|
User talk:Folken de Fanel
Tomb Raider Anniversary EditI was simply reporting what looked to be legit on another site. Mabey its fake, mabey it isnt but I certainly didnt intend on vandilizing your article. End of EvangelionThe end of Evangelion is in the lyrics of the opening. The discussion was deleted, so I could not tell you it was "nonsense". What was changed was the plot, not the end. Help yourself and read the lyrics before answering. WarningIt seems to me that you have acted in an uncivil manner on Daishokaioshin. It is important to keep a cool head, despite any comments against you. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and action can be taken against the other parties if necessary. Your involvement in attacking back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors, and lead to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! --3bulletproof16 16:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC) The correct term - Ares or Arles?Folken de Fanel Greetings. I have been noticing as of late - that you are the one responsible for editing the name Ares - to Arles. This is wrong, as you should know, the name Arles makes no sense and is completely mistranslated from the japanese name "Aruhss" as it is pronounced in their native language. Therefore, the correct term is Ares. Please, I respect your opinion - but the correct term IS Ares, and it should be used correctly. I don't mind if the term Arles is used in your native language or in your country. I'm from Peru, and I have watched Saint Seiya in South America over 13 yrs ago. Like you, I also understand the burning passion and the love that we both have for our beloved series. Yes, in my country - they also used the term "Arles" and the term "Knights" when it was dubbed here. However, we have grown fond of those terms and they are what we used everyday now. But, it doesn't mean they are the correct terms, the correct terms should be "Saints" instead of "Knights", just like "Ares" should be used instead of "Arles". Like I stated before - it was mis-interpreted and it became the standard term most Saint Seiya fans use nowadays. But this is Wikipedia, and we should strive to put out there correct terms, not the terms that we grown fondly of. Not the terms that we have grown fond of 13 yrs ago. I understand you - and I hope that you understand as well. I am not forcing my opinion in you - but its the correct term dictated by the anime. Try watching the Original Japanese Anime, and you can see clearly he is named Ares. Try going to Bandai website, and you will see that he is named "Grand Pope Ares" in the packaging of the Saint Seiya Myth Cloth Series- thus, completely negating the term "Arles". See it for yourself, if you don't believe me. And please, before you decide to edit my comments - state as of why? and provide evidence VALID to prove that ARLES is the CORRECT term. I have watched and OWN all the Saga, in 3 diff. languages, and I understand your opinion - but its invalid when it is used against the correct and ORIGINAL Japanese anime. Thanks. I really didn't try to be vindictive or anything, look - I'm not going to sit here and waste my life away in this. You say Arles, I say Ares - truth to the matter, we don't know. And yes, I was very well aware of the Orphe comment, but like you said - there's nothing concrete and 100% fact. I was also very aware of the Japanese pronunciation, but it made sense regarding the "Ares" theory (read below) Regarding Saga, being the embodiment of Ares, that is also a matter of speculation. Nowhere in the anime has it been stated - as to what really was that possessed Saga to being evil. The opinion was: - He developed an alter ego, due to mental problems (ying and yang theory), and his evil side ended up taking the best of him. - He became so powerful and dillusional with his own power, that he decided that Athena was weak and was not ready for the upcoming holy wars - thus, he being the strongest should take lead. He wanted to what was best, but ended up losing track of who he was (hence the "who are you" statement in the manga, and later revealed in the Anime as to why he wanted Athena's power) - He was possessed by the War God Ares, and feeling cheated of being reincarnated in a young body such as Athena, he wanted to kill her and take over the world (hence the many comments in the manga - of him being the "half-god" or possessing a Cosmos that defied those of a God - check the ep 4 of Hades - the title says it all - even in the Manga, when Seiya reflects the Shield light at him - a spirit much akin to the way Poseidon was defeated appeared, proving more evidence that it could have been the War God or an evil spirit) - He was the re-incarnation of evil, as stated many times in the anime. All of these are plausible theories, none have been proven yet - because they are all in the Anime and Manga. Thus, I'm going to leave it at that. Like I said - each and one of these theories are right - but no one has come up with a way of linking all of these theories together. Nothing is 100% concrete. I'm sorry if I sounded harsh - but at least input all of these informations and facts out there. Don't just negate them. I'm only looking for means to link everything together - all of the theories and opinions, so that way we don't come to disagreements over names, or over what happened in the series. Kind of like have a common understanding such as this way - everyone is pleased and everyone is on the same page. If not, well - what can we do?
tienI know he is usually considered a human but cant know for sure so I think we should leave it as unknown. Count Raznagul 20:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC) Daizenshuu noncanon!!!!! Count Raznagul 00:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC) (Breaks some bread)I totally do not need any more of this drama. Can we just bury the hatchet and pretend all of this never happened? The S 02:30, 4 September 2006 (UTC) Fellow Saint Seiya fanI've noticed by now that you have as much spirit for Saint Seiya as i have. And i thought that the Wiki page being just built on one persons knowledge wouldn't be aknowledged by the community. So i would like to suggest a teamwork between you and me since i've noticed that we both have some sources the other doesn't. So what do you say? HiHi, I already provided fact info on the discussion on the talk page, what do you still need to wait for to adjust the article? I can even provide the manga pages that stated the fact to expalin the research if you need that. Yajaec 23:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
What are you talking about, I stated hard fact stright from manga that Hypnose and Thanatos have Pandora to watch over Hades' spirit till the seal on the tower is broken, it's hard fact I even have the manga and I can provide it how can you dismiss it? Yajaec 23:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC) Reply: I did not modify the words in manga, and I will provide links to manga pages if I have to and proove that's what manga said. I did not controdict myself because manga clearly said that Hades born as Pandora's younger brother. And shown in manga that all the gods existed before 13years ago either physically like Hypnose etc. and spirirtually like Poseidon and Hades, that's not a controdiction. You have no bases to proove that I am wrong, why don't you provide the fact that I modify the words in manga and proove that manga clearly stated, with out a doubt that the spirit possessed Saga IS Hades?!?!?Yajaec 23:34, 1 November 2006 (UTC) Your dispute over Saint SeiyaHello! My name is Kurt Weber, and I have agreed to assist User:Yajaec as an advocate in his dispute with you over the Saint Seiya article. In order to let tempers cool down, I am asking that both of you agree to refrain from editing this article until the matter is settled. As a show of good faith, Yajaec has agreed to let the article stand as you wish it (this does not, of course, preclude third parties from making their own changes to the article). You should know that I am not trying to prove the substance of Yajaec's edits "right" in any way--in fact, I know next to nothing about anime or manga. So you don't need to try to prove your case to me; that's not what I'm concerned with. All I'm concerned with is making sure that this matter is settled in a mature and intelligent fashion, regardless of what content winds up in the article. I think you misunderstand the purpose of the