User talk:The Prince of Darkness/Archive

Welcome!

Hello, The Prince of Darkness/Archive, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  NickelShoe (Talk) 16:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My User Page

Please do not edit my user page. If you would like to leave a comment please do so on my talk page. Thanks. --Mikedk9109 23:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Grim Adventures of Billy & Mandy

I have no idea. You are not blocked and that page is not protected. You should be able to edit. --Kukini 01:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: The Ringer

I'm truly sorry for that edit, I wasn't paying attention to that. My mistake. Hucz 22:53, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Samurai Jack

Thanks for posting the title card, I had been unsuccessful in locating one. Hewinsj 16:32, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it would take something as simple as that wouldn't it. I always overlook the obvious things and go straight to the ones that require me to use some amount of Photoshop. Hewinsj 19:15, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I added some more images to this article, so I switched the alignment of some images back to the left side of the article. It helps space things out and this way they line up with the paragraphs that they refer to well without being too busy. Hewinsj 20:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a note, but the pages you moved for the birth of evil episodes have a single parenthesis ) at the end of the page name. Should probably take that off. Hewinsj 01:47, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there was anything wrong with the old titles of those pages so it may have been unnecessary, but it works either way. It also doesn't look like it hurt anything as links to the old pages in the main article (The Birth of Evil (Part 1 of 2) for instance) now redirect to the new location, but the Part 1 of 2 helped show that it was a 2 parter just by looking at it.
I don't really care in this case, but you should be careful not to get too overzealous moving pages. There are some people on here that think moving pages is a big deal. Hewinsj 16:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't be a bad move either. I was just looking at episodes for Batman the Animated Series and saw the same thing with one or two of them. If you feel like attempting a merge discussion go ahead, but I don't know if there will be that much attention paid to it. If you want to go ahead and merge them no one should give you a hard time, and I wouldn't argue with you. Hewinsj 17:06, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair Use

There's a bot that goes around and alerts people to this sort of thing, and deletes the image if the correct information hasn't been added after seven days. First you have to select which type of image it is while loading it. Now you'll have to go back and add the code
== Licensing ==
{{tv-screenshot}}
under the edit this page tab for those images.

Second, if you look at the pictures I posted there's an info box in each that describes what it is, where it came from (if I made it or found it), who really owns the material, the fact that they haven't had a problem with it in the past, and something to the affect of "since this is a generic image/title card it isn't hurting the profits of the person that owns the show and is helping raise awareness of the property". I started doing that after I saw it in images on featured articles and no one's given me any trouble since then. Copy and paste the info box from one of those images to your own and replace the information with the text regarding your own pictures. It should go under the heading Summary like it does in mine. Once that's done you can delete the "this image has no fair use information" tag.

Let me know if that helps. Hewinsj 21:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That should be fine. You shouldn't hear anything about it again, but if you do try and go to the discussion pages on the television project for more help. I think you can also delete the references to this problem on your talk page since it's been resolved. Hewinsj 21:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zappa Picture

Nice picture you have added to the Frank Zappa article!--HJensen, talk 19:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy

Please stop linking to spurious character pages that are proposed for deletion. The editing communtiy of this page does not want these. It has been discussed many times in the past. If you want to contribute to the article, please read the discussion page, and abide by what has been decided there. Thank you. -- Elaich 17:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is

In a title "is" is always written with a big i. The Prince of Darkness 18:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry, I knew words like a, and and the were but I thought is was as well, my mistake, I'll change it back. Cheers, Jack 18:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Moving the quotation marks

I personally don't think you should move the quotation marks in the TV.com links. I think it looks neater with them not in the link, but the other reason is that you'll have to change every episodes' link! Cheers, Jack 18:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mighty the Armadillo

