User talk:A Link to the Past/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] OoS/A connections.

I was pointing out evidence that there was no time for Link to go on a trip and then go to Termina in Majora's Mask. And Princess Zelda of the Oracles could be a new Princess as well. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:27, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Oh. what's with the three months thing, though? Is there a statement somewhere that Link left Hyrule 3 months after defeating Ganon and timewarping back? But yes, I think it's safe to say that Oracle Zelda must be a new character, since she introduces herself and says "you must be Link" upon encountering him. -- WikidSmaht 03:49, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Majora's Mask's manual says it takes place three months after OoT.

And no, who's to say it's not a new Zelda? - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:31, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

??? I'm not saying it's not a new Princess. I'm saying it definitely is. This is silly, arguing the same side of a point. I'll have to re-read the MM manual when I get back to my apartment, though I have no reason to disbelieve you. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 05:26, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

I misread. But it's most likely the case. Link's Awakening is clearly connected to ALttP, and it has connections to OoS/A. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:47, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

I dunno if the ALttP connection is that clear. There's nothing canon that confirms it. While it's probably what the creators intended, it's not really fixed that way in the storyline. -- WikidSmaht (talk) 04:56, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Final Fantasy VI FAC

Link, I noticed you just switched your support vote to oppose for Final Fantasy VI's FAC in light of nixie and Tony's comments. However, before you switched, I (and a handful of others) put a good deal of effort into editing the article in light of their comments, and I would like to know if you could be persuaded to either a) reconsider your opposition, or b) comment on the recent changes and add any further specifics as to what you'd like to see changed. Thank you for your continued input on this: your comments and thoughts have been extremely helpful! – Seancdaug 03:19, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! The more help we get, the better: I'm much more concerned with improving the article than I am with getting it successfully through the FAC process, so I find the input you and everyone else has offered to be invaluable. Thanks again! – Seancdaug 05:10, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adamesque

I thought you'd want to see it. R e dwolf24 (talk) 06:15, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template:PokemonHoenn

Ack! Please stop just deleting this template from all the articles in which it appears just because it's on TFD. If you must, instead subst: it out. That info is handy when it comes time to switch to the new infobox. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 09:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

In fact, you're wasting your time fiddling with the infoboxes unless you're going to switch them over to Template:Pokeinfobox. No sense trying to clean up the old ones when the new templated infobox is around. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 10:01, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, actually, I am planning on doing that, and always thought the two templates were the same, but realized it late in. - A Link to the Past (talk) 11:37, September 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wario platform games

Why are you depopulating Category:Wario platform games instead of nominating it on WP:CFD? --Pagrashtak 00:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough. The proper procedure is to not depopulate categories until after the CFD is successful. --Pagrashtak 04:28, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your name

Quote: "My name is on the almost not-known SNES cult classic, The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past! (I am not the game.)"

Unknown? Surely your mistaken! A Link to the Past sold 4.5 million according to this site [1], so it must be well known. I mean, c'mon, it's Zelda! =]--Vertigo200 20:07, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adam is banned?

Why did you tell Copperchair I was banned? Are you referring to my old username, or me personally? I sopport his changes, though I am not commenting on them. The Wookieepedian 02:17, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Role Change on WP:FAD

I've written up the initial proposal for the role change we discussed; it's now on the talk page. Please read through it to make sure it encapsulates what you wanted, and feel free to support, oppose or comment. We need to publicise this one across the project, as it's quite a major step in the workings of the project. Rob Church ^{Talk | Desk} 10:00, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

This is a warning with regard to One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. The page has been protected to end the edit war, and DrBat has been blocked for violation of the Three Revert Rule. If the article is unprotected in the meantime, and the edit war continues, you may be blocked, so please be careful. -- Essjay · Talk 21:18, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pokémon Character articles

Please stop removing the list of Pokémon from articles about characters in the Pokémon World. They are not 'cruft', but important information. Sonic Mew | talk to me 16:42, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Some of the articles certainly still need work, but that doesn't stop the fact that this is important information. Sonic Mew | talk to me 16:59, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I am doing! But I can't magically make everything better in an instant. Sonic Mew | talk to me 17:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Well you can stop removing them and leave them. They need improving, but they are currently more useful as they are than not there at all.

