User talk:A Link to the Past/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] This week's computer and video games improvement drive

I tok the liberty to make Half-Life 2 this weeks winner. Seeing as it said "Each sunday" and sunday was yesterday. :P Hope you don't mind. Cheers! Havok (T/C) 11:39, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Katz

Since my concerns have been dealt with, I have no problems supporting the article, which I think is very informative. Good work! User:Nichalp/sg 06:22, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] JJOR64's Hang Out VfD

Thank you for completing the Vote for Deletion process for JJOR64's Hang Out. May I also refer you to the page's creator's contributions which consist nearly solely in advertising his message board — I discovered this article simply because I have just removed his advertisement from the Mario article. Grumpy Troll (talk) 21:42, 16 August 2005 (UTC).

[edit] I added this for the TOC.

Kittens! -- A Link to the Past 21:48, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comments at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/WikiProject Wikipedians for Decency

You should hear it from me before you hear it from someone else. You're being rude and obstinant. I'm on your side, but your attitude won't get the Wiki anywhere. You should apologize to Agriculture. Fernando Rizo T/C 07:26, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

No, I would rather not. His actions, while not in violation of the policy to not bring legal action to Wikipedia, are being done to scare people into censoring Wikipedia TO avoid legal action. -- A Link to the Past 17:05, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] kthx? kthxbai?

What the heck do these mean? — JIP | Talk 09:40, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

"kthx" is "Ok, thank you" - while "kthxbai" is "Ok, thank you bye". It's elite speak, very much used by todays youth as a means to sound cool. Havok (T/C) 09:46, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Thanks. With me being neither a teenager anymore nor a native speaker of English, I was utterly oblivious to this. — JIP | Talk 09:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I only say it in response to things I generally think are silly. -- A Link to the Past 17:05, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cvg improvement drive

Instead of deleting the old nominations, why didn't you move them to the /History page? Thunderbrand 17:25, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Because I was doing drugs at the time. -- A Link to the Past 17:27, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spongebob

I'm not a Spongebob aficionado, but yes, if there are factual, verifiable things to say about these minor characters, and someone wants to write about it, why not? If necessary, they can can combined as lists of minor characters. Trollderella 20:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

We have certain limits on what can be an article. Characters that appear once and only once are one of those things we don't want. -- A Link to the Past 20:37, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Is that your opinion, or some kind of codified policy? Trollderella 20:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

It is not opinion, nor is it policy; notability must be established in each article, to show that they deserve a place on Wikipedia. In this case, notability has not been established. -- A Link to the Past 20:44, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I can't find any reference to notability in the deletion policy, and it would seem that, in any event, judgements about it would be matters of opinion. I guess that's why these things are being voted on. Trollderella 20:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

You're basically arguing that non-notable articles deserve a spot on Wikipedia? -- A Link to the Past 21:06, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'm saying I can't see anything in the deletion policy about notability. I don't think you could define it - what is worth noting to you may not be what is worth noting to me. Trollderella 21:11, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I SAID each article needed notability established. Can you do that? -- A Link to the Past 21:18, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Well, I don't know whether I can do that for your definition, as far as I am concerned, the articles I voted on meet my definition. I can't see anywhere in the deletion policy where there is a requirement to establish notability. Trollderella 21:25, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

You won't even attempt to establish notability for the sole reason that it's not policy? I didn't ask you what my standards are; I'm asking why a half a minute on screen in one episode with no backstory or personality to speak of is worthy of being an article. -- A Link to the Past 21:29, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that there is any relevance to the concept of notability in the context of deletion, so I don't have much interest in trying to establish it for articles on vfd. Regarding the Spongebob stuff, it is verifiable, factual and neutral, so I see no reason to delete it. You may want to merge some of the articles to prevent a whole lot of stubs. Trollderella 21:33, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, notability IS part of the deletion policy. Who will be deleted first - Mario (notable) or Atomic Flounder (not notable)? -- A Link to the Past 21:40, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I must have missed it - could you point it out to me? As well, I'd be grateful if you could let me know why Mario is notable and Atomic Flounder is not, I disagree. Thanks, Trollderella 21:42, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, considering the fact that the Mario series has sold more games than any other game series in the history of mankind, and that he has a statue in a museum of prolific figures in history. Not enough for you? Ask 50 people who have not played Mario or seen SpongeBob who Mario and the Atomic Flounder are. I guarantee you that none of them would know who the Atomic Flounder is. He's not even recognizable for the SpongeBob community; he's there for 30 seconds, and never appears ever again. I must assume bad faith in the fact that you won't even explain why the Atomic Flounder is notable. -- A Link to the Past 21:47, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

