where there is a established concensus that recommends either gameplay screenshots or game covers for identification in infoboxes, arcade games however only have flyers as a means of advertising and representation aside from screenshots. Recently, other editors began uploading these and I first noticed it in Virtua Fighter 4, I simply decided to follow in their footsteps in an attempt to keep articles look stylistically consistent across arcade related articles. Perhaps I was in error and should've opted for screenshots, though some people view these flyers as equivalent to game covers.

I'll admit that I have been brutal in some cases of fair use but that's why descriptive captions, accompanied by commentary within the article needs to be present. I would discuss my removals with every editor but it would take forever to get the message across. o/s/p 00:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh I don't know about your reasoning, there. I look at the bigger picture, perhaps. And as far as an encyclopedia goes I don't really think it matters if we have the poster art or the box art. I think, to avoid wasting resources and improve the encyclopedia we shouldn't worry about those little things. Which ever one we have beforehand is fine. Remember simply because other people do it,doesn't mean its the correct thing for wikipedia.

I wouldn't describe your removals as "brutal". Just, well, odd. Follow the spirit of policy, not the letter. Policy exists insofar as it assists the encyclopedia. -Randall Brackett 09:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Dhalsim

Can you assist me here? I'm getting tired of this guy. Danny Lilithborne 10:04, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I think WP:NOT said it best when it prohibits against "indiscriminate collections of information". -Randall Brackett 22:53, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moby Dick up to his old tricks

I am not offended but its genneraly better practice to wait for the discussion (at the talk page of the spoiler thing) to complete.

As for character articles, I do not really mind the removal of the tags... I guess with that reasoning it is only logical. I am also not certain if the tag is necesary in any article; you'd expect to see a plot summary in a plot section, a warning to that end is really redundent. Furthermore, our friendship is more important than the tags.

As for Moby Dick, I am sure arbcom would love to see this new evidence. I would however ask you not to revert war with him so as to evade unnecesary arbcom restrictions. Sometimes retreat is the better side of valor, especialy when dealing with stalkers. --Cat out 17:28, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

With respect, I think the problem, which is not that of "making a bad edit", was his unnecessarily vituperative stalking habbits. Such actions make for bad editing environments. I shall be watching Moby Dick's edits, his comments and not least of all his edit summaries. -Randall Brackett 22:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Secondary infobox images

Please do not reinsert those images without placing them with accompanying prose. And don't accuse me of "mindlessly reverting," then revert my cleanup of an infobox without comment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:08, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I purposely reverted your infobox changes. When you're prepared to stop utilizing rollback I'll be prepared to be similarly sensible. -Randall Brackett 02:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't play games with revert warring. I will block you if you're reverting to make a WP:POINT. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't play me for a fool. You know what rollback is intended for. I'm willing to comprimise but I do not tolerate nonsense. -Randall Brackett 02:17, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Using fair-use images without commentary isn't a content thing. It's a copyvio thing. This is an admin-hat issue, not a content dispute. Reinserting FU images without commentary isn't strictly vandalism, but it is destructive. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:21, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh please. The image in question has fair use claims and each section an apropriate header in the article. I know you have common sense and that's why I'm not tolerating these games you're playing. -Randall Brackett 02:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

There aren't games. If you're not placing the image with accompanying commentary, you don't get to use it in the article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

It was games. The caption Orochi (insert name here) was a critical commentary. Although perhaps one you didn't prefer. But than I don't folllow the quality of wikipedia in your preferences. -Randall Brackett 02:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I see you've now used appropriate edit summeries. I'll leave it there. -Randall Brackett 02:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR on Gandara

Six reverts in the past few hours? I've blocked you (as well as A Man In Black (talk • contribs)) for 24 hours; when you return, please approach the issue with a bit less blind reverting and a bit more constructive discussion. Kirill Lokshin 02:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. -Randall Brackett 02:32, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough; may I suggest an unblock or a similar comprimise for unblock duration...? The edit war is concluded and I think it sensible if both parties agree upon no furthur reverts while we inquire for third opinions and discuss on the relevant talkpages. -Randall Brackett 02:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Mmm, I can unblock you both if you promise not to revert each other again for the duration of the original block. Is that acceptable to you? Kirill Lokshin 03:05, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

