User talk:041744/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Thanks

I'm glad you liked my page I worked a long time on it! I borrowed some ideas frome you though, like the good image section and that little scrolly thing for your user boxes.--041744 02:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

That's okay if you copied my user page! ;-) I'm actually flattered that you did! You may use any ideas you want from my page! And if you need help with anything, feel free to ask me.( I wished I coulda asked someone when I needed help)-- Penubag 07:06, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please use preview

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. In the future, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thanks again.

Chrisch^Talk 05:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Will do! Thanks!-041744 20:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Les Enfants Project

It did happen If you played MGS1 and MGS2 you would know what the Les Enfants Project was -.-.

Sorry but it is already listed on the soild series section, that's why I removed that little stub section.→041744 14:41, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

O now i see it

[edit] Image

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bob-omb&diff=143180656&oldid=142744762 Why did you make this edit? This makes the caption unreadable because the box is too narrow. --Random832 03:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorrry, on my system it's readable. Why not just revert it for me?→041744 16:58, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, the reason I didn't revert is I didn't want to do it without discussion, and was wonering why you'd made the change in the first place (i.e. what was wrong with it w/ the template, should the template appearance be changed, etc) --Random832 02:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair-use on images on your userpage

Hi, there were a couple of fair-use images on your userpage. We're not allowed to have fair-use images in userspace, so I replaced them with text (which admittedly makes them look like #@$%!). Just figured I'd let you know, and warn you to not do it in the future :). Thanks, Nihiltres^(t.l) 20:34, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Can give a link to wikipedia's policy on this? without proof i'm going to revert it back.→041744 20:41, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

See WP:UP#Images_on_user_pages. It says there, in no uncertain terms, that non-free images are not allowed on userpages. Hope that helps, Nihiltres^(t.l) 20:46, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

It Does, I rid my page of those 2 pics.→041744 21:22, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Dr. Mario

Series =/= character. Best redirect = character. Dr. Mario = Mario. Until you link Young Link to an article that isn't Link's, Dr. Mario links to Mario - because they're the same. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Dr. mario may be mario, but he is more closely related to the Dr. Mario series page than the mario page. the Dr. mario link should go the series the character is featured if there is no character page for that character. That's why the ice climber's link goes the game ice climber.→041744 20:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no navigational purpose in putting a link on the Dr. Mario character with the impression that it is about the character in any way. So people are told: Go here to find the character. Riddle me this - what is more relevant, the article about Mario which is the same character as Dr. Mario, or an article about the series he's in? At least they go to SOMETHING even remotely related to the character AS a character. The Dr. Mario series article does not have anything whatsoever to do with the character. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Fine link it to mario, this isn't really worth fighting about.→041744 22:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Life isn't a video game

I'm sure you meant no harm by doing it, but please don't add categories like Category:Super Smash Bros. items to articles like food or baseball bat. Categories should be properly relevant to an article, and sorting articles about common, everyday topics under extremely specific categories isn't the way to organize an encyclopedia.

Peter ^Isotalo 20:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Those items are in the game, but your right, I'll remove those catagories.→041744 20:34, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Might I suggest...

Your recent edits to dream added references tags to some embedded links might I suggest for the future the use of Citation templates and this handy Reference generator? WLU 17:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brawl talk page

thanks for the color change! now people will at least notice that there's an FAQ. hopefully they'll read it and stop making the same editing mistakes and asking the same questions! FyreNWater 03:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

May we all have common sense...→041744 14:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ginny Weasley

I noticed you were putting Ginny back in relations for the charactors, but she belongs, in student's because she is still a student in this point. (epilogue doesn't count). The only reason that fred and george, and the other Weasley's are in relations is because their out of school. So please don't put Ginny back in their unless you can find a logical reason to do so. If so that means, we also have to put Draco in relations too. ---User: Smartjoe299

If you notice, only character that don't fit into any other catagory go in hogwarts stundents, ginny however can be catigorized as a relation, so that is where she should go.→041744 02:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Responce Ginny Weasley

By the way that your saying that then, Draco should be in relations too, but that's incorrect. Keep them in main student's, too me they have a bigger importance if their in main students. When Fred and George were in school (before the fifth book came out) they were in students. We have to keep consistency. And it also makes Ginny seems more important, if you put her in a goup of 5, instead of around 20. Besides that's where she has been since this template has been made, don't change it. If you still find reason to change, ask the discussion for this page...see how people reply, if they say yes, then by all means change, and I will see that, and therefore won't change it back. ---User: Smartjoe299

[edit] Please stop

Please stop placing the SSBB tag ion the Ike section, until we reach a consensus here. (And so far, the consensus is to keep it on the entire page, anyways.) Thanks. Crowstar^{Vaseline-on-the-lens-Jitsu!fwends!} 15:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:041744/KAHN

A template you created, Template:041744/KAHN, has been marked for deletion as a deprecated and orphaned template. If, after 14 days, there has been no objection, the template will be deleted. If you wish to object to its deletion, please list your objection here and feel free to remove the {{deprecated}} tag from the template. If you feel the deletion is appropriate, no further action is necessary. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:15, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Signature

Sorry, I knew it was hard to read but I never got around to changing it. I'll do that now :):Edit: Better? Dengarde ► Complaints 17:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you (:→041744 18:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of CE's

Thanx for the reference changing work on List of video game collector and limited editions! Deusfaux 02:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Your welcome! People adding external links where a reference should be is one of my pet peeves on Wikipedia, it is one of the things I kinda specialize in.→041744 02:35, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Ejfetters 03:29, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Toad Town

I have merged the Toad town Page with the Mushroom Kingdom Article --Mario 174 07:03, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] smg

(also posted on smg talk page)

Thisis not the official SMG website. That's just for info released during E3.

