User talk:Sesshomaru/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
< Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 >

re Agent007ravi

I trust you have seen my comments at Mike Rosoft's talkpage, and I would suggest that if you have any comments regarding them that you add them underneath. For clarity, I would confirm that you are the other parties obliquely referred to by me. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:31, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked the above editor. I have mentioned that it is the absolute last chance, and I am letting you know that I will support a 1 year/indefinite block should there be any resumption of the problems. I shall continue to watch the talkpage. Please let me know the moment there is any disruption. If there are any comebacks regarding the unblock I will take all responsibility.
I have left a similar message at User talk:Mike Rosoft. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:14, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great... just what I wanted after watching my soccer team get knocked out of the major national cup competition... Okay, I am trying to make sense of this - since this is an area where I have no knowledge regarding the subject. Your view is that Agent007ravi is violating WP:SYN by using an acknowledged timeframe (published and cited) to generate a characters age, by referring to events detailed within that timeframe? This information (the characters age) is either not published anywhere, or at least in nothing that can be sourced (fan forums not being acceptable), and is thus unique in being published by WP? Is my understanding correct? If so, can you point me toward any previous examples involving other editors where it was decided that it was not permissable to take published information and derive other data from that source, and include it in article space. I will take a look at WP:SYN again and see if I can answer my own questions there. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:35, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I have answered myself quite quickly. I found this;

If the sources cited do not explicitly reach the same conclusion, or if the sources cited are not directly related to the subject of the article, then the editor is engaged in original research.

at WP:SYN (which is part of WP:OR). I shall issue a formal level4 warning to Agent007ravi, quoting the above. Please don't report any violation made within half an hour of the warning - per AGF we must allow him to read the warning - but let me know if he transgresses afterward. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi! I would gently suggest that, while keeping an eye out for the editor violating any policies and guidelines, that you do not need to note every "infringement" made by the editor. Edit summaries are not requirements. Claims of harassment and wiki-stalking, however, are difficult and time consuming allegations to investigate. Please only act upon clear policy violation in future. Thanks. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:43, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kenshin

The article has passed GA! Hooray! Next time before nominating, we may need to pay more attention to grammar.Tintor2 (talk) 21:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cant give a good opinion because of my english. Change it if you want.Tintor2 (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Maybe the info of the author saying that before ending the series he thought of a Hokkaido arc and even a sequel, but he later confirms he would never do it. Is it worth?Tintor2 (talk) 00:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I will be making a draft with the kanzenban of ruroken and then move it to the article like this:

No. Release date ISBN
1 July 15, 20064-08-855107-9

Tintor2 (talk) 13:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done, soon Ill make the wideban list. I see this article lacks summaries, I see if I an do something since Im not very good with this. I will ask another user.Tintor2 (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.Tintor2 (talk) 14:27, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will be writing summaries in my notebook, but I will be a bit slow since I started classes today (last year just to say (??)).Tintor2 (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I suppose.Tintor2 (talk) 20:09, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, its not mine, I think I entered Wikipedia account during last September more or less. Does Tintor mean something in English? (totally off topic, lol)Tintor2 (talk) 16:25, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ehhhh... the 2 I chose it, because... Well, no idea why (...). I also have a youtube account with the same name and another one in www.narutobase.net . I think I chose the 2 because it happened to me a lot that everytime I wrote a user name, someone else had it.Tintor2 (talk) 16:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sesshomaru, if you have seen my talk page you sure have seen the comment of Darkangel. So, do you agree? or you want to ask another user you know? Ah, I only wrote here to pay your attention, next time Ill answer in my talk page. See you.Tintor2 (talk) 16:41, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of Rurouni Kenshin chapters

Sorry, but the GA process doesn't cover list articles. You can make it a Featured List through WP:FLC, though. Wrad (talk) 00:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DBZT BZZZT

