User talk:TTN/Archive 5

AN/I Report
Your complaint is a content dispute. We do not settle content disputes on AN/I, please see WP:DISPUTE with regards to how to go about settling your dispute. With regards to these contributions they are completely unacceptable and are in fact violations of WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. I would suggest that you stop such comments immediately. This is officially a warning, further such comments might result in a block. Thank you.--Jersey Devil 13:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding Smithy Gang
I'm sorry, but I was under the impression that you thought characters who rarely played a major part in a Mario game (or didn't appear outside the Mario universe) didn't deserve an article. Such as your comment with King Boo, who is actually more integral with the Mario storylines than the Smithy Gang: you stated he wasn't important as he was a minor villain in some games, but a major villain in one, so he didn't deserve an article.

My point? I was wondering why you haven't tried merging Smithy Gang with something like Super Mario RPG yet. If you think Petey and King Boo aren't important enough to have articles, why is there still an article talking about a group of villains which only appeared in one game (that was actually never released outside of Japan or North America)? Hardcore gamer 48 13:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Smithy Gang is essentially a character list, so it's different than the single pages. While I don't think it needs to be separate from the Mario RPG character list, it would be too annoying to bother with at this point. TTN 16:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah
Excuse me for being lazy. I've just more or less finished university and well... I've been stuck doing uni work for the last 4 years. Every desire to do with work has haulted in me tyemporay while the realisation of freedom is kicking in. It won't last long, but right now, this is how I feel. Had this mergign of One Piece stuff happened a few weeks earlier then it did, my work haul would be different. Very sorry for the "I'm trying to avoid merging" business. ^-^' Angel Emfrbl 19:36, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We all become lazy at points. TTN 19:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm concerned with the loss of Justyn to the One Piece pages. I feel bad about it.  But right now I don't understand whats going on here with him.  His reactions are somewhat sudden and shocking.  I'm also having second thoughts about a mass merger there.  I won't undo it unless we have problems.  But it was perhaps a little too sudden.  I'd prefer everyone to get use to this.


 * When the convo involved just you and me and him, no one else and its two against one (with guideline quotes on our side and age old discussion from months back), he didn't stand a chance to win. I wish there had been a few more people in that discussion, but I left the big actions for a week and no one apart from us said anything.  It doesn't matter though... I'll try to get over this by tomorrow.  I'm just expressing my concerns because he is a long familair face that I've come to know and respect.  Angel Emfrbl 21:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That did seem quite strange to me. I would guess he may be having outside issues or something because he seems to be pretty rational normally. You really shouldn't worry about anyone else, though. There were plenty of chances for anyone to jump in, and with the pages merged, many more can come discuss if they would like. It's not like merging is automatically permanent. TTN 22:02, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I know. I'd just like more feed back before decisions were made, that way we'd have had more people supporting him and us and a proper discussion.  For the past few months, a lot of well known faces have disappeared due to wikipedia politics... But anyway I left it open a week.  I can't leave it open forever.  Maybe he'll change his mind later, but for now I'm going to give him some cool down space, I've left a note on his talk page so he can talk.  But until we get the "I don't like it"s started we can't make any more decisions.


 * I'm feeling the pressure from two people telling me whats best for one single set of articles. The One Piece articles are not the only pages I visit, they are just the ones I edit.  I'm not going to let this put me off, even with the pressure on me on this issue.


 * Anyway enough of that. Whats done is done.  We will get any objections over the next 72 hours.  I'll keep an eye on things.  On the one hand, I admit this much - some of our articles never looked so complete before now everyone is together with each others groups.   22:10, 16 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well if you reread your comments... Every time I say "carefully merge" you response by basically saying "just do it". You also didn't want to consider some of Justyn's stuff and labelled it as parania.  I agree it is somewhat overreaction from him, but I was doing things carefully not to fall into the traps he listed.  Anyway... There isn't anything more we can discuss.  Lets give it a rest for 24 hours.  Whats done is done.  I'd like this to rest now.  If we continue we'll end up falling out with each other.  Angel Emfrbl 23:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey TTN. Slight problem with mergers in the One Piece. I'm over the problem now, but a new problem is occuring - reverters. They are not discussing which is annoying, they are just reverting because they feel a character "needs a page". I don't think this is a good enough reason for reverting personnelly... You may disagree otherwise. Can I have a little help here. So far, Kuro, Krieg, Garp (twice) have been reverted. But its Croc everyone keeps reverting. I split his info between Shichibukai page and Baroque Works, so Shi page is about his actions as a Shi and BW is about his actions with BW. Angel Emfrbl 06:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Boy oh boy
Hi Nemu. You seem to be very familiar with what deserves an article and what doesn't. Can no one give a decent arguement rather than "he deserves one because he did this" or "she deserves one because she did that". See here.  ~ I&#39;m anonymous


 * I hope you don't mind if I write something here TTN. Here are some of the things I take into consideration when a page is needed.  Sometimes its important to hold creating a page for a little while... Until you know more info, with DB its not so important because the series is more or less over.  But some of my considerations:


 * Main cast or not (main cast, could be considered for page)
 * Role in story. (A guy who hands the main character a pie to eat in a shop doesn't need a page).
 * Interaction with main characters.
 * Number of appearances in show/series.
 * Number of references made later in the show involving them.
 * Info on the character supplied (summed up in 2 or 3 paragraphs = no need for a page).
 * The willingness of how much cutting down of info your prepared to do on the character... For example:
 * An "Appearance" section is not important (esp. with a picture of character there).
 * An "Attacks" section is debatable.
 * "History" is an consideration.
 * "About section is considerable.
 * "Trivia" is not unless you truly can't write the stuff into main text.