RfC Yajaec filed on that article. He wasn't necessarily trying to find people to back him up; he was simply trying to determine what the community consensus is--whether it agrees with his point, your point, or something altogether different from what both of you want at present. Whatever that consensus is, he is willing to follow it--and, as a good Wikipedian, you should be too. While you are always free to try and change a consensus, you must allow the article to reflect whatever the consensus is at any given moment. Yajaec was simply inviting the Wikipedia community at large to come together and arrive at a consensus, whatever it might be, so that this dispute may be resolved peacefully and quietly. Finally, your threat of "proper vandalism warnings" should Yajaec continue to edit the article in the manner he preferred was most unnecessary. While a good case could probably be made that he was edit warring, the same case would apply to you as well--it takes two to tangle. And at any rate, what he did certainly was not "vandalism". Simply adding content that you deem inappropriate or incorrect (or removing content you deem appropriate or correct) does not constitute "vandalism"--it must be added (or removed) in bad faith, which clearly is not the case here. Hopefully you can understand this, and keep what arguments you must have in context. Feel free to contact me if you have any questions about Yajaec's case or the dispute resolution process. Hopefully we can solve this quickly and amicably! Kurt Weber 18:21, 3 November 2006 (UTC) You misunderstand how Wikipedia works. It is not sufficient to simply claim victory and to declare that any further adding of content you consider false constitutes vandalism. Wikipedia works by creating a consensus among interested editors--and, as you and Yajaec appear to be the only interested editors to this point, you must both agree for a consensus to exist. Unless and until that happens, you can neither (a) claim that your version of the page is the only correct one, nor (b) claim that adding content you consider to be "misinformation" constitutes vandalism. Vandalism requires intent. One not must be simply be adding "misinformation" (your word); he must also honestly believe it to be false. That is absolutely not the case here. As you and Yajaec were clearly unable to come to a consensus among yourselves, Yajaec filed an RfC requesting a consensus on what should be contained in the article. This simply means that he was soliciting input from the Wikipedia community at large as to what the best way to write the article would be. Remember that, by choosing to be a Wikipedia editor, you are bound to honor whatever consensus the Wikipedia community comes to regarding article content. As I mentioned earlier, you are of course free to try and change that consensus--but you must allow the article to reflect the current consensus at any point in time. I urge you at least give the RfC a try--simply because Yajaec has been ineffective at convincing you of his arguments does not mean he is wrong. We all get a little thick-headed (myself included) when we're sure of ourselves, and sometimes it takes two or three different ways of presenting an argument before those who disagree with you find the one that gets through to you. Just give it a chance, that's all I'm asking. Help Yajaec see the RfC through to the end--clearly, you're both genuinely interested in making this article the best it can be. Finally, I do not need to understand the article's subject matter to be an effective advocate. Remember, it's not my job to figure out what the "correct" version of the page is--my job is simply to help editors come to a consensus as to what it is by guiding them through Wikipedia's dispute resolution process. Kurt Weber 22:01, 3 November 2006 (UTC) You claim it is indisputable proof; he clearly disagrees. That is the purpose of the RfC--to come to a community consensus about which is correct. Again, it is not enough for you to simply claim victory and then categorically revert any changes he may make. When there is a disagreement among editors, you solicit the input of the community as a whole. If you are unwilling to follow proper Wikipedia dispute resolution procedures, further action may be taken. Kurt Weber 13:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC) I don't think you understand quite what is required of you as a Wikipedian. First off, you must realize that this is a community effort. That means, among other things, that you may not "claim" ownership of articles. Your remark that you "will not allow" Yajaec to edit Saint Seiya unless it contains certain elements [1] indicates that you do indeed assert ownership over that article, a violation of WP:OWN. Furthermore, being right (if indeed you are--I don't know) does not free you from your obligation to work with others. You claim that the RfC for that article is "unnecessary" because all Yajaec has to do is cite sources that back him up. He believes he has done that. You claim he has not. The whole purpose of the RfC process is to resolve just such disputes between users. Unfortunately, no one uninvolved in the dispute has chosen to offer his input. This is regrettable; however, there are still several options available to resolve the dispute--but merely claiming "victory" and reverting any edits you disagree with is not one of them, regardless of how right you may be. Finally, I must insist that you stop referring to Yajaec's edits to that page as "Vandalism". Just because you are convinced you are right--and are convinced you have adequately demonstrated how right you are--does not make adding what you call "misinformation" vandalism. If malicious intent is not obvious--and it is not in this case--then you must show that he did indeed have malicious intent rather than being simply mistaken about a question of fact. If you continue referring to his edits as "vandalism" without showing this to be true, it may be considered a violation of WP:CIVIL. Kurt Weber 17:46, 9 November 2006 (UTC) The issue is not whether or not you consider it to be "misinformation", or whether or not it actually is "misinformation". The issue is: did the individual who added the content honestly believe it to be incorrect? You may be convinced that you have sufficiently proved that his edits are incorrect, but that is not sufficient--Wikipedia runs on consensus, not your assertions. The fact that Yajaec has agreed to refrain from editing the article until a consensus can be reached is a certain indicator of good faith--and the rest of the Wikipedia community will agree with me. If you continue to reject the need to find a consensus and instead simply deem your assertions sufficient, and if you continue to assume bad faith on the part of Yajaec and consider him to be a "vandal", you may very well find yourself blocked for violating Wikipedia's No Personal Attacks policy. Kurt Weber 21:00, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Aroon AloneHi there, i where just wondering how you got アルーン to Aroon, when the kanji means Aruun. RevertMay i know why you have revert in tomb raider : anniversary?. --SkyWalker 14:07, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Please see Talk:Dragon World dispute for your vote on whether we should keep the Human (Dragon World) article or have it merged into Dragon World. Thanks! Power level (Dragon Ball) 15:34, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
template tag with DaishokaioshinI don't know what's going on but please stop right now. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 00:23, 3 January 2007 (UTC) Replied on my talk page soi as to keep the discussion in one place. Although if you just stop there is no more to discuss. Theresa Knott | Taste the Korn 01:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC) It seems that the article is missing a few Dragon Ball power levels from the Daizenshuu. In the past, you claimed to have [owned/or still own] a Daizenshuu, is that correct? I'm pretty sure that the following power levels, which I shall list now, are from thoses file books. They are: Start of Dragon Ball Kid Goku: 10 Kid Goku (Oozaru): 100 Other official ones I'm sure I've seen before: Tao Pai Pai (before he became a cyborg):146 (When he was revived as a cyborg, I've seen that it was 189) Crane Hermit:120 Piccolo Daimaou (old): 201 Piccolo Daimaou (young): 260 =I don't remember exactly what all of his demon offspring's power levels were precisely.