Howdy, I noticed you posted about recreation policy. I replied there. If it is a nearly identical copy, then WP:CSD#G4 applies, and you just tag the article with {{db-repost|WP:Articles_for_deletion/Timeline_of_Dragon_Ball}} and an administrator will delete it shortly. If it is new text on the same old topic, then you do a new {{prod}}, then a new {{afdx}} if the prod is contested. JackSchmidt (talk) 05:41, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hatnote on FLASH

Hi Sesshomaru, in your Edit summary on FLASH you asked "Why remove the hatnote?". The reason is that it's one of the situations not to use hatnotes per WP:HAT. I don't think FLASH is ambiguous. – Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 09:59, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree (obviously), for me it falls under WP:NAMB. FLASH needs a mention on Flash, but not a hatnote. I don't mind that we disagree, just wanted to explain since you asked. – Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 16:11, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I would never look for THE FLASH, but rather The Flash, and based on the number of backlinks (THE FLASH: 2, The Flash: +250), so would most people. I don't see any mentions of "all-caps" FLASH on Flash (comics). If it is commonly spelled in all caps the hatnote is justified, of course. – Leo Laursen – ☏ ⌘ 16:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Batman (disambiguation)

Given the fact that I have devoted a good deal of time to cleaning up Batman (disambiguation) and to keeping it so, I am curious as to what sort of cleanup you think it needs. Rhindle The Red (talk) 17:32, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I've joined the project and will take this one in hand for its few issues. In the future, please add a note to the talk page to help clarify the points with which you are concerned, especially when they are not terribly obvious, as in this case. Rhindle The Red (talk) 20:05, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

Just wanted to drop a note as to why I undid your change to the List of Star Ocean EX episode list. According to MOS:DATE#Dates, the examples all show the commas commas should be left in when using full American date formats like March 3, 2008. Also, thile they will show for a logged in user if left off, I do not think the auto format works for non-logged in users so it may appear off (though I haven't tested it to see). Collectonian (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Superman

Go ahead. Check for redirects first, but if they are all cleaned up, feel free. Rhindle The Red (talk) 03:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flight

Seems a bit arbitrary. There's not really a problem here. Subcategories would get deleted and probably trigger a CFD for the whole superpowers category hierarchy.~ZytheTalk to me! 14:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this necessary?~ZytheTalk to me! 09:52, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Tupac Shakur timeline

Hi, feel free to link the article wherever you see appropriate. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 21:41, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Im afraid that I can't help you with that section as I have never dealed with or created a timeline on here before. Maybe if you post a question on the talk page or ask somebody who knows about them. Sorry I couldn't be more help. --¤ The-G-Unit-฿oss ¤ 19:10, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Ah, sorry about that. I wasn't ignoring you or anything, but I've been working on an article lately and I kinda forgot everything else lol. Now I'm going to sleep but I'll take care of the Japanese tv cat first thing tomorrow morning. Kazu-kun (talk) 05:57, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got "A" done. That comprises some 20 articles. I'm going to wait a day or two to see how people react, and if nobody complains I'll do rest. Kazu-kun (talk) 18:29, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kindness

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
For all the help you've given me, I feel you deserve this Wikizeta (talk) 18:59, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, i feel proud of myself, i updated all the principals of all the high schools in Indiana. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikizeta (talk • contribs) 01:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Zero gravity (disambiguation)

Done. Don't know how I missed that. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 03:34, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2

This arbitration case has been closed and the final decision is available at the link above. TTN (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is prohibited for six months from making any edit to an article or project page related to a television episode or character that substantially amounts to a merge, redirect, deletion, or request for any of the preceding, to be interpreted broadly. However, he is free to contribute on the talk pages or to comment on any AfD, RfD, DRV, or similar discussion initiated by another editor, as appropriate. Enforcement of this remedy is specified here.