 * This is some stuff I once posted on the One Piece talk page about what people SHOULD be considering before they make a page... To be honest we wouldn't have been in our position had some of them considered them. Angel Emfrbl 22:19, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hoping to get your opinion on a matter...
I was hoping to get your opinion on a disagreement between myself and Angry Sun. You see, there was a section put up on Toad (Nintendo) that seems to me to be reeking of listcruftiness (is that even a word? :S). Specifically, here; it has no sources (except for the unnecessary links to Mario Wiki that Angry Sun keeps putting up...), and seems to be talking about only a couple of games in the series in particular. I'd be very grateful if you could leave a comment on the talk page there (whether you agree with me that the section should go or that it shouldn't). I requested your opinion, as it seems to be a disagreement just between myself and Angry Sun right now; I think a third opinion would be great. Thanks! ^_^ Hardcore gamer 48 05:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Merges
You do not have any consensus to merge the Mario villan articles. Please establish consensus before doing this again because some may consider what you're doing vandalism. Thanks. Bowsy (review me!) 12:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I concur. Angie Y. 12:58, 21 May 2007 (UTC)


 * You seem to have some personal vendetta against TTN as is evident by your talk page, this talk page, and the talk pages of others. While I don't agree with TTN's editing style and I feel it is a bit more controversial than it has to be, TTN really isn't particularly doing anything wrong and is just being bold. If you really have a problem with this editor and their changes, take it to dispute resolution or request for comment. If you aren't willing to go through either of those, then you should probably drop it and leave it be. These passive-agressive comments here and there really won't do you any good in the long run. --pIrish Arr! 15:25, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There has been a helpdesk discussion on merges and it states that you must have consensus and only admins are allowed to merge pages. No such criteria has been fulfilled. Bowsy (review me!) 08:03, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Here you go, direct from WP:HELPDESK's archives

If there is no discussion regarding it on either talk page, then it was done without consensus, but that's not generally an issue unless the merge was likely to be controversial. See WP:MERGE. Check the diffs for Merge tags and see how long, if at all, they were kept before merging. If they were there for a week or so, that's reasonable time for any objection to be raised. If no tags were used, then that could be considered to be too arbitrary. If it was discussed, it must have been on users' talk pages, which is not really the right thing to do because most editors won't see it. Adrian M. H. 20:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC) Bowsy (review me!) 12:15, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And read the edit summary in this diff as proof that admins are the only people who can merge. . Case closed? And by the way I started an RFC on this at Requests for comment/TTN. Bowsy (review me!) 12:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Does Bowsy realize that WP:RFC explicitly requires "that all Wikipedia articles must ... include only verifiable information, with no original research" and the articles in question (Petey Piranha, King Boo, etc.) have exactly zero references are chock full of original research ("the two were formidable racers," "tough some speculate he was brought to the Mushroom Kingdom by the Shroobs, this seems unlikely as he is obviously not destroyed by the baby tears," "it is often thought that the Luigi's Mansion and Super Mario Sunshine versions of King Boo are different characters," "this association has led some fans to wonder if the Big Boo and King Boo are the same character or if perhaps the Big Boo is a sort of prototype for King Boo," etc., etc. ad nauseam). TTN, you sir, must have the patience of a saint! --Kralizec! (talk) 21:21, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not really. Every time I see "but it's important information" lately, I want to slam my head into a wall. I'm just glad that it isn't four separate instances like a little while ago (it made me fairly uncivil). I hope it will stop when they stop avoiding the guidelines. TTN 21:27, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The policy on merging pages states: "Merging is a normal editing action, something any editor can do, and as such does not need to be proposed and processed." TTN can merge to their heart's content. They don't have to be an admin to do it. --pIrish Arr! 14:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Bowsy, do you accept anything written in an edit summary as "proof"? If so, please read the edit summary I'm leaving with this edit. (Regular editors can merge -- you don't have to be an admin!)  Pagra shtak  17:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, maybe that wasn't proof but you supposed to establish a consensus before doing major changes. I think merging is a major change. Bowsy (review me!) 08:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * One last thing WP:MERGE also states: "If the merger is controversial, however, you may find your merger reverted." OK? Now, I'm not going to get involved much anymore because it simply wastes time. Bye. Bowsy (review me!) 08:02, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between a controversial merger and two people that are wikilawyering. You haven't provided one argument that hasn't been covered on the list of enemies article. TTN 10:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Dragon Ball wikiproject
Hey how come your not part of the Dragon Ball wikiproject? You are a really helpful editor and are great at following WP:Bold. DBZROCKS 12:40, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I see little point in signing up. It's not like it actually accomplishes anything. Project page really are only good for centralized discussion. TTN 17:11, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well its nice for memebers to know who to go to if they need help. DBZROCKS 23:31, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Trailer Park Boys
Did you delete all the episode pages for the entire seven series of [Trailer Park Boys]? Just because they don't comply with Wikipedia guidelines exactly? Who do you think you are? Firstly, are you telling me every single one of them was so substandard as to be completely beyond use? Secondly, why did you set all the links to redirect back to the list of episodes? Why wouldn't you set back to empty pages for editing? This completely baffles me, please tell me what you were trying to do. Conor 20:59, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Well to be honest, I can't account for all the episodes having reasonable articles before they were redirected. But I refer you to the guidelines you quoted me:

