Talk:List of characters in Bully/Archive 7

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

List of characters by appearanace

I moved this here because I don't think we're quite done with it.

This is to just get them all down. I know we have some names but I haven't tried to do any matching.

It still needs all the Carnival people added. Not the freaks, the people who actually work there.

White Collar people

  • Man in green suit with leather elbow pads-Mr Sullivan
  • Black man in tan suit
  • Bald black man in gray suit
  • Man with gray hair and red hawaiian shirt
  • Gray haired man in black suit with tie clip
  • Woman in blue fur coat
  • Woman in somewhat low cut red top

Middle class

  • Man with Mexican accent, wearing jeans and black shirt
  • Man with white shirt and black pants
  • Man in ugly pin stripe yellow suit
  • Woman in green shirt
  • Man in red jacket and white sneaks

Blue collar

  • Heavily built man in gray shirt and toque.
  • Man in blue checkered shirt and hard hat.
  • Man who wears an orange safety vest and hard hat.

Shopkeepers

  • Asian man at the Yum Yum Market-Mr Oh.
  • Man in the Aquaberry store
  • Black girl at the Old Bullworth Vale barber
  • Russian man in the Bullworth Town barber
  • Punk girl at the New Coventry barber/clothing store
  • Man who runs the tattoo parlor in Blue Skies Industrial
  • Old black man who runs the sports clothes store in Bullworth Town

Hobos

  • Old man with a beard who wears a Santa hat in the winter
  • Old balding man with a pink jacket
  • Black man in a heavy black jacket
  • Old hunchbacked woman in a blue dress

Asylum

  • White orderly without a beard
  • White orderly with a beard
  • Black orderly
  • The patient who calls the statue "The Watcher"
    • I think there's a 4th orderly, but aside from the sneaking mission, I can't get any of them besides the beardless white guy who's on drugs to appear.

Discussion of list

Ive added a discussion section for this list, I think Paul mentioned that thse orderlies only appear during the missions? Dan the Man1983 (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup.Never saw the black orderly or the guy earlier named "Dan" (no offence meant Dan the Man1983).Only Gregory.Paul 1953 (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it's the break in and rescue Mr Galloway mission that they all appear for. I've wandered all over the place outside missions and there'll be 3 of the beardless guy up but no one else. McJeff (talk) 04:21, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

And I've noticed,if you beat up Gregory,a whole group will appear. Just jump onto the trolley opposite block C's entrance door and shoot them witha spudgun.They can't get you.Paul 1953 (talk) 04:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Trent and his being open about his sexuality.

I think it should be noted that Trent is only open to Jimmy.

If you listen to him chat to other bullies about anything referring to sex or sexuality, Trent will always talk about girls to them.

Things like "Mandy dosen't wear any underwear, she told me", "Ms Phillips keeps a picture of me in her desk", "Lola and Mandy are fighting over me".

Trent is only open to Jimmy, there is probably good reason why he isn't open to his fellow Bullies about it, probably because if they found out, they would disown him as a friend and torment him about it.

Anyone else agree that it should be noted that Trent is only open to Jimmy about his sexuality? Dan the Man1983 (talk) 01:06, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I took out the statement that he was "open about", but left that he was unashamed of it. That was me who made the edit from the 75.whatever IP number, I was at school not logged in. McJeff (talk) 04:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Bit off topic but are you still in high school or college?
Anyways the unashamed about sexuality should always stay in, my problem was with the open about sexuality. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 16:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm in a Tech School.
As for Trent, I got the idea that he was open about being bisexual because he'll say stuff to Jimmy about being bi right away as opposed to when the prompt to give him a gift shows up. But you're right in that I've never heard him mention it to anyone else, so "open about" shouldn't be there. McJeff (talk) 13:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Tech school cool, wish i went into further education, my girlfriend who is 21 soon is thinking of going to University soon.
Funny thing about Trent is, in all the time i have had the game(i got it a few weeks after release), ive never seen him make out with a girl. Im sure others like yourself have though.
I think him talking about girls is him hiding the fact on his sexuality. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Rockstar Bully 02.jpeg

Image:Rockstar Bully 02.jpeg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Quote

When I went to the asylum sometime ago,I heard Gregory say something like this:"I (?) (?) (?) with the George guy.He (?) (?) (?).End-quote.(Forgot what he said,could somebody list it here?),which indicates the bearded white guy's name may be George.Paul 1953 (talk) 13:46, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it could really be any of the other orderlies, not just the white guy. Plenty of black dudes named George, and I'm pretty sure there's a 4th orderly that hasn't been described yet. McJeff (talk) 04:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It can't be,I zoomed in on him,confirmed it was Gregory.Besides,I did it during free roam;you can only see the other orderlies during Finding Johnny Vincent as I have mentioned earlier.Paul 1953 (talk) 09:20, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Somebody else help me?Pretty please with cherries on top?Puh-leaseee?07:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)~

My work on Damon and quote needed.

