User talk:A Link to the Past/Archive 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Ryuusei No Rockman

I wanted it to stay Rockman...but you know, someone would have changed it to Megaman anyhow...so meh, whatever. -Sukecchi 19:10, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FF6 talk page deletion

Exactly what guideline was violated by announcing that the FF6 character articles were up for deletion on the Talk:Final Fantasy VI page? I just read the Guide to Articles for deletion and didn't see anything that would prevent such an act. BrianSmithson 03:00, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

No, it's not against guidelines, but deleting good-faith postings on talk pages is. Please don't do that again, LttP. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:08, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
It is against guidelines to attract voters who will obviously vote how you want, based on their affiliation with the articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
According to what policy and where? BrianSmithson 03:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
I would think that spamming others with the intention of making the AfD go one way or the other would be understood as a large offense. Voting is an important process. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
There's a great difference between using meatpuppets to skew AFD and alerting interested Wikipedians. Mentioning AFDs on related talk pages and Wikiprojects is common practice, and not frowned upon. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:22, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Yes, hardly qualifies as spam, in my opinion; most people don't monitor the AfD.But marking things as "against policy" when you only think they should be against policy is not good policy. Blanking comments from talk pages,however, is against guidelines. See Wikipedia:Avoiding common mistakes. BrianSmithson 03:25, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
Like Piccolo, I was assuming bad faith, which is frowned upon in circumstances such as these, and I apologize for assuming such. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:49, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Final Fantasy VI character article AfDs

I really wish you had mentioned your concerns in the relevant talk pages (or at the Final Fantasy WikiProject talk page) before engaging in your little rampage. In one fell swoop, you've forced an issue I and others have been trying to avoid by gradually shifting information not appropriate for Wikipedia to other venues. You're absolutely right about Wikipedia guidelines, but your behavior here was, frankly, trollish. It would have been nice if you'd given those of us who have been working at these articles a chance to address your concerns before going nuclear on us. – Seancdaug 03:43, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

The AfD notices should not have been removed. Though I strongly question your methods, you clearly were not acting in bad faith, and the votes, once begun, should be allowed to run their course. You'll also note that I have not called you a "jerk," nor do I believe you to be one. That some people have been less kind is inevitable, though, considering the circumstances, your failure to even attempt a dialog, and the somewhat inexplicable way you've targetted the FF6 character articles while taking an entirely opposite position elsewhere. As I've said, I think your reasoning is right, but of my frustration is that you've turned what should have been a gradual, negotiated process into a bloodbath that now seems destined to have the exact opposite effect (by creating a backlash). I have been transwiking numerous Final Fantasy articles (albeit to a Final Fantasy-specific wiki], and not Wikibooks). If you'd taken the time to ask any active member of the WikiProject, you could have found this out, and avoided all this bad blood. – Seancdaug 04:12, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Star Wars.

I'm waiting for a decision on the Rfc and the mediation. Thank you. Copperchair 04:06, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I care for order and accuracy. Copperchair 04:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Unless you're God, a god or some otherworldly force, you have to respect who the fimmakers decided was important and the order of importance they gave to their characters, as viewed in the end credits, loser. Copperchair 06:37, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SW Template

See the star wars talk page. I have stated a very clear purpose for the template I want on the pages. I won't revert, if you're willing to discuss. The Wookieepedian 05:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

I know, I know, and I respect that. I'm trying to get everyone to see what I mean on the talk page. The Wookieepedian 05:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
And I know what you mean, and I don't want to do that. But (grinds teeth), fine, I won't revert the star wars episode pages of the template you have on it, so this won't become an edit war. The Wookieepedian 05:28, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

You and User:The Wookieepedian are both skirting 3RR violations on Empire Strikes Back over this dispute. I've protected it (with the version in front of me; no endorsement implied). Argue about this at Talk:Star Wars#The debate over the correct templates instead of reverting please. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 05:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Arbitration against Copperchair

I've opened a request for arbitration against Copperchair, and I'd appreciate it if you could comment, as you're one of the users I've named as part of Party 2. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:50, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Final Fantasy WikiProject

A couple of things: I, personally, cannot say whether or not anyone involved in the project was responsible for the threats made against you, though I certainly hope they were not. I would, however, have hoped that the events of the past few days indicated the importance of assuming good faith and not exacerbating the situation by throwing around even more accusations. Also, please note that the project talk page is not the place for you to address your (real or imagined) complaints against individual members of the project, and while I again sympathize with the abuse you have received, the word "drivel" does not appear anywhere on our project pages, and your complaint would best be taken up with whomever it was who issued the comment.– Seancdaug 08:34, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Not "until"? I think you are suffering under a basic misapprehension of what a WikiProject is, and what it is responsible for. Even if the user who threatened you is a sockpuppet, and even if the user wearing the sock is a member of the project, there is nothing the project can do about it. Membership in a project is voluntary, and there's simply no mechanism through which the project can wield any responsibility over its members. We could strike the offending name from the membership list, but that means absolutely nothing: the user can still edit pages we oversee, and can just as easily re-add his or her name to the list. This needs to be taken up with an administrator, who would actually have the power to take punitive action. I'm willing to help (in whatever way I can) you resolve this issue, but please be careful in accusing potentially innocent users of wrongdoing. It is a violation of Wikipedia guidelines, and is likely to be seen as trolling (of which I am most emphatically not accusing you). – Seancdaug 08:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nintendo Wars vs. Famicom Wars vs. Advance Wars

Hey, what are we going to call this series? Nintendo Wars seems reasonable on its face, but I can't find anywhere where that name is actually used by Nintendo. (I did a Google test, and got only ~750 hits for "Nintendo Wars," whereas "Famicom Wars" gets tens of thousands of hits and "Advance Wars" gets millions.) Famicom Wars seems like a reasonable name for the entire series, as that's the name Nintendo uses In Japan even on some of the newer games (AW:DS = Famicom Wars DS: Something or another in Omega Land), but it's the Japanese name, and general style on Wikipedia is to favor the English-language names for things. Then again, I'm not entirely comfortable calling the pre-GBA games part of the "Advance Wars" series, for obvious reasons.

