User talk:Randall Brackett/Archive 6/10 2006

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)

^{User posts:}

Possibly unfree Image:PS2-Headset.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:PS2-Headset.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Possibly unfree Image:Full Sail Students.jpg

An image that you uploaded or altered, Image:Full Sail Students.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. Please go to its page to provide the necessary information on the source or licensing of this image (if you have any), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Re: Soul Calibur III

Don't worry, just that a hard day + a strong headache brings the worst out of me. Sorry if I sounded offended or angry, it was mostly the surprise, but still I can understand the point you made. Oh, and thanks for the compliments. Johnny Master 06:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)).

In my first few months or so of editing on Wikipedia I was (still am) an avid "wikimaster" by most standards, in that I made many detailed articles. You're editting habits and dedication to the community are to be respected. -Zero^Talk 06:18, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again. Now if I can ask you something its bothering me...I feel bad about leaving the CoTs profiles out, so I was thinking of either adding them into the List of Soul Calibur characters or make a separate article, possibly called Chronicles of the Sword Characters. I'd prefer doing the separate article, being the length of the list, but I'd want your opinion before attempting anything. I'd want to take that out and start working on an Organizations page, pertaining to Fygul Cestemus, the Fu-Ma and others. Thanks for answering. (Johnny Master 08:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)).

• I'll leave it to your judgement. Feel free. -Zero^Talk 08:46, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Merging of talk page histories

I see you changed your account name and was thinking it would be a good idea to merge the two user talk page histories. I can do this quite easily. Do you have any objection? --kingboyk 11:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No thank you; interesting thought, and would be nice when I have to dig through the earlier history but I strongly suscribe to leaving my earlier wiki days behind me since I've completed my mentorship. There's a few reasons but I won't go into detail here. Thank you very much for the offer. -Zero^Talk 11:33, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, ok. No worries. --kingboyk 11:36, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Kazuya

The former one before I changed it, yeah, it was original research. The recent one you deleted was actually a copy-paste from Tekkenpedia. If Tekkenpedia is also not a reliable source, well... I stand corrected.~N J B 21:43 May 27th 2006

That's even worse. Don't push it. -Zero^Talk 17:36, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Partial refractoring of previous comment. Details here: [1]-Zero^Talk 19:47, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

He's not. (quote from the site): Please note that all contributions to Tekkenpedia are considered to be released under the GNU Free Documentation License 1.2 --elias.hc 18:17, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, contributions to other wikis have always been "allowed" by the license. They are deprecated, however. Having these inappropriate copy and pastes gives the wrong impression of editors and their ability to produce content. I note, however, that Tekkenpedia is a specialist wiki, not in widespread use and so there is no serious problem with leaving the content over there. -Zero^Talk 18:23, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Not deprecated at all. As long as the source is GFDL or GFDL-compatible, verbatim copies are fine and quite accepted. -M^ask 19:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Well it's good that you presume original research and redundant information is informative in the construction of a serious encyclopedia.

It's easy for us to say "oh, let's just use the license to evade the ethic of hard work" but it's ridiculous when the thing can't be considered a proper source of data much higher than a elaboarated observation. I hope you will find yourself able to support this position by replacing the data and providing many reliable sources.

"Not deprecated at all. As long as the source is GFDL or GFDL-compatible, verbatim copies are fine and quite accepted."

If that really is the case, then citing the GFDL policy for the creation of articles is not the solution. -Zero^Talk 19:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm making no comment on the source or reliability of the article itself, thats for people more interested in videogames then I, I was just pointing out the the GFDL allows and encourages (thats the whole point behind our liscense, free transfer of information) copying. Saying that copying from GFDL sources is deprecated is disengenious and wrong. whether this source is reliable, you make that call. -M^ask 19:53, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

• You have grossly misunderstood the intent and word of the license. See WP:GFDL and the related discussion on Jimbo's talkpage [2].I can't agree with you that the things I've said are disengenious. Out of most of your comment, the most puzzling was your quote speaking of "GFDL allows and encourages (thats the whole point behind our liscense, free transfer of information) copying". I see a serious failing in your analysis of the license and I will not proceed to take your opinion seriously. -Zero^Talk 20:04, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Text of the GNU Free Documentation License

2. VERBATIM COPYING

You may copy and distribute the Document in any medium, either commercially or noncommercially, provided that this License, the copyright notices, and the license notice saying this License applies to the Document are reproduced in all copies, and that you add no other conditions whatsoever to those of this License.

or from the Preamble

to assure everyone the effective freedom to copy and redistribute it, with or without modifying it, either commercially or noncommercially

-M^ask 20:09, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, AKMask asked for me to provide an outside opinion here. I think you may be talking at cross-purposes. Please tell me if I am misunderstanding your positions. It looks like you, AKMask, are saying "copying articles from Tekkenpedia is legal and complies with the requirements of the GFDL." And you, Zero, are saying "copying articles from Tekkenpedia results in bad Wikipedia articles that rely too much on original research and unverifiable speculation". Is this accurate? FreplySpang 20:35, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Thats what I'm getting out of it. -M^ask 20:37, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't. I'm advocating the GFDL licesne's intent is not merely that of simply permitting the copy and paste of material. As it happens, I haven't gotten around to placing a comment regarding this on the project talkpage, as its clear this discussion has become threaded from the original subject. If you'd prefer a more clear response, place a comment over there and I'll see what I think. I have it on my watchlist. -Zero^Talk 02:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Put simply, you can't copy the page direcly because the the GFDL requires you keep a log of authorship, and the page history isn't copied. Prodego ^talk 02:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I was assuming that proper credit was given, but I see that the original c+p did not do so. Zero, I would be happy to comment on the project talk page if you provide a link. FreplySpang 15:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The source seems to be http://www.tekkenpedia.com/wiki/Main_Page, with the appropriate article being Kazuya Mishima. The article diff can be found here. -Zero^Talk 15:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm sorry for being unclear; I meant that I would happily comment on the "project talk page" if you let me know which project talk page. FreplySpang 15:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• My apologies. I misinterpreted the question. The WP:GFDL talkpage, of course. -Zero^Talk 15:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Template

Please stop using this template immediately! There are a number of problems with it, a number of which I have listed on my talk page. Even were the appearance of this template not a problem, the syntax and implementation have major problems. Please stop implementing it. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

No worries. I saw your reply on your userpage and began to place your qualms into effect immediately. I'll just finish up, and get things rolling again as soon as possible. -Zero^Talk 05:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I still don't understand what you want to do that {{Kofinfobox}} doesn't do. Right now, you're essentially duplicating my work from a month ago. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Its not the usability. Its the pretense of the creation of a template without a proper inquiry concerning the original one. We also have the second images (which I do believe some to be unnecessary) but its much too late in the game to engage in mass deletions and the second design neglects a syntax necessary for such an inclusion. As for the situation of Benimaru, yes, the template screwed up whilst I fiddled with it which was very odd. In general I think the difference of such templates constitutes an suitable use for the sake of differing subject areas and sub-areas, particularly of the Template namespace. If you strongly disaprove of my template design, don't complain. Please assist me in the construction so we can get things up and running. -Zero^Talk 05:31, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

They're decorative fair-use images. They're fair game to be removed at any time. Hell, be bold and get rid of any images that aren't helping anything.