Furthermore, the parties are instructed to cease engaging in editorial conflict and to work collaboratively to develop a generally accepted and applicable approach to the articles in question, and are warned that the Committee will look very unfavorably on anyone attempting to further spread or inflame this dispute. Please also note that the temporary injunction enacted by the Committee on February 3 in relation to this case now ceases to be in effect.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 23:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Superman X

Is he actually referred to as "Superman" on the series? Or is he usually referred to as "Superman X" or "Kell-El"? If they don't call him "Superman", he shouldn't be on the disambiguation page. But if they *do* refer to him as such, he's fine. Rhindle The Red (talk) 01:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, unlike adding "Link" to "Rinku", which helps make his identity clear, I don't think "Superman (Earth-Two)" is as clear as spelling it out as I have done. Rhindle The Red (talk) 03:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Boru is Awesome

Sesshomaru, I do believe we should give BBiA a bit of latitude as his Asperger_syndrome may contribute towards his approach on edits. That said, it would be good for us to keep watch on his page moves.Netkinetic (t/c/@) 04:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lead Image

That was the old consensus, yes, but I think there was a continuance of that discussion where we finally agreed to have one if it was the beast form. Show him that one, and if he argues, tell him "Consensus can change".Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 07:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Cell (Dragon Ball). Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Reverts are only excepted from the rule in very limited circumstances. 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 14:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I requested semi-protection because some accounts partaking in meatpuppetry kept inserting unsourced data and bad grammer to Cell (Dragon Ball). Please read the bottom of this. And in case you were unaware, I was not warring, simply unreferenced, sloppy edits were being added to the article and I reverted each time. What else am I to do? Let people place whatever they like? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:25, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Be that as it may, you are still subject to the three-revert rule. Wikipedia is a consensus-based project and if a consensus of editors is against you, perhaps you should stop reverting. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 10:51, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weren't there exceptions to 3rr? For instance, someone was creating one account after another and using anons to add nonsense to the article. Have you looked through this carefully? Notice the logs and edits of those users. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:42, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The exemptions are listed at WP:3RR. Your reverts don't seem to fall into any of those categories. Stifle (talk) (trivial vote) 20:35, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

There has been heavy vandalism, OR and FanCruft on all Dragon Ball articles in the past few days. Everything from the movie pages to character lists has been stuffed with ridiculous information. I think we should revert back to a better state and then re-add the useful contributions if any. What do you think?  UzEE  14:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I asked for protection of two pages and I think thats what we should do until we can identify each sock with a strong proof. Then we can just report to WP:AIV or WP:RFCU and get them blocked.  UzEE  14:20, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its hard to say if there is a master puppet or a group of people working together. I think we need to keep an eye on the newcomers at the project. They might give us a lead.  UzEE  21:57, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for cleaning up the categories on User:Darkwarriorblake/ List of Devil May Cry Demons. I forgot that step! --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

I want to say i wans't try to do anything wrong. I just adding it because so the article can be better and also the movie is based on the series so why not add it on there. Transformers has it live action movie listed it down, so why not. --71.178.250.89 (talk) 19:39, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super-man x comic

I was just searching the net for Superman-X and Super-Man # 418 came up which had an alien as an temprary rep-lacement for super-man who called himself super-man x, i just thought if it should be added to this article, because i was unsure since the television super-man x and the one from the comic are different characters. i wasn't really trying to answer your question about the categories, although i it could be aaded if comic info gets added to the article. Gman124 (talk) 22:06, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dhalsim edits

The wikiknowledge link vs the singular strategywiki links is pretty self explainatory. There's no need for the singular ones, especially in light of WP:EL. Thanks.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:28, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, sorry for the attitude there, just having a crappy time with finding sales references for an article I'm working on elsewhere @_@;--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:33, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toxin

The reason I removed the category was because in Marvel Comics supporting characters it says remove superheroes and supervillains from that categroy. Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Namekian Lord

Not sure if I am seeing vandalism or content dispute, post on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism what what you think is vandalism. Jeepday (talk) 15:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Music genres

Read the guidelines. (Ibaranoff24 (talk) 04:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

"Dialog"