I didn't realise I deleted a message from your talk page. If I did, it was an accident, and I'm sorry.

I believe I said why there. If I went to that page, then I would want information on the book, but that is why I suggested a disambiguation. Sonic Mew | talk to me 17:50, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

If you want a temporary solution, why not turn them into a terse paragraph? List of Johto Gym Leaders is a good example of how to do this. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 05:09, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] re: Fumihide Aoki

The definition of "computer specialist" is rather broad. See [2]. I see no reason why it can't include game designers. When I assign specialized stub tags I think it's more important to put the article in a category where it will get attention from interested parties whether it fits the strictest definition of the category or not. Cheers, BrainyBroad 06:23, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

A game developer stub probably wouldn't be very popular. I've sorted about 2,000 bio-stubs in the last couple of weeks and found maybe 3 or 4 game developers. The only way I see a game developer stub being useful is if some organized Computer Gaming Project gets under way. BrainyBroad 06:31, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I think it would work. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:34, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

It's a shame Wikipedia doesn't have a computer and video game Wikiproject, then, isn't it. ;) - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 06:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bold

From Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Featured articles

"Emboldened article titles refer to articles that have been featured on the main page."

K1Bond007 03:19, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] reverted your edit on mario

Hi, I reverted your change on mario, because I feel that image needs to be in the article. If you disagree that's fine, we'll work out a consensus. By the way, good that you didn't go into the flames of our friend User talk:The Wookieepedian#Sigh aka Adamwankenobi. Jacoplane 00:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Something else I wish to say. I've noticed that you've gotton involved with a few edit conflicts. In pretty much everyone of those conflicts you've been correct in your judgement. However, I feel that you let others provoke you into making emotional responses, and you can seem rather harsh. There's no need for this, since many people here realise what you've contributed and will support you. Remember we have to be welcome to newbies here, even if they can be arrogent bastards sometimes... Jacoplane 01:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Fascist Chicken

Is the quality of an article not affected by the quality of its contents? I don't wish to start another flame war, but my main goal here is the quality of an article (I sense a huge sarcastic remark in return over that). The contents are what concerns me. BTW, I can navigate the net well by myself, you can find me on TheForce.Net as TheAlternateReality, StarWars.Com as Adamwankenobi, and OriginalTrilogy.Com also as Adamwankenobi. Interesting information to you, isn't it? The Wookieepedian 05:23, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] PR-flooding

I would appreciate if you didn't mass-PR articles the way you've done with a number of video-game related articles. Nominating articles en masse like is quite a load on an already burdened PR and will probably result in most of the articles being ignored anyway. And what exactly is so different about these articles from all the ones you've already sent to either PR or FAC? You should know by now what's needed to make these article good and if you want comments from your peers in video-game specific issues, I'm sure there are project pages that are more suitable for this.

And, frankly, I still find it inappropriate to push articles about an encyclopedically insignificant subject when it's already hugely over-represented here. Especially when computer and video games isn't one of the articles being worked on.

Peter ^Isotalo 18:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Ditto. Please do ONE AT A TIME!! Thank you :). Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 07:12, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Metroid template timeline

Hey, Zero Mission was placed after Metroid on the timeline because a significant portion of Zero Mission happens after Metroid. This is the way the official Nintendo timelines have it portrayed. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 23:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

I estimate that the post-Mother Brain sequence, including the Space Pirate Mother Ship and Chozodia, takes up at least 1/4th of the game on an average playthrough. It can be up to a third on a 100% run. But yes, the game does contain the full Metroid storyline. It's something like this (M = story told in original Metroid, Z = story new to Zero Mission):

ZMMMMMMMMMMMMMMZZZZZ

So it's not completely accurate to say that Zero Mission comes after Metroid, or that the two games overlap completely. It doesn't really matter to me, I'm sure anyone looking at the template will figure it out after reading the articles. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 07:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ROTS Trivia

How is the trivia the guy added original research? I saw that he didn't actually show the connection, so I tried to explain what the connection was. That bit of trivia seems to be one of those obvious observations that someone can make that reasonates between the movies. There have been others in the trivua lists very similar to this. It seems that putting trivia, based on observations reallt isn;t much different from those adding "sources and inspirations" to the ANH or TPM articles. The Wookieepedian 19:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