You want my assistance. To do his, I need your instruction. What do you want to do that {{Kofinfobox}} doesn't do? If if the answer is "Nothing," then why on Earth are we not using that template? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

From memory, I think I recall User:Jonny2x4 uploading a great deal of unnecessary images such as for Angel (King of Fighters). In most cases where took command (and being I created most of these articles that is the case) the practice was using images that depicted something drastically different concerning the character in the lower field. It was only after this some users misintepreted the reasoning for a additonal image and proceeded to festoon the articles like some sort of damnable gallery.

However there is no steadfast rule about this, it's just a rule of thumb that I attempt to use different templates in various situations in line with the source subject. Your statement is on the talk page and is certainly respectable, and had the template lifted from the CVG, I would be more accepting, but its much too commonplace now. I see not the problem with simply using a different design that's currently in use. -Zero^Talk 06:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there any reason not to use the standard infobox style, since you don't really want any new features? I don't really see the precedent made by substing a handmade table as overriding the longstanding infobox style guidelines. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Seems good. -Zero^Talk 06:21, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you want to get started implementing, Duck King has an example. I still need to do some minor maintenence stuff before I go and start implementing it myself. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yikes. Again, please don't use Template:King of Fighters Character statistics. It doesn't use proper parameters, and it isn't in standard style. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:54, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

{{King of Fighters Character statistics}} uses non-standard style. It doesn't use proper parameters (making rearranging the fields a nightmarish task). You aren't using linebreaks when you implement it. It has an unnecessarily long title, with unneeded caps.

And, above all else, {{Kofinfobox}} doesn't have any of these problems, and you haven't yet told me any reasons it has, other than the fact that it doesn't share the problems of the godawful substed templates that already existed.

Why are we not using {{Kofinfobox}}? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'm aware its somewhat outlandish, as it's a bit exclusive. Fortunately it's of no consequence to the running of Wikipedia. The infobox guidelines does not require we dictate the use of standard syntaxes.-Zero^Talk 07:01, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Why are we not using {{Kofinfobox}}? There are all sorts of usage problems with {{King of Fighters Character statistics}}. {{Kofinfobox}} has none of these usage problems. I could fix them, but it would involve copying and pasting the syntax of {{Kofinfobox}} into {{King of Fighters Character statistics}}. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:05, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

We've already discussed this. The latter template neglects the inclusion of a second image field and its wordly design is far from what I intented.

Why not do the copy and paste as suggested...? We utilize the latter for list format (consise and compact) and the origianal for full-flegded articles. I think that would be lovely. Surely we can agree on this.-Zero^Talk 07:10, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Please refer to the templates by name. I have no idea what "the latter" and "the original" are. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Let's not do two images. They're already too large, and the second image is usually nothing more than decoration. If two images are needed, the other image can go into the body of the article. (If the body of the article isn't large enough for two images, the articles doesn't need two images anyway!) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

What the heck does "wordly design" mean? What's wrong with the standard infobox styling?- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Why not do the copy and paste as suggested...?

Because I was being facetious. I made a template that solves all of my problems with the old substed awful template, and it's {{Kofinfobox}}. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I really think you need to calm down about this. I have no strong feelings about the suitability of your argument, but it does seem like you're no longer discussing the article. This yelling that you're engaged in seems to me like an unproductive way of making a comprimise. When are you going to discuss why and how the first template harms wikipedia? Why bother having the varible means of a wiki if you insist on people conforming to one format because of trivial disputes? -Zero^Talk 08:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

The redesign of the template is complete. -Zero^Talk 14:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, not much

Was that "Yeah, not much" like...aganist the rules of user pages or something? Because I put that there. It's not a probelm or anything...just wondering.Sukecchi 19:20, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I felt you were being too hard on yourself and not giving yourself and the value of your contributions enough credit. Every editor on wikipedia is an assest to the community no matter how many edits or the range of their source area. -Zero^Talk 03:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Samurai Shodown

There are only two games in the series with "Special" in the title: SS4 Special (the PSX Japanese release of the game, which contained Cham Cham as a playable character in Versus mode) and Samurai Shodown V Special. The official Japanese title of SS64 is written exactly as "侍魂 ~SAMURAI SPIRITS~" with both the Kanji and English characters intact. There was never any form of subtitle to the game, either in the game itself or in its documentation and supplemental material. It was written with Kanji rather than katakana in order to differentiate it from the 2D titles. 67.33.12.14 18:41, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Ah I see. The damn Kanji. Sorry, I misread the translation. Thanks. -Zero^Talk 18:42, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. No harm done either way. :) --67.33.12.14 18:51, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

What happened?

?--Dangerous-Boy 18:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Think the failed RFA was the straw on the camel's back. --maru (talk) contribs 23:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

He quit because of an RFA! Don't understand why being an RFA is so important. It's the article that's important. He really worked hard on the video game articles.--Dangerous-Boy 04:10, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Three failed RFAs. It's sorta like a milestone, it marks when you were seen as a great contributor. I don't think it's important, however.. oh well. - Zero1328 _Talk? 05:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how it got there. The rfas is most certainly not the reason for departure. Anyway, I've talked to some fellows of mine and my mum. When I revealed I left wiipedia because I believed I was doing more harm than good, my mum gave me a rather painful box on the ears and my friends asked I go back to editting for today and make a final decision. I've agreed as I really love the encyclopedia; but I would rather not cause a distrubance or offend anyone in the process. We'll see how it goes.-Zero^Talk 15:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you're staying for now. If I had my way I'd a-dunked you in a vat of Velcro, tar & bubblegum to get you to stick around. But then your fingers would be stickin' to the keys, and considering the amount of time you already spend on DOA pages that's no good. Heh. ^_^

Have fun editing; I hope the accoutrements that made you want to leave in the first place don't rear their head again in the future. Papacha 09:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

DOAX Character Profiles

Lmagnus, webmaster of DOAXtreme, wants to apologize for copying without attribution and lifting the personality sections a while back. He'd like to continue using the profiles so long as he gives proper attribution when its due to Wiki and others.

He seems real nice about it; I told him it'd probably be best to get in contact with you, as I mostly nit, reword and pick from what you've built the articles out of. Thought you should know. --Papacha 15:51, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

If he follows good mirror practices, we cannot, and indeed should not- because we write all this stuff for people to actually use, do we not? - prevent him from using them. --maru (talk) contribs 17:11, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

He is most certainly free to use the content I wrote for wikipedia. He's promised to attribute credit; he's a good chap. Feel free. -Zero^Talk 04:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Jun Kazama is being vandalized!

I heard something that is unwelcome on Wikipedia, and the article now says that Jun and Kazuya had sex prior to their son Jin being born, but Namco NEVER said anything like that. *strong shudder*

And by the way, look at the IP 69.194.184.85 that did this! I bet the IP that did this consists of a user that dresses goth and is sent by either Jeff Hardy or Bam Margera. I don't know what the heck they're teaching youth today, but Jun Kazama vandalization needs to cease and desist right now.

--D.F. Williams 12:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

I was vaguely aware that human children were concepted by the act of sex. Jin was henceforth born by the act of sexual intercourse between Kazuya and Jun. What, do you think he was delivered by the crane in a plastic bag..?

