User talk:TTN/Archive 9

This is an archive of past discussions with User:TTN. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

→

Joey episodes

I've merged and redirected List of Joey episodes to Joey (TV series)#Episodes based on the fact that the list is just titles and airdates and the parent article can cope with the size. This shouldn't affect your current review of the individual episode articles. Brad 17:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Bijuu

...the only section that even attempts to describe the creature is the Nibi's, and it only says "a fire-breathing two-tailed cat". As these are fair use images, they don't have to absolutely necessary - so long as they help illustrate the concept, and don't clutter the article, they are acceptable. They also help demonstrate what Kishimoto was basing the beasts on - cementing the claim that he adapted them from real Japanese folklore, as previously, it was a bald-faced assertion in the "Creature Type" section - there wasn't even the least bit of explanation that they weren't entirely Kihsimoto's creation.

If a section on their historical basis, and more detailed word-description's were added, then the pictures could be able to be removed, but even then, what are they really hurting?KrytenKoro 21:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

They look ridiculous in this context, have nothing to add more than the links already provide (the images are present in those articles), and I doubt that they'll do anything more than confuse people as they first look at the article. It is just ridiculous to include them, as it would be ridiculous to use pictures of animals to describe Pokemon or video game enemies (I can just image a picture of a mushroom for a Goomba). TTN 21:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Bleach images

So you're suggesting that we replace all those images with group shots? Sure, great idea. While I'm at it, would you like me to trap the moon's reflection in a bottle?

In the vast majority of the cases you're trying to force us to replace, there are no group shots. This is not a case of "I'm lazy and don't want to find any", or "but that won't show off my favorite character as well", or "stop being a whiny jerk TTN", or "do it yourself", they simply do not exist. And why should they? Many of those characters have had nothing to do with each other in the series. In the places where logical groupings of the characters in those lists do exist, like the Numeros 5 or the 3 filler modsouls, we already use group shots.

I can see maybe 5 images that might be potentially combinable into a group shot with one other character, but that's it. I'm off to see if they really do exist right now. --tjstrf talk 03:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm asking people to find easy group shots. It should be easy to get a group shot of the captains, the important vice captains, the Bounts, the school children, the Kurosaki family, and the shop. I'm not asking people to mix and match here. TTN 10:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I spent 2 hours earlier looking for any sort of usable screenshot of Keigo and Mizuiro, and did not find a single one that wasn't either of the back of their heads or only showed one of them or had Keigo horribly off-model due to some visual gag or bad animation. May I add them back in now or do I have to show up at your front door with a timecard and prints of all the shots that wouldn't work?

Also, using group shots of the shinigami characters would require we use medium or hires color spreads of the entire captaincy, and this would actually be less acceptable under Wikipedia's fair use policies than the use of the individual lowres anime frames. Since the list only discusses about 14/26ths of the characters that would be on those spreads, we would be using an unnecessarily large amount of Kubo's intellectual property (the entire spread) to illustrate certain elements from within it. We cannot justify use of a group shot to just illustrate some of the group while giving no description of the other characters or the group as a whole any more than we can justify putting our images at excessively high resolutions, or using 3 shots of the same element, or any other stretching of the WP:FUC. Using several smaller shots is a much more minimal use than using one huge shot with a bunch of extra copyrighted material in it that we aren't utilizing.

In conclusion, there's much more to consider than blind numbers here. Start thinking about the fair use criteria as a whole. --tjstrf talk 12:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There are various times where all of the students hang out together in the beginning of the series. You cannot seriously say that there is not a clean shot within all of that. With the captains, one 200 by 200 screen shot from the anime can easily cover them. We don't need crystal clear images for a topics that don't even follow guidelines (if you can do something like Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, many screen shots would be acceptable). TTN 17:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You completely ignored his whole "copyright/WP:FUC/fair use/etc" argument. Unless you don't care about the rules of Wikipedia, I advise you attempt to explain yourself or just stop. --NightKev 00:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop merging articles with no discussions

Refrain from the above as no one else does it. Stop merging inappropriately as you did with Toad and Jirachi. You have never done a discussion for any of your pointless merges bar Mario enemies and Toad was not in that discussion. You aren't even starting sections on talk pages so you aren't giving anyone a chance to object. This isn't fair and you are biasing these merges in your favour. You are also acting like you own Wikipedia, doing what you want and expecting people to comply and reverting their efforts to oppose you until they give up. This is not following policy or guidelines by any means in any way. As for Jirachi, there is OOU info so that crappy excuse can't be used. Stop. I am going to report you and will take you to as high an authority as I need to to get you to shut your face and abide by policy like everyone else. Henchman 2000 18:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

He is abiding by policy. He can do pretty much anything he wants to. He only has to stop if someone objects. If you object, take it to the talk page. i ^said 18:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Jirachi. Thank you. Kariteh 20:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, "rv" is a perfectly fine summary in that case. TTN 20:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't, REASON is what you need, since you have none, stop reverting. One thing you aren't allowed to do, act like you own Wikipedia, which you do. See WP:OWN for more info. Henchman 2000 17:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You already know that the Pokemon were merged per a project consensus instead of just a random redirect, so it was a perfectly fine summary. If you did even a little research, you would see that Toad was discussed. TTN 19:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Listen up. The new "lists" of Pokémon shouldn't be here. This is an encyclopedia, not a list of lists. -ILikePikachu v|d 15:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