Kid Gokû: 10 Gokû Ôzaru: 100 Kame Sennin/Jackie Chun: 139 Tsuru Sennin: 120 Gokû and Tenshinhan during the 22nd Tenkaichi Budôkai: 180 each Gokû and Piccolo Daimaô in their final fight: 260 each
Thanks for everything. I was wondering though...If it's not too much work for you, could you scan those power levels from your Daizenshuu and at the bottom of the Power level (Dragon Ball) page, place them as external links? It would be proof that all of those power levels are official, trustworthy, and not Original Research. Just a thought though... but perhaps, there is a website that has those Daizenshuu scans in Japanese, ain't there? Do you know of any site(s) that can be used as external links? PL(DB) 07:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
and here that I got from you and added to that PL (DB) article are considered spam because of having something to do with image shacking. I wouldn't know, though... but in order for there to be some kind of evidence that these power levels are 100% accurate, don't cha think that there should be some kind of external link at the bottom of the page? That way, several people can use the links as references and not have to ask any questions or find the need to change any of the levels of any of those characters. PL(DB) 17:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Well then, maybe ya should take a look at this...Hey, it's me Power level. Or I should say Bonjour, mon ami! Como c'est vai? Très bien! Très bien! (I only took French I in Secondary School, or as you'd call it, l'école secondaire) Anyways... maybe you saw how that I was just adding some more missing power levels from your Daizenshuu. I just realized, shouldn't the DB movie power levels be placed onto that article, PL (DB)? I don't have the Father of Goku, Broly, and any other DB movies except the Bojack film and Super Android 13 film DVD's. Maybe you can help add those movie power levels. If I recall correctly, Broli was born with a power level of 10,000. Burdock's power level was ≈10,000 (meaning approximately 10,000) which was mentioned in the special (I think) to be closer to King Vegeta's power level, which must have been 10,000 right? As for my user page, maybe you could just look through that and see if any of my guestimated power levels are correct. Now I'm not sayin' to use them as a reference, but see if anything else is right (which is not listed on the PL (DB) article). Ok? Thanks for your time, merci beaucoup! PL(DB) 16:00, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Reply: PL discussionOui, oui... well, in the Burdock movie special, I remember distinctly that when Burdock was recovering in that water chamber, either Malaka or Planthorr said something along the lines that: "he's recovering rapidly close to 10,000. That's almost King Vegeta's strength..." or something like that. Also, in the manga, Vegeta did say something along the lines to Freeza that he [Vegeta] was stronger than his father and had surpassed him when he was a child. For some reason, in the special, I also remember something like "Prince Vegeta's power level is 5,000." Either Nappa (the tall guy with hair in that special) said something like that, or I'm getting this from other source, or somewhere in my head :} Can you confirm all of these facts by watching the Japanese version of your Bardock: Father of Goku DVD with English subtitles on? (If ya haven't already done so, of course) Also, Vegeta's power level being close to 250,000 when fighting Freeza's first form sounds innaccurate. If anything, it was closer to being ≈530,000 rather than 250,000. If you recall, Vegeta was able to evenly match Freeza in his first form. Doesn't that mean that 250,000 is a little too weak of a power level to combat 530,000? Also Vegeta being closer to the 2 millions after being healed by Dende does sound like a guestimation. If ya really want my opinion on it, I'd say it was a hell of a lot closer to the 3 millons or something. Anyways, I'll let you decide on that. Oh yeah, get back to me on that Burdock and Broly thing. Then we'll add those power levels in the order they should be added. Definitely, we'll have to add Broly's power level at birth (10,000), as well as Son Goku's birth power (which is a mere level 2). PL(DB) 19:41, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
Yajirobe: 180 (from being able to match Kid Goku [180] evenly in their first encounter) - {just a thought...} Karin: 180 (from caluculation) Why Karin you ask? Because remember when Kid Goku asked Karin to train him to fight King Piccolo? Karin said something in the series like this "You gained as much power as I've ever had". You remember that, right? That's why Karin couldn't train him to battle King Piccolo. Anyways, I really hope you go back online Wikipedia so we could chat more about this. Where are you?... ... PL(DB) 15:13, 9 January 2007 (UTC) If you recall this message: About the movie, I've not seen much of them (unedited/subbed, anyway), I only have the "Burdock Special" DVD...In it, they do say that Burdock is "about 10,000" so we can add it, yes. Also, Gokû as a newborn baby is said to be 2. As for the other movie, I don't know yet. Broli is said to be 10,000 at birth, but that's really all I know for sure. Concerning King Vegeta, I don't remember anything being said about him in the Burdock Special or anywhere. But know we're talking about it, I think Vegeta said somewhere he was already stronger than his father, but I don't remember when it was. Concerning your guesstimations, they seem valid. Anyway, while we're at it, concerning Vegeta against Freeza, I've always thought he was like 250,000 when he fought against Freeza 1, and then 2 millions against Freeza 4. What do you think about it? Why did ya never respond to it again even though I responded back? (I noticed you started editing Wikipedia again on Jan. 13.) Anyways, we should add those movie power levels, Karin's, Yajirobi's, etc. immediately, right mon ami? (Power level (Dragon Ball) 19:20, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Forgot to say somethin'
WikiProject FranceHello! We are a group of editors working to improve the quality of France related articles. You look like someone who might be interested in joining us in the France WikiProject and so I thought I'd drop you a line and invite you! We'd love to have you in our project :-) STTW (talk) 16:14, 14 January 2007 (UTC) PL (DB) CommentI don't know if ya still wanna participate in this, but if ya want to, see Talk:Power level (Dragon Ball)#Okay, let's get these power levels right!, thanks! Power level (Dragon Ball) 19:01, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
But wait, you have the uncut DVD right? Yours doesn't feature King Vegeta in it? How strange... Power level (Dragon Ball) 22:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
WikiProjectHey Folken, would you be interested in joining our Wikiproject? Wikipedia:WikiProject Dragon Ball -- bulletproof 3:16 02:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC) GeocitiesI have nothing against Geocities but it isn't a reliable source. Why don't you just source the info the the DVD itself using {{cite video}}, instead of repeatedly adding the geocities cite †he Bread 3000 22:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Hey, you speak Portuguese too?I noticed that you've been editing the Power level page on the Portuguese Wikipedia. I've also noticed that there is a vandal on that page and that you constantly warned him with the same warning to not put OR levels there and yet he still continued. Are there no other test warnings on that Wiki? Are there even any administrators on the Portuguese Wikipedia to stop those vandals? By the way, I'm Brazilian! :} Power level (Dragon Ball) 01:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
3RRIf you haven't already, please familliarise yourself with our three revert rule. -- Steel 19:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC) Daizenshuu and Son Goku's height.Hello, nice to meet you. I'm here to ask you of a question which needs Daizenshuu to be solved. Power level (Dragon Ball) recommended me to ask you because you have Daizenshuu. Of course other users also are welcomed to talk about this together. So here it goes. There are many opinions about Goku's height. Some say 5'11", some say 6', and others say 6'2". But these are only 'guesses' and I think only Daizenshuu can truly answer to this question. According to my search on the internet, I got a conclusion that the answer would surely be either 5 feet 7 inches(170.2cm) or 175cm. Here's the reason why I got to think so. In the US wikipedia site(here), some users strongly insisted and concluded that Son Goku's height is 5'7". They said the English Daizenshuu says so. Therefore, I thought at first, 5'7" would be the answer. However, as I searched the Japanese websites(I can somewhat speak Japanese), I found an intersting thing. The Japanese wikipedia page claimed Goku's height is 175cm! Every Japanese private DB homepages I went also said Goku's height is 175cm. Not even one exception. Of course wikipedia and the all Japanese homepages could be wrong. But it is very probable that some of those Japanese wikipedia users or Japanese homepage makers too, have Japanese Daizenshuu considering DB was born in Japan and the users and DB site hosts are also greatly interested in Dragonball. So, I became very confused. What I thought about this is that there could have been an error in translating Japanese Daizenshuu to English Daizenshuu. However, I'm not even sure the English Daizenshuu really is saying that Goku's height is 5'7" and the Japanese Daizenshuu really is saying that Goku's height is 175cm because I don't have any Daizenshuus. Therefore, I would like you to tell me FULL GROWN GOKU'S HEIGHT as the Daizenshuu says. Thank you very much. --Hilight 02:39, 9 February 2007 Regarding reversions[2] made on February 11 2007 to Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. Cbrown1023 talk 14:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Please note that the above is a formal notification by the 3RR Abuse Noticeboard. Cbrown1023 talk 00:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC) Deathly HallowsHi Folken, I was reading through the now very long and tortuous chat page, and wondered how exactly you would rewrite the offending section about the meaning of hallows. There is a complication which perhaps I am silly to introduce, in that I think the section ought to go back to its original title,'meaning of deathly hallows'. We ought to be explaining 'deathly' also. But if I can put that aside for a moment (though am interested in your views), how would you organise the section, if entirely up to you? Do you object to having a longer section explaining hallows in legends? I understand that there is at least one other mention of a set of thirteen Arthurian hallows, as distinct to four (according to mugglenet, ahem, they are ahead of us in factual content). I am not convinced that the content here is complete or accurate as it might be. Would you be happy if the section manages to present a range of different hallows? (Though I am not sure there exist any further examples, but perhaps we might say there is a celtic/arthurian set of four, and another Arthurian set of 13?) Do you object to including a reference to lexicon or others where they present their version of the name meaning? Sandpiper 20:54, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, okay, I've reverted myself. My apologies; it appeared that you weren't opposed to the new version, but you obviously are. Trebor 07:31, 6 March 2007 (UTC) Restored Comments, Deathly HallowsPlease be my guest to draw the matter to the attention of anyone you want. I myself showed the section I restored to a friend of mine because I was beginning to wonder whether the debate was stretching credibility. I was glad to find that my own interpretation of your comments was confirmed by the second opinion. Please feel free to restore any further comments you wish, but also please do not selectively edit restored text to alter its meaning. I made no error in comprehending your original postings, which I believe anyone would have understood to mean, insert the piece above, unblock the page, and then we can all continue editing in the normal way. It may be that you did not mean this, but it is certainly what you said. Sandpiper 21:03, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I am right. Wiki cares not at all whether a theory is right or wrong, whether it is substantiated by sensible research or is frankly ludicrous. All it officially cares about is whether someone else thought of it and it is held by a significant group of people. Sandpiper 20:14, 13 March 2007 (UTC) Black family treeHi, I am minded that perhaps I need to explain my edits to details of the text more precisely. to take things in the order they appear in the text. Observing that the relationship being debated would make James and Sirius 2nd cousins is not OR. It is essentially stating the same information in a different way, but which makes it clearer to the reader why this is important. If James=Charlus' son, then automatically James=Sirius cousin. It makes no assertion not implicit in the relationship being discussed. 