User talk:LtPowers/Archive003

WP:UW future?

Hi LtPowers,

Sorry for the blatant spam, but you have yourself down as interested at WikiProject user warnings WP:UW. There is a discussion on going here that might be of interest to you about the future of this project. There are two strawpolls on the talk pages and the second one is about the future of the WP:UW project. Now we have the end in sight we are looking at wrapping up the project and merging it with Template messages/User talk namespace WP:UTM and creating a one stop shop for all userspace templates. As you have yourself down as interested in this project we thought you may have some input on this issue, and would like you to visit the discussion and give any thoughts you may have on the matter. Cheers ^Khukri 10:29, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hockey conference info tables

I added some rationale for the work I've been doing on the college hockey conference pages on the Talk:Atlantic Hockey page after yours. I did the same thing months ago for the football-only conferences in D-I, and just decided to expand the work to hockey as well. If you think it is inappropriate let me know and see what can be done. Craig R. Nielsen 21:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of CE and SE games

You might be interested to know the article was deleted without an AfD tag, so is currently undergoing deletion review here [[1]] and might subsequently end up in another AfD. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deusfaux (talk • contribs).

Mother's Day

Hi, Jerry. I can't even begin to understand why you reverted my removal of "Mother's Day in Other Languages" from the Mother's Day article. Wikipedia is not a translation service; translations of article subjects are not something we include as a matter of course. Is there something about Mother's Day that makes its translations notable? Powers ^T 02:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is an international resource; the holiday is celebrated in many countries. The section did not provide all possible translations, only the names of the holiday in countries where it is celebrated. Wikipedia is not a translation service, true, people can not post content and ask for a translation. Also, we do not provide arbitrary translations of article content. But where the article is about all global holidays honoring mothers, it is appropriate to provide the names of such holidays in the correct languages. Jerry 23:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, then shouldn't it be "Mother's Day in Other Countries" or "Mother's Day in Other Societies"? That would make it encyclopedic. Translations are for dictionaries. Powers ^T 01:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps the section title could be improved. But deleting the content was not the right course of action, in my opinion. Jerry 02:08, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If required, please reply on my talk page, as I am semi-inactive.

WP:AFC

Hi! I noticed your contributions to Articles for Creation today, and just wanted to say THANK-YOU! For a little while I've felt that it was largely a wasteland and didn't see much participation! Just curious, are you willing to take a stab at the backlog too?--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 21:56, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as an FYI, I declined the Vertical Hold one, mostly due to suspicion of copyvio. My suspicions are based on the inclusion of non-relevant material such as other bands from Australia (such as Soft Cell) also reaching number one--non-relevant in a Wikipedia article but relevant in a book about Australian rock.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 22:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		For jumping in, being bold, and clearing out a day of Articles for Creation backlog!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 02:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And you see why I'm advertising about the backlog! Thanks again!--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 02:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lilac

The painting doesn't really add anythign to the article. It has some lilacs in it, but there are already images of lilacs in the article. So what is the point? If you disagree and want to add it back in, I won't fuss over it. Regards. -- Whpq 16:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new WikiProject

Hi there! You might be interested in joining the new WikiProject, Articles for creation. Please drop in and have a look.--Xnuala (talk)(Review) 02:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Sorcerer's Cave

Thanks for your input on the [Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Sorcerer's Cave AfD ] - I have now added a few references to establish notability (it's hard trying to find many references for a board-game from 1978, despite it's popularity and subsequent influence) and wondered if they'd be enough to change your opinion. Davémon 16:14, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unprotect

Done. --pgk 15:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Attribution

I removed the direct quote and specific quote due to the statement being a very extreme POV statement from a source that may or may not be reliable. Everyone knows the game has had its fair share of controversy. To call it the most controversial MMO of all time... it sounds like a comment made out of frustration rather than ration. My thinking is this: Rather than side with the extreme, I would opt to lie somewhat neutral. State in the article the general gaming media has claimed it to be controversial, cite several sources of this instance from reliable media outlets, and list some of the controversies. Thoughts? Roguegeek (talk) 21:13, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Nous

You should have done some searching before creating this, it is a duplicate of Nous. IPSOS (talk) 13:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever you say. There is really no distinction, it's part and parcel of the Greek concept of Nous. IPSOS (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, sorry, I forgot, this is an egalitarian project. Whatever you do, don't look at past revisions of my user page. IPSOS (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You also have a nice day. I didn't mean to come off as offensive in any way. If I did, I apologize. IPSOS (talk) 01:46, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taint (slang)

I have closed the AfD on the above article based on the fact that you proposed a merge instead of a deletion for the above article. I have, however, tagged it with a mergeto template so that the discussion on a merger can get started. This will also allow the debate to stick more to the facts of the article and keep the debate from sputtering into a no-win slugfest between deltionists and inclusionists. While I currently oppose such a merge, I look forward to reading your take on the situation. Cheers. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 13:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