Ive been working on Damon's entry in the past few days and i think its nearly finished.

I added that he was an all American which he mentions in a line of dialouge, i also added that he was working towards a sports scholarship.

However it just needs a quote to be put in where a jock says about him making moves on Mandy behind Ted's back.

Ive heard the quote before, however i cannot remember which Jock was the one who said it. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 01:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Few things i wanted to say.

First thing i wanna say is on the Mandy and Beatrice rivalry.

I think Mandy picks on Beatrice for another reason not stated.

I dont think its mainly down to the fact that she has braces and constantly flares up with cold sores, I think its more down to the Jock-Nerd rivalry mainly, Also Pinky is another girl who picks on Beatirce.

Another thing i wanted to discuss is, Has anyone read a characters entry and disliked it, but hasn't done anything about it?

If so list them here, infact i think we should bring back the character info that needs cleaning up topic from the archives, since it was an important discussion for the article.

Also in one my earlier edits today i reverted a change to a quote citation where they changed SICK to sick.

Now the reason for me changing this back is this, It was put in caps for the very reason that the word was shouted when the quote is said in game. I might go through the article later and cap words in other quotes that were shouted. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 00:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I think Beatrice's entry needs a lot of work. We took so much "cruft" (to use the wikipedia preferred word) out of her entry that there's little left and none of it's sourced.
Dr. Watts needs a lot of work too. The easiest thing to include would be the way he walks around mumbling and mispronouncing Crabblesnitch's name. In fact there's nothing anywhere (game or website) that I can find that says anything about him experimenting on himself, just that thing where he says "The fumes from the lab must be getting to me!"
Dr. Slawter. I don't know if you've noticed this, but his personality when wandering around the school is completely different, and even his voice is different. Outside the cutscenes it's mostly fairly high pitched, nasal, and he's very arrogant about his intelligence levels rather than all morbid.
We need some info on the personalities of Gurney, Duncan and Otto, and maybe a little more on Henry.
I went and got a huge amount of sources and quotes for the Townies. They all seem to have very one dimensional personalities. McJeff (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Now that I notice, there's almost nothing about Norton's personality, even though there's a fair amount about his role in the story.
Aside from that I'm going through the article and adding some citation-needed tags to characters who aren't well cited.
Once we've got that done, maybe it's time to ask for the article to be peer reviewed again? I think we're close to having it as B-class. McJeff (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see why this article shouldn't be a B class, Its well written and well cited.
A thing about Norton i notice is that during the mission where Jimmy fights him, Norton will quote about loving to smash things with his sledgehammer, so maybe that is something we can put in.
I might play the game and a check a few more things out later. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 02:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Mr Wiggins.The info is a bit "thin", and there are no references, which is vital.Paul 1953 (talk) 11:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Adding a source now. McJeff (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
If they are so vital then why havent you added any for ages?
In fact why dont you ever use a space bar when editing? If there is a full stop after a sentence, you use a space bar before adding the next sentence. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 11:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Dude not to be a horses ass, but you shouldn't really go off on Paul for sometimes forgetting spaces when you never capitalize the word 'I', 'I'm', 'I've', etc. McJeff (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Like Paul's non spaces its corrected easily. Also when i went off at him, i must admit i was in a bad mood, so i do apologise Paul. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 09:12, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Mr Wiggins has no role in the story and i think his entry is fine as it is. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 12:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
My keyboard sometimes acts up and refuses to do what it is commanded to.Sorry.Paul 1953 (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Peanut"Larry" Romano.So much Info about other greasies,but not for Peanut.
There used to be a whole lot of stuff on Peanut, but it was mainly about his 'personal bits' being undersized. Someone took it out and I don't miss it. But he does need some more. McJeff (talk) 05:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Thats no worries, its just looks a little untidy and i do admit why its the reason i undo your edits most of the time. Next time i'll clean it up for you. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 11:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Townies intro.

Seriously does it have to be that long?

It needs cutting down, neatened up and cited in my opinion.