'However, J. K. Rowling...'. When I write things I often use 'however', and then reading it over go through and strike them all out as unnecessary repetition. 'However' is used to start a sentence which makes a point which contradicts something said just before in the text. In this case, what Rowling says does not contradict what is stated before. Writing 'J.K Rowling has not commented' is a completely neutral way of stating that she has said nothing. It does not imply she supports the idea, nor that she refutes it. It just explains that she has not commented. If you place a 'however' in front, it implies that Rowling has somehow denied the point going before by not commenting, which is untrue. The neutral form of writing does not attempt to make an argument. Use of 'however' here is incorrect. 'Directly'. Rowling has commented indirectly. An indirect comment is one which says something about the subject under discussion, but does not address the main point. In this case, the main point is whether James is Charlus' son. She has not commented on this. However, she has given a description of James parents, which fits (or arguably fails to fit) Charlus and Dorea. Thus she has commented indirectly on the relationship, because she has given us some information which is relevant to this question. So you cannot write that she has not commented, because that is untrue. She has commented indirectly. 'Currently'. Currently is an unnecessary word which does not add to the text, and implies something not quite accurate. Either Rowling has commented, or she has not. She can not have 'currently' commented today, then tomorrow 'currently' not have commented, then the next day 'currently' have commented again. Currently implies something capable of changing. Yes, she might comment, but then that would be it. She could not then un-comment. Currently is normally used to describe something capable of changing state backwards and forwards. 'Runner number 1 is currently in the lead'. Equally to the point, currently is a tautology, because it only tries to tell us something which the other words in the sentence tell us already. If it says Rowling has not commented, then obviously that is how things are now, the current state. It does not need to say 'she has currently not commented', because that is the the same as just saying 'she has not commented'. Sandpiper 19:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC) Excuse meWhy did you delete the section I wrote about Cancer Deathmask? I did provide evidence & links to support what I said. Also, I wouldn't exactly call a paragraph about an old cartoon character an, as you put it, "blatant Original Research and personal essay". I happen to be an astrologer myself, & was pointing out one way of many that the show doesn't match true astrology. BlockYou have been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring on Horcrux. You are also warned about edit warring on Regulus Black. Please take the time to review our WP:3RR policy, and note that a content dispute, or dispute about sourcing, does not justify violating WP:3RR (except in WP:BLP cases, which this is not). I hope you come back to editing with a better understanding of our rules, and refrain from edit warring, even when you are convinced your edits are correct. Thanks, Crum375 19:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC) Granger MaterialsI really can't see what the use of fan theories in article, even if seperated from the main content. I mean, Wikipedia is not supposed to be a crystall ball, right ? Original research cannot be accepted unless it comes from a reliable source, and a reliable source is still self-published material with no fact-checking, right ? So, does this mean Wikipedia has become a new kind of message board dedicated to unsubstanciated theories ? I mean, now it's obvious articles exist only for speculation...Folken de Fanel 21:47, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Update
Michael and Folken and Sandpiper (etc).: The rules for writing articles about fiction are discussed at WP:Notability (fiction) and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction) and at related articles linked there. Please step back, and take some time to study those policies and guidelines at your earliest convenience. The policy on writing about fiction states: "Plot summaries. Wikipedia articles on works of fiction should contain real-world context and sourced analysis, offering detail on a work's achievements, impact or historical significance, not solely a summary of that work's plot. A plot summary may be appropriate as an aspect of a larger topic.". Mr. Granger's work would qualify as sourced analysis, I believe. I agree that Granger's work is speculative and original research, but it is NOT original research or speculative for us to discuss his analyses in the articles, with proper sourcing for verifiability. He is not just any fan, so this does NOT open the door to just anyone posting their original research. The Wikipedia policy not only ALLOWS us to present critical analyses of works of fiction, it essentially REQUIRES us to do so, to make good articles. --T-dot (Talk | contribs) 19:35, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
HorcruxFolken, just because I haven't replied your screeds today doesn't imply that the issue is over. It isn't, there is no reason for you to begin an edit war there by removing text. Stop it. Rest assured that I will be returning to the discussion once I have dealt with other matters. Michael Sanders 18:50, 3 April 2007 (UTC) You have been blocked 48 hoursYou have been blocked 48 hours for violating the 3 revert rule on Horcrux. --WoohookittyWoohoo! 10:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC) 3RR (2)Folken, I've reported you on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR for violation of the 3-revert rule on Horcrux. Michael Sanders 23:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC) Alternate titlesHi Folken. I was wandering what information you have regarding what the alternative titles of the book were? Sandpiper 23:06, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
There are still some problems with your suggestion.
The relevance of past registered titles containing the word hallows is exactly that. that they contain the word. It is an interesting fact. Why do you object to mentioning it? wiki is not paper? Sandpiper 09:45, 9 April 2007 (UTC) I'm sorry Folken, but you are not properly reflecting the use of the quote from the representative in context. Immediately before the quote, the mugglenet article refers to just two other titles. At that point in the writing only two alternative titles have been mentioned, and on the basis of precisely what is written there 'the titles' refers to the two titles 'heart of ravenclaw', and 'deadly veil'. The person goes on to say that they often register 'spares', but he makes no comment in this quote about whether any other particular titles registered in the past were real or not. I do not doubt that they have registered many other invalid titles, but that does not say they have not registered other possible ones also. The quote therefore says nothing about whether any particular earlier titles were valid or made up. The other titles are certainly not excluded by this comment, I agree, but they also do not contain the word 'hallow' which is their unique relevance to this article. whether they were made up or not really doesnt matter, the word is what is interesting. As to fansite accuracy, how can you say that with a straight face when you are two lines above suggesting we should rely on a quote from one? Sandpiper 08:28, 12 April 2007 (UTC) 3RR (again)Just reported you for 3RR violation on Deathly Hallows. Will you stop doing this? How can someone who keeps quoting rules be so forgetfull about this one? Sandpiper 12:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC) 3RR Violation warning You recently were engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you made on Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you resume, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. In fact, you clearly violated the 3RR. Had I seen the report while the reverts were still going on, I would have blocked you. But since you have not edited that page in over 2 days, a block now would be punitive, not prevntative. Note that the WP:3RR forbids revertign more than 3 times in any 24 hour period, even if thre is a 12 or 16 hour gap between two of the reverts, and even if the matter is discussed on the talk page, unless possibly the final revert is the result of a compromise or agreement between teh editors involved. If this happens again, on any article, you will be blocked. DES (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2007 (UTC) claim that representatives of Rowling denied Hogwarts Hallows or Hallows of Hogwarts were possible titles.Folken, I see that you have again edited the article and inserted the above claim. Mugglenet do not claim that this is the case. Please read what they wrote more carefully. I think you would also find that you might have more success in arguing points on wikipedia if you endeavour more to understand the full meaning of what you read. I noted that you protested against violating 3RR because the edits had been 12 or more hours apart. This is exactly another example of what I mean. The rule says 'in 24 hours'. Not what you might wish it to say. This applies to all rules on wiki. Read what they actually say instead of trying to make them mean something else. Sandpiper 22:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