I didn't get offended by the comment, although perhaps it should be re-worded to the term of sexual intercourse or the like. I'm sorry if the terminology offended you. And I think you need to calm down a little. If there's vandalism or an addition of inappropriate content to the articles, the action of a simple revert is a few clicks away.

I derive a wry amusement from your suggestion that the anonymous contributor is gothic-related. Presumably you are not aware that a person's cosmetic tastes has nothing to do with their disposistion and many gothics (I don't paticularly encourage the use of the word, they're no different than anyone else) I have come across are some of the best members of society. There will always be diifferent kinds of edits made in wikipedia and simply because its unwanted, doesn't mean its vandalism. Its a wiki. I'm happy with it and I hope everyone else is too. -Zero^Talk 13:24, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Julia Chang's page

I'm being nice but stop removing the endings from this page.People are trying to make it better and everytime it's removed it's lame.The section isn't irrelevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MemoriesOfThePast2 (talk • contribs) 20:39, 1 June 2006

I disagree. Integrate it neatly into the article if you precieve the information to be relevant. You write such data in a way that a fith grade teacher would look down upon. Compounding this, you make small question marks as if you aren't positive the data is canon. We're not here to make trash that is inconsistent between articles. Please learn to improve your format and I'll certainly relieve myself of making reverts.-Zero^Talk 18:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me but I don't need to be talked to like I'm 5 because I'm not.Also other people proably don't know if it's canon or not so quit whining. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MemoriesOfThePast2 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 1 June 2006

• No, you're not five years old. Re-read my comment for clarification. And see our research policies if you're admitting to inserting data without correct derivement. I'm not sure if it was you who made the section in the first place but if it was please stop. Consider how we write articles at wikipedia. -Zero^Talk 19:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

• OK then.I started the section and I'm going to finish it.The little question marks mean I don't know if it's canon or not. -MemoriesOfThePast2 ,1 June 2006 (UTC)

Hm?

What's this? blanking your User and talk pages? You leaving or getting another name change or something? - Zero1328 _Talk? 11:02, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Question

You had problems with this editor as well if I am not mistaken...[3]...anything to contribute?--MONGO 18:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It's okay, you all seem to have sorted it all out. I'd rather not comment unless the case is opened, at which timeframe I'll add a comment and edvidence. -Zero^Talk 04:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Deletion

Huh, are you sure? Maybe you want to take a wikibreak and think it over first? jaco♫plane 11:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you can come onto irc to discuss it. jaco♫plane 11:15, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I think its really better for the encyclopedia if I depart. I've made contributions that I felt were appropriate. And I have simply realized I am more of a hinderance at this timeframe; A Man In Black is pretty good in the area of articles I work in and he's a good chap. You guys will do just fine without me. :) I deeply apologize for my disruption of the fair site, and I really hope you continue to improve the best encyclopedia this side of the internet. Its similar to the Mega Man Zero games- I'm just "....an outdated model that simply needs to die". I still really love wikipedia as much as the rest of you.-Zero^Talk 11:17, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Go, take a break, cool off. If things on Wikipedia are getting to you on more than an emotional level, then it's time to destress. Besides, you still have to come back and rewrite the articles for all the minor KoF characters nobody else is ever going to get around to working on. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

NO

Sorry...I am putting you on 24 hour wikibreak...go throw a frizbee around for awhile...just relax or something.--MONGO 11:22, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

3 Revert Rule

You're very persistant in edit wars and discussions and such, but you're still forgetting about the Three Revert rule. I feel that you may get into another edit war with a new member, so try to remember to mention this rule, to try to stop the war and discuss peacefully. - Zero1328 _Talk? 11:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Honestly...? I'm always peaceful and tolerant and I'm aware of the 3RR rule. But I cannot refrain from the removal of edits that are unsuitiible for the encyclopedia. There is a common misconspetion that wikipedia is the site for fan information, unsourced claims, and an all-around blog. Its time newer editors understood what this encyclopedia is and what its stands for. And various editors of the community need to explain that so future contributors don't get the worng idea.-Zero^Talk 11:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm just reminding you to mention the rule to the new members next time. I don't see you mentioning it at all. I know you can't refrain from removing bad info, but edit warring isn't good for Wikipedia either. - Zero1328 _Talk? 11:49, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:RCU

If you have enough evidence, you can request a sock check at WP:RCU...do you want your userpage restored?--MONGO 11:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't his Userpage just a redirect to his talk page? - Zero1328 _Talk? 11:32, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Its his general disruption and unfounded personal attacks that concerned me, and his status as a revatively new editor gave me great cause for suspision. If he starts anew, we'll look into it as appropriate.

As for my user and subpages, I'll leave that to the cummunity. If they feel I'm a suitible editor and contributor to the site, then, yes they can be restored. If not, notify me and I'll depart in full. The common perception is that I launch personal attacks and engage in incivilty, which I feel is a grossly mislead view and something I find to be very vexing. -Zero^Talk 11:38, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You've got to be kidding. You are certainly a value to the community and the encyclopedia. Please stay. And whenever you are stressed, just meditate on this ;-). NoSeptember ^talk 13:23, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Do stay. You've done far more good for this encyclopedia than most, and it wouldn't be prudent to leave as the result of some relatively asinine conflict matter.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 05:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Dead or Alive character pix

Hi, I recently uploaded a series of publicity screenshots to illustrate Dead or Alive characters. The screenshots used previously were unsourced and out of date (these ones are promotional material from DoA4). In order to save the trouble of posting the out-of-date images for deletion, I uploaded over the old versions. Earlier you reverted these images and the accompanying character pages without stating any reason for doing so. Do you have any particular concerns about the new images? ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 05:41, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't speak for Zero (as I haven't seen all that was undone), but I reverted the Tina shot as it heavily apes that of a DOA wallpaper, when what would probably be more preferable would be a head or profile pic. Papacha 05:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't just ape the DoA wallpaper, it is the DoA wallpaper :) Most pics used to illustrate DoA characters are of indeterminate origin, I felt that a properly sourced image which was released for promotional purposes (a la wallpaper) might be a better fit to Wikipedia's image use policy. ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 06:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well shoot, I didn't wanna just come out and say it. >_>

I'm still very "eh" about wranglin' up the wallpapers, though I understand your reasoning (as I did when reverting the pic). Regardless of uploader, all DOA pictures need to properly sourced, post hasty. Papacha 06:18, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

They all came from http://www.gamespot.com and I took and cropped some of them myself. If the mere reasoning for the previous uploads was lack of source, no problem. I'll fix them right away.