 He can do pretty much anything he wants to

Ok, what gives anyone the right to do whatever they want. this is Wikipedia, not TTN's playground. If you wanna be tyrannical, go somewhere else. Wikipedia is about the collaboration of groups of editors, in order to make the most expansive encyclopedia ever, not what one person feels is right. C. Pineda (クリス) 04:44, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Kim Possible episodes and characters

Do you think the episodes and characters from Kim Possible should be redirected? I attempted to do so, but I was reverted. The Prince of Darkness 13:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but there is no point if obsessive fans keep reverting, and if there is no way to have an actual discussion. You can use Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review‎ for the episodes if you would like. With the characters, you'll just have to make them understand or find an admin who is willing to step into a content dispute. TTN 13:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for being so naive in the past. I was ignorant and didn't respect the guidelines. I know now that unnotable articles don't belong on Wikipedia, but rather on Wikia. The Prince of Darkness 13:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes. The question of "unnotablitiy," and what defines it. And I reiterate, there's no reason to delete these pages, and the same goes for shows that other editors(including myself), might think suck. ---- DanTD 13:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability arguments aren't resolved by deletion and redirects without any discussion or consensus. If you think an article's not notable enough to stand on its own, you first discuss it in the article talkpage, and maybe put a merge-proposal template on it, or propose it at AfD. Either way, you have to provide a chance for all sides of the argument to be heard so that a consensus can be reached. It's very hard for people to assume good faith when massive, undiscussed, unilateral actions are being taken; it results in an assumption of vandalism and a siege mentality that has those who contribute to the articles in question just digging in and fighting harder. Wikipedia has a procedure for deleting articles like this for a reason; please follow it in the future. Rdfox 76 14:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Batman: The Animated Series episodes

Sorry, I was going to speak to you about this once I'd made the changes, as the history page shows you did this in the first place and I wanted to explain myself. My theory was that the articles should be restored to their former form, so that they could then be fitted to meet the episode criteria. However, so as to not to upset people whilst the articles were essentially incomplete, I would not link them back to the episode guide.

As for the criteria, I stand by what I said in the discussion page. Individual episode pages should not be done away with solely on the basis of the inclusion of trivia pages (the relevant page itself specifies that the rule should not be used to delete pages, just to better them). My belief is that by using the director commentaries from the DVD, trivia and more detailed episode guides could be incorporated to improve the episode, as well as how they fit into the DC Animated Universe as a whole, as much of this series helps inform later series. In that this is an Emmy award-winning series, I believe that this series does deserve individual episode pages, they just need to be done better. My friends do a podcast where they review each episode in depth and I'm sure they'd be upto the job.

That is my explanation. I hope we can reach a common middle ground because the episode guide, as it stands, is very unsatisfactory for what was a ground-breaking animated series. Apologies if my approach initially rubbed you up the wrong way and I look forward to your response. Slothian 12:14, 5 September 2007 (GMT)

Sypha Belnades

Why are you merging 'Sypha Belnades' with 'Castlevania III: Dracula's Curse', simply deleting information not given in the latter article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prime Blue (talk • contribs) 14:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

billy and mandy episodes

Who told you to get rid of the billy and mandy episodes, people need more imfomation about them, give them back, NOW. Rhinoceros lover 10:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Red Ring Rico

Why the heck do you keep trying to turn valid articles into redirects? --Stormwatch 17:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The amazing thing about discussing with people to reach a consensus is that you actually need people to discuss and reach a consensus. These articles are dead, so there is no way to discuss. I mean, if you look at that Dark Force article, you are the only person who cares. Speaking of that, if you must have a number consensus, it is currently two to one. If you don't mind, I will redirect that one soon. TTN 18:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Use some f*ckin' common sense, will ya? You are destroying information for absolutely no reason. What's this called again... oh, that's right: vandalism. --Stormwatch 18:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, we have various policies and guideline that show these are unneeded. And common sense would say that we don't need to cover completely minor topics that belong in another one. Are you going to go with the wonderful two to one consensus or not? TTN 18:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: TTN, I've just read Wikipedia:Vandalism, and realized that my use of the term was incorrect. I wish to apologize for that. However, I still think your edits are erasing valid content. -- Stormwatch 21:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, we have various policies and guidelines that can be applied to show how they are unnecessary. Fan content doesn't belong on this site. Non-notable fictional subtopics belong on alternate wikis, not this one. TTN 21:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Then our point of disagreement is calling those "non-notable". Red Ring Rico is a very important character in Phantasy Star Online: although she is not seen in the game, her messages are found all over the game, and give the whole sense of plot developement in it. About Dark Force... the series' main villain isn't worth an article? Forgive the sarcasm, but you might as well delete the articles about every Star Trek character other than Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. -- Stormwatch 14:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you think I would say that "we have various policies and guidelines that can be applied to show how they are unnecessary" if it boiled down to an opinion? First off, notability in general requires objective evidence. When applied to fiction, this requires non-trivial, real world information that is verified by reliable sources. Star Trek, a very large series with a very large following, can easily have its fictional subtopics pass that. Phantasy Star, a mildly popular video game series with a much, much, much smaller following, has little chance of that much past the basic video games. TTN 16:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Vegeta overhaul