That's an interesting personal criteria, but it's not deletion policy. I'd love you to point out where notability comes in the deletion policy. As I mentioned, I don't think notability (or 'recognizability for the SpongeBob community' or 'selling more games than any other game series in the history of mankind') is relevant to deletion. Trollderella 21:53, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, here's a problem - you're saying that it doesn't matter that all content that could be added HAS been added, unless you go more indepth on him than you would any other character, on his, say, skin. Notability is disputed to add it to the policy, and don't say that it's some dictator admin's duty to add it, this is a community. Anyway, by the very definition of notability, this is not notable to any given community. If you think notability is not important - go make an article about each and every relative of Plankton. -- A Link to the Past 22:02, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand you - where in the deletion policy is the section on notability? I'm not sure I understand your comments about dictator admins. As I mentioned, notablitily, even if it were relevant, is inherently subjective. Thanks for the invitation to write articles about Plankton, I wish to decline, but if someone else wanted to, and could write a verifiable, factual and neutral article, I don't think I would vote to delete them. 22:10, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Quality is not the only thing that is involved. Notability is, in fact, involved in the article. If notability is not a factor, Colossal Red Koopa Troopa would have an article, but it doesn't. It's not notable enough to be apart from the Koopa Troopa species, as it is just a variant. If notability were not a factor, then logic states that the bandwith would be getting an ass raping. -- A Link to the Past 22:15, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your input, I don't think this conversation is going anywhere, Trollderella 22:17, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Notability is a sort of de facto policy—it is constantly being used as a rationale in VfD votes, and by enough people that to a certain extent, it's almost as good as policy. However, that only applies to a certain extent—whenever it has come up for a vote, enough people (like you) have disagreed with applying any sort of general "notability" policy that it has never become policy. Whenever there is a notability question at VfD, there will most likely be people on both sides. (I tend to end up on the fence.) -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:29, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Er, sorry to butt in. I noticed the conversation and got interested. -Aranel ("Sarah") 00:30, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Excitebike

I've undone your edit to Excitebike that removed all mention of Excitebike 64, since the article is about the game franchise, not just the NES original. I'd support creating a separate article for Excitebike 64 except there's probably not enough to say about either game to make it worthwhile. —Simon 21:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WfD

You should know that you are being slandered at Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/WikiProject_Wikipedians_for_Decency#User:DavidsCrusader. Zoe 08:08, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's true. I was also the one on the grassy noll, and I shot JR. -- A Link to the Past 14:52, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
Wait. You shot JR from the grassy knoll? Well, it is in Dallas ... Zoe 19:33, August 18, 2005 (UTC)
No, I did these acts separately. -- A Link to the Past 01:36, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ALTTP

Hey, are you the same ALTTP from Gamefaqs and the "Storm Warriors"?Amren 01:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Haha, yeah, I am. But I'm known as Vyers right now. And who is you? -- A Link to the Past
I used to go to gamefaqs under the username Icabod989 but that was a VERY long time ago. I got banned for spoilers >_>. I don't post that much anymore but I'm often in the Next Gen Gaming AIM chat.Amren 01:50, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your problem understanding what Zero Mission is

Dai Grepher: I will do nothing of what you suggested on my talk page, except stop editing the article. That is only because it will not remain the way you want it to for long. That is, if Wikipedia policy is upheld by the admins. Dai Grepher 03:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

"No one but you has ever called it a prequel, you're just taking evidence and assuming that it proves it's a prequel"