Anyone else agree with this? Dan the Man1983 (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there are 2 different options to solve this problem, like:
1.Lengthen other intros.
2.Cut it down, neaten it, cite it and remove the speculative parts.(recommended)Paul 1953 (talk) 04:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I read the Townie intro. I'll throw up a citation for the dart board thing - I can't remember exactly who said it, but it was one of the white non-clique boys and I think it was Ivan. Other than that I can't really see removing any of it. Maybe the thing about the Townies originally being the dropouts, but on the other hand, since the terms are used almost interchangibly in the game, I think it's notable enough to keep. (This was me, I posted it a couple days ago. McJeff (talk) 03:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC))

Game Mechanics and other stuff about this page

Game Mechanics I notice that people often put in game mechanics into some section, then the other editors remove it,but those non-regular editors come along and put it back. To prevent edit warring, I suggest we create a "Game Mechanics of Bully" page. Page size I notice too this page is pretty long,maybe we could split it into smaller sections and pages. A page about any clique e.g Preppies, could contain game mechanics(for those against the "Game Mechanics of Bully" page, character descriptions, intros etc.Paul 1953 (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I think there's some wikipedia policy against putting articles on game mechanics. Til then I'd just revert any garbage anyone posts. It's easier for us to do that than for them to do the edits and they'll lose interest. McJeff (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I think we should post hidden notes onto the article like McJeff did regarding Cornelius surname on what belongs and what don't belong on the article. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 05:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Massive cleanup is needed

The list as it stands now is just full of game guide content. Video game articles should list important characters, not every character in the game. See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games#List_of_characters_in_Bully_needs_cleanup for the original discussion I started about this. RobJ1981 (talk) 20:12, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Lame. The article is fine the way it is. McJeff (talk) 03:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I just saved the pure text of the article so that all the progress we've been making over the last several months won't get lost by a bunch of guys jumping in all full of... whatever the "must delete everything" wiki editors are full of. McJeff (talk) 03:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
There is nothing wrong with it in my opinion, It well cited and neat, Few of us did a lot of hard work on getting the citations in too. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 04:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I mentioned this on the WT:VG discussion, but here's some comments and suggestions. First, as there is a current injunction on doing significant-altering edits to fictional character pages, I would not recommend making any significant changes yet. But be aware that while list of character articles are acceptable as a WP:SPINOUT of the main topic without having to show notability, this article presently is way too much information and likely violates the intent of WP:PLOT - we do not need to be a replacement for actually playing the game. Also, the use of so many in-game quotes (which I understand was suggested as a source) is very excessive, but this is likely related to how deeply you are covering the topic
My suggestion is that you figure out which are the true major characters or ones that you need to talk about to make the rest of the information on the main Bully page make sense. Then, for all the groups around the campus, you can summarize all the characters from them into one or two paragraphs. That will help to cut down the page size and mkae the article easier to maintain. --MASEM 07:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Can't be no worse then the GTA pages on this website, which have a seperate page of their own of the gangs in the game and the characters. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 09:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
It's not a good idea to necessary use the state of other articles to justify a similar level of detail and quality, if they haven't been processed to being a Good or Featured article. The various GTA characters lists are as hefty in excessive plot coverage. I would suggest looking at articles like Characters of Final Fantasy VIII or Characters of Kingdom Hearts; while you can't likely provide the real world aspects (and I doubt you can, though if there are any, great) and nor do you need to, note the minimal level of coverage of "one shot" characters and even of main characters. Mind you, if you do clean it up this way, I suggest moving what you have now to a wiki for Bully (you can do that at Wikia) since that's fine information for a more detailed coverage wiki, but as encyclopedia coverage of a video game, it is over the top. --MASEM 14:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Just a question, but would getting rid of the plot coverage and errands make it less game guide like and more encyclopedic? Dan the Man1983 (talk) 15:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Here's what I would do as advice (I've played the game but that was ... 2 years ago? so many of the plot details are vague to me). Again, because of the ArbCom injunction on fictional characters, do not feel pressured to do it at any time soon. (Or lets put it this way, no one should be pressuring you to reduce this to a more compact form ASAP)
  • Yes, removing major plot elements from this, leaving them as part of the general Bully plot story (eg the major events that occur to Jimmy) in the main article. My recollection of the game would have about 10 to 15 major and minor characters, but again, that was 2 years ago so it's a bit rusty - choose an appropriate number at your discretion.
  • Identify the major characters that affect the main Jimmy plot, and minor characters if needed. Their influence on the plot should be noted (eg "Mr Suchandsuch Teacher is responsible for getting Jimmy in trouble.") but consider how much detail relative to the role the character plays.
  • For all other characters, group them into well, groups (eg the Nerds), and briefly mention those involved play into the game -- this, possibly like the gangs of GTA:SA, could maybe be moved into another article if length is an issue, but I would try to keep it all in one.
Another approach, and this might be harder, is to see what secondary sources about the characters for Bully exist (maybe reviews, maybe developer interviews... I don't know if the Scholarship Edition release will have commentary or not) and read through those - that might help to identify how to structure this article. The above, in general, works for most character lists when you have major/minor/one-offs but sometimes there's a different way that makes more sense. --MASEM 16:23, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

List of truly important characters

Not that I'm endorsing (or unendorsing) Masem's suggestion, but here's the ones I would say are important.