No, but given Lucas' many hidden reasonances in the movies, such a statement may be one such intentional reasonance. The Wookieepedian 20:36, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

You might want to take a look at this.--chris.lawson 01:50, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I've protected Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back

I've protected the ESB article until some sort of consensus on how to credit Denis Lawson is established. This is an exceedingly silly edit war, and I'm sure some sort of decision agreeable to all can be made. (Discussion is ongoing here.) - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 07:22, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem is that there has been a very clear consensus on the matter. The only reason any edit war is going on is because one single user is disrupting the article because he doesn't like how the cast is set up now. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't necessarily see a consensus on how to credit Denis Lawson, just that he should be credited. There are three versions in play, as I see things; the "Dennis Lawson" version that just lets the link explain that he's really Denis Lawson, the "Denis Lawson (as Dennis Lawson)" version, and the no-credit-at-all version. I understand that there's consensus to credit him, disqualifying the third version, but I don't see any consensus choosing between which of the first two is preferable.

I'd be glad if you could point out some sort of emergent consensus resolving that, though; I admit I could've missed something. - A Man In Black (Talk | Contribs) 07:32, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

What SHOULD be done is to block Copperchair for 48 hours. He has been a disgruntled Wikipedian, refusing to comply with any consensus, knowing full-well that no one supports his causes anymore. Combined with blanking a user talk page during a dispute, 48 hours seems light. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:35, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I have just checked the discussion page on Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back. Is this consensus final, or does we have to wait for the desicion on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Copperchair? Copperchair 05:22, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] category corection, thanks

I forgot that categories would say that my user page was on a categy, thanks for the correction. --Herzog 13:42, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Minneapolis meetup

Hello A Link to the Past. I'm contacting you since you are listed at Category:Wikipedians in Minnesota. I'm going to be at a conference in Minneapolis and am plannnig a Wikipedia meetup for October 8. If you are near Minneapolis at that time, please see Wikipedia:Meetup/Minneapolis. Angela . 20:37, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stub types

If you're going to create new stub types, please post them on Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals before creating, to ensure that they'd get enough use and not conflict with existing ones. As they weren't proposed there first, your new stub types are listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Discoveries. --Mairi 01:14, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Square Enix stub

Link, please stop changing {{Final Fantasy-stub}} notices to {{Square Enix-stub}} notices. The former category is part of the Final Fantasy WikiProject, and it has existed for significantly longer than your new category. At the very least, it would have been useful if you had alerted us to your intentions before making such large-scale changes. – Seancdaug 02:40, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

The problem is, the FF stub is part of the FF project, whereas the Square Enix stub is substantially larger than it. It's much more difficult for FF project participants to deal with a category that contains a bunch of stuff not related to our work than it is to deal with the existing category. I would also argue that it provides a more informative framework than sorting by company alone. – Seancdaug 02:48, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Works for me! – Seancdaug 02:53, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Heh. Already done. I think I was catching them as fast as you were changing them. :-) – Seancdaug 02:57, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Edit summaries

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labelled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

When you leave the edit summary blank, some of your edits could be mistaken for vandalism and may be reverted, so please always briefly summarize your edits, especially when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:07, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to make a few large-scale edits rather than hundreds of tiny ones? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:36, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Oh, hang on, do you mean 700+ edits of the same type on different articles? A cut-and-paste edit summary is what I do (and, I assume, other people who carry out these repetitive tasks). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:37, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars templates

I thought I might check with you, to get your input. I think you remember the "Star Wars episodes" and "Expanded Universe" templates I created. Wouldn't it make the most sense on Star Wars articles to place them like this:

Main Star Wars page:

Both

Episodes:

Episodes template

Expanded Universe:

EU template

Using this method, you can access only the articles in that specific category. You can still acces the other pages by going to the main page on either one. This would divide the star wars article types into the two major sections of canon: the films and the EU, as I have done in the main article. Yet, you would be able to access it all from the main page. Just thought I might check your opinion, becuase I knew you would become involved anyway. This method of placing them would reflect the changes I made to the main article. The Wookieepedian 19:25, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Watch yourself... at this point you're 'sparking an edit war' just as much as he is. Coffee 18:25, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Conversing via edit summaries

Carrying on conversations via edit summary is a bad idea; it encourages reverts as there's no other way to reply, and it's much less efficient and visible compared to simply using the talk pages.

