We are not in the business of 'outing' people, and we must continue to have deep and profound respect for the subjects of our biographies. ---Jimbo Wales 14:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Archive:

RFA|RFA2|12/16|1/27|2/19| 4/20| 5/20| 6/10|7/3|Final

——————————————— ———————————————
I am currently not participating in Wikipedia. More pressing matters in real life have arosen and I was already spending more time on Wikipedia than I should have. The personal duties I imposed upon myself here and the real life problems that I must attend to have made hobbies such as this very unhelpful. I hope to return later in my lifetime. I'll check my talk at random intervals, perhaps. This page is archived by User:Werdnabot
I may not have gone where I intended to go, but I think I have ended up where I needed to be.' - Douglas Adams, 1988 To post something please use this link. or the '+' between "edit this page" and "history".

Archived as of 14:06, May 20, 2006[edit]

User:Cool Cat/RfAr Armenian Genocide[edit]

Please do not remove the link again. I am very serious about this. I will eventully prepare my case for arbitration, I just haven't gotten to it yet. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that you placed a misleading link (I still have yet to see proper steps and procedure pertaining to dispute resolution). I guarantee the Arbitration Committee will reject this nonsense over a heated naming convention; please don't do that kind of stuff, it's silly. -Zero^Talk 18:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issue isn't about a naming convention but more about Fadix as well as others dominating the article not allowing contribution from anyone but people they agree with as well as accusing them of being my sockpuppets or me being theirs.

Fadix for instance have reverted me with the edit summary of pov pushing when my edit was spelling corrections (this was long ago). My latest request was to the inclusion of the turkish reference of the incident which was whelming opposed but eventually added to the article. Even something so basic had taken me weeks of "discussion". It was later removed regardless. This is unacceptable as per WP:OWN.

Weather or not if arbitration will accept the case or not is to be seen when I submit my case. I am waiting for the arbitration queue to heal a bit. I am also overwhelmed with the mess I am dealing with atm most notably on the three rfcs.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Cool Cat, just try to be tolerant. Working with people you feel are beneath you is an important aspect of being successful. -Zero^Talk 21:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Video Game Credits / External Links[edit]

Why do you think the links to video game credits is spam? WP:EL specifically "ites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article" a lot of what you have decided is link spam is widely considered by other not so. --Flipkin 06:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You ask why. I've told you why. You're abusing Wikipedia to insert unreasonable, unencyclopedic links in regards to full-flegeded articles. You're violating the beforementioned policy and you're bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. It's time to stop this. There are plenty of ways to expand articles at Wikipedia, being which you should research and write summaries, rather than spamming every article you encounter. I'm asking you to go and edit these articles to a higher standard of quality. -Zero^Talk 06:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but you have made an unilateral decision. I believe there was already a discussion not once but twice at Wikipedia_talk:WP:CVP and the consensus was MG links were OK. Especially when they were used as a reference creating the article. I can see disagreeing with an already fully fledged out article and saying MG provides no additional information. I disagree since I consider the video game credits useful data. I do not a fair amount of people at WP:CVP support the links and consider them useful. --Flipkin 06:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to add another talk but a reference for what I was talking about Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games/archive3#MobyGames_template- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flipkin (talk • contribs)

On a compromise, would it be appropriate in your opinion for Moby links to be inserted into stub articles instead of significantly improved ones? This may involve expanding the article which could be quite informative as a result of the editing process. As you're probably aware I have a very, very good record of making and expanding articles that were previously non-existent and taking them to near-unanimous good article status, sometimes with just an hour or two of research, so I'm not proposing an unilateral decision, nor would I tolerate such abuse. I'm talking about content that, for whatever reason, has been wrongly inserted and which your links somehow fails to remedy. That spamming/external links section is a failing process isn't just my opinion; it has been discussed at policy level (see recent pages such as WP:EL talk and meta). I'm trying to remedy this and I sometimes feel as if I'm the only person actually inside the process trying to do so. -Zero^Talk 06:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a fair compromise. Additionally what do you think the of value of credits information? In the past that has been my criteria for adding links. It doesn't seem like the 'pedia is geared to document that information. MobyGames does that well. Admittedly the articles here are much better here than the descriptions of MG. Appologies for spelling et al. --Flipkin 08:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is late where I am. Also what about the 40 or so link that you tagged as spam when the concensus is that they may not be so? --Flipkin 08:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Megaman, the system works by concensus. If you look at number 5 WP:EL#What_should_be_linked_to "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.". The concensus on [[WP::CVP]] that credits are valuable. Also removing links that have been in the system and accpeted by the community unilaterally is not very 'pedia like. Saying the links are link spam or they add nothing I do not believe is correct. They are links to additional data and some high value data for a lot of people, mostly game developers. Having worked at EA and Sony Online Entertainment crediting the people who have worked on this art form is something that I feel is important. Also often the linked to page have a higeher detail, though not as well presented as wikipedia like release info --Flipkin 16:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on this. A slew of votes isn't consensus by any stretch of the imagination.

We've now got a link that is neither informative nor expansive, but says in plain words what the article has been saying all along--that its a video game. Unlike the other links, it is not higher detail.

Consensus isn't a matter of counting votes. We have a strong consensus that some content is unacceptable for Wikipedia. You cannot subvert that by assembling a subset of Wikipedians and getting them to agree to suspend it in one particular instance. Consensus involves all of us, not just a few people who believe a case of vote-stacking dictates the good of wikipedia. As for your alleged “consensus” I do not see it.

Now if it's a web host you're after, I can recommend schtuff.com, which provides up to three different spaces with each of its free accounts. You can add pages using a wiki syntax very similar to that used here, the pages can also be organized as blog entries, and there is provision for pictures. You can decide, on a page-by-page basis or by the use of categories, whether to let others edit, or to allow only invited friends to edit, or to leave the pages closed to editing by anyone except yourself. You can also, if you wish, make pages visible only to yourself and invited friends. Although of course I wish that you would not engage in link spam on these expansive articles, you may do so to your heart's content--off Wikipedia. According to your contributions, this is more or less all you've been doing since you arrived at Wikipedia. Honestly? Go write some articles. Participate in wiki-discussion and breathe in the air. There's much more to Wikipedia than external links. -Zero^Talk 17:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not after a webhost. Look at the policy also the concensus is not just your own opinion no matter how correct you feel you are. You have written a lot of articles. They are almost without exception really good. Just because you write a lot of articles doesn't mean your opinion is the only one that counts. A lot of people have found the links useful and have communicated so. I am not trying to subvert anything. I have an opinion, you disagree. Hopefully we can come to a reasonable understanding. Also to my first question; what about video game credits? Do you have an opinion? If you honestly feel these are not notable pieces of info I can understand where you are coming from kinda. I think we both need to take a deep breath. --Flipkin 17:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, a deep breath might be the best course of action, less this become an uncivil argument. I hope you'll reconsider your hasty judgment, Flipkin. Your apparent belief that others will see things the way you want them to is misplaced. You have falsely claimed, for instance, that the policy is in your favor, yet you present no evidence to support this claim. Now, back to discussing these problems, your propensity to declare consensus, we now need to work on that.

As for credits, that's still on the jury. Do we really need such things..? I know such could be mentioned I the article where appropriate, and the release date information certainly requires no link as you could have simply fixed that in the infobox of your own accord.

Just because you write a lot of articles doesn't mean your opinion is the only one that counts

No, I only meant that, by writing and merging together the words in the link and the verbal description it gives, you could make a more sufficient contribution to Wikipedia, instead of simply adding Moby links to and froth.

But no external link is strictly necessary. I have encountered articles who function very capably, explain, elaborate, have great thesis and whatnot, without having one link. You know (assuming you yourself are considering article construction) you could probably do quite a bit more by writing what you feel is necessary in pharagraph format, rather than allowing a link to do all the work. -Zero^Talk 17:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The consensus I was talking about were debated at WP:CVG. Some are early days stuff Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games/archive6#Article_structure and I am sure if you dig around a lot of people use them for refrence. My big thing is game credits. Maybe if I make this more clear? Also what is the policy on when other sites are used as refrence. I was under the impression that it was a See also or External links. Also saying MG is spam or provides not value I think is not correct. I feel some links are appropriate and other may not be. Universally saying they are all junk I do not think is fair. --Flipkin 17:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously we are disagreeing again. I suggest to get closure you bring it up on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games for discussion. --Flipkin 20:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: The use of a MBG page or any related links depends on what is provided in it; if the contents are not sufficient or contain lesser or duplicate info than in the WP page, there are not normally encouraged to be included. As quoted in Wikipedia:External links#Links to normally avoid, point 2:

In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.

Equally, the inclusion of such external links may also depend on the current state of the article. Stub articles with little to provide may benefit with the inclusion of such external links initially, but as they grow, we would have to weigh in the quality of both the Wikipedia page and external links. If the external link's contents have not expanded significantly as the WP article has, it's usually advisable to remove it, as it may be redundant and no longer needed. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 01:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]

Snk 444 sockpuppets[edit]

These will be tough to permaban...they all only have a few or even one edit in total so it may be a long road. I can always semiprotect the article again...let me know what you want and I'll check back in tonight. Keep up the good work!--MONGO 14:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They all need a indefinite block (except for the AOL proxy) per the blocking policy. The policy explicitly states: Users that have been banned are typically blocked from editing Wikipedia. Such bans may occur as the result of community consensus that the user should be banned, ruling by the Arbitration Committee, ruling by Jimbo Wales, or ruling by the Wikimedia Board of Trustees

When it becomes clear that a user account is a "reincarnation" of an existing banned user, the reincarnating account can likewise be blocked. See Wikipedia:Sock puppet for discussion.