Is there a reason for you reverting that? The consensus from like a month ago was to merge all characters like that. The IP is just breaking it without reason. Nemu 13:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think all your contributions to Wikipedia is vandalism. Your continous merging of perfectly good articles sickens me. You do not belong here, you vandal! The Prince of Darkness 13:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, what is up with you? I know you don't like information to be deleted, but that doesn't give you any sort of right to revert the removal of information and call it vandalism. I strongly suggest going to Wikia], which can use all of this cruft that you like to keep. Nemu 18:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

U2 image change

Hi, I reverted your change of the main image on the U2 page. If you want to see that image changed, please discuss on the talk page before making changes to the article. The present image seems better to me than the Anaheim one you changed it to, but I'd be happy to discuss if you feel otherwise. Regards. Wikipedia brown 01:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Mario series enemies

Wow, that was quick. It is not often that I receive a comment about an edit 2 minutes after the edit. Anyway, I am going to write a message on the talk page explaining my rationale on the reversion on the deletion. I also moved the page to List of Mario series enemies, as I will also explain on the talk page. Pointlessness 18:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Edd n Eddy Title. High quality or Low quality?

Kan du ikke lide Ed Edd n Eddy titlen i høj kvalitet?

Dont you like the Ed Edd n Eddy Title in High Quality? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 85.81.3.158 (talk) 20:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Nei, det kan jeg ikke. Bildet er altfor uklart. Finn en klarere versjon. The Prince of Darkness 21:29, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. Jeg beholder den normale! :)

Waluigi

We don't just take consensus from pure votes if one side's argument hasn't been refuted one bit. If this was ten to one or something, it would be different. But this is just four people that say "he's important because he is a Mario character/has been in many games/just because." Those aren't true arguments. Nemu 16:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did the exact same action towards the Ed, Edd n Eddy characters as I did to Waluigi. The Prince of Darkness 17:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean? We had a discussion based on policy, not fan arguments. In that case, the arguments to keep were the bad ones. You were really the only one who disagreed anyways. You at least should give it time for people to actually respond to me. Nemu 17:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto. The Prince of Darkness 17:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto what? You have to be a little more specific when doing that. If it's to the "You at least should give it time for people to actually respond to me" point, you had ample time to make your case. Nemu 17:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. The Prince of Darkness 17:54, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So will you revert me if I readd the tag? Nemu 17:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I can't be bothered dealing with you right now. The Prince of Darkness 18:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, this is not a vote. The keeping arguments boil down to WP:ILIKEIT. There is no valid reason to keep the article. Nemu 21:54, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop with that. A grudge doesn't allow you the right to revert a clean up. TTN 18:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even have a reason any more? TTN 18:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:TTN

On my talk page you wrote:

I saw what TTN did to the Ben 10 episodes. Terrible isn't it? Some administrator should block him/her right away. He/she doesn't really contribute anything to Wikipedia, only merges articles whithout even discussing it thoroughly. I'm on the verge of quitting Wikipedia. Anyhow, I just want you to know that I support you 100%. The Prince of Darkness 23:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see above you have already encountered him. Just want to say than-you. -- Jason Palpatine 23:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with PoD. Angie Y. 17:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: The Undertaker

Not entirely sure to be honest, I've seen both William, and Lucas, but there's noway to verify this unless someone can verify that they have accessed Texas birth records. Bmg916SpeakSign 13:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monkey Ninjas in Space

I completely missed the fact that you had moved the tag, not deleted it. My apologies. - Tiswas(t) 13:26, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do not undo those

