Hi, if you want to leave any questions or messages or reasons for editing my user page then feel free to put it on this page. Also feel free to report vandalism as well.
Userpage
Hello Henchman, could you please remove a few things from your userpage? Firstly, please remove the "Unless you supply a suitable reason for editing my user page and leave it on my talk page, I will block you!" message from your userpage, since you are not an administrator, and can't block users. If someone does vandalise your userpage, please do follow the procedure for warning users at WP:VAND, and report them to WP:AIV if nessisary. Also, please remove the Bowser image, since, unfortunately, it is a Fair use image, which can not be used on userpages. Thanks, Prodegotalk21:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't know that I couldn't block, sorry. Also, if I were to remove my image of Bowser JR, then what can I replace it with, I want an image on my user page.Henchman 200018:58, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. The best place to find a replacement image would be on the commons, a sister project of Wikipedia that gathers free to use images. You can display an image from there exactly as you would from here. Prodegotalk21:54, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Vandalism to Mario Parties because of so-called "cruft" nonsense.
I'm sorry if you think it was vandalism. Please try to remain civil instead of accusing me of vandalizing the articles and threatening to report me to an admin. I understand it must have taken a very long time to type the descriptions of every single mini-game, but this information would generally only be important to one who plays the video games (for an explanation of cruft, see WP:CRUFT). If someone who never planned to play the games was just reading the article for basic info about the story etc., then a list of minigames would be irrelevant to them. Since there are likely many people who would do this, those sections would just take up space for them. Mario Party 7 is ~42 kilobytes long, which means it goes into a bit too much detail in some areas. Some anon added the sections I removed back into Mario Party 7, and I didn't put them back because I didn't want to get into an edit war. I (sorry, too many "I"s?) admit that I believe I was sufferinf from editcountitis (yes, it exists) when I was removing the cruft, so I may have removed too much. I posted a discussion about crufty sections at Talk:Mario Party 7; if you want to express your opinion there, please do. –The Great Llamasign here21:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The mini game lists are coming back and there is nothing you can do about it. You say that only people who play the game are interested, well you're wrong, the Mario Party Advance mini games made me want to buy it so there! Anyway, how is the shit you put in place of the list supposed to amount to anything? This is an encyclopedia and encyclopedias should contain every last molecule of information! GET IT THROUGH YOUR SKULL!!!!! Henchman 200018:44, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is not acceptable Henchman. If you gain consensus with several other editors on the talk pages, then it would be OK to add the Mini games, but without that you should not add them. You certainly may not leave a message like that above, please try to remain cool and civil. Thank you, Prodegotalk20:57, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, just remember to make sure other editors agree with your changes if someone removes them, and if they do, ask them why. They may give you some valuable insight, and a different point of view. Prodegotalk20:36, 10 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Henchman 2000, you're fairly new to Wikipedia so I guess you don't quite understand what consensus is. Consensus is not editing whatever you want, whenever you want and threatening to continue to do so until you get your way. That is not the Wikipedia way. That is called "edit warring" and is counterproductive. Instead of constantly readding something and threatening to continue to do so until others give up, please take your issues to talk pages and discuss rather than revert. Also, remember to stay cool and civil rather than lashing out at other users who you disagree with. Thanks, Metros21:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I believe you that you are sharing a computer. It seemed likely at first that you were sockpuppets, but that likeliness has decreased in my opinion. –Llamamansign here20:17, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You win
You win this edit war. All it's doing is giving both of us a lot of stress. I'll just try to stay away from the Mario Party articles now. I've been thinking it over, and I guess I don't really have to make such a big deal out of all this (I still am opposed to the list, but it's a pretty minor thing, I suppose). I also completely believe that you are not a sockpuppeteer now, you just happen to be using the same computer as Bowsy, and would close the case, but only admins can do that. As a closing note, always try to remain civil and cool, as you did on your last few reverts. –Llamamansign here01:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Actually...a few people on IRC suggested replacing the list of minigames with a paragraph describing them (not like the bad one I wrote). Meaning it would describe the controls of them, naming a few unique minigames, etc. Do you think this should be done, and, if so, would you be interested in writing it? –Llamamansign here02:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Can you elaborate a bit on what I could include if I chose to write