Any thoughts? I was thinking of kicking this over to WP:CVG, but I wanted to hear your thoughts first.

Incidentally, I nominated Category:Nintendo Wars characters and Category:Nintendo Wars villains for deletion, since they're pretty much depopulated. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:32, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

  1. I suggest Famicom Wars, just like people would call Super Princess Peach and Yoshi games as Mario games.
  2. 'Kay. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:34, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I don't think I follow the logic in #1; I don't mean that the problem is that Famicom Wars isn't the name used for AW1&2, but my problem is that it's not the English-language name, and this is the English-language Wikipedia. Right now I can't make a convincing case on CFD to rename the relevant categories, for either name. I just know Nintendo Wars isn't right. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 23:45, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I mean that while they feature another label, Advance Wars would still be Famicom Wars. And sometimes, you have to make compromises, such as using Japanese boxart for Final Fantasy II, III, IV, V and VI. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:03, 19 October 2005 (UTC)
Bad example; the FF Wikiproject is still kibitzing over what art to use for the infoboxes in those articles.
Anyway, I'll give this some thought. Thanks for the input. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 00:12, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] RE:Personal attacks.

No personal attacks have been made by me. If you continue to make false accusations I'll consider you a vandal and report you accordingly. Do not leave anymore messages on my talk page. This is your last warning. Ereinion 01:39, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Take a deep breath...

Link, a couple of things should be noted here:

  • Referring to someone's writing as "drivel" has, in fact, never been a personal attack. The Wikipedia guidelines define a personal attack as, in essence, a derogatory comment directed at editors as opposed to content. While it is perfectly understandable that you feel slighted by the comment, it is unlikely to be an actionable offense.
  • This is, from my perspective as a third party, being blown waayy out of proportion. Yes, Ereinion's comment was inappropriate and uncalled for. However, it was made only once, in an edit page summary, as far as I can tell. I do understand your annoyance, but I don't quite understand what you have to gain by prolonging the issue.

My honest suggestion would be to let the matter drop. There doesn't seem to be any good reason to drag things out any further, as I doubt you would be effective in getting Ereinion punished for his actions, and it seems equally unlikely that he will apologize for his actions. You have done nothing that would seriously qualify as vandalism, and I will leave a message for Ereinion restating what I have said to you, and advising him to not throw around the threat of vandal reporting lightly. If he continues to harrass you after you have let the matter drop, then you can revisit the matter and something can probably be done about it. I'm sorry if this isn't what you wanted to hear, but I'm not sure there's anything else that can be done at this stage: speaking from experience, I really doubt that this level of complaint is going to be taken seriously by many administrators. Let me know if there's anything else I can help with, though. – Seancdaug 02:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Possibly, but I don't think it's going to have much of an effect, anyway. Since he was the one who made the comment, he probably won't care if you ask him to stop, and he probably hasn't done anything in clear violation of Wikipedia guidelines, so there's not really anything you can do other than to ask him. Not a fun situation to be in, I know.... – Seancdaug 02:55, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FAs by nominator

Hi - I noticed you updated Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by featured article nominations a while ago and added Cat to your list. I auto-updated the list, and Cat dropped off again. Looking at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Featured log/August 2005, user:Toothpaste nominated this article. I certainly don't mean to imply you had nothing to do with this article, but I think keeping the list strictly by nominator is useful (makes it able to be regenerated automatically, and makes the criteria clear and unambiguous). -- Rick Block (talk) 17:23, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Oyaji

Why are you removing Wario et al from Category:Oyaji? Mario, Luigi, Wario and Bowser are so oyaji. They're almost quintessential examples—middle-aged or older, normal to chubby type, and they look superficially like anyone's daddy. Bowser alone is a staple of oyaji-kemono fusion fan art. - Gilgamesh 22:21, 27 October 2005 (UTC) Do you need me to show you all the gay and beefcake art sites that feature Bowser? - Gilgamesh 22:30, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually, you made a good point about the Cowboy Bebop argument. Let's meet our points halfway, shall we? A brief mention of Bowser's popularity in fan material by fans young and old, without necessarily a mention of his sex symbol status. That kind of detail can be left in articles that address those issues, and can be found by encyclopedia readers interested enough in them to learn more. - Gilgamesh 04:28, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Copperchair has been accepted. Please place any evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Copperchair/Evidence. Fred Bauder 19:37, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] FAHD/Requests

A suggestion for WP:FAHD/Requests so FAHDlist will work better:

  1. List your request
    Add * [[WP:FAHD/Requests/PageName]] to the list of open requests below, where PageName is the name of the page you would like help with.