Use the discussion to voice your opinion. TTN 16:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No thanks, I'm just going to keep undoing. You won't care about what I have to say anyway.
I realize that you get all pissy over redirects, but that gives you no right to just randomly revert them. You will lose in the end if you bother to continue. TTN 16:48, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It also does not give you the right to merge articles without explaining the cause. The Prince of Darkness 16:50, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did explain it on that talk page. A guideline is with me on this, also. You are the one that needs to explain how these fit WP:EPISODE before reverting. TTN 16:52, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care squat about WP:EPISODE. You are no admin and you don't have the right to merge anything. The Prince of Darkness 16:54, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admins are regular users with special buttons. They have no more rights than either of us. WP:EPISODE is a guideline, so you're just nonchalantly ignoring a rule of this site because you're angry? TTN 16:56, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the only one who's angry. All the people who have dedicated their spare time to writing good articles, and later finds them merged, are also furious at you. PS: The admins do have more rights then us. PPS: You can be blocked for sock puppertry. The Prince of Darkness 17:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because people "work hard" on articles, it doesn't give them any worth. If I spent twenty hours writing an article about myself, does that mean it should stay? No, they do not have anything more than the respect of the community to handle a few special features. Their word has no more power than ours. What are you talking about in regards to sock puppetry. TTN 17:04, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, so you're calling hard-working writers worthless?! Angie Y. 01:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The articles are worthless, not the writers. Though, their time was quite wasted on those. TTN 01:39, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quack Pack

Good job on getting a picture. It was about time. TheBlazikenMaster 19:13, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. The article looked poor without an image. The Prince of Darkness 19:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for backing me up, PoD.

Thanks for backing me up, but I'm afraid TTN will come back again. Angie Y. 22:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's too bad. However, I still enjoy reading the Code Lyoko episodes in the article histories. The Prince of Darkness 23:01, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is there any way we can revert the episodes back? People need to know every detail of each episode. Angie Y. 23:57, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Not one that won't get you blocked in the end. Goto TV.com; it is a much better source for that kind of info. TTN 00:01, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...

Seriously, what is up with you? Do you actually want that page to stay or are you just holding a childlike grudge against me? TTN 12:51, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:TTN

Takk for at du gjorde meg oppmerksom på dette, jeg fikk meg et lite sjokk da jeg så det. Er det mulig å få omgjord innflettingen TTN har gjort, eller kan det hende at episodeartiklene ikke hørte hjemme Wikipedia (jeg er ikke 100 % sikker på hva som blir godtatt på engelsk Wikipedia)? Uansett planlegger jeg å ta det opp med brukeren. Takk for at du gjorde meg oppmersom på det og takk for støtten. Jeg ser at flere har støtt på TTNs redigeringer.Michae2109 22:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, whoa, whoa! I can't understand you. Angie Y. 12:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, but since PoD alerted me of TTN redirecting some episode articles I had started in Norwegian, I just thought it would be polite to respond in Norwegian as well. Here is a (rather crude) translation:

"Thanks for alerting me of this, I was quite shocked when I discovered it. Is it possible to revert TTN's redirectings, or maybe the episode articles dosen't fit with Wikipedia (I'm not 100 % sure about what is accepted on English Wikipedia)? Anyway, I'm planning on discussing the matter with the user in question. Again, thanks for alerting me of this, and thank you for your support. I see that other users has encountered TTN's redirects as well."

I'll take care on discussing in English here from now on. Sorry =)

Michae2109 13:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars

I need some help creating the section for Creatures and races. Do you think you could help? Thanks in advance! Taric25 16:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waluigi

Please see its talk page. There was a new discussion with the end result being a merger. TTN 13:49, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a discussion, so please stop. In the very least, please respond. TTN 13:51, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Revert on Tron Øgrim

I see no reason why you had to revert my edit because of a YouTube link that may not be included. __meco 10:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klarer du ikke å fikse opp i det du gjorde? __meco 21:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if the edit diff's look as messy to you as they do to me. I have repaired what you did now without reinserting the YouTube reference. __meco 22:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:TTN has redirected every single episode article on the Teen Titans TV series (which I participated in writing articles for). I was wondering whether you know a way to restore the links to the episode articles (some of the redirectings he did were reverted by other users); do you have to be an administrator in order to do so? I highly disagree with his way of improving articles and he seems to be redirecting episodes on every TV series he encounters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michae2109 (talk • contribs)