"Note: Stubs are allowed on Wikipedia and many articles are stubs. It may be inappropriate to merge or redirect an article about a television episode just because it is a stub. Before executing a merge, ask yourself: Will the merge reduce the quality or coherence of the target article? Also do some basic looking for additional source material that could be used to improve the article. Are more sources available? If the answer to either of these questions is 'yes', it is probably better to forgo merging or redirecting. Instead, leave the article as it is or consider improving it." The articles that I have checked the history of all seem to have a very brief summary along with some trivia about the episode, and a point or two about how it fits into the overall story arc, etc. This seems to correspond with the criteria for an article of this type. In what way do you think these articles were 'uncyclopaedic'? Surely two better courses of action would be: Revert to the way they before, albeit as stubs if they are too small. If you wish I will go through the existing articles and clean them up if they require that. Or Create pages for each series, merging each of the episode articles into their correct series page. Again, I will attempt to create these pages when I get the time. Let me know how you feel about these alternatives. Thanks. Conor 21:29, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Is that a joke or something? Conor 21:35, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Firstly, your argument that there are no sources of information available is completely null. Accoding to Wikipedia: "An actual episode may be used as a source for information about the episode and constitutes a primary source." The DVD's, or at least most of them, include some behind the scenes or commentary material. The Trailer Park Boys website also has brief plot summaries. Secondly, those articles are extraordinary in their completeness. You can't expect every episode article to conform to that, with so much information on reception and production. Do me a favour, look at the episodes following each of the two samples you linked me. The next House episode has just a plot summary, and the next MASH episode just a summary and trivia. Are you going to delete them? Also, you completely ignored my suggestion of creating pages by series. Conor 21:48, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, apologies, we say series over here. The episodes being a source isn't pointless - you claimed that these episodes contained 'no possibility for outside information or sources', while this is untrue, as the episodes, along with the DVD's, are sources. Look, this is clearly a vendetta on your part, you can't (and Wikipedia doesn't) expect that every article on a TV episode have detailed background information. The vast majority of them have a simple plot summary and some trivia or notes, which is perfectly acceptable according to the guidelines. I suggest you allow me to revert and clean up the episode articles, or I will have to contact a moderator. Thanks, Conor 22:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't have access to the DVD's, but they are all listed as having commentary tracks and behind the scenes footage. Ok, if you are correct, and short of time, why not just make an example and delete every article on the most reason season of Lost (tv series) episodes? They all are limited to a summary and, sometimes, trivia. That should save time contacting a third party. Also, the Wikipeda: Episode page mentions no need for outside sources. Using episodes as a primary source, it says, does not count as original research. Conor 22:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I had overlooked those three criteria there. I must admit then, that at this point, the episodes can't be said to have enough information available from secondary sources, and you're techincally correct in deleting them. I can only appeal to your good sense here. I don't think the dozens of MASH episodes (for example), will ever be expanded upon from secondary sources, if they even exist. But they exist as concise records of what happened in them, and what was especially of note in them, if anything. Under the strict interpretation you're applying, the vast majority of them, and of most TV series would have to be deleted, which I think would be a shame. Even with the Lost episodes - most of the first series episode articles contain no information from secondary sources, even though it might be available, and is extremely popular (not that Trailer Park Boys isn't very popular itself). According to the strict interpretation of the guidelines, you are correct, but they seem to me to be very impractical. What I meant earlier when I said that you had a vendetta in this, was that it seems unfair to apply them just to this series. Do you see what I'm getting at at all? Conor 22:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that the Jabba article is far superior, but I suppose what I'm saying is that I'd still rather the simple Anakin article than nothing at all. However, I do understand that this is information easily accessible elsewhere. But what I like most about Wikipedia is not, persay, the information it contains, so much as the format and the way it is presented. That is to say, I know if I browse the episodes of Trailer Park Boys they'll be in the context I am familiar with, and contain links to character profiles, credits, etc. If Wikipedia guidelines consider this a waste of its resources, though, I can't argue. If you won't permit the articles then, I will work on creating articles for each season when I have the time, hopefully with some information from outside soruces, and see if they meet your approval. Is that a fair compromise? Conor 23:14, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Croc's Page
I'm getting fed up with this. TTN. I'm loosing intereast in the merge with it. I knew it was a bad idea. I don't liek being forced to break rules... We've both broken the 3RR's rule because of one person. -_-'

Its not just this one person, its been others. Over this one page. I'm almost about to give up on it. I've read the reglations, rules and guidelines on wikipedia. We have the greater argument. But we're facing people who don't want to consider them. Angel Emfrbl 20:51, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've had enough... The accusion of being a monoployeiser I can take... The upsetness of Justyn I can work with... The accusion of being a vandal I didn't like. I wish my hands of the Croc thing TTN. I'm pulling out because I've simply had enough.  Angel Emfrbl 20:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I guess I can fair on my own. Although I don't really want to go whine every single time I'm in a dispute, I guess I could just report anyone who persists like this guy. TTN 21:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Its stress TTN thats all... The merger has caused a lot. But everyone has adapted to the pages by now, except Croc's. I'll run the review in a weeks time.  People can feed back then.  I really just want the One Piece pages brought up to snuff, it seems its getting to much to ask.  This I had planned before a merger happened.  I was hoping to get a One Piece anime project type thingy-ma-jig set up over the summer.  The Wikia started this a few weeks back, I wanted to get the wikipedia stuff going too. In the last 6 months the wikipedia stuff has died greatly due to loss of important editors involved.  Angel Emfrbl 21:07, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious
Why should The Simpsons have tougher standards for who gets pages than other TV shows? Take for example, 24 - every character who has been in more than 3 or 4 episodes has a page. And every main character from The Black Donnellys - which ran for 1 season - has a page. I'm not trying to use the "they have one, why shouldn't we excuse", but I really disagree with your merge of Lunchlady Doris (I just haven't had the energy to get into a long dispute) and Roger Meyers. They seem notable enough to warrant their own pages - same with several other recurring characters - and they meet the notability requirements, so why should there be harder standards for The Simpsons? -- Scorpion0422 23:04, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Minor characters that appear every once and a while do not need articles. They need to be able to achieve a good amount of information, and they need to be notable enough to require an article. The two articles were non-notable, minor background characters. Characters of similar importance are already on the lists ("Angry Texan" for example), so there is no point in these. You are using WP:WAX with that argument. Most of the characters from 24 probably don't need articles; it's just a lack of interest from non-fans, and a keen interest from fans that is most likely keeping them there. TTN 23:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions?
Well what do you think should be done before I propose a WP:AFD for Bulma and Roshi?  ~ I&#39;m anonymous
 * Look through some of the articles listed at WP:PM. If there seems to be enough outside voting, try that. You could also ask for opinions from the Anime and manga project. If neither of those can garner enough attention, I guess just go for an AfD. Though, if either do get enough support to keep the articles, I would just drop it for now. Unfortunately, sometimes fans do win. TTN 00:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll have to go with that later. Though I don't agree with the "unfortunately, fans do win" part, I agree with the "this policy do win" part. Don't you?  ~ I&#39;m anonymous
 * I wish. The problem is with numbers. If you're forceful enough, you'll eventually get through, but it gets to be an annoying and tiring process with the constant ignorance towards the guidelines by numerous people. TTN 01:03, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That why you don't edit and merge the DBZ articles anymore? And didn't you like to be called Nemu, from what I've been told from others?  ~ I&#39;m anonymous
 * I don't edit them because they're never going to improve. I can clean up as much as I would like, but as long as people allow sections like abilities to be giant lists, nothing is going to actually happen. There is a user with that name, so I was asked to change my sig. TTN 01:10, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I've decided not to bother with it anymore. I'll let the fans win this one for the time being. I might afd them in the near future though.  ~ I&#39;m anonymous

