User talk:Erachima/Archive 01

This archive contains topics 01-25 made on my talk page. Its history on the main talk page ends at this edit.

Unsigned
It was me that made that comment on the Zaraki page. I didn't realize i wasn't logged in. --123fakestreet

Bleach
Yo, I think I remember you from several months back when I was active. You were a good contributer then, and I thank you for your support in the name change bid. :) Hobbeslover 04:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I haven't been so active lately, due to massive amounts of schoolwork, but I try to still watch the pages even if I don't contribute so much. (I have no clue whether to respond here or on your talk page, hopefully you've temporarily watchlisted this one. Sorry about that) --Tjstrf 15:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Heh, message received. No problem :D Hobbeslover 00:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for rewording that poll trivia for Ichigo. I'm not really up to date on that kind of stuff so I just assumed it was a bunch of bs. --Makaio 06:53, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Bleach
ummm... I never asked anyone, and I'm a little new at this >_< and I wasn't aware about the names shouldn't be changes. I'll go change them back. -Misheru-dono

Fire Emblem edit conflict
I am aware that Zxcvbnm was responsible for that haphazard meshing of several independent Fire Emblem related articles into that big mess. After all, I was the one who created the Fire Emblem sector of Wikipedia, as well as the series' main article. I am also the sector's main editor. Decimus Tedius Regio Zanarukando 14:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: Femocracy nomination for AfD
Articles created after they are deleted can be tagged for speedy deletion with db-repost, but will be deleted under this rule only if the new copy is exactly the same.

If you want to nominate an article for AfD a second (or third, etc) time, use afdx. This template is also mentioned in the deletion policy section, "How to list pages for deletion". More help on this template can be found on Template talk:Afdx, or read the template after you have subst'ed it onto a page to be renominated.

I have reverted your misopening of the closed AfD and tagged the article for speedy deletion as a repost. Kimchi.sg 09:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You may or may not see this here, but thank you. I spent over 45 minutes trying to figure out exactly how to nominate an article for redeletion, and finally gave up since it was the middle of the night and I needed to sleep. Glad to see that someone knew what to do. --Tjstrf 18:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Metroid Items
I've replied to your addition to the discussion on the Metroid item section. You are right- the wording was vague. I don't have any problem with the way you've edited it. Claude was just ripping it out of the article without any attempt at compromise, which is what I had the most problem with. -- Daniel Davis 00:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Hardcore Emo Metal Hip-hop Band
From AfD:

"Delete, not notable enough for its own page. I would be interested in finding out what exactly a "hardcore emo metal hip-hop band" sounded like though. They scream sad and angry rap lyrics accompanied by heavy metal beats?"

It would sound a little bit like this. (That's my band.) Grand  master  ka  03:28, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Bleach capitalization
Hey, it's good you're changing the caps in the references and stuff, but don't change in the wikilinks yet (we might decide on Bleach (series)). Thanks, Ynhockey (Talk) 18:03, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Re:RfA
Thank you for the kind words :) I hope to be voted in, but can think of some reasons to oppose my own nomination too :P hopefully they're not important though, in the eyes of the community. I'll be sure to update you if I become an admin. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah it's too bad, but at least this proves my theory that copyright paranoia is disruptive ;) none of those voters noticed that I never had a complaint about copyright issues in my edits, and tagged a bunch of pages for copyvio which were infringements. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 09:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:TfD nomination of Template:User intercal
Thanks for the head's up. -- llywrch 15:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * One final, although belated, comment on this matter. I did happen to notice almost immediately after I saw your note about this TfD that a cowboy admin (as in one "acting rashly") had deleted this userbox before the discussion was completed. I could have restored it, out of respect for the deletion process -- but I felt this would have only made the discussion acrimonious. And it would have been interesting if a clear majority voted to keep the userbox to then confront said admin. However, the matter is resolved & I'm moving on to other things. -- llywrch 17:11, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Off DRV continuation
You may be right that it's not really a solution, but I think the German plan will buy us time, and in the next round, we'll know more about what happens when you let userboxes grow in user space for a while. It's not entirely predictable at the moment. A ceasefire is desirable at this point, IMO. -GTBacchus(talk) 09:12, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Not sure as to your preference for keeping talk page discussions on one page or going back and forth between them, so crossposted to both.

More than anything else, I'm annoyed with myself for not trying to say this, say, 2-4 months ago. I was aware of the debate, but I didn't think of myself as worthy of giving input for some reason or other. Anyway, my biggest concern with the German Solution/Pacification is that it will, by its nature, stifle further debate from occurring and make the underlying issue, whether we allow unencyclopedic userboxes or not, take even longer to be addressed. So long as the Userboxes stayed in the main templatespace they were at least addressable. But, due to the seemingly widespread view that userspace doesn't matter (which I find higly ironic since User templates are only used there in the first place) the issue seems as if it will simply be whitewashed over and ignored. The German Solution seems to me to be faulty on several counts.

