User talk:Phirazo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia

Please do not add nonsense to Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. Thank you. --Angghe 12:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

What vandalism are you referring too? I do not consider the prod templates I added to a 15 or so Naruto episodes vandalism. --Phirazo 22:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heroes

FYI, there is a formal process involved in redirecting television episodes. You can read up on it at WP:EPISODE, but to summarize, the "five days notice" approach doesn't qualify. Additionally, the Heroes Wikiproject has specifically identified the episode articles for improvement over the summer, so a redirect is not appropriate at this time. Thanks. --Ckatzchatspy 19:44, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: your AFD question

Phirazo, what part of "i'm not interested in discussing with you further" do you not understand? I knew you would continue to pester me anyway because you seem to love having the last word.

Tons of articles use sources from those newspapers. You only have to click on 'what links here' on the article pages to see just how many other articles link there, and I can assure you that many are from links in references. Dont believe me? well go research then, because I cant be bothered to waste my time fighting for an article that I dont particularly care about anyway. I'm utterly bored of this discussion with you and as no one else can be bothered defending it, I dont see why I should anymore either. In fact, I now think it may be a good thing if it's deleted, because it will mean that you and I will no longer have to correspond with each other ever again. That alone will make its deletion worth while.

I'm going to assume that you will respond with your usual sentence about "ad hominem attacks", but i have said it for you, so now there's no need for you to say it....again.--Gungadin 23:18, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Actually, there weren't any ad hominem attacks this time around. You didn't call me clueless, or a dictator, or anything. Most any articles I see that quote The Sun are talking specifically about The Sun's coverage of the subject, not getting facts about the subject from The Sun. --Phirazo 23:39, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Well that sounds like the same thing to me. The paper has critics, reviews, interviews, ratings - all things that can be used as sources for television articles. Lets be clear, I think the Sun is a vile paper, one that I would never be seen buying or reading in public, but that doesnt mean it cant be referenced on here. Regardless of this, i'm not bothered whether the article gets kept or not anymore, so I definitely will not be making anymore arguments on its AFD.Gungadin 00:05, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BJAODN header

Hey, just to let you know, I did create another subpage of User:Phirazo/Bjaodn header to make the preload thing I mentioned work properly. Here's the link, if you want to see how it works out. Sorry for tweaking with your userspace. Hersfold (t/a/c) 03:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Neat. Mostly moot at this point, but still neat. --Phirazo 17:01, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DRV

I have initiated a deletion review of an AFD which you were involved in. You may wish to contribute to the discussion. Balancer 04:47, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Akatsuki members

The List of Akatsuki members AfD you participated in has been brought to deletion review here. Please take a look if you're interested. — xDanielx T/C 19:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Chris Crocker edits

Hi, the information isn't controversial content so both Youtube and Myspace are acceptable sources for the non-controversial information presented. Re-added well-referenced sections which discuss titles of videos, dates, people involved, views, etc. Benjiboi 23:19, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Hopefully, the article will removed entirely, and this will be a moot point. --Phirazo 23:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tay Zonday

What changed your tune on the Zonday pic? τßōиЄ2001 04:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

  • The original uploader left a message on the image talk page. It was on purpose. --Phirazo 14:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
    • Not to be an a-hole, but that's what ppl were arguing in the first place, no? τßōиЄ2001 22:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] About the former List of Akatsuki members topic...

I'm not here to start an argument with you or to attack you, but merely to correct a decision you made that wasn't correct. Please take this into consideration.

When you commented that it should be deleted because it was entirely plot summary, you were wrong. The only ones that had information about the plot were the ones who were dead members. It was basically judged that it would be informative to the reader if they were to know how that specific member died. Orochimaru himself is a special exception, as his removal was before the highlight of the series and the part that is considered "backround".

Second, there's abilities. That has absolutely nothing to do with plot at all. They are merely the special powers that that specific member has. Plot is only mentioned when there is a special case with that ability or something that seems notable to the ability or the member, and the plot is limited only to a single sentence.

Third, there's personality. Personality is merely how the person acts and their behavior. For example, Hidan was completely obsessed with a religion that he was a member of and his abilities were based upon it, and thus it was found notable and added.

Fourth is backround. Backround happened before the highlight of the series (basically the part that isn't flashbacks), and thus isn't exactly plot, but merely the character's history, just like the history of George Washington or any real-world person.