Black Lagoon episodes
Hello, I was made aware that you have redirected all the articles I wrote on some of the episodes of Black Lagoon, and I was wondering why (it seems the episode articles have been deleted). I was working on writing articles for the remaining episodes as well, but it is no point in doing so if they are being deleted. Michae2109 22:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The episodes fail WP:EPISODE as they stand. The only pieces of information were plot summaries and OR (the rest of the sections were not sourced). If you can provide reception and development references, you can bring them back. TTN 22:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Ok, thanks for the information, then I will try and improve the articles. However, I do think you should have notified me of you redirecting the articles, but I agree on the reasons of why they were removed. Michae2109 23:24, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I have written an article on the first episode of the series (The Black Lagoon), with a shortened synopsis and information on reception (not so much, as it is pretty difficult to find decent reviews) and hope it is more in accordance with WP:EPISODE. If not, please notify me before you delete the article, it is much easier to edit from its current condition than starting from scrath. Michae2109 02:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It doesn't meet the standards as of yet. The blog link is not acceptable as a source, and minor reviews should be avoided. The rest seems to be OR. I suggest creating a Sandbox in your user space to experiment with episode article before actually putting them up. I'll still give you a little bit of time to try improving that. TTN 02:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the advice. I will try to improve the reception section, but it will take time, so please don't delete the article while I do. If you should happen to find or already know of any suitable links, please let me know Michae2109 03:29, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars
I understand you have very strong feelings about the article. I was going to ask for some help from some other Wikipedians I know, but I know that there's a lot of work to do. (Sighs) Oh, look, I live in Florida, and I was planning to go to St. Louis to see a friend this weekend. I asked my boss for a few days off, so I've got from Saturday night until Wednesday morning off. Unfortnately, I won't be able to fly out this weekend, due to some issues beyond my control, however, I still have the weekend off. I just need some time. Can you please just give me a few days to work on the article? It takes me just about as much time to respond to you on the talk page as it does to do my edits. I understand the article needs cleanup, which may be a complete rewrite, but it's really hard for me to work on expanding the article and clean it up and discuss it with you on the talk page. I just need until Thursday. Please? Taric25 02:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Just don't reply on the talk page or anything, and I'll probably be all set for a while. Please do take the third opinion to heart, and rethink the necessity of the article, though. TTN 02:51, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Taric25 04:16, 26 May 2007 (UTC) BTW, the third opinion is correct that there is a lot of Original Research. I will do my best to keep that in and the other comments mind, both of it and yours. Taric25 04:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I do need your help on one thing. Could you look in the back of the Player's Guide and tell me what “types” of … Magic? I forgot what they call it in the game … well, anyways, what types of Special Attack or whatever it is (actually, could you find out what it's called?) there are? I remember some vaguely when I owned the guide like “Fire”, “Jump”, “Electricity?”, etc. Could you provide a citation, like the page number with a quote in context? Thanks! Taric25 00:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's just jump and the elements. I can't get to it right now, but I don't believe they're actually talked about. I think they're just mentioned in the enemy statistics, so it would be sort of hard to quote anything. And I don't believe you need quotes and stuff for paper references. I think this has been pointed out in places like the character list talk. Anyways, I'll try and get to it a little later. TTN 01:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Your controversial redirects
Sorry, but I gotta completely disagree with you. While they may seem minor to you, characters such as the Wanwan (chain chomp) have firmly established themselves as important pieces of characterization and go far beyond "game guide" content. The origins of the chain chomp, for example, being a memory of Myamoto being terrorized by a local dog, and the fact that he's made appearances in many of Nintendo's other works, such as Link to the Past and Link's Awakening. You might not consider that relevant, but many others do, and your edits have hardly been proven to have "consensus". On the contrary, I've seen your edit summaries, wherein you state things like, (and I quote you on this) "I'm sick of being pushed around by this 'discussion is required' crap". These are beloved characters, on the level to many people of Mickey Mouse as pieces of nostalgia in their minds. What I would suggest, rather than merely shunt them into a horrid overlong article, that you actually attempt to gain an ACTUAL consensus, and from that, if one is reached, then go from there. A single paragraph for such a recognizable character like Bullet Bill, for example, is entirely unacceptable. Ex-Nintendo Employee 13:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My "personal feelings" are irrelevant to this discussion. These characters do not "fail" the guidelines- if anything, given that you're ignoring the significant cultural impact of the creative franchise (recent polls have shown these characters to be more recognized than Mickey Mouse), I may suggest that it is you who are allowing personal feelings to interfere with your better judgement. Like I said before, a suitable compromise would be to involve the greater community rather than unilaterally make these sweeping changes, especially when said changes creates such a hulking behemoth-mess of an article. That would be an acceptable compromise. Ex-Nintendo Employee 13:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * When dealing with iconic characters such as the Chain Chomp, Bullet Bill, Thwomp and Boo, which have been part of the collective creative consciousness (in an international sense) for over twenty years, it IS something that needs discussion and consensus before erasing the articles, especially when replacing them with a hulking, heaving list (as you have attempted to do). People already KNOW the most basic characteristics about a Chain Chomp- when they do a search for one, they want to know things like who created it, why was it created, etc. I can guarantee that, at the very least, someone who types in "Bullet Bill" to Wikipedia's search is looking for more than a massive list of single paragraphs. Furthermore, the "inevitablility" of condensing all that information into an uninformative, ugly singular page isn't some forgone conclusion- merely an end result you wish to occur. Assume good faith and create consensus for such a controversial move. Ex-Nintendo Employee 02:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I disagree. A "simple enemy" would be characters that aren't freely recognizable by ninety percent of the typical game playing world- few people, for instance, know what an Abobo is, or the names of the enemy characters in Faxanadu. But ask almost anyone what a Chain Chomp or a Bullet Bill is, and you get a clear answer. "Silent Consensus" isn't an excuse- one could say that, for example, a "silent consensus" approved of Playstation article's content prior to this edit, since the blurb stayed that way for over a year, but of course it would be complete nonsense. Likewise, to assume that "nobody cares" about the content of this article simply because the main editors of it have turned their attention to other things (like for example, celebratory and vacation preperations) is making an assumption. Remember, it IS Memorial Day Weekend- most people are out in the sun, not cooped up inside on Wikipedia. And when a change is so sweeping, formal discussion IS needed. Ex-Nintendo Employee 02:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Bullet Bill isn't some archaic obscure thing- he's easily recognizable to many, many people. You could say the same thing you're pushing about Clarabelle_Cow- she's a minor fictional Disney character with absolutely no relevance except to fans of Disney's earliest works, yet she's got herself an article- she's certainly not been relegated to some "list of minor Disney characters" page. In fact, one could take hundreds of similarily "obscure" characters and shove them into lists and lists and lists- but we wouldn't want to do that. Ex-Nintendo Employee 02:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * But they aren't non-noteable. These are major, recurring characters within the context of the Mario series, and beyond. In fact, they've taken such a high profile role that they've expanded FAR beyond Mario- hence why Chain Chomps are so prevalent in other areas (such as being featured in Link to the Past and Link's Awakening). Furthermore, they've been in significant roles within Nintendo's sphere of influence for over 20 years. Furthermore, I've been quite civil with you, but I'm starting to get ruffled over the fact that you keep trying to depricate myself. Whereas I've assumed good faith in all instances, you keep saying things like "You are doing nothing but WikiLawyering" and "You are just pushing this because you have no other way of keeping the articles", which are offensive statements that serve no purpose other than to attempt to anger the subject. I've done no such accusations towards you, and if you attempt to continue assaulting my character, I will consider it a violation of wikipedia's NPA policies. The crux of the matter is this- these are NOT minor characters, they are major characters that play consistent, recurring roles. If this were an argument over, for instance, an article that covered Super Mario Land's sprinting Easter Island Head enemies, or an article covering the mouse in Mario Land 2's House zone, or even an article featuring Boom-Boom, I would be inclined to agree with you. But that's not what the discussion is about. Ex-Nintendo Employee 03:25, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, I disagree with that statement. I've followed the Wikipedia noteability guidelines perfectly- I just disagree with you as to the status of the characters in question. You disagree with me about whether or not they qualify as "main characters"- that's your own choice. The guidelines clearly state "Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article." The characters in question, such as Bullet Bill and Chain Chomp ARE major characters that have been featured to date in almost every single Mario work, and even outside the Mario series. Thus, Wikipedia's guidelines state that they can have their own articles. Again, these are major characters here- we aren't talking about the Super Mario 3 Angry Sun, or Boom-Boom, which ARE minor characters. And you're not being "blunt", you're just using personal attacks. I won't stoop to that level, I will only make it clear that I strongly disagree with your conclusions here. Ex-Nintendo Employee 03:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Enough with the personal attacks already! Telling me "go read this!" does absolutely nothing to elevate the discussion- I am quite familiar with Wikipedia's guidelines, including the things you keep telling me "to go read"- I just DISAGREE WITH YOU on this subject. But you know what- I started discussing this with you based upon the idea that you were a reasonable wikipedian who could be discussed with and reach an agreement regarding this. It's obvious that all you want to do is insult me and keep trying to throw your OWN interpetation of Wikipedia's guidleines in my face while at the same time being snooty and talking down to me. LISTEN- I know the guidelines. I am completely aware of the all the rules and such. AND I DISAGREE WITH YOU ON THIS SUBJECT. I've had enough of this- it's obvious you're not going to bother listening to anything, so there's no point in further discussion on the topic. You want to keep pushing, bring it up with Wikipedia's dispute resolution process, because I'm through arguing with you about it. Ex-Nintendo Employee 03:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Trailer Park Boys Images
TTN, please explain the upped strictness on the images on the List of Trailer Park Boys episodes article.
 * There are various discussions all over the place. Look on episode lists of popular series (stuff on Fox), and you'll likely find them. TTN 22:38, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That's not good enough an explanation. Conor 12:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I really don't need to explain it. Just look around at most other episode lists, and you'll see discussions on it. TTN 14:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, in fact, you do need to explain it. Conor 15:45, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * TTN you do not have a good enough reason to remove the images from the article, it's 2 against 1 for putting the images back on.
 * Make it two against two 'cause I agree with TTN on not using images for each episode on episode lists. We don't need countless fair use images on a page. // Decaimiento Poético  21:26, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It's not even a vote. There were various discussions, and this is the end result. All episode lists have done it. TTN 21:28, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Not all episode lists, most usually don't remove images from the episode list until the television series reaches near 100 episodes. And if you're wondering where the sources of the images are coming from, I had been recording TPB episodes for weeks just to get the images for the article.Bryan Wittal 21:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The actual discussion was about using decorative fair use images; the number doesn't matter if there are a lot of them. Any articles left have just gone unnoticed (like the one in question). TTN 21:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC
 * Here's what you failed to reconize. Please correct the article.
 * I don't know if you're using a different browser or something, but the version you left is very screwed up in mine (Firefox). TTN 22:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, I'm using Internet Explorer and Safari (when using my Mac) and it turns out fine, do you think you could change the template to make it Firefox friendly?
 * I'll give it a try. I have had no luck so far. TTN 23:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