Sure, revert if you like. "Dialog" is technically okay, though, and for some reason a lot of spellchecks recognize it when they don't recognize "dialogue". I have no idea why this is, considering their arrangement in the dictionary. But I bet that's what motivated the change. --Masamage ♫ 05:00, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to. I probably would just because I'm picky, but it's not a big deal if you don't feel like it, because either way is technically correct. Up to you. --Masamage ♫ 18:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

The reaspn Dr. Doom's Revenge has three Tamplates is because it also features Captain America, so his template is on there and Pro Skater 2 has Spider-Man in it as a secret playable character, so it falls into the Other Games category. ComixFlix (talk) 03:01, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AIV Reads1

You reported Reads1 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at WP:AIV as continues to place deliberate lies in articles. Vandalised after last warning. I'm not seeing any vandalism in his/her edit history. Is there an example you can point me to? —EncMstr 20:22, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Friend or FOE?

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Friend or FOE?. 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 that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:32, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, what's up?

Could you let me in on what's going on between you and Abstract? It's spilling out across at least two certain articles. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:26, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, let me start out by cross-posting exactly what I posted to Abstract's usertalk page:
I would suggest that you make a concerted effort to not address his edits for a while. I have been where you are - exactly where you are about another article with another editor. I and this other editor still bump heads every once in a while, but for the most part, we tend to avoid each other, as it keeps both of us from getting blocked for editorially trying to pound each other into oatmeal. If you cannot find common ground, find different ground. If this isn't an option, trying being super-polite to the other. At first, this will seem like a game of 'Who Blinks First?' in that each of you will be waiting for the other to be uncivil, at which time the one who kept their cool reports the other and watches while they get blocked for incivility. After a while, both parties find that being polite is just an easier way to get along. It ceases to be a game, and turns into a way to deal with (and I say this tongue-in-cheek) "difficult" editors.
To be sure, responding rudely - expecting someone to be awed by your command of the language and irony - is pretty much ineffective, and paints you as a addle-pated feltch -monkey (figuratively-speaking). So clearly, thinking you are smarter than the next guy is the wrong way to approach this. Let your common sense edits do the talking for you. The other person will reveal themselves as Einsteins or chuckleheads in due course.
That's my advice. Take it or leave it. :) 1
Beyond that, I think you know how to behave, Sess - you have almost 15,500 edits to his more than 5700 - you are the more experienced user here. You need to step up even more than you have thus far and set the example. Talk to him, and not at him - you might be find that he responds a lot more positively when he doesn't think you are trying to punk him. Of course, if you do this, and he still acts like a dick, report him every time it happens, file user conduct complaints, etc. until he either smartens up or is banned. As I know he's reading this post (just like you read his), take some time to follow the Golden Rule. If the both of you find that this tends to make you feel better in giving and receiving better treatment, then more power to you. If you find tis is incompatible with what you want, then I have to suggest that one or both of you are in for lots and lots of blocks. You both have something to offer the Project. Concentrate on that, instead of each other.
I hope that helps the both of you. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When that happens, find an admin whose opinion you trust (and sometimes this means one who has pointed out your failings whatever they be), and ask them if you are doing anything to cause this. Note that Abstract has also expressed some frustration with this problem. Maybe bringing it ut into the open is a good way to recognize it, and avoid those triggers with each other.
I'd also recommend that you let go of the past, until (or if) the exact same issue presents itself again. At that point, avail yourself of the admin pages (RfCC, AN/I, etc.). The worst thing you can do (which I have learned from hard experience) is to not address the problem on the discussion page. Use WP:DR. Even if it doesn't work, you are showing that you are making a genuine effort to resolve the issue. If the other person isn't a moron, they are going to realize that not even trying to use DR is going to make them the Big Bad, and far more likely to get blocked, banned or forty lashes (just kidding about that last one). In the article discussion comment on the edits, and not the editor. Use the noticeboard pages to comment on the editor who is unwilling to do the same. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 04:08, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for losing my cool there in Abstract's page. I think your decision to stay away from him is a wise one, at least until you two calm down. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 19:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies

In order to move this forward, I would like to apologise for any words of mine that you have taken as being a personal attack. My only excuse is that I want a better wp and sometimes get overinvolved in seeking that goal. I certainly intend to take the advice above. I have two suggestions which would help me to act less emotionally in the future. First I would appreciate it if, when you disagree with an edit of mine, you explain why rather than simply refer me to a mos:dab or whatever - it would be helpful if you could give me something more to go on. I really am not at all unreasonable and, if your suggestions improve the article then I will be only too pleased to agree with them but I sometimes need help understanding how they are better. Second suggestion is that we both agree not to revert the other for a while; build on each other's edits - yes, but revert - no. Abtract (talk) 10:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vegeta and Bulma marriage:

It's never shown or stated when Vegeta and Bulma get married, but in volume 42 (DBZ 26) Vegeta get's pissed when he finds out that Goku was going to give Rou Dai Kaioshin a "naughty" picture of Bulma in exchange for him unlocking Gohan's hidden ki reserve. Vegeta states: "She's my wife!!!! Give him a picture of your own wife!!". I'm assuming that him and Bulma are married considering that he calls her his wife. --VorangorTheDemon (talk) 12:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Love disambiguation

Done. I made it lower-case, too. Thanks for pointing that out! --Masamage ♫ 19:48, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Deep Six" is only ever used as a proper noun, so it needs to be capitalized. "I Love You" is only a proper noun when it's the title of something, and is otherwise a simple phrase which should be mostly lowercase. The appropriate policy is Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Lowercase second and subsequent words in titles. --Masamage ♫ 19:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not every topic there is capitalized. The definition itself, which is what everything else there is named after, is lower-case. --Masamage ♫ 20:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take 'generic' to mean 'most basic form'. Every title there is derived the generic phrase, and is only capitalized because it is a title. Since it exists in a form that is not capitalized, that's the generic, most basic form. --Masamage ♫ 20:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, feel free. --Masamage ♫ 20:46, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tokyo Mew Mew

Hey. You'd mentioned having some comments on Tokyo Mew Mew, so I was wondering if you might have a moment to break a stale mate between myself and another editor concerning the the lead paragraph at Talk:Tokyo Mew Mew#Lead paragraph Collectonian (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Future Cops

  • Although just about anyone can submit B.S. to IMDB, given how ridiculous Chinese movies can get I still think this could be real. However, some sources other than IMDB would be nice... JuJube (talk) 18:56, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gohan article

Whoops on the chi and ki part. Was mixed up about that. Same thing for the quotations thing. Sorry about that. -- The Magistratus (talk) 21:00, 29 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DB cleanup

Due to recent boredom, I decided to join WP:DBZ. See discussion. I'm unaware of how many wounds, old discussions, or whatnot I'm treading on, but I'm sure you see that cleanup of the magnitude I'm suggesting is rather needed, and the Naruto articles are proof that such things work. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 09:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

edit summaries

Hi, I know you didn't mean it to sound this way but your recent edit summaries which follow edits of mine (for example [[1]] could be taken as being slightly 'schoolteacherish' (indeed almost offensive in view of our past). I have not reverted you, nor do I intend to do so in future without lengthy talk page discussions first, since my apologies above where I suggested that we do not revert each other and your gracious reply which included "I'll stay away then". Just a suggestion but it might be better not to say "please use talk page rather than reverting" in your edit summary (especially since I had not reverted you); but no offense taken. :)Abtract (talk) 10:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Media"

Hi again, I see you have been adding the word "media" to many lines on dab pages. Could you tell me what you think it adds to the disambiguating effectiveness of the entries? If it is a generic term instead of mange/anime etc then I can see it may be a good idea ... it would be helpful to me if I understood when you use it and when you don't (and why) so that we can be consistent. :) Abtract (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is meant to be more generic. 'Tis a method I have discussed over with J that seemed to be the most helpful solution (see specifically the edit he did to the "Burdock (Dragon Ball)" entry here. I use "universe" if the character appeared in one form of the media, like J said to do in the conversation. Care to assist? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:09, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I thought it was something like that. Sounds OK but I doubt I will remember it every time ... still that will give you the opportunity to tweak. :) 23:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)Abtract (talk)

I will heed your warning.