Thank you for taking your time to read all this. Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 19:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

What about "real-world context and sourced analysis" as per WP:NOT#PLOT? I saw none of that, just details about a story. I would argue that biographies of fictional characters, and their abilities, personality, and background are all plot points, and never leave the "world" of Naruto. Articles should be out-of-universe, not in. And why bring this up now? --Phirazo 01:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MINERVA Screenshots

Sorry, I didn't know that was copyrighted, since the game was free to download. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Leohenrique0908 (talk • contribs) 16:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fandom and boxes

I changed this template from a box to a line of text for a few reasons:

  • The box is usually found as a sister project to Wikipedia, and Wikia isn't a sister project, and the box gives the incorrect impression that it is. (See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) versus Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects). Wikia is merely just another external link, it doesn't have any special status.
  • I want to standardize the links to Wikia, and doing it in standard external link style (Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Links) seems to be much more prevalent than with boxes.
  • These boxes seem to point to fan sites only. On meta's m:List of largest wikis the highest non-Wikimedia project that has a box is the Star Wars wiki, which is barely used, and is 69 on list. Even other Wikia projects rate higher (health.wikia and local.wikia, for example). Why are there no boxes outside of fandom?

I realize this is a minor style issue (which is why I'm bringing it to talk), but I'm the sort of person who likes some consistency across articles. I don't see how the box is "acceptable and beneficial", when a line of text would do the job at least equally, and probably better. --Phirazo 04:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

It's trivial to create new box-templates - have a look at Template:FreeContentMeta. I created it, admittedly, for fandom projects because I suspected (and I've seemed fairly correct) that itw ould be a useful tool in moving cruft and in-universe material. People object less to stuff geting dumped at Wikia if there's a pretty box link that makes Wikia look more important. But its uses go beyond that - my feeling is that the sister project boxes that it resembles are good because they promote other free content resources. And I think having prominent links like that to free content resources - whether fandom-based or not - is a good thing for us to do. We're the largest free content project in the world, and it behooves us to be a good neighbor and try to actively help other free content projects as well. this is an effective way to do that. Which is part of why these templates have, at this point, survived a fair handful of TfDs. :) Phil Sandifer (talk) 14:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I'll leave the boxes alone where they are the primary way of linking to Wikia, and just standardize the ones where a line of text is used more often. As far as I can see, the underused boxes are for links to Memory Alpha and Wookiepedia, and other ones see much more usage (for example, the Harry Potter Wiki) --Phirazo 17:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

My preference would be to use them more widely, or at least to maintain them as alternate options. Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
I see what you mean, but the line of text is pretty standard for Star Trek and Star Wars articles. I'd prefer to have the entire franchise be one way or the other, and the easier way to go is a line of text. --Phirazo 18:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
Why don't you bring the issue up at the WikiProjects? Phil Sandifer (talk) 18:11, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Petezza

RE: one could argue Father's Day is "made up"

I'd also add Mother's Day, Grandparent's Day, and Administrative Professionals' Day, all designed to sell cards, flowers, dinners, and bad ties. ;) —Travistalk 03:36, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

  • Yeah, the list goes on and on. Father's Day just seemed like a good example of an invented holiday with traction (unlike "Petezza"). There is even a name for this, Hallmark holidays. --Phirazo 03:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:Rescue

Template:Rescue has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Benjiboi 21:49, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DRV notice

Template:Memory Alpha has been listed for Deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 December 31#Template:Memory Alpha. -- Ned Scott 03:57, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up the non-free image problems with the FCM templates, and for adding a few more to the list that I'd never noticed get created. Phil Sandifer (talk) 05:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I decided to find all the templates, and I noticed the Battlestar Wiki had a Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg in place of a logo. I decided to go through them all, and remove the obvious offenders. Template:BabylonProject is an oddball - I can't decide if it a derivative work or not, so I left it be. There may still be a few floating around like Template:Muppets that are harder to find.