First, it values appearances over actuality. We "avoid the appearance of endorsement" but don't deal with the things we were trying to avoid endorsing in the first place. It's like a family having an argument over whether or not little Jimmy needs to clean his room, and claim it's been settled by letting Jimmy shove his toys under the bed. Sure, it looks better now, but the fact remains the mess has not been put away. Which leads to my second point.

It overvalues peace at the cost of resolution. Peace has great value, I don't dispute that, but only when peace is gained through actual closure of the dispute in question. In wars that end merely due to attrition, the root cause of the war is not dealt with, but rather suppressed, ready to come back at any time when the parties have regained their strength. The German Solution could be implemented today, and it might keep the peace for a short period, or 6 months even, but a year from now, when the deletionists have had their stress levels de-escalate, and the userbox supporters have become even more entrenched in their drivel-clad userpages? The debate will start again, with reinforcement from hundreds of new members who think Userboxes have always been normal, and hundreds of old editors who still hate them.

Finally, the German Solution shows a misunderstanding of what the issue under contention is. The real debate is not which server folder userboxes should go in, it's whether some of them should be here at all. To continue my room-cleaning parallel, the argument is whether Jimmy has to put his toys away, not whether it's better to have them on the floor or under the bed. If he doesn't have to put them away, then let him leave them on the floor, that's fine. If he does have to put them away though, make him actually do so.

All this said, I don't really mind so much which side wins, so long as we have a resolution, I'm just opposed to superficial compromise. In other words, both the final decision of toys go on the floor and the final decision of toys get put away are fine with me, just don't let him shove them under the bed! (And definitely don't sneak in at night and throw his toys in the trash, which is what certain admins seem to think is a good idea...)

And with that, I'm off to bed. Apologies for the inevitable failings of my room-cleaning parallel. --tjstrf 10:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

WP:VAIN
Hi. I left a question on the WP:VAIN discussion page on 5 March 2006. Being a young wikipedian, and having no one answer me for a while, I left it alone, and completly forgot about it until just now. I want to thank you for your answer, it meant a lot to see one, and it cleared somethings up for me. Once again, Thank you. Th e  Halo (talk) 00:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

profanity
I'm sorry, but you have missunderstood me. WP:OURS is about admin <-> user relations. User:Raphael1/Wikiethics is about profanity et al. Raphael1 21:17, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your encouragement on my talk page, but I really don't know what complaints you are talking about. WP:OURS hasn't even been up long enough to discuss complaints. In fact, while I've been discussing this proposal with User:A_Man_In_Black, the proposal got deleted. Raphael1 01:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply on my userbox proposal
Thanks for your input at my sandbox! I've replied there and I'll be keeping your points in mind. (I just hope I'm not too late for it to have a shot... ^^ '' ) Thank you! --AySz88 ^ -  ^  03:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and I to hope that the debate isn't "settled" simply for the sake of peace without actually resolving anything. --tjstrf 06:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I've updated with some better examples - feel free to comment and edit. :) --AySz88 ^ -  ^  02:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Bosnians
You are changing a perfectly good version on Bosnians article - read croatians and serbians it is practicly about the very same thing. The article looks fine now - except from note on term which has to be solved later on. Damir Mišić


 * We have a perfectly good version of the intro already, and you know that the other editors won't agree with that version. I was merely trying to incorporate the few bits of new info that your revision contained into the previous revision. I'm not reverting it any more though. --tjstrf 19:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

They will agree, why wouldn't they? Give examples! Bosnians is not equal to bosniaks, that's what the others think and that is what I (and dado) have written Damir Mišić


 * Mainly because of your messing around with the dispute tags. I never said Bosnians were equal to Bosniaks. Also, the majority of what you wrote was nearly identical to the previous version, only less egalitarian. Also, it might be preferable if all the editors on that article were to try working on something other than just the intro. --tjstrf 19:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)


 * But then we could just remove the other text, the intro is enough. Damir Mišić
 * No, we can't just axe the rest of the article. You cannot have an article that consists of nothing but a definition, that's what wiktionary is for. --tjstrf 20:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Tjstrf, Damir is still trying to claim that Bosnians are Bosniaks, and the article is not fine.

You cannot have a disputed tage on the section "Use of the word Bosnian-Herzegovinian" It is not POV but actually the view of the Bosnian Croats and Bosnian Serbs.I dont understand why that section gets a disputed tag, but the sentence in the introduction, regarding that Bosnian is a nation...bla blah does not?? Is that not POV aswell for that matter?

