User talk:D4c3nt3n0

Well, after doing wrong on my previous account, I've finally taken the time to turn a new leaf and start a new user account. My name is d4c3nt3n0, a fanboy of many things, including Dragon Ball. Anyway, I'm open to discussion anytime, so please leave a message here on my talk page, and I will try to get back to you as soon as possible!

What Should I Be Reading?
Before I can become a well-established user and possibly an administrator, I need to know what I am doing! If you have a suggestion about reading a certain article on editing and/or anything related to the matter of being a good user, please leave a comment below! D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 22:00, 6 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This doesn't really need a new section, so I'm just going to ask it here since it's related to the topic - Why was my link to [Kanzentai], a very popular Dragon Ball fan site, deemed as inappropriate and removed on the discussion topic, Talk:List of Dragon Ball Kai episodes? Is it wrong to link to web sites on discussion pages/general pages, or was it because User:Collectonian knew who I was and what the site was already? D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 02:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I was concerned it contained illegal materials. However, after looking further, I did not find any copyright material, so I have restored the link. Remember WP:AGF. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:42, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course, I was just curious. Know that we are on the topic, can the site be used for ratings shared info if it continues to stays on certain pages? I for one don't think the info needs to be included, but am again, just curious! D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 02:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, it is not a reliable source and not an appropriate link for inclusion in the article space. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know why I asked since I noted it before. Anyway, I have been trying to find there source for my own reference's sake! I commented on the site and asked for a link, but they didn't bother to reply. Oddly enough, they replied when I told them about a whole bunch of typos they made! Of course, even outside of Wikipedia, I should assume good faith and they probably have tons of sources and it would be a hassle to list them all just for me... D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 03:02, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

An Honest Question
Your newness that isn't new and your last post to List of Dragon Ball Kai episodes forces me to wonder, are you really DBZfan29 trying to "restart" yourself? -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You know, it's funny how a mention of a well-known fan site and a Wikipedia policy could lead you to suspect that I'm someone else. All I must say is that you truly are a smart person to make that statement. I am a new user and wish to be treated as such. I am no longer not the user that you speak of. Please keep this quiet because I don't want everyone knowing my little secret. I am... trying to turn a leaf. I am... sorry for my previous actions against the site and you personally, I am... learning new things to make me the best editor I can be, I am... leaving it all behind and wish you will not think of it, too, I am... d4c3nt3n0. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 01:57, 7 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but I can not just keep it quiet nor ignore it considering your past actions. However, sometimes what you have done is allowed, but I have asked an administrator to check into it to make sure your method of doing so is a valid and appropriate way of doing an alternative account per WP:CLEANSTART. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:07, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I can respect that as it's the right way to go. I just want to be treated as a new user; a new person who hasn't reverted or caused trouble. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Alrighty...taking you at your word and WP:AGF that you truly want to start over, I strongly encourage you to read through the various pages in the welcome message I left for you. If you want to work more with anime/manga articles, you may always and to look at WP:MOS-AM and WP:ANIME to learn more the guidelines governing those articles and the project that works with them the most. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * As a side note, your statement here is incorrect. The discussion of the list occurred the same day and it was tagged after that discussion to facilitate moving. Your note really had nothing to do with it, other than seeming very coincidental. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:13, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * That has got to be one of the strangest coincidences ever! I'll change it to discussed instead of helped finalize. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 02:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