Dai: You assume that the game is a remake with no evidence to support you, so at least I have evidence. I hope that our letter reaches Sakamoto and he replies just so people like you will learn that you cannot abuse power or twist words to dictate what something is or is not. Dai Grepher 04:12, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Dai: Sakamoto is asked what challenges he faced in making Zero Mission. He begins his answer by saying that any time you do a remake, there is the possibility that it will be taken negatively as a mere port, rather than a truely remade game. So for that reason he and his staff were most challenged with adding enough new elements to make the game fresh and new without straying far from what they originally set out to do, which was remake Metroid's gameplay and return to the roots of the Metroid series. He then stated later that it was not a remake of story. Also, I am not the only one to call Zero Mission a prequel.

http://forums.nintendo.com/nintendo/board/message?board.id=metroid&message.id=264417&view=by_date_ascending&page=6

This link will take you to my Nintendo.com topic, where at least five other people have agreed that the game is a prequel. Also go here: http://www.gamefaqs.com/portable/gbadvance/review/R82654.html This is a user review on gameFAQs about Zero Mission being a prequel.Dai Grepher 04:28, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your comments on User Talk:Monicasdude

I don't suppose you've seen Raul step in and accept that the second FAC for History of South Carolina did amount to gaming the system, accordingly removing the article from FA status. I think this speaks well enough to whether Monicasdude is trying to sabotage the FAC process. As for the other matter, you don't seem to have read my response, and I feel thus unobliged to comment further. Buffyg 21:34, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I should further state that I find your comments on these matters needlessly confrontational, indulging in language that is unlikely to bring about consensus and may appear calculated to encourage contributors like Monicasdude to drop legitimate arguments. I would urge you to reconsider both your line of argument and style of argumentation in light of Raul's comments. Buffyg 21:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
You consider to ignore this one simple fact:

My first real interaction with Monicasdude was in defense of Kiba, when Monicasdude attacked his statement that the FARC was "bull" (which I already said was a pinch inappropriate). I never said I was uncivil, I was saying that you are focusing on me being uncivil, without acknowledging that it was in response to uncivility. Someone expressed an opinion on an FARC and he implied that Kiba was an eight year old. Nothing in the Civility policy protects that, and I would go as far as to say that me and Kiba are "buddies", so to say. I'd apologize for any uncivility I have projected, but certainly not before Monicasdude does. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:39, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

I have said elsewhere why I think this is a substantial mischaracterisation of Monicasdude's remarks, which I believe were nothing more than cheeky. Furthermore, I do not see any just principle established in making apology for incivility conditional on anyone else's behaviour. Either you're apologetic about what you've said or not; making it conditional on someone else's behaviour is (among other things) hardly a demonstration that one is reasserting self-control where it has previously failed. Buffyg 22:56, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
So, you can't take my comments as cheeky, but when he responds to Kiba not giving a descript reason why it's bull with saying "if you're not an eight year old, sure". He didn't give a reason why it was bull, and he responded to that with the comment in question. I continue to fail to see why the eight year old comment shows civility. "He was being cheeky". Oh, and if you would actually pay attention, I HAD apologized for the comments I've made, and he has yet to apologize for calling someone an eight year old, because he doesn't view it as insulting under any means. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:07, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
"I'd apologize for any uncivility I have projected, but certainly not before Monicasdude does": "I'd," as in "I would," which implies that you have yet to do so. Are you saying that you did apologise but didn't really mean it (or don't mean it any more), or that you haven't really apologised because you cannot find sincerity in yourself until someone else does? In either case, I think I've been paying enough attention to notice that you haven't really do so. Anything else I might say would be repeating myself, and I am loathe to continue discussion when the evidence is accumulating that you will only attempt apology after you believe yourself justified. Would it be sufficient for purposes of this discussion to note again that those who are deciding this matter have said nothing that justifies the remark that the FARC was "bull," that Monicasdude was being pedantic, or any of the other wild claims you've made? That entire line of argument was juvenile, yet Monicasdude offered you the chance to reject juvenile argument, which is exactly what you didn't do. There was an opening offered between a juvenile argument and being juvenile, and you unfortunately failed to recognise it, as you are now. You can, however, stop whenever you like. I have nothing further to say on this matter, as we are going through the same exercise here. Buffyg 23:47, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
I said I would apologize if he apologized first, forgetting that I had already apoligized. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:01, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
You have not apologized for the "troll" comment; in fact you demanded that it stay on the relevant talk page. You could have removed it and noted your apology there. If you are not going to discuss matters accurately, please stay off my talk page. Monicasdude 21:42, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
Fine, sorry for the "Troll" comment, 'kay? Even though I shall consider unconstructive criticism as counterproductive to Wikipedia. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:45, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