Thanks for looking up on that! I reviewed the discussion again, and it looks like deletion is in order. Sr13 19:52, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Village pump archive

There you go, dude. The entire project is based on archiving after all.--Kamikaze 12:53, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I confused you. I really didn't know about the deletion of 9-day older archives thing when I made that post. I simply assumed every discussions is archived forever like on talk pages.--Kamikaze 13:00, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skymac/Walt Disney Home Video

No problem, and sorry about the delay in dealing with Skymac. —tregoweth (talk) 07:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFC Backlog Drive!

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long assessment drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from July 15, 2007 – August 15, 2007.

Awards to be won range from delicacies such as the WikiCookie to barnstars.
There is a backlog of more than one year, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

This drive was organized by GrooveDog in an attempt to terminate that nasty backlog.

GrooveDog (talk) 01:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:GapDirecting.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:GapDirecting.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 7 days after this notification, per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast 22:03, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFC Barnstar debate underway

	WikiProject Articles for Creation needs your input!
	A debate is currently underway concerning a project Barnstar, and the input of all members of the WikiProject is requested. When you get the chance, please drop by the project talk page here and voice your opinion. Due to the size and nature of our project, everyone's opinion counts, so don't be left out! Thanks for your time, and happy editing! Hersfold ^(talk/work) 02:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note: You are receiving this message because you are listed as a participant of WikiProject AFC. If you do not want to continue receiving these messages, please make a note on the project page next to your name. Thanks.

WikiProject Articles for creation

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive News!

We are one week in to the drive, and it's already going fantastic. Numerous days of backlogs have been tackled, with hundreds of articles having been reviewed. We do, however, have some news!

First off, a HUGE congratulations to everyone participating so far. I understand some members are inactive due to vacation, but we are still making great progress.

Secondly, make sure that before you go off and review old submissions, that you review all submissions for the present day, and the day before, so that we aren't actually making a bigger backlog, by letting submissions get archived while we're checking stuff from 2006.

Third, remember to update your running total, on the drive page. Honesty is the best policy, so if you lie about the number of articles you've reviewed, we'll all make angry faces while looking at your userpage.

And, last, if you have any questions about the drive, feel free to ask me, or any other members of the project.

Great job, everyone! We're going to get that backlog!
GrooveDog.

Automatically delievered by HermesBot 08:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC) ^(Owner)[reply]

DYK

On July 27, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Jeff Tyzik, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Well done LtPowers. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 08:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Wedding of the Weddings

Wedding of the Weddings, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Wedding of the Weddings satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wedding of the Weddings and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Wedding of the Weddings during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Brianga 04:54, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AFC News

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive News!

We are nine days away from the end of the drive, and it's been fantastic! Many, many, many days of backlog have been tackled, and over 1500 articles reviewed!

To start off, a HUGE THANKS to everyone who helped out with the coordination of the drive, and actually fighting the backlog in the drive itself. Everyone's done a great job helping out, no matter how many articles you've reviewed/

Remember to update your running total, on the drive page. This is the ONLY way that I will be able to give out awards appropriately.

Lastly, I will be giving out awards on August 16th. Anyone who could help me, that would be fantastic. Contact me on my talk page if you'd like to volunteer.

Great job, everyone! This Drive has been fantastic, and I'm sure that some members of the Project have definitely made friends by collaborating on the talk pages. Thanks,
GrooveDog.

XavierVE

Thank you. Look, I didn't block XavierVE, though I do approve of the block, under the circumstances. I only offered him a chance to be unblocked, which he (somewhat ungraciously) declined. I've suggested to User:Squeakbox that he might be contacted off-wiki and reasoned with, and SqueakBox may be interested in the idea, you can discuss it with him if you're interested. Beyond what I've done, I'm not sure there's anything more I can do for Xavier at this time.

AfD List of video game collector and limited editions (yet again)

You may be interested in knowing this article has been nominated a 5th time for deletion on the same poor arguments presented the first previous times. I know you have contributed to discussions in the past and might want to this time as well. Deusfaux 12:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LtPowers, You have to understand what is neutrality!

You asked: "What's not-neutral about it?" My answer: You sad: "the sect", -this is your partial openion. This is the problem. Please use the Neutral point of view -principles. Have to use every user in the wikipedia. Because this is an enciklopedia. I understand it is hard, and not too easy thinking neutral, but this make a distinction with every other webpage, whither everybody write what he or she want. The Neutral point of view indispensable to enciklopedaiwritting. --TransylvanianKarl 09:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Babytalk_cover_2006-08.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Babytalk_cover_2006-08.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

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

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ~ Wikihermit 01:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fart

Hello. I have just undone your redirect to flatulence since there wasn't consensus. Someone actually made a very good parallel about the article's of sexual intercourse and fuck which are two entirely separate subjects. Seraphim ^Whipp 21:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for a neutral admin's opinion. Their response can be found at my talk page. Thanks.