Regarding my recent edits to the Hulk page, I will not make anymore edits at this time. However, wouldn't you agree that this article does indeed support the notion that the Hulk possesses unlimited power and strength? It certainly appears that way to me the way some other editors have overloaded the article, am I wrong?--Looneytick (talk) 05:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Water breathing

Interview for WikiProject Anime and Manga

Hello there,

I am an undergraduate CS student from Georgia Tech and I am conducting an academic study on the Anime Manga WikiProject community (more information in my User Page, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:GT_YiWu).

I have also made a posting in the discussion page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga#Academic_Research_on_WikiProjects

I recently had an online voice interview with Nihonjoe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Nihonjoe), a long time member of WikiProject Japan and WikiProject Anime and Manga.

When I asked him if he could refer me to any other people whom he though would be good to talk to and would have interesting things to say, your name came up.

I would very much like to interview you about your experiences on the Wikipedia community and in WP Anime and Manga. If you are interested please let me know at gtg120q@mail.gatech.edu

Thanks!

-GT_YiWu

Hulked Up

I could be wrong, but it seems like the IP editors who were vandalizing Powers and abilities of the Hulk have returned with a couple of aged socks to defeat the semi-protection. Check out User talk:Jupiterjoey31 and User talk:Rufus367. Thanks! Redrocket (talk) 03:52, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. I'll go ahead and make the reports. Redrocket (talk) 05:59, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User;Netkinetic

User:Netkinetic made a mistake with some of the users. [2] thats what User:SuzukS wrote. Not vandalism. and this is what canberra user wrote [3], also no vandalism.Brian Boru is awesome (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removing another editor's contribution on a third party talk page most assuredly is vandalism and may denote WP:STALK. Please allow editors to handle these situations between themselves, as you are not appointed nor should you feel that you are an arbitator in matters that do not concern you. Regards.Netkinetic (t/c/@) 07:13, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Contributors are free to act in what they believe to be in the best interests of the encyclopedia. This is an entirely voluntary undertaking, and no editor can tell another editor what they may or may not do - providing those actions are within policy. For your information, good faith removal of another editors contributions is not vandalism and is not stalking. Requests not to do so are appropriate - demands are not. LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Boru made blanket reverts once more [4] and [5] when I once more attempted to address the concerns of both editors. How precisely was that in the "best intested of the encyclopedia", precisely when what I was attempting to do was explain why they each received the initial message? So you propose that I delete other editor's comments from your talk page whom I disagree with? That I manipulate the data so that you don't get the full picture? How is that in the "best interest" of Wikipedia, because I fail to see that logic.Netkinetic (t/c/@) 20:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baykal

Sometimes I wonder what the dab project folks' goals are in this encyclopedia, and more and more often it seems that mindlessly enforcing the all-mighty MOSDAB is the only one. Take this edit, for example. That a typo did not jump out at you and you missed it is understandable (we all make mistakes every now and then), but why in the world would you say that "Baykal" is the "primary name" of Lake Baikal? "Lake Baikal" is the primary name of Lake Baikal; "Baykal" is simply a romanization of that name. Linking to the article via a redirect is certainly correct on a technical level, but it makes very little to no sense from the encyclopedic point of view.