That certainly is. I'd also ask you act as a in-betweener so the back-biting doesn't get out hand. According to WP:DR, inquiring for a third opinion is appropriate in such disputes. -Randall Brackett 03:12, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've unblocked you. Please play nice :-) Kirill Lokshin 03:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Thank you for the cool-down period. It was much appreciated. -Randall Brackett 03:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Volta (Tekken)

The article about Volta supposedly to be in T6 seems to be complete bogus. Nowhere else can I find any info about this Volta. It seems as if someone made it up. I was wondering if anyone could delete it? Cause I don't know how. Aeneiden-Rex 09:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

See WP:AFD. -Randall Brackett 10:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Volta (Tekken)

The article about Volta supposedly to be in T6 seems to be complete bogus. Nowhere else can I find any info about this Volta. It seems as if someone made it up. I was wondering if anyone could delete it? Cause I don't know how. Aeneiden-Rex 09:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

See WP:AFD. -Randall Brackett 10:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Spoiler tags

Do not go on a remove the tags spree prior to a conclusion in discussion. Obviously the talk discussion (which I think you started) had turned into a heated debate which means the concensus wont be reached any time soon. --Cat out 07:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh I've removed lots and lots of them. And you seem to have your facts wrong regarding why I removed them. Belldandy, for instance, upon inspection, contained only a general description--for instance the only plot information included was that of the outline of the event of the first novel. The article should not have had a tag, nor should it have been considered to have spoilers--You clearly hadn't done your homework or else you wouldn't have replaced it. It doesn't elaborate whatsoever on the plot. That's why I removed it. Same reason I removed it from Hansel and Gretel - it was inapropriate.

The Oh my Goddess! articles were a straightforward descriptions of the characters on question with barely any plot points. We don't place spoilers on these articles. You're welcome to explain to me how you came to this conclusion if you think that is necessary, but please don't expect me to leave off the removal of tags for articles when they don't qualify for the bare minimum of story content. Please, I beg you, read the articles and use your common sense. -Randall Brackett 14:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

While on the subject, I think I let Johntex's most recent round of commenting hit a nerve. I fired back. Oops.

Anyway, we're going to have to require intervention on this, I think. There's not going to be an agreement between the two sides arguing this, and most of the people involved have dropped out at this point. You and I are the only ones to have stayed from the beginning. Even Steve's fallen out now, and he barely commented throughout (though he was there from the beginning). There will be no compromise, it seems. What do you think we should do? I don't think this is something the Arbitration Committee will want to address. They don't like to stick their fingers in matters of policy. They like to hope editors can come to an agreement, or that Jimbo or the Board will do something. Where does that leave us? Ryu Kaze 21:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'm calm now, and John and I aren't killing each other, so everything's well on that front. But we're still left with what seems a hopeless issue of resolving this. Ryu Kaze 22:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I've no objection to the discussion continuing, though it seemed obvious to me that we hadn't a ghostly chance of avoiding "keep the tags because people like them" so I remain optimistic about the comprimise. No problems. -Randall Brackett 06:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Am I the only one slightly miffed that the compromise that was supposed to be the basis of us moving to RfC was "mysteriously" butchered the moment everyone "agreed" and RfC began? Yeah, yeah, I know, I know... "assume good faith". I'm certainly "assuming". Won't say what, though. Ryu Kaze 17:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Weil article

You know what, the Dr. Weil article has always bugged me, what with it being way too darned long. I think I'll get going on that one and I will be putting spoilers around the Rockman ZX section, as it IS a spoiler to me and I didn't like having that part of the game spoiled. After all, how was I supposed to know about Rockman Model V and how was I supposed to know you'd discuss it in an article about Weil? Wolf ODonnell 15:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this is something that needs to be explained in a future revisions for the Mega Man ZX article, not the character article itself. The model V nonsense should be placed as trivia or in the opening pharagraph since its more an item, not the character in question. Please don't make this more than it is. I'll be watching.