I removed those wallpaper images immediately. This is an encyclopedia, not a gallery. They were pretty low quality too, and told the reader absolutely nothing the previous ones didn't. -Zero^Talk 06:26, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, we may disagree about quality or aesthetics, but the main gripe was sourcing. If you could please provide a source for the current screenshots, I'll be more than satisfied. Also, would you oppose the uploading of character screenshots from newer DoA titles (DoA 4 or DoAX2)? ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 06:34, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

I've already gone and fixed them. No, I don't have a problem with the replacement of newer imagery, but the low-quality wallpapers are not going to fly. -Zero^Talk 06:38, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:King of Fighters Character statistics

Hi. Could you take a gander at this template..? I'd like it if we could format the article code so it follows the standard guidelines in articles while still retaining the design. Currently, to extrude it I am resigned to using this:

(gobberish)

That seems a little bit messy and difficult to keep track of. I'm hopeful we could use a simialar syntax to the Oh My Goddess! articles. -Zero^Talk 09:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I've worked on it and made some great progress. See here for the updated syntax. -Zero^Talk 13:08, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Forget it, I've figured it out. -Zero^Talk 13:59, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

I can make it better with little effort. Oh My Goddess! code is much more readable. Should I proceed? --Cat out 14:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• No! Take a look! Take a look! I just finished touching it up. Its beautiful. See here.-Zero^Talk 14:14, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Could you please respond to the points at Template talk:SNK character? I've dropped the back-and-forth changes to the template, but I'm disappointed that you gave up on the discussion as soon as the reverts stopped. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:43, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers tags

Any reason why you are removing them? Thunderbrand 15:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh you mean the unencyclopediac boiler plates? See this and this. -Zero^Talk 04:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Question

You had problems with this editor as well if I am not mistaken...[4]...anything to contribute?--MONGO 18:51, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It's okay, you all seem to have sorted it all out. I'd rather not comment unless the case is opened, at which timeframe I'll add edvidence. -Zero^Talk 04:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Bicycle award

Zero, Please don't be a troll. That picture of a bicycle on your awards page is simply an award you retain to convey your sense of "victory" over User:Moby Dick, in which case it has no point being on the page, or it's a false award, in which case it really has no point being on the page. To be honest, I find it foolish and immature of you to keep this image. -Seandoug 08:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I regard your comment as very unfriendly. Its kind of something I don't percieve you as making in good-faith and I'm troubled one would emerge and make such an accusation. I have had that same picture of a bicycle on my original user page, my new userpage and the award subpage for quite awhile now.

While it's true that the image/award has no real function (except to assist a newbie in feeling welcome) I think it looks rather fecthing. I'm considering the replacement of the picture with one of a cool motorcycle or even a Ride Chaser, which I hope you will agree looks cooler than a plain bicycle. -Zero^Talk 08:41, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

How can you keep TROLLING?!! Look at the thing and all the mess its caused, is that some kind of joke? Regardless if the award is yours, its NOT up to you to decide to keep it now. Though of course I may have been just as out of line for deleting it, You are the one trolling so knock it off. And don't post messages on my talkpage, asking me to "stop". -Seandoug 10:25, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It is simply false to claim that I hold the award with the attempt to troll. The award was rightfully given in a (presumed) act of good faith ,and then preyed upon after the established appearece of another user. Such decisions are left up to the recipient and the recipient alone.

As discussed on WP:AN/I, this was a baseless complaint and a removal of this commentary would be appropriate if desired. It's okay to remove items on many wikipedia namespaces if you disagree with the content, but userspace of this dispute is not a good place to start. I regard your shenanigans as very ill-concieved and of the most disgraceful kind. -Zero^Talk 11:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

STOP!!

Zero, It's great! Gee, Its absolutely great to know that when I make good edits to whatever article , you'll be there straight away to revert me. -Seandoug 09:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you were just lucky to hit multiple items on my watchlist in a very brief time period. I posess a watchful eye on many items on my watchlist, paticularly ones I have created and elevated to GA status. I do tend to revert unexplained or inadequately explained additions of information very quickly. -Zero^Talk 09:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, yeah. Of course, Zero. And I'm just completely wrong, eh? I guess because I'm new here, you must be right about eveything and everything you say must be true. -Seandoug 09:43, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

It is true. Items that I edit go onto my watchlist, and you made edits that I did not agree were appropriate for inclusion. Please don't use negative sarcasism on Wikipedia.

• Mega Man X (character) Revision as of 08:59, June 8, 2006 (rv.)

• Zero (Mega Man) Revision as of 09:01, June 8, 2006 (removed somewhat biased statement)

• Seven Samurai 20XX Revision as of 08:47, June 8, 2006 (rv. That was a misleading edit.)

• Bio-Devil Revision as of 09:04, June 8, 2006 (redundant to the previous prose) -Zero^Talk 10:05, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Calm down, Sean. looking at your contributions, the edits that Zero reverted aren't very well written. You certainly can't compare items from one game universe to another[[5]] and that comment on size = strength simply sounded out of place[[6]]. - Zero1328 _Talk? 09:55, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stick around

I saw your comments on Tony Sidaway's talk page, that you were thinking of leaving WP. You know that there are plenty of folks out there, just creating and improving articles, like yourself. I just consider some admins now as "background noise". Wallie 06:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think Tony said it best when he suggested that I take upon a short wikibreak previously and relieve myself of some of the workload I insist on doing. A few weeks later, I have once again taken to no heed as I just recently took on a casche of projects outlined in User:MegamanZero/Sandbox#Major Projects, doing a overhall on Seaman (video game) yesterday.

This is the first time someone has described administrators as "background noise" to me. Could you clarify that analogy? I'm afraid I don't follow. -Zero^Talk 07:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

It's something like the modern workplace. Some people are just working hard, and producing things. The second are playing politics, talking about poeple behind their backs, and generally not doing anything productive, just creating a bad environment. The first grouping is valuable. The second we all have to live with. Specifically, in the case of Wikipedia, the primary function is to write good articles. Everything else is ancilliary. Things like changing peoples user names, putting in nasty remarks about people, etc. are all background noise. Wallie 09:55, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. The encyclopedia comes first. Always. -Zero^Talk 10:08, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't let the bastards get you down, Zero.

• It's good to see someone with your boldness. Keep it up. Danny Lilithborne 10:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Wikipedia progresses very productively, I think, when editors make good, bold decisions. I believe some editors now think that moving at an inch like pace is required to keep the peace and that experienced people like me should constantly dive in and do the dirty work. This isn't required of me, although sometimes I get the impression that many editors think that I'm obligated to. -Zero^Talk 10:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That's what concerns me about words like "trolling" or even "vandalism". People accused of doing that, are sometimes simply trying to get the article moving. Bold people are definitely needed, as it gets others thinking too. It's called initiative. Wallie 11:22, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That was definitely bold... Wallie 20:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Hold your tongue! I do stuff like that all the time. This is what I would consider bold. -Zero^Talk 20:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks...

For moving that one message off my user page to discussion while I was away. Don't have much to add that wouldn't read as "saccharine" or "spammy", but but I wanted to acknowledge your effort so it wouldn't seem unappreciated. Papacha 22:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I'm glad I could be of help. -Zero^Talk 04:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Dabljuh

Thanks. He's really trying everyone's patience at the moment.