Please see Talk:Baykal (disambiguation) for past discussions and remember that guidelines, no matter how important they are or may seem, should always yield to factual correctness and convenience of our readers. What this means is that exceptions are sometimes not only possible, but necessary. Cheers,—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

spacing between quasi-secns (was "Trunk and Trunks")

Reviewing the Hx of my talk page, i didn't recognize your last on Talk:Jerzy#Trunk and Trunks, nor find an edit that looked like a response to it. What i assume i was talking abt is, in a line, that with Thunderbird (and i'm pretty sure IE), a non-indented line between two bulleted ones appears no closer to the one below it than to the one above, even if there is a blank. Thus it is poorly suited as a pseudo-heading above the bulleted items that follow, unless it is preceded by two blank lines.
I'll draw your attention (without pushing the limits of POINT to the next instances of my changing no-preceding-blank-line and one-preceding-blank-line, unless you tell me not to bother.
--Jerzy•t 17:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User 69.244.125.218 edits

I really don't know what to make of this guy. I've caught this editor several times makes totally bogus edits, but he also adds in legit VA edits (at least from what I can tell). The problem I'm having here is a lot of VA credits, particularly for minor characters, are near impossible to confirm. What do you think? Derekloffin (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tien not Human?

Ok well you know what my magazine says, and the video game, but this user keeps insisting Tien is an alein or an offspring of an alien. He says he has proof, and posted a lot of links, some in frnech. I haven't had the time to really search through them. One of them has absolutely nothing to do what he is talking about though, it's just a copy of the manga in french. Perhaps my sources are inncorect or something? Or maybe his are, or maybe he's posting nonsense, sense I can't read the links in french. What should we do about this. - Prede (talk) 23:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Name-calling

I know you are probably aware of this, but you don't have to put up with being called names. It is detrimental to a positive editing environment, harshes your fun and tends to make responding unpleasantly all the more likely. As someone who's been on both ends of the bad behavior, disengaging, using an intermediary and keeping your cool (as you have done here) makes your life easier. If the behavior escalates or continues unabated, then head over to AN/I (make sure it isn't a comment dispute - they tend to hate that). - Arcayne (cast a spell) 02:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apology

In order to enable my time and yours to be usefully employed editing articles (and dab pages), and to return some calm to my part of the wikipedia community, I would like to make a fresh start with you. To facilitate this, I hereby withdraw my allegations of stalking and apologise for said allegations (I am sure you just randomly stumble across dab pages and articles I have edited). I also apologise for saying you were "the single most painful, petty minded, vindictive editor it has been my displeasure to come into contact with" (I am sure time will prove this not to be so). In future, I will not make fun of your use of "Lord", or make any personal remarks about you, or revert any edit made by you without discussion and good justification; I will also attempt to avoid editing pages to which you have made a significant contribution, should I find one. I would appreciate it if you were to make an equally generous new beginning but my apology is not dependent on that. I have also posted this on my page since the original events took place there. Abtract (talk) 10:59, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Piccolo Edits

Hi. I wanted to state first that you had a point in regards to your recent edit of Piccolo (Dragon Ball) -- it was indeed unverified. I should also point out that it had been sitting there for well over a month before I chose to correct it grammatically (in an unrelated note: I was not the one to include it originally). The same is true for plenty of other unverified material in the article.

With that said, in the interests of Wikipedia:Civility, can I ask why you seem selective in regards to unverified material? Specifically, why are almost all of your Piccolo edits reactive -- being reversions or removals that mostly contradict others, or label their contributions as "nonsense"?

The issue I've found with your corrective stance is this: While you've been removing edits based on WP:V, I've noticed that you've also overlooked certain issues in those same sections with grammar and punctuation. While you're targeting one thing, you're missing another.

Since you seem to visit the article regularly, and appear to be interested in improving it, my suggestion (and note it's only that -- no more, no less) is to take a more active stance, rather than the mostly reactive one your recent history suggests. The label of "unsourced" material applies to any material in the article without a reference -- including all that which you've left alone -- not just certain edits which you take issue with.

I'd actually like it if we could find more references for some of the text, subsequently cleaning the article up. I don't intend to add anything until I have those. Again, in the interests of civility, this is my attempt to get us working with each other rather than against. --4.249.87.85 (talk) 15:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]