The personality section needs a rewrite. -Randall Brackett 15:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 65.60.219.176

Hi, I've removed your report of this user from the intervention against vandalsim noticeboard as this is a content dispute, not vandalism. Please try to resolve this by engaging with the user, preferably on the article's talk page, rather than jumping to the conclusion that they are a vandal. Thanks, Gwernol 17:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No it wasn't. I've replaced the section as appropriate. -Randall Brackett 20:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You disagree about how to spell Hayabusa. How is this not a content dispute? Even assuming that the IP is wrong about the spelling (which I've no reason to doubt), I don't see evidence that they are vandalising. Please see WP:VAND#What_vandalism_is_not - edits made in good faith (and we are assuming good faith) are not vandalism even if they are mistakes. I'll let another admin deal with your replacement of the report at WP:AIV. Thanks, Gwernol 20:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It was blatent vandalism. There is no other spelling venue for the name, which is of japanese orgin. How do you know this was made in good faith...? And added numerous of times...?-Randall Brackett 20:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Really? It looks to me like you and he escalated a content dispute until he started putting ill-advised meta-commentary into the article. However it started as a dispute over the spelling of the word. Transliteration from other languages into English always leaves room for multiple representations of the other language. If you had tried to engage the user the first time he made tha change instead of immediately labeling him a vandal, perhaps the outcome would have been different? Gwernol 20:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You're view on the matter is entirely incorrect. Utterly, overwhelmingly incorrect. -Randall Brackett 20:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 65.60.219.176

It's usual not to block if an admin only comes across the report some time after the vandalism has stopped, and it's an IP address. There's no reason to take the risk of blocking the next user of an assumedly dynamic IP; things would be different with a purely vandalistic named account of course. My edit summary dealt briefly with I think 3 individual removals, so each got only a few words. -Splash - tk 21:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I concured and that's why I didn't press the issue. My query was in relevance to why the block was not initiated from the outset when the timeframe of vandalism was still current and I think its a poor assumption to think it was a dynamic IP, looking at the contributions provides no evidence of this. -Randall Brackett 21:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't answer for any admin other than myself as to why they weren't blocked when you reported it; I can only suppose that noone looked at the page, or felt like clearing the list until I got around to it. -Splash - tk 21:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. The vandalism has ceased and that's all wikipedia needs. -Randall Brackett 21:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

It was a little bit hard for me to see what was going on in the RfC. My basic viewpoint is that we'd be better off without "warnings" of any kind, but I recognize that that may be unachievable given the population of people who contribute to Wikipedia. If possible, I'd limit spoilers to works published in the past two years or to works in which the "surprise" is actually the reason a work exists (e.g. "The Sixth Sense"). In fact, in the few cases when people might justifiably feel a "warning" is required, it should be part of the article text (e.g. '"The Sixth Sense" has a surprise plot twist at the end that shifts the viewer's perception of the entire reality of the film." without adding "so don't read this article if you don't want to know it"') I'm not sure that I have much to add other than my opinion that "spoiler warnings" don't belong in a serious reference work, and I would pretty much just echo the other "anti" arguments on that page. - Nunh-huh 03:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm discussing various venues with editors in the rfc now. They're fully aware of the situation and they are aware of the remedies for hiding the template in due course. Feel free to add an outside view or continue to contact me via my talk page sp we can at least discuss the matter. You can always find a place for comment on an rfc. I'm sure they'd be happy to discuss the case with you. I feel it would be a great view on your part to submit. -Randall Brackett 12:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Mega Man Zero characters

I've just had an idea. Why don't we move the Neo Arcadian characters from the List of Mega Man Zero characters article into your Neo Arcadia article? The Megaman Zero template means we can split get rid of the List of Mega Man Zero characters and split the characters into one Resistance article and one Neo Arcadia article.

As the characters split more evenly into Resistance and Neo Arcadia, that would be a good idea. We can then sub-divide them into which games they appear in.

Wolf ODonnell 11:20, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It is my impression, that we subdivide the characters into factions as appropriate. As per your suggestion, we merge the Neo Arcadians into the article, creating a hiearchy subsection into the description header I had previously implemented.