It is generaly accepted by the whole world that Bosnian is not a nation, and it is only Bosniaks who are trying to push that notion, in an attempt to create a greater Bosnia(ommison of Herzegovina is delibrate, as the Bosniak politicians are even trying to change the name to just Bosnia).

Proof of this claim made in the Bosnian-herzegovinian section article is epitomised through Again Damirs Bias point of view being pusshed just after it was agreed not to say bosnian is bosniak on the Bosnians Page.

But still, guess what, damir goes and does this on the Bosnian page:

[]

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bosnian&oldid=57393068

as you will see i edited it, and stated my reason on the Discusion page, read it, it might explain to you the very complicated issue clearer.

Also i would like to say that i disagree with damirs idea of the comparison with serbians (srbijanac) as compared to Srbin (serb) and, mind you for the sake of Damirs argument, creates an obsurb Page Croatians to make some type of relationship or parallel, and thus

use the ridiculous claim Serbians(residence in serbia) or Srbi which also mean Serbians (this is word rule is only in the serbian language and there are no comparison in other languages)

thus the claim Serbians =residence Serb= ethnic Croatian= residence Croat=ethnic

is just wishfull think by damir to say Bosnian= residence and Bosniak = ethnic

I will remind you Bosnia Herzegovina is a MULTI ETHNIC COUNTRY, and is NOT the exclusive homeland of Bosniaks only, thus this attempted parallel in the intro is ridiculous. --Jadran 11:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not approve in any way of Damir's edits, as they are creating needless contention over what was previously a semi-stable version of the article. I believe that the article should simply met the NPOV requirement of mentioning both sides of the issue, and that we should then focus on improving the quality of the actual article rather than bickering over the introduction. --tjstrf 17:50, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Adjuchas and Vasto Lorde
You are right, nothing official was said. But, thinking like this, we would say Arankaru and not Arrancar, right? But we use Arrancar because that's a word. The same goes to Adjuchas and Vasto Lorde. Adjuchas is a kind of monster, but I can't recall in what language is the word... well, look at this: http://www.pekori.jp/~emonoya/monster/g4/g4m_12.html You can see the image of a Adjuchas as it appears in the game Throb of the Demon's Heart. Notice the kana version of the name, exactly the same Kubo Tite used to refer to the second type of Menos.

About Vasto Lorde, as you are aware, means "Vast Lord" in English. I choose the spanish romanization because, if it was Vast Lord, the word wouldn't be vastoroode, but vastoroodo.

I just changed the names because I know we are always trying to use the real words instead of the raw kana reading. And Adjuchas and Vasto Lorde are the only "real" romanization I ever saw to Ajuukasu and Vastoroodo. - Access Timeco 20:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I checked out the link Access Timeco provided and it seems comparing the ajūkasu in Wizardry and Bleach is valid, although they don't look similar at all. Vastorōde seems harder to determine, especially because it's weird that Portuguese is used instead of Spanish (vasto lorde is only vast lord in Portuguese, not Spanish, according to online translators). I say let's leave the new transliterations. On Hollow (Bleach), I have also added the direct rōmaji. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 12:12, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Thanks for the respect :D I only noticed it now on your page. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 12:59, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Stalking
Regarding your comments on DRV: You're correct to some degree. I watch Tony Sidaway's edits very closely. While Tony calls this "obsession" I call it "monitoring a problem user with more than a handful of RfCs and RfArbs, who's proven remarkably resistant to community input." ^_^

With regards to "wiki-stalking" in a more general sense, the inventor of wiki (way before wikipedia) has said that the use of "recent changes" to track the edits of other users is one of the strongest points of the system. It means that oversight and transparency are trivially easy to maintain. I'll dig up the reference for that if you'd like.

This isn't to say that it can't be destructive and/or disruptive of course. But I encourage you to stalk me and if you think that I'm doing something wrong to let me know.

brenneman {L} 06:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I would consider just looking over user's edits as passive stalking, which would be pretty well harmless, depending of course on your motives. (In fact, if you are just looking at their previous edits to try getting a feel for their actions in general, that's not even stalking, that's acquainting yourself with their behaviour.)