There are currently three sections devoted to his antics on the AN/I page. Do you think it's ok to reorganise the page to keep them together? Jakew 12:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that seems like a nice idea. -Zero^Talk 12:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

KOF characters

I've examined the KOF character pages and these could do with an image less in the infobox, as usually one image is allowed for identification. However, I'm not too familiar with the them and I believe a user with greater knowledge of these particular characters should decide what best illustrates the subject. Is this something you might be interested in sorting out? Vic Vipr ^T_C 11:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I see what you've been doing. Yes, we need to eliminate needless usage of fair use imagery as much as possible. Thank you for notifying me; I'll go and trim some as necessary. -Zero^Talk 12:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Disruptive? Nonsense, the images you've uploaded have no critical commentary, so how can you expect the odd reader to understand that the image illustrates a "transformation"? Vic Vipr ^T_C 11:14, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't. The article says that. -Zero^Talk 11:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll embarrassingly admit that I was in over my head in regards to the VF infobox as well as my edit to the Orochi character. My work with the infobox involved replacing the deprecated structure of class="HiddenStructure" with the function #if:, which you may have seen in use on {{Infobox VG}}. Needless to say, I'll be more careful from this point on. Cheers Vic Vipr ^T_C 14:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I'm aware of what you were attempting to accomplish. Per Wikipedia:Don't use hiddenStructure, this is a pretty good idea. Would you like me to go and implement this...? -Zero^Talk 14:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

FYI

WP:RFArb#Dabljuh. Nandesuka 16:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. It was thoughtful of you to give me notification for this. I've added myself as an involved party and left a statement. -Zero^Talk 17:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Spoilers on the List of locations in Spira page

It's not up to any one individual's discretion as to when a statute of limitations expires on spoilers. For that matter, it's not up to any one individual's discretion if there even is a statute of limitations on spoilers.

Yes, this is an encyclopedia. Yes, it's supposed to give information. It's doing that. This particular article -- just like all Final Fantasy articles -- is just taking the route of common courtesy and consideration for others by marking its spoilers. It's also following the rules in doing so.

The bottom line is that if there are spoilers, they are supposed to be marked. There are no stipulations on that. For that matter, if you look at the video game(1) articles(2) that(3) have(4) achieved(5) Featured(6) Article(7) status(8), you'll find that they mark their spoilers.

Regardless, though, of it being a matter of quality and a matter of following the rules, above all it's a matter of courtesy. The spoiler tag should be there. Ryu Kaze 18:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I've seen that. Don't rush me; I'll remove the spoiler tags from those articles in time. Currently, I'm not too concerned if the tag stays there. I'll get them all eventually! -Zero^Talk 18:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Those are not things you can just choose to remove on your own. Especially if your reasoning is as weak as what you presented earlier, seeing as how the information is still being presented and all the spoiler tags are doing is being considerate, something Wikipedia editors are supposed to be. It's a discourtesy to the readers to remove those spoiler tags, and against the guidelines. Ryu Kaze 18:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure I can. I can always remove the presence of unencyclopediac content. -Zero^Talk 18:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

That's not unencyclopedic content. That's common courtesy. And, again, it's a Wikipedia guideline that all users are supposed to follow. Do we really need an administrator to settle this? Ryu Kaze 18:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I'm presumably taking advantage and enforcing the disruption of the community by abuse of my editing privileges, so I suggest you take this to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and file a case against me for my abusive editing practices and inability to discern inappropriate content. -Zero^Talk 18:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

That's jumping ahead a bit. Mediation should come before arbitration (if it comes to that). I'll take it there. Ryu Kaze 18:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Its worth a try! I suppose next I'll be accused of POV pushing! :) -Zero^Talk 18:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Is the sarcastic attitude really necessary? In any event, I need to add this RFM template to your page:

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee in regard to the article List of locations in Spira. Mediation Committee procedure requires that all parties to a mediation be notified of the mediation, and indicate an agreement to mediate within fourteen days. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#List of locations in Spira, and indicate your agreement or refusal to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation or contact a member of the Mediation Committee. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryu Kaze (talk • contribs) 18:33, June 16, 2006

The request is up now. Please drop by to offer your agreement to mediation. Ryu Kaze 19:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Should I take your comments on the mediation page to mean that you aren't willing to involve in mediation? And would you actually offer some reasoning for once for this "spoiler tags are evil" business? How do they limit the presentation of information? All the information is still there, only the reader gets the choice as to whether or not they spoil themselves.

Sure, printed encyclopedias don't have spoiler tags, but Wikipedia is hardly a printed encyclopedia, nor does it advertise itself as one. It, in fact, stresses that it's not ("Wiki is not paper" anyone?). Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that tons of unsuspecting people can wander into by way of links given to them in IMs or on forums, and -- as the spoiler guideline mentions -- people aren't always instantly aware of what they're looking at. It is a matter of courtesy and consideration to give readers that choice. This isn't an encyclopedia that they necessarily picked up by choice and flipped through the pages of to find a certain article.

In that same vein, spoiler tags in those articles that are Featured Articles are twice as important given that there are many people who read the daily front page Featured Article regardless of past familiarity with the subject matter. Why you're so intent to disregard courtesy and not consider others in this situation is something I would like to know.

By the way, should we just go on to arbitration at this point? Ryu Kaze 22:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh I disagree with you on the idea that I disregard courtesy. Spoilers should be reserved for articles where there's a clear need--various editors coming about with it doesn't demonstrate that need. However it's currently inserted so don't worry.

It's true that the encyclopedia can be an undesirable source of information. The fact we are an encyclopedia is the entire point; if people don't wish to read "spoilers", they shouldn't be anywhere near an encyclopedia. As for "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that tons of unsuspecting people can wander into by way of links given to them", I noted this, and when the article is considered competent the elaborate summeries will be included. That's the whole point. The spoiler tags do not dictate if a person reads an article from beginning to end. That's utter nonsense. -Zero^Talk 22:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

What the spoiler tags certainly do, though, is raise a red flag that lets someone know if they need to skip ahead until they see a "spoilers end here" notice. Anyway, you didn't address what I asked you: how is the information being limited simply by informing people that -- in the event that they don't want to be spoiled on something -- they should maybe turn away?

You say people shouldn't be near an encyclopedia if they don't want to be spoiled. This is the same excuse people have used on video game forums for years for their unmarked spoilers, yet most forums continue to say "It's not up to you to decide that. The fact that there are tons of people showing up every day asking 'Should I buy this?' and 'Can I get some help? This is my first time playing through the game' says you're wrong." Have you ever considered that Wikipedia is largely regarded as one of the best places on the internet to get information on the fly? That this is where people come when they first hear about things? When they're interested? When they may not necessarily want to have everything spoiled for them right away? When they're just researching something to find out if they want to get it?

Is it okay to shout out the answer to a mystery film halfway through it within the theatre and then say "If people didn't want to know the ending, they shouldn't have come near the theatre"? You didn't even explain where you're being courteous, by the way. Ryu Kaze 23:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Well this is going around in circles and the same old obsessions keep coming up. This is really quite a dull conversation.

Kaze, when you state that actions that I take have no considerate reasoning, please consider that we differ in our views on encyclopedic content, and some of us possess far different opinions than others. -Zero^Talk 23:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm aware of that, yet you've taken no steps to try to make me understand where you're coming from here. Though you seem to find plenty of time to throw out sarcastic remarks and veiled insults. I'm just going to go ahead and take this to arbitration, because, as you've said, this is going in circles. Whatever's decided there, I'll accept. Ryu Kaze 23:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I apologize, I'll try to stop saying things that might somehow provoke you, as you know you're quite an sensitive fellow. What is wrong with saying that this is unproductive use of template presence and is of little value....? If you think that's bad faith sarcasm I apologize and I won't do it again.

