Hello, I was wondering if you can also find any credible sources for DOA characters, Ryu Hayabusa, Helena Douglas, Hayate, Hitomi, Christie, and Lisa Hamilton, if that's possible, thank you. I'll see if I also can find any. Sonic100jam (talk) 15:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sonic100jam: I'll be honest, most of the DoA cast are duds. I did a deep dive on Helena and Christie awhile back and both really had next to nothing. I think part of the problem is outside of the core cast the impact of later additions to the roster didn't have the same 'zing' with audiences; you notice this a lot with fighting games where the original core characters hit strong, but unless there's some major focus what comes after doesn't as much (in fact Christie had one tiny blurb in a magazine that said outright she just didn't have the same impact despite the push they gave her). Marie Rose is even a bit lighter than the rest, and a big part is Matt Sainbury having the biggest affection for her to keep her going. I know MoonJet is keeping track of some sources too.
I would like to hope we can get Ryu back, but I'm not holding my breath for anyone else. Hell, I tried finding sources for *Zack* with little luck.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 16:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the core DOA cast hit strong with audiences, that's why I only mentioned those 6 characters since I know how popular they are. Bayman is also somewhat popular I guess. --Sonic100jam (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Stop disrupting the James Sunderland (Silent Hill) page. The talk page discussion has not concluded and is already passed the bold stage of the WP:BRD process. So far, you have made no points of your own or countered the policies in question, instead casting aspersions and using a half-baked "appeal to authority" fallacy in an attempt to get your way. Darkknight214918:46, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you hope to accomplish by disrupting a content discussion or by citing "several" non-existent editors, but this is the only warning you're getting. Darkknight214919:55, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Darkknight2149: Sir, I'm going to have to ask you to stop this utter buffoonery. The only person being disruptive here is you. Several editors begged you to present the sources you were, and I quote, "too busy", and in agreement that the NPOV tag on the article made no sense. If you're so busy, finding other things to do with your time may be more advantageous than trying to bully editors.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:04, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Then perhaps you didn't read the discussion clearly. Not only was there a lack of "begging" that you describe, but the "several" people you keep referring to is an embellishment. There were two people maximum, one of whom wasn't even contributing constructively to the discussion. The "too busy" remark was referring to rewriting the article from scratch, something you would know if you actually read the thread. You mention "bullying" editors, and yet the thread was entirely civil until you arrived. I also offered to provide sources numerous times and no one took me up on it.
By the way, this is the user I was referring to who's input was non-constructive (Replying without fully reading the post, followed by unhelpful responses that didn't really address anything). "You brought very bad vibes to a talk page discussion you opened" - Please direct me to the incivility. Darkknight214902:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did read it, I found it inscrutable and asked you for clarification. Interpreting it the way that you are doing suggests you either lack the competence to edit Wikipedia or you are being dishonest. Judging by the numerous ANIs that have been held over your behavior, both are believable. Linking to a single edit asking for clarification and mischaracterizing it, claiming that your post being written in a confusing and messy way means I didn't "fully read" what you said, and implying that my input was limited to that and not the numerous following comments I made in the discussion is honestly ridiculous behavior. The very thing you just posted, a lie or a nonsensical interpretation, is bad vibes, and the fact that you cannot see it is the reason why you had to be topic banned from comics editing. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 02:15, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Virtually all of the "numerous ANIs" you mention are things I was vindicated for (in fact, the one that got me topic banned for six months was gamed by a serial troll, Twitbookspacetube, who is currently site-banned), so bringing that up out of the blue is tantamount to WP:NPA. As for "incivility," this is what the talk page looked like before Kung Fu Man showed up. Frankly, the closest thing there to an uncivil response is your own. If you believe that raising concerns you personally disagree with (for nebulous reasons) on the talk page is "bad vibes," I'm not sure what to tell you.
