You should have been blocked for a lot longer than a month, my friend.--Jimbo Wales 17:13, 7 February 2006 (UTC) User:MegamanZero/TopNav User:MegamanZero/Templates/TalkArchiveBar User:MegamanZero/Talk Template

^{User posts:}[edit]

DOA Images[edit]

You seem to be cleaning a lot of these out. I dont think this is necessary. A couple are orphaned, but as for others, you seem to want to keep all articles down to one image (I may be mistaken but thats how it seems). It can be of interest to include multiple images of a character, specifically if they are game art. Whenever available, it is a good idea to include 1 game screenshot of a character, and at least 1 portrait or low resolution example of an artistic render. Specifically as in Image:Tina Armstrong DOA.jpg and Image:Ayane DOA.jpg. At the very least, this images should have been removed from the article in question and a note of this should have been made there before nominating them for deletion.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 21:09, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remove said images after their deletion. And you echo my thoughts on the image capacity for each respective article. However, some uploaders are getting carried away, aand I'm simply cleaning up the unneeded pictures. An encylopedia should be extensive, not exhaustive. -Zero^Talk 21:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see no reason for Image:Kasumi_DOA4.jpg or Image:Tina Armstrong DOA.jpg to be deleted. Two images on each article is adequate, and it is not necessarily enough to have just the infobox portrait.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 21:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Kasumi image is redundant in comparison to the DOAU image that was present previously. The TIna image is unencyclopediac and informs the reader of little. I plan to replace that with a more suitable Bodyshot image in the near future. -Zero^Talk 21:19, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In which case I would urge you to leave it until that time. As for removing them after a deletion goes through, unless I am mistaken it is policy, or at least standard practice, not to nominate an image while it is still in the article unless it is a CV. AS for the kasumi image, something can only be redundant if another simmilar item is present (which is not currently) and a high quality shot that is more than a head shot certainly adds to the article.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 21:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot possibly refrain from leaving them alone. Could you please tell me why I should...? I'm utterly baffled. There's no reason to have a oudated pic of Tina that provides nothing to the article and two images of Kasumi which depict the same posisition. Not to worry however, I'm searching for an updated pic as of now. -Zero^Talk 21:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that you might as well just take it off the article. And especially on the Kasumi imgages, the headshot up for deletion seems way better than the one already there, and what two depicting the same position? There's only that one besides the head shot in the article.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 22:11, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How right you are. I'll remove it right now. And I am refering to these imags concerning the Kasumi article:

They both depict bodyshots and the first image is more preferable due to her ninja attire (her "canon" outfit) and larger view of the character in question. -Zero^Talk 02:54, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I take that back, I forgot about that image. As for the headshot though, I think the one up for deletion is more suited for the article. The current attire choice seems just slightly unnecessary and the other one seems like a better angle but that might be personal preference. Should I crop it and replace the existing version with it to see how it looks?--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 03:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect you know better than I. So go for it; I'll swith the image for deletion and delete the DOAU image instead. -Zero^Talk 03:16, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I resized the newer headshot image (for purely space concerns) as there was not much cropping I could see to be done, but per discussion I replaced the existing image with it. You may want to withdraw the nomination for deletion, but I leave that up to you as it is more or less improper for anyone else to actually withdraw a nomination other than the one who did it. I love it when a dispute comes together to make things work eh?--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 18:46, 27 January 2006 (UTC) (Note: I am archiving a copy of this discussion on my talk page for future reference).[reply]

Hey Zero Im just noting that your Kasumi image is up for some sort of deletion process. -- Psi edit 21:07, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete away. -Zero^Talk 21:09, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adon reply[edit]

I replied in Adon's "talk" section, just in case you weren't watching that page. Nawara Ven 03:26, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I always watch pages I edit. :) I responded prior to this post. -Zero^Talk 11:14, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...[edit]

..Since when do you dabble in video game articles..? :) -Zero^Talk 12:28, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since video articles had misspelled words in them. :) Kelly Martin (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doh! -Zero^Talk 12:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re:Mediation[edit]

I am not sure about the length of time it takes to become a mediator...maybe ask Redwolf24 if he is still around, or check out the mediation pages. Are you sure you want to get involved in other peoples problems or edit conflicts? Sounds like a lot of work, but if you're up to it, I say go for it.--MONGO 13:01, 27 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My adminship selft nomination...[edit]

Thanks for calling me a "good chap"! Is there any way you could reconsider your vote? I'd really appreciate it. Thanks. --Mb1000 02:53, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know a nice person when I see it. About my vote, I'm still looking over your contributions, talk, etc. to get a better anaylsis of you. -Zero^Talk 02:58, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Mb1000 03:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Zero[edit]

Thanks for your vote on my RFA, particularly as you explained the reasoning behind your vote very well. I wonder if you might reconsider - of the cites MONGO used, only one of them could be considered uncivil, and that's borderline. Take a look through them. I always try my best to keep civil, and I've never knowingly broken that; if I have accidentally, then 4 or 5 times out of 4950 ain't bad.