the paragraph. Oh, and I don't see a discuccion about the minigames anywhere. Henchman 200013:44, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion was on IRC, see WP:IRC (if you don't believe there was a discussion, ask Sean Black about it). What you could include if you chose to write the paragraph would be the controls for some minigames that are different from the others (have very different controls or something like that) and descriptions of them. There would also be a description of each mode (1 vs. 3, 2 vs. 2, etc.) and a few examples of minigames from each one. This is just a brief outline, so you could probably put some more info in. –Llamamansign here17:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are plain and simple cruft. Wikipedia isn't the place for those mass lists. This is an encyclopedia, not a guide to listing every mini-game. Further re-adding of them, will lead to me reporting to an admin. RobJ198120:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, therefore these lists are allowed to be put in these articles. Also, a sentence is no where near enough to put about mni games. Henchman 200009:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that a List is way too much however i also agree that one sentence is not enough. remember the effort programers went through to give all gamers a pleasureable experiance. what we can do is state that mini games range from (for example) running after a ball to smashing post etc. also they require that the player uses a range of skilles from (for example) stratigy to aiming to reflexes etc. in other words we dont need a entire list just a simple break down of what to expect from the mini games Maverick42314:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that the list is encyclopedic; just that I no longer wanted to be involved in the edit war. While one sentence definitely isn't enough, the whole list isn't needed. This is why I suggested the paragraph explaining the minigames. –Llamaman14:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The list doesn't need to be one sentence, but it certainly shouldn't list all the games and descriptions of them. I agree it should be a paragraph or so, explaining the types of games only (not listing all the games). Look at the original Mario Party article, as well as Wario Ware articles: they do NOT have mass mini-game lists. I've reported Henchman to an admin, because I'm simply fed up with him not understanding. Wikipedia isn't a game guide or a fan's guide to every little note for a game. The whole comment of "Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, therefore these lists are allowed to be put in these articles" is certainly wrong. Wikipedia has guidelines against unencylopedic lists, and the games lists fall under it. When other articles for mini-game video games don't have the lists, that certainly proves my point. RobJ198119:34, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's your policy, from here: "While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instructions or advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Note that this does not apply to the Wikipedia: namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia. If you're interested in a how-to style manual, you may want to look at our sister project Wikibooks." Scepia22:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia, but that doesn't mean you can add long lists to make the article endless. There are certain limits, and adding a list of games doesn't really serve as encyclopedic or necessary. Nishkid6400:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good job! They could still use some cleanup, but mostly minor things like hyphens. Should "Minigames" be hyphenated? I deleted the hyphens in Mario Party 6, but reading the instruction booklets, the hyphenated from is used for the earlier games, but it's not in the later ones (either up to 6, or 7, I lost the instruction booklet for 6). I also made a suggestion at Talk:Mario Party 6; please participate there if you want to. –Llamaman21:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mario Party 8 is NO exception. Just because it's not out, doesn't mean the list should exist. Stop re-adding it already. RobJ198122:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why can't YOU just accept that YOU are wrong. One sentence like the one you put, is not enough info. The list is tiny anyway and is not increasing its size by any significant amount by existing. Once the game COMES OUT I can write a summary paragraph when I unlock lots of mini games, which will only take me around a day to do. Please just accept that the list barely exists and isn't harming the article in any way. Henchman 200011:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's not long? I counted: 26 lines. What's your definition of short? A paragraph can exist now. The game not being out, makes it NO exception to how the other articles are setup. RobJ198120:15, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are only 26 lines. If that's your definition of long, I'd hate to see what you called short! The game not being out DOES make it an exception, just accept it. Anyway, there is not enough info. to write a summary paragraph and 1 sentence will NOT do. Henchman 200009:00, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You don't own the article: so stop acting like you do. This blatant cruft adding is a form of vandalism in my opinion. I guess it's time to bring this up to an admin again. RobJ198117:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, YOU are the one acting like you own the article. YOU think YOU can put ANY tag YOU want to when you want to do it. YOU are the one