Moreover, I accuse you of "not reading" because your input[1](which immediately had an attitude that I chose to not comment on) was essentially asking for a retread of the discussion. as several reasons were already given. Your further comments were similarly unhelpful. You insist that the page was "inscrutable," but you have been unable to address the policy concerns raised or explained how it's inscrutable. Darkknight214902:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, people were begging for you to just present your sources and to stop grandstanding, not to mention trying to Wikilawyer policies you've only read parts of very clearly. That's not a civil discussion, that's a sign of people really frustrated by whatever point you're trying to make and failing badly at doing so.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Citing policy correctly isn't "lawyering" and I already addressed the other point. Unless there's something you would like to discuss at WP:ANI, I'm done here. This is progressively becoming a non-constructive timesink, and in the immortal words of Peter Cushing, "This bickering is pointless." Darkknight214903:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Accusing someone of "not having read" what you said instead of assuming that they legitimately had no idea what you were talking about is explicitly a bad-faith assumption, which is galling to run afoul of considering that you were complaining that people weren't assuming good faith in you. It's also not asking for a retread of the discussion, it was asking for clarification on what you said because I found it difficult to glean exactly what you were saying. I also want to see where it was confirmed that you were vindicated for, because having read all those discussions, the thing that stood out to me the most is when you couldn't understand why people were so gobsmacked by your inability or unwillingness to commit to being civil regardless of the behavior of other users. This is something that an editor of your account's age should be fully aware is not okay. Civility is not conditional; if someone is uncivil, you are expected to not engage in kind. Judging by this discussion we are having right now, you have been casting aspersions against nearly every editor who has engaged with you, while doing things that run afoul of guidelines like WP:AGF. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:17, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand why you would have a different idea, given that you seem to have a different idea than most editors you engage with according to the staggering number of ANIs. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 03:25, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention, I'll emphasize, you came to *my* door to threaten me, DarkKnight. I did not invite, nor seek out this discussion. So please spare me the complaints about "bickering" when things didn't go your way.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 03:29, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cukie Gherkin Case of point. Bringing up unapplicable ANI threads from upwards to eight years ago as cheap ammunition and intimidation is a violation of WP:NPA, per most editors. If you tried that line in an administrative setting, you would learn the hard way what WP:Incivility pertains to. Darkknight214905:31, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[2] This is perfectly applicable, and it's not eight years ago. In this ANI, you were accused of:
Stonewalling discussions and failing to address key issues (such as, in this case, not providing the sources you claim to have despite multiple attempts by multiple users to get you to post them)
Accusations that people you disagree with didn't properly read what you said
Accusing someone of replying to every single comment while you reply to every single comment critical of you
This is shockingly relevant, and it's rather concerning that you frame your issues at ANI as if it's something in the long past when you've clearly had major issues at ANI since then. Judging by the number of things you were accused of in this ANI that line up with your recent behavior, I do not believe at all that you were vindicated of anything you were accused of, especially when you haven't shared proof that you were vindicated. - Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:24, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, bringing up that Twitspacebook whatever his name is got site banned as proof that citing the ANI is an NPA violation is incredibly silly. This user doesn't have control over the participants, who all agreed that you were engaging in bad behavior. Unless you have proof that he was site banned because of his accusations or falsifying evidence against people in ANI, citing the ANI is perfectly acceptable. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 13:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ANI thread you're citing is a report of another user that ended in a deadlock, and that's only because someone votestacked by Onel bludgeoned the discussion by replying to every single comment and multiple users were treating as a content RfC without addressing the report. The reported user was blocked for the same behaviour less than a month later:
And once again, citing policy correctly isn't "Wikilawyering" just because some people in your Wikiproject find it personally inconvenient. You're grasping at straws, desperately searching for some kind of dirt from years-old ANI threads to gain an upperhand, which is WP:NPA. This is your final warning to cease this behaviour. Darkknight214918:43, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I assure you with 100 percent certainty that your warnings are worth nothing, because no one is going to come into this discussion and see you threatening users with nebulous punishments and making bad-faith claims of user behavior and think much at all of you for this. So please, I beg you, escalate this if you're going to continue threatening users. Cukie Gherkin (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading File:Zelda-Purah-ThirdParty.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of non-free use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
You redirected this article to the MK character list back in October 2023.[3] But I would like to contend that this one passes WP:GNG. I found multiple high-coverage sources just from doing a quick research.[4], [5], and [6]. There will be even more sources about this character on Google Scholar. Thoughts on this? Kazama16 (talk) 11:41, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you think it's worth reviving, go for it. MK's in a weird place right now where really a LOT of the articles need an enema, and it doesn't help a lot of the sourcing isn't the best in most of them. But I think these are at least showing some potential. Do a writeup of a reception and dev section, let's see how they turn out first to be safe.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 13:02, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I admit you were correct. Most of the sources are just about heart-ripping fatality from the first game and minor mentions. Although after working on it, I think the coverage that is found is good enough for a standalone article. Kazama16 (talk) 07:26, 15 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Spread the Christmas spirit by adding {{subst:User:Matty.007/template/Christmas}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message. If everyone who got this put it on two talk pages, we would have... lots of Christmas spirit! Have fun finding links in this message!
Anarchy Online has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 23:51, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking through its assessment history, I am not sure why the GAR script felt that you needed to be notified of this. Did you ever review this article? If not, my apologies and this notice can be deleted or archived. Z1720 (talk) 00:37, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