September 2009
Please do not use talk pages for general discussion of the topic. They are for discussion related to improving the article. They are not to be used as a forum or chat room. If you have specific questions about certain topics, consider visiting our reference desk and asking them there instead of on article talk pages. See here for more information. – túrian  patois  21:46, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I just really wanted to know. Is there a place where I can ask a question and expect to get a good answer in return? D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 22:30, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Please remember, if you disagree do not start reverting but instead pose the question on the talk page. Re your changes at List of Dragon Ball Kai episodes, Wikipedia's guidelines for anime/manga is that we use the official English names for characters, including in the titles. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 00:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)r
 * If you say not to revert, you shouldn't do so a second time either. Remember, those are not dub titles. They are original JP ones, so they should - include the original JP names! Some of these names, including Chaozu and Freeza, do not translate to Chiaotzu and Frieza. Again, other pages with translations keep the original names. I don't want to start any trouble, but what you are doing does not make sense. Tell me why translations should be inaccurate because the names are different in English dubs. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 00:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You reverted when someone disagreed with your incorrect change rather than discussing. You've already been informed of this multiple times - if you make a change and someone disagrees with you citing policies and/or guidelines, discuss it first rather than going with your personal preferences. Apologizing in your edit summary shows that you know you were acting incorrectly. Please stick with discussing it, and not with making personal attacks and yelling. Calmly discuss the problem. For the rest, I've replied on the talk page where the discussion goes. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 00:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You promises when you were allowed to keep this account and continue editing that you would stop your previous behavior. This edit summary claiming you are being picked on is showing a reverting to your previous behavior and playing the victim. Again, stick with discussion during disagreements, review the discussion remarks made, and see how your edit might be improved. If there is a disagreement, wait for consensus. And, as you were also told before, be civil. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 17:49, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I was just pointing out that you only changed the things I fixed. Kaio-sama, used in an episode title, is the Japanese/Viz name, while King Kai is the FUNumation name. Why didn't you fix that, too? You're always saying to check sources, but you don't even see that mistake unless I point it out. Besides, I went with the character discussion and people said to use the manga names, and I did. This is a new account, so like I asked, don't bring the old one up. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 20:37, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I didn't. I also changed the things the IP changed, and I also, based on YOUR remarks, started a discussion to help clear up the issue of the names. As for why I did not fix the names, as you should already know, I don't read nor watch Dragon Ball so I do not know which is which without other editor input or Googling. I went by your edit summaries to determine which was a dub name and which was not. When you mentioned Freeza, I Googled and confirmed which was the manga name and corrected it. You are the one who continues bringing up issues from your old account up and continue making statements implying that you are being picked on when you are not, and as long as you continue to make those statements, others will too. If you would quite presuming anything done or said to you is somehow an attempt at abusing you, you'd find that I am trying to assume good faith with you and weighing in your remarks, both in discussions and in your edit summaries, in dealing with DB and trying to find the appropriate common ground and consensus. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:44, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, stop bringing up my previous account because I know I never mentioned it. Yes, I have a strong feeling you tend to watch me and pick on me because I always see you after I make an edit. This whole discussion started because of the character names, and, I think I was right all along. You used dub names when it was a translation; I fixed it up for you but you continue to revert anything I do. That's why I think you are picking on me. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, no one is picking on you and yes, you did bring it up by continuing to claim anyone is picking on you. I have better things in life to do than watch you. You are already aware of the concept of the "watchlist" and you should already be well aware that almost every DB article is on mine. I also tend to be online some 15-20 hours a day, and if I'm online, I'm generally on Wikipedia, watching my watchlist if nothing else. So yes, I am aware of any edit to any article on my watchlists very quickly. I review ALL such edits, and act accordingly. If I were picking on you, why am I not undoing every last edit you've ever made? If I were picking on you, I'd check your contribs and just revert it all just to be mean, right? But I do not. The only time I see your edits is when you edit a DB article because, again, they are all on my watchlist. If you want to continue claiming anyone is picking on you, fine, but its an old tune without any real merit and getting boring. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 20:55, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Please STOP TALKING ABOUT MY OLD ACCOUNT. It's getting boring. And yes, I think you do watch me because if not, you must watch Gwen's talk page, too - which is a bit creepy. I don't know how you pop up in anything I do. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism?
Please be more careful about your reverting. Reverting this as vandalism was beyond inappropriate. I was correcting YOUR mistake in the template, then doing the fix you seemed to be trying to do. This is not vandalism, and was a wholly correct edit per what you yourself said should be done. If you can not be more careful using Twinkle, it will be taken from you (as an FYI). -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:14, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I explained everything on your talk page. I truly am sorry, but thanks for teaching me how to identify something as vandalism! D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 01:16, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