Specifically, this is regarding King of All Cosmos, where I'd rather not get into a revert war with you, but I would like to carry on a conversation. Could you please use the talk page and reply there, explaining your reasoning? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 20:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks man

Hey I like your style. You know damns well what youre doing. Right now i just been doing alot of my own things and helpin with GCTOW stuff. Is there anything you want me to help with? I've been doin alot of work on the contra series if you wanna help me particularly.--larsinio 21:33, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding Lord Sturm, King of All Cosmos, and others

I opened a new conversation header over at WP:CVG, in the hopes of gauging consensus on this subject. Just as a plea, though, I'd really rather not get involved in arguments about specific articles, but I'd like to find out where general consensus is. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 08:10, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Stuff about whatever

Okay I link Opera when I oppose and soup when I support, for no real reason mosly because Opera begins with "Op" along with OPpose, and SUPP in Support just kind of seems like soup to me. I don't know why, and I know "I chose to oppose" rhymes, that's actually why I say it, I said it once and I was amazed that it rhymed, so since then I've begun to use it. And I hope you do "clean up your act" because if you do, I'd support you. Private Butcher 22:51, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A call for mediation

I've made a call for mediation in the many style disputes over the various Star Wars articles at Talk:Star Wars#Mediation. Your comment and participation would be appreciated. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 10:49, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RFA

Good evening. I wanted to let you know that I removed your RFA nomination a bit early. It wouldn't do much good to keep it open four more days. I'm sorry about this but don't be discouraged from running again in the future. I can only recommend that you address the issues brought up by the opposition. Good luck to you. Ac e tic '^Acid 23:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mediation

Hello A Link to the Past. A Man In Black has filed a mediation over Star Wars related articles and styles. I urge you to accept the case and follow the suggested injunction, to keep the temperature down. I see this is a pretty big case, so I've assigned Ed Poor, one of our best mediators, to look at it. The case is listed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#Dispute_over_style_in_Star_Wars_articles . I am waiting for Ed to accept, which he says he's gonna look over and accept tomorrow. Cheers! R e dwolf24 (talk) 00:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Brain Teasers/Trivia:

Hi, I'm just posting a friendly notice stating that I have got Brain Teasers/Trivia on my user page that you're welcome to have a go at. Will post new questions one day after they have been answered. Thanks... Spawn Man 09:24, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Template

In this case, it's really not a case of quality. A template is designed to make related pages easily acessable. The idea is to have a template devoted to the films, and one devoted to the EU. They are one story, of course, but two completely different divisions. Now, like I said before, the main SW page would contain both templates, but each of the two templates would contain information relevant to only the films or the EU. I know what you mean by your version is smaller, and provides more content, that's true. But to me, it is better toi have tempklates that are topic-specific, rather than combining two divisions of material like your version does. All the major franchise pages on wikipedia have things organized the way I have. Take a look at the templates for: The Lord of the Rings, James Bond, Harry Potter, The Matrix, Star Trek. The Wookieepedian 23:29, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

I know the two are directly related. However, they are two huge divisions of Star Wars. One controlled by Lucas (G-Canon) and the other by various people (C-Canon). The Lord of the Rings people, if you noticed, divided the templates into one devoted to the adaptations of FotR, TTT, and RotK, while the other was devoted to all works outside of this. That is similar, stylistically, to what I am trying to do by having two templates. The EU is vast, and a completely different type of subject than the films, even though they are the same story. I will continue to keep my template on the pages for this reason. I'm open to discussion, but, have been making an effort to keep these things organized in the ways I have explained. The Wookieepedian 00:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

That's what my intentions are, what's best for wikipedia. The main page is to act as a portal to the films and the EU. When someone wants to know something about star wars, that's typically what they would first type in. I formatted the template I have on the pages to be specific to what the subject is. It's the same with my EU template, it is specific to the EU. The content is all still there, but is divided into specific categories. I really don't know how to better explain this. The Wookieepedian 00:52, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Can you guys argue about this on Talk:Star Wars, so other people can more easily observe and contribute? - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:58, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Excuse me?