Seraphim ^Whipp 16:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable fair use Image:Thumb_michael_d_eisner.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Thumb_michael_d_eisner.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 03:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Thumb michael d eisner.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Thumb michael d eisner.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 04:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Concepts

Since you were the first to point out that wikipedia includes articles on 'concepts', can you define that for me? Benea 19:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Having given it more thought, I think it's really a question for the philosophers. The word concept is a concept according to this. Words can be 'concepts', it is not just the tangible things around us that are encyclopedic. The outcome of that discussion proved that the consensus is that 'fart' is viewed as a concept, that the article about it went beyond a dictionary article and that your opinion was a minority one, so much so that it snowballed. But attempting to push this beyond the limits of that discussion, by asking for people to provide definitions and so forth is disruptive in my mind. Benea 20:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of what you were basing your arguments on were an interpretation of a policy, one that has been interpreted differently by other users. I have already pointed out to you how this is not as you state 'clearly defined' and how it is not the case that keeping the article would need a 'very strong reason' to go against it. I'm sorry that your opinions were just that, opinions and interpretations to a situation that was not as clear cut as you though. The debate wasn't really developing any further than it had, you were not coming up with any new reasons to delete it, but repeating your belief that the article was not about a defined 'concept' but about a dictionary definition. That is not a clearly demarcated line, and for a good reason I feel. It is a mistake to be to prescriptive in the outset, and in this case each article should be judged on its own merits. The consensus went against your opinion, and continually trying to push this point can be seen as deliberately provocative and disruptive. Benea 20:34, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, you could be considered to be willfully ignoring everything that was said in that AfD that disagreed with your opinion and now are attempting to prove that fart is not encyclopedia worthy by creating more argument over a subject that has been closed. This seems to be the start of another such argument, where we would be arguing over whether certain words were a 'concept' or not. We clearly have a difference in opinion, I don't really care to continue to engage in this subject which has no clear outcome. I don't think I could convince you if everything that has so far been said in that AfD and here has not. The correct place for this discussion is the relevant policy page. I do think you are a good editor, but please don't spoil your track record over this already resolved issue. Enough ink has been spilt over this, and I'm sure both of us have more useful things to be doing. Kind regards, Benea 11:21, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise if I came across as overly defensive. I have seen a number of cases where when an AfD or similar has gone against them, a user has resorted to several disruptive tactics including hounding editors who have opposed them, demanding reasons and justifications from them. From your first post, it seemed likely that such a situation was in danger of developing, which would benefit nobody. I think that many words are concepts. Apple, lighthouse, mouse, battleship, nose etc. Words too can be equally valid concepts. You yourself recognise and agree that cunt should not direct to vagina and is worthy of adistcnt article about the word. Furthermore shit, fuck, wanker etc, whilst not particularly savoury concepts, are indeed distinct concepts. I still do not understand why you feel that fart is not such a concept, likewise I can accept that you do not understand my view that it is. Encyclopedic articles can be written on many words. If you check a wiktionary entry and compare them to words which have an entry on wikipedia, you can see that they are distinctly different. Think about a person who wants to know what fart means. He will go to a dictionary and he will see that it is a 'synonym for flatulance'. A person interested in its history, development, usage, impact in society, etc will not find anything of that nature in a dictionary but an encyclopedic article on that subject will have him well covered. The article on wikipedia is encyclopedic in style, and is not a dictionary entry. I think the best way to approach this is individually. To look at each article and make a judgement. If a word would easily serve as a redirect for another term about which an article exists than fair enough. If someone can come along and provide the same sort of style of information that exists in the article cunt then I would say that is a perfectly valid encyclopedic addition. If it was just "'cunt' - a synonym for vagina", I would agree that that is no more than a dictionary definition. Rather than looking at a word and making a judgement over whether an encyclopdic article is possible, I would say that the approach should be to, where possible, draw up all the information on usage, history, cultural appearances, variations, etymology, examples, etc. and to create an article based on that. I hope this explains my thinking on the topic. Kind regards, Benea 17:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also see that you wish to raise a DRV over this. At every stage of the AfD I was considering your arguments, and yes i found them wanting, and your logic rather flawed, especially when you agreed that cunt was a concept, but that fart was not. I would agree that there is a missing piece to this puzzle. It is what you define a concept as and why despite the fact that nearly everyone in that afd deciding that your opinion was not one they shared, you feel able to say that they had simply not understood the policy you had quoted (which it is only your opinion that it is 'clear cut') and that therefore the 'raw votes' - which might otherwise be called a 'consensus' - are therefore inadmissable. It might be helpful if you can tell me why you think cunt is encyclopedia worthy, so I can understand where you are coming from. Benea 18:24, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As to my suggestion to where you should go with this, I suggest the policy talkpage is the most appropriate place to come to a decision about dictionary definitions/encyclopedia articles. I suspect that using fart as a test case again in a DRV would not have the result that you are looking for, namely a clear judgement on the difference between dictionary entries and encyclopedia entries. But I'm equally curious as to your stance (mine is outlined above): that no words are valid topics for an encyclopedia, that "fart" is among a small number of words that are not valid topics for an encyclopedia, or some other possibility I'm missing. Kind regards, Benea 21:47, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Benea 17:24, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Mario RPG lists