I don't think you have understood where the problem is here. I would again urge you to undertake mediation because I think the way you are trying to justify yourself as responding to "unconstructive criticism" will cause you not only to pass over constructive criticism but to generate needless and protracted conflicts like this one. Buffyg 22:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I guess if apologizing isn't enough to mediate this, then what is? Sacrifice my account maybe? I'm trying to end the argument, and for some reason, that has now indicated that I am refusing to mediate anything. I am NOT trying to justify anything for the sole reason that I have apologized (ie, taken it back). Let me point out those who are trying to keep this argument going on. For instance, it is not me. I have offered my mediation on the form of an apology, and Monicasdude has offered mediation in... well, telling me to stop messaging him and not even implying interest in apologizing for anything he has said. You don't compare someone insisting that an article be rejected quickly without offering an explanation as to why to someone who gives at LEAST one reason why they object. You just don't. FAD is definitely less harmful to the FAC process than one who offers no advice on how to improve an article. In the FARC, he seemed to want to get rid of it, and showed no interest in having any flaws he saw fixed. -- A Link to the Past (talk) 22:12, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I realise now that you aren't familiar with the wikipedia mediation process. I'm sorry for leaving that unclear. The idea is that we have a third party experienced in these matters who privately listens to all of us giving our account and then gives us feedback on how to make right of this. Please have a look at Wikipedia:Mediation. The folks at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation might very well tell us that we need to put the matter out for RfC, which is essentially soliciting feedback from the community. We can also ask for a third opinion, which is again asking an uninvolved party to comment, but without all the consultation implied by full-blown mediation. Buffyg 22:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
What more mediation is necessary (other than perhaps Monicasdude apologizing, but if he ceases to talk to me, the matter would not be under dispute and would not NEED mediation)? Is it really that big of a deal that I continue to think that the comments he has made on various FA-related votes aren't appropriate? An RfC isn't necessary for the sole reason that there has been a successful mediation; the only one not apologizing for their comments in the argument is Monicasdude, of whom I wouldn't even say earned an RfC yet, because any of my speculation is just that. Doesn't the RfC require that the person under the RfC be continuing the actions that brought up the RfC in the first place? It is very clear that I have no interest in continuing an argument and have gave no indication that I was interested in continuing a fight or harassing anyone. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:37, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Peer Review

Done. Wikipedia:Peer Review/Lakitu or is it Wikipedia:Peer review/Lakitu? Redwolf24 05:30, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ESB

Don't change the plot summary on ESB. Let the writer of it, The Coffee do it. Adamwankenobi 01:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

It's true I have done sock puppetry. It was an enjoyable experience. But if you noticed, I am also a frequent useful contributor to the star wars articles. I've never vandalized them because I have respect for them. George W. Bush, on the other hand, I do not, nor his page, which is why I used a string of sock puppets to vandalize it. Wikipedia is what I want it to be, not what others want it to be. Adamwankenobi 01:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Interesting. Thank you for that. --Cool Cat My Talk 02:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Harsh...

What exactly makes you think you own the Empire article? And, I wouldn't exactly call my work, "shit." And by the way, if you will notice, what I put on there is not vandalism. And the administrators already know me VERY well. We all had good fun back a few months ago with the Bush article. They are well aware of the dangers that I represent to Wikipedia, not to mentiopn the contributions. I have achieved what I set out to do, that is to be looked at as having a vigilante-type style of editing. Well, it has worked. Adamwankenobi 02:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I meant in terms of what I want to do. We only want quality edits, not what you want. Look, typically I find myself in one of these disputes with that purist Copperchair. At least he makes good edits. Adamwankenobi 02:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
You seem to be extremely hostile. I am sinply a huge fan wanting the page to be done correctly, in a way that respects star wars. Adamwankenobi 02:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] WP:CIVIL

Link, as I mentioned on IRC, this kind of thing [1] is out of line. If you can't be civil then take a break. FreplySpang (talk) 02:13, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stop changing the Article!