They won't be tough to permaban at all. They are no service to the site, and I garantee a IP check will verify a shared location. The policy is very clear on things such as this. -Zero^Talk 15:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can do this, but as I said, the one IP has a total of one edit to the site, so what's the sense? I'll take care of the other one, but I think that s/he will continue to mess with the article unless I semiprotect it for a couple of weeks.--MONGO 15:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked two and sprotected article for ya...let's see what happens next.--MONGO 15:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Time to desist feeding the bees with honey and bring out the flyswatter. -Zero^Talk 15:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert[edit]

Please explain your reasons for this revert to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. —Guan aco 02:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know what you're doing. You deliberately recreated an addition that had been removed because it is misleading and against consensus. Please don't it again. You have already made the point of reverting twice, with various editors constructing a revert and up to a point that is acceptable. I've no argument with you or your activities on Wikipedia, which seem to be in good faith, but you shouldn't expect to be able to recreate policy sections that have been deleted because they're unacceptable. T1 applies to pages created anywhere on Wikipedia, in any namespace, for the purpose of transclusion, as well as with Jimbo's support. -Zero^Talk 02:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

I left a few minor suggestions about the article on the associated talk page...you may want to put a larger image in the upper right as imagery really adds to the articles...no reason to hide them. I'll watch your progress and add more as I learn more and can be more subjective about the subject matter.--MONGO 09:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your suggestion on the talkpage. -Zero^Talk 12:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about revert[edit]

Since Wikipedia is to document information for use by everyone, isn't omitting information going against what Wikipedia stands for. You know what you reverted, The Wonderswan Tekken game although only released in Japan is still of Tekken lineage and made by Namco. Sure it might not be well known but it's still a part of Tekken history. I would have added the Tekken pachinko game in there as well, but I thought it would have been reverted more than this one.

So what was the reasoning behind the revert?--Scott.Moss 12:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, my apologies. I'd never heard of such a game, and I made a hasty assumption that it was a jest. I reverted just to be safe in case of such a situation. I'll replace the entry since it was not. -Zero^Talk 12:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you found the Tekken Card reference; this should definitely be included in any article, as I'm sure LordVid would be the first to agree. Excellent work! In the meanwhile, I've gone ahead and created the entire article here. -Zero^Talk 17:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I should say sorry, that was posted at a bad hour so I'm sounding rather bitchy. I thought that might have been the case with the revert, that and there's a lot of crap come through the page recently that you guys have been wonderfully editing out. Additionally do you think that it would be too much to include a history of the Tekken online community to the page. I've been around for about 5 years over the different sites and pretty much know the history back to tekken.net's early days (pre Zaibatsu). I never really added it thinking it might have been information not really needed. Anyhow keep up the good work, and I hope that I can continue to add to the information sooner or later. Scott.Moss 09:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If you want to help to further the article, please drop a copy of your proposed summary here on my talkpage and I'll see what I think. -Zero^Talk 11:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfC endorse[edit]

The outside view you endorsed doesn't include any mention of my being disruptive or needing to cool off, it endorses Cool Cat taking a wikibreak and robchurch being a bit nicer, but your endorsement comment implied myself needing to cool off as well. If this is your view, could I ask you to explain it further in an additional outside view, so that I can see your reasoning and suggestions? It's a bit confusing at the moment :) Thanks -M^ask 18:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd. You must have misunderstood my comment. I was referring to Cool Cat and robchurch. Those two are getting a tad too heated over this.-Zero^Talk 03:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my bad then. My first RfC, so I'm trying really hard to listen to any complaints about MY behavior that may stem from this, to correct them. Guess I listened a bit too hard in this case :) Carry on, then -M^ask

03:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Welcome to wikipedia. -Zero^Talk 03:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Man Classic articles[edit]

Yeah, I remember. I've actually gotten Mega Man 8 the way I think it should be. I just haven't gotten up the initiative to do the same with the others. ~ Hibana 04:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, may I ask what you think of the new articles constructed...? -Zero^Talk 04:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like them. And I like the fact that there are now easily navigatable (is this a word?) templates for each of the series. If you spearheaded it, props. The only major thing other than cleaning up a few of the older articles is fixing all the redirects that exist. ~ Hibana 04:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was me. I "spearheaded it" (as you described) and did a massive overhall on many pages, and creating new ones all detailed in the templates I constructed below:

Template:megamanbattlenetwork

Template:megamanx

Template:megamanclassic

Template:megamanlegends -Zero^Talk 04:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. I need to go ahead and mark each article as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games, so that there'll be more help in fixing up these articles. If you want, just go to the talk page of an article and put {{cvgproj}} at the top to denote it for any new articles you makes. ~ Hibana 04:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well please don't insert them in just yet. I think it might be a better course of action to ask the project on thier talkpage beforehand, as they might not take active participation, evicerating the point of the template inclusion. An example would be the Samurai Shodown character articles I constructed. I requested assistance on the talk, but recieved absolutely no help on them (I had to do all of the pages myself; took me a bloody month). This is why there's not a template on every video game article talkpage; the project has to actively pursue the goodwill of that paticular article(s). This is also why I departed the CVG project. -Zero^Talk 04:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, I suppose it couldn't hurt to still try and acquire GCOTW for one specific article that really needs cleaning or expanding. I think Mega Man X (video game) had it a few, or several, months ago, and it allowed for substantial improvement. Of course, this could only be for a less obscure article like an actual game. However, if you don't feel comfortable having me request it because of your previous involvement in the project, I understand. ~ Hibana 04:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article[edit]

For the article...go through all the external links you can find and start by simply doing inline external links. That way I can come back and then add the ref|note or similar style and after I do a few, you'll figure it out. Also, we still need to add significantly to the general descriptions as that will be important for laypeople such as myself. Finally, let's get you to spread the images out a bit better in the text and try to eliminate the gallery style.--MONGO 12:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll try to conjure up something to expand the opening sentence; but I don't understand what's the matter with the images. Please feel free to format them, and I'll see what I think. -Zero^Talk 13:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject: Gamecruft[edit]

I've decided to create a WikiProject devoted to discussing what articles qualify as gamecruft, and what do not. Contact me if you are interested, or have questions. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds intriging. Would User:A Man In Black have anything to do with this..? -Zero^Talk

No, but I'm inviting him. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is how it will be:

Part 1: Gather up articles that are believed to be in need of being merged or redirected.
Part 2: Gather up people to discuss what articles deserve to stay, and what do not.
Part 3: Discuss this as a group.
Part 4: Act on our discussion.
Part 5: Hopefully, this part will involve us doing the same against the Pokémon articles, Fire Emblem articles or Final Fantasy articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Different name. Please.

One big point: Remember, there are Wikiprojects which will often have overlapping coverage, so be careful not to set up Us Vs. Them situations. It's one thing to come in and clean up orphaned unexpandable stubs, but the Pokémon and FF Wikiprojects are active and outspoken. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. As well, I'm not sure whether there really is a role for this project- all the points are covered by the general video game wikiprojects or specific projects. --maru (talk) contribs 20:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a Gamecruft Cabal? Then nobody will take the name seriously, nor will anyone think we're usurping the purview of any other project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minding this project sounds like tough, grinding work. If it comes to, I'll take a gander, but I tend to go off and do my own thing for the most part. -Zero^Talk 04:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not contact me[edit]

Nothing against you personally, but I hate you personally for what I perceive you to have done to the Rockman articles on Wikipedia. Since you made the effort of writing on my talk page without reading the notice on my talk page, you should know that I am leaving you to your own devices; you may continue creating needless crufty articles with no standards, organisation, coherency, etc., rife with false information and plagarism, free from any chance of interference by me. I have given up: you win. Enjoy your 5'10" X and your 14-year-old Rock and your virus-controlled Sigma and all of those other completely false things that you and yours are perpetuating. --Boco XLVII 23:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of the phrase "Nothing against you personally, but I hate you personally for what I perceive you to have done to the Rockman articles on Wikipedia" in an instance where you clearly intend to convey malice is somewhat disturbing. Are you sure that Wikipedia is really the place for you? It's hardly a civil way to behave, and I am deeply hurt by your words.

If I wasn't doing good and productive edits, then my changes would not stick. Now whilst I wish you could refrain from false allegations upon my person, then perhaps we can proceed to seek a neutral understanding. If me and mines actions are so outrageous as to be detrimental to the encyclopedia, I'd have departed long ago, otherwise I'd stop doing them. -Zero^Talk 02:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"5'10" X and your 14-year-old Rock"...? Wow! Did you even bother to read the articles? -Zero^Talk 12:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protoman[edit]

I edited the protoman entry with factual information. There is an interview in the megaman collection in which the creator makes this statement, but the information was deleted. -—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.206.3.69 (talk • contribs)

That's a shame. However, a source is required for its inclusion. No source, no insertion. -Zero^Talk 14:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do I site a source I saw in a video game?

Hm, you viewed the source in the video game..? If so, that's different. Could I humbly ask that you to tell me which one...? -Zero^Talk 14:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Megaman collection for the gamecube I belive.-—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.206.3.69 (talk • contribs)

No problems then. I'll take your word for it.-Zero^Talk 17:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please[edit]

A bigot is a bigot and a troll is a troll and I will identify them as such. I will not apologize for that. No way. We all need to stop being such wimps about hansdling these kind fo users and be more strict with calling them on their poor behavior instead of going after the few editors who do so. Thanks for the advice, but I disagree. In good faith though, I have nothing further to say to him as lng as he remains blocked/civil. Thanks.Gator (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm inclined to believe in your actions are for the protection of the encyclopedia. That does not excuse rude behavior however, and I think it a tad unfair to be incivil as you have been, especially taking into consideration that he's heading towards a indefinite block or probation anyway.