vandalisinig. I have never vandalised a page once and NEVER intend to do so! Henchman 200019:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. RobJ198120:18, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, this was not a personal attack, I didn't even mention your name and I was only stating the obvious. If I don't mention your name, how can it be regarded as a PERSONAL attack? Henchman 200011:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This is in response to this comment Messedrocker, don't listen to what he says, I have been trying to tell him this all along and he is not prepared to open himself up to new ideas. Baisically, he says, "Lists are stupid, lame additions to articles no matter how long or short they are. I am right, everyone else is wrong no matter what." Please do go ahead with this proposal to re add the lists as he would be asking for a ban from editing Mario Party articles if he tried to mess with you, an admin. This list is perfectly reasonable content for this article and, because he is just a plain " I hate lists user." He needs to open himself up to others' opinions. I think you should go ahead, as I am not so sure how I could clean up the list. Henchman 2000 09:07, 26 January 2007 (UTC) Saying he (and it directly goes to my user page), then assuming bad faith/attacking me isn't needed. RobJ198117:41, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a side note: threatening to report me (twice) isn't good faith. As stated before: comment about content, not contributors. RobJ198120:55, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks, but I really was only trying to tell you that I didn't want another unnecessary edit war. Also, if you were allowed to tell me you were reporting me to an admin, why can't I do it to you? Henchman 200009:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a note: why did you feel the need to ignore the discussion (once the Mario Party articles were unprotected)? No one agreed on lists, or examples for that matter. Ignoring a discussion, and just editing the article however you feel like, isn't helping things. RobJ198121:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Henchman 2000, I strongly advise that you stop re-adding lists of examples of mini-games because it's becoming more and more apparent that there is a consensus against them. People have gotten in trouble in the past for disregarding the consensus, and the last thing you want is a request for arbitration to ruin your good name. In the meantime, I suggest that you continue to be involved in the request for comment and instead of adding list of examples, try to write some prose, since that's what people want. If you have any questions, please do ask. Editing Wikipedia is much more convenient when everyone is working together. —Signed, your friendly neighborhood MessedRocker.00:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I just find this very stressful and you are always having the complete opposite opinion to me so I am finding it hard to work with you. Henchman 200013:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No personal attacks
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Geoff B20:10, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was not telling you to not contribute, I was telling you to stop talking about GameFAQs. This is by no means a personal attack and you used the final warning as a weapon, and not to warn me for doing a proper personal attack. Henchman 200016:50, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A note about talk pages
Comments don't just go anywhere: they go at the bottom of the section. Even if you are responding to a certain person's comment: they still go at the bottom. Just putting them anywhere (in response to someone's comment or what not) isn't how talk pages work. RobJ198102:33, 21 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This [1] indicates to me that you need to cool off. I have given you a 24 hour timeout. Please reflect on whether you can find a calmer way of resolving your dispute. Guy (Help!) 16:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, yes, but [2] is most definitely a personal attack and shows that you need time to cool down. It's not required that a user must make personal attacks and be warned more than 3 or 4 times to get blocked. I'm not going to decline this unblock because I've gotten in content disputes with you, but I will make this comment. –Llama mantalkcontribs20:04, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another user is accusing Bowsy and I of meatpuppetry. Both Isotope and JzG have said we are not meatpuppets and the conclusion written in the sock case was no reason to harrass us or try to make one of our votes in an AfD discounted. I need you, Isotope or JzG to tell this to the following users:
As has been told you to before, it is up to the closing administrator's discretion to choose how to consider those votes. It doesn't matter how much or how little they campaign to get them discounted. In the end, it's the admin's call. Metros14:23, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am also asking you to say to the above two users that we aren't meatpuppets and it has been said that the word "meatpuppetry" is no means to harass us. You NEED to tell AKMask to stop accusing us and to remove his blatantly false and discriminative comment from the AfD. Henchman 200014:28, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As a comment to this: claiming I will be in "heaps of trouble", isn't needed, period. You aren't an admin, you can't just throw around threats to get your way. RobJ198106:05, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stop dragging me into your affairs!