Currently, Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars has two lists pertaining to it (List of characters in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars, and List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars). User:TTN decided it would be best to merge the lists into the main article and split Smithy Gang into those articles. I recently merged Smithy Gang into the list of chatacters by removing the non-notable characters, and I have asserted that a cameo section in the list of characters is valid, per Wikipedia:Trivia sections and Wikipedia:Handling trivia that uses Alex Trebek#Cameos as a good example. I have suggested that we rename the articles per Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting potentially controversial moves to something along the lines of Characters of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars and World of Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars or Mushroom Kingdom (Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars) just like Characters of Final Fantasy VIII and World of Final Fantasy VI or Gaia (Final Fantasy VII). I believe if these articles are to evolve beyond a non-notable list, they should be renamed. For example, List of Final Fantasy VII locations was merged into Gaia (Final Fantasy VII), because a World article is notable, but a simple list of locations is not. That is why there are other secions of the article to make it a World article. It simply has not been renamed yet.

TTN believes the citations in the development and reception sections of the list of locations, books and magazines, are trivial sources. When I added that the 3D perspective of the game is reminicent of Equinox to the main article, TTN removed it since my souce was "the opinions of the Nintendo Power player's guide writers". Although it was actually Nintendo Power magazine, I do believe a magazine is a reliable source, and I gave a page from Next Generation Magazine which also said the same thing. In addition, I was surprized that TTN said that it was from the players guide, since he claims to own the players guide for the game. He has not verified this, since I asked him for citations in May, "Could you look in the back of the Player's Guide and tell me what “types” of … Magic? I forgot what they call it in the game … well, anyways, what types of Special Attack or whatever it is (actually, could you find out what it's called?) there are? I remember some vaguely when I owned the guide like “Fire”, “Jump”, “Electricity?”, etc. Could you provide a citation, like the page number with a quote in context?" TTN replied that he was going to "get to it" (User talk:TTN/Archive 5#List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars). TTN claims the player's guide is "at the bottom of a box that's behind at least five others in a cramped space". Seeing that TTN did not recognize that the page was not from the player's guide when I provided a scan of the page in question from Nintendo Power shocked me. However, I have continued to assume good faith by not questioning TTN's honesty.

Per Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change, I have offered five different reasonable, temporary compromises that might integrate my idea with TTN's.

1. Go over the list of characters so we can delete non–notable characters
2. Rename the articles by following the steps at Wikipedia:Requested moves#Requesting potentially controversial moves.
3. Cut down the geography section list of locations by cutting it into the regional maps the adventures use when traveling from one to another. I can get pictures and write the fair use rationals, and someone can cut down the text that has no citation and does not allude to other media.
4. Write the concept and creation and reception sections for the list of characters
5. Write the concept and creation section for the main article

TTN rejected my compromise because it still keeps the articles. I agreed I would consider a redirect, but Wikipedia:Article size does not allow that, since the list of locations is currently 82 KB long. Instead, I agreed to help cut down the geography section that is the bulk of the article, but TTN rejected that as well because TTN states, "I am not interested in working on the article in regards to improving it." and "get past this "having sources automatically means that this information is good" mentality." TTN states, "I don't think they have or will ever assert notability." I have replied with, "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so if you don't think the articles will ever assert notability, we cannot yet know this, per Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#I don't like it.