You only degrade the quality of the ESB article when you edit it. Stop. I have reverted it. 67.140.149.100 18:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC) (the guy formerly known as Adamwankenobi)

[edit] We need to talk.

Look, I am not a sock puppet. My goal has been to get the star wars articles improved to the best they can be, just like I'm sure yours is. It's been difficult to talk to you in a civilized way. But, here's the deal. I do want you to rewrite the summary. I will allow that. The thing is, the page must be able to keep the opening crawl and everything else the way it is. Much work went into the rest of the article by many of us, and we don't want it deleted. I'm willing to compromise this time. If you will just revert the page, and change only the plot summary, that is by shortening it, it'll be OK with me. I don't think either of us have been exactly civil in our discussions, and a decision has to be made on the article that suits both of us. Thanks. TheAlternateReality 20:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response.

I think you fail to realize that this situation is in my favor. It isn't YOUR article, it isn't ANYBODY'S article. The opening crawl will create problems if it ever went onto WP:FA. It will not make it because of the Cast listing, and it won't make it because of the opening crawl and the plot summary. Unlike you, I'm looking into the future for the article.

Basically, I might consider asking Rdsmith4 to give lenience for blatant vandalism of a user page, but I wouldn't consider it if you continue to revert the article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:11, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Look, I won't revert. But, what is wrong with the cast listing? I understand the opening crawl, but the cast listing is a complete list that Copperchair, I, and others have went through many, many, edit wars over, and we are finally happy with it. If you will rewrite the plot summary, that would be great. Don't completely remove it though, write one similar to the ones for the prequels. And, thanks for asking Rdsmith4 for lifitng the block so I can go back to my old identity. Another thing, I don't blatantly vandalize anymore. At one time, I was an extreme vandal of the Bush page, but have since quit, because I was threatened with a year long block. What I have done to the star wars articles isn't vandalism, i don't think, because I'm not trying, nor would I ever try to deface or disrupt them. TheAlternateReality 20:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Copperchair certainly doesn't think so. He constantly wished for a complete official cast listing and that is what we gave him. Do you plan on treating all of the articles that way? The long list is what everyone agreed on for a long time. I don't see how it could really hurt the article. TheAlternateReality 20:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
OK, OK, OK! Fine, change the cast! Except, make sure all relatively important characters are listed, not just main ones. TheAlternateReality 20:34, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
The new plot summary is fine with me. You'll will be glad to hear that I am now content with the way the article looks. To prove that, I have removed the opening crawls from each of the six films. Now can you get Rdsmith4 to unblock my old acoount of Adamwankenobi? TheAlternateReality 00:56, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars plot summary

Since you're involved in that thing at the Empire Strikes Back article, tell me, what do you think of the plot summary at Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith? It was previously 2600 words, but I got it down to just under 1000 words, and I think that's just about the right length. There hardly a sentence there that I don't consider an important plot point. I'm working on condensing/rewriting the Empire Strikes Back plot summary (which was approaching 3000 words, last I checked), and your opinion would a help.

Also... *sees discussion above* I've seen you on the GameFAQs boards, haven't I?! On LUE? :D Coffee 21:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Hey man, talk to me about what's going on with this article. There's been a request to protect it. Fernando Rizo T/C 23:17, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vandalism.