All those cites are also quite old now, and I've learned and moved on. I believe everyone can always learn and improve themselves further, and I would do my very best not to disappoint the community. If you have any questions, my talk page doesn't close :) All the best, Proto t c 08:02, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I applaud your lust for critisim and justification. My vote is not set in stone, and I plan to review more of your contributions and talk space more throughly. I am being very picky of admin promotions as of late due to recent rfa's and canidates, respectively. -Zero^Talk 16:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Weapons[edit]

Speaking as both an avid gamer and a valiant mergist, I'll say that that's a great piece of work! Well done! And might I suggest WP:FLC? R adiant _>|< 20:55, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noted. I daresay that's a valid idea worth looking into. -Zero^Talk 20:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KOF quotes[edit]

I read the discussion, and agree with most of it. I believe most pages I added to, I added around 4 or less quotes, and in cases that I added more, they were either among my favorite characters, or the quotes I added expressed something about their character.

I saw the post about Wikiquotes being the place for long lists of quotes, but when I searched Wikiquotes for "King of Fighters, then "KOF," I found nothing. I couldn't even find any quotes searching for "Kyo Kusanagi," "Kyo," "Iori Yagami," or "Iori." I would be more than happy to contribute KOF quotes there, or move quotes from Wikipedia to there, if I could find the right page. Please let me know if there is a page, and if there's not, I'll start one.

I followed your suggestion while posting some quotes for Kasumi. I had 5 quotes, and dropped the weakest one to keep it at 4. -—Preceding unsigned comment added by Seishiro Mixenex (talk • contribs)

Thanks. Its very appreciated. No, currently, I beleive the only character with quotes compiled is Mai and Kasumi. So beggining a new batch of quote compliations is a very novel idea. Then a link can be made for the respective wikiquote entries in the character articles for reference. I'll assist if possible. -Zero^Talk 22:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Helena cg1large.jpg[edit]

Since it was never placed on the list, if you want to nominate it for deletion it should be placed under today's UTC date. I don't object to the deletion strongly enough to note against it. I just want to make sure due process is followed for the exact purpose of avoiding problems--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 23:35, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I placed it under the date that corresponds to the time when I slapped the {{ifd}} template on the image. That's factually correct. I'm also speculating as to why you are so insistant on keeping redundant and wateful images. I noticed quite a bit of ridiculous image uploads by new users that are unwarrented, and don't reflect the article's main purpose. It has nothing to do with due process.

This is why unencyclopediac images must die in great numbers.

Image uploads have shot up in past months in a very brief time-frame. It's some kind of mania, a craze. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a bloody gallery. If the outcome of following due process is that the majority people rather like festooning web pages with image galleries and whatnot, then the conclusion is not that we should permit them to do so but rather than they should be encouraged in as forthright and direct a manner as is possible to obtain a user page or blog and do it there. If they cannot live with an eneyclopedia that isn't plastered with such nonsense, they should go off and find one that is. -Zero^Talk 06:47, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Alright if we delete Image:Ayaneheadshot.JPG>? I dont think its a good shot of the character. -- Psi edit 21:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is. May I ask what's wrong with it..? -Zero^Talk 16:53, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing much. I think I dont like Ayane's expression in that picture. For some reason the pic I wanted in the infobox got deleted. -- Psi edit 19:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the expression depicted..? I like it, as it shows she seems to actually be happy for once. At peace. Content with life. No need for all the negativity. -Zero^Talk 23:52, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you ask me, this picture seems to highlight a key point in her personality very well. I could be wrong, but it looks to me like the facial expression she gives while patronizing or taunting another player (head tilted the site, looking out of the corner of her eyes, etc. I think just looking at the image that part of her personality carries over and is impressed upon people.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 14:55, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There could be an argument there as well. It shows her confidence after the defeat of an opponent. Happiness at triumphing over an foe, and even a hint at some arrogance and pomposity. Regardless of the specific emotion, I think it constructive to have a image that depicts a deeper persona of the character than simply an "attractive ninja" or "muderous assasian". Ayane's a much deeper character than that. -Zero^Talk 15:27, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, and on the not about the helena image (sorry about my late response), the template:ifd does not actually put the image up for deletion, and is simply a secondary process to notify those concerned that the image is nominated. The ifd page states that images are given a specific amount of time to go through the process. That means they have to be on a nomination page for that length of time to recieve feedback or further investigation. If I didn't do it someone else would. While it didn't mean much in this case, its important to keep the precedent so someone doesn't attempt to circumvent the system the next time they want to speedy-delete something without reason and use this as an excuse.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 19:04, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, dear Oni. The problem was that I had placed the image link itself on the ifd page pending deletion, neglecting to add the ifd template to the image, respectivley. Merely an act of forgetfulness on my part. Thank you for bringing it to my attention nonetheless. -Zero^Talk 18:46, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:YashiroNanakase(KOF).jpg[edit]