I did not inquire for a apology. I saw where you were coming from, I simply think it no reason to flog the dead horse, considering there's scant oppurtunity of his block being lifted. Just a thought. -Zero^Talk 17:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you call rude I call totally justified. We'll JUST have to agree to disagree. I support an unblock by the way, just not with the additioanl conditions that he has the nerve to demand. (he is not entitled to ANOTHER warning, you gotta be kidding). Just letting you know.Gator (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem. He's blocked and (acting) in a civil manner. Disparaging him will not assist in coming to a conclusion in this issue. If he returns to even the first case of misbehavior or naughtiness, another indefinite block will be issued. I'd still prefer to see this rfar filed though. I'm gay that this issue is being dealt with hastily; the MSK situation occurred for months. Been there, done that. -Zero^Talk 17:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Jade Cocoon 2[edit]

Heh - thanks! --Cel es tianpower ^háblame 17:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. I had a jolly good time writing it and doing the research. -Zero^Talk 17:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol. It's a really fun game, I don't get why it got so many bad reviews... --Cel es tianpower ^háblame 18:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

destroy enemies with various enemies[edit]

Wow. Nice catch. I don't know how I missed that one. I must have though it was the Super Mario Bros. 2 article. ;) Well, I've found another typo so I'd better get to work. :) --Optichan 17:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I wrote the section, it would only be plausible that I clean up behind myself. :) -Zero^Talk 18:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Mitochondrial Creatures[edit]

The first thing to do on that article is to add a fair use rationale to the images. I'll get on that. jaco plane 11:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know who has the copyright on images such as Image:Pealligtator.jpg? If I'm going to add the fair use rationale, I need to know this. Are they from Square? jaco plane 11:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. All the images are copyrighted by Square and the respective artwork was released proceeding the game's retail outlet. The screenshots are taken from the game's themselves. -Zero^Talk 11:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, all fair use rationales done. jaco plane 12:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its pretty good. Anything else..? -Zero^Talk 12:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of fighting game terms[edit]

See also List of Soul Calibur terms which is about to be deleted for the same reason. Stevage 16:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that. I'm the one who placed it up for deletion! -Zero^Talk 16:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. :) Stevage 06:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Man category[edit]

Hello, I just wanted to explain why I added the "| " to the Mega Man category for the Mega Man (series) article. I did so because usually articles which are generally the "main" article for their category are given a sort key of " " or "*", to force them to the top of the category. Not a big deal, but I was wondering why you disagreed with it? Thanks. — TKD::Talk 05:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I was under the impression the line insertion was intended for something that never got in. I then made a "safe" revert in the situation that it was nelligible. -Zero^Talk 11:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I probably should've provided a better worded edit summary; I was fixing up a bunch of categories at the same time. — TKD::Talk 12:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ecstatic this was brought to my attention. I never knew the inclusion of the single line would construct that formatt. You can always teach a reploid new tricks. -Zero^Talk 12:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

C&VG[edit]

I have changed the title to List of deaths attributed to computer or video games and would like to request that you take a look again at this nomination. The attributions are verified, including, in at least one case the deputy coroner. There is no policy against such lists, and it serves a useful purpose in identifying deaths that have, in fact, been attributed to c&vg by reputable source. Yours, For great justice. 06:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked your sources and input, so there's no problem there.

The only predicament that I perceive with the article is not the naming convention but the fact that its not notable and it doesn't warrant its own individual article. Dear Jacoplane has created "video games current events" I believe, and it should have a place there. I also would like to think it could be added into a larger, more notable list of deaths. However, it counts as indescrimite information as it stands, I'm afraid. -Zero^Talk 11:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think it's indiscriminate? It seems to me that there is much discussion about the role of c&vg in violence - a listing of actual occasions when video games have been widely and verifiably accused of being the cause seems legitimate to me, and a subject that could be of considerable interest and use in that debate. For great justice. 15:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it would be truly informative or an substantial addition to the encyclopedia. What particularly upset me was that it was not a notable subject and that this doesn't truthfully reflect upon the content we permit here at wikipedia. -Zero^Talk 18:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's a 'clear admeddeum'? For great justice. 21:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Addendum. -Zero^Talk 21:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to press this issue, but, assuming its a typo, the sentance 'lack of clear 'addendums' are not reached on the talkpage' still makes no sense to me. For great justice. 21:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In lamens terms, I was saying there's no clear way of making the article workable in the ongoing discussion I noticed on the talkpage. There seemes to be a bit of discordant views and ideas. Bit of a mess, really. -Zero^Talk 21:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I did indeed make a typo. Sorry, I misremembered. -Zero^Talk 21:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MegaMan Trigger[edit]

I wish I could help you here...I really don't know a lot about the Legends series, and I've never been clear myself on exactly what Trigger is; he certainly seems like both a human and a robot at the same time.

Incidentally, I knew Boco years ago on GameFAQs, and he was always a knowledgeable guy; I have no idea what's happened since then to make him so sour. -TPIRFanSteve 18:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose I'll leave it as is to avoid any confusion. As for dear Boco, I think he's a great chap and an asset to the community, but he's a storm in a teacup for the moment. Hopefully, in time his animosity for me will pass and we'll wonder what all the fuss was about. -Zero^Talk 18:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My user talk page[edit]

Leave links on my user talk page alone. Thanks. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Now stop being a silly sausage. -Zero^Talk 19:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)~~[reply]

Gosh, that was rude! What I meant is, Cool Cat, could you please just stop taking that article so seriously....? -Zero^Talk 23:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion review[edit]

You mistakenly removed my comment from WP:DRV. Would you please restore it? Silensor 22:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have restored your comment. My aplogies, it was due to a edit conflict. -Zero^Talk 22:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:King of the Dancehall[edit]

He has a 2nd account: User:Quena@sympatico.ca. here - UtherSRG (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The soockpuppet hasn't made any edits since January 17. It seems unlikely he'll become active again. In the meanwhile, I've left a note to the blocking administrator Mindspillage that it is his account. -Zero^Talk 19:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that. Unwatching. *grins* - UtherSRG (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?[edit]

Hi Zero - I looked at the links you posted, and can't find any personal attacks. I think you are confusing factual errors with disagreement. My comment concerning English not being his first language was a genuine error on my part - there are a lot of people who don't speak english as a first language, and his misinterpretation of the meaning of words lead me to think he might be one. I did, in fact, apologize for the misunderstanding. There is an important point about correcting obvious factual errors though. If someone disagrees with me, that's fine - if they insist that black is in fact, white, up is down and Nigeria is a town in Alabama, I do feel the need to set them right. Have a nice day! For great justice. 15:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't set anyone "right".

We are all equals here, and when disagreements arise, keeping a cool head and following dispute resolution is preferable. If you think another's analysis is in error you attempt to sway people with respect for opposing opinions and keeping a level tone.

Your respective comments are personal attacks because you continually disparage another's standpoint with complete inability to accept you could be wrong, as well as insulting remarks to intelligence. Please take that into consideration.-Zero^Talk 15:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I'm not making personal attacks, and, while we are all equals, if someone has made an obvious error (like not knowing what a word means), we should set them right. It's about standards of accuracy. I'm sorry you don't think that's important, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Again, there's a difference between having different opinions (on whether to delete something, for example) and being wrong (for example by claiming a word means something it doesn't). I hope you can see the difference. Yours, For great justice. 15:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Please just be nicer to people. -Zero^Talk 20:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. I'll make an effort. For great justice. 23:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism my user page! I really appreciate it, especially since I'm not on much right now, so it could have easily stayed there a long time otherwise. BryanG 02:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you liked it. I'm vehemently opposed against false, imflammatory claims and against wikipedia vandalism. -Zero^Talk 14:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Featured list[edit]

The nomination seems to be muddled up. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Mega Man weapons (2) should be an archive with the new nomination at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Mega Man weapons. Do you need a hand to fix this? -- I@n ≡ talk 14:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer of assistance. I'm very happy that someone noticed my muddle, and I hope it solves the original problem of the talkpage archive. -Zero^Talk 15:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I redid it as per http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite/Cite.php but it does need checking. Could you do that? Note that your reference "legd3" didn't seem to be referenced directly from anywhere in the article so I've left it under =references= for you to remove or link to as you see fit.

A simple summary of the cite system is:

1. if a reference is used only once in the article, insert an inline reference in the format:

<ref>{{cite web | blah blah}}<ref>

2. if a reference is used more than once in the article, you need to name it so it can be referred to by name in subsequent referrals. Insert the first inline reference in the format:

<ref name="abc">{{cite web | blah blah}}<ref> (note that the name must be inside quotes)

3. subsequent uses are in the format:

<ref name="abc"/> (note the trailing "/" and that it has no trailing </ref> tag)

4. add a tag in the =References= or =Footnotes= section in the format

<references/> (note the trailing "/")

I hope that helps. -- I@n ≡ talk 07:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Prior this post, I had already proceeded to construct a successful attempt at the list's references. Oh well, your format accomplishes the same goal and I accept your help with gracious thanks. -Zero^Talk 08:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ibuki[edit]

According to Tiamat's FAQ, Ibuki's fighting style is listed as "Ninjitsu and Bushido", so that's what it should be listed as. Danny Lilithborne 20:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its still a fan made document. I take it with a grain of salt when my common sense knows better. -Zero^Talk 20:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a fan made document, it's actually a compliation of all official information Capcom has released. You'd do well to read said documents before dismissing them off-hand. I'm reverting again, and WP:3RR is in effect. Danny Lilithborne 20:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I read it quite a bit. It positively is fan made. I presume Capcom did not make it, and nor did any other company on thier behalf. Henceforth it was compiled by fans into one elaborative effort. In fact, I think its lovely. That doesn't mean everything is right. Looking at the FAQ, dear Tiamat leaves a disclaimer that some of the information may indeed be incorrect

Now, I was aware of the concept of Bushido well before I noticed it included, and while it affects personality and the carrying of one's self, it doesn't have anything to do with martial arts. This is even furthured by the fact that Ibuki is a ninja and were henceforth vehemently opposed to the civilarous ways of the Samurai.

