User talk:Erachima/Archive 05

This archive contains topics 101-125 made on my talk page. Its history on the main talk page ends at this edit.

Happy Birthday

I just felt like saying Happy birthday, your birthday is just 4 days after mine.Sam ov the blue sand 00:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Happy birthday

Hope you have a good birthday, and make sure to buy yourself a couple of presents (Elite Beat Agents and Dragon Quest Heroes: Rocket Slime!). - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:53, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

User talk:InShaneee

It doesn't matter what the comment said, how civil it was, whether he responded to it or if he doesn't like the person who sent it. He has the right to remove comments on his talk page. Revert warring with him placing comments he doesn't want on his talk page is more of a disruption than helping the matter. There is no guideline or policy that says he has to keep those comments on his talk page and there is no guideline or policy that gives you the right ot enforce this. No more revert warring semper fi — Moe 16:05, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, I thought thats what you two were revert warring to place on his talk page. Seeing as he hasn't removed it yet, I will not revert you. But if he removes that comment you just placed on there, I expect you to not keep at it. semper fi — Moe 17:58, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

tfd

Template:Legally frivolous is up for deletion again. As you participated in the first nomination, I thought you might be interested. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 18:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

RE: Hilarious

Indeed. I haven't looked around to see the kinds of justification for a Saimoe entry, but I don't think there'd be much in the way of acceptable resources, if you know what I mean. --Merovingian ※ Talk 00:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Three reverts on William Connolley

You did more than 3 reverts within 24 hours on W Connolley. Any reason why you shouldn't be reported? Pack it in. MarkThomas 07:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Other than that you were obviously vandalizing the page? No reason at all. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 08:03, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Says you. On any other page, the fact that someone is a local councillor would hardly constitute notability. MarkThomas 08:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

It adds to the already existing claim to notability, and was cited. And you were just vandalizing the page because User:William M. Connolley blocked you for WP:3RR violation earlier. [1] --tjstrf Now on editor review! 00:38, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppet

Comments and personal attacks made by Sarah Williams, sock of vandal MarkThomas. Available in the archive here.

Civility

Now that was funny. You give me a civility warning, when User talk:Ryulong is the one being self-righteous about the subject with his "Now, have fun editting something other than "ZOMG 4CHAN'S DOWN"" and such. Bet you didn't warn him, did you? As I said... this is getting old. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kry (talk • contribs) .

It was a mistake

My comments left to him were a mistake caused by me posting them to the wrong location, I have explaned that to him.

formerly Suicidal tendancies

now: Ring modulator 14:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Template db-meta

I just thought I'd decorate it. That's all. :P --AAA! ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

On ELSA Technology

I started that ages ago - in retrospect, I probably shouldn't've -- it doesn't seem notable. I have no objections to its deletion. --Improv 18:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Control of a user talk page

WP:USER is a guideline, not policy. Wyss has a link to, rather than an ad for, "Wikitruth", That site may be irritating but the last time I looked around it I saw nothing illegal or even offensive. Or anyway I didn't see anything before boredom overcame me -- it seemed primarily a gossip site about various users, written by people who appear severely afflicted by most of the character flaws they perhaps rightly see in others and who have way too much spare time to kill -- and I surfed elsewhere. (By contrast, I warmly recommend "Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years Of American Independence".)

Meanwhile, WP:OWN is indeed a policy page, but it's about attempts to "own" articles, categories, etc. One's (own) user talk page is rather a grey area, I believe. -- Hoary 02:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it's an ad. Wyss has advertised this site both on his userpage and user talk and on the Village Pump[2]. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 03:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Also note the accusations against Jimbo in that same thread [3], where he claims that Wales leaves flaws in Wikipedia due to ulterior commercial interests and some sort of shady "wider goals". --tjstrf Now on editor review! 03:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Not "he" but "she", if it matters.

I see no ad here, unless you think that linking in an approving way to any website to which a link is unnecessary is an ad. I'd agree with that approach to links from articles, but disagree here.

The wider goals, "shady" or otherwise, would be to make money. This inference may be wrong but I see nothing strange about drawing it and nothing libelous in stating it. And what's arguably a huge flaw in WP is the openness of articles to being edited by anybody without any kind of entrance barrier (check of maturity, sobriety, sanity). Of course, the official line (one with which many people sincerely agree) is that this openness is not a bug but a feature. -- Hoary 04:19, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Linking to any site in the community space with accompanying stated or implied endorsal is an advertisement of that site. As for the accompanying arguments by Wyss, that is exactly why the link is polemical, whether you agree with them is not the issue here. Users have been indefinitely blocked for polemical violation of WP:USER without any other ongoing violations to accompany them. (User:Rookiee) While I appreciate your input, I'm asking for another opinion. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 15:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

editor review

Hi Tjstrf,

I've seen you around. I'm not an admin, but can chip in some small comments if you like... Later,--Ling.Nut 16:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. If you're up for review right now I'll see what I can come up with to say about you as well. (Right now, I have to head off for work though, so it'll be a few hours at least.) --tjstrf talk 17:02, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No prob. I was planning on taking a couple days, poking around in your contribs... so it will be a couple days from now.