October 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. ''Please be more careful. Whether you are right or wrong, you have now done four reverts.'' -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 01:46, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Collectonian, of course you would have to warn me and get yourself involved. Am I the one who is wrong here when the source doesn't even list the episode yet. Also, just because it doesn't, that does not mean people who have seen the show can't make the summaries. I know for a fact that the summaries aren't from the official site because they are huge there. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 12:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Remember what you were told before. Even if you are "right" that is not a valid reason to edit war. You reverted four times, Sarujo would have gotten a warning too had he reverted you again. You are correct, the source does not list the episode yet, so it should not be added. However, after the first revert, you should have opened up a dialog and tried to discuss it with Sarujo first, or asked for another person to review it and offer comments. As my note, I was curious about the source of the summary since it seemed to be added before the episode aired, which would make me wonder how someone could write one from "seeing" it. It was just a request for clarification or confirmation that the date was correct (as the general AGF presumption is that if people had already seen it, maybe the airdate was wrong in the list). -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 12:52, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The summary could have been a prediction of some sort and I never caught on to it in the first place (or the time change made it so it did actually air already). Remember, it takes two to tango and I was not edit-warring with myself. He should get a warning because I do remember someone saying that you don't need to break the three-revert rule to edit war. I should have reverted it assuming good faiths, yes, but I honestly forgot about the other revert features and just hit undo. He came back with a lame reason to keep it there, saying it'll be there tomorrow. Does that do any help to Wikipedia? Just like you thought the episode summary was added before the episode actually aired, the source wasn't updated yet. It should've have kept on making up excuses to keep it their because if you were in my shoes I know you would have done the same because I rarely see you start a discussion over a revert you make. Truthfully, you'd be starting a lot of discussions! D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Had he reverted again, he would have been warned. You broke 3RR, hence your warning. And yes, sometimes you do end up starting a lot of discussions. And, no you don't have to break 3RR to edit war, but you've been in trouble for it recently enough that a warning was valid (and you will note, I did not warn you until #4 in hopes you would catch it yourself). As far as I'm aware, the other editor has neither been warned nor blocked for edit warring recently enough to make it appropriate to give him a warning for 3RR when he only did 2 reverts.-- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 22:37, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just because I may have done some stupid things in the past (not RECENTLY), that doesn't give the other user a free slide. Go talk to him about using a source that won't actually be reliable until the next day. I am not at fault here. I reverted it knowing it wasn't a good source at the time You didn't have to jump in and revert my edit just because you may have felt like it. I'm seeing that you make the problem bigger by giving me a warning and not the other user and REVERTING just because you didn't bother to see what was going on. Check into things before you allow unreliable sources to back up something on a page you yourself created. I'm done saying anything. The source is reliable now and he's hidden the next episode box until next Tuesday (which I see is pointless since the episode does air on Sunday mornings and people do make up their own summaries). D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 00:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I Am... Sasha Fierce
Stop Reverting. Your edits are becoming disruptive. The reason i keep removing the tracklisting is because this information is already listed. You do not need to relist the tracklisting just to include one extra song especially not when the order has not changed. The way i have listed it makes the article more legible and easier to read. Adding a full track listing is confusing and makes the page messy. In future if you have questions about an edit such as this it would be appreciated that you discuss on the talk page first. I've spent virtually all day removing excess details to trim the article at is old size from 68kb to nearer 50kb although according to WP:article size this is still a lot. (Lil-unique1 (talk) 22:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC))
 * You are wrong. It is a different release, so it needs a track-listing. A paragraph statement should not be in the track-listing section, but rather the "Promotion and Release" one. Also, if you are so concerned about the page size, why did you un-collapse all of the other track-listings. I'm going to restore the page, and if you mess with it again I'm reporting you. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 15:14, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Release History
I am currently working on a release history chart on a page. I was wondering that when I re-format the infobox to just include "See Release History," should I put one date there, also? For that one date, should it be the first date the release comes out OR should it be the release date in the US (since this wiki is basically for the US)? The former is done on other pages I've seen, but I would like to know for sure. Thanks for any help! D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 18:46, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This Wikipedia is not "basically for the US"! Please read Systemic bias
 * I meant that the US probably looks at it more than other English speaking countries... and that other countries have their own language to read. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't know - there's a few of us in Europe and Australia, etc.  Chzz  ►  19:14, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, sorry if I offended you. It's just that in previous discussions I've been in it seems that US-related stuff comes first, like naming Dragon Ball Z episodes after the FUNimation titles/season page instead of the Ocean group dub titles and Japanese names/proper divisions. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Which article are you talking about?  Chzz  ►  19:02, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * That's really besides the point because I have been wondering for some time now, but if you really need to know - I Am... Yours: An Intimate Performance at Wynn Las Vegas D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 19:09, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In that specific case, I think that the problem can therefore be avoided, by writing "Released: November/December 2009; see xxx .  Chzz  ►  19:13, 24 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and one more thing. I'm previewing my chart so far and it's colliding with the references. How can I separate the two to have the refs under the chart. D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Writing credits
Compare
 * http://repertoire.bmi.com/writer.asp?page=1&blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&fromrow=1&torow=25&affiliation=BMI&cae=519338442&keyID=1069550&keyname=GERMANOTTA+STEFANI&querytype=WriterID

to
 * http://repertoire.bmi.com/WriterSearch.asp?blnWriter=True&blnPublisher=True&blnArtist=True&blnAltTitles=True&queryType=WriterName&page=1&keyname=Lady%20GaGa&keyid=0&fromrow=1&torow=25

The songs are registered to the genuine name as well as the pseudonym. But, if you go look it up by song, the result is this, which indicates that the primary listing is under her real name, Stefani Germanotta.&mdash;Kww(talk) 23:09, 15 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing that up. I guess it stays as is for now! D4c3nt3n0 (talk) 07:46, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Recording Izumi Sakai.png
Thanks for uploading File:Recording Izumi Sakai.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, we also need to know the terms of the license that the copyright holder has published the file under, usually done by adding a licensing tag. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the GFDL-self tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have created [ in your upload log]. Unsourced and untagged files may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Fair use) then the file will be deleted 48 hours after 02:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. ww2censor (talk) 02:27, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't remember where I got the picture because I saved it to my computer a while back... Sorry. N&#39;cha! I&#39;m d4c3nt3n0! (talk) 17:55, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Kelly Rowland (album)
You're edits are not constructive and have been reverted. She has said the following in an interview "I wanted to call the album 'Kelly Rowland' because its the only name that truelly fits as its a reflection of me. However others say it won't work so we're letting everyone suggest other names but for the time being its named after me". So until another name is confirmed by her, her record label or another reliable source the album is still called Kelly Rowland. -- Lil_℧niquℇ №1   (talk2me)  14:55, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

May 2011
Please do not add or change content without verifying it by citing reliable sources, as you did to Heat (fragrance). Before making any potentially controversial edits, it is recommended that you discuss them first on the article's talk page. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. Adabow (talk · contribs) 03:30, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * The source is my own eyes. I've seen a big stand of the perfume and CD set in two stores. N&#39;cha! I&#39;m d4c3nt3n0! (talk) 03:27, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:13, 24 November 2015 (UTC)