Both Gamespot and Go Nintendo show this boxart. Go Nintendo says its straight from Nintendo's press room. Do you think they are lying?

Check out this page from Nintendo for Metroid Prime 3 Corruption. Not only does it not have any boxart, it shows the old logo. That must mean the new boxart is fake, obviously :P. Here's the page for Wario Ware Smooth Moves. The official page doesn't show the boxart, oh no! Tehw1k1 22:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Legend of Zelda templates

I don't see why the main series template is not needed on the individual game pages. What is your reason for removing them? Haipa Doragon (talk) 12:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

There was a specific game template made that only has games on it. If the main and the game templates where never ment to be separated then they would have never been split. So only the specific template should be on the game page. If you think they should be remerged bring it up on the series template talk page not with me.→041744 12:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh, I asked for your reason as to why the main template is not needed on the game pages, not just your mere opinion on the matter. To me, it is completely appropriate. Haipa Doragon (talk) 13:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You said my opinion is irrelevant then you put in your own comment witch by your standard is also irrelevant. Any way back to the discussion, the template needs to relevant to each page it is on. Links link Hyrule and Weapons and Items are not that closely related to each individual game page despite that they are all chained together by being in the same series. So this disscussion seems to be going nowhere; I cannot persade you and you cannot persade me. Perhaps you should take this up on the template's talk page that is in question.→041744 18:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I just see no reason why you need to remove a template with a purpose to link general interest articles within the Zelda series together; i.e., if someone is reading the article on The Wind Waker, for example, then this template makes it easier for them to go over to reading the Great Sea article should they want to read that. If you see this linking as irrelevant, then you should at least take it over to the template page before editing every article. And I was merely asking as to why you made such a decision, and so that's why I used your talk page instead of the template's talk page. Haipa Doragon (talk) 20:38, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes I will in the future go the talk page instead of making rash edits, but still I stand with my opinion, "I cannot persade you and you cannot persade me. Perhaps you should take this up on the template's talk page that is in question."→041744 00:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD List of video game collector and limited editions (yet again)

You may be interested in knowing this article has been nominated a 5th time for deletion on the same poor arguments presented the previous times. I know you have contributed to the article in the past and might want to do so in the discussion this time as well. Deusfaux 13:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ice Climbers Note

You said in your edit to Super Smash Bros. (series) that I should 'READ THE TALK PAGE!!!'. I'd like to point out that my edit was made more than 2 hours BEFORE the conversation was made on the talk page. I would also like to point out that I was merely reorganising the notes to go in descending order, and the actual note itself was added in almost 3 hours before the discussion on the talk page.

I'd also like to point out to you that Wikipedia works on consensus, and that you do not form a consensus by yourself. So in the future, if an issue is raised (eg. is a note on 'blah' really necessary?, should that be there?, etc.) then call a vote, or at least wait for a consensus opinion to be found. K? k. Ixistant 08:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

There was a consensus by a disscussion almost one month ago (Talk:Super Smash Bros. (series)#Shouldn't Ice Climbers Get A Note?) which is why I made the edit because it was already previously decided had nothing to do with my opinion. Also I never dericted my edit summary to you but to whovever made the intail edit in the first place.→041744 11:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Termina move

I would ask that you discuss this next time (yes, "be bold" and all, but that's too an extent - especially for articles that are still active, it is polite to at the least get the other editors' opinions).

Also, the full description of Termina doesn't seem totally relevant to the Majora's Mask article - its nature as a parallel world and the three-day thing are relevant to the game, while the world description bit seems to me to be more akin to a sub article bit.

If other editors agree with the move, more power to you, but it doesn't seem like the most appropriate place (especially if the Tingle-side story in TWW is taken into account).Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 03:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please discuss changes if others revert

You keep reordering sections in Zelda articles, despite being reverted by more than one editor and requests to discuss. If you wish to pursue this, please discuss the matter on the article talk page, especially if the article is featured. Some of your changes do not follow the manual of style, and it's becoming troublesome to follow up behind you to keep the featured articles I've written in compliance. Pagra shtak 15:04, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] PHA Star

Huh. I wrote the info about the founding of GGC, and I never realized that the date was after PHA's founding. Nice catch on the rewrite.

Is there a PHA headquarters comparable to the GGC's headquarters in DC, or is each state independent, like the Grand Lodge system?--uɐɔlnʌɟoʞǝɹɐs 01:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

Why did you delete what I said? I was asking an appropiate question.69.131.146.254 (talk) 22:49, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The question was unrelate to the topic, would not improve the article, and above all it was fourm-ish. WP is not a fourm, there are plenty of places around the internet to ask such questions, but not Wikipedia.→041744 22:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ok

It may not have been related to the topic, but it was related to the article. I just did'nt want to waste my time creating a whole new subject. But whatever. I don't want to break the rules. It just would have been nice if someone answered my question.69.131.146.254 (talk) 23:20, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

All right so here is my awnser to your question: sence the game was delaided 2 monthes the updates have gon slower to strech it out longer, if the revaled more chracters any time soon they might just run out of steem for the next 8 weeks.→041744 12:34, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brawl article

Just because Super Smash Bros. and Super Smash Bros. Melee do not have a level 3 subsection heading for stages does not mean that Brawl cannot. Neither of the two articles are GA, let alone A-Class, or FA-Class. If they were FA-Class then I'd say let's follow that example. But until then, I'm not. --Son (talk) 00:57, 23 December 2007 (UTC)