Cheers--Ling.Nut 18:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Did it quicker than I thought; explained why on the review page. --Ling.Nut 22:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Quickly, eh? Is that a good thing or a bad thing? I fear it may be a bad thing, but then I did ask for criticism. Thank you for your honest input whatever it is (I don't see it on the review page yet). --tjstrf talk 22:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Ooops; sent it to you as email! Some people may actually vote against you in an RfA just for not checking your email...--Ling.Nut 04:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the review! And sorry to hear you've been under the weather lately.
• Cheers--Ling.Nut 01:19, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Couch

Hi. I see you reverted my deletion tag on that ridiculous couch article. Is there a deletion facility for 'meta' pages where deletions can be discussed, then? I seem to remember reading somewhere that AfD is just for 'main' articles. But surely there must be a way to get of such stupid nonsense? The Crying Orc 18:56, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much! The Crying Orc 19:04, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Why did you remove Advert3?

I think you messed up while editing the templates... yandman 08:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for telling me about that policy. I'm still new to this and am getting the hang of it.

Of course, Sniper787 is my friend and we were actually seated right next to each other when we did that.

Thanks for the clarification.

Let's remove the Kaien article

It's useless. Only creates more articles to maintain. I have been long opposed to having an article about him but haven't said anything until your comment on Luppi. Let's delete both. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:55, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I was hoping to delete the Nell Tu article as well. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 19:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, that fine. While on the subject of pointless articles, should the other useless VC articles be removed? Nemu 19:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Some of them have had big roles in the filler, but have Chōjirō Sasakibe, Marechiyo Ōmaeda, Isane Kotetsu, and Tetsuzaemon Iba done anything besides talk a couple times and be beat up to show someone's strength? Nemu 20:07, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, you guys are missing the point. Characters such as Chōjirō Sasakibe, Marechiyo Ōmaeda, Isane Kotetsu, and Tetsuzaemon Iba may not have done much except in sidestories, but they're status as Lieutenant, in my opinion, earns them the right to a page of their own. Luppi has a similar placement; being a ranked Espada, even if he is deceased, earns him the right to a page. However, once more Espada are revealed, then for the sake of not cluttering up the Hollows in Bleach bar at the bottom of the page, deleting Luppi's page would make sense. Better yet, once more arrancar are revealed, a merged arrancar page would reduce plenty of unnecessary space and pages.

As for Nell Tu, we haven't seen enough of her yet to determine the size of her role. However, this doesn't justify the deletion of someone else's work, their time put into the creation of that page. For all we know, Nell Tu may yet have a big role; until we can tell for sure what her role is, deleting her page would be slightly rash. Besides that, Nell Tu is the first arrancar seen in the manga that isn't evil. That in itself is pretty significant; is Ulquiorra good? Is Grimmjow good? No. The only non-evil arrancar we've seen so far is Nell Tu. HayashiKun

I held that opinion as well until recently. That was when I started tagging all of our images and noticed how many articles we actually had, and we started getting some persistant vandals. It was at that point I realized that we're definitely pushing the limits of fair use, and that the more isolated pages we have the easier it is to vandalize. As for Nell Tu's article, it's easy enough to click revert. (And on the good arrancar thing, you remember this guy we have called Wonderweiss Margera?) --tjstrf talk 00:53, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Good point. As for Wonderwice Margera, he's only considered "pure" by Tosen. Tosen himself isn't exactly good if he's working for Aizen, is he? Wonderwice is a "newborn", likely not very cognitive of his surroundings. We'll have to wait til later to see whether he is good or not.

RE:db-meta

Since {{db}} refers to {{db-reason}} for its reason parameter there is no point in adding it to the db-meta template. (It also caused the formatting to screw up if I gave a reason beginning with "=", though that's probably a minor concern.) --tjstrf talk 19:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

All that the little addition does it give other templates which call db-meta, such as db-bio, to make a customized delete link so the delete summary is automatically filled in. Check out my edit to {{db-bio}}. Now when an admin clicks "deletion", it fills in the deletion summary automatically. —Mets501 (talk) 19:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Naruto

• I honestly thought that that was one of the accepted definitions of "titular"; I tried to assume good faith on Iriseyes' part and checked Wiktionary, which told me I was wrong. :/ I gues Iriseyes thought someone meant to say "tit-ular" or something. :\ Danny Lilithborne 01:54, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

• Hero is a title such as Lord and Lady etc though. The correct word is eponymous. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 04:57, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

They're synonymous. --tjstrf talk 06:26, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Not in most dictionaries, they're not. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 01:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Merriam-Webster disagrees.--tjstrf talk 01:16, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

MOST. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 02:27, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Do most dictionaries exclude titular from having the meaning "Of, derived from, or having to do with a title"?