RABFolken, you know perfectly well that the location of the locket etc etc has been discussed thoroughly on the Horcrux article, and we have agreed there that prcisely the same information is sourced and includeable. I know you have not agreed this, butr others have. So please do not claim that you believe it unsourced. You are not entitled to delete material simply because it has no source listed, only if it is not possible to source it. In this case, the material is not only sourceable, but already sourced. While on the subject of RAB, I notice that you self reverted to avoid 3RR. Please note, that this was rather pointless since you did not revert all your reversion, but therefore still reverted one passage four times in 24 hours. Another unfortunate mistake? Sandpiper 19:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Evangelion characters articleFolken, since you're one of the most active editors to the various Eva-related articles, I thought I'd contact you directly about this issue. Do you agree with the action that I propose? Please get back to me. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:46, 18 April 2007 (UTC) mission impossible.There's really nothing that i can do. I agree with you, but those guys run in packs. Anything i try to say will just be shot down. You can try Requesting Full Protection and them asking for a peer review and stuff like that. I'm sorry. Wikipedia is just an imperfect system sometimes... dposse 18:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC) ReponseYah, well, after looking over the issue, I realized that section was a large connection of disjointed ideas, and after more research, I realized that the best thing to do was just to remove the whole bit, it's all really original research. I do think now though there's at least some semblance of the section that flows now, but that section's just had way too many hot points, it seems like every week there's a new edit war going on about that section... Tuvas 20:42, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from R.A.B.. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. Funpika 22:47, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Re: Michael SandersI not sure why you don't understand that templates and edit warring aren't the way to solve problems. Please try and do something constructive and stop relying on blind faith in policy. John Reaves (talk) 20:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
3RR (how many times is this?) RABjust a note that I have once again reported you for violation of 3RR, this time on RAB. Sandpiper 23:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC) BlockedThe duration of the block is 24 hours. Here are the reverts in question. alphachimp 00:03, 24 April 2007 (UTC)  Folken de Fanel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log)) Request reason: Merely reverting unsourced content vandalism and spam in external links. The 3RR report is false, there are 23 hours between the first set of reverts reported. Besides, asking for User:Sandpiper to be blocked because he's constantly edit warring, and even 3 consecutive reverts can be a motive for block, and that's his case. Decline reason: You were blocked for violating WP:3RR. 3RR policy says that 3RR is not applicable when a user is reverting clear vandalism. This was not the case, as the other user's edits were legitimate and definitely not a clear case of vandalism. Please familiarize yourself with WP:3RR. Nishkid64 (talk) 21:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC) If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
MediatorHello My username is Bapti and I am a mediator ("Wikipompier" is literally "wiki-fireman" in English) on the French-language Wikipedia. I will try to solve the problems on the articles devoted to Harry Potter. Please indicate the modifications, additions and deletions you wish to see done on the articles on this page (it would be preferable if you wrote in French).--Bapti 13:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC) Bonjour Je m'appelle Bapti et je suis un médiateur sur la Wikipédia francophone. Je vais essayer de résoudre les problèmes sur les articles consacrés à Harry Potter. Merci d'indiquer sur cette page les modifications, ajouts et suppressions que vous souhaitez pour les articles (de préférence en Français).--Bapti 13:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC) Tomb Raider AnniversaryJust to clear up any confusion, I'm not denying the existence of a Wii version. It already states in the article that there is a Wii version. What that person put in the article was that "the next week" following June 8, 2006 (mentioned in the previous paragraph), Eidos announced a Wii version. That is not true. They announced the Wii version only recently. ColdFusion650 20:30, 16 May 2007 (UTC) John GrangerJe préfère que vous n'utilisiez pas ma page d'utilisateur pour continuer votre argument avec Sandpiper - je lui ai simplement posé une question, parce que je voulais lire la fin du débat avec le pompier. C'était moi, comme vous le savez très bien, qui ai commencé (ou au moins, qui ai essayé de commencer...) le débat sur le 'talk page' de l'article 'Regulus Black' pour décider si l'on garde le paragraphe qui commence par 'The series has been noted as following several patterns...' J'ai tant de respet pour les gens, comme vous, qui prennent le temps de contribuer aux articles sur Wikipedia, mais de tout ce que j'ai vu, votre comportement laisse à désirer de temps en temps. Je vous informe, donc, que si je vois un seul nouveau message de votre part sur ma page, qui ne me concerne pas directement, ou qui fait partie de votre argument avec Sandpiper, je déposerai une plainte contre vous. Merci. Libatius 11:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC) RABPlease see Talk:R.A.B.--Jac16888 12:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC) and btw, when you are engaging in a content dispute with another user, you are not supposed to give them vandalism warnings. Re:Deathly hallowsCould you please give me the link to the debate where the consensus has been achieved? Thank you. Peacent 01:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
(indent reduced) It was very nice of you to leave the mention of MuggleNet book where it was, I did notice that. All the same, I don't feel comfortable with other relevant information being removed, thus I reverted your edits, not blindly, though I acknowledge I was rather rough. Naturally, I am willing to talk my edits over and always open to any ensuing debate. When I wrote you last week, I only touched on the book because at the time I thought it was the only thing that could possibly be considered irrelevant. "irrelevant" is the exact word you used in the edit summary. The other data, as a matter of fact, is undoubtedly relevant, which is why I didn't lay my justification down properly. I must say I'm surprised you find this information irrelevant, why irrelevant, could you please elaborate? Both the quote and the report of fan theories on the title are clearly related to book 7. Of course, if your pretext for the removal is PoV violation, then it is a different matter. First, "...I love [fan] theories more than I can possibly say...", it is a quote from the author and properly sourced. I don't mind the purpose of the editor who originally wrote this information, and fan guesswork in other articles has nothing to do with Deathly Hallows. This material is relevant and accurate to be placed in this article. Your argument about dispute elsewhere is rather unfair. As for the choice of title, let's say, yes, I changed my mind. Given that our readers are not all specialists in Harry Potter, there are still some people on earth who are unaware of Harry Potter and all the news, stories, etc about this series. As I'm writing now, if they take a look at the Deathly Hallows article, the title "Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows " in their minds will be just another normal title of a book. We should not carry the risk that there might readers who have read this entire article but still have no idea how special "Deathly Hallows" is. Deathly Hallows is an unusual title that has received enormous attention and caused widespread speculation. "The release of the title has resulted in considerable speculation as to its possible meanings.", such statement is an absolute fact, you shouldn't by any means refute the huge fan speculation. Nowhere else in the article do we have a description on this considerable speculation by fans, I honestly cannot get why you are so determined to remove this one sentence. With this information, I'm not trying to prove that speculation must turn out to be correct, but theories are meant to reach some particular points of view, they always do. Now, about the archive 13 discussion, I already read it, then again, I don't find the consensus among all editors. Consensus isn't determined by the number of editors who are in favour of something, and your arguments didn't outweigh that of the other party. Best, Peacent 01:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC) HorcruxYou are quite possibly right about the sources. However, I'll assume that the sources are reliable untill proven otherwise. As I mentioned to Sandpiper, I really have no idea how widespread a theory is, so I'm at the mercy of what people tell me on that one!--NeoNerd 12:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
Regulas BlackI really like the new title! :) Cheers AngielaJ 13:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC) Old 3RR reportRegarding this old 3RR report about the Harry Potter book article, the edit war seems to have cooled, but please let me know on my talk page if you want someone to mediate or need admin intervention.--Chaser - T 20:02, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
Hi there!It's been long since you edited any of the Saint Seiya pages, where have you been? ^^ --Refuteku - T 13:17, 1 July 2007 (UTC) Horcrux edithttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Horcrux&diff=143279448&oldid=143273104 What was wrong with the addition I made? Why has it been removed without comment? Aside from the specific issue could you please use edit summeries.Geni 19:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC) Solid SnakeHis name is David if you played otacons ending of MGS4 he says his name is David,and He says he lives in Alaska when he spoke to Liquid on codec a.k.a Master. Please try to remain civil. This is a pretty large section; I had the article on my watchlist and this reversion stood out because it said that an entire section was removed, so I reverted it as it seemed to be pretty simple vandalism (you left no other comment but "removed"). I am sorry if this was actually intended to be a serious edit, but please consider improving the text rather than removing it. It even cites multiple sources. Melsaran (formerly Salaskаn) 03:46, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
3RROh, and before I forget... Fansubs stuffPlease specify the exact Wiki policy that bars mention of fansubs. As far as I know, there is none, as a series' distribution method is considered of encyclopedic value. So please stop removing information. Also, please be careful not to break the 3RR rule. Buspar 21:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC) Check the project talk page - I think most of your edits are actually justified, but we might want to talk the issue out a bit before things get heated. Doceirias 22:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
August 2007