Hi, found another of these KOF images with the {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} template, while clearing out the many copyvios in that category. Could you please check though your uploads and make sure there are no more of these. The "free use" license tags should only be used alongside proof that the copyright holder indeed actualy released all rights to the work. Thanks. --Sherool (talk) 04:04, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you'll be as so kind, all these King of Fighters images are clssified as {{promotional}}; if you come across another lacking it I'd appreciate if you could change it to said template. Thanks. -Zero^Talk 05:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My talk page[edit]

Thanks for keeping my page clean. Not exactly a warm, affectionate message, was it? ;-D SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem...-Zero^Talk 18:30, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Kasumi.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Kasumi.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Wikipedia is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Wikipedia talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 00:58, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed this one for you. This is something you need to look out for though. If you upload a new image on top of an old the text from the old image is used. Anything you enter when you upload the file is in fact not used on the image description page, wich is why this one was still tagged as "don't know". --Sherool (talk) 01:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I entered the info this time, but I neglected to check it after the overwrite. -Zero^Talk 02:09, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Copperchair[edit]

This case has closed. The arbitration committee has banned Copperchair indefinitely from editing Star Wars and War on Terrorism. He may be banned from other articles that he disrupts under the Wikipedia:Probation order in his case. To be enforced by block. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Copperchair.

For the arbitration committee. --Tony Sidaway 04:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Took surprisingly long to pass judgement on a clearly disruptive user. -Zero^Talk 08:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Man XD[edit]

I found this while on New page patrol and thought you might know if this should be deleted (some Googling made me think it might be a hoax), cleaned up or expanded. It is close to {{nonsense}} right now, but I'll leave this for you (you're an expert, right?) Kusma (討論) 05:17, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as if that page's author is a MegaMan SuperShadow. ;) The Wookieepedian 05:30, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its a violation of wastefulness, for sure. Its only there for silliness, nothing more. I'm placing it up for deletion. -Zero^Talk 09:31, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, MegaMan! I saw your query on the SuperShadow page. I should have clarified. SuperShadow isn't a wikipedia user. He's an insane Star Wars fan on the internet who goes to extreme lengths to post false, many times silly information on Star Wars on the internet. Take a look at his article to see what I mean. He's who I was making comparisons to. :D The Wookieepedian 17:20, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I'll remove my query. -Zero^Talk 17:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: List of Mega Man Skills (Proto)[edit]

Eh... Zero. Yes, I have read your message and thanks for your reply first.

I just have a doubt in my mind that whether you have found out that I also did the same as you a bit earlier- Polobird/List of Zero's moves. ^_^;;;; Anyway, I am not decisive as you to make a choice of whether these data-only pages should become an official article.

For now, I think I should try to complete your list, if you do not mind, with the best I can. But I tend to write and edit article in an one-shot style, so great but only additional changes will be made to articles, while I leave extra details for people to delete. However, I often overwrite articles or overwork myself, and that is why I usually handle articles in academic holidays. (Yes, it is Lunar New Year period in Hong Kong. Therefore I can show up.) Also, please do not hesitate to correct your page until it suits you.

Darn, sharing makes me feel good. ^o^;; (<- Cold-sweating) If you have any further problems, please feel free to let it be discussed. Good luck! ~ Polobird 10:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your list, I said it wasn't quite feasible because it only documented My attacks. The article I'm making however cites Everyone attacks in each Mega Man Seres. -Zero^Talk 11:46, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is because I was very eager to write Your moves as they are more "interesting". (You know, the ninja-like combat skills are cool.) But since it would not be an article, I did not determine to make a very complete list of everyone related. As you see, Your list is already very long... ^_^;;;;

By the way, I am doing the writing now. Yet I think the outcome page will be extremely long. Looking forward to seeing your comments anyway. ~ Polobird 15:24, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to fill in the tables. I look foward to your contributions. -Zero^Talk 15:29, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Rfa vote[edit]

On Brennerman's Rfa, you posted oppose in the neutral section...not to throw this in your face, just wanted to remind you.--MONGO 12:26, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me. I'll change that...-Zero^Talk 13:13, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

your RfA[edit]

G'day MZ,

thanks for your message. The diff in question was a long time ago, but from memory you'd posted to Tony Sidaway's userpage telling people you were up for adminship? Stuff like that is very unusual, and I wanted to see why you'd done it, and if Tony approved. fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 00:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what was so unusual. I simply placed my rfa there as more constructive critisim to draw from in relavance to my mentorship with him at the time. If you're speculating I was attemptting to open my rfa to the masses, that's just silly, as it was already obvious by that timeframe I was going to fail. -Zero^Talk 06:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More Mega Man hoaxes[edit]