List of Rugrats Episodes
Any reason you removed the links to the episodes on the List of Rugrats episodes? --PAK Man + 04:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * They were redirected, thus there is no need for the links. TTN 04:40, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why is that? I thought the episode articles looked fine. --PAK Man + 04:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * They don't meet WP:EPISODE. TTN 04:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see it now. Thanks for clarifying! --PAK Man + 04:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

A-Team Episodes
Hey TTN. I really don't get why you feel the need to remove so much information from Wikipedia. In particular I am refering to the A-Team episodes you all redirected to the 'List of A-Team Episodes' page. (1) A lot of information has been lost. (2) Many other television series do have seperate pages for individual episodes. (3) Anyone looking for a certain episode's information (ex. "Dishpan Man") will hardly get any information about the episode, he'll only learn that it is in a list of A-Team episodes. (4) These pages could contain a lot more information than simply plot summaries. You should have realized by now that many people disagree with your hobby of removing information because you think it isn't worth being here. Others disagreeing with you on this point alone should be enough for you to stop doing it. Stefan Kruithof 10:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Guidelines are more important than how people feel about me. Just add small plot summaries to the episode list. TTN 11:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The point was rather that people, including me, disagree with your views on the guidelines. Stefan Kruithof 12:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Episode articles need information based upon real life, backed by secondary sources. That is the guideline; those fail it. Disagreeing with me doesn't change it. TTN 14:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Lost Episodes
I see you still haven't redirected the Lost episode articles, yet, which seems strange since 90% of them only have a plot summary. Why not make them your next target? If you think you're right, why not stop only redirect small pages where there aren't many people to argue with you? Why would you possibly avoid such a clear violation of Wikipedia guidelines? Also, several seasons of the Simpsons need a look at, such as this one. Conor 12:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC) Also, the article that you quoted to me as an inferior one in our last conversation, Anakin Skywalker, is listed on the WP:FICTION page as an example of a 'high quality' article even though it contains NO secondary information at all. Perhaps you should consider that the Wikipedia guidelines are 100% foolproof yet. Conor 12:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not going after a series just because you want me to do it. I want as little conflict as possible until the series are down to less than 50. Anakin is just an example of a fiction article. It tells you to go elsewhere for high quality ones. TTN 15:12, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't want you to do it, I'm just pointing out how you're afraid to do it. If this is actually an issue you believe in, make an example and have a proper debate, instead of stalking around where you think you can just get away with imposing your will without any resistance. You are afraid to edit the popular pages, it's that simple. If you're not, then go on, prove me wrong. Conor 15:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I want to make progress intead of getting in another discussion like we had, but with five people. My goal is to rid the site of needless episodes, but that isn't going to happen if I have to partake in five day discussions for every one of them. Once I widdle them down, it will be easier to do that. But whatever, I really don't care. TTN 15:58, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * My goal isn't to bog you down like some kind of troll, I'm just saying, and I don't think you'll disagree, that there is a lot of disagreement with the guidelines you are enforcing (I'm not saying it is correct or not). The fact is that there are literally hundreds, if not thousands of episode pages that don't conform exactly to the guidelines. Most wikipedia articles on anything don't comply exactly with the guidelines. Firstly they're only guidelines, and secondly they're being edited constantly, and were drafted together fairly recently (and, in my opinion, haphazzardly). If you start redirecting popular episodes you'll allow for a larger, open debate and discussion on whether your interpretation of the guidelines is correct, and a concensus can be reached. And obviously, you do really care, if you're spending so much of your time going around deleting the work of others. Conor 16:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The only disagreement comes from the "improve the articles" part of it. Everyone else is fine with the rest. People just claim that they can be improved, though they show nothing. It's a matter of killing all possible sources of "this would work." There doesn't need to be a giant discussion (they happen in various AfDs). I just said I don't really care about your observations. TTN 16:20, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Is a possible solution to all of this simply nominating the pages for deletion at AfD? You could officially gain the consensus that everyone whines about and very few would question the decision if it was deleted after discussion from non-biased editors. They may be angry, but I don't think they'd get all huffy at you over it. I've seen, several times, nominations come up that list several episodes from a series and, more often than not, they get deleted. Just my two cents; I figured I'd at least throw this in as a possible option. --pIrish Arr! 16:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No, it has to be done on an series by series basis. Look up the one for "Kept Man", and you'll see why it doesn't work. TTN 16:35, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I can't find anything on "Kept Man".Conor 16:46, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Here. Centralized discussion leads to paranoia, ignorance, and canvassing. Nothing comes out of it. TTN 16:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems to me the decision of this discussion was no no concensus could be reached regarding this matter. Since Wikipedia is concensus based, I don't believe you have any right to remove these article pages then, unless you submit them to AfD and reopen the discussion. It doesn't matter if it 'doesn't work' like you claim. I could very well claim that arguing with you 'doesn't work', but I still have to do it before creating articles again. Conor 17:01, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * And regarding your last revert on the list of episodes, I was in the process of editting them, give me a chance to finish, or warn me before deleting. Conor 17:03, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No consensus is for the AfD only. Most of those episodes were redirected after that was over, so I'm fine in my views. TTN 18:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * No you're not! The only sample you've shown me where this application of the rules was enforced ended with no consensus. And the fact still remains that you're not brave enough to redirect popular articles. Conor 19:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * That was an attempt to form a precedent, which really didn't work as planned. AfDs aren't to be used to do that. Afterwards, the guideline was applied and the pages were redirected. That was just to show PIrish why it wouldn't be