Dispute about Shonan Junai Gumi articlePlease respond here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shonan_Junai_Gumi I am not aware of any Wikipedia policies that forbid the mention that an anime is being fansubbed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackgaine (talk • contribs) 12:30, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Potter family.Hi Folken. I've taken out disagreement to Talk:Blood purity (Harry Potter) in an attempt to find consensus. Your input would, of course, be appreciated. Cheers, faithless (speak) 13:59, 4 September 2007 (UTC) DBZ movieHey, stop with the personal attacks. i didn't do anything wrong. since dragonballz live action film page doesn't belong, instead of deleting it, i redirected it to this article and added a section for dragonball z live action film page. -cman7792 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cman7792 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
I had tried to initiate discussion with you earlier, but you removed my comment. I am hard-pressed to have discussion with you since you do not seem willing to hear me out. Are you willing to do so now? —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
Final comment of the night: I requested for Cman to remove the film section from Dragon Ball Z temporarily until the AfD process goes through. We'll have to continue our hard-headed discussion involving references sometime soon! :-P —Erik (talk • contrib) - 01:35, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Any chance you can stop exchanging words with Cman? I've already tried to ask him to stop, since it's obvious both of your minds are set on the matter. It's not productive discussion for the AfD process at all. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:06, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Discussion about Variety and Dragon Ball Z, seeing that our conflict is just going to carry over to the source material's article. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 12:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC) AnimeSuki wikipage changementsHi, I noticed you changed the AnimeSuki wiki page. The links you say so-called illegal, isn't true. The external links are providing access to the torrent trackers that affiliate with AnimeSuki. Please don't remove them again as they should be standing there. There is nothing illegal about them too. Reply to discussion: Thanks for shetting a light about the editting on AnimeSuki. It is indeed I got licensed anime on my site, but also unlicensed for the fansub groups. Thus in Europe and the Netherlands there are other rules regarding BitTorrent files. As these arn't copyrighted by their owners, but make it possible to share files. Thus I think the American laws are flawed as hell, but o well, only in America right ;) P.S.: Your talking about US laws, why does the wikipedia say "English" on the frontpage instead of "American" ? Shouldn't it be falling under the British laws ? 2nd reply: Thanks for your information Folken. Thing is still, even if it is "copyright infrigment", torrents arn't copyright infrigment. That is what the whole USA law is failing about, as torrents arn't copyrighted at all. Hash data you can't copyright, and there will always be a way to make it even more harder to proof its copyright useness. Anyhow, my tracker offers torrents, and no direct downloads to the copyrighted material and as stated in EU, it is legal (for some it's grey cause of all the scaring-off people with their torrent trackers, but those arn't anime related at all, see example PirateBay.)
Blood purityDo not tell me what I'm "going" to do. Weasley family has long held that the Potter children are pure blood. No one has disputed this, save for random IP editors who will occasionally change it to read half blood (and as these IP editors also frequently change Harry Potter (character), Albus Dumbledore and Lord Voldemort to say that they're full blood, I think we can disregard their input). You're attempting to change something within an article where you are clearly the minority voice, and you haven't even attempted to gain consensus on the talk page. Regardless of who is right, you are clearly going about this the wrong way. Instead of engaging in an edit war where you are the only one arguing a certain point, why not try to gain consensus for your views? If you change the article against consensus, you will be reverted. faithless (speak) 00:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC) Why have you been removing the reference to Sailor Moon Uncensored? The same page we're citing has been also cited by a peer-reviewed academic paper, so your concerns about its reliability are confusing. link to abstract of paper Please discuss this on the Talk:List of Sailor Moon episodes page. Cheers mate. -Malkinann 20:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Re: A personal attackHere is the explanation, enjoy. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:25, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
DaizenshuuAh, thank you! Onikage725 (talk) 14:00, 21 November 2007 (UTC) Last time you undid Faithlesswonderboy's edit you broke the three revert rule. For you own sake you should revert yourself. Cheers. -Yamanbaiia (talk) 13:22, 26 November 2007 (UTC) Centralized TV Episode DiscussionOver the past months, video games and TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a few) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [3]. --Maniwar (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC) Daizenshū and TienI've been informed that you have a copy of the Daizenshū. I would like to ask a favor of you. Could you please check if it says Tien is a human or an alein. We need some help in the Tien page. Some sources state that he is a human being who became enlightened and that is why he has a third eye, but someone claims the Daizenshū says he is a decedent of an alein. Respond on my page when you get a chance. If you can't check it that's ok but please respond and let me know. No Rush, and thanks in advance. - Prede (talk) 00:11, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
BSSBSS is not an "illegal website," the reference is valid and there should probably be an article on the group anyway. I'm putting it back. --iriseyestalk 03:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
PetabyteHello, You've deleted our Benchmark from Petabyte section. This is NOT system of future use. It is already used by financial institutions and governments world-wide, and it is available for purchase from either us (BMMsoft) or Sybase, or Sun Microsystems and (for you to verify) I've included Sun's link showing available hardware. NOTE: This was not done in order to promote the product but to prove that system is already available. Cheers and Best Regards Fauxstar (talk) 07:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC) BMMsoft Lilin vs LilimThank you for your recent edits correcting the "Lilin+" thing from Rebuild of Eva 1.0 : I've put it to vote as an official standardization/convention on the Eva workgroup page. Yes, the appearance of "Lilin" in the credits of Rebuild of Eva seems to confirm that its not "Lilim" as we previously thought. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 20:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC) Edit summarysPlease make sure your edit summarys reflect what you have actually done. It's not a revert if you've changed the reverted text and replaced a reference with a more reliable one Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:24, 29 March 2009 (UTC) Additional information needed on Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alyson BurajiruHello. Thank you for filing Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Alyson Burajiru. This is an automated notice to inform you that the case is currently missing a code letter, which indicates to checkusers why a check is valid. Please revisit the page and add this. Sincerely, SPCUClerkbot (talk) 11:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC) MGS5 sourceI'm not sure if you're getting the information firsthand or secondhand (I'll admit I'm be getting it secondhand), but a few Japanese sites clearly state that its the May 29 issue of the Weekly edition[4]. If you knew that the source was Famitsu PS3+PSP in the first place, then it was your job to adequately cited as such to begin with. When most people think of Famitsu, they think of WEEKLY Famitsu by default and I'm not even sure if Famitsu PS3 are the first to publish scoops like these. Jonny2x4 (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2009 (UTC) RE:MGS NextSorry, I stand corrected and I apologize if my initial edit comment seem a bit judgmental (I'm used to dealing with users who cite Famitsu as a source without stating which edition of the publication and which issue they're sourcing. I mistook Famitsu PSP+PS3 for the the July 28 issue of Weekly Famitsu, which was actually the issue that revealed the countdown site. I apologize again and wish you a nice day. :) Jonny2x4 (talk) 23:56, 28 May 2009 (UTC) TMNT premiere dateHi I'd like to thank you for chaning the premiere date on the original TMNT cartoon. I really appreciate it. I know it didn't premiere on 12/28/87. It premiered before that. Thank you very much. Drop me a line if you have anything to say. Heegoop, 8 June 2009 (UTC) One more thing I changed the airdates on the episode list as well. The way you and I like it. Heegoop, 10 June 2009 (UTC) Eva stuffApparently the romanization rules make it "Evangerion" no matter what because that's how all anime series names are written; I think its kind of nonsensical but it cannot be fought. At any rate we need to start trying to take out stuff from articles that keeps getting them tagged; my suggestion was that we start off on the Asuka article, and try to make a specific list on the Talk page of this is specifically what's too-Original Research, etc. Lets start with Asuka and use that as an example. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 01:02, 17 July 2009 (UTC) Why?Why did you delete the paragraph that I wrote in Fansub? It wasn't vandalism. NarSakSasLee (talk) 15:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC) But what I said was true. I thought it was basic knowledge. NarSakSasLee (talk) 21:42, 11 August 2009 (UTC) Sorry. Neither I know Japanese, but that material would help a lot. Try requesting help in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga since there are a few users there who know Japanese.Tintor2 (talk) 15:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
NGE discussion about anime and mangathe manga is pretty famous, whether your opinion would like to differ. i'm not trying to fight with you, i'm trying to tell you that opinion should not be a major matter in Wiki. the fact is the manga was pretty famous aswell, and the fact that bookstores still sell there mangas means that they are very notable and important to the series.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:32, 11 September 2009 (UTC) oh and we already agreed that the DVD cover of nge will be used. so there's no point arguing about whether the image should be used even though it was the first piece of promotional work of nge series.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
A note about your talk pageI highly recommend that you start archiving your talk page. It has messages from 2006, and it would be much easier to read if you archived old conversations. The Arbiter★★★ 15:06, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
againWhat you said might be true, might not, either way, it had nothing to do with the discussion. and saying V is a bad guy just proves my point. LIke i said, i hate you as a person, but i'm nto going to do anything to you as a contributor. i meant well, and you know that. so why not you stop acting like this and take it as a concern.