Could you please go through Special:Contributions/ProtomanX and see if anything there makes sense? If not, the user should be warned and blocked for hoax vandalism soon. I am especially interested in your opinion on Mega Man VI (Game Boy) which is the least obvious hoax. Thank you, Kusma (討論) 04:49, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update. I'll look in to this. -Zero^Talk 06:23, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA[edit]

Hi Randall Brackett/Archive 2/19 2006, thanks for participating in my RfA discussion. Unfortunately, my fellow Wikipedians have decided at this time that I am not suitable to take on this additional responsibility, as the RfA failed with a result of 66/27/5 (71.0% support). If you voted in support of my request, thank you! If you decided to oppose me at this time, then I hope that if I do choose to reapply in the future, the effort I will make in the meantime to improve and expand my contributions to Wikipedia may persuade you to reconsider your position. All the best, Proto t c 10:48, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Man question[edit]

Since you're the resident Mega Man expert, why are all the NES-era games listed with Roman numerals (e.g. "Mega Man VI")? The pictures of the game boxes all seem to indicate that Arabic numerals ("Mega Man 6") are supposed to be used. The Game Boy games are very different; in those cases the boxes have Roman numerals on them. I know that sometimes Roman numerals are used within the games themselves, but I think the official name is what's on the box. This applies to Mega Man 2/II through Mega Man 6/VI for the NES and Mega Man 7/VII for the SNES. StarryEyes 13:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its not really a problem, as far as I can see. Numbers are numbers. However, if it bothers you so, I invite you to change them if you wish. I believe whoever started the articles simplyy used Roman numerals for personal prefernce. -Zero^Talk 14:17, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply! Numbers are numbers, yes. But we should go by the official name of the game, and moreover, it helps prevent confusion with the Game Boy games. I'll change them when I get a chance. StarryEyes 14:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virturoid ===>> Virtuaroid[edit]

I'm thinking about change the article name, as Virtuaroids is much more common use. L-Zwei 13:50, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that as well. In fact, I'll change it for you. -Zero^Talk 14:15, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Man skills[edit]

Hey, your list looks pretty good so far. If I were you, I'd go ahead and make it article and make a direct link to it from List of Mega Man weapons. You could also create a section stub for the series that you're lacking, and let others help as well. I'd love to help, but I'm not in a very tedious mood at the moment (it would be pretty easy to look the skills up on other websites, but it would require some articulation on my part for the descriptions). ~ Hibana 22:21, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, I'm not too comfortable with making it an article as of yet. The entire list of Classic Mega Man skills has yet to be filled in, and I find that quite unacceptable. I'm working on this laborous task as we speak, and it would be grand to have a bit of help. Thank you for the reply as well. -Zero^Talk 22:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Missing Barnstar Problem[edit]

As a member of WP:KC, I occasionally view the "what links here" of the missing barnstar to see who seeks a barnstar and award him or her one according to his or her ability and record. That's why I came to your page - from the missing barnstar. Deryck C. 15:07, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

templates[edit]

Since May lee is korean and is listed under fictional koreans, I put the template on. The template lets the characters anme be translated in Hangul. This is done for all korean topic on wikipedia. The wikiproject videogames does actually help when I ask. They helped make sure characters were sorted by last name were someone kept unsorting them. --Dangerous-Boy 20:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listing under categories is fine. There's no problem with that, I'm only refering to templates that add a character article to a specific project. When I cited the videogame wikiprojec didn't assist, I was refering to the actual article not the categories it was sorted in. -Zero^Talk 06:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joke's RfA[edit]

Hi Zero, thanks for voting in my (successful) RfA. All the voters who voted neutral or oppose had the same criticism – lack of involvement in the Wikipedia namespace. This is nice, because it is a weakness that I can endeavor to fix. Although I don't think I have the disposition or diligence to be actively involved with, say, VfD, I've recently started to participate in the Featured Article discussions and will start participating in some policy discussions now that I am starting to grasp the way the project runs. –Joke 16:52, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which part was nonsense?[edit]

I was simply correcting some of the character heights.

I checked the character measurement conversions, and apologize. You were correct in your edits. I'll refractor the warning. -Zero^Talk 17:18, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User pedo[edit]

I am afraid you are not making yourself very clear. You seem to be misinformed about the nature of slander, and your arguments are opaque. What is the real reason that you think this template should remain deleted? --Dschor 22:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are not the purpose for being here. There are many other ways to explain your interest in an article with others, and userbox mania is not the means to this end. Its simply appalling. -Zero^Talk 22:03, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not claim that the template is the purpose for being here, but why must it be deleted? Your opinion that it is appalling notwithstanding, there is no rational basis to object to this userbox. I'm appalled at the deletion of this template. --Dschor 23:24, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I disagree. There's a fine line between unwarrented deletion and speedy deletion. This userbox did absolutely nothing to furthur the productiveness of the project. It's also a laudible cause for complaint in that you created this template imediately proceeding the deletion of its predecesors. That shows a attempt to subvert concensus and is very poor judgement indeed. I see where you going regarding the lack of discussion, however, when something is clearly offensive and not constructive to the encyclopedia, then it is deleted immediately. Process is only a means to an end, and not an excuse to allow templates in this vein to remain for a longer time period.