(SEWilco 04:40, 4 November 2005 (UTC))

[edit] VfD Closing

When I closed VfDs (haven't done that in months), I always erred on the side of caution; I admit I did some hastily. IMO it's better to mistakenly keep an article (instead of merging or deleting), as it can always be VfD'd again and deleted later, rather than mistakenly merging it (which can cause problems if the article is recreated) or deleting it (which has obvious problems). Sorry if I made a mistake in that case, though. – ugen64 01:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Nintendogs

The names of the protagonists belong to the article. Their long description may not. See games like Street Fighter II, Advance Wars: Dual Strike, Final Fantasy VI... TV series and movies like Charmed, Lost, The Terminator... The list of dogs is necessary for the user to understand the differences between the games. And since the information is not long enough to need its own list, it fits in the article. Nowhere in the Wikipedia is not section says a list of protagonists should be left in a Wikibook. -- ReyBrujo 02:02, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

In case you didn't realize, in Nintendogs the dogs are the protagonists. Do you think, in example, the Charmed article would be useful saying "The series have a bunch of witches fighting devils." only? -- ReyBrujo 02:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
Oh, my... that must be one of the worst arguments I have ever read. With it, no game article should have information about characters because they are just the same character with slight modifications. I will call for a survey to solve that conflict. Obviously, you see no reason except yours, something I already realized when you wanted to delete all FFVI character articles because the AW:DS ones were being deleted. -- ReyBrujo 03:32, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

Enough. ALttP had a good-faith change of heart on how characters should be handled on Wikipedia, and this is being personalized needlessly. Please carry on this conversation at Talk:Nintendogs, rather than in the form of attacks on each other on user talk pages. - A Man In Black (conspire | past ops) 03:54, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Fonda

This article is already featured. See my comments on the new FAC page, but what exactly do you think this is doing? An article, once featured, needn't go up before FAC again. Please explain in the FAC. Thanks. Harro5 00:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask

According to your comments on Wikipedia:Peer review/The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask, it appears as though you are (or "were") planning on elevating Majora's Mask to featured article status. Regardless whether you have abandoned this action or not, I will be submitting it to Wikipedia:Featured article candidates shortly. —Hollow Wilerding 14:39, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image placement vote

Hello, I'm MegamanZero, and I've gotten into a conflict with the Orgy over his needless image placement and excessive quotes on the Iori Yagami page. So, I've decided to hold a vote (like you did on the Ryu charaacter page) concerning which version should be used. The vote can be found here. Please vote your opinion on the matter and thanks for your time! -MegamanZero 17:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


[edit] The metallic resting place for one's posterior

Fred Bauder told me to stop reverting Copperchair's edits of his user talk page. Thought you'd want to know. --maru (talk) Contribs 21:54, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm still at it. -ZeroTalk 22:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAC fraud question

hey. I just noticed the FAC issues with The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask. What happened to cause that commotion. I'm still unclear about that?--ZeWrestler Talk 19:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Check it out here and here. --Pagrashtak 00:58, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Iguanas?

I'm curious, now. (Normally, I wouldn't ask these sorts of questions, but I'm intrigued.) What is it you're referring to? The only notable reptiles I can think of that don't really exist are Leon Powalski from Star Fox Assault and the Geico Gecko. Or is this an inside joke. Cernen 09:30, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use and userpages.

Hi, I notice you have a number of fair use images on your userpage (48 by this count). Because displaying fair use images on userpages is not allowed per Wikipedia policy (see Wikipedia:Fair use#Fair use policy), I'll have to ask you to please remove these images ASAP. It is ok to link to fair use images (by typing [[:Image:... instead of [[Image: (note the leading colon (:)), but not displaying them inline on userpages (or user subpages). You can display free licensed images, just not the fair use ones. Thanks. --Sherool (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Copperchair

This case has closed. The arbitration committee has banned this user indefinitely from editing Star Wars and War on Terrorism. He may be banned from other articles that he disrupts under the Wikipedia:Probation order in his case. To be enforced by block. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Copperchair.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 04:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging Image:RaphRaven.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:RaphRaven.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. -- Carnildo 18:03, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Raphael_raven.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Raphael_raven.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as {{db-unksource}}.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 08:48, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article Help Desk/Requests

Hi,

I put a request for help to get an article (Chew Valley Lake) onto Wikipedia:Featured Article Help Desk/Requests - does that mean that everyone thinks it's already great & doesn't need any improvement or that no one has looked at the requests yet & I just need to be more patient? Rod 16:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Mario Character

I disagree entirely. He maybe just a doctor form of Mario, but their stories and there games are completely different. Although there are many similarities, there are still well enough differences to give them different articles. -Nintendonien 00:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

You used the worst example possible. They are both referred to as Wario and their stories are almost exactly the same which makes them the same person. While if you refer to the story of Dr. Mario 64 it is completely different to what Mario does. And if they were the same character then how come they are different characters in Super Smash Bros. Melee? -Nintendonien 01:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Young Link=Link just like Baby Mario=Mario. Age differences still count as the same character even though they look and act differently (that is why Young Link is in Super Smash Bros. Melee). Dr. Mario is not Mario, but a spin-off of Mario. -Nintendonien 01:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually now that I think about it it doesn't need it's own article (since it is only an alternate-personality), but it needs a section in the Mario article. -Nintendonien 02:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with Nintendonien but if you would like to merge them you would have to put in a very large section in the mario article.{Purpleflyinghippo 23:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)}

[edit] Image Tagging for Image:Charlie_04.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Charlie_04.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.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 08:38, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Punch out characters

v • d • e
Punch-Out video games

Punch-Out!! • Super Punch-Out!! • Arm Wrestling • Mike Tyson's Punch-Out!! • Super Punch-Out!! (SNES)
Boxers

I dont these articles necessarily need to be deleted, but they do need to be heavily fixed. The images on there suck, i feel like the content might be copy pasted (im not sure tho). Want to help fixing them up --larsinio \----(poke)––(prod)----/ 14:32, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

These characters are non-notable and minor at best. I recomend merging into a list of some sort. -ZeroTalk 15:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Little mac is notable, as is King Hippo. Doc louis shoudl be merged into little mac. The others can be murged into one document.
I would say Bald Bull is notable, as he is considered one of the more well-known Punch-Out!! villains. But it's really debatable whether or not even Little Mac deserves an article. Maybe if a Punch-Out!! game is announced. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:55, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Super Huge & only getting bigger