good to put up others for deletion. I will redirect them when I'm ready to bother with them. The TPB episode articles are gone, and they're not coming back. TTN 19:23, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * We'll see. And your not redirecting popular pages is because you're a coward, not because you're not ready. You know that common sense would prevail if you tried that. Your only reason, that you gave, for not redirecting Lost or The Simpsons, is that too many people would disagree with it. That's why they would remain the way they are, and that's why 'Wikipedia works by building consensus'.Conor 19:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Consensus isn't built by numbers; it's built by discussion, so just because five people want to keep something, it doesn't mean anything unless it is based around policy. Common sense is that we cover encyclopedic information, so if all we can provide is a plot summary, they don't belong. Episodes either follow (or have the possibility of following) or don't follow the guideline. The ones that don't are redirected. I just don't feel like discussing with people that are going to ignore it or twist points at this point in time. Please stop insulting me and egging me on because you're sore about the episodes being redirected. TTN 19:39, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll do that when I'm satisfied by your explanation, which I'm not. If 'we' cover encyclopedic information, Wikipedia would have a few hundred pages at most, your expectations for articles are completely impractical. You say the ones that don't are redirected, but that's simply false. The ones that you decide to pick on, and don't, are redirected. If they all were, no one would use Wikipedia. Until you redirect popular pages as much as you do less popular ones, please stop using this argument. And you CAN NOT show there's no possibility for following the guideline. Your only argument was that DVD commentaries usually only contain goofs. First of all you haven't ever seen a TPB DVD, and so you don't know that, it is pure speculation. No I haven't either, but that doesn't mean rule it out. One example of where there was relevent information is a deleted scene that was included in the third episode only on the DVD. And, I'm afraid to tell you, numbers are the main part of what we define as consensus, it is, for better or worse, the decision of the majority. Conor 19:49, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am going slowly; how do you not understand that yet? I don't want to open the flood gates. I'm just using a bucket. If you claim that they can get better, you need to prove it. Just stating that the series has no possible way to support itself is enough for me. I'm not going to leave them on the possibility that DVDs may do them justice (that still doesn't cover reception). If that was enough for an article to stay, we could just leave all of them and say "x probably has information!" And a deleted scene isn't enough content. It needs to be similar to the examples I have shown you. Look at that AfD, and you'll see that it isn't pure numbers. TTN 19:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What? But you said we couldn't AfD as precedent? You're not following me either, but I don't resort to patronising you. What I was saying is that I think after, using a bucket, you've deleted hundreds of pages, when the issue is actually confronted on a proper scale (probably when someone gets as far as Lost or the Simpsons), the guidelines will probably be changed, and then the articles are still gone. Don't you even admit that most of Wikipedia is due for redirecting under your guidelines? And I don't need to prove anything. Conor 20:06, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about an AfD just now. See WP:EPISODE's talk page, and you'll see that the guideline has had proper discussion. Most of Wikipedia is not made up of single plot summaries. A random king has more possible information than an episode, even if it isn't sourced right now. If you claim that they can be improved, you need to prove it. Otherwise, I can say that chapter 18 of a book can be sourced properly, and there is nothing you can do to remove it. TTN 20:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Whoops, I missed that. AfDs cannot be used to set a consensus on a bunch of articles, but there is still a consensus in the AfD, which was not numbers in this case. TTN 20:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you want me to show you to prove it? You know there are DVD's that include deleted scenes and commentaries. There are also numerous interviews on the internet, and already one official fan guide released, which includes two pages on every episode as well as other information. Regardless, my main point isn't to guidelines, it's to your common sense. I don't realistically expect every episode of Trailer Park Boys to be filled with a wealth of information from secondary sources, I expect them to be quick references. If you expect that kind of encyclopedic elaboration from Wikipedia contributors, they just won't bother. Just look at Wikipedia for what it is. I suppose you think your quest to clean it up to rigidly is virtuous, but you're just taking away things that are of use to very many people, just for the sake of guidelines. And you're taking away things that people spent their time on, with the best intentions, to help others. And you don't even tell them you're doing it. Why? Conor 20:44, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Show that those resources actually have enough information to leave a detailed article. We can't just assume that they do. Commons sense dictates that as an encyclopedia, this gives encyclopedic information (not a plot summary). If that cannot happen, sites like wikia and TV.com are places for them, not here. WP:NOHARM is yet another pointless argument. These fail guidelines; just because people work on them doesn't mean we need to keep them. I can work on detailed articles of random words that I made up, but that doesn't make them worth it. I notify people on the episode list's talk page if the articles have enough traffic, and I leave summaries. I'm not going to hunt down the hundreds of editors and alert them. TTN 20:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Look, I'm not asking you to consult guidelines again. I think you could argue a good point for anything here using some guideline or other, they're not robust enough yet. I'm asking you to think for five minutes from a human perspective, if that's not your thing here, then enjoy, whatever. But at least stop interrupting the changes I'm make on the list of episodes page, I'm not an idiot.Conor 21:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I believe I already explained that I can think from a fan perspective on your talk page. This isn't a fan site; if it were, every minor subject would have an article. Luckily, this is an encyclopedia, and there are places like Wikia for fan info. I have only undone your work once on that list (I assumed that you were going to leave it like that). I haven't touched it since. TTN 21:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I appreciate that. I'm not speaking specifically here, I'm talking about Wikipedia as a whole. You have a more serious view of Wikipedia than I do so there's obviously no point in this argument. You could be right that without strict enforcement of guidelines, it won't work as an encyclopedia and revert to a gigantic amalgamation of fansites, or I could be right that without the input of fans, and the fact that no other one site contains so much seldom sought-out information (or in the case of most it, yes, useless), Wikipedia would just be another poor version of Encyclopedia Britannica or such. Anyway, thanks for your time. Conor 21:19, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