Who are you? I didn't attack anyone. I reserve the right to think whatever I want about you for nominating perfectly good articles for deletion. Everyone else is thinking it too, I'm sure. They might have much better manners and more tact about it, but they are thinking it. Besides, it isn't as if I swore you out or left rude messages on your talk page or anything like that.PiccoloNamek 00:38, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

You had no basis to claim that any single AfD I created on these FFVI characters is a bad faith AfD. On what basis do you believe that I am AfDing these articles out of hatred for them? I guess I must not have copyedited some of FFVI's article. Quality of an article is not a reason to keep. If the character is not notable enough to warrant an article, they should not get their own article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:41, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

No basis other than the fact that there was no reason for you to have done it. The characters, of course, are notable enough, considering that they're the main characters of what many consider to be the best video game of all time. It seems to be your personal opinion that the characters aren't notable enough, and also that the decision to do what you did was spur of the moment and rather arbitrary in nature. It would be one thing if a large group of people had been talking about this before hand, but it seems like it was just you. Sounds like bad faith to me.

May I also assume bad faith on the FF community after you attacked legitimate AfDs, Hibana tried to get the AfDs removed and Hibana tried to spam the AfDs on a talk page that will obviously attract people who would vote keep. I can also assume bad faith on this simple fact - I cannot trust that you are voting on the overall worthiness of it having its own article, but you vote on what kind of article it is; an FF article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I attacked them because, they are, in my opinion, completely inappropriate. As for trying to attract people to vote keep, why not? They know the articles are legitimate, not to mention that they worked very hard on them. Anyway, I didn't personally contribute to any of the FFVI character articles, so I'm not biased, but, having read all of them, I can see no reason whatsoever for their deletion. And they won't be deleted, either. Even without the help of the FF project helpers. You wasted your time, I'm afraid.PiccoloNamek 00:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I see. So wonderful to know that the Final Fantasy editors focus more on protecting their articles than improving Wikipedia. Also, it's nice to know you're not below stating your opinion as fact. So, because you like these articles, I have to like them too? More notable characters than these have been VfD'd. And of course, you voted Keep on Umaro. I guess lack of backstory, personality, and almost the entire thing being GAMEPLAY doesn't matter to you, because it is a Final Fantasy article. Status > quality in your eyes, but in Wikipedia, we don't just let every single article exist. If you don't like that there are legitimate AfDs on your articles (Yes, they ARE legitimate, because your word is not the word of God), tough cookies. And it IS bad to spam people to vote keep on the articles. That's a blockable offense. If I made an article called Donkey shit, and it went to the AfD, are you saying that it's okay for me to cheat the process? Grow up. Preserving the quality of Wikipedia holds precedence over your wants.

So, you want to attack my person? I suppose I can play that game as well. If anyone needs to grow up, it's you. You seem to me to be a pompous blowhard, full of self-importance and sporting an extreme superiority complex. Just the kind of person nobody likes. Just the kind of person Wikipedia does not need. I hate to talk like that, but if you want to play dirty, then so be it. Anyway, like I said before, it is your personal opinion that the articles are of poor quality, and are unsuitable. You seem to believe that you have some kind of general backing or consensus on this issue. You have to like the articles because I like them? That statement is fallicious. I never said anything to that effect. As for status over quality, I think that's just out of line. Look at Spira, or Final Fantasy Tactics, or Ai Yori Aoshi, or Robo Aleste, or my picture gallery and tell me to my face I don't care about quality.

We don't let every single article exist? Certainly we don't! But we also don't delete everything that isn't Britannica quality either. My word isn't the word of God? No, but judging by your attitude, you seem to believe that yours is. A blockable offense? I'd like to see that rule. No, seriously, I genuinely would, I'm not trying to be arrogant about that particular issue. Donkey shit? Funny, but those articles aren't donkey shit, IMHO.

As for your final comment, some people, many people, actually, believe rabid deletionists such as yourself are the ones that are damaging the quality of Wikipedia. But that's just us.