As for your provocative comment of I violating 3RR, that's a little naughty. I don't break 3RR. I prefer discussion to this, and I think it would be more constructive should we attempt forbearence in the matter. Finally, looking at the offical works (which, I beleive should be held above all other sources) it looks unlikely,. Please fix this with your data. -Zero^Talk 20:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't meant to be provocative, it was merely a warning. Given that Tiamat's FAQ is the only source for those who don't have the benefit of understanding Japanese writing, and that it strives to be as accurate as possible, I would take it as an authoritative English-language source. In the meantime, please cite official works which can be cited as canon (and therefore serve as contrary sources). As for the FAQ, here's a quote from it:

In general, any info that isn't tagged with something like an 'it is likely' disclaimer or 'it is possible' disclaimer has been confirmed to be official.

As little sense as it may make, unless you can find a contrary citation, the "Bushido" part should stay. I might come off as ornery, but I'm not upset; I just want the Wikipedia articles to be in harmony with Capcom's information as much as possible. Danny Lilithborne 21:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't accept this line of conjecture (but see my recent afd's of crufty articles). The Ansatsuken, for instance, suggests that its a implemented fighting style by Capcom and it was changed from the incorrect Shotokan due to Capcom of America’s misgivings. At one point I checked this in various news articles (he was correct). So the Akuma thing isn't an issue. Since the only problem here may be his conjecture on the subject, I'll take his expressed views as sincere. It also counts as a good point with me that he is the primary author; I view a primary author prepared to defend his work on a comprehensive subject with some kindness.

However, if the statement were close (which it is, even if I discounted the fact that the Street Fighter 3 instruction manual does not cite this) I'd be prepared to favor a well-expressed opinion by the author in defense of his work. But it contradicts the meaning of the vocabulary down to its meanings and violates the reason for the places in the respective Japanese society. It's all about respecting the sincere intentions of the variability of the contents of this encyclopedia. He simply does not provide the source he with took the basis of the term from, and I simply cannot condone basis without sourced and correct findings of fact.-Zero^Talk 21:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- If I can track down Tiamat, I'll ask him. He sometimes appears on EFnet. Danny Lilithborne 21:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No big deal. I've got his e-mail address. I'll give him a shout. -Zero^Talk 21:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sent the e-mail and referred him directly to this conversation. I'll now stand by and await developments. -Zero^Talk 21:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I got your talk, Zero. Thanks for the heads up:) Danny Lilithborne 11:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo. -Zero^Talk 11:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EXE 6's Cross System[edit]

I made a page for the Cross System. I took the info from the Soul Unison page since they're not Soul Unisons, I just don't know how to edit the Sereis box. Can you help me out with this?

I also took the Cross System info off the Soul Unison page.Sukecchi 20:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of the articles are what puzzles me most. Looking at the articles, it's clear that they have a serious failing in the description of encyclopedic summaries. I don't know what you intend to convey by simply describing statistical information extruded from the games, but if it means that we have to make a move to wikibooks then it's correct. I've purposed this by placing the {{move to wikibooks}} template on the articles. I will begin moving the information as soon as I accumulate the time to do so. This activity is also known as a transwiki. -Zero^Talk 20:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

About Coolcat user page[edit]

I understand that your removal of the red link is in good intention, please let him have it, it doesn't harm anyone. Fad (ix) 23:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm just attempting to help by taking that troublesome subject off his mind. Its difficult if he won't listen, but I'll resign to leaving it be. -Zero^Talk 06:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He'll probably remove it himself in a few months, it isen't the first time he has similar stuff in his user page, obviously his problem is the existance of the Armenian Genocide article, no one can change that to satisfy him. So if his opposition now is to add empty links it is a little price to pay for now, given that he already did much, much much worst. Fad (ix) 20:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he's just a little upset about the content dispute. It's okay now, I just hope he forgives my advances and still considers me a helpful friend, which should keep us all happy. -Zero^Talk 20:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. -Mysekurity^[m!] 09:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem. We're going to have to do something about these false claims of not attempting discussion though. -Zero^Talk 09:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-Cat[edit]

No harm done. The top of my talk page is a place where I keep my ongoing disputes. Sometimes those are red links for what I'm planning. I genealy hope to resolve the dispute w/o rfcs or rfars. That is one of the reasons why that link has stayed as a red link.

I do not believe there are any seniority among wikipedia comunity

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 00:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so glad to hear that. Hope everything is going well. -Zero^Talk 02:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

my user page[edit]

Please notify me when you edit my user page. I found it extremely rude when you preformed such an action without my knowledge or even mentioning it on my talk page. A user had notified me about the images and I was about to remove them. --Dangerous-Boy 21:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I simply noticed them and removed them per policy. I didn't intend to convey a sense of rudeness. I deeply apologize for my haste. -Zero^Talk 10:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smile[edit]

Now many, many years ago, when I was twenty-three, I was married to a widow who was pretty as could be. This widow had a grown-up daughter who had hair of red. My father fell in love with her, and soon they, too, were wed.

This made my dad my son-in-law and changed my very life, My daughter was my mother, cause she was my father's wife. To complicate the matter, even though it brought me joy, I soon became the father of a bouncing baby boy.

My little baby then became a brother-in-law to Dad, And so became my uncle, though it made me very sad. For if he was my uncle, then that also made him brother Of the widow's grown-up daughter, who, of course, was my stepmother.

Father's wife then had a son who kept him on the run, And he became my grandchild, for he was my daughter's son. My wife is now my mother's mother, and it makes me blue, Because, although she is my wife, she's my grandmother, too.

Now if my wife is my grandmother, then I'm her grandchild, And everytime I think of it, it nearly drives me wild, For now I have become the strangest case you ever saw As husband of my grandmother, I am my own grandpa! --MONGO 03:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely. Cheers! -Zero^Talk 12:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do it[edit]

Why does everyone drag me into these things? :P I'm not like a world renowned mediator, I'm not even an admin! I'll take a look. Cheers, H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 17:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh its not that. I simply was aware of the fact that you involve yourself heavily in video game articles. With that knowledge, I contacted you to insert an third opinion for an attempt at concensus. -Zero^Talk 17:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you did! :P Anyway I've tried to come to consensus, I'll check up later. Cheers, H ig hway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 17:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

BIG (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)[edit]

Yes, it's time to get community involvement...it seems whenever I apply longer blocks I spend enormous amounts of time explain myself, so take it to AN/I...I can still block him, but wating on feedback. In the meantime, I can protect the page.--MONGO 19:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a fairly knowledgeable person on the subject, I cannot condone blatent ignorance and baseless rebuttals on it from a troll. There are an abundance of new editors substantially more knowledgeable on the subject, and we don't have time for people making the construction of this encyclopedia more difficult than it already is.

I'd strongly recomend that re-block in the meantime. -Zero^Talk 19:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Iron Man[edit]

A couple of things were problematic with that last edit. First, the image you replaced was not a new version, but a completely different picture that overwrote the first (which is bad form, but not severly so). The second problem is that the Nemesis armor is not what Iron Man is wearing currently in the series - I don't see why a video game armor should be given prominence, as it gives the wrong impression that it is what the armor looks like right now. The context is wrong. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My only defense is that is what the lastest rendition is. I merely did an upload over the old image due to my dislike of cleaning up orphaned ones. According to multiple canons, he's wearing the Marvel Nemesis in game canon. In comics, he dons another. If there's two of the same image, that's a tad wasteful. I can not comprehend why there is two copies of an identical image (Image:IM78.jpg and Image:IROM002 COV.jpg). Please utilize one and leave the other out. -Zero^Talk 22:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two images aren't identical. It's the same armor, yes, but not identical. In any case, why game canon should take precedence over comic canon (which is arguably more canonical, and some would even argue the game isn't canonical at all) is also something I do not see. The bottom line is that the image should show what a comic book character looks like in the medium that it is most often presented, i.e. comic books. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are identical. The purpose of those images are to convey his armor. They have the same rendition of armor, despite different poses.

I never claimed to have taken the fact of game over comic depiction. I've simply no idea why one would come to the conclusion of having the exact same image on an article, and how it tells the reader anymore than the first did. -Zero^Talk 23:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One could argue that it's in context, as it's in the right part of the article which is talking about recent history. But hey, you can always remove it. My point is simply that the infobox picture should depict the current armor in the comics. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cool with that. Would it be feasible for an insertion of the image lower in place of the second image..?-Zero^Talk 00:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe as an additional picture under the videogames section. I'd still like the second image there because the caption actually contains information about the suit and the differences from the other armors. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Satsui no Hadou Akuma Picture[edit]

Hey Zero. :) The picture of Shin Akuma in this article might be inaccurate, as the Shin Akuma from Capcom vs. SNK 2 does not derive all of his power from Satsui no Hadou (he has some Orochi power, too). Just a thought:) Danny Lilithborne 11:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I believe I see my error. I'll change the caption a bit. -Zero^Talk 11:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR violation listed[edit]

I don't like to bear bad news, but your edits at Ridge Racer were brought to my attention and I've listed you at the Administrators' Noticeboard for a 3RR violation: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Megaman Zero. Just wanted to make sure you were aware. -- Nataly a 17:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm making a post on my section now. -Zero^Talk 17:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Man Pages[edit]

Hey. Im extremley new to Wiki. and Im an avid Mega Man Fan. Id like to werk on some of the pages, help make them better ( i.e. Rock Man ZX ) but I dont know how to go about it. Can u help me join in on the Board?... I didnt know who else to ask. Thanks for ur time. - MHv3 Rock Man X

Well there's quite a number of ways to go about assisting. I'd suggest the most advid way of starting out would be to post a comment on the talk page of the respective article you wish to improve, and start discussion from there, or perhaps even be bold. There's also posting on the Wikipedia:Help Desk for a good foundation for newcomers. The most prominent to a good way of how to learn to contribute would be a welcome to the wiki, which I'll copy to your talkpage and you can look over the links at your leisure. And I'll be happy to respond to any questions you have. -Zero^Talk 19:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton. Hope I can be of service to these pages. : ) MHv3 Rock Man X 20:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User notice: temporary 3RR block[edit]

(various bits of silliness removed)

Okay, I'm fine with that. The discussion has taken place on the current talk page, so I altered this post. I also added the appropriate discussion to the talk page Talk:Ridge Racer. Please add any furthur comments there and here as appropriate. -Zero^Talk 19:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to respond to your email here, but I find various bits of silliness removed written above. Do you seriously expect me to comment if you talk like that? William M. Connolley 09:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "Do you seriously expect me to comment if you talk like that?" in this context. You mean to say that that 3RR template inserted previously was not misleading...? It held the text of "Please attempt to discuss your changes on the talkpage in the future" Look at the articles's talkpage. I discussed quite a lot and supported everyone of my statements with policy and an substantial amount of sources for my versions. That there was over 10 of them on one article by a single editor would be extraordinary, but whether it's abusive would depend on the context. Administrators may revert hundreds of instances of vandalism, for instance. However it would be normal to use other techniques long before the count got to 4 reverts.