Henchman, I have noticed that you are using MY name on YOUR talk page messages when I have NEVER said that I support you on these issues. Please stop. Bowsy (review me!) 09:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am using you as an example, which I am allowed to do. RobJ has already dragged you into this, and he also thinks that he can say things to us that he has not allowed you to say to him, he needs to practice what he preaches, something he doesn't do, and he hasn't told me off for doing something, but he has you, so you are the perfect example case. Henchman 200009:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never said you could use me! You always say that I am backing you up but I am not. This is probably only furthering any accusations. I do not want to be used as an example in everything. Oh, and one more thing, you have been saying that I will do things to RobJ. Well I am not getting involved in your persnal attacking. Bowsy (review me!) 09:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have absolutely no right to change what I post. Clearly violating Wikipedia guidelines to make your point, isn't helping things. RobJ198120:45, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You lying about Bowsy and I isn't helping things either, and how am I violating Wikipedia guidelines anyway? You are the only one here who acts like a (corrupt) admin, in fact, when I first encountered you, you were acting so much like an admin that I actually thought you were one! (This is NOT a compliment). You are assuming people with the same opinion to be meatpuppets, changing articles to your personal preference without leaving as much as a word on the talk page, using templates as weapons when the usage of a brain would've made you realise what was meant by the comment, trying to exploit every tiny fact in a quest to crush opposition and telling people not to do things and then doing them yourself. If that's not acting like a corrupt admin, what is? Henchman 200019:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have violated no personal attacks guidelines (several times in the past, and with that whole corrupt admin post: you did it again) and talk page guidelines as well. It is against guidelines to edit other's comments (without their permission, and I obviously didn't give you permission to change my posts). RobJ198121:54, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then you should change it yourself, and highlighting flaws in a user's actions like I did above is not a personal attack. You are lying about Bowsy and I. Since when did we say we were acting like admins (you are though) and I am the only one saying you will be in trouble (and you will, because the sane admin doesn't like being ignored). You need to add accurate information, something that is not on your response. Henchman 200009:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No personal attacks
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.
This is exactly what I mean by being falsely accused. How is calling someone annoying a personal attack? Give me an exact quotation and prove to me that calling you annoying is a personal attack, because it's not. You are mistakening the slightest harsh word as a personal attack, well it isn't, and if you read NPA, I'm certain that you'll find that I'm right. Henchman 200018:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Name calling is a personal attack and isn't acceptable. As per the policy: Comment on content, not on contributors and Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. And as for your comments on my talk page: I never once said that Wikipedia revolves around my opinions... so stop assuming. RobJ198119:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also: I dropped the whole sockpuppet case after the admin deleted it. So mentioning that every chance you can isn't relevant. You attacking me whenever you can is relevant, as you continue to do it (dispite not thinking anything is an attack). RobJ198119:48, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Tell yourself to stop assuming, you've done it before and I've seen it. I know that you never said Wikipedia revolved around your opinion, but you constantly act like it does. For example, you said "was this fair" and whinged to 2 admins about an admin deleting your sock case. And you have not given it up, to quote you, "a case needs to be made about them as they abuse AfD and RFC debates", and we don't. Also, calling someone annoying is not insulting, or at least shouldn't be, in anyone's book. I have not mentioned the (unnecessary) sock case whenever I can, only when it is relevant. I do admit to personal attacks, however, "Shut up about GameFAQs" and "You are SO annoying" is hardly a personal attack. Henchman 200014:47, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Henchman. Please try and stop bickering with RobJ1981. If you are not able to discuss things civilly, please try not responding to anything you see as trying to provoke you, and please refrain from doing anything involving him, provoking or otherwise. I am not blaming either one of you in particular for this, and do not want to hear about whose fault it is. Just, please, step away, and calm down. I will be posting the same message on RobJ1981's talk page, with the names revered, as this message applies to both of you, equally. You clearly have similar editing interests, and it would be so much better if you could find some common ground and work together to make Wikipedia better, as this is clearly what you wish to do. Don't let an editing dispute sour your contributions to Wikipedia. If you have any questions, or would like some advice, please let me know. Thanks. Neil(not Proto ►)23:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
MP Advance mgs