I, of course, agree with you. However, as per WP:EPISODE, there is little we can do. Only notable and well-sourced TV series episodes get their own articles, like The Simpsons. I don't want to continue my feud with TTN anymore, but I advise you to bring the articles back when you have more sources and references. PS: You don't have to be an admin to undo revisions. The Prince of Darkness 19:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the advice. Seeing the intense discussion which now has erupted (a debate has sparked to life on [1]), I have decided to add more information on List of Black Lagoon episodes and possibly an own article on the two seasons of the series for now, instead of creating episode articles until I find some more sources. Michae2109 20:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know what to do either. All TTN does is delete and redirect stuff. He's not Jimmy Wales, you know. Angie Y. 20:38, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please discuss at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Mass_deletion_of_television_articles_by_TTN --164.107.222.23 23:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still think what TTN did was wrong. He could have used common sense and he should have thought of others, not about himself. Angie Y. 18:15, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for the welcome :D TV2007 18:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

I am User:LOZ: OOT. I have come to make The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time a featured article, perhaps even on the front page. Do you support me?

Of course. However, I am quite busy on the Norwegian Wikipedia, so I won't contribute that much. The Prince of Darkness 16:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There, the article's plot section is referenced. Now I hope to God nobody reverts my edits. I'm just wondering, though. Are the references I provided challenged? LOZ: OOT 02:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think references like nr. 14 and 15 are the best. You can find a lot of them on e.g. FFVII.
Cool. But I did do OK, right? LOZ: OOT 04:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's a good start. The Prince of Darkness 09:03, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree

I know what you mean, and I'll get down to doing that shortly after I return from my scheduled Wikibreak set to start right now. When I return, the OoT FA rush will really begin. LOZ: OOT 23:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

Yes, I have been to Gamespot, and yes, I am obsessed with Wikipedia. I know that the port on the VC was well received. I'm sorry if I completely reverted YOUR changes, but I thought I was reverting someone elses changes. Someone who was known to cause trouble, and it seems as though I misunderstood what happened. I'm sorry. LOZ: OOT 19:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not the person you should adress. The user who left you this message forgot to sign his/her name. The Prince of Darkness 19:46, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know. SpigotMap made a mistake with the unsigned template. But now I feel kinda bad abbout reverting the edit, though I think we should add this versions reception to the "Versions" section. I apologize for the inconvenience. LOZ: OOT 19:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your addition of the Legend of Zelda Featured Topic to the Featured Topic page- all topics must first be nominated at Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates where they are discussed and !voted on. Please see Wikipedia:Featured topic candidates/Nomination procedure for information on the process. Thank you! --PresN 22:07, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, sorry about that. I found out after creating the featured topic. I'll be more aware the next time. The Prince of Darkness 22:11, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bonnie Rockwaller

How does it not consist with Wikipedia's notability guidelines? Furthermore, both Kim Possible and Ron Stoppable already have articles. Even more so, why not add the characters who are not main characters to List of minor characters in Kim Possible? TrackFan 19:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Characters such as Bonnie and Monique should be listed in the minor characters article, not in an article that perhaps will be deleted in a short time's notice. TrackFan 19:46, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for agreeing to that. It makes much better sense using an article that has been already created rather than making a whole new article. I will add Bonnie, Monique, and any other character into that article. TrackFan 19:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quit deleting every article related to Kim Possible or I'll report you as the vandal that you are! ---- DanTD 13:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a vandal. These articles don't comply with Wikipedia's notability guidelines. See for instance List of Code Lyoko episodes. The Prince of Darkness 13:21, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Bonnie Rockwaller. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Please discuss the redirection you insist on at Talk:Bonnie Rockwaller before you change anything.Greswik 13:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed you're Norwegian. Do you have a userpage on no:wiki? The Prince of Darkness 13:43, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do, but this is not the subject here. BTW, I don't necessarily disagree with you on whether this articles on the sidekick characters should be merged- I just say you're doing it wrong. Greswik 13:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your mass deletions and redirects on articles related to Kim Possible: Notability arguments aren't resolved by deletion and redirects without any discussion or consensus. If you think an article's not notable enough to stand on its own, you first discuss it in the article talkpage, and maybe put a merge-proposal template on it, or propose it at AfD. Either way, you have to provide a chance for all sides of the argument to be heard so that a consensus can be reached. It's very hard for people to assume good faith when massive, undiscussed, unilateral actions are being taken; it results in an assumption of vandalism and a siege mentality that has those who contribute to the articles in question just digging in and fighting harder--particularly when some of the articles being reverted and deleted are referenced in "main" templates and the primary Kim Possible template. Wikipedia has a procedure for deleting articles like this for a reason; please follow it in the future. Rdfox 76 14:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit:Roxanne (Goofy Movie)