I hesitate to describe this as a content dispute. When an anonymous editor frequently removes data from an article with complete lack of supported fact or one source, it causes one to err on the side of vandalism. Furthurmore, your statement on the 3RR board is incorrect. "This is is old, but the reverting continues". Are you positive you looked at the diffs in question....? My last edit was not a revert, but a comprimise. -Zero^Talk 11:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to strike through the bits you don't like. Removing the entire block notice and calling it silliness won't get you a reply. Errm... that seems rather obvious. I'm happy to talk, but not to waste my time if you're not prepared to be reasonably co-operative William M. Connolley 11:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, I've seen him remove template messages off his talk page before. I think he does it only because templates are too formal and long and it just gets in the way of the subject. Though, I'd understand if someone took offense to that. - Zero1328 _Talk? 11:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Or dear William could refrain from blatently misrepresenting the facts. However, I've already explained that the template's text (especially the "did not attempt discussion" bit) was a simple fib, and that William's comment on the 3RR noticboard was completely unfounded and demonstrated an lack of comprehension for the situation in question. -Zero^Talk 11:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Hi again... I added alot of images to the X ( Character ) and ZX ( Series ) pages... I have alot of images that would help the pages out. I just hope I added them correctly w/o breaking any rules. <_< I'll continue to try my best to learn all this. ( But I dont know how to edit the Main Images. Dont even know if I can. ) MHv3 Rock Man X 23:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

See Wikipedia:Images, Wikipedia:Fair Use, and other related links. Generally, one should utilize Special:Upload to dowload an image saved on the computer to Wikipedia. Make sure to read through all the image policies beforehand. -Zero^Talk 23:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autoblocker[edit]

Who blocked you, and what is the reason given for the block? Prodego ^talk 18:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request denied, your block for 3RR on Ridge Racer has not yet expired. Prodego ^talk 18:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)3RR violation, dear [1]. The IP timer stated me for an unblock at 19:35, but that silly autoblocker still had me under lock and key around 20:50. Amazing. Perhaps your list depicts differently..? -Zero^Talk 18:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The block log shows you were blocked at 19:35, May 1st. Right now, it is 18:47 May 2nd, still about an hour short of the block expiry time. Prodego ^talk 18:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Laptop clock is different. Oh I see my mistake, I neglected to recall wikipedia time doesn't mirror my own timezone. -Zero^Talk 18:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might have, I used to forget the time difference so much I added an auto-updating clock to my Monobook, which makes it a lot easier ;-). I should be back at 19:35 to unblock your 3 autoblocks. In case I am not, here are the numbers: #153456 #153047 and #152788. The last one (788) shouldn't be a problem, it expires at 19:36, but the others last longer. Happy editing. Prodego ^talk 18:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. The wiki isn't going anywhere.-Zero^Talk 19:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Prodego ^talk 19:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I cheated. I went and played a video game. They're scientifically proven to speed up the passage of time, lad. -Zero^Talk 19:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPA[edit]

You have not-very-long to remove the attack on another user that you left on my talk page, or I'll block you for WP:NPA William M. Connolley 20:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have retracted some of my statement. I was nastier than I should not have been. -Zero^Talk 20:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By far. You have partly retracted so you only get a 1 hour block. Please don't be incivil in future, and when invited to retract be more full William M. Connolley 20:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. I'm normally a go-about-my-business short of fellow, but I cannot condone baseless acusations towards my person when I'm ignorant of the situation, no less. Completly unfounded from both sides of this debate. I only have a problem with Moby when he emerges suddenly to make outrageous accusations out the blue, with extreme vehemence. I've no idea why such a breach of good faith was implemented there. -Zero^Talk 20:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Ridge Racer[edit]

Yeah, the current version seems good. I like this part of the article under "Interesting facts"...

A related game is R: Racing Evolution, released by Namco in 2003 on the PlayStation 2 and GameCube consoles. Although some of the classic Ridge Racer elements are retained, the emphasis is on simulation type driving and having an appreciation of the forces that affect a track car.

I think it sums it up nicely there. Thunderbrand 04:25, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I'd suggest a concensus revolving around this. I set up an informal straw poll in talkpage, see if that gets us anywhere. -Zero^Talk 04:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh nevermind the strawpoll. Another user just implemented a change on the talkpage that I think is pretty good. -Zero^Talk 15:33, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sure am grateful to have stumbled upon you![edit]

Since I have been a wikipedia 'fan' for quite a long time now, I have decided to sign up after I edited a little, less than a week ago. I thought that the One Piece character pages were fine (or rather, very informative) the way they are (or were, currently speaking), so I got a little carried away seeing quite a large bit of the page(s) was cut out. Since I never thought of searching for the rules in wikipedia, very foolish of me, I thought that everything was acceptable. Everything but vandalism, of course. Now that I have quite a few information pages, thank you, about wikipedia, I will hope not to make big mistakes in the future.

As I said earlier, I am quite new to this. Since don't know whether you will read it here or not, I will also say it on my talkpage, I hope you won't mind. - Kurigiri 12:55, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, no problem! Lighten up, enjoy wikipedia. And, yes, I usually respond to messages on my talkpage to avoid splitting the conversation. And please don't disparage yourself. I don't believe anyone here to be foolish, and everyone new to the wiki eventually learns some policy sooner or later. Thank you for being so cooperative, too. Feel free to ask if you need anything. -Zero^Talk 13:07, 6 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One Piece character articles[edit]

I'd like to help you, but I'm afraid they have precedent. I was heavily against having attack lists in the Chun-Li and Sean Matsuda articles, but after consistent pressure I let up in the interests of keeping the peace. If you seek administrator intervention on this part, I'll support you, of course, but there's really nothing I can say in the talk page that wouldn't result in an argument. Danny Lilithborne 04:50, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an expert, and I'm not always right. I'm merely just am knowledgeable of policy, and I'm aware of what we do and don't permit as encyclopediac information. The lists, on a little research, proved to be an keeper, but are classified as indescriminate information so I executed a transwiki.

The fact that these listings were all made to essentially create a FAQ is not a acceptable action at wikipedia, but I don't see that as a large problem. I don't mind if you want to go through the formalities of talking this through, but contary to the Street Fighter articles, I don't believe there to be a large concensus on this. If anything important gets outright deleted I'll just transwiki the information in question so it cannot be deleted. And I can. I'm not stirring up trouble, I'm just using our sister wiki projects like I'm supposed to. -Zero^Talk 04:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you are more bold than I am. Go to it! Danny Lilithborne 05:31, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DOA article pics...[edit]

I'm for giving the heave-ho to several of the pics on the Dead or Alive character pages, as most of them (Elliot / Kokoro / Lisa / Lei Fang / ALPHA-152 / maybe Christie) do not support enough text in their synopsis to hold a secondary pic cleanly. The picture either hangs at the bottom leaving a large amount of empty space (at pretty much ANY resolution) or if pushed to the left wholly scrunches everything, as seen on the prior edit to Lei Fang. I tested at *several* different displays and text sizes to see if any would work, and none did all that successfully. So I'm for chuckin' 'em altogether.

I don't expect this to go without a ruckus by a few users upset over the loss of valuable eye-candy, but I really do think it'd be for the best - especially in Elliot's case - unless we can pump a 'lil extra info/trivia into each article. Though too much superfluous fluff can hurt just as much...

I value your opinion since you're pretty diligent on keeping the articles in good shape yourself, so your thoughts here would be appreciated. Papacha 11:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with it, really. Just list the images here on my talkpage you have in mind, and we can hold them for later or I'll save them to my laptop and do a re-upload in the future. Hold off Lisa and Christie though. -Zero^Talk 15:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll save them myself, they or another pic can be revamped a bit later. Christie is serviceable I think, but Lisa's page at the least needs a little work (though I agree, her pic as "La Mariposa" probably should be there). Unfortunately she's so thread-bare on character and plot it's difficult to come up with the words. >_> Papacha 05:01, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Deletion[edit]

Eeew, nasty! That said I see no real evidence of trolling or vandalism by this user (though it could be a throwaway acount naturaly), the image is free licensed and used in a couple of relevant articles. It's not rely speedy material, so I'd prefeer to just let the IFD run it's course. Just stay away from Anal stretching for a few days if you find it overly offensive. --Sherool (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. -Zero^Talk 02:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I should point out that this user has been banned and blocked from editing, and his talk and userpages have been locked, all as a result of his editing. Figured you'd be interested in that development.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 03:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm aware. That's precisely why I placed it up for deletion. However, it appears to have article extrusions, so I'm resigned to leaving it on ifd. Absolutely horrid image.-Zero^Talk 08:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A possible "project" you may be interested in.[edit]

The article Criticism of Halo 2 has some how managed to survive on wikipedia even its its extremely dismal condition and unbiased to the core nature. Whether or not you have any involvement, and are at all a fan of the series, or even if you are opposed to the Halo games, I am interested to see what you think of this attrocious wreck. I say scuttle it before it causes more problems, but I strongly doubt thats going to happen looking at the last two VfD debates.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 03:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears as if its heading for scurtiny after a quick glance over the debate page.