Hmm, your last post to my page could be considered canvassing as the message implied that the AfD shouldn't have occured (partisan), and I'ven't ever edited that article. For that and other reasons, I won't be participating in that AfD. If you like what I've been doing in other AfDs, feel free to take that role in this AfD. My resources are limited and I can't participate in all AfDs. Feel free to do what you can to execute wikipedia policy in this matter. McKay15:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it could be considered canvassing, I didn't ask you to take a particular side and I said that I thought it was unnecessary, and left you to make your own opinion. Henchman 200018:58, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Posting a message to any user (besides the original author) for an XfD can be considered canvassing. And I think we can safely assume that you believed that McKay would !vote "keep", considering his participation in other minigame AfDs, as the use of the word "unnecessary" in your message. — MalcolmMay theschwartzbe with you!19:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone my original reply to your post about this on my talkpage got lost (probably a db lockdown)... but to summarize what I said, when you contact someone who has pretty consistently had a certain opinion about related articles in other AfD's, you have to expect that others may perceive that as canvassing, even if you are not specifically soliciting a "keep" or "delete" opinion. That is why you should be very careful who you contact in regards to an active AfD.--Isotope2320:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is appropriate to contact people who have been editing the article in question. Particularly if the number of people contacted is very small. Notifying me in this manner could be considered canvassing, because I never edited any of the MP3 articles. But, if I had edited the article, you need to make sure that the notification of the AFD is non-partisan, specifically, you need to say something like "you might want to participate in this AFD" instead of "come vote keep in this AFD" or "come participate in this AFD that isn't necessary." Both of the latter two imply that you're canvassing for the article to be kept instead of the execution of policy. Also, as per your most recent comment on my talk page, I would hope that you not be as disparaging in the future. I gave you my reasons for not participating, there's no need to criticize my lack of participation in an AFD. I think it's clear to both of us, that one more person participating in these AFDs and DRVs won't really help, as the community has decided what to do with these articles. I'm giving up on them. It saddens me that people can't see policy the way that I do. Maybe I'm the one at fault. I don't know. McKay18:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't give up, if you want these articles, fight for them to be kept. You obviously feel strongly on this issue and you should express your opinion. Don't let these AfDs get in the way of doing the right thing. Henchman 200018:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sources
Please stop adding the European release information from the source you are providing. It is not considered a reliable source. You have been reverted 4 or 5 times now with this information. Everyone is looking for a more reliable source, especially one from Nintendo. If you continue, you may find yourself blocked for disruption. Thanks, Metros15:34, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, looking at your source, it definitely says "PREORDER-JUNE 2007". Not the April 2007 you keep posting. So your source and your information aren't matching up. Metros15:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Then I should change it to June 2007. It doesn't seem right that we should say TBA 2007 when there is a possible release date on a URL. Henchman 200018:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I did use possible, SO WHAT? A possible release date is more encyclopedic than TBA when it could very well be released in the month I have put. Henchman 200019:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well considering just two days ago the release date was possibly April, there's absolutely no point in putting a "possible" date up. It's better to leave it as TBA. Metros19:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IT doesn't seem right to put TBA when there are sources out there. Mabye I should change it to June, as it is more reasonable and, as you said, it said "preorder June." Henchman 200019:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.
Thanks again. I'll notify some of the main (positive) contributors to help and you can if you like. Who do you think I should ask to see if it should be put back on the encyclopedia? Henchman 200018:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll be glad to pitch in, but won't be able to before May 1. In the meantime, I might as well ask: in what direction do you think we ought to proceed (i.e., what goal should we strive for)? Should we
attempt to rewrite the articles so that each may be reintroduced as a separate article (as before),
I'm posting my reply here in case it gets missed in the mass of questions. I would suggest that you either (a) raise the issue on the existing article's talk page first of all, in order to see if a new consensus can be reached, or (b) go ahead and replace the redirect with appropriate article content. That would depend on whether you can be confident - and without bias - that it warrants its own article. With the likely content removal that this entails, would doing this be detrimental to the existing article? AdrianM. H.13:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Re your request for clarification. I meant that the process of de-merging would be likely to involve the removal or, more commonly, a significant re-wording of the affected section or sections. This would be done to avoid excessive duplication of material, which is normally advisable. But when planning a split or de-merger, one has to consider whether this action will be detrimental to the existing article and where best to place the content in question. AdrianM. H.19:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Henchman 2000. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Itemgame.jpg) was found at the following location: User:Henchman 2000/Sandbox. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk05:06, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merges
If you look at your help desk question about merging, you'll clearly see that the person says that discussions are not always required, and that no mention of an admin can be found. Are you really that confused or are you just trying to stop me from merging it (even though that wouldn't work)? TTN09:29, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions are not necessary for MINOR characters and RACES, not for MAJOR CHARACTERS WHO HAVE HAD MULTIPLE ROLES IN MANY GAMES. Also, if you look at the history for Pianta you will find a merge CAN only be done by an admin, something you aren't. As a result, I am unmerging Petey and King Boo. Henchman 200012:19, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merging doesn't have to be done by admins, see WP:MERGE.