On the Resistance case, obviously you're right, but this is why the list article is so important. List articles is essential in many cases with large cases of a character cast, so dragging them out into a seperate, minor article (I don't believe there's much to warrent a seperate article about them). However, perhaps some refinement might be necessary. I think it best to deal with the remainder of the list article characters by stating their origins in each video game, elaborating the context if need be. Currently, I'm going to go through the four gaurdians' articles and clean-up. -Randall Brackett 12:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you guys considered combining the Four Guardians into a single article, like I did with Mega Man Killers? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

That's appalling. Of course we're not going to merge them. Out of respect, I assume that comment was a bit of a jest. Please don't do that again.-Randall Brackett 12:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

One of them appears in only one game. All of them appear together whenever they appear. The articles are wholly plot summary, and not a one of them has any impact outside of the context of the games themselves. I'm having trouble seeing why they aren't merge candidates. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:55, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Should you persist, I think you'll find that your perception of the situation is somewhat awry. I'll assume for the moment that you're too bright to push the envelope. Perhaps you should read up on the game in question and re-evaluate your thesis. -Randall Brackett 12:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

How about you explain to me why I shouldn't merge them instead of being patronizing? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

My comment was in no way, shape or form patronizing. I think when making statements about a game in this vien, a sufficeint amount of knowledge is required on the subject. A quite ample amount. -Randall Brackett 13:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If you have this knowledge, I'm sure you can explain to me why I shouldn't merge them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see any point in responding to someone who keeps falsely claiming that I have no idea what I'm doing in article construction or my actions are against policy. Please take this to the relevant talkpage. I'm busy. -Randall Brackett 13:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about policy or that you were doing anything wrong. I wanted to know why you don't want me to merge those articles, and you haven't yet told me. This is the relevant talk page, because I want you to explain why I shouldn't merge them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not speaking of today. This doesn't hold relevance to my talkpage as I have every article watchlisted. -Randall Brackett 16:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I shall do so. They are four different characters with different impacts on the story of the Megaman Zero series. Merging them together would be like merging the Founders of the United States together and not giving them individual entries. Furthermore, Harpuia makes more of an impact than the other three, as he actively appears in the Remastered Tracks Rockman Zero 3 Telos CDs in the Drama Tracks that expand on the backstory of the game. Wolf ODonnell 13:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, Neo Arcadia is hardly the United States, as far as encyclopedic topics go. Is there anything you can say about them that isn't plot summary of MMZ or RTRMZ? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, you could always {{main}} out Harpuia if that part's too long, but I'm still curious if there's anything you can say that isn't plot summary. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 13:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Please take this to the relevant talkpage. I grow weary of the threaded discussion on every section that arrives. Its enough to drive one quite giddy.

Yes. Thanks, Wolf. On the other hand, AMIB if you're interested in merges, your assistnce would be appreciated on combining the little monsters I placed merge tags for on the article List of experiments from Lilo & Stitch. I've left a note on the talkpage. Input would be welcome. -Randall Brackett 13:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Move requests for Elder Scroll related article

The Elder Scroll related articles were nominated for deletion. The result of the debate was to merge all articles which is the reason why they are on a project page. The discussion may be found here. Because they were moved as a result of an Afd I am denying your request to move the articles into main space. Joelito (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The point being adressed here is that they're in mainspace. Whether they are merged are remain standalone is not adressing the problem. If they have the mentioned naming convention with the wikiproject then they must be removed from all article links. -Randall Brackett 20:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for handling all the merges with List of experiments from Lilo & Stitch. -- Gogo Dodo 16:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Glad I could be of help. -Randall Brackett 22:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Personality" sections

These are wholly unencyclopedic. They don't belong here.

They're original research, because they're interpretation and analysis (instead of just observation) of the primary work. There is original research involved in choosing which quotes to use, how to order them, and what they mean. They're just one person's interpretation of a character, and WIkipedia really isn't here to tell people how to interpret a work, just that the work exists and give enough plot summary to place the work in context. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

There a policy on this...? In my arguments against spoiler tags, the usage of an editor's view of encyclopediac is highly subjective. I think they're merely observations myself although I'm not strongly opposed to their removal. I only ask you adhere to 1RR in the current timeframe and bring this up with other editors who dabble in the series. I won't go against concensus if my view is mistaken. -Randall Brackett 00:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

They're original research, because they're interpretation and analysis (instead of just observation) of the primary work.

That is policy.