I am not going to participate as it seems fairly one-sided at the current time frame. However, I've placed it on my watchlist and I do endorse its deletion. -Zero^Talk 08:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like its going to go quietly this time. Not a lot of fight left in it so to speak. This has sparked me on a new crusade however. These... "weasel words" are even worse to me than blatantly uncited information, because of their nature they can make a completely unsupported statement seem all the more plausible, and apparently inarguable. As soon as I get done with my "personal pronouns" crusade I'm going to filter every page on my watchlist for these horrid things.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 19:57, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image size[edit]

I shall see what I can do. I only possess the program paint on my laptop, so I'm not afforded the luxury of resolution and size modifications as on a more advanced program such as Macromedia Fireworks. Its certainly more economical, however, and I'd rather merge all the minor characters into a respective group image than festoon wikipedia server space with multiple, seperate uploads. -Zero^Talk 20:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. Thanks for your help. Stifle (talk) 20:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit wars[edit]

I just noticed this edit, or more specifically the edit summary. [2] Threatening to edit war doesn't seem a good idea and I'm sure you know better. --pgk^(talk) 10:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~I cannot help but revert unproductive edits.~~ -Zero^Talk 10:43, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that. You're correct, I don't think an edit war is a proper way to solve this. -Zero^Talk 10:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One Piece Attacks[edit]

Ahoy, now I understand completely that you feel the attacks are an "indiscriminate collection of information," but again I must disagree, as I've said before they are an important part of these characters and the story that they tell. As for Wikipedia policy, it's true that random information bits have no place here, however and I quote "Of course, there is nothing wrong with having lists if their entries are famous because they are associated with or significantly contributed to the list topic" which the character attacks do very much. Not only do the attacks give the Wikipedia readers a feel for each character's fighting style, but they give insight into their personalities and help reinforce their attitudes. Take Luffy for example, all his attacks are based on real objects and weapons (Pistol, ) thus reinforing the idea that even though he's a pirate on an unimaginable journey, he is in essence a normal person. In contrast take someone like Eneru whose attack's are mostly based on various Thunder deites, thus reinforcing the fact that he sees himself as a god and nothing less. In closing I fully support your page for their total attacks, but I feel very strongly that they are essential to the character's Wikipedia profiles and as a loyal fan to the Manga, the Anime and Oda-sensei will do everything I can to keep them in their rightful place. (KingKogs 1:10 GMT)

Fair enough, (sorry I already went and reverted most of the pages before I got your message) but, may I please have your approval and consenus to continue reverting the pages?(KingKogs 1:25 GMT)

It isn't only my approval and concensus that counts. If you wish to challenge this post a message on Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not discussion page and provide a deep and detailed reasoning why you shoud be permitted to violate policy. If a valid counter rebuttal is executed, and concensus is reached on the policy talkpage, I wouldn't have any problem allowing it. -Zero^Talk 05:32, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright I did as you suggested and made a post on that page however would you at least allow the attacks to stay put on Sanji and Tony Tony Chopper's pages as they are known the least among fans, butchered the worst in the Dub and honestly because I worked the hardest of all to write them? (KingKogs 7 May 2006, 1:50 GMT)

I'm not sure about Sangi, but Tony Tony is fine. Tony's main point is his versatility, and his transformations. As long as his list of attacks doesn't become any longer, I think it merges in fine with his explanation of how he uses his Devil fruit. -Zero^Talk 05:53, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come on Bro, one character ain't gonna kill ya, besides it's a part of his connection to both his chef and his combat training under Red Shoes Zeff (KingKogs 7 May 2006, 1:50 GMT)

I don't see how the "abiities and powers" section fails to explain that any better. Remember this is an encyclopedia, and we must assume the reader is ignorant of the source material, as well as follow proper organizational procedures. I find it odd how there's anything amiss with moving the data to wikibooks per policy and for the sake of neatness. The reader can acess it easily just like before, and it keeps everything in the right place. I'd strongly suggest looking over a few more policy pages and learning about how wikipedia works before engaging in anymore of these actions.-Zero^Talk 06:07, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok then if not for the sake of the characters then how about out of respect for the guy(s) writing them. Out of the attack lists that you've moved to Wikibooks thus far I've personally written, from scratch, the ones for Sanji, Vivi, Smoker, Wapol, Arlong, Captain Kuro, Mr.1, Mr.4, and Foxy the Silver Fox. I've also made drastic improvements to the lists for Buggy, Franky, Usopp, Eneru, Ace, Bellamy, and there are many more that have yet to be posted on the list like Mr.5, Miss Valentine's Day, Miss Merry Christmas, Pell, Chaka, Chess, Kuromarimo, Chessmarimo, Igaram, Dr. Kureha, Dalton, and a few others that I'm spacing out on that I've created out of respect to the series so I can hardly see why one or two exceptions out of all of them would be such a crime. (KingKogs 2:23 7 May 2006 GMT)

I'm not ranting and raving about it. And I do respect you. However the encyclopedia comes first and placing other values before that is non-negotiable. If you look at Sanji's article, I haven't reverted you. So, there's no problem. I don't have any trouble at all bending over for comprimises and I'm always willing to discuss. Its simply that Sanji's list is already moved, and for the purpose of transculsion at wikibooks module, we must do the same with Sanji to keep in line with consistentsy. Lets look at the article. You re-inserted his attack list, but for some obtuse reason left his link to wikibooks on there. Why is that..? That's very redundant, and it depicts you have quite a bit to learn about what we do at this site. No one is removing your information, we are simply organizing it to its appropriate project. -Zero^Talk 06:36, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left the link there so people could still find your attack page so as not to take away from your project, and to be honest I'm tried of fighting with you over this, so let me offer a truce: do what you want with Sanji, but leave Chopper alone for good and let's both work together to make these character pages and attack summaries the best we can possibley make them. Sound good? P.S I'm taking my post off of that Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not page cause I'd rather stop these unpleasentries all together and be friends cause it looks like we're both really big One Piece fans and I'd rather we get along rather than argue.(KingKogs 6:46 7 May 2006 UTC)

Its not my project. I simply organized as wikipedia and its sister projects dictate plausible. And I don't see how this has been at all unpleasant; I felt we were simply cleaning out the niches and getting you a feel for the wiki. I'd love it if we could be friends. As for Sanji, yes, I'd feel it best if his list be removed, the link to wikibooks remain and I'll let Chopper alone, provided his list doesn't become overly large. -Zero^Talk 07:33, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good, glad that's settled just don't forget to put the link in when you remove an attack list and enough of this getting a feel for wiki stuff dude I've been on here for a long time I just never bothered to create an account to go along with my edits. (KingKogs 07:58 7 May 2006 UTC)

I won't forget. -Zero^Talk

Bravo dude, if the Character Attacks belonged in Wikibooks then tell me, WHY DID THEY JUST GET DELETED?? (KingKogs 00:37 19 May 2006 UTC)

I'm not sure. Looking at the module, there was no notice for deletion, so it was problably a speedy. I suggest you ask around and query a few users about it. -Zero^Talk 04:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rfa[edit]

Go to Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Megaman Zero 3 accept the nomination if you want, answer the Q's and I will then upload it and correct the time. Good luck!--MONGO 03:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello...you open for business?--MONGO 09:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for dragging my feet on this matter. I've just completed a few exams and I'm fully knackered. I've filled out the nomination. -Zero^Talk 11:03, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hope the exams went well! I almost snafued the nomination as it was your third one and the vote here link was taking me to the redirect page...and well...somewhere is a broken link so if you notice it, let me know and I'll nuke it...good luck my man...I think you'll get it this time around...you deserve it, especially after dealing with that BIG character.--MONGO 11:31, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Responded by email--MONGO 12:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good grief! That was quick. Filed and already withdrawn. Is that the fastest nomination or what...?-Zero^Talk 12:20, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you an email.--MONGO 12:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you think you have chance, you can reupload it...add whatever time was lost with the withdrawl...but I think you will have no chance of success...I would wait at least another 3 months.--MONGO 12:40, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the e-mail and the comment. You're probably correct, I do not think a re-insertion would behoove the nomination. Oh well. As noted, I won't run again. I don't think a profilic vandal and troll like myself is suitible for the tools and I respect the community decision. I've always been a bit too incompetent and its about time I realized that. -Zero^Talk 13:35, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree...Connelly is a bit block happy, so there's that...not to say anything bad about him, but I know what you have been dealing with in those article pages. MobyDick character has been a real pain to you as well and his accusation of the superior newcomer award or whatever was a flat out mischaracterization...the point is, I disagree with both of them, BUT, with those blocks still being there you have no liklihood of success AT THIS TIME. As your friend and as your fellow wikipedian, you can do the best job of anyone here if you want to and over the next three months or so, you'll have time to prove that. Increase your contributions to the project pages and don't let those that edit war bring you down to their level...try for 1RR always and I will help you get an article to FA...but we should pick a different one that the one you suggested as I can't help much on that topic. There is no reason you can't try again in a few months...but just so you know...since I have been an admin, I have had to deal with at least 4 difficult editors and spend a disproportionate amount of time monitoring them, filing Rfc's, arbitrations, etc. There really is nothing special about being an admin and of those I work with closely here, some of our better editors are not admins, you being one of them. For example, User:Wsiegmund has been a tremendous help to me on two FA's and has always had consistently excellent contributions, but at a lower level of participation and not a lot of work in the project pages. There are a lot of others that are not admins who should be but they either don't want to deal with the junk or they haven't got the particluar edits to be part of the "club". I will gladly nominate you in the future so spend your time here continuing to help to build a better encyclopedia. Don't beat yourself up.--MONGO 13:52, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heya. Just commented again on the Requests for Adminship talk page. I'm sure you're fine, it's just that RFA itself probably needs an overhaul. And it's not helping that there's so many folks sticking their heads in the sand over the matter either, mind you. That and the whole post of "admin" should probably be reviewed too. It's just not fun anymore. (I should know, I'm "retired", thank goodness! :-P)