Dschor, when I say that no one is going to allow the userbox mania to proceed on this site, I think you'd better listen. It's some kind of mania, a craze, and its certainly not the concenus for this encyclopedia. If people cannot live with the fact that wikipedia will never be their oulet for self-personification or outspoken views, then they should go find one that is. -Zero^Talk 12:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

Just wanted to say thanks for the shiny little star you left on my talk page :) --Sherool (talk) 02:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly deserved it. -Zero^Talk 12:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Megaman Zero template[edit]

I must disagree with you, unless you mean something contrary to what I think you mean. A different template for MMZ characters, MMZ events etc. is not necessary. The current template is sufficient, though the layout may need a bit of altering. Wolf ODonnell 15:44, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was refering to a different design. See Template:Tekken series and Template:Dead or Alive series. Look familiar..? i detist re-utilizing the same tempalte design on articles; Mega Man is a different series. Hence he should have an oringinal template. -Zero^Talk 15:47, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sorting by last name[edit]

All names when catergorized on wikipedia are sorted by last names. If you check all the other character cats, they are sorted by last name. I even discussed this on the computer and video game wikiproject and they agreed that the section should be sorted by last name. Take a look at the capcom character sections. All are sorted by last name. Real people are sorted by last name. Please sort by last name. --Dangerous-Boy 23:22, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I shall not argue this. Last name categorization is unacceptable. -Zero^Talk 23:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Acknowledgement[edit]

First and most of all, thank you very much for your appreciation of the chore ^_^;;;;, which I have never expected to gain. However, I do not consider the list and other any article stuff as completed or perfect, so further, deeper, more, harder work comes ahead just now.

Anyway, I only hope that more future contributions, no matter written by who, can bring up more positive conveyance, comfirmation and curiosity of knowledge, to all readers. Looking foward to co-operating with you again (which is too likely to happen).

And... sorry for the sudden silence, because my precious Chinese Lunar New Year has become history. ~ Polobird 17:05, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely. On wikipedia, work is never done. However, I'll be busy with a new project as of late, and Mega Man won't be as high a piority in trhe future. -Zero^Talk 17:15, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for adminship[edit]

As we discussed earlier, I think you're ready for the mop and broom, hence:

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/MegamanZero (2)

Please indicate your acceptance and add the nomination to WP:RFA page. --Tony Sidaway 19:39, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey yo. Want me to vote there in? From what I see your alright for Admin. -- Psi edit 21:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is your choice. Thank you for the polite comment, however. -Zero^Talk 21:17, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very impressed by your cool and calm approach to problems that have been raised. There is a lot of opposition but I'm convinced now that you are administrator material. If you don't get it this time, be patient. You will get it soon. --Tony Sidaway 22:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its okay. I'm more concerned about people having the wrong idea about me; it hurts to have people misinterperet your actions as negative. I still want to help wikipedia as best I can in the meantime. -Zero^Talk 05:08, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No Need for Apology[edit]

Aggressive? No, not really. To tell you the truth I was getting angry at the fact that you decided to edit the MegamanZero template at the same time as I was editing it.

If anything, I should apologise for being so impatient. It's just, after I posted the comment, I decided not to wait (because I had nothing better to do) and edited the template myself. What I didn't know was whilst I was editing the template, you had read the comment and was editing it yourself. If I had known, I would have backed off.

In retrospect the constant editing "war" was kinda funny. It was a prime example of what happens when two people edit the same thing at the same time. At the time, I thought it was just coincidence. My anger, was not at you, but at the fact that we weren't coordinating our efforts properly, which is why I got so irritated and posted that second to last comment and waited for your reply.

P.S. What does condlenses mean? Wolf ODonnell 21:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problems. I fully respect your desision, as per your advice the end product turned out quite well. As for "condlenses", that appears there's been an spelling error on my part. I meant condolences. Or perhaps I meant corn flakes.... -Zero^Talk 21:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Fictional creatures[edit]

Hmm, dunno I'd say you have a hint of WikiFairy blood, at least with regards to the various video game character articles. I haven't exactly run a in depth analysis of your edit pattern though. I think those definitions are "inspired" by the stuff here: http://www.c2.com/cgi/wiki?CategoryWikiUser maybe you find something there you find fitting, I think we only have boxes for the gnomes and fairies though. --Sherool (talk) 23:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the gist of the "WikiMaster" class over there seems to be "adds vanlue, removes crap", so yeah I think that's acurate enough, hopeuflly most users would fit that ;) --Sherool (talk) 03:03, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note from my talk page[edit]