Would you please take a look at Talk:Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars and give us your thoughts? Taric25 01:36, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your talk page removal

While I understand what you did, your removal of others talk page comments is, while by a stretch MAYBE ok by BLP, not ok by various other policies including WP:TALK, and WP:AGF. Opinions are not libel, and neither are good faith questions by an IP. I'm sorry but since it does not assert a fact about eide, nor does it attempt to defame him, removing it is contrary to what would be good for the encyclopedia, which includes free and open communication of opinions for the intent of further developing the encyclopedia. While we're not myspace, and not a forum, we do allow IP's to help develop ideas on the article's talk page, and that is clearly what the IP was trying to do. The question that he may be wrong on the merits is not necessarily a BLP issue. ⇒ SWATJester ^Denny Crane. 13:19, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on my talk. ⇒ SWATJester ^Denny Crane. 13:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DRV

Am I to take your latest comment on the deletion review for Fart as indicating that you are withdrawing the request for the decision to be overturned? If so, I can close that debate early. If not, I'll leave it open until it is due for closing. GRBerry 18:33, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm back from my wikibreak feeling much refreshed. Please don't feel even a little responsible for my wiki-stress. At all times, you were exceptionally polite to me. Sometimes you get a little down here, and your edits come under fire, people say things and they don't realise how it sounds...it leaves you feeling sad because you know you're trying your best to improve things. Before I left, I just felt like I was being ganged-up on. I just looked at the results of the DRV and I really hope you don't feel that way too. Keep up your good work!

Seraphim ^Whipp 12:29, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forgotten Realms

Hi LtPowers:

• Regis (Forgotten Realms) restored and userfied to User:LtPowers/Regis (Forgotten Realms).
• Wulfgar (Forgotten Realms) restored and userfied to User:LtPowers/Wulfgar (Forgotten Realms).
• Companions of the Hall restored.

I have replaced the Regis and Wulfgar redlinks with redirects to Companions of the Hall for the time being. I suggest that article is probably the best destination for a merger. If there's anything else I can help with, let me know. Best, Neil ☎ 13:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ask the deleting admin to consider undeleting them to allow a merge. If they refuse, which they are entitled to do, yes, DRV is the place. Neil ☎ 16:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The history of the Regis and Wulfgar articles can now be found in the redirects, so all done. I've left a merge note on Talk:Companions of the Hall you may want to look at. Neil ☎ 10:08, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Dove Falconhand

Done, it's at User:LtPowers/Dove Falconhand. Please contact me when you're done with the merge. east.718 at 16:30, 11/6/2007

"Disruptive" comments

Okay, so stating helpful opinions is now considered disruptive. Never mind that other people also add the same comments to each AFD and they don't get a warning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.139.148.100 (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should User 134.139.148.100's comments be marked as Single Purpose Accounts? They recently edited a lot of AdDs, but only AfD's and always the same comment. Edward321 06:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit confilt.

That's exactly what happened. I did NEVER meant to re-add anything. I was just editing the speedy tag so it would make more sense. TheBlazikenMaster 20:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, crap happens all the time. TheBlazikenMaster 20:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dizzistar

I have restored a speedy delete tag to Dizzistar, but under a no-context criterion instead. Frankly, I think nonsense still applies, but the article obviously doesn't belong in Wikipedia and its demise should be hastened. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 22:42, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know...

I am the anon who wrote [2]. It started out as a well-intended defense, but then anger took over and it became what it is. I had become frustrated that no one else would defend you against her machinations, and I had to say something! The fact that you blanked the post tells me that me that it was not helpful to you; if it caused you difficulty or upset, I apologize. Although the outcome was no consensus, she still comes out of it to the applause of some of the others, or they'll eventually throw stars at her, or pat her on the back, and she looks like she has emerged (victorious, if not heroic) from a fierce battle -- in which she herself engineered an escalation in the intensity of the conflict! Look at that AfD discussion: have you ever seen so much bullshit on one page? Talk about a soapbox! I despise her kind: scheming, conniving, deceptive, manipulative -- she and her kind are ruining our culture. But enough of that, another editor (not me, truly) has summed it up rather well here: [3]. Please reply here if ya wanna. Be well. --72.68.122.94 (talk) 16:50, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I blanked your post because it was a ridiculously blatant personal attack on Benjiboi. Whatever the merits or lack thereof of the article, Benjiboi is a human being and deserving of a basic level of respect. As for the second link, if you re-read the comment I think you'll find it was meant in sarcasm, biting and completely unnecessary. Given the current atmosphere, though, I chose not to dignify it with a response. Powers ^T 00:44, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, the second post is as you described it. How come I didn't see that before? Funny though, that post is the only contrib made by that editor. Does that suggest something? You chose well not to respond. As far as that boi is concerned: she very cleverly and subtly "attacks" you, manipulates the discussion to one alleging your "homophobia," and she deserves respect? Where's her respect for you? Forthright people deserve respect, honest people deserve respect -- maybe she doesn't respect you because you are those things. If you were scheming, conniving, deceptive and manipulative she might respect you (more); that is part of her inheritance. Thankfully, she will never have children, so another strain of that bloodline will not continue.

I stand by the apology in my last post.