These are highly subjective interpretations of these characters. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This is your opinion. Take it to a third party for reiview. -Randall Brackett 00:24, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You may want to see this, then. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:13, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Instead of debating about original research, how about you try looking for the source, Randall? - Zero1328 _Talk? 05:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] AfD Nomination: Cyber Troopers Virtual On Force

I've nominated the article Cyber Troopers Virtual On Force for deletion under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Cyber Troopers Virtual On Force satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion. I have explained why in the nomination space (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cyber Troopers Virtual On Force. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them. You are free to edit the content of Cyber Troopers Virtual On Force during the discussion, but please do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top). Doing so will not end the discussion. Captainktainer * Talk 19:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I felt it best to explain myself after writing. Unfortunately, the article you created has absolutely no sources, and the one policy on Wikipedia that absolutely cannot be compromised on is the verifiability policy. Nothing in the article is verified, and none of the contributors have seen fit to make a good-faith effort to verify the article. Captainktainer * Talk 19:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] MegaMan X page

Where excatly does it describe X's strength capabilities? I have never heard of anything like that, besides possibly the question marks when it shows X's and Zero's statts after beating the first three games? The Faq listed as a source does not have naything like that information, either.

We've discussed this, and while its sourced in a FAQ, I have doubts. I'm inclined to reword the sentence as to be more ambiguous. -Zero^Talk 22:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The faq linked doesn't have grayfox, and his one faq on x (X3) didn't reference it, as far as I can tell. Just out of curiosity, could you give me a link (just put it as a reply to this) to where you originally found the info (whether it is is valid or no)?74.140.118.84 04:24, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Go for it.

Let's see what happens. Al 17:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 66.192.104.10

The above user has been blocked for forty-eight hours for vandalism, as per your comments on WP:AIV.  (aeropagitica)  (talk)  17:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Geisha Spoilers

Hi there,

Apparently you are policing Wikipedia a little too seriously...if you insist, let me explain to you why a spoiler warning needs to be added to the Geisha article (this can be found in the discussion page as you insisted).

If you have read the book, you would know the plot summary, and what happens at the end of the novel. Any plot summary that exposes important events of the novel, especially the ending, is a spoiler, and therefore a spoiler warning must be added. As defined by Wikipedia, "A spoiler is a piece of information in an article about a narrative work (such as a book, feature film, television show or video game) that may reduce one's enjoyment of it by revealing certain plot events or twists." The plot summary clearly fits this description.

And also, as noted by Wikipedia,

"Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia. The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, page blanking, or the insertion of bad jokes or other nonsense. Fortunately, this kind of vandalism is usually easy to spot.

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism."

Calm down buddy...no need to jump to accusations of vandalism.

The context of the article has not been changed in any way. Since the spoilers do fit the definition of a spoiler, thus, adding a spoiler warning is not vandalism. -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Victor8698 (talk • contribs). 22:56, July 3, 2006

I really don't think you get the deal here. The comment was not attributed to the accusation of vandalism. I noted that anonymous editing and edit warring without edit summeries can sometimes be precieved as vandalism, paticularly if it becomes common practice. Don't worry, I don't consider you attempting to harm the project, although I do strongly support the act of engaging in discussion in the relevant mediums. I've also replied on Talk:Memoirs of a Geisha. -Randall Brackett 23:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merman/Fishman

According to the official "Hyrule Encyclopedia" on www.zelda.com [3], the name of this character from The Wind Waker is indeed Fishman. Click on the reference link to see the relevant entry. I've changed the name back in The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker characters.

-- Tryforceful 07:13, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Iroha-art.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Iroha-art.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 10:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block

[edit] Regarding reversions[4] made on July 21, 2006 (UTC) to Vile (Mega Man X)

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 07:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Armos_family.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Armos_family.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

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

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Ballade.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Ballade.gif. 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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Layer_and_Palette.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Layer_and_Palette.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:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 11:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seven Samurai 20XX

The article is currently on hold because I find the plot heading too long. Trimming is highly recommended. Iolakana|^T 18:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Thanks for your edits on Template:Halo. I would appreciate it if you could lend us an opinion at Template_talk:Halo. Thanks, — X [Mac Davis] (SUPERDESK|Help me improve)