Do you really think it is a good idea to merge the Super Sonic page with the Sonic the Hedgehog page? There are not small, especially Super Sonic, since this merging would've been more reasonable if you suggested it in early March of 2004. Lord Falcon 02:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Characters

Please see Template talk:Zelda series. Jedi6-(need help?) 00:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gamecruft

Does this really need it's own WikiProject? Why not just start a discussion with WP:CVG and have that project define what is gamecruft or not (in addition to WP's policies and guidelines). If you start the discussion and try to move towards a resolution, you'll get one. I guess I don't see how this project can be an 'active one' after whatever the guideline is is decided upon. I guess I would need to know a little more of what you have in mind. K1Bond007 19:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to make a seperat ewikiproject, or perhaps just revive the cgv article imrpvoement drive nad make this as a primary mission. . Im somewhat maybe guilty of it myself: see Pentarou, an article i crafted based upon what happens in the games, but is organized in a particulary crufty way. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 01:31, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I'll be happy to discuss the issue with others, although I'm not sure if any sort of conclusion can really be reached on what's gamecruft and what isn't in quite a few marginal cases. Please keep me informed. - RedWordSmith 04:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nomination for RFA

I have created a nomination for you at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/A Link to the Past 2. Instructions on how to accept the nomination are at Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/nominate. Best of luck; I know you'd make a good admin. Be sure to put in "A Link to the Past 2" for USERNAME instead of just "A Link to the Past" as you've had a previous nomination. - RedWordSmith 05:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

I've added two questions to your RfA. If you have a minute, I'd appreciate responses. Thanks. JoshuaZ 15:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Btw, I don't know if you noticed since its all the way down at the bottom, but someone has added another question to your RfA. JoshuaZ 02:21, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you Mario

Hi, thanks for your message. If we rated the notability of all memes against AYB, then pretty much none of them would be notable. A Google search for "Thank You Mario, but Our Princess is in another castle" yields 1,320 hits which, while not overly impressive, is enough for me. The other thing I think you have to ask is whether you could merge that page into Super Mario Bros. without losing any info, and I think the answer is no. I think the current page goes into more detail (and perhaps has the potential to expand) then could be reasonably merged into that page. However, I will hear your comments on this before I vote on that page's AfD. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 19:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. However, I'm still of the opinion that the subject is notable enough, and should be kept. Thanks again for your comments. EWS23 | (Leave me a message!) 20:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Animal Crossing

Hey Link, I noticed you put in a peer review last September mentioning that you wanted to promote the article in question to FA standard. While it seems that the article has slightly fallen from grace (you have to admit, it reads link a fan guide ATM) I'd like to work with you on improving the article. Reply if you're interested, Highway Rainbow Sneakers 10:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA

Sorry about your adminship but third time's the charm right. Jedi6-(need help?) 06:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Adminship

It is my regretful task to inform you that your recent request for adminship failed to achieve consensus to promote, and has been closed. Please do not be discouraged, and please continue to make outstanding contributions to Wikipedia. If I can be of any help to you, please do not hesitate to ask. Essjay Talk • Contact 06:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry. You know what Cubs fans say, "There's always next year..." Just live, learn, and improve.--The ikiroid (talk/parler/hablar/paroli/说/話) 15:14, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

At least it wasn't "removed a few days early due to overwhelming opposition" this time. In fact, there were more support votes than opposes. Coffee 16:47, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Please come back from your Wikibreak soon. Jedi6-(need help?) 04:36, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfA / Fancruft

Hey, I hope you'll return soon, sorry your RfA wasn't succesful. If you continue the way you have been working you can certainly count on my support next time. You might want to have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Workshop, there's a section on Fancruft that you could probably help expand. Take care, jacoplane 17:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bald Bull

You may want to get consensus before removing information to redirect it... I couldn't find any broad agreement on all of that and you seem to merge arbitrarily somewhat... so, can we discuss these things more fully? My roommate cried when he saw it was gone and... well, not all of the information was transferred. In any case... yah. Like... you should discuss it with User:Pretzolio@yahoo.com since you seemed to be editing it back and forth. gren グレン 03:39, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Content dispute on Talk:Ridge Racer. I'd like another opinion on the respective dispute. -ZeroTalk 16:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Super Paper Mario

Would it be possible to ping Talk:Super Paper Mario and mention what things you had in mind for cleanup for the article? It's not clear to me what major issues the article has, but I'd be happy to try to improve it based on any suggestions given. (too many short paragraphs? insufficient lead? image position/size?) --Interiot 20:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirecting Baby Mario

Why redirect Baby Mario? As far as nintendo characters go, its distintly separate character from Mario, though of similar name. As someone's already partially reverted it and added back material, I just went back to the pre-redirect version. I couldn't find any prior mention of the desire to redirect the article. Perhaps you should propose an merge?

There's now a happy merger marker on this article. Kevin Breitenstein 07:24, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sorry about past problems

I am refactoring my user talk page to archive it, and was reviewing some old comments I made while still new to this environment, finding some offensive ones against you (like this one). After some time, and finding myself in a similar position that you held back then (most experienced and learned in policies and guidelines trying to get a newbie understand them), I can't help but wonder how is that some don't seem to understand. And reading back our conversation made me realize sometimes newbies put just too much strength when it is not needed, leading to unnecessary discussions. For this, and many other problems I may have brought to you in the past, I want to heartily say I am sorry. I can't promise you we won't have more quarrels, but be sure they will be held in a civilized way. -- ReyBrujo 21:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Image Tagging Image:SMA4box.jpg

Warning sign
This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:SMA4box.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then it needs to be specified where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, consider reading fair use, and then use a tag such as {{fairusein|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, consider checking that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Vic Vipr TC 23:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FAHD

What sort of changes do you plan to implement? =Nichalp «Talk»= 05:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: WP:FAHD

Greetings A Link to the Past,

Thank you for your message. I am interesting in participation in the project's revival and subsequent activity, the only obstacle being that in the coming weeks I will be in Paris; how long I will be there I know not. I shall surely partake in the project when I come back.