I am sorry, I wasn't clear enough. The third link I provided had nothing to do with your stance on the issue at hand (Semi-protection). It was more of the name imitations. And the first one had nothing to do with a candidate I supported, because if you had looked, you would have seen that I didn't support Mr. Brenneman. In fact, I probably would have voiced opposition to his nomination if I had been compelled to opine at all. I just thought you acted in a manner that wasn't as civil as you could have been. There are a few other places where I have been disappointed in your attitude and behaviour that I was not a part of the discussion. I appreciate your trying to "clear the air", but I still cannot support you at this time. I will however continue to review your contributions and may ammend my comments later. Just keep up the good work and I'm sure you'll make it in the future. Thanks for your comments, my friend. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 23:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. It's merely a point of view then. I respect your desision, but I still cannot condone a "Strong oppose" for a sig design and voicing my viewpoint sans any personal attacks or incivilty. -Zero^Talk 23:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's your opinion. It isn't just personal attacks and/or incivility that warrants a "strong oppose". There have been a few other instances where I did not quite like your tone. I am sorry, but at this moment in time, I cannot change my stance. See you around. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 23:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. I sincerly hope you accept my "faults" and consider my words when I say that I genuinely wish to be an admistrator to assit the project and nothing more. -Zero^Talk 23:59, 10 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lack of memory on my part[edit]

Thanks for paticipating in my rfa discussion, but on another note, have we met before...? I cannot remember ever crossing paths with you previously. -Zero^Talk 00:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not directly, but I have been active at Talk:George W. Bush including discussions regarding semi-protection, as have you. -Greg Asche (talk) 00:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can then safetly make the presumption that you are opposing for the same reason as LV...? -Zero^Talk 00:34, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just jumping in here to remind you that I did not oppose you based on any position you took on that subject. Thanks. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 01:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. You cited that you strongly opposed me for tone and sigs. -Zero^Talk 01:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I am. I do disagree with your views of when and why the article should be semi'd, but that is not the reason I am opposing, it is the way I have seen you conduct yourself in those discussions. -Greg Asche (talk) 00:38, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall, those were somewhat a duration ago, and per my mentorship, I no longer engage in that "paticlar tone". I also changed my view on the situation on SEMI to neutral shortly afterward. You may wish to see my thesis on his talkpage [1]. I do believe there is a grave misunderstanding. -Zero^Talk 00:42, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Man lists[edit]

Thanks for the barnstar! I had just finished moving my other barnstar to my user page and archiving when another one pops up. ;)

So why are the entries of List of Mega Man skills and attacks (in particular, entries under the classic and X series) not considered weapons? Is there a distinction made in the instruction manuals or some other source? In any case, this article looks like a much better candidate to become featured. The table layout is nice and I like the color scheme. I'll have to do a closer read later, but on the surface it looks like everything comes from primary source material, so references shouldn't be as much of an issue. --Pagrashtak 05:14, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its a fine line between vocabulary, but generally a techique/skill is not the same as an weapon. Also take into effect that the skills gained by them are utilized by the buster/X-Buster/Axl bullet/etc. and are released from the weapon itself in regards to the defeatd enemy rather than being weapons in their own right. About the new list, I believe it could use a spell check and some grammer corrections. Perhaps you could look in to this; you seem to have a discerning eye for these things. I'll add sources in the meantime, and I thank you for the kind comment. The article compliation take a week to construct. -Zero^Talk 05:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiterrorist4[edit]

No problem. He is indefinitely blocked.--Shanel 07:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note he has a "4" at the end of his username; this is his 4th incarnation. I've no doubt he'll return. An aspiring Willy-on-wheels perhaps..? -Zero^Talk 07:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kasumi (Dead or Alive character)[edit]

I have noticed several edits, one in particular that add a lot of information to the article. I am hesitant to remove them as cruft or speculation since I have not extensively played DOA 4 yet. I'd like a second opinion before anyone acts on it and naturally, I came to you :)

I'm also curious on your stance on referring as a character "winning" a battle or the tournament on its own, or designating the specific character won that battle in his/here own storyline. For some it may be obvious which character won because said character is still alive when the oponent's intention was to kill them and so on, but for the most part this isn't established until the next game release. As a result I was thinking that it would be sensible to designate that it happens in that specific character's storyline. Partially for the sake of eliminating ambiguity, and partially because speculation can fall under OR, is probably the most evil form, and is the spawn of satan itself (or possible a victim of the sigma virus).--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 21:57, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recomend a revert. The addition is tipped towards an extreme POV depiction basis, and sounds somewhat unencyclopediac. I've yet to make a full analysis on DOA4 as well, but as an thesis, I don't agree with the edits. Concerning "winning", generally, the cut scenes are canon (sans branching characters). I'm somewhat busy off-wiki at the momment, but first thing tommorow, I'll construct a thesis detailing canonical wins and losses which should clear thing up for you. I aplologize in advance for my slow response in this, and I'll get this cleared up as soon as possible. -Zero^Talk 22:13, 13 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved all the information here. -Zero^Talk 15:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So the one's on that list, I assume are the wins that are considered Canon to the storyling by tecmo, and that all other fights should be considered to happen either way? Also, just out of curiosity, is this all essentially based on the story of the next game in the order (i.e. its obvious that so and so won X battle because Y happened in the next game)?--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 21:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. -Zero^Talk 07:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samurai Showdown[edit]