By strict definition, titular, eponymous, and nominal are all synonyms. The connotation of each is slightly different, but their meanings are identical. Nominal is unacceptable in this context though, because of its connotation skin-deep. That leaves us with two options, titular and eponymous. Since the subject at hand is a children's television series titular is imo preferable to eponymous because it is the less esoteric term. --tjstrf talk 02:52, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

But it's still an encyclopedia and it should use the correct word. However, I agree that it should just be title character instead of titular or eponymous, since there's no real reason it shouldn't be title character. In fact, awhile back, I changed it to title character, and someone reverted it. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 04:54, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Titular is the correct word. But the article link being at title character trumps that. --tjstrf talk 04:58, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

No, the reason for title character going to titular is because the Princeton site says it's the correct term, while research on my own behalf showed that most dictionaries mean title as in "Bishop" etc, not the title of a literary work. I had the discussion about the redirect somewhere. --Wirbelwindヴィルヴェルヴィント (talk) 05:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

So, by the wording used in the article, I'm assuming we went with the term "title character?" --Iriseyes 04:02, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep. Everyone can agree on that being a correct term, (though I don't think anyone prefers it to their own personal view) and it's even simpler to understand than "titular" is. --tjstrf talk 05:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello whoever you are, your buddy deleted MY page which I was working on without ever notifying me that he had marked it for deletion.

I was working on the page... ya know editing it. Makeing it better,... I will proceed to report your buddy to whoever it is that ya report people too. Thanks for the warning.

I don't know how this talk thing works.

I spent a very long time creating an article called The Wheel of Buddhist Terms. I have the copyrightholders permission to create the article and you can find it by searching with google.

I AM WORKING ON MY PAGE AND YOUR STUPID TAGS WERE NOT RELEVANT WHEN I CLICKED SAVE PAGE BECAUSE I HAD INCLUDED REFRENCES STAY THE **** OFF MY PAGE.

Go Away, I am working on the page. Tradeskillsllc 11:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You appear to be shouting about The Wheel of Buddhist Terms. That's no more your page than it is TJstrf's or mine: see WP:OWN. If you don't like this, you're in the wrong place. -- Hoary 14:07, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I was editing the page when you jumped in with your idiotic anal edits encyclopedia artilces are not written instantainously and you have harrased me enough I am reporting you.

Tradeskillsllc 11:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you calm down before reporting anything anywhere. -- Hoary 14:10, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProjects

Hiya, I was interested in your opinions at the Village pump, about WikiProjects. May I have permission to copy your comments to Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (television), in our RfC section? Or would you be interested in popping in yourself? Your thoughts could be very useful to the discussion. Thanks, --Elonka 22:44, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I wouldn't want to risk quoting you out of context, so I'll hold off then. If you do want to offer an opinion though, you're more than welcome, at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (television)#Request for comment.  :) --Elonka 23:09, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Fire Emblem External Links

Please stop vandalizing the external links. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.123.116.166 (talk • contribs)

Stop spamming them with your fansite then. Thank you. --tjstrf talk 17:47, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop acting like your opinion on whether they are spam or not is important. It is not MY site at all. I'm just a Fire Emblem fan who feels it's a great and helpful resource. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.123.116.166 (talk • contribs)

My opinion is backed by policy and the consensus of other editors. You don't own it? Good. Stop spamming your favorite fansite then. --tjstrf talk 00:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Other editors? Oh, like the half dozen editors who added it in the first place? And where is your policy here? Fire Emblem World has tons of information and features, and was one of the first on the external links list (check the records way back). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.123.116.166 (talk • contribs)

Sites which violate copyright (via distribution of sprite rips and music), web communities, and fansites are all discouraged or forbidden links. --tjstrf talk 09:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, you have done no research here and are simply deleting based on biased. To say that "Fire Emblem English Documentary is qualified and Fire Emblem World isn't" is absurd. LOOK ON THE MAIN PAGE OF FIRE EMBLEM ENGLISH DOCUMENTARY! You'll see a link to sprites and music. I guess I'm off to remove that site from the external links then. But you're no longer qualified to edit Wikipedia if you remove one link for something another link has also done but allow the other link to remain because of your biased. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.123.116.166 (talk • contribs)

Then remove it as well. I didn't check every link on the page, the Fire Emblem Planet link was only brought to my attention by your overloud edit summary accusations of vandalism. As for qualification to edit, failing to fix one thing when you fix another is not a flaw, it's an oversight. We don't outlaw oversights here. --tjstrf talk 18:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)