Grumpy Troll (talk) 11:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC).

I'm interested, let me know what i can do. --larsinio (poke)(prod) 13:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Four Swords

May I ask what has happened to the Four Swords article? --Chris 19:07, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how it's a sub game. I very much consider it a game of its own. How is FS: Adventures not a subgame then? What about the other gameboy games? The Oracles, Link's Awakening, Minish Cap? Aren't those sub games too, then? What is your defenition of a sub game. --Chris 13:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
You have a valid point; however, in this eof table Template:Zelda series, LttP is properly labeled as a remake, but Four Swords is clearly new content. How do we resolve that issuse? Any btw, what is Hyrule Battle? --Chris 15:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Are you refering to the Four Swords dungeon in the LttP port? That is new content that is not in anyway shape or form a new game, but I think the additional "Four Swords" part of the port is worthy of game status if you are going to compare it to additional LttP content. It has a story line, it has bosses, it has dungeons, it has weapons, items, keys, heart pieces, and rewards for completion. How is that not a Zelda game? Because it's multiplayer? I'm not trying to force the Zelda community on wiki to make a seperate article on Four Swords, but I think it is only fitting to split the current article into two parts for the time being, and then consider two different articles in the future. I don't believe that we are doing the game justice by keeping it pinned down in a less important article on a game port. By the very nature of ports, there is little to be said about them in a new article because they are already covered on the original, the SNES one in this case. Four Swords is not a port and is worthy of recognition. This is my belief. If necessary, I may have to enlist outside help to settle this dispute, but first, let me hear your thoughts. --Russoc4 14:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I have only played Kirby Super Star briefly, and not enough to make an opinion on its status. If Four Swords were paired up with another original game much like how those Kirby games seem to be, then I would consider leaving the two in one article. The simple fact that LttP is a remake while Four Swords is most definately not, and can stand on its own without LttP makes it worthy of having its own article; however, to prevent further disagreements, I will let the article stay as one. I will continue to look into the matter and try to establish Four Swords' status as a game or subgame. I also ask that you take pride in such great games and look to better the LttP/FS article, with my help if needed. --Russoc4 21:26, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought I wasn't arguing anymore :( Please answer these questions while I answer them myself: What exactly is it a remake of? Nothing. It is all original content (excluding obvious recycled zelda themes). It is a new game. What is it a multiplayer mode of? Nothing. There was no game like it: the Minish Cap was made well after FS was. It is a new multiplayer game, and the first of it's kind (in the zelda series). If anything, tMC is a single player remake of Four Swords, but I never played tMC, so lets not go there. There is obviously nothing that can change your opinion, so that's why I would like to try to stop arguing this. Let me do us both a favor and provide our lasts words, because we both want to get them in: I think four Swords is an original, independent game worthy of its own article. You think it is a multiplayer mode designed to be part of a remake that should be in the same article as its remake. Am I right?--Russoc4
Then why is Four Swords Adventures considered a game if Four Swords is not? Aren't they both new multiplayer modes in the Zelda universe? And you mention this game Phoenix Wright. How is the new content accessed? Is it accessed through normal gameplay of the original game or do you have to specifically select it, like how Four Swords is paired with LttP in a menu and you have a choice of selecting either game. I think this is going to just keep going in circles, don't you?--Russoc4 14:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
But FS is not in a game. It's packaged with one. Maybe our definitions of game are different. Do you consider a game to be the physical hardware, a single GBA cart in this case, or do you consider a game the software within like I am, two games, one cart. --Russoc4 15:37, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
You're right. They do call it a new multiplayer adventure because it is just that, just like the Minish Cap was a new single player adventure, as well as Wind Waker, and the soon to be released, Twilight Princess. All the Zelda games were new adventures, whether multiplayer or singleplayer, except those remade and brought to the GBA and NGC.--Russoc4 17:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
The whole point I've been trying to make is that it is not part of LttP. It is only packaged with it. It might share the sword techniques, but it does not share LttP graphics, gameplay, storyline, or content enough to be considered part of it. --Russoc4 20:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
These colons are getting too long.... anyway, you aren't explaining yourself. I agree that LttP is the game, but I do not agree that FS is a multiplayer adventure mode of LttP, as you seem to do. You still haven't told me how it is a multiplayer version of LttP. To me, a multiplayer LttP would feature a bunch of Link's playing on the same LttP map. --Russoc4 14:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stone Tablets of Antiquity

Hello! I noticed you made a change to the article about the BS Satellavision game that goes under the Japanese name of Kodai no Sekiban; someone has gone to a large extent throughout the article to ensure that the name "Stone Tablets of Antiquity" is present throughout the article. Given that the title never saw US shores, is "Stone Tablets of Antiquity" really the official name, or is it just original research someone created? I always thought the direct translation was "Ancient Stone Tablets"... Ex-Nintendo Employee 12:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

I know that an "official" US translation isn't out there, but I thought that the direct translation of the phrase "Kodai no Sekiban" was "Ancient Stone Tablets", which would explain why people call it that. Ex-Nintendo Employee 21:01, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Ootoctorok.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Armos.jpg

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:161477.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:161477.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 09:18, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wario

Wario has been nominated at FAR, here. Please leave comments. Highway Return to Oz... 18:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image tagging for Image:Mario_Adv5.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Mario_Adv5.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FFVI Advance

Why put something in there such as "It is expected..." if you're then not going to attempt to verify it? That only hurts the quality of the article for an entirely unnecessary reason. Right now the article's basically saying "It's expected that it will be released in 2006 even though it's not expected to be released in 2006".