I am not that well-versed in the series. All I noticed is that the names should be in Western order since the U.S. publishers of the game use Western order. WhisperToMe 23:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

p0rn Ultimate: Storyline Section[edit]

I have a lot of @ss qualms about this:P Thanks for the reply and someone actually listening to my call out.

You know, after going through some articles for Dead Or Alive, I don't really think we do need the Storyline Section.

Because, the Storyline isn't just for DOA 2, it also links up with DOA 1. Which this section was to be inlcuded, it has to be in with a article explaining all about DOA Tournament right from DOA 1.

But the box art you reduced, I disagree with it....If you check other articles that contain box arts, you will notice the box art fits the size of the table.

You can cleary see this type of examples

Anyway on the final thoughs & notes...

After deleting the CGI section, I will fix up the pictures later, by the way do we need the US box art!?

">x<ino over & out" >x<ino 17:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I see no reason to increase the size of the boxart image. If the reader is inclined to see it, they can click on it, but I suppose I have no qualms about it being increased. Regarding the U.S box art, it is not mandatory, but I think it constructive to provide diferent box art variations regarding different releases, si I'd say keep. Thank you for hearing me out, and I'm glad to see another interested an series I like. -Zero^Talk 18:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm... yea, the image doesn't has to be increased, that is why I didn't increase it to it's full size of the coloumn.

U.S Box Art, if we need it....the image it's at the left hand side for the Characters.. is that alright or should we put it to the right!?

>x<ino 21:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, its fine ethier way. -Zero^Talk 21:13, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFA[edit]

Apologies if I offended you there, that wasn't my intention. It's just with the past few months, having that quote front and center startled me. You're a good person, and I know you're going to do great soon enough in an rfa, but just not right now. Karm a fist 05:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. However I'm only trying to improve Wikipedia, as are you. There's no reason for people to adopt a constantly hostile attitude, construct blind assumptions or accuse me of nefarious conflict when it is not true. When others made an assumption about the quote sans making an inquiry to me first, it is implied they were to oppose me regardless.

Why don't they discuss me here? Or rather, why not discuss why you think that my actions are so disruptive to the community? I would have been quite content with discussion in a civil manner had those person(s) paid a trip to my page about their concerns. -Zero^Talk 12:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Curious Question[edit]

Whatever happened to that award I gave you? I can't remember what exactly it was, but I remember giving you one of those Barnstars for helping me out or something along those lines...

P.S. Someone insisted on putting back the Thorne surname in the List of Mega Man X characters but I fixed it. Do you know of any other articles where someone can put in this fancruft name, though? We must check to see whether this fancruft surname has appeared in any other Megaman X articles... Wolf ODonnell 11:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't recall the inquisition of an award from you. If you ever presented an award, it should be in my archives; try looking there. Concerning Iris and colonel, I've run an check on all the other articles, and I have not found any fancruft regarding it. I have all megaman articles on my watchlist, so if something shows up, I'll see it. I also left a note on the talkpage regarding the surname. -Zero^Talk 11:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFA[edit]

Thanks for the talk page note. This is actually a very difficuly question and is similar to the situation I find with team members at work every day. On one side you don't want people to make mistakes and on the other you want people to take a certain amount of initative, just not overstep their ability. I don't think making mistakes and learning from them is necessarily a problem, we all do that. The issue I've seen a few times, is (as it appears to me anyway) is that you dive into things make a decision too early, and in some cases that appears to go against common sense. What I would suggest you do to try and improve, is take more time over things ask yourself do I need to do this right now, or can I spend a bit more time thinking about it/looking at it, if you come back and find that someone else has already done something, then no problem look to their reasoning (perhaps you'll actually have come to a different conclusion, and perhaps your conclusion will be right.) If someone takes an action and you are confused by it, ask them about it, try and work out their reasoning (don't make it confrontational or argumentative if you disagree, just listen to what they say and take it on board). If you really aren't sure about a situation the best action is often to ask someone you respect and believe can point you in the right direction. The admin role is a question of people trusting you to have well reasoned judgement on things, not to always be right, but to have looked into things, not taken on too much and made a well informed/reasoned decision. --pgk^(talk) 19:07, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your good advice. I agree that we should admit when are wrong, and when making an mistake, try to learn and improve ourselves upon it. I find disagreements with other wikipedians somewhat good in this respect; both parties are able to grow from their opposing viewpoints and learn how to make an better article. I do indeed agree about making actions before fully thinking in some cases, but I always attempt it in good faith, and I love listening to other's opinions and taking them into consideration. About my suggested admedeum, I believe I will indeed take it more into effect, and ask whenever I am not fully sure regarding a matter. Concerning the moving of the templates today, I assure you I am sorry if I didn't appear to do it as well as you'd like. I was only trying to help.