Most truly do I sign myself:

Your increasingly and ravenously affectionate uncle:

-Screwtape... Uh, I mean:

PiccoloNamek 01:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Ah, finally. Took you a little longer than usual to make baseless accusations. Did I say the articles were bad? No. Quality of an article =/= important. Notability. Kefka is not playable, and you admitted Kefka does not deserve an article. Same with Leo. If I had a superiority complex, I would skip the AfD, as I would be arrogant and disregard your opinion (which you feel is the word of God). But I did not, I put it up on the AfD. Congratulations, I gave you a chance to spam your friends into voting on this. Also, do you even need proof that trying to cheat the AfD process is a blockable offense?

You say that I make baseless accusations, and then you do the very same thing directly afterwards. Good going! You win at life! And where the hell did I ever admit Kefka did not deserve his own article? IIRC, I said that only very notable NPCs deserve their own articles, like Kefka and Sephiroth. Here:

As for NPCs, only the most and popular and important NPCs, such as Sephiroth and Kefka should be allowed to have their own special articles.

As for spaming to vote for this, perhaps Hibana's post was a little out of line, and I'm sorry I reverted it. Perhaps something more like "all of the character articles are up for deletion, be sure to take a look" would have been more appropriate.

It isn't so crazy based on the fact that you called them good articles and said that is why the AfD was in bad faith. That is stating opinion as fact. Wario isn't in the Brittanica, but it is kept. Give me one good reason why Umaro deserves an article. What, is it his deep personality? His exciting backstory? The two paragraphs that do not have to do with how he plays?

I'll admit, I'm actually at fault here! I replied to all of the article's deletion pages in haste. I have since edited my Umaro entry.

Also, I would like to think that I am not a rabid deletionist (as I rarely ever nominate anything for AfD). Of course, that fact is irrelevant - AfDing your favorite articles makes me one.

Those aren't even my favorite articles. It isn't so much that I like them, so much as it is you nominated them all at once for reasons I find very ridiculous indeed. We're all entilted to our opinions, aren't we? But then again, maybe we aren't, at least not in your world.PiccoloNamek 01:44, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Wait, am I to believe that I am a rabid deletionist because I nominated many relevant articles? The point is that you don't think my reason for nominating them is in bad faith because you don't agree. Whoo. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:50, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

God... this can go in circles forever. You say I'm wrong because I only disagree because of my personal opinions about the articles, and you, but was it not your personal opinions that caused you to nominate them in the first place? Nice. I suppose I could understand in cases like Umaro, but certainly not extremely important characters like Tina or Celes.PiccoloNamek 01:59, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Nice job making up stuff. I never said you were WRONG about anything. I said I disagreed.

Tch, You know what I meant'. Anyway, not that it matters after so many insults have been traded, but I'd like to apologize for the "bad faith" comment. I actually feel rather bad about it. I'm editing it out of all of the nomination articles as we speak.PiccoloNamek 02:07, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The FFVI AFDs

Well, it's tilting at windmills, and I think they should be merged, not deleted, but it's a hell of a gutsy (if likely fruitless) move listing all of the FFVI character articles on AFD.

It'll be interesting to see what happens, not matter what the result. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:02, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

My thoughts exactly! I was just about to say this: Let's delete Don Quixote! He appears in only one book, anyway (and the rest is just fancrap)! =) --Wwwwolf 01:11, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Did you notice that Don Quixote doesn't have an article separate from the novel in which he appears? He only appears in one book, so the article on that book suffices. ;D - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 01:19, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A formal apology

The argument between you and I was entirely my fault. In haste, I copied and pasted the same message asserting bad faith into all of the Final Fantasy VI articles. For this, I apologize. It was rude and uncalled for, not to mention stupid. When you sent me a completely polite message saying that this was not a good thing to do, I took it upon myself to start an argument. For this, I also apologize. I let a percieved air of "pompousness" set off my temper, when I should have apologized right from the start. Again, I'm sorry I caused this to escalate into such a silly argument, and I hope that we can start over and be on good terms.PiccoloNamek 02:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ==Lunar Knights==

The game uses similar mechanics, yes, but when one of the developers (Ryan Payton) flat out says "this game is not a part of the Boktai franchise -- it is a new series", the argument becomes moot.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/_/l/User_talk%7EA_Link_to_the_Past_Archive_4_06f4.html"