This is the radical agenda of some but not all LGBT editors at WP (their mission statement, if you will): either you allow us what we want, or we will set upon you in larger numbers than you can counter with. We will play the anti-gay card and you will have to back down, because you will not be able to withstand the onslaught. With each successive "counter attack," it will become apparent to all that once we label you a homophobe, you are permanently scarred. Fear of being so labeled will mute our detractors. Then we can proceed unchallenged.

This situation will not continue indefinitely as other well-intentioned editors are made aware of what's going on. They will present themselves in even greater numbers. The use of WP as a soapbox to promote the agenda of some radical queens will not go unchallenged. --72.76.7.135 (talk) 13:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever agenda anyone might have, WP:CIVIL still applies. Thank you for your comments. Powers ^T 21:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ICA applies as well as WP:CIVIL, and they go both ways. You're welcome. Be well. --71.127.224.176 (talk) 00:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Star Wars Galaxies Edits

While after re-reading, your edits to what I posted about mayors and player cities was redundant, the edits to my post about negative reviews as well as what I posted about the NGE as far as subscriber numbers going down were far from speculation, anyone who is a player of the game would agree. I will try to hunt down sources to prove it but I suggest you research more before you write something off as speculation

Tsti

Oh c'mon, it's still nonsense and you know it. ;-) - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 14:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Goth transformation

I could find no online link to anything related to this. The whole article seems to be baseless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sriks8 (talk • contribs)

== Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hosinshu (second nomination) ==

Thanks for fixing this. I'm studying what you did in hopes of getting it right the first time if I do it again! I did look for the info. on the How To AfD page but seem to have missed the small print--I appreciate your pointing out where it was. JJL (talk) 20:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gadget Article

All relevant content has already been merged into the article and the content was NOT just blindly deleted. The mergings are appropriate per WP:FICT and follow the Television article style guide. Individual characters do not inherit notability from their shows. The Gadget character is not notable on her own, the article was nothing but unsourced plot with some NPOV and OR violations. The merging was discussed and completed weeks ago after being tagged for three weeks with no real objections. The only objections came from a user who was having some image ownership issues who ended up getting reported to admins for those issues and his attacks on other editors. He straightened up and agreed the merging was better once he got over the "loss" of the image. One person did remove the merge tag, but did so only saying it had no support (but it also no opposition and had not actually been discussed at all at the time the tag was removed). Other character articles have already been AfDed. I tried to avoid it with these, but if you prefer, you can restore and I can nominate to have a more "official" like decision. However, I am 99% certain the result would either be delete or redirect/merge.

P.S. Sorry about the rollback being marked vandalism, stupid laptop misclick. Collectonian (talk) 20:39, 19 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AfD is not a vote

From User talk:Nihonjoe

Hi, Nihonjoe. Regarding your closure of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Parkour in popular culture, I'm a little perplexed at your reasoning. It seemed to me there was an obvious consensus that the article shouldn't be exist; the only disagreement was between merging (a limited merge in my case) and outright deletion (which only one person suggested anyway). Either way, only one or two people even suggested the article should continue to exist, and their arguments were spurious at best. I would like to ask you to take another look. Powers ^T 20:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After rereading it, I still don't see a solid consensus one way or the other (or the other, since there were three possibilities mentioned). Sorry. ···日本穣^? · Talk to Nihonjoe 22:41, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fortunately, we have admins who see the arguments, and define the consensus based on arguments not the number of persons nor voting. You erroneously used notability guideline (create a article) to define what is significant and insignificant to write in the body of an article. So, you has been unable to explain how we will keep citations like Generation Yamakasi, since according to your logic they are insignificant. Please do not come saying that I "put words into your mouth", because you erroneously use WP:N to define your own judgment of "bad edits".

By the way, there were 4 possibilities:

1. Keep - partial fix, you may do not like, but this fix the issues with FA criteria and article size. The main article should contain a summary with a link to a expanded article, that is simple.
2. Merge into parkour - does not fix anything, since you and Whpq (talk · contribs) were unable to explain what should be kept or removed and unable to explain how this merge will improve or fix the "problems".
3. Merge into timeline of parkour - partial fix, this article contains 4 citations already mentioned on parkour in popular culture, it is perfectly applicable this merge.
4. Delete - partial fix, if we get strong arguments to remove any citations, included reliable citations on films and documentaries, it will fix issues with FA criteria or "Wikipedia is not a directory". Just to remember, you and me were some of users who do not agree with it and we have our valid reasons. Carlosguitar ^(ready and willing) 14:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "What I'm saying, and what others here are saying, is that the solution to that problem is to remove the edits that don't belong, is that the solution to that problem is to remove the edits that don't belong"

No, the solution that you are looking for is deletion not merge. You never said that wanted that any citations would be erased. You said that wanted some significant citations be merged and the insignificant be removed. Still failing to give a valid argument to do it, only using your own judgment. Carlosguitar ^(ready and willing) 14:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "It seemed to me there was an obvious consensus that the article shouldn't be exist"

A user who only see 2 options, when there was presented 4 options by 6 established users and state "there was an obvious consensus". Only shows that he does not understand what WP:CONSENSUS means. Carlosguitar ^(ready and willing) 14:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• "only one or two people even suggested the article should continue to exist, and their arguments were spurious at best."