Also, why put "It is expected..." in front of something that actually is verifiable (the updates to the game: "As with the conversion of IV, the games will be updated for the conversion"[1])? Also, why delete the "As with..." line? It's pointing out a correlation with the other titles that have been getting this treatment. Ryu Kaze 21:55, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

So which is it? You said it wasn't slated for release but now said that SE has said it is?
Also, what of the other things I asked you about? Ryu Kaze 22:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Also, either way, we need sources. Ryu Kaze 22:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I've done a little digging and gotten several sources for the updates that the game will get (so that one "It is expected..." can be dropped), but the game is still slated for a 2006 release. There's nothing wrong with that wording simply because it wasn't on a small list of upcoming releases that Nintendo gave out months ago at E3 (if those were all the games they intended to release for the rest of the year, I imagine gamers the world over would have been extremely surprised). Final Fantasy V Advance wasn't on that list either, but just a few days ago, it was confirmed for release in November. Given that the port for VI was announced at the same time as the one for V, it stands to reason that we'll be hearing about the release date for it any day now, and I seriously doubt that they would let the holiday season pass without getting that title out in time.
There's not any evidence against the game getting its release in 2006 based solely on an outdated list that was just intended to be a sample. Ryu Kaze 23:01, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you were referring to the E3 list. In any event, the new press release didn't indicate that this would be all we'd be likely to see in the upcoming months. It, in fact, guarantees the opposite, and only mentions two December titles for that matter (both conveniently coming out early in the month on the 4th). I imagine they're a little more ambitious with regard to the holiday season than that. They don't even have a release date for the new Zelda game yet, but — like VI Advance — at last word it was going to be coming out this year... and that last word was in the press release of a few days ago!

They've not offered any indication that these titles won't be getting released this year simply because they've not yet told us their release dates. They provided us a sample of what's coming and are holding out on specific dates while still making promises, probably to keep people hyped. It's likely that the new Zelda will be getting its release at some point past December 4th given that they're still telling us it's coming, and the same — as far as we know — is true of VI Advance.

We're not a news site. We're not supposed to interpret information before passing it on to the readers. We just give them the raw data and let them make of it what they will. Until the year has ended without the game coming out, or Nintendo or Square Enix comes out and says "It's possible that Final Fantasy VI Advance will not be released before the end of 2006", as far as Wikipedia knows, it's going to be released in 2006. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We don't make predictions. We just mention what has been stated and what is verifiable. The list of release dates doesn't take into account Final Fantasy VI Advance or the new Zelda game, despite last word for both of these titles (last word for Zelda even being at the time of the recent press release) being that they're coming out this year.

We can't say "Nintendo has not slated Final Fantasy VI Advance for release in 2006" without saying the same of the Zelda game, despite them telling us that both games are coming this year. We can't say that either game isn't scheduled for release in 2006 without inserting our own speculation and points of view. We can't be the source of speculation, Link. We're to provide verifiable facts (as best we know them to be facts) presented in a neutral manner, and that's about it. Ryu Kaze 23:28, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The Nintendo press release (which is still promising the new Zelda by the end of this year) came out two days after Comic-Can was over, though, so like I said, at last word, it's coming out this year. While I'm not saying you're wrong about VI Advance possibly not coming this year (the lack of boxart could potentially be quite telling and I've personally been wondering for months now where the hell the release date was), I'm just pointing out that it's not our concern in the capacity of editors. We can't speculate or provide the suggestion for speculation. We're only supposed to provide what we've been told. In other words, we're supposed to act gullible.
On the other hand, if a reliable source were to put together an argument along the same lines you have, we could mention it then. We have to stand on that fine line between being reporters and giving the news, if you follow me. Ryu Kaze 00:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I'm familiar with it or not. Even if it is a big name thing, though, unless it's something you've already written, I'm not sure if it would be deemed acceptable.
Which makes me wonder something: what if somebody like one of the major editors of IGN wrote up an article because they wanted to include some data? I wonder if that would be classied as original research. Ryu Kaze 00:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd be interested in having a link to it, though, nonetheless. I wasn't aware that you had a site. Ryu Kaze 00:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
That's pretty damn impressive, actually. A site dedicated solely to portables? Ambitious and daring. I've seen it tried before, but they don't seem to have much staying power. It's taken some dedication, I'm sure, for it to be almost three years old. Were you one of the three founders?
Seems like you guys are on top of your shit pretty well, with frequent updates and a rather extensive news archive for the last year. Nice layout too. I like it. Ryu Kaze 00:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Nice find! That is, indeed, Famitsu and that's exactly what it says: "2006 winter sale schedule". It must also be quite recent since it has that October 12 release date on V Advance. More than likely, you're correct about why it wasn't on that list from the other day: apparently that was just for North America. Again, good find. Ryu Kaze 12:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Characters in the Animal Crossing series

I think it's okay because the AfD is not supposed to dictate whether an article is kept or redirected. The debate to keep or redirect an article is one that can be held outside of AfD. An AfD only decides whether an article is deleted or not deleted. That's something that's been established as a precedent for a long time, much longer than the short time I've been on Wikipedia. --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

If the consensus (outside of AfD) is for the article to be kept, rather than redirected, I suggest that you go through normal dispute resolution processes to deal with the editor. AfD has nothing to do with this dispute (except, perhaps, for illustration purposes). --Deathphoenix ʕ 20:46, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Your recent comment on the talk page are beyond the borderds of civility. I urge you to redact. - brenneman {L} 04:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Your reply, including the urging to "leave Wikipedia, because this isn't your kind of place" is, forgive me for saying so, not progressing this conversation in a positive direction. I ask, without intending to give offence, have read the verification policy? - brenneman {L} 07:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm going to take your drawing on the contents of the verifiability policy as "something of that sort" as an indication of the fact that you have not read the guide. In particular, please note the bit where is says "The obligation to provide a reputable source lies with the editors wishing to include the material, not on those seeking to remove it." how do you interpret that statement? - brenneman {L} 03:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Wario

Thank you for harassing me, it's reaaally helpin your case. Highway Return to Oz... 22:42, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Calm is good.