On my removal, it was because it is clearly rubbish. Wikipedia does not want rubbish. That's where I come in. I remove the useless crap so no one else has to.

I would strongly endorse the initiation of that arbcom case. The committee is very intolerant of nonsense these days, I believe, so bringing forth an case concerning my egregious disruption and flagrant abuse of my editing privileges would be a great course on persuading me to cease my mass violations and contempt for policy. :)-Zero^Talk 23:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology. I can see that your intentions are good, and I just wanted to understand where you're coming from. Given that your reasoning seems to largely be that the inclusion of spoiler tags is rubbish and that I disagree, it probably is best that we just go ahead and let other people decide this matter for us. There's no use in us arguing with one another and generating hard feelings when both of our intentions are good. I'll present the matter to the arbitration committee soon and let you know when it's ready. Ryu Kaze 23:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Spoiler tags on Rival Schools articles

Can you explain why you removed the spoiler tags off the character and game articles relating to the Rival Schools series? I know the series is rather obscure, but I still think the spoiler tag would serve some purpose for those who have not played the games. NeoChaosX 20:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I think its a bit of a travesty to include tags in articles that should be informative to the reader. I generally only advocate the use of spoiler tags in articles that haven't be released or are still in development. It's one thing to tolerate said template on a fan website, quite another thing to use such things in a encyclopedia which welcomes complete and elaborate summeries.

The format under the subsections were also disruptive and took up an unnecessary amount of spacing in such brief articles.-Zero^Talk 20:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, I guess. NeoChaosX 20:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocking policy

Hi Zero - your edit to blocking policy ('users may sometimes utilize') seems to be granting permission for them to do so (or at any rate, that's how some difficult *$"%&^ will view it). I'd change it myself, but it's bedtime and I'm not awake enough. Cheers. Jakew 21:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes disruptive users confuse evading blocks with "the good of the encyclopedia" and having their way without demonstrating the level of professionalism we demand at wikipedia. That really was not an addition with an intent to permit such nonsense.

I think this will most likely end with the arbitration committee concluding with something very sensible on the issue to clarify. In the meantime, I'll go and do a slight rewrite. -Zero^Talk 21:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Completely agree - please excuse me playing devil's advocate! Regards, Jakew 22:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration case

Our case is up. Ryu Kaze 00:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I really did not presume to take this seriously. I'll have a bit of a look at it. There does seem to be quite more to this as you're regarding it with such seriousness. I really think its reasonable to conclude the committee will not accept this case. -Zero^Talk 00:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

What do you expect will happen? Ryu Kaze 00:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

And, yeah, I was taking it seriously. I wouldn't bother if I didn't. Ryu Kaze 00:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, it still looks like an incitement to humor or a half-assed attempt at dispute resolution which was never particularly pressing to begin with. You know, saying this is serious and requires a final step in the process is inappropriate. Might as well adorne ourselves with clown costumes. -Zero^Talk 00:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

As long as we don't have to ride around in one of those little cars. Ryu Kaze 01:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Cart before horse

Officially you're not supposed to edit while blocked, of course. On the other hand, the intent of blocking a person is to get them to cool down and edit constructively.

It's somewhat counter-productive to then re-block someone who actually DOES start editing constructively. :-P

So yeah, there's one thing written in the rules, but on a larger scale, it doesn't hurt to bend the rules a little to actually write an encyclopedia, if they start to get in the way of that ultimate goal.- Kim Bruning 00:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Kim, I'm troubled you're not taking this seriously. The policy and spirit was clear on this before the introduction of the section.

The recommendation to use a sock or bypass a block in the course of any block to me is like an attempt to maliciously ignore the standards required of a wikipedian. As a general rule, an editor that is as constructive would express such positive behavior to an administrator and be unblocked on the spot; if he isn't mature to depict this and convey a manageable level of behavior, he certainly shouldn't be circumventing a block. The point of a block is not to edit. Sockery in this fashion is utterly misconceived and I don't think that is right. -Zero^Talk 01:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah no, using a sock or bypassing a block is one thing, just block the sock or reblock the block if that happens. I recently got really mad at someone who tried to use socks to circumvent a block over at nl.wikipedia.

On the other hand, I'd be reluctant to revert any constructive edits such a person had made, if they happen to be good solid contributions. Hence I think you *may* revert, rather than *must*. I wouldn't stop anyone from reverting if they wanted to. Kim Bruning 01:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I tend to regard these things on a case by case basis. If its obviously constructive, then I don't see why I should refractor it. The main purpose of the removal of edits by blocked users is to enforce the block. This is generally the case on discussion pages. -Zero^Talk 01:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Blocking policy: Edits of blocked users

Of course you are write that "The point of being blocked is not being permitted to edit." However, there is no reason to revert edits by blocked users just because they were blocked. If the edit is not abusive, e.g. a correction of a typo, it should not be reverted, just the user punished for evading the block. Socafan 01:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I beg to differ. If some editors persist in nonsensical evasion of blocks rightfully gained, it is not a bad idea to explain a unblock in an sensible tone to a administrator, who would be glad to revoke the action in light of good behavior. Wikipedians are generally a good lot. It would be bad for wikipedia to entertain abuse of circumvention and regard it as "punishment". We don't do punishments at wikipedia. -Zero^Talk 01:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I cannot quite follow you, I guess this is a misunderstanding. I only wanted to write that I think a helpful edit, like correcting a typo, even if done by a blocked user, does not need to be reverted. Are you saying you find blocked users who evade the block and edit constructively should be unbanned? Socafan 01:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I most certainly do not agree to the usage of evasion in any case. If an editor did not wish for such a block the actions that garnered that block should not have been performed from the outset. If the editor is truly willing to assist wikipedia he or she will remain in place and explain themselves in a sensible manner. Surely the good faith will come through and that block will be lifted, hopefully to allow that fellow to continue his good contributions. If he's evading a block, it means he hasn't learned a thing.This is never acceptable. -Zero^Talk 01:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, well, but then we agree, I do not quite see what disturbs you? Socafan 02:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Guts Man

Where is the discussion of this?