  • Jimmy
  • Gary
  • Petey
  • Zoe
  • Russell
  • Dr. Crabblesnitch
  • The Hobo
  • Mr. Galloway
  • Ms. Phillips
  • Mr. Hattrick
  • Ernest
  • Derby
  • Johnny
  • Ted
  • Edgar
  • Lola

I included Lola because she was involved in the Greasers chapter storyline as much as Johnny, and I thought about not including Edgar, but since he's a clique leader I did anyway. I didn't include Algie because even though he appears a lot, he's comic relief and if he was taken out of the story it wouldn't change much.

The problem with trying to condense it down to the major characters is that, like I said on the other page, there's a huge gray area for semi-important characters like Algie, Damon and Tad. All these three are more visible to the story than Edgar and Ted. 75.148.25.169 (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC) (McJeff not logged in)

I agree that Algie is there for comedy sake, However he does play a bigger part of the story then most on the list.
I think he is an important character due to a number of factors.
  • First nerd that asks Jimmy for help.
  • Only nerd that gives Jimmy errands outside of the Halloween mission(dunno if this is true of the top of my head, correct me if im wrong).
  • He is helped by Jimmy in nearly all of the chapters.
  • He is the nerd that starts all of the trouble for Jimmy when Jimmy asked for the nerds help against the Jocks in chapter 4.
  • I'd say he is more important then the hobo, the hobo is only there to teach Jimmy fighting moves, He has no role in other parts in the storyline.
The same can be said for Tad, He is involved in nearly every mission in chapter 2. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 14:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I think with Algie it was sort of implied that Gary had gotten to Ernest, who had then gotten to Algie, when he turned on Jimmy in Chapter 4. Since Petey was saying how Ernest ruled his clique with an iron fist, but Algie had always been nice to Jimmy before. McJeff (talk) 20:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Might of been but I do disagree on that. I don't think Gary had anything to do with that. I think Algernon changed his mind cause he is an idiot, same goes for Earnest. I think its due to the case that they thought they were above Jimmy.
If you hear what said by Algernon during that cutscene, he says "Us help you, you are nothing but a bouncer, were a bit above helping people like you".
Nerds like to think they are above people because they are smarter in brains. Earnest mentions in the fight with Jimmy that he was fed up of being bullied by people like Jimmy, so that might be another factor. He also mentions about demanding respect. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 00:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Also remember that Gary does say the nerds are actually sneaky when he tells Jimmy everything about the cliques Dan the Man1983 (talk) 05:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Just an idea.

Character role in games sounds like game guide too, maybe we should edit them out and just leave in the descriptions and characteristics. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 06:37, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

New People stopping by to edit (February 2008)

Resolved. The major cleanups that some editors wanted have been made

Ever since this page got posted on the WikiProject Videogames, there's been a fairly steady stream of editors who, unlike the random kids who like to edit, take it upon themselves to proclaim that changes must be made. People slap tags on the article and leave, they make statements and leave...

...What they don't actually do is 'help'.

If you found this article and the state of it makes your skin crawl, don't slap tags on and run. The reason being that regardless of whether you like the way the article looks, it's been worked on continually for over a year, and at one point has been overseen by a wiki administrator. Incidentally this administrator didn't see fit to throw admin lightning around and mark the article up and start deleting thing.

So what I'm trying to say is - if you don't like the article - you need to say what you don't like about it and more importantly, what needs to be changed.

I'm going to make it policy to delete all the tags put up by driveby editors. Assume Good Intentions is all well and good, but that doesn't mean that every edit anyone makes is right.