As I'm sure you'll comment on this, just know that the guy below just has an annoying grab on by balls at the moment. He is just holding a pointless "discussion must happen" stance (which makes no sense with WP:BRD), and using giant blanket statements ("use Google" for example) instead of actually arguing. He promises a "detailed message", but it will just be more of the same stuff. TTN 14:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't really care, it's not like I'm out to get you or anything. Did you mean to remove the notes I had put with each episode in the TPB list? Are they against the rules or something? I thought I was taking the most diplomatic route I could there, and just writing notes in the paragraph looks very sloppy. Conor 21:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It seemed like it to me. Anyways, the information is fairly trivial and unsourced. Things like first appearances are unnecessary. TTN 21:42, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Why would it seem like I was out to get you? I was defending a page I had interest in. Any digs I made about you editting other articles was just trying to make a point about the state of Wikipedia, and the about the 'work' you're doing. I meant no real offence, and if any was taken, I apologise. I'm not going to argue with you about what's trivial and not trivial about a TV show you clearly don't like, and I'm guessing you won't just let this go. So goodbye, you've successfully frustrated me to the point of getting your own way, congrats. Conor 21:52, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Episode articles
Yo. I've reverted a few edits you've made to episode articles (as I find them unilateral and a bit POINTy). You could try an RfC or AfD (but bear in mind the ratio to keep is often higher than delete). Matthew 06:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * You may think they fail WP:EPISODE >> I don't. You should of discussed it before making the changes, clearly I'm not the only opposition you've received (as per the above). Matthew 11:34, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (oh, and you're just as biased -- so don't give me any of that) Matthew 11:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "but I am in the right", you keep telling your self that! (and perhaps it'll make it true...) Matthew 11:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should read WP:EPISODE? For example WP:EPISODE: "Once there's enough verifiable information from secondary sources about individual episodes, create separate articles for them." -- I believe there's enough, it doesn't state they have to be immediately de-stubified. Ta. Matthew 11:56, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I never said anything about the primary source... "I believe there's enough [from secondary sources]". Matthew 12:00, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * If you're searching for sources then I advise you to try something like Google (a search engine, it magically searches every page on the interwebs (wowie!)). Laters, Matthew 12:08, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * (reverted your edits to One Piece till you gain consensus for your actions) Matthew 12:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes a neutral 3rd party is good. Matthew 12:39, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * BRD is fine with me: You've been bold, I've reverted -> now we discuss. I hate edit warring just as much as the next person. Matthew 12:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I actually consider it enforcing policy . Whereas you're "enforcing" a guideline (that actually made me chuckle, I didn't know we were enforcing guidelines now, hehe). And I'll reply to you, when I have time to write up a detailed message/done my researching, etc. Matthew 12:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Just so we're clear on this, I am also disappointed and slightly angry in the recent developments and would like to settle this manner as well, but my personal difference is that I am also working on a way to solve this problem with resorting to pointless reverts or threats. My intial plan is to make some slight improvements by enhancing real life facts, such as looking in the possibility of add in crew details through the DVD credits of official releases, both English and Japanese, as well as any TV airdates of both countries. I also worked on doing this by comparing this possibility with other Episode article designs on some of the shows featured on Wikipedia such as: The Simpsons, 24, and Family Guy. If you don't think this with help with the policy then I do have one back-up plan.