So, you believe that the IP voting was useful and WP:AfD is voting. From WP:AfD: The debate is not a vote; please make recommendations on the course of action to be taken, sustained by arguments. That is what I said and you seem to be unable or unwilling to understand. While this article is well-organized and well-referenced as Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles (talk · contribs) well-said. I have to inform to you that this article have The New Yorker, ESPN, The Guardian, USA Today, Fox News Channel, et cetera references, which you are unable or unwilling to understand by stating your biased and inconsistent "their arguments were spurious at best" statement referring to me and Le Grand Roi. Thanks. Carlosguitar ^(ready and willing) 14:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos, you have completely the wrong idea about me. I have no idea what your objection is, because the things of which you accuse me are simply not true. Either you're failing to understand me or I can't understand you. I assume English is not your native language? Or perhaps you speak a patois or foreign dialect? Because your grammar is difficult to decipher, and I fear you may be encountering similar problems with my arguments.

I continue to believe we share similar goals here; your continual arguments against me are both perplexing and disappointing.Powers ^T 03:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So, your excuse is my poor grammar. I think you do not read the civility page. It also is very strange, because after one year editing Wikipedia and becoming an admin, you are the first person to complain about my grammar. By the way, I do not have to write grammatically correct, to be able to address your mistakes about notability guideline and AfD is not a voting place.

I still do not believe how a user keep being confrontational by stating "their arguments were spurious at best" and ignoring the voting by IP and flawed arguments by you (using WP:N and "significant") and Whpq.

Please, next time use notability word instead of significant. Your elitist view about the things on Wikipedia is not acceptable. Thanks. Carlosguitar ^(ready and willing) 04:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos, I'm going to try to be as clear as I possibly can. You are reading far more hostility in my words than I in any way intend. I beg of you to stop. The fact that neither can I fully understand your arguments, and that you apparently do not understand mine, is evidence of a communication gap, not of hostility. I don't know what else I can do to assuage your concerns. Powers ^T 02:15, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may think that I am not understand you, but I understand. The problem is after advertising you that AfD is not a vote and notability guideline is used to create a new article not for content inside an existing article, ignoring my advice with your "I do not understand your grammar" statement as excuse. No, you are understanding what I am saying, you was able to discuss with me on AfD, do not say that are not understanding. After this discussion, you clearly shows few knowledge about policies and guidelines. But, I hope that you will not do these mistakes again, after my messages. Thanks. Carlosguitar ^(ready and willing) 22:03, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos, since you're so fond of quoting policy, how about having a read of WP:AGF. You have done nothing but assumed the absolute worst in my interactions with you. You continue to do so, and condescend to me, even as I continue to try to resolve the points of contention. I've tried to establish common ground, because I believe there's a lot, but you refuse to let me do so. I've tried to explain that I find your sentences hard to follow at times, but you refuse to believe me. I've tried everything I can think of short of a request for comment, and still you accuse me of lying, misapplying policy, taking an "elitist" view, and "ignoring" your advice. I assure you none of the above is true. If you persist in insisting otherwise, I'm going to have to appeal to others. Powers ^T 22:40, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fell free, but you are understanding that notability guidelines do not directly limit article content. You also understand that Parkour in popular culture is "well referenced and organized" as User:Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles said, and there is nothing of "their arguments were spurious at best". Which part you still do not understand? How about you assume the assumption of good faith. Carlosguitar ^(ready and willing) 08:59, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Questioning minor 1st paragraph edits?

Re: John Roberts, John Paul Stevens, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Sandra Day O'Connor
This is a small matter. I don't understand the reasons for Sjrplscjnky's recent minor edits of articles about each of the Justices of the Supreme Court. After some time, there has been no response to inquiries posted on this editor's talk page nor has there been feedback from similar postings on the talk pages of each of the nine articles about a sitting Justice and the one about retired Justice O'Connor. Rather than simply reverting this "improvement," I thought it best to solicit comment from others who might be interested. I found your name amongst others at Talk:Supreme Court of the United States.

I'm persuaded that Sjrplscjnky's strategy of introducing academic honors in the first paragraph is unhelpful in this narrow set of articles -- that is, in Wikipedia articles about Justices of the Supreme Court. I think my reasoning might well extend as well to others on the Federal bench. In each instance, I would question adding this information only in the first paragraph -- not elsewhere in the article.