The action you have been taking upon article Roxanne (Goofy Movie) is of bad choice. If you wish to remove the "unnecessary" article, you must put up an AFD notice first. This is the only proper action to take with an article that is 'not notable enough'. Also, the article is suggested to be merged with A Goofy Movie.
-leemcd56 21:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Static-X Template

I just wanted to thank you for the work you did on Static-X's template. Hole in the wall 20:46, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I also want to thank you for writing a decent introduction to the article. The Prince of Darkness 20:52, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! How would you feel about trying to get Static-X to featurted article level? It's something I have been considering. Also, could you please respond on my talk page, it makes it easier for me to see when you have responded. Hole in the wall 14:57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll answer here, as I prefer to avoid scattering discussions. I don't think Static-X has a chance of achieving featured or good status. This is because it is too short; the Biography section is a stub, and the latter sections are completely redundant. As far as I'm concerned, the only positive feature of this article is the lead section. There is also not enough information available on this topic to write a good article. However, it CAN be improved. There are two citations that needs to be sourced. The Prince of Darkness 12:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a fair enough point, but thanks for taking the time to answer... Hole in the wall 06:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging List of characters in Ed, Edd n Eddy

Rather than tag the article, why don't you have a go at writing an introduction that meets WP:LEAD? See how far you get with it. It doesn't take much of an editor to run around noting violations and adding tags. It takes a real editor to meet up to those guidelines. I'm challenging you to be a real editor rather than a WikiKopp. I did everything I could but there is not enough substance there to justify 3 paragraphs. Either step up to the plate, or remove the tag. -- Elaich talk 05:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about the show, so there's no way I can do it. However, it can be done by someone who knows a lot about the topic. An example is Characters of Final Fantasy VIII. Since there's not that much information about the topic available, two paragraphs can do. The Prince of Darkness 08:59, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the template, as the lead has been expanded. The Prince of Darkness 09:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LeChuck Picture

All right listen, I'm willing to compromise on this picture thing, but you don't have valid reasons for the change. You've stated that you think this picture is better than the other one. That is your opinion and is not a valid reason for the picture to change. It looks horrible because it's not even a picture. It's a graphic that was ripped out of a cutscene and it's very apparent from the picture. The other one is neat, accurate, and many people are good with that one. If you want to change it give a reason other than it's better because that's not a reason, it's an opinion. Prove that it is better in wiki standards and start a discussion to ask others which picture they like more. Also, they need valid reason for why which picture is better. I'll check back later.-Darknessofheart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.34.186 (talk) 16:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Apologies on the tag issue. However; on the issue of the image my point still stands. Changing an image against the wishes of other users who have made their feelings known on the discussion page is against Wikipedia etiquette policy. Shantih1 15:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; but yours was the hasty response. If consensus is for the altered image; fine. Incidentally, I rather like the Guybrush and Elaine images. I'm certainly not against a change of image to give all the characters continuity; my problem is that the current LeChuck one is of a lower standard than the original image on the page. Shantih1 16:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That '70s Show