It IS considered vandalism. You are continuing to ignore the simple fact that a template should be as small as possible, and absolutely refuse to make it smaller. If you can't give me a SINGLE reason why this is the one and only template that should be huge, then you should stop editing it. Would it be hard for you to strive to keep these articles at a certain level of quality, opposed to putting in what you want and only what you want? From your edits on talk pages, you show clearly that you have an agenda to warp Wikipedia into your own little play-thing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:11, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

I have already many times told you why I want the template the way I make it. No, reverting the page is not vandalism, no more than what you are doing. You refuse to see what I mean, as much as you say I have. We just have two very different POV's and two groups of supporters for our ideas. Do I want to warp Wikipedia? No, just set it straight. Adamwankenobi 20:16, 28 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't completely get this idea that every single template has to be the same way. Each situation is special. Star Wars is made up of much material. A large template makes room for this. If the template needs to be large to fit these things, it should be large. My goal here isn't to make the articles look like all the others. Each are individual articles. That's my POV. That's how I want it. Having a POV and showing it on a page does not mean vandalism. Adamwankenobi 20:26, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox question

I figured i'd mention the infobox question here rather than in the FAC. In the Final Fantasy Project, a while back a different consenses was reached that the Final Fantasy games would be using the logos like the one seen in the Final Fantasy VI logo. I am having problems finding the conversation on this consenus, but this practice is evident when you look at articles like Final Fantasy V, [[Final Fantasy VII], and Final Fantasy VIII. The question then, which consenses should the article follow. --ZeWrestler Talk 19:48, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

It may look cooler, but there WAS a consensus on whether or not game articles should use box arts or logos, and it came out with a supermajority for boxarts, and FF should apply. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:50, August 31, 2005 (UTC)
I don't suppose you have an offical page showing this consensus, so i can show it to the FF project? --ZeWrestler Talk 19:58, 31 August 2005 (UTC)
Aww.. maybe an exception can be made for Final Fantasy. The infoboxes are there in the first place to give a feeling of consistency among articles, and the FF logos accomplish that better than the boxart. Coffee 19:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ESB cleanup

Is there anything in particular you want done before the cleanup tag can be removed from Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back? It's not nearly a Featured Article, but its far from the mess I usually associate with the cleanup tag. Coffee 19:21, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

The easiest way to get it off would be to get Copperchair banned; seriously, he's so obsessed with causing a stir over this in order to keep peace and civility off of the Star Wars articles. The Cast List, it cannot have the most minor of characters, but it SHOULD have a major minor character like Boba Fett. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:40, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bureaucratship

Hi, A Link to the Past. Thank you so much for your support and kind words on my bureaucratship nomination. Unfortunately, it didn't pass, but I intend to run again soon. If you'd like to be informed next time around, please let me know on my talk page. Thanks again! Andre (talk) 05:27, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

I, V. Molotov hereby give you the Deletionist's Barnstar for diligent work on Wikipedia.

Image:Barnstar2.png

Take care,

V. Molotov


20:15, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

I guess to a whole lot of deletion, (which, according to you edits today, atleat, you do a lot of). So I guess I'll change it to the Deletionist's Barnstar.

V. Molotov


20:44, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Game Boy Micro

But Kirby TnT isn't normally playable on the Micro. It's a Game Boy Color game, and Nintendo has stated that Game Boy series cartridges will not work with the Micro. The fact that the loading slot is in the wrong spot is irrelevant to it not being playable. --Carl 01:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, but it looks cool, right? That's totally worth $100! I mean, it's not like I don't already own four different devices capable of playing GBA games. At this point, what's wrong with owning 5? ;p --Carl 02:26, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
That's not as good of a reasoning to pay $100. GBA plays GBA games and is, well, the default. The SP plays GBA games much better with a frontlight. GBP plays GB/C/A games on the TV. DS plays GBA games as an added bonus. GBM's feature is, literally, the LACK of certain features. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:33, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Pokémon Adventures characters

Just wanted to let you know, at some point either the old or new Pokédex projects decided to go with English names in general for Pokémon-related stuff, if I recall correctly. I've just been lazy about fiddling with the PokeAdv articles. I'm going to be rearranging and adjusting them now that you're breathing some new life into them, though; thanks again for working on them. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:37, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

In reply to comments on my talk page

Well, it's not really a retcon because the manga and the games are separate works, despite clear inspiration both ways and being part of the same license. (Note that they aren't, however, part of the same continuity.)

To my knowledge, Pokémon Adventures is ongoing and is currently on the Emerald Saga, and I believe the English localization is still referring to the female with the Squirtle as Blue. I could be wrong on that second point, though.