[edit] apologize

sry man i was just triyng to type my message above syours to continue an ongoing convo ubt i accidentally moved it. my bad. Smith Jones (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hellsing trivia removal

Rather than get into a revert war with you, perhaps you could explain why you feel that removing this section is necessary? Especially since, if you feel it should be removed, you're supposed to integrate it into the main text of the article rather than decide unilaterally to remove everything? After all, trivia sections are merely discouraged, not disallowed, and Wikipedia is Not Paper. Nezu Chiza (talk) 01:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really add anything to the article. It is mainly playing "I spy" throughout the series, and it was overwhelming the rest of the article (it was something like 10K of trivia). I wouldn't mind a prose section on influences if references in secondary sources could be found. --Phirazo 02:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the trivia section needs trimming, but there is no reason to remove the Convention of 12 stuff. Penwood got as many panels as Rip van Winkle, if not more. It's like people forget about him because he doesn't have any superpowers. Islands is important too - he was Arthur's friend and colleague, he's the head of the Round Table at the start of the series, and is currently leading what's left of the British military and has nukes aimed at London. After a closer look, I see that the information you removed was very poorly written, but couldn't we just rewrite it? They are important characters, and removing that information just makes the article less useful. Schrödinger (talk) 16:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
It was poorly written, but it also had quite a bit of speculation, which is why I removed it. Also, the section is on organizations, not individual characters. I don't really think those two characters are major enough for a character section on each. --Phirazo 17:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Removing a 10k section just because you feel like it is vandalism, whether you find the term offensive or not. I'm sorry that you don't see massive cutting as such a thing, but that's neither here nor there. As it stands, we're starting a revert war, something I tried to avoid. As soon as it hits 3 in 24 hours I'll have to ask for it to be protected. I give you credit for trying to make it seem invalid without sources knowing that allusions are almost never sourced externally to be referenced. In any event, please don't tell me not to do something you yourself are doing, it's impolite. If you can make massive edits, I have as much right to remove them. Still, I'd rather this didn't turn into a personal war, perhaps we can trim the trivia section DOWN somewhat? I'd certainly rather work together than at cross purposes. Nezu Chiza (talk) 20:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lame

Would you at least respond to my template talk message intead of just reverting? hbdragon88 (talk) 06:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

I'm restoring that Copyvio tag, and let's both watch the result as a learning exercise. I think the tag exists so that long-term resolution will be done by specialist admins, in some/many/all cases removing the offending material not just from the article (as i did) but from the history as well, on the basis that leaving the offending material available in the history, where it can be seen by even reasonably savvy IPs, is still legally a violation. Tho i don't want to study out the WP-namespace pages that'd move me twd that expertise, i'll keep you informed of what i observe that seems to bear on this matter.
--Jerzy•t 16:24, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I've since poked around a little, and i'm now inclined to think that you are more up to date on Copyvio than what i think i remember. I want to read more thoroughly on the subject, and i won't be removing any such tags myself without doing so, but i haven't found any current support for the remove-from-the-history approach, and i won't be restoring any tags until i find some. Sorry for the inconvenience.
--Jerzy•t 01:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Template

I closed the TfD in the way that I did because of the general consensus I found that this has been discussed before and is not necessary. The comments which were most influential in my decision to keep the template were Ned Scott's quoting of my previous close of a related template deletion debate and Phil Sandifer's reiteration that this debate is not new and the given consensus, that these sorts of templates are not deleted, is still valid. Cheers, RyanGerbil10(Kick 'em in the Dishpan!) 21:50, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Zeitgeist/Discussion

PLEASE use the appropriate discussion pages instead of engaging in an edit war. I have sourced my statements with a source just as reliable as the page itself. It is not a cut-and-dry issue. If you have counter-arguments to my discussion posts, please make them, rather than simply removing content from Wikipedia. The-Postman (talk) 05:09, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Image:VictoriaV07.jpg

I've restored the image. Good luck with the article! east.718 at 01:01, April 1, 2008

[edit] TfD nomination of Template:ProseTimeline

Template:ProseTimeline has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 18:00, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Link in Template:ProseTimeline TfD comment

Hi Phirazo! I've changed your link at the ProseTimeline TfD to point to the right section of the previous discussion page, instead of pointing to the Template:Proseline redirect page, since it seems like the "obviously right thing," but since the sentence is signed by you, I thought I'd check if it's ok with you :-) Benja (talk) 13:15, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

  • That is fine with me. --Phirazo 16:55, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FCM

Tested the waters on the TARDIS box. Sceptre (talk) 18:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)