Why the hell did you remove all the information on some That '70s show episodes and redirected them to the list of episodes? Don't do that again! Kloth 21:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because they only contained a plot summary. I will do it again. The Prince of Darkness 21:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WQA

Hi Prince of Darkness. Just to let you know, I've left a response to your WQA request. --Bfigura (talk) 23:51, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wild ARMS 5

Please stop vandalising this section. No one wants to see an edit war. We've been nice enough to try and compromise by letting you change the gameplay sections and trivia section but letting us keep the character and plot descriptions, but it seems like you are trying to start a fight or something. MagicalHopStep 19:23, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your participation in the discussion at Talk:LeChuck

Prince of Darkness, I am first going to ask that you refrain from editing others' comments. If I post something on a talk page, I am the only one who should be editing it. Please keep that in mind. More importantly, you've taken the time to (repeatedly) delete parts of my comments, and yet you have not contributed to the discussion in question, despite being very active in the dispute. You even took it upon yourself to continue edit warring and insert your images again, despite the fact that we're trying to form a consensus on the issue. Please do not edit so unconstructively. --Cheeser1 14:49, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Static-X picture

Prince of Darkness, your pictures on the static x page has caused many complaints on the static x message board. The images I uploaded are better ones and more clear. you cant blackmail users of blocking them for uploading better images that arent your own --Raidon04 20:14, 4 October 2007 (UTC)Raidon04[reply]

Blanking talk pages

Actually, User:Raidon04 is entitled to blank his talk page. Doing so communicates that he has read and understood any warnings posted on there. Please do not revert his blankings. Sarcasticidealist 20:57, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TTN Mayhem

I brought the problem up at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:JunKazamaFan. -WarthogDemon 20:35, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I was originally going to do so too, but I'm not sure how the procedure is done. The Prince of Darkness 20:37, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Though hopefully the user seems to have quit now. -WarthogDemon 20:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ocarina of Time

Why do you insist on your changes to The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time? You're removing references that need to be there, and duplicating reference information in other places that doesn't need it. Pagrashtak 13:32, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's called cleaning up a very bad article. Why did you nominate this crap for GA? The Prince 13:34, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I usually spend my time with the FA process. I've (very rarely) nominated articles to GA, but I've usually done it while working on a FA, so the GA reviews were typically a quick pass with no comments, since those articles were very close to FA already. I wanted to nominate an article that was not a viable FAC contender to get more experience with the GA process. I know there's a large FA/GA rift in Wikipedia and wanted to learn more about it by taking an article through the process. Can you explain how removing a reference is cleaning up? Pagrashtak 13:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologise for that. I did it because the "cite error" message showed up. I'll add it back. The Prince 13:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's because you deleted the first call to that ref in the prior edit. I take issue with that same edit, because the article now has no mention of the Game of the Year award received from the Interactive Achievement Awards. I feel that's important enough to include in the article. Pagrashtak 13:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the compilations, awards and comments since the box became too large. What I wanted to accomplish was something like this, which is, in my opinion, a lot neater. Maybe the Interactive Achievement Awards info should be incorporated in the text instead? The Prince 14:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would definitely include it in the text if I were taking this to FAC. I don't like removing it altogether, though. Pagrashtak 14:24, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add it back, but keep in mind that the box is way too big in comparison to the section. The Prince 14:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know. I'd never take it to FAC like that, but I thought it was good enough for GA. Pagrashtak 14:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quack Pack

Just out of curiously why did you remove the section I made months ago? TheBlazikenMaster 18:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's OR. I've never heard that Quack Pack is a spin-off of DuckTales. You will need a reliable source if you want this sort of information to stick. The Prince 19:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