In the mean time, drop on by on irc for instance (irc.freenode.net, #wikipedia) , and let's see if there aren't any better things for you to do in life, other than dealing with broken procedures. :-) Kim Bruning 20:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, I'm not going to bump my head too many times. What happened was that (if you look up a couple of headings you'll see) someone else insisted upon removing valid information from an article, and so I took a dive in order to keep the integrity of wikipedia intact. Your explanation is plausible, but it's just a minor fork in the road as far as I'm concerned. I'll be okay. -Zero^Talk 06:39, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For some strange reason ;-), I'm no longer a big proponent of adminship on wikipedia. I couldn't in my right mind nominate you for something I don't really believe in anymore. I hope you understand.

Even so, there are plenty of alternatives where there's useful work to be done, and frankly a lot more respect to be earned. Would you like to participate? Kim Bruning 18:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure of what you mean. I'm currently engaged in the process of extruding various articles to GA status to convey my skills as an editor, one of which has been recently sucessful [3]. Proceeding that, I'll press on and continue to FA status. I think that is about as much respect as I find tolerable. I'm not participating in this project to attain popularity or accumulate power. Wikipedia is a very expansive project, and I think its a given that many trival matters cannot be executed without administrative tools, which I see as no big deal. An a editor, my main goal is the good of this project. To that, I see no reason why I shouldn't be able to particiapte in clean-up duty. I never attempt to slander other editors, and while I may come off as if I'm cold at times, I never intentionally engage in acts of incivilty as such doesn't benefit me or the encyclopedia. I've big shoulders, I can hack it and so I don't mind failing rfa process multiple times. And its no big deal. I'll keep going.-Zero^Talk 04:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To provide a bit of context: If you check, you'll see that I've handed in my own admin bit. Being an admin just isn't fun anymore.

"do unto others..." and all that. Kim Bruning 10:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I know. But you cannot reasonably presume I concur when I haven't walked in your shoes yet. I'm not here to have fun or make friends. I'm here to improve a project I think to be worthy of my time and effort.-Zero^Talk 13:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

:-) Kim Bruning 13:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility[edit]

Regarding this edit: It is important to keep a cool head, despite any comments against you. Personal attacks and disruptive comments only escalate a situation; please keep calm and action can be taken against the other parties if necessary. Your involvement in attacking back can only satisfy trolls or anger contributors, and lead to general bad feeling. Please try to remain civil with your comments. Thanks! --InShaneee 18:00, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. Just remember, civility does need to apply everywhere for it to work. :) --InShaneee 18:46, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spider (Mega Man X)[edit]

Whereas I know that the article as of now is merely a copy paste of material, I plan on expending on it later by adding such things as a personality description etc. and personally, I think that Spider and Redips were both pivotal plot elements in MMX: Command Mission, in fact, Spider is the only new character in the game to get as much of spotlight as X and Zero, making him perhaps as notable as characters like Colonel who where in just one game, therefore I suggest leaving the article around for a while, and if the quality of it doesn't improve, you could easily redirect it back to the list of characters Nightmare X 20:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd already responded on your talkpage prior to this post, so I'll continue discussion over there. -Zero^Talk 20:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your IFD of Image:Black Zero.JPG[edit]

Unfortunately, I was unable to delete this image because you did not notify the uploader of Image:Black Zero.JPG that it was listed on IFD. Just to let you know, please notify the uploader whenever you list an image per policy. Don't worry about doing it this time, as I've relisted the image on IFD and have properly notified the uploader. Thanks! -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 23:17, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I probably meant to do so, but when I get to tagging in such large quanities, I overlook such things. -Zero^Talk 04:57, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 05:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Clyde's talk page[edit]

Please do not insert denigrating or patronizing comments into a discussion that was not your own. Your comment was not needed, nor was it wanted. Thank you for your time. Porphyric Hemophiliac § 14:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm deeply sorry if I offended you with my comment. But you were indeed wikilawyering, and proclaiming a good-faith contributior was acting in bad faith. I really do not think you are in a posistion to lecture fellow contributors about unnecessary commments in light of your most recent addition to Cyde's talkpage [4].

I'll not argue that Cyde's methods are not always favorable amoung the community, but I'm sure he's acting in good faith, as are you. We all have different viewpoints on what is best for the encyclopedia, and Cyde is merely invoking that. -Zero^Talk 16:00, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoiler tag[edit]

In the article Mega Man: Powered Up, I placed a spoiler tag, and you removed it. Several areas of the character list were spoilers (specifically Roll, Mega, and the evil Mega Man), so I'm putting it back. Random the Scrambled 14:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Spoilers. -Zero^Talk 14:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did, and although you're right, I don't see how hidden, unlockable characters aren't spoilers. Also, the part about the evil Mega Man being fake was a plot detail... Random the Scrambled 21:35, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spoilers dabble in plot summeries. This is inane information that pertains to a gameplay section. I'd suggest a merge between the character section and the addition of gameplay section, detailing aspects of the game's new upgrades and whatnot. -Zero^Talk 04:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Man Zero spoiler justification[edit]

Look, the spoiler tag in Megaman Zero 4 was justified. The entire spoiler tag thing may be un-encyclopedic, but let's face it, Wikipedia is no normal encyclopedia. The Megaman Zero 4 covers the entire plot, including the plot twists. No real encyclopedia does that. Let's not forget the fact that the game is recent. It may not be recent according to you, but to Europeans it is. Look it may have been eight months since it was first released in Europe, but that's not very long in terms of consumerism.

If you keep insisting on removing spoiler tags, I will have to cut the plot summaries because they go into far too much detail and contain... guess what? Spoilers.

So, how shall we go about this? Will you put the spoiler tag back or will I have to cut the plot description short? It's one way or the other here. You can't have it both ways. The fans will want the plot description kept intact, for future reference, so they could discuss the games further. However, I cannot allow the description to remain so detailed without a spoiler tag in case those who haven't played the game come across it. Wolf ODonnell 10:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plot twists? What in heavens name are you talking about? -Zero^Talk 11:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

For reverting my distracted posting on User:Cyde's archive page. Circeus 14:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I was just in the mist of moving your post to his current talkpage as well, but I became occupied while answering a comment on another tab. -Zero^Talk 14:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mega Man weapons[edit]

I had only taken a quick peek at it and noticed the space issues (easily fixed with a search and replace), but I would indeed tend to think Mega Man weapons might be a teensy bit more appropriate.

As an extra comment, you might want to try and disambiguate these "series" links in the templates at the bottom of the page and in the headers, although the latter should be moved into text, WP:MOSHEAD clearly states that links in headers should be avoided whenever possible. Circeus 14:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I'll look into these minor changes and notify you when I instigate a third nomination. -Zero^Talk 15:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've made the move. I am still vaguely aware that we might not meet the prereqisites for FA status, as I'm am quite aware of the unjustified oppositions attributed to the FL applications on the talkpage. I'm not surprised over the attempt from contributors to nit-pick becasue of the source content, but I am impatient over that because the approach arose from bad-faith. I'm hopeful that it'll make it this time around. -Zero^Talk 21:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AN[edit]

I'm altogether confused by something you wrote on the noticeboard, viz., Leaving the subject be and engaging in some article construction sounds like a fine idea. I don't understand what this article construction of which you write is. As I understood WP, the main point of the project is create userboxes enumerating beliefs apropos of everything in the world, and subsequently to delete some of those userboxes, leading to our having debates on the various noticeboards w/respect to the deletion process. Along the way, we are to discuss other issues, such as whether images that we've tagged as fair use in mainspace may be appended to those userboxes. So my questions are two, I suppose: (a) Do you really mean to suggest that one should let an argument drop before he/she has been discursively victorious and had his/her interlocutor indefinitely banned? and (b) Do you really mean to suggest that tasks other than posting maundering, often vituperative diatribes at AN and AN/I are also important? (Actually, I should say that your comment was altogether well-made; I am eminently certain that if, whenever one gets upset and wants to debate other users, especially over minutiae, he/she stays cool and creates a new article/rewrites an article in need of cleanup, everyone would be much happier, and the project would be better for it). Joe 18:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm extremely atonished as to how there was anything confusing about it. It was good-faith comment with the intent to assist. My full advice [5]was: Leaving the subject be and engaging in some article construction sounds like a fine idea. Boy, I just finished making three: RayStorm, RayCrisis and RayForce. Gets you busy and alleviates quite a bit of stress. I've never felt better. And I hope it'll stick. In the current post it's a clear situation of pointlessly pursuing this Phil Welch chap, and I think a cool down period and some productive work should be done for the people invlovled and for the sake of the encyclopedia. -Zero^Talk 18:20, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry for having been unclear; I was writing facetiously. I agree, of course, with your comments, and I meant only to suggest that it seems many forget why we're here. My apologies for the confusion. Joe 18:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, sorry about the my lack of comprehension. "I meant only to suggest that it seems many forget why we're here"; I've been waiting for that lovely statement for many a month. There used to be a time when editors merely had a jolly good time writing articles and improving the encyclopedia without all the babel and trivial nonsense. I'm glad to see its still prevalent.-Zero^Talk 18:30, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User Dispute[edit]