Yes you have, constantly putting me down in discussions and getting frustrated and saying your leaving when you just come back. i accused you of uncivility even then but you didn't even deny at the time. this is the very very problem with you inside Wikipedia. you assume the worst in people, in me, in V, and it's not really professional. you think I'm hiding but I'm as open as i can possibly be on Wikipedia. saying that means I'm actually limiting my personality in wiki and sometimes it leaks out. and i apologize for that. i'll let this slide, but for now, i'll just give you a piece of advice. simply "assume good faith and well meaning" no matter what. Don't assume someone is hiding to get something out of something else or someone is trying to gang up on you.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC) ALso just to let you know that you stopped talking in WP:EVA even though, we were having a much comforting conversation. whether you dislike me or not depends on if you return there.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC) AfD reply You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. NotificationJfgslo has started an RFC on whether it would be appropriate to merge or redirect an article that you recently participated in an AFD for. Please join the discussion so that we may try to form a consensus at a centralized location. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:24, 26 May 2011 (UTC) Of possible interestSee ([5]) and ([6]). Regards. Thebladesofchaos (talk) 03:01, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Your invitation to participate in a Wikimedia-approved survey in online behavior.Hello, my name is Michael Tsikerdekis[8], currently involved as a student in full time academic research at Masaryk University. I am writing to you to kindly invite you to participate in an online survey about interface and online collaboration on Wikipedia. The survey has been reviewed and approved by the Wikimedia Foundation Research Committee. I am contacting you because you were randomly selected from a list of active editors. The survey should take about 7 to 10 minutes to complete, and it is very straightforward. Wikipedia is an open project by nature. Let’s create new knowledge for everyone! :-) To take part in the survey please follow the link: www.urcity.com/survey/index.php?user=81538917. Best Regards, --Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 11:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC) PS: The results from the research will become available online for everyone and will be published in an open access journal. UPDATE: This is the second and final notification for participating in this study. Your help is essential for having concrete results and knowledge that we all can share. I would like to thank you for your time and as always for any questions, comments or ideas do not hesitate to contact me. --Michael Tsikerdekis (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2012 (UTC)
TalkbackMessage added 21:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template. SudoGhost 21:54, 12 June 2012 (UTC) Raaaar D&DHey, FdF. I just wanted to throw my two cents in regarding your developing pattern of hostility with D&D monsters and whatnot at AfD and on people's talk pages. I don't think you're nearly as wrong as a lot of people do, but it's pretty clear that you're getting way frothy about it, and I haven't seen that end well for anybody who isn't named Malleus Fatuorum. I really recommend a step back, a deep breath, and less construction of contrary opinions as reflecting people's belonging to monolithic labels. —chaos5023 (talk) 19:09, 22 June 2012 (UTC) Thanks for the invite on the Lamia merge topic, I recommend you take part in the WP:NOT discussion about fixing GAMEGUIDE.--Joshuaism (talk) 13:03, 25 June 2012 (UTC) Edit warringI realize you don't want any D&D articles on Wikipedia, but given your history of warnings and blocks for edit warring, you should rethink your methods. You boldly redirected articles; you were reverted. That means you now need to use the talk pages to discuss your proposed edits. Immediately re-reverting is unacceptable no matter how much you hate the articles in question. Joefromrandb (talk) 11:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC) Please create some contentCompare these two lists: article space and everything else. Maybe you should go create some content, instead of spending all your time on Wikipedia trying to eliminate it. You have added literally nothing to this encyclopedia in years. —Torchiest talkedits 01:35, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
The baseless accusations of sockpuppetry are as meaningless as the assertation that "If no reliable third-party sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." doesn't apply to fictional elements. Do not fall for it. -- The Red Pen of Doom 02:08, 3 August 2012 (UTC) About NiemtiYou might not understand this sir, but he didn't come there to give his opinion but he actually ca,e there to annoy me. You even read what he said. An article can't just be deleted because it has very low amount of references. Calling him a "bully" was no personal attack but I was actually telling other people the truth about him. I have nothing against you or others my friend. I only don't like Niemti because of the way he talk with people and his utter rudeness plus those blocking warnings about edit warring he gave me. I already had told him that I do not know many of the policies of Wikipedia and if I committed a mistake it was not at all intentional. Instead of removing the warning he gave me another warning without any reason just because i removed the earlier warning as it was without any proper reason. And when I asked the administrators to ban him because of his improper behaviour they instead warned to block me cause of a single personal attack. What am I make of this? Tell me. Should i keep getting bullied by him and say nothing!! And then be accused of indiscipline and throwing tantrums. Why? Just because I'm a newbie!!? --MegaCyanide666 (talk) 10:56, 12 August 2012 (UTC) IPsIt is unfortunately going to take watching and reverting. Adding a hidden message/comment on the page may help. After multiple recreations, perhaps a request for comment might be able to generate a consensus for a mass application of permanent semi protection, but there would have to be evidence for repeated mass disruption for something like that to pass. -- The Red Pen of Doom 11:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
D&D redirectsThis is just a courtesy notice that I am in the process of undoing all of your recent redirects. There are several reasons for this:
And again....Please stop edit warring on Raistlin Majere and Goldmoon. Neither article had ever been tagged for a merge, which makes any supposed consensus about them, held only at the talk page of the target article, invalid. In the mean time, at least one additional RS has been added to each article. Furthermore, three separate editors have recently reverted your unilateral merges. Please do not try and tell me you have consensus: you do not. In that discussion, current consensus is 3:2 against such a merger. Jclemens (talk) 16:58, 2 December 2012 (UTC) PoemUser:Hobit#There is a beach with children building sandcastles Inappropriate canvassingPlease do not WP:CANVASS other editors, as you did here, in an attempt to influence consensus by recruiting editors of a known, similar viewpoint to a discussion. Jclemens (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2012 (UTC) restoring redirects consensus via request for commentI think the cleanest way to deal with the silliness is just conduct a request for comment to formalize the consensus that they claim is lacking. I have started with a sample wording below and then we can determine the best place to post it.