One other side note is that I also looked at some of the pages you redirected and I agree that some of them lacked production crew information or lack of information from the original Japanese release. -Adv193 23:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Which show are we talking about? TTN 23:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Shows like YuYu Hakusho which lacked Japanese credits in some of the episodes and One Piece where two episode I looked at did not contain any production crew information. -Adv193 00:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, I thought you meant a specific one. Anime episodes shouldn't need episodes. They simply lack the information. Things like crew details and air dates are not enough to make an article. There needs to be some sort of in-depth analysis based around development and reception. Due to the nature of animes (quick and speedy production), the usually have no details around single episdoes, and they don't leave a real impact. TTN 00:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh Well, but the reason why I looked at those analyzing other episode articles was to work on those ideas and based on you said I find a lot of these other articles were not that much different from an anime episode article and that I also agree that articles should have more than a simple plot summary, which is why it should have any noteable production material that is accessible through official means and air dates. I must also express my opinion that if it hasn't happened yet, then there should be a debate on whever or not not to have anime episode articles on Wikipedia based on the majority opinion, rather than a single opinion. -Adv193 00:32, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * They aren't actually singled out or anything; I'm just generalizing. Each series needs to be looked at on it's own because centralized discussion leads nowhere. Actual information needs to be provided. The stuff that you mention goes along with the article; it isn't separate or anything. TTN 00:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Warning
The tag, as clearly stated on the template, is to be used for categories which have been empty for 4 days, not for categories which you have just emptied in a edit dispute by redirecting articles out of the category, as you did for Category:Yu-Gi-Oh! GX episodes, which I have recreated. This is clearly disruption and if you continue, you will be blocked. --After Midnight 0001 22:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I just assumed nobody cared after seeing five of the categories I emptied deleted a day after (tags were placed by other people) by several different people. Oh well, I have a running list now anyways. TTN 22:50, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Medusa (Kid Icarus)
If you're going to insist that Medusa (Kid Icarus) redirect (which is not within your power as a Wikipedian, as this is a democratic website), I suggest you integrate useful information into the main article instead of simply deleting the entry. Otherwise you're not being very helpful, are you? Rather sloppy and controlling, actually. If you simply haven't the brainpower to choose which information should be added - as you seem to think all of it is not of any note - I suggest you use a template suggesting a merge that will facilitate discussion on the subject. 151.201.48.175 04:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The information is unimportant. The character is unimportant. You are free to integrate it if you would like, but don't use that as a reason to undo it. TTN 10:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Ep
Forgot about you! Hehe. Be patient anyway, /me is a busy person :). Matthew 17:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay. Matthew 17:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I just haven't had the time to be frank... but to be fair, you don't even have an argument :\. Matthew 17:29, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Him (powerpuff girls)
You removed the categories I added to this redirect page. May I ask why? TheBlazikenMaster 17:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC) EDIT: Also if possible could you please reply to MY talk page? TheBlazikenMaster 17:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Dragon Ball vandals
Have you noticed the recent vandalism to some of the DB articles? Some people are creating nonsense articles or restoring ones that were merged or deleted. I can't seem to catch the ones responsible. Lord Sesshomaru

Waluigi
No, I am saying that if we can't convince people with the little comments in our edit summery it must be brought to the talk page. Vilerocks 23:43, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I said that I can't completly demonstrate my points in the edit summery. Vilerocks 00:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Categories in redirects
I've seen that article before. It is not against it; appears neutral on this case. No different than this appropiate sction. If you noticed, I am placing the R to section as I do the one that matches the titled section, (e.g. Chaozu to List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball, Piccolo Daimao to List of supernatural beings in Dragon Ball, etc.) Lord Sesshomaru
 * I'm aware. But no rule is blatantly against the redirect from being categorized with the other types. It is not even recommended to not do so. Did you read the discussion over here? It ended in, what I think, people expressing their personal opinions against it. Under no circumstance did the majority establish a policy or guideline that prevented any of this. If you want, you can dispute it and try to begin something there. I doubt anything will be changed (again). Lord Sesshomaru
 * True, true. If there was something other than people's opinions, I would definitely agree. Lord Sesshomaru

Not you too
DBZROCKS was warned about this before. That Final Fantasy page is not following this guideline criteria. I'll have to summon a sysops or admin. to handle this situation. Lord Sesshomaru
 * Actually, I'm having trouble finding an admin. that is active. Care to talk it out with me and the other user? That's the page I was referring to; it explicitly states what I've been saying. I now am asking you to undo your edit there please. Lord Sesshomaru
 * I'm not sure what you mean. What did I go too far on? Here is the section I think you overlooked: naming sub-articles, and there is also a link there that takes you to lead sections. What garbage were you refering to might I ask? Lord Sesshomaru
 * One other thing, know that all listed characters cannot be in their own unique subsection, ie, have a header. That exagerates the TOC. What, pray tell, needs to be corrected on the page, inverse of reverting it back to the messy way it stands? Lord Sesshomaru
 * I thought it was basically the same. Maybe there is a better guideline — the format is about the same. Never mind that, what do you see that should be fixed instead of reverting it all? Lord Sesshomaru
 * And real major is?... Bojack, Coola, Piccolo? Lord Sesshomaru
 * I saw your point just now, how are these:, — neutral? Lord Sesshomaru

I just can't do this anymore...
My Userpage has why. Bear in mind I don't hold you responsible for my decision at all. I'm sorry we couldn't work out our differences. Ex-Nintendo Employee 23:59, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry to see you go. We had the dispute, but you seem like a fine editor otherwise. TTN 00:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Blooper
When Blooper had his own page I added some info to the article including all his game appearances. But now the Blooper page has been put into the Mario Enemy page and everything that I had added before has been removed. Can I write that info again to the Blooper section, or are you guys trying to keep the sections on the various enemies short and not detailed.Giantdevilfish 00:30, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Mentioning every game is rather pointless. If it really contributes to the enemy, feel free to add it. TTN 00:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Check out what I wrote. If you feel its too long and pointless, feel free to revert or edit.Giantdevilfish 01:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll look at it later.

Episodes
DID YOU read the episode guides for 7th Heaven? You entered in the "redirecting" codes for the individual episodes with the defense that they only included plots - which was incorrect. Reread them again in the history...there was more than just plot.


 * Unsourced notes and trivia also don't count towards anything. TTN 02:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI, I commented on your actions here. -- DS1953 talk 01:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)