My biggest complaint would be that filling the entire day's DRV with closures betrayed a rather unbalanced interest in the behaviour of the editor in question, and had a significant chance of starting an argument. It's not like Sidaway will be swayed from his rather, shall we say, "singular" administrative practices by people following him around and DRV'ing everything he does anyway. If early closure of AfD votes is disruptive, then mass DRV'ing isn't much better. Basically, as I commented there, I would think that leaving it to the editors of those articles to decide whether they think a DRV is appropriate would be the best course. --tjstrf 07:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I can well see the logic of what you're saying. While I was looking for (and recieved) a general consensus of "err, bad form on some of those closes,"  I accept that A) It raised some stink and B) It may have little impact.  I am frustrated by Tony's almost pathological indifferance to the input of others, and am rapidly running out of ways (short of ArbCom) to deal with the behavior of this problem user.  Thanks for taking the time to reply, I'll consider your comments next time a situation like this occurs. -  brenneman  {L} 12:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * More concisely and to make it less like I'm dodging - I'll try to not do it again. - brenneman  {L} 00:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much. It sounds like you were acting within good faith, and it didn't explode in our faces after all, so not much harm done. Also, I'm crossposting the left out portions of this conversation between our two talk pages for the sake of readability, hope you don't mind.--tjstrf 00:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Bleach Episodes
Ok, so I clearly alarmed you with the episodes idea. But since I don't exactly know your concerns, please tell me so I can address them and hopefully put them to rest. -- Makaio 22:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Great, now that that's out of the way, i'll say my bit. Most of the episodes don't have summaries, and the article itself looks disorganized. I'm not going to do the in-depth episode summaries with Bleach, if that's what you were worried about (the sam cham summaries required in-depth summaries for us to add pictures). I'm trying to think of a good example that is brief but has a template... one isn't comming to me, I was going to say Cowboy bebop, but it's basically a starting article... I'm basically going to be changing stuff as I go, but it should all look good in the end.... I come back and copyedit these messages because I've either thought of a better way to express what i've said, or I said something that doesn't make sense... in that case, I didn't know what I was talking about and I editted it. Sorry for over explaining. -- Makaio 02:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey sorry for the spazy mess up there, I don't think that even with all of that I actually answered your question. Which I think was: "why are you doing this?" I'm doing it because nobody has Bleach summaries that are both good and organized. The template, i think, makes the episodes look more organized, and when the summaries are edited and complete, they will be informational. -- Makaio 01:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

re Talk:Lolicon
Yeah, you're right. I was out of line. I guess I was having a bad day, but no excuses. I'll message the user directly and try to make it right. Thanks for helping me be a better editor. Herostratus 12:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Delist talk
No, man! No at all! If it wasn't in your talk list I would not know how to make an archive (eventually it will become the best choice). thanks! - Access Timeco 19:48, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

IM
Do you have IM? You seem to be online, if possible I would like to contact you. If you don't want to make it public, please e-mail the address to me through the e-mail this user link. Thanks. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I do, and have no trouble with giving it out, ("Erachima" on both msn and AIM) but I am not on an IM equipped computer at this moment. You could contact me either by e-mail now, or by waiting until I get back to my house in ~2-3 hours. --tjstrf 20:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You don't seem to have accepted my invitation. Maybe I typed the address wrong? Anyway, if you can please add me (ynhockey at hotmail dot com on MSN Messenger). -- Ynhockey (Talk) 22:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

On protecting pages
Please see comment left on Aaron Brenneman's talk page. Thanks, Anthony Krupp 14:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC) Thanks again for taking the time to explain this to me -- it makes sense. And for the hilarious link. I'm still laughing. Cheers, Anthony Krupp 18:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Tjstrf the UN Peacekeeper
My hat is off to you for the cool little edit you made at WP:GUS, to wit: " Many userboxes are Userboxes can be of a clear value". It's that kind of thiinking that can get us to real consensus on the userbox question. Thanks! --Ssbohio 21:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Userboxen
They're all being userified at this point, inflammatory or not. --Improv 20:22, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Eclair and Lumiere
Heh, just as I was inserting a to fix the formatting, I got an edit conflixt as you removed the images altogether:P Shiroi Hane 22:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, I decided to just kill them, after fiddling with the formatting for about 3 minutes, I got sick of it and used every editor's favorite tool, the delete key. I then created a new article for Éclair, complete with the accent marks. Now, the next question is, do I have to AfD it? --tjstrf 22:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * My edit, which was lost in the conflict, was to add a before the nav template to cancel any prior formatting out which fixed the problem. I do think you removed too many images as the main ones of Eclair and Lumiere in their SC0326 versions would still be useful, and are a lot less spoilerific than the current images so are preferable in a way. Shiroi Hane 02:30, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * PS, I've made a change to the nav template which does the same thing for all pages so it shouldn't be an issue in future. Shiroi Hane 10:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh, I've now undone the change since it was interfering with the main article layout in IE... Shiroi Hane 01:44, 28 July 2006 (UTC)