Hey, it's tj from AWN, and I'd just like to give you a friendly piece of advice: Try to calm down. I don't know what exactly it is you're disputing over right now, but it would probably be best if you could take it a little bit less seriously. For your own health, and everyone's stress levels. Also, remember that most editors do have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart, albeit by their own interpetation of what that means. (I realize this probably seems totally abrupt and random, but I have a lot of admin talk pages on my watchlist for some reason, and noticed you there.) --tjstrf 09:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm... they do have a point about messiness, but that should be repairable easily enough. I've trimmed and refactored Characters in the Animal Crossing series (diff) for you, hopefully that will help. Also, do you really need a seperate article on pitfalls? --tjstrf 20:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disgaea characters

Wow, kind of forgot all about that mishap. Yeah, I admit I nominated the article in bad faith; it was a mixture of heat-of-the-moment aggitation over the FFVI character articles and a near-complete lack of knowledge of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, as I had only been a user for a few months (which is obvious, because I didn't truly understand your reasoning behind the deletion of the character articles anyway). And I apologize to you personally for having done so, since it appears you've been looking after it for nearly two years now. I'm sorry. But I'm glad you brought it up, even if it did occur ten months ago. Anyway, take care. ~ Hibana 03:31, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cruft

I've been managing those types of articles as I come across them, but I never really considered going after them largescale. What did you have in mind? ~ Hibana 03:43, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wario

I reverted it because Smash brothers is already mentioned, and also there would be little value in adding another image of Wario, especially since its the same as him in Warioware. Could you just add that text to where Smash brothers is currently mentioned without the section title? Judgesurreal777 18:42, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

For that I am sorry, I didnt check who was contributing that, and there have been many people adding lots of cruft in the last few days, Ill try to be more careful :) Judgesurreal777 19:12, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bowser

Per the discussion at Talk:Bowser (Nintendo) I moved the bowser page for very good reasons; a consensus between Nintendo fans and other Nintendo fans in a discussion on a Nintendo article does not override a century of usage. The word is not unambiguous, and no credibe evidence has been advanced that the Nintendo usage is most common. In undoing the work I did yesterday you also restored many double redirects. Read Steel's comments in the debate at the talk page, and understand that your Nintendo-centric viewpoint on this is disputed. Just zis Guy you know? 08:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It is important to keep a cool head, especially when responding to comments against you or your edits. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and remember that action can be taken against other parties if necessary. Attacking another user (such as your comments to KINGBOYK) back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors and leads to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! Charlesknight 20:14, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Able Sisters

Frankly, I wouldn't care what we called them personally if the information hadn't already existed in the article. (e.g. a simple addition of information) However, if you read the rules on regional differences between english, it says that it is it is "inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change.", and I would assume the same applied to region-based information. In other words, while neither piece of information is of greater value or canonicity, his replacement of the existing information for purely regional reasons was against policy. I don't exactly want to edit war over this, which is why I included both. --tjstrf 17:48, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Bowser move

My decision was made based on my reading of the reasoned arguments (which are not necessarily mere votes—comments which do not provide a reason for wanting the page moved or not moved are generally not helpful) presented by both sides of the debate. I couldn't care less about either of the topics in question; but, given the evidence that these are multiple topics of similarly common usage, leaving the disambiguation at the main term is the standard approach. Kirill Lokshin 03:58, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RE: JzG

My opinion is that JzG's way of doing things has the potential to annoy people, and when he interacts with someone who is easily annoyed, like you, things can get nasty (as they have done). I don't mean that as a personal attack or an insult, that's my honest opinion. -- Steel 18:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Just don't get emotionally involved in articles, and you shouldn't have a problem no matter how any other user acts. --tjstrf 18:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Move

You moved the article "List of Animal Crossing characters" back to "Characters in the Animal Crossing series". Earlier I would have agreed with that but since then I have seen several articles with that type of title that are not just lists (for example, List of Star Wars clone trooper commanders). It would probably be best for the article to be moved back. SNS 19:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Civility

Regarding comments such as this:

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner. Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars. --InShaneee 20:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Consider this your last warning. Explaining your actions doesn't mean you get to continue being incivil while doing it. Calm down, take a breather, and do NOT post any more personal attacks. --InShaneee 21:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
He's got as much a right to his opinion as everyone else does, and if he can express it without resorting to insults, more power to him, as far as I'm concerned. --InShaneee 21:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that's quite civil. He's simply making a point, and a valid one at that. That personal attacks warning on his page is really pushing it; any more disruptive activity and you WILL be blocked. --InShaneee 21:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Super Paper Mario

Maybe I shouldn't habe said "vandalism", but people shouldn't change it since it's still officially a GameCube game. TJ Spyke 22:48, 8 September 2006 (UTC)


Actually, no, It was announced that it was officially moved to the Wii and the Press Conference in NYC. WhiteMinority 21:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] E.V.O.

About a year ago, you expressed interest in elevating this underdog to FA status, and few things would pleased me more. I've reviewed the peer review and tried to include a substantial reviews and legacy section, although upon re-reading it, I felt like I was defending a thesis than writing an objective observation on the game's notability. Could you perhaps assist in cleaning it up a bit? Also, I was thinking of including a "business" section where I could include some sales figures and maybe some other information relating to the business end of the game, but I can't seem to find the information that I need, and Google is out to get me in any case. Do you know of anywhere that I could look? Also, does the article need more pictures? If so, I can easily take some more screenshots of parts that might be relevant to Wikipedia.