In any case, the protagonists of the games are more or less nameless; the default names vary between otherwise nearly-identical versions of the same game, and often one or another adaptation of a character will use a different name. (The protagonist of G/S was adapted for PokeAdv and named Gold, but in Pokémon Chronicles he's named Jimmy.)

The games aren't canon for the anime or manga, the anime isn't canon for the manga or games, and the manga isn't canon for the games, anime, or even unconnected manga series. They're all separate continuities in the same franchise.

Also, do note that I moved your rewrite of Blue (Pokémon character) over to Green (Pokémon character), as part of getting off my butt and getting the articles under the right titles. I'll eventually be moving/merging the articles into Blue (Pokémon) and Green (Pokémon), but that won't be until I feel like going through links and redirects to make sure everything works. Bad enough I'm doing it for Red (Pokémon) right now. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:57, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

In further reply

It's not a mistake; it was a conscious decision on the part of the translators. Since it has been upheld through multiple sagas in the only (to my knowledge) official English translation and this is the English-language Wikipedia and all, I think it leads to a lot fewer headaches to have the characters under their English-language names with a note as to the original Japanese names. Contrast this with the FF situation, where later releases use the Japanese numbering to allow for later release of the games not originally released in the US. Here, you only have one name conflict when it comes to using the English-localized names, whereas persisting with the American numbering of FF games would have led to a great deal of confusion.

Bear also in mind that half of the articles are already written with the English-localized names in mind, including the original versions of the Blue and Green articles.

Just FYI, you can reply here. I've got your talk page on my watchlist as long as this conversation carries on. No sense splitting it up onto two pages. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 07:21, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

For another note, the articles are about Green and Blue, but not exclusively about the manga. FR/LG is also a retcon of sorts, of RBY and GSC, so the fact that he was only Green in FR/LG is irrelevant, since they have not remade GSC. I assume the manga kept with calling her Green, since the plot is much more fragile than in the games. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:36, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I don't assign names to the protagonists and rivals in R/B/Y/G/S/C/R/S/E/FR/LG when I can avoid it. I've stuck with the euphemistic "Protagonist of (such and such game)" because the default names vary so much. It's not a big deal, because none of the protagonists have any sort of personality, and the antagonists don't need but a few sentences description (which they have in List of Pokémon characters). The only time I've pinned a name to a protagonist is with Red and Blue in their appearances in G/S/C. I've pinned a name to May in the current version of List of Pokémon characters, but I was actually about to rewrite that section next time I got a chance to sit down and work on it. (Probably tomorrow.)
FR/LG isn't really a retcon because those characters are more or less ciphers for you to assign your own names to. (Note that in Blue and LG, the hero is Blue/Green by default, and the rival is Red by default, but none of the other games or anime or manga respect this. Why favor Red and FR? Because the naming is more or less arbitrary.)
I guess we disagree on a key point about FR/LG; there's no third character. There's the protagonist, who may be male (and looks like manga-Red) or female (and look like manga...whatever you want to call her), and the antagonist, and that's it. FR/LG is influenced by the manga as far as character appearances go, but other than that the two are completely divorced. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 20:42, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
When G/S came out, it was established that Red is the main game in the original series. So Fire Red/Leaf Green, as a remake, would remake this concept.
I always felt that Red and Green were made based on the manga. I mean, couldn't you consider that perhaps they didn't change the manga because it's heavily plot-based? The change of FFIII back to FFVI didn't create plot mistakes, changing Blue back to Green in the games didn't damage the plot, because it doesn't have the greatest plot, and changing Toadstool back to Peach didn't, because, like the Pokemon games, the plots aren't as important as the games themselves. I think that, combined with the fact that they have retconned it in the games, we should consider combining the accurate name in Japanese translations with that fact. Also, just curious, have the mangas been released in Canada or Europe? If so, does it use Green or Blue for Green? - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:38, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
The games predate Pokémon Adventures, both in Japan and in North America. There are only two licensed English translations, one by Viz(?) and one by Chang Yi. Both of them use the North American names (Blue is the rival, Green is the girl.)
My point is that the characters in the games and the characters in the manga are distinct, separate sets of characters. You have the R/FR protagonist and antagonist, and then you have Red, Blue, and Green. Arguable retcons to one don't have anything to do with the other.
Remember, Pokémon is not one continuity. The protagonist of the games, Red from PokeAdv, and Ash Ketchum are all different characters who do different things and have different stories. Likewise, the rival is not Gary is not PokeAdv Blue/Green.
Red (Pokémon) needs (and has) a mention of the recurrence of the R/B protagonist as an optional boss battle in G/S/C, and Blue (Pokémon) (after Blue (Pokémon character) is merged into it) needs a mention of the recurrence of the R/B rival as a Gym Leader. Likewise, we should mention that Red in PokeAdv is inspired by the protagonist in R/B, and that Blue in PokeAdv is named Green in Japan and is based on the rival in R/B.
Other than inspiration, the games don't retcon the manga, and the manga doesn't retcon the games. They're separate continuties. If at all possible, we should avoid borderline-fanon retcons entirely, and using euphemistic "the protagonist"/"the rival" avoids this neatly. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 23:06, 5 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, you make a good point, and I'm not really interested in changing the article if people are that receptive towards using the original names. I debate to argue that they're more appropriate, not in the intention of changing the articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:22, September 5, 2005 (UTC)
Heehee. That's a neat turn of phrase, "I debate to argue."
By the by, since you've clearly read more of PokeAdv than I have, could you help out with List of Pokémon characters? It's still incomplete. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 01:00, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
I didn't say that I don't want it that way, I do, but I'm not gonna raise a stink over it and get the page protected.
And, I'll have to pass on that. I'm working on Team Rocket and individual Pokémon articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:34, September 6, 2005 (UTC)
Might want to check out the Pokémon Manual of Style while you're at it, then. It's still proposed, but it's been fairly stable for a while. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 03:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Can you take a quick look at List of Johto Gym Leaders and see if br-clear fixed the problem with the tables colliding? When I changed the page originally, the templates didn't collide, but I'm probably using a different web browser. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:45, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Userfication