It is controversal, and was I lied to by an admin, or are you lying, or is an admin supposed to do a merge but many editors decide to do merges anyway? Henchman 200017:37, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bobby D. DS. isn't an admin. He has no idea of what he's talking about. If someone states something like that, and it's not covered by the Wikipedia page, it isn't true. For you, this has become controversial after the fact. To press on this point and say "discussion is required, so I'm going to revert" is just wikilawyering. Discussion is preferable, but when there are thousands of character articles to merge, it makes it sort of annoying to sit down with every single one of them. So where is the discussion? You should at least start it if you're going to push for it. You have no argument, by the way. TTN17:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes I do, he is NOTABLE he has MADE MANY APPEATRANCES, he is a MAJOR CHARACTER he has ENIOUGH INFO FOR A PAGE. You are the one with no argument. Henchman 200008:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read WP:FICT and WP:WAF; your definition of major means nothing. You need out of universe information as described by WAF, and it needs to be backed by reliable sources. So far, you have only presented WP:ILIKEIT, WP:USEFUL, WP:WAX, and WP:NOTINHERITED. You have no argument. That is why you're so hung up on this discussion point. And let those game descriptions go. I may be playing this little discussion game over the merger, but I will not let you add crap to the articles. TTN10:13, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I NEVER use ILIKEIT because I hate Petey anyway. I am not adding crap to articles. I am going to cleanup the appearances section and add it back as it is necessary. The next time you say I have no argument I will trip it out of your comment. You have stated many arguments I have so you have just contradicted yourself here. Henchman 200010:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do I really need to explain what is wrong with most of that information? Most of it is making random claims about Petey's origins, his abilities, and his motives. That is all OR. After that, you have minor game descriptions that make up nothing more than game guide material. It's all cruft. TTN10:37, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His abilities and motifs are easy to determine through his appearences in games. Appearances are not cruft or game guide material. Just look at articles like Chain Chomp. They have brief acceptable descriptions, Petey has more to write without OR, as lots of evidence can be found in games. Henchman 200008:03, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are explained in ways in that article that do not belong. After that is removed, you have game guide material. We want his general abilities, not game by game ones. Chain Comp is a crappy article, so don't use it as a base. Descriptions used on Petey's page are crap; they'll stay crap. Again, explain how these can meet WP:FICT and WP:WAF. Please, please stop ignoring them. TTN10:18, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You know what, I'm sick of this little game. Find out of universe information, or don't bother reverting. Do not push the "consensus is always needed" garbage. Find an actual argument instead of wikilawyering. TTN01:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The key word is controversy, and there is none. You are just a fan pushing for a couple of characters to stay. For this to be controversial, you would need an argument, and you would be participating in a discussion. You have only pushed for the one point without even looking at or addressing WP:FICT or WP:WAF. If you could just pull out the "contraversy" card, SpongeBob SquarePants would have an article for each episode. The episodes fail WP:EPISODE, so they're redirected (despite a numerous amount of people wanting them). Your only argument is "discussion is needed", which is not true, and the various arguments covered by WP:ATA. This has all to do with being a fan, and nothing to do with building a good encyclopedia. TTN18:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It has clearly been stated discussion is needed and who is Booby D. DS anyway. I was talking to a real admin and I will report you to him/her if you persist. You are wrong in your beliefs and there is consensus against you. Accept it and back down so we can move to more worthwhile things. Henchman 200013:29, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus againt me. I have two people claiming that the articles that they like are important. You need to accept that these cannot be be improved upon. They need information like Jabba the Hutt, not things like "they have a fan site!" That isn't happening. You need to add real out of universe information. TTN15:21, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there is. They can be improved upon if people actualy put effort into them, any article can be improved in that way. What sort of OOU info do you want then, a fan site is something at least, and I'l try and get some more. Your help would be greatly appreciated. Henchman 200008:01, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, they cannot. They can be brought to your standards, but they aren't the same as the site's. You need information that matches the sections in Jabba the Hutt. A fansite is cruft, and likely everything else you find will also be cruft. TTN10:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They can meet the site's standards, as could every article about a notable topic if people were prepared to try. Oh, and cruft is an abstract concept and an essay, not a policy or guideline, and in an MfD for it, a consensus was reached that cruft should be "a way to edit and not to delete", and you're deleting content no matter what you try to say. If you were to actually try and improve Petey Piranha rathere than merge him unnecessarily into a list of minor characters, you would most definitely succeed. I am once again asking you to back down as you are wrong and I don't want to waste any more time with this. Henchman 200017:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, it cannot. Do you think it can look like Jabba? Cruft is just a word to lump everything from OR to game guide material. It isn't the actual reason for removal. You need to realize that just because you say it can be improved doesn't mean it. There are no outside sources to be found, so it would be rather hard to do it. I have looked for