Again, if you want to help with this article, please do. It is a bit unweildy. But actually HELP, rather than criticize from a distance. McJeff (talk) 03:18, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Which tags were on the article? If the problem still exists, fix the problem rather than ignore it. It's not a crime for someone to add a tag, then not edit the article. Not everyone instantly fixes a problem, after the tag is placed. There is no policy stating "fix the problem, if you place a tag". Your attitude is a bit controlling in my view. Don't act like the regular editors own the article, because they don't. Also I want to point out, one admin helping out the article doesn't mean the article is perfect. RobJ1981 (talk) 19:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
No one is saying the article is perfect. The point McJeff was making was that instead of the editors slapping tags on the article, why don't these editors at least help work on the article.
Lets look at it from this point of view.
As an editor how would you feel when you spend the past year on article, neatening it, citing it, and then comes along another editor, who hasnt contributed anything to it, slaps a tag on it because of how the article looks and then does nothing to help the article themselves? Dan the Man1983 (talk) 21:46, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Adding tags to the article isn't a problem. You are claiming ownership on the article, just because you've worked on it for a while. If the tags are justified: then it shouldn't be an issue. If the tags aren't justified: remove them, and leave a note on the editor's talk page. As I said before: there is no rule saying a person can place a tag, and then must edit the article to fix the problem. From what I can see, you are assuming the tags are bad because the editors didn't make edits to help the article. Do you realize, MANY editors place tags, do minor edits and much more to articles? Let's not bite people being helpful, just because you worked on the article longer. Perhaps you need to make a Bully website of your own, that way no one else can edit and criticize your work. Don't make a big deal out of something so small. RobJ1981 (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The tag in question stated "This article or section seems to contain embedded lists that may require cleanup" Dan the Man1983 (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
And if anyone actually took the time to read the article, they'd know why placing that tag in the article was no good. I'm not saying anything about WP:OWN, I'm calling on other editors to be constructive instead of tagging the hell out of things they don't know anything about and pretending like they're being constructive.
It's like this. It's already been established that if an article is notable (and I can't imagine anyone trying to argue that Bully isn't notable), then a list of the characters is notable. Now if you want to use a listcruft tag, you're either seeking to define some sort of arbitrary standard as to which characters are notable enough to be included in a list of characters, or you're throwing a tag on an article for no damn reason.
Obviously, anyone who wants to edit the article can do so. But that doesn't mean that everyone's edits need to be respected. If you want to explain why you think the list is overly long, then c'mon in here and explain yourself. If you don't, I'm going to revert your edits. McJeff (talk) 07:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Placing one tag on it isn't "tagging the hell out of it". Everyone's edits should be respected, unless there is no edit summary when the tag is placed. If that's the case, ask the person on his (or her) talk page to find out why (instead of removing it just because you don't agree). In my view, you are claiming ownership and controlling who edits the article. You need to settle down, and stop acting like editors are out to wreck the article. RobJ1981 (talk) 17:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Seriously claiming that he owns the article is an unfair comment in my opinion.
Now having worked with McJeff on this article in the past year. I honestly think that he cares about the article a whole lot, but he is no way controlling or acts out that someone will wreck the article. If he was then don't you think he would of reverted my edits to the article aswell?(This from someone who has worked on this article with him for the past year). He removed that tag and made a valid point. If someone wants to tag the article then feel free to do so, its a free encyclopedia where everyone can edit, however I do agree in what he is saying.
Sure we have disagreements, but we always discuss the issue that we disagree over, and thats how it has always been on this article.
I must admit that I think I am worse then McJeff is when it comes to the article.
In the past i have reverted most of Paul1953's edits to the article due to the fact that he uses no spaces in between sentences a lot. I even admitted this in an earlier discussion. It was me who involved the wiki admin since the article at the time was going through an edit war. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 18:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
For the record, I literally created this page. But I don't think that makes my edits better or my opinions more valid than anyone. I already explained why I removed the tag. And for the record, the tag was added by an IP number rather than a user, so asking him to discuss it wasn't possible. McJeff (talk) 22:39, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually dude for the record and judging by the history tab, The user who added the tag to the article was Klptyzm. Check out his 2 edits the article. Dan the Man1983 (talk) 02:46, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
You can contact IP editors: they have talk pages. If it's red (and not made yet), create it. I've seen quite a few regular editors that are just IP numbers. Next time don't make up excuses. RobJ1981 (talk) 14:40, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
Whatever happened to assume good faith? I didn't accuse you of tagging my Vicious and Delicious article for deletion even though I'm pretty sure you just did that because I suggested you actually try to improve this article instead of strut around self-importantly and disrupt things with your aimless complaining. Anyway, as Dan pointed out, Klptyzm posted the tag, and he hasn't been back to this article since, so maybe you should brush up on your reading comprehension a little before attacking other people over not knowing something like "IP numbers can have user pages you just have to create them". McJeff (talk) 23:22, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
By the way Dan, if you want to join in the debate over the Vicious & Delicious article, the debate is right here. McJeff (talk) 04:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)