I believe that at least the DRN series (except Bomb Man, as he appear few) showd have a page, not all of them, and they NetNavi version in the same page. --17:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Find another wiki, then. I'm sure the Megaman wikipedia could use that elaborated content. -Zero^Talk 17:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Perfect Dark

I'm trying to work out why you removed the spoiler templates from the Perfect Dark article and marked it as "clean up". You seem like an experienced editor so I have no idea why you would do that. Soo 09:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope you won't object to my fixing the inclusion of non-relevant material as I tend to do. Inappropriate use of templates in an encyclopedia article lowers the quality of the encyclopedia. Having fixed the above and then read it through, I've found I have done the correct thing. If you believe me to have made a grave error in judgment despite my experience, I do hope you can reconsider. I'm reasoning that a senseless template has no real purpose to the overall task of writing an encyclopedia. And so I continue to remove them. If you'll take a look above, you'll see a user has filed an rfar against my insolent actions for arbcom to review; I'll let them sort it out. For now, there seems to be good support for actions to remove unencyclopediac content.-Zero^Talk 10:42, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is this "good support"? I haven't seen it. If you don't believe the spoiler tag belongs in Wikipedia, the proper thing to do would be to nominate it to WP:TFD and see if there is consensus. As The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker is currently undergoing a featured article review, may I ask that you at least leave the spoiler tag on that article for now? Pagrashtak 17:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't seen the support either. I also think spoiler templates are useless and unencyclopaedic, but I couldn't claim that consensus is on my side. Deleting the things with no useful edit summary, especially from Featured Articles, is a surefire way to irritate everyone, including people who agree with your principles like me. TFD is the correct approach. Soo 17:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

There is always support for the removal of neglatory content. I do not see what this nonsense has to do with making a article to featured status. -Zero^Talk 17:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

When I was working on Majora's Mask, the placement of the spoiler tags came up in FAC. My usage of the tags in Wind Waker is based on that. Failing to mark plot details as spoilers is a valid reason to reject a FAC. If you feel that you must remove spoiler tags, please indicate that you are doing so in your edit summary; summaries like "clean-up" may be viewed as an attempt to mask what you are doing.

You have not shown me where the support for the removal of the tag is, or why you are not taking this to TFD. I would appreciate answers to that, please. Pagrashtak 17:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I would appreciate answers from you on how on earth this unnecessary trash assists the encyclopedia. For a previous discussion see the archive on User talk:Jimbo Wales. -Zero^Talk 17:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I never said it assists the encyclopedia. I just said that you don't have consensus to remove the tags and as things stand now not having the tags is a valid objection to a FAC. Now please tell me why you are not nominating the spoiler tag at TFD. Pagrashtak 17:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

I very, very, very rarely participate in such things. Discussions like TFD, MFD and to a lesser extent AFD have descended to a point where its not even considered appropriate for the decisions made for the good of the encyclopedia. Also note the ever-present bickering and I really do not wish to ruffle feathers.

I strongly subscribe to the habits of 1RR in many cases and thus I do not intend to remove it again soon so there's no problem. -Zero^Talk 17:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

The last time template:spoiler was up for deletion, the discussion was closed per WP:SNOW. There is substantial support for use of the spoiler tag and also substantial denouncement of it, but most people just assume it as a guideline pro forma. Those who argue for the arbitrary inclusion of {{spoiler}} under headings that say "Storyline" or "Plot" often do it without considering just how dense and superfluous such usage may appear. The world doesn't revolve around netiquette, and there is a strong encyclopedic precedent against such warnings (see The Cambridge Guide to Literature in English, Encyclopedia Britannica, any professional style guide, etc.).ˉˉ^anetode╞┬╡ 20:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes that's what its all about. This is why I strongly endorse the Germans way of doing things. -Zero^Talk 06:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Princess Peach

Can I ask why you removed the references!? Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 10:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I didn't mean to. I suppose I must have goofed. Please accept my apologies. -Zero^Talk18:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yet Another Spoiler Objection

I am curious as to why you're removing the spoiler templates from the Resident Evil and other various topics. This matter has been discussed to great degree (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2006_May_4#Template:Spoiler) and the resulting decision was to keep the said template as is. Simply deleting these from the basis that they're unencyclopedic after a group/moderator consensus has been reached to the contrary is pointless, rude (especially to those who have yet to play the Resident Evil games in great depth and would only like to know brief overviews), and in and of itself unencyclopedic to unilaterally get rid of something just because you don't like it. Don't get me wrong, you've obviously done a great deal of work on Wikipedia; but I do believe that you're over-reaching acceptable and appropriate bounds by doing this when just about everyone else is against it. RPH 22:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I see you are new to wikipedia. See the archive on User talk:Jimbo Wales. Also note the templates were used in an inappropriate manner. Spoiler templates are not only unencyclopediac, they were never intended to be slapped stupidly upon every summary. That wasn't the intended use at all. But then that's the whole point. Useless content has no place on wikipedia.-Zero^Talk 22:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Huge smugness aside (as I've been making edits to Wikipedia for well over two years now, not that it should even matter though), I think that you're the one making a mistake in this matter. They weren't "slapped stupidly upon" the articles in a random fashion, they were placed after the basic overviews and before the information that was revealed while in-game (See Leon S. Kennedy - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leon_S._Kennedy&diff=59237556&oldid=59214614). In regards to the Jimbo Wales discussion, that only helps further my point as the only arguement against them is that a few people don't view them as being encyclopedic enough and that they don't see why people would want to look things up when there could be a chance of reading a spoiler in the first place. Just because you and a few other people don't like something, that doesn't mean that you should go around deleting them willy-nilly (even if you claim to know the reason why they were created in the first place and view them as "the most unsightliest things any fellow came near"). Once again, that in and of itself is much more unencycopedic than any template. RPH 04:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh I think you're misreading this totally. I'm well aware of the effect removals have had on these articles, and think it should continue.

As with all "don't like something", it is in order to conform the value of the encyclopedia to that where it should be, precisely because (whatever you say) the mistakes at this time are perfectly positive. One new user's wikilawyered comment is completely inadequate for my view on this situation, so I'm continuing the removal of spoilers across inappropriate articles, noting your objection. As on previous occasions my view on this subject hasn't changed. -Zero^Talk 09:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Vega

(from the article: In the SFII series, he was depicted as having brown hair (as seen in the artwork on the top right of the page). Since SFA3, however, he has officially had blonde hair (as seen by his fighting stance, on the top left).

I will repeat this again since you might have trouble reading it:

In the SFII series, he was depicted as having brown hair (as seen in the artwork on the top right of the page). Since SFA3, however, he has officially had blonde hair (as seen by his fighting stance, on the top left).

The image on the top left (which I did not even upload) helps illustrate this difference.

I understand you have a ginormous wiki-dick, and I am very sorry to have trodden upon it. Please cease blanking content, it violates the spirit of Wikipedia and gets you whined at by angry nerds. --Nugneant 01:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, but I don't agree. Many articles use fair use imagery in a way that I could never find suitable for the informative means of an encyclopedia. It is what I would describe as a implementation of fair use imagery without regard for wikipedia policy and resources. -Zero^Talk 09:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Explanation?

Ha, I'm not a new user i'm just curious behind your edits to the Resident Evil game articles, Why remove a spoiler tag if it includes valuable plot details? Empty2005 11:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, looks like I goofed. I confused you with another editor I spied in the history.

I removed them in this instance because they were innapropriately placed. The game articles provide a short summary or overview. They do not include plot twists and whatever of the short. Looking in the instruction manuals and on the official sites, an identical summary can be found, merely only a little bit more entrenched. -Zero^Talk 11:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The Legend of Zelda series bosses

Hello, I was wondering if you discussed the possible merge into The Legend of Zelda series enemies anywhere. IMO, bosses and enemies are two quite different things. If this was approved, I would like to know, but bosses aren't exactly in the blanket enemies category. The enemies page is rather long anyway. If the boss article was expanded, that would be quite useful. Scepia 22:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I see there is no merge, but rather a redirect alone... Scepia 22:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh I just went ahead and merged the boss characters into the appropriate character articles and made the original page a redirect. I did quite a bit on those articles today.