Thanks, Canadian Paul 01:58, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] This Ends Now!

“Again, stop acting rude. "Stop bugging me" and "shut up" are not things a Wikipedian should be telling another Wikipedian.” – I found this message (written by you) in my talk page history.

And that’s a reason why Wikipedians are so lame. A Wikipedian should respect the wishes of another and not continue to annoy me after I asked them not to! Is that too much to ask for? And besides, I’m no longer a Wikipedian. I don’t need people like you giving me orders and telling me what I can or cannot say, especially if your just going to keep telling me crap like “Find a worthy article to defend” (I don’t need to defend anything on this site), “…don’t whine” (Those who keep wasting my time are the ones who whine), and “Stop acting uncivil” (according to your talk page, you’re acting uncivil yourself).

I said all that stuff earlier because you continued to annoy me about a redirect that I don’t really care about anymore. I was annoyed with the Zinger redirect because you said it wasn’t worthy, despite the fact it had a “Start-Class” rating on WikiProject Computer and video games’ assessment scale, and because I invested a lot of time and effort to get that page to where it was and you had to go and delete it. You’d have been better off if you justed backed off. You will not be told again, do not talk to me anymore by any means (you can keep your comments to yourself for now on. Besides I’m not going to read them). Just mind your own business and don’t waste anymore of my time. You’re not even worth it. --Covenant Elite 07:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, so you left Wikipedia because it ran on a concept of consensus and logic, instead of blind love for particular articles. Yes, we will all deeply mourne having lost such a respectful, kind, good-natured and civil Wikipedian, who has done enough to warrant him believing he is better than another Wikipedian in some way (mostly because they're all bugged out over said Wikipedian).
That was sarcasm. Just noting. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind

[2] - The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind - "Changed importance to low" - ?

What's the reason? It's one of the most popular CRPGs, and among the most popular games ever. CP/M comm |Wikipedia Neutrality Project| 20:20, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Famicom Wars Talk Page

I see you gave the FW article medium importance on the CVG project, even though you set the AW articles to low importance. I'm guessing it's because the FW article is a stub?

BTW, I don't think I came up with the name "Nintendo Wars", and I'm sure it would make sense anyway. I know the earliest version of the NW article was set in August 2004, 3 months before I even heard of Game Boy Wars 3 (of existence which I became aware of only a few days before the Nintendo DS's launch), and that version of the article already had GBW3 listed. --Juigi Kario (Charge! * My crusades) 21:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VG Charts

Well dude, all the numbers on there (or the majority) are from VG Charts. Since they are up there anyways why not have them cited to that webpage. It's a hell of a lot better looking than it saying "citation needed". I'm not adding those numbers, just where those numbers came from, because it looks nicer. So I don't know why you deleted the citations. I'll just add the CITATIONS over and over again. Understand?

Please stop removing VGCharts citations from articles other than the best-seller list until you've brought the issue up at WP:CVG and some consensus is reached. You're removing references from stable, well-referenced articles, many of which are GAs or FAs, without any discussion beforehand, and that's a bit rude as well as possibly destructive. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
It's been decided on the page that VGCharts is not an accurate judge of sales. There is nothing left to discuss - it's been proven that the site relies on estimates and shipment figures. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Decided by whom, and where? Last I saw, the discussion at the best-seller list was hardly concluded. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:18, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
The only people contending it are various IPs and users whose primary purpose on Wikipedia is to post VGCharts. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Bring it up at WP:CVG before you remove it from stable articles, please. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
What is there to discuss? Is there really a dispute over whether or not estimates and shipments should be considered sales? - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Considering all sales numbers, NPD numbers included, are estimates, yes, there is. Bring it up at WP:CVG. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
NPD numbers are partial estimates. They get information from many retailers. VGCharts is not a reputable source at all - it's run by a Gaming Age Forums member who is the opposite of a professional. There is no comparison between ioi and NPD - the only reason NPD is brought up is because they have to estimate Wal Mart sales and smaller stores' sales. But ioi's estimates com from shipment data - he has argued that how many copies of a game have been shipped gives a good idea of how many have been sold. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Go and bring this up at WP:CVG so knowledgable editors can comment. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ampersand?

Out of curiosity, why do you dislike the word ampersand? Is it because the word is too amper-y or is it because the word is too sandy?--TBCTaLk?!? 07:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

It sounds wrong. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Not going to be 100% accurate, but its damn close to real numbers

Please keep in mind:

Video game sales statistics change on a daily basis. Video game sales statistics are difficult to come by. Video game sales statistics are much lower than the number of copies of games in circulation due to copyright infringement. Although this list strives to be sales world-wide, some data is currently based solely on US or North American sales. Because of these reasons, please:

Think of sales numbers as the minimum amount of units sold, not the precise amount. Help adjust these statistics as new information becomes available, and quote your sources.

VGCharts is estimates. By definition, the numbers of VGCharts have little in common with what the game has actually sold. He does not factor in any number tracking service, including NPD, Chart-Track or Media Create. He creates these numbers by his own self, and by the fact that he does not use the official game sales tracking service of the United States/Canada, he is not to be sourced, ever, on this list. The simple fact is that estimates of sales is very different from sales. We strive to use the best source possible, and a forum-goer with a questionable method of tracking sales figures does not qualify. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good job trying to ruin the list and being a jackass.

Yep. All's well though, I'll just keep fixing it. WhiteMinority 23:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


You are just trying to ruin the page, I understand. You're even taking down numbers that AREN"T even from VGCharts and you keep adding those totaly bogus Sega numbers. WhiteMinority 20:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/_/l/User_talk%7EA_Link_to_the_Past_Archive_5_e2f2.html"