That is most appreciated. --Cat out 21:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he can make some very strange accusations and bad-faith actions occasionally. My favorite recent one is his nonsense regarding the rebuttal of trollish behavior. He's a good editor, just a bit of a troll. -Zero^Talk 10:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm...[edit]

Is this your account? --Mark Neelstin ^{(Dark Mark)} 02:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly is. -Zero^Talk 08:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, just making sure someone wasn't trying to steal your page layout. ;-) --Mark Neelstin ^{(Dark Mark)} 18:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail[edit]

No, dude, I haven't sent you an email in over a week I see...my sent folder indicates the last email I sent was just a pep talk about your Rfa.--MONGO 18:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. The brief glimse I saw must have pertained to the WIKI-EN mailing list. I'm always in such haste to remove the hundreds upon hundereds of replies, sometimes I neglect to open legitimate e-mail. -Zero^Talk 18:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem...I think I have posted once to the wiki email...I actually don't like the email system there and prefer to keep everything right here...otherwise, what's up...it's good to see that silly bumps in the road don't deter you from continuing to make excellent contributions.--MONGO 19:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh believe me, I'm better off this way. Its encouragement like yours and Tony's that make bouncing back all the easier when stuff like this transpires. Why, if I quit wikipedia because of a troll, where would I be..? Why depriving the project of good and productive contributions, and no good character. Think of me as a car engine's piston if it helps. I keep going for the greater good, but everyonce in awhile, I'll rust out and need some oil. And then I'm back at it. I cannot cease; there are many other things that need to be done. -Zero^Talk 20:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly...the admin thing takes up a lot of my time anyway...I end up being singled out for nonsense and dealing with trolls and losers and it takes me away from making real contributions...you're on the right track.--MONGO 02:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mm. I'd have to disagree. Being an admin doesn't take that much of my time, and just being able to block, delete, protect etc. as I go about my daily watchlist and article routine makes my experience so much better. Now, of course, there is the occasional downside (like this myg0t mess I got dragged into), but on the whole I don't regret becoming an admin in the least. --maru (talk) contribs 05:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement. By my comment I was referring to the possibility of departing the project. Its common knowledge that the area of articles I work in are quite needy and its imperative they require editors like me. Wikipedia articles without User:Megaman Zero are like cyborg monkeys without arms. They're still pretty cool, but they can only climb so high. -Zero^Talk 10:56, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RayForce[edit]

I'm just curious, in the Gameplay section of RayForce, I noticed that you wrote the other arcade shooter as "Gladius". When I clicked on the link, it showed me a RPG-based X-Box game... -_-;

Shouldn't it supposed to be called Gradius, which is a side scroller shooting game by Konami? (which until now has reached it fifth installment.)

Maybe I'm too used to the Japan version, so I keep refering the secondary weapon as a Lock-on laser (yes, I also been informed that in the English version it is refered as lock-on missile).

--Blackdove77 01:18, 21 May 2006 (UTC) (a diehard Ray series player ;D)[reply]

Yes, I know. Me and my spelling! -Zero^Talk 08:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, might I ask what the purpose of your recent See Also addition to Gradius is? I was wondering if there's a connection between the two? Cheers ~ Vic Vipr 11:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. In an interview with the developers (and by gameplay similarities), the Ray series was influenced by Gradius. It would behoove the reader to see related articles. -Zero^Talk 12:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: List of Mega Man weapons[edit]

Ha! What you've probably seen is me shamelessly promoting History of Earth. Actually I think it's a pretty good article now, but not quite ready for peer review—maybe in a couple weeks, if I have time. Anyway, sorry I couldn't respond to your message in time, but I agree with your move of the article. Good choice! — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you're just being humble. I'm quite sure your judgement in this situation is for the best. Do you believe its ready for FA status..? -Zero^Talk 10:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm probably not the best person to ask. I've only helped a couple articles to featured status, and I played a relatively minor role in those. Furthermore, the ones I was involved with were all on more standard academic topics, so I'm not entirely sure what would make this sort of article complete. It looks pretty good, though again I'm not a good judge of video game articles. Have you considering asking for peer review? — Knowledge Seeker দ 23:55, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh its a paticularly saturated process as of late, and I feel while its useful, the time frame after summisson is too drawn out. The most vexing aspect is the fact of fellow reviewers making suggestions whilst neglecting to contribute to the article. I would certainly reconsider if you were to peer review it yourself, as the fact that you aren't knowledgeable on the subject would allow you to address issues from an outside point of view. -Zero^Talk 04:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Full Sail Real World Education[edit]

Note to self: Please do remember to expand this article. -Zero^Talk 08:53, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And please recall the task of extruding Mega Man (character) to GA status. You're ever so lazy. -Zero^Talk 18:28, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goutetsu-ryū Ansatsuken[edit]

Did they finally delete that?--Dangerous-Boy 06:28, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Goutetsu-ryū Ansatsuken. Also see User:MegamanZero/Links for a userified document. -Zero^Talk 11:08, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ridge Racer Vandalism[edit]

It's happened again!

I checked the Ridge Racer page, and someone put the line, "It's Ridge Racer! RIIIIIIIDGE RACER!" again, but this time, it's at the beginning of the document! *strong shudder*

And by the way, look at the IP that vandalized the page... --D.F. Williams 22:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the less time we spend reverting crap like this, the better. From the similarity of the edits and the obsession with the article, I've deduced its a number of these IP's: 24.251.152.117 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 209.172.115.34 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) 67.80.30.246 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) and 70.231.165.164 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). I'm not certain weather its the same lad, or different people, although the circumstanstal edividence makes the latter unlikely. I've posted warning templates to each talk, and I'll make a section on AN/I if it continues. -Zero^Talk 06:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three things: First, I never put the silly RIIIDGE RACER text in the article, I actually removed it once and mentioned this in the edit comments, get your facts straight before making accusations.

Second, like it or not everyone doesn't have a static IP address. I checked the edit log for this IP address and there are edits which were made by other users.

Finally based upon the lengthy discussion in the Ridge Racer article it is you who are obsessed with the game R:Racing Evolution and for whatever reason have a incredible desire to link it to the Ridge Racer series, why ? I'm a fan of the Ridge Racer series and looked into R:RE when I first heard about it and it is definitely not the same type of game and it isn't related (so I agree with you on that point). Using your flawed logic then you might as well count Pole Position, Final Lap and the Japanese-only releases Critical Velocity and Wangan Midnight as part of the series as they are all Namco games which involve first or third person view driving of a car. Next time you want to point fingers, look in a mirror first. -—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.172.115.34 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, but I cannot condone personal attacks and vandalism on articles. Both are blockable offenses. Your editting history depicts a long and audorous process of removing valid information from articles and your mislead personal attacks are not welcome at wikipedia. Please cease immediately. -Zero^Talk 19:48, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I don't appreciate false accusations, if you don't like personal attacks then don't make false accusations. Basically don't dish stuff out if you don't want something in return. I never vandalized the Ridge Racer article, the edit log clearly shows that I removed the silly comment as did a couple of other editors.

Problem two is that edits which you don't happen to agree with aren't vandalism, again you want to attack but you don't want to be called on it. Sure there are real vandals out there but editors who simply claim vandalism because they don't agree with something aren't really any better than the actual vandals. Something you should think about.

One other thing, I did some checking and the "related" thing you're going on about was originally added by user Lumina83 on May 3 (check the edit log) apparently in an attempt to appease you and end a debate. After several weeks *you* decided to remove this probably because you didn't like it. So you can edit stuff out which you don't agree with but someone else can't ? Have you also complained to Lumina83 about placing the text there in the first place ? In either case it's hypocrisy on your part. -—Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.172.115.34 (talk • contribs)

Oh I see. With all the proxies and whatnot, you weren't the editor that participated in the debate on the respective talkpage and for my hasty assumption I apologize.

As for edit, yes, the "related context" edit was constructed by Lumina83 in attempt to comprimise from a edit warring IP, but did not retain the correct data, which is something wikipedia strongly endorses, complimented with reliable sources. Attempting to downplay the game becasue of it being the black sheep isn't really a good idea. The context of common sense and abundant sources was prevelant. Even a misled attribution is pushing it, this biased comprimise was on a different road entirely. -Zero^Talk 01:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lifeline[edit]

Hey, sorry it's been a while since I've contacted you. I recall you inquiring something of me about the Mega Man ZX article recently, but I've been working out on some of the other new games that were announced at E3. Our FF project managed to get Final Fantasy X to featured status and the man majorly responsible is unfortunately leaving Wikipedia. I guess you could say I haven't gotten around to it.

I haven't actually played Lifeline, no. Today, I just happened to see the X-Play review again, and got to wondering whether or not someone had started an article yet. Lo and behold, a mere 3 days ago, it was started by you. :) Please, expand it in any way you see fit. You've done a great job so far. ~ Hibana 01:06, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very happy to see you have made FFX a featured article! Its rare the CVG side of wikipedia gains such pretiege on the main page, and I'm very respectful of that.

And thanks for the encouragement. There is a need for inovative games such as this, and a rather fine line, between new content and keeping people happy. I think it's time more games like this are produced. Regarding the MM articles, I've recently gotten Mega Man X (character) and Zero (Mega Man) to GA status; if you believe something in those articles to need more clarification, I'd also like to hear about it. -Zero^Talk 01:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Metal Slug series[edit]

I'd like to know your opinion on this. Thanks. --elias.hc 20:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody else beat me to it! :) -Zero^Talk 05:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]