• The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time characters Merged in the boss characters from the master list, images, etc.

• The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker characters Merged in the boss characters from the master list, images, etc.

• The Legend of Zelda series bosses Redirected since I moved all the boss characters to relevant articles

• The Legend of Zelda series characters Various clean-ups, imagery

• The Legend of Zelda: Oracle of Ages and Seasons characters Expanded, added images, cleaned-up

• The Legend of Zelda series enemies Various clean-ups, imagery, expansion -Zero^Talk 22:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll keep track

Of the situation and if blocks are warranted, I'll apply them.--MONGO 08:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. That's very thoughtful of you. -Zero^Talk 08:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Workshop: Live Metals

There a few things I feel that need to be mentioned: Each and every Live Metal is not only based on the a certain being from the past, they are infact, that being. From reports straight from japan we learned that "Master" Model X, Wind Live Metal Model H, and "Shadow Live Metal" Model P. Are infact the characters we used to know as Master X, Sage Harpuia and Phantom, even having their respective voice actors from RockmanZERO.

To elaborate, based on information gained from www.atomic-fire.com 's staff FireMan who played the game's demo: After the defeat of Parpril the Mandaroid, who wields Model P, a conversation between Vent/Aile, Model X and Model P begins. Model P calling himself Shadow Live Metal Model P and referring to Model X as Master Model X. Model X tells Model P that he should lend his power to stop the excavation of "Model V." Who by claims of the producer will be either VAVA or Dr.Vile, the latter being most likely.

Similairly, Model H, who's wielded by the Forceroid: Hibolt the Raptaroid. (Who btw, calls himself a Rockman.) After the defeat of Hibolt, there's a conversation with Model H. Which focuses around the need of finding passcodes to destroy the substance of Model V in order to make sure the faults of humans don't happen again.

Model H then explains that he fought, with the other Live Metals, to protect humans hundreds of years ago, which resulted in peace. He also mentions an instance of "casting off skin." Finally, he exclaims that their battle of hundreds year prior might not be in vain now with Vent/Aile around. The game calling Model H; "Wind Live Metal Model H.

Going from there, we can assume that Model Z is infact ZERO. F and L being Fighting Fafnir/Fefnir and Fairy Leviathan respectively.

-Zan Sidera-

You're right, it should have been reformatted to make it more obviously about the reploid rather than merely being a vehicle for ambiguity. It was a marginal and speculative analysis because I have not yet read any official context to fully understand the entry. If you would like to rewrite it, and fix my errors, it should be fine. -Zero^Talk 12:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Unrelated to my previous comment to some degree, and I'm not sure if/how you're going to implement this at this time, but it's apparently just been confirmed that the US name for Live Metals will be "BioMetals."

-Zan Sidera-

Image Tagging for Image:Arlong.gif

(orphanbot spam removed)

Smile!

Danny Lilithborne has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to two other people, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding to their talk pages. Happy editing! Danny Lilithborne 00:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Benimaru Trivia

I noticed that my trivia on the Polymar/Benimaru connection was removed. Now since Hurricane Polymar is a ridiculously obscure series that I doubt many have watched I couldn't find much for evidence with the exception of two things. First is an FAQ on Tatsunoko Fight over at GameFAQS which is here: http://db.gamefaqs.com/console/psx/file/tatsunoko_fight.txt.This is an old PSX game that featured many Tatsunoko characters one of which is Polymar. Scroll down to his section and you can see that of the four moves listed the three that have been given to Beni are listed (one of which is mispelled but can be rectified with the second source).

The second source is the Holy Blood - Hurricane Polymar OVA that came out in 1996 and is infinitely easier to track down than anything TV series related. In the OVA (can't really remember when, sometime at the end of the first Ep. I think) Polymar does a variant of the Shinkuu Katategoma although he never says the name. Towards the end of the second Episode he does the Gen'ei Hurricane and does yell out the attack name which helps to fix the error in the FAQ. Phew. Are these two things good enough to qualify as sources?

Oh and the JoJo connection is stated in the KOF 10th Anniversary site in Beni's profile although the comic and character are never named but its an obvious and well known fact.

No worries. Thanks for the clarification. I'll reinsert the data and use your provided sources as references. -Zero^Talk 04:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Concerning about One Piece Page

• Just wondering why you had removed the entire list of Nami's attacks. Also as to why you considered my battle records for chopper to have been "inapporpriate". Though i can agree that the content i provided was far too indept, i still dont see harm in keeping track of all the battles a character has faught.

We've discussed this on Talk:Tony Tony Chopper and Talk:Roronoa Zoro. That information dosn't belong at wikipedia. It might be more suitible in an external link.-Zero^Talk 03:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Iris edit

I appreciate your contributions to the Mega Man X universe-your information helps to enlightens us all. Word.

May I ask you something though? At 4ish AM, you reverted your Iris article back to its (your) original form. If it's not an issue, I really want you to reconsider that, or give your reasons for doing so. I spent a good time on revising it and I feel my version was grammatically stronger, briefer, and more objective (save for my Shakespeare connections) than yours. For instance, you...

• ...constantly use the past tense. (My biggest pet peeve.) Since we're dealing with known fact and not conversation, most of this (academic) article should be in present tense.

Iris was romantic, and somewhat foolishly naive.

So how about NOW? What IS Iris? Her romantic emotions remain consistant throughout the story, right. And the fact NEVER changes that she dies every time you play the game, right? Yes, "she died", but if you're making a general truth about the game's events, "she dies." For reference: http://www.englishpage.com/verbpage/simplepresent.html

• ...make other tense mistakes.

Later, Zero saved her during the Sky Lagoon incident.

That's dandy and true, but you're using future adverbs immediately before past tense--that's confusing now...and later.

• ...too wordy. I may sound like an English teacher, but some of that is, if it can't be shortened, is unnecessary.

Zero defeated her, but rushed to her side instantly after. It was too late at this point, as she was already dying.

• ...use awkward terms like "withhold his fighting" and "acted as a spotter." I'm sure you don't mean a weight-lifting spotter!
• ...are ambiguous with your pronouns. "...especially from her brother. When they faced off, she stopped the fight before anyone could get hurt." It almost seems as if she were trying to kill her brother! I know she liked Zero, but, man!
• ...and I, both fail in terms of referencing sources. Oh well. =)

If I sounded like an ass, my jokes failed. But seriously, your ongoing contributions are amazing! If you don't want to reply and you insist on leaving the Iris article as is, I only ask that you study the language more precisely so that we can make Wikipedia the strongest, sharpest, most intelligent-sounding knowledge database that even your professors will have respect. Keep it up, Zero! - —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc215flip (talk • contribs) 06:09, June 6, 2006

Actually, I reverted only temporarily to research where you came from. I haven't read hamlet and Romeo and Juliet since my sophomore year, so I wanted to be certain. I've re-inserted the play references and I like the comparison very much. I'm sorry if I offended you about that and thanks for your compliments. -Zero^Talk 06:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Zangief

• There's some silly two-man movement to get a reference to Colossus on the page because of Iron Body/Mecha Zangief. Little help? Danny Lilithborne 02:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)