Your discussion with Adam is now on his talk page. Enjoy. — Phil Welch 05:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

And... Adamwankenobi 05:42, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Just wanted to tell you that I placed you on the RfC.

Yep. It covers most bases, except for you making the borderline illegal vandalism to Pedophile. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:41, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Why? Adamwankenobi 08:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, for one, you responded to people voting to delete Originaltrilogy.com with agreement that Wikipedia is a Nazi regime (although, I'd be hardpressed to find the connection between democracy and a dictatorship). - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:54, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly about the RFC process, so here's some evidence to help you out:

Good luck. 202.78.91.66 10:08, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

True. I agree, I do have quite the record! I'll join in on the discussion on the rfc page with you all, just to give my two cents. Just out of curiosity, why didn't you put my edit on pedophilia on the rfc page? Adamwankenobi 10:29, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Wow! Looks to me like you have about covered everything. Adamwankenobi 10:55, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
By the way, I'm enjoying going through all my old work. Ahh, the good old days! Sadly, though, all good things come to an end, as that did. Adamwankenobi 11:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stop Deleting the MarioWiki Articles!

Could you please stop taking out the information in the Super Mario Wiki articles?! It's getting annoying! - Nintendo Maximus

Hey, if you want me to rewrite articles, I can. But I was making a point that the only original content on that page is stuff that I have written. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:13, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] User Adamwankenobi

As I see that the above user has been banned, I think it really doesn't matter...it wasn't that bad a picture, but IANAL and don't know the laws, but the partly nude lady depicted wasn't very mature...the image could be found at Image:Roxy-045.jpg, Ifd'd by Angela and deleted sometime the last few days; I think he uploaded it at the same time as his Dakota Fanning pics Lectonar 06:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

If you're still interested, see this (do we have to block this IRC?):

The image I talked about was to be found at Image:Roxy-045.jpg, and I think the depicted lady isn't very mature, isn't she? Lectonar 06:17, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Ah, yes. A fetish of mine. 139.55.54.130 11:50, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, we know that, ad nauseam Lectonar 11:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Adamwankenobi" Lectonar 11:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/_/l/User_talk%7EA_Link_to_the_Past_Archive_3_f11b.html"