In support of my view that this edit should be reverted, please consider re-visiting articles written about the following pairs of jurists.

• A1. Benjamin Cardozo
• A2. Learned Hand

• B1. John Marshall Harlan
• B2. John Marshall Harlan II

The question becomes: Would the current version of the Wikipedia article about any one of them -- or either pair -- be improved by academic credentials in the introductory paragraph? I think not.

Perhaps it helps to repeat a wry argument Kathleen Sullivan of Stanford Law makes when she suggests that some on the Harvard Law faculty do wonder how Antonin Scalia avoided learning what others have managed to grasp about the processes of judging? I would hope this anecdote gently illustrates the point.

Less humorous, but an even stronger argument is the one Clarence Thomas makes when he mentions wanting to return his law degree to Yale.

As you can see, I'm questioning relatively trivial edit; but I hope you agree that this otherwise plausible "improvement" should be removed from introductory paragraphs of ten articles. If not, why not?

Would you care to offer a comment or observation? --Ooperhoofd (talk) 20:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Holidays

Happy Holidays, fellow Wikipedian. :) --Dan Leveille^TALK 23:58, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jaina Solo AfD / Jacen Solo AfD

New comments that may be of interest to you have been posted in the AfDs. User:Dorftrottel 20:21, January 23, 2008

. I truly feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for excellence, and haven't explained why because one I'm not an art critic, two I've no real life & like many others I'm obsessed with Stephen Verges . Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Goochelaar (talk) 21:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Being Bold

So what? I've tried to undo all those pages for nothing?
Alright, how about i try to get refernces and some other info, would that make the articles okay to keep?
Answer quickly please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyro Python (talk • contribs)

Okay, i can easily see where you're going with the references, but how were the character's details not suitable? I personally found them pretty accurate to the episodes i've seen.
Pyro Python (talk) 17:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok it's not vandalism but I just don't know why you did such a thing like that it's just stupid there was so much information on it editing more on it and you just took it away and I also looked at history and some person said what the H*** and I hope I'm not the only one about to participate in this project just right now put information on it and put images on each of the characters. :Note I also look at the deletion article and you didn't want to merge it and if that happen you would have ruined the htf article. the luigi kart assasions (talk) 19:48, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Jacen Solo

Partially as a result of your vote to keep the article, the AfD resulted in "no consensus". Since you are convinced that Wikipedia should have an article on Jacen Solo, please stand by that and help get this article to the bare minimum encyclopedic standards. This includes a complete rewrite from a non-in-universe perspective, accompanied by reliable, third-party secondary sources.

If however the article has not been brought up to this bare minimum within the next 4 weeks, I will consider resubmitting it for deletion.

Regards, User:Dorftrottel 02:41, January 30, 2008

Comment moved from user page

1. Red links are not useful. If you don't like them, then make a page for them. 2. If you think the Rochester page still needs cleaning. THEN CLEAN IT. 3. If you have a problem with my multiple edits, because I find new factual information to add, then deal with it. Stop editing Wikipedia then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funnybs2004 (talk • contribs)

WP:AFC Backlog Drive

WikiProject Articles for creation needs your help!

WikiProject Articles for creation has done a tremendous job in working at WP:AFC over the past 7½ months. Thank you all for your hard work and dedication! Together, we've made the submission process easier and more streamlined, developed tools to make the process go faster for reviewers, and cut the backlog down to a mere fraction of what it once was. Well done! As you all are aware, however, our work is not quite yet done. The project still has 10 archive pages left to complete, which include over half a month's worth of submissions, many of which have not been completely reviewed. We need your help to finish looking over these neglected submissions so that we can finally remove the backlog notice from the page, and put an end to the more than two year old backlog that has been a thorn in our side for ages! Participants will receive an AFC Barnstar, so hurry up and help out while there's still work to be done! Make sure to sign in on the WikiProject's talk page so we know who is involved in what promises to be our final effort to complete this goal. Thank you for all your help! - Happy editing as always, Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 16:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are receiving this letter because you are listed as a participant in the Articles for creation WikiProject at WP:WPAFC. To avoid receiving further notices, please remove your name from the list. Thanks!

Muffin Personality Test and Google

What is truly tragic about such 'articles' is that in these days of WP being so high up in Google rankings, the new 'article' was indexed by Google in less than one hour after creation! It makes it rather hard to follow the gentle approach of prod, inquire, wait, afd... (grits teeth) Shenme (talk) 10:07, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What?

what did I do wrong. I'm still not done creating the PortionPac article and it clearly says not to leave anymore notices until the date given. LAZZO (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]