I noticed that 23 October 2007 you removed the image Image:ZeldaOOT Link Playing Ocarina.jpg from The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time. I would like to know why the image was removed from the article. I believe as visuals goes, the image adds to the audio section of the article, especially since the Ocarina and the songs were a key aspect of the game. I have also taken the liberty of placing the image back into the audio section. --ZeWrestler Talk 17:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the second comment at Talk:The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time#GA Review. The Prince 18:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:66.109.248.114

Thanks for the invitation. Nothing personal about the user page, I that how I like to manage it (please refrain from reposting the kind message). 66.109.248.114 21:40, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Arms 5 characters

If you let me, I can write some normal, nonspoiler details regarding the allies and NPCs. I need to include their personal info too, since real encyclopediae do list actual people and their personal characteristics too. Bokan 03:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Bokan[reply]

TTN knows more about this than me, so ask him. The Prince 11:37, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
TTN specializes in this kind of stuff when they have their own articles. Character sections in articles aren't really his area. - The Norse 15:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Prince, but from what it looks like, TTN isn't very well loved here. I just noticed the comments he gets. Bokan 20:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)Bokan[reply]

Please be kind

Responding to the message you left on my talk page, please assume good faith in my inquiries. No attacks were intentional. - The Norse 15:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I personally felt the barnstar was undeserved, but I see how that could be considered an attack. TTN's also a deletionist by definition, I looked over large chunks of his history and he has done very little actual content merging. - The Norse 16:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
He doesn't deel with OR most of the time, just unsourced information. And that's still not being a mergist. - The Norse 16:34, 29 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question of removal

The edit by me as seen here:[2] was undid. The question is, why? Isn't the point of Wikipedia to display the facts, not remove the portions that do not reflect well upon the subject material? ACTfilms 00:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mario (series)

I moved the information to that page. It was a more approate tilte. Alos please stop deleting the page with no disscussion or valid reason. The series has 13 games (one less that the Zelda series) making more than noteable. You can't just say "and thus not noteable" give WP links or a better reason.→041744 13:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Super Mario Sunshine

At first glance it definitely looks to be GA material; with a little clean up it could pass GA with ease. It could use some copy editing; I'll give it go sometime soon, maybe Monday. One idea that comes to mind, but not a necessity, moving the voice cast criticism to the "Reception" section, remove the "Voice cast" heading, and make the whole "Audio" section a sub-section of the "Development" section. Just a thought. Another suggestion would be to add a screenshot of the gameplay and maybe one of a cutscene with Peach or Shadow Mario. I think the game also made it to player's choice (not sure), maybe see if you can find a mention of that if you haven't already. A source may not be out there though. The only other suggestion would be to find even more sources, more reliable sources never hurt any article. Good job so far man. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:46, 17 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The fair use rationales you had looked good. I tweaked them a bit just to be on the safe side. As far as the instruction manual, I don't see why you can't use it as a citation. I believe Template:Cite book has a parameter for language. So long as you can read it and gather the correct information. Of course the English version would probably be ideal on the English Wikipedia, but the fact that it's in another language doesn't rule it out. Here's the code for the citation in case you need it.
<ref name="Instructions">{{cite book| author = | year = | title = | publisher = | language = }}</ref> (Guyinblack25 talk 03:09, 18 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I did some tweaking here and there. But since I've never played the game, I'm not that familiar with the gameplay and story. A few more suggestions on just general improvement:
  • I would go through the game reviews you have sourced, and see if you can find some descriptions of the gameplay in them. You could use those as additional citations along with the manual, which is good because they'd be third party sources.
  • I would also try to remove some of the review scores from the prose of the reception section. They can still be in the table, but it would improve the overall appearance and quality of the prose without them.
  • I would also check out the Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Magazines to see if you can find sources for some of the review scores without citations.
  • One other detail, not really a biggie, but you might want to include the ending of the game in the "Story" section. That seemed like the only thing missing from that section.
Other than those the article has shaped up nicely, you could probably take it GA as it is now and not meet with much resistance/criticism. (Guyinblack25 talk 17:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC))[reply]