Per your advice, I will continue to take other's viewpoints into consideration as always and will now ask more questions for the gray areas. Once again, I offer my thanks for your consideration. -Zero^Talk 19:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the template move, again that isn't necessarily a great problem, but it is one of those things which if you've been around you would know that those templates are usually on articles, also reading many of the templates (like NPOV, Cleanup etc.) refer you to talk for the discussion. I know you've been around a while and I know that you can read the templates, so the only sensible conclusions I can reach are (a) you rushed into it a bit and ended up being careless, AND/OR (b) despite your time here you aren't that familiar with things. Neither are great traits for someone applying for an RFA. I certainly wouldn't have voted in your RFA just on that one incident, but as others point out in the RFA you do seem to sometimes jump in a bit quick. I'm sure you are enthusiatic about helping out and as such do like to take things on, and that's great, just take your time with things so the help you give is as effective as you can offer. Certainly don't be discouraged. --pgk^(talk) 20:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will take more care of being conciensus in the future. -Zero^Talk 20:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA conclusion[edit]

Your adminship nomination didn't achieve consensus. Please look at the reasons voters opposed your nomination and this will be a big aid to succeeding in the future. Many initially failed nominees have gone on to be admins later. Cheers, Cecropia 23:22, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Rfa[edit]

Sorry about your Rfa results...give it a few months and try again. I'd say mid May...the time will pass quickly and you'll hopefully be a shoe in.--MONGO 05:36, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its fine. I hope I pass next time too, and thank you for your support. -Zero^Talk 05:38, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock[edit]

Maru, I ddin't mean literally. -Zero^Talk 18:09, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, you say that now, but it felt so right! --maru (talk) contribs 19:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. The autoblock is still active, however. -Zero^Talk 19:39, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers. No problems, and I'm sorry if you misread my overexacteraction. I do acknowledge that my comment was somewhat incomprehensible. Thanks for the unblock. -Zero^Talk 20:42, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GWB archive is an archive[edit]

so, don't edit it--64.12.117.8 18:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. if an user believes an paticualar concern to be legit, and wishes to ammend it, then any user is free to do so. As long as the edit is not an attempt to transmogrify past refences or discussion, then any edit is safetly within such an capacity. -Zero^Talk 18:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Things for later[edit]

And, yes, maru, I sent the e-mail. I'd still appreciate an unblock. -Zero^Talk 19:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've no doubt you've seen my progress on the King of Fighters articles lately. Well, I'm simply in the process of touching those articles up as of now, and I've set my sights on a new goal: Samurai Shodown. I'm already starting a new task of documenting and creating new pages for these characters as well, and I wanted to give a verification in case you felt inclined to assist. I'm so busy these days... -Zero^Talk 01:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should doubt more. It is healthy for the mind, and you wouldn't be wrong so often. However, I know even less about Samurai Shodown than KoF. --maru (talk) contribs 01:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I disgree. Per your edit here, its clear you saw one of the articles in question, along with the template documenting all the character links at the bottom. Nevertheless, I'm sorry you cannot assist in the expansion of the SS articles, as I could use some assistance.

Then again, I barely had any help on the KOF articles ethier... One way or another, I'll get it done. --Zero^Talk 02:16, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original Zero doesnae count- you brought that to my attention in an archived entry on this very talk page entry (don't think I've forgotten!). --maru (talk) contribs 02:39, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it does. It was constructed during the time period of the KOF expasnion, and at the time of your edit, the Template:King of Fighters characters was present proceeding the text. I believe you were perseptive enough to have seen the abundance of character links encompassed within it, and if you didn't, you simply weren't paying attention. But, We both know you did, and even if you neglected to check out the new links, you can't deny that the KOF character articles had been increased. -Zero^Talk 02:46, 9 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone stop me. I'm on another SNK edit storm! -Zero^Talk 12:07, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you insist... --maru (talk) contribs 17:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly didn't. -Zero^Talk 20:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly sounded like you did. I must be going deaf in my dotage. --maru (talk) contribs 23:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kawaii[edit]

Absolutely. More and more nominators are failing to piece together the true purpose of an deletion discussion, and should only be executed when the person has an hold on the source material. -Zero^Talk 05:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh this isnt deletionism at its best grasshopper, I dealt with more extreme cases. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 05:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User posts: [edit]