appropriate wordsmithing as necessary to address any potential wikilawyer points within the RfC -- The Red Pen of Doom 15:35, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Note that you may wish to strike [9] or take it to the talk pages. the walls of text at these AfD's may be hindering people from joining the discussions to gain a wider consensus that can be legitimately widely applied. -- The Red Pen of Doom 16:37, 30 August 2012 (UTC) AdhererThe essay you're citing to argue for the mass discounting of the positions of participants in that AfD notes in the lede that it shouldn't be used as an argument to discount people's positions, only to encourage them to provide fuller rationales. As such, it's not a compelling proposition (the same doesn't really apply to the "bad faith nom" position, but counting or discounting that doesn't affect the outcome anyways). WilyD 09:55, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Don't botherHe's just going to continue with that condescending attitude because he knows it gets a rise out of people. Reyk YO! 22:30, 15 September 2012 (UTC) Please repudiate implied threat at my talk pageI get that you probably meant to repudiate your implied threat to damage Wikipedia at my talk page, but I'd really like to use such a denial as a basis from which to continue examining your contributions and providing you appropriate advice about collaborative, good-faith editing. You're invited to return to the conversation. Jclemens (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2012 (UTC) List of Zoey 101 characters"Keep" is bother numerically stronger (i.e., more editors support it), and policy-wise stronger (Article size says you probably need to split it, while AVOIDSPLIT et al. suggest the way the article's been developed isn't ideal). Although in both cases the edge is perhaps not overwhelming, it's still there. The crux of your argument depends on a judgement of what's "excessive", which is necessarily subjective, and siding with the minority position in that regard would require a compelling argument that it's excessive (and I'm not sure what such an argument would look like, but it's certainly not in the discussion. It's merely back and forth assertions). Beyond that, closing based on some hypothetical future article which may or may not ever exist (some shrunken version of the list which doesn't exist, and may never get a relevant local consensus, doesn't have a consensus at the AfD, etc) would also require a much more compelling proposition, especially in the face of superior numbers (i.e., it couldn't just be based on subjective interpretation of a couple adjectives). Even if the list was cut substantially - and made into a stable, consensus having version as such, it'd still have to be cut by ~half before a merger is not a bad idea (and until such a versions exists, who knows how much it would actually be reduced - or whether such an attempt would result in it being expanded, or any manner of things), while a third, say, would still be an enormous reduction, but probably still shouldn't result in a merger, etc. WilyD 05:26, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
Edit warringPlease stop edit warring on Raistlin Majere and Goldmoon. Jclemens (talk) 21:24, 2 December 2012 (UTC) I know you're intent on edit-warring to preserve that as a redirect, but please don't remove sourced information in interim edits, as you did here. Simply restore it as a redirect in one edit, so that if and when it is permanently restored, all the previously added information is available in the most recent version. Thanks. —Torchiest talkedits 21:45, 2 December 2012 (UTC) Seriously, please stop badgering the opposition. "Do you not understand what Wikipedia is not?" is hardly a collegial thing to say, and it won't further your cause which, in this particular case, happens to be mine as well. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 20:23, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Criticize or createYou're right, I can't tell you how to spend your time on Wikipedia. But the amount of time you've spent trying to get stuff deleted, combined with your refusal to accept the results when they go against you, seems like a sad waste to me. Compare: you and me. If you ever feel like creating instead of criticizing, I'd be happy to help you, as I did when you started working on that GA last year. —Torchiest talkedits 01:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Request for commentRFC/U discussion concerning you (Folken de Fanel)Hello, Folken de Fanel. Please be aware that a user conduct request for comment has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry is located at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Folken de Fanel, where you may want to participate. BOZ (talk) 22:59, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
May 2013
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:16, 15 May 2013 (UTC) RfC discussion moved to talk pageI'm in the process of moving this To the RfC talk page. Threaded discussion is not allowed on the main RfC page, nor is it appropriate for you to alter or expand your statement after others have endorsed it. You may want to revisit the statement on the talk page and alter it appropriately, as it will not appear immediately under your prior statement. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 16:10, 1 June 2013 (UTC) Due to the insular nature of the WikiProject, I have opened my proposal up for debate at AFD.—Ryulong (琉竜) 06:39, 6 August 2013 (UTC) I see you use "(s)he". I'm male.—Ryulong (琉竜) 13:48, 7 August 2013 (UTC) Your GA nomination of Panzer DragoonHello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Panzer Dragoon you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. Your GA nomination of Panzer DragoonThe article Panzer Dragoon you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold WarningThis is your only warning. No personal attacks. I've removed your purely off-topic personal attack at me. You say "act civil", but it your behavior also needs to be checked. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:09, 8 August 2013 (UTC) Your GA nomination of Panzer DragoonThe article Panzer Dragoon you nominated as a good article has passed
EvangelionTwo days ago I opened up this formal move request based on the suggestion I initially made at WT:ANIME. As you contributed to the original discussion, your input is welcomed at the new one.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:31, 22 August 2013 (UTC) A good idea indeedYou probably should be our go-between. I try to understand Ryulong's side, but even when I offer compromises I feel that he doesn't want to see it from my viewpoint or budge on the matter. The fair example is the GITS debate which I asked for the status quo for 5 months before Only in Death took the dramatic action needed to get to that point. NGE is different; but given how Ryulong has expressed desires about removing, combining or dropping entire pages and done so without AFD I simply am wary that if this move goes through it will be right into merge territory or deletion. Our views are completely different, but something needs to be done to resolve the organizational dispute, because this will likely impact other pages as Ryulong pointed out. It seems that he likens it to a battle for a new standard, and not a simply case by case issue. That view complicates the matter, but there may be truth in it, many pages would be better served with a hatnote to an adaptation, but few need franchise or topic overviews. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
My switching of sides will only be on Ryulong's acceptance to binding mediation. That is the only way this will end, and if there is no agreement to resolve this than it is Ryulong who does not want to engage in its resolution. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:32, 27 August 2013 (UTC) Sorry I wasnt there to clarify myselfLooking back at things from before my holiday break, it seems that my words and comments were misinterpreted. Hope things are going well. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:56, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussionHello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you.--Bbb23 (talk) 15:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC) BasiliskThanks for taking the time to add back sources in when you trimmed a questionable reference from the article. Cheers, Jclemens (talk) 02:01, 29 September 2013 (UTC) You are tangentially named at ANI
Copying within WikipediaHi. I see that you have been merging and redirecting articles about fictional elements. Looking at some of your recent edits, your edit summaries at the destination pages are missing valid wikilinks (e.g., [10], [11]). The source articles can be determined, but having an explicit and unambiguous link back is important. Please see the examples at WP:Merging#How to merge and review WP:Copying within Wikipedia. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 04:11, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
Misleading edit summaries, redirecting under claim of mergingPlease do not make misleading edit summaries and your edits broke dozens of links across dozens of pages without checking about the content and whether or not it had been merged.[12][13] Of all the pages broken, many included pages which follows the "See/Further" like the Drow deities pages. These edit summaries are highly misleading redirects and created a lot of problem. Please do not do this again. Since the pages have to be independently verified, checked for improvement and functionality, I'm leaving these up until I can do the merges properly. In the purposes of PRESERVE, do not redirect them out via edit warring. You did not conduct the mergers and from 23:42 on October 4 to 00:04 October 5, you redirected over 30 articles.[14] Please do not do this again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:05, 15 October 2013 (UTC)
Look, I'm sorry if I offended youI'm sorry if I offended you with that post. I removed it. Look, I want to work together. I didn't like your method and your actions, rather than work together you made me your enemy despite working for the same goal. The AN matter was so you wouldn't mess up the merge; I don't got the time of day for this kind of schtick, but I wanted to try and repair our rocky relationship. Friends? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:44, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
WP:AN thread tangentially concerning youI've resurrected your call for sanctions, though on different enough grounds that it's only a continuation of the same thread for contextual reasons. --erachima talk 15:50, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
Roll call!
Hi, Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale! |
Portal di Ensiklopedia Dunia