sources for a good while, and I have found nothing. You are the one that needs to back down unless you can prove me wrong with actual sources, not conjectural ones. I encourage you to do this, and I hope you succede, but it still probably won't happen. TTN20:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will never back down and allow you to unnecessarily merge articles with no consensus. I will try again and I will succeed, and then we can move to more worthwile things. Henchman 200008:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On a totally unrelated note, can you please tell me why you merged Tikal the Echidna and Big the Cat to the Sonic characters? They were WAAAY beter than Petey and King Boo and Tikal was a featured article candidate. These aren't good merge qualities and there are consensus' against the merges on the list's talk page. Should we unmerge them, as they clearly aren't suitable for merging? Henchman 200008:15, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't use that excuse. Until it actually happens at least once, there is no point in saying that. Again, cruft is just a word that encompasses everything bad from OR to game guide information. I'm not just saying "there is cruft, remove it." I'm saying the articles are crufty; it's just a adjective. Junky would also work. Hopefully, you'll listen to the admin that I have asked to speak with you when he isn't busy. You are wrong in your thoughts that these minor enemies are notable. As a fan, your standards are too low. Again, can these look like Jabba the Hutt? Probably not. TTN17:05, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am no fan of Petey and my expectations are not low, your's are too high. You have provided no reason for any of your merges and you shouldn't be merging without consensus anyway, until you get one, I am able to freely revert your merges. Henchman 200017:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
And please, instead of saying that there is no consensus to merge, how about you actually start a discussion and show that there really is one to keep them? Keep in mind that numbers don't equal consensus. You actually need to counter points in a consensus building discussion. If you want me to and if you agree to stop this needless reverting, I'll start it. TTN17:07, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to merge you need a consensus, I do not need a consensus to undo something done without consensus, you haven't countered very many, if any, points raised up on the enemies or Sonic pages yet and many against one is a consensus and that's what this is. Henchman 200017:41, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A consensus is not required to merge anything. Discussion is suggested if the merge will be contraversial. You need an actual reason to revert. "No consensus" is just wikilawyering. You need to show how these can meet the guidelines. TTN17:47, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I should restate that. An discussed consensus isn't required. A general undertanding between editors that actually abide by the rules is good enough. You can state "it can happen" all you would like; nothing has shown possible improvement for these pages. You and the other guy are just going by "I like it." TTN18:03, 31 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I never go by "I like it"!. If I did, all the matoran in List of Matoran would have their own page saying they were really cute. Consensus is required as your merges are controversal and I have a good mind to send a few admins to force some sense into you. You need an actual reason to revert my rightful reverts, until you can come up with one that isn't "I don't like it" I will continue. Henchman 200008:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This notice is to inform you that because many people have added their names to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon#Participants but do not seem to be active, all names are being deleted in an effort to find out who is still truly interested in the project. All you have to do is re-add your name if you'd still like to be considered a member of WP:POKE. Any questions, you can contact me on my talk page. -ΖαππερΝαππερBabelAlexandria17:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mudkip
The article has been set to be merged for some time now; there was no opposition to it before you. Please read the relevant discussions before unilaterally reverting the efforts of the people doing the merging. -Jéské(v^_^v)18:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Kariteh has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
HOW DARE YOU!!!!!!!! I am not vandalising! There is no discussion, just one users opinion and harassment of objectors. I AM NOT VANDALISNG, YOU ARE AND THAT'S THAT! Henchman 200017:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Jirachi. 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 continue, 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. Sephiroth BCR(Converse)17:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I can guarantee you that there is one, and that it is not located in any centralized thread (you may also be well-advised to read Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stunky). I told you before when you reverted another merged article that you had a chance to object to the merger a priori it happened on WT:PCP; the fact that you didn't involve yourself with the merge business until after they started being merged suggests to me you didn't even notice. -Jéské(v^_^vKacheek!)19:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
I only reverted twice and you need to revert 4 times to violate the rule
Decline reason:
I see 4 reverts by you today in the edit history at 18:09, 18:24, 17:38 and 17:52. Clearly 4 reverts in 24 hours. Besides, the 3RR is not a permission to edit war to a certain point. Metros18:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
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.
The list of participants of the Pokémon WikiProject is quite sizable, however, there is no way to determine which of whom are active contributors to that project. All participants in the list have been moved to Inactive. If you consider yourself to be an active member of the Pokémon WikiProject, please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon#Participants and move your username to the Active section. Thank you. Useight (talk) 23:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
-2007-05-14T05:06:00.000Z-Image:Itemgame.jpg){kind=link}