Be careful my friend, that article was massacred a few days ago and ever since Wiki:Anime has been trying to fix it. But I smell an edit war. Don't let yourself get pulled into it. Good luck. --Amaraiel 18:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Vegeta just got reverted. I'll notify Wiki:Anime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaraiel (talk • contribs) 19:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

TTN you said that you are removing content per the discussion on the DBZ wikproject page, but there was no consensus on the page. Before Deleting stuff I think we should get some consensus eh? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DBZROCKS (talk • contribs) 19:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed you don't tend to actually take others opinions as much as just indent your own unwaveringly. Theres basically you and two others making decisions for ALL of DBZ articles and it isn't on. Them wanting condensed articles doesn't automatically mean they're all for you just removing all data from articles that have come close to good article status as where.Darkwarriorblake 19:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Everyone involved needs to see the page on Resolving content disputes This is getting out of hand. There needs to a consensus. --Amaraiel 19:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, I was just going with one revert. That's usually fine in order to avoid long discussions if necessary. And even then, it really is just one stubborn editor. TTN 19:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Edits to List of enemies in Doom

If you feel the article is unfit for inclusion in Wikipedia, please use Articles for Deletion to nominate the article for removal. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to mince words here: what you did is an effective deletion of the article. I know it. You know it. DOGS know it. The vandalism warning above reflects that quite clearly. You blanked the page without retaining any of the content in the article to which you redirected.

As to consensus, your edits have been reverted by four editors other than myself, three of whom also identified your edits as vandalism. I just happen to be the only one who had the thought of pointing that out on your talk page.

Now as to the article's merits, honestly I don't care. Really. The only thing I care about is that you're trying to brute force your "verdict" on the article's merits through. That's not cool. That's not Wikipedia either. Seriously, use AfD, or PROD it, or suggest a merge. The fact is that drastic changes like the one you've made (deletion, merge, WHATEVER you want to call it) should be discussed first per policy, not done first and discussed afterwards.

So the brass tacks of it: you're in the wrong here, and I'm calling you on it. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, just discovered that people have been trying to discuss the redirect. They seem perfectly willing to participate in a discussion on the merits of the article. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 00:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Jynx

I've posted a question at Talk:Jynx_(Pokémon)#Why_redirect, which you may be able to answer. When you have a chance I'd appreciate it if you could drop in and give your reasoning the the redirect. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikilink destructions

Hello, when redirecting an article and removing the main link in the other articles, please don't forget to remove the inline links too. You forgot to do that in the Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars#Characters section. Kariteh 14:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Cross Epoch up for deletion

Hey there, TTN. I don't know if you have any interest in the article, but I've listed Cross Epoch for deletion mainly per notability reasons. If you can, please check out the AfD page and post your thoughts on the matter. At any rate, that's pretty much it. Just wanted to give you a heads-up. Hope to see you around, and happy editing! // DecaimientoPoético 20:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Goku techniques

There are two suspicious users, Peter Vogel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and BSDB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), that keep re-adding the list of abilities in Son Goku (Dragon Ball). I've been repeatedly taking it out but these guys keep putting it back in without a reason, even after I've warned them about WP:CRUFT. As you (and others) were one of the users apparently against such lists at WP:WPDB, can you get rid of it there? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

There are still users who continue to add the same WP:FAN and bunk to Goku, Pikkoro, Gohan, Mirai Trunks, Chibi Trunks, Goten, Vegeta, and possibly others. TTN, you proposed the removal of these elements yet they're still being added. Not to be imprudent, but aren't you going to help revert some of these guys or do I have to put them all for deletion to end this cruft war? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll revert them as I see them. They're usually reverted by the time I check up on things, so there isn't much I can do. Just give it a little bit of time and they'll start dieing off (like with the merging of all of those characters). TTN 21:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you read this suspicion I lefted for DBZROCKS? There might be others involved but these are the only guys I've seen do this, without edit summaries. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You can probably try Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. TTN 21:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

CheckUser does look confusing. I mean, I've never actually started one before, though it can't be that hard can it? Albeit I'm not even sure if I have enough evidence, would you happen to know who *might* be behind the hinted sockpuppetry? Some long term abuser who is blocked? This way, a known suspect could ascertain the one pulling the strings, I think. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that I look at it, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets is a better venue for this. You just have to assert that those three are the same. You don't need to have a "mastermind." TTN 22:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That actually seems easier to do. I'll consider it if these same one or two people keep it up. Unless, if you want to make this report yourself now I can support you with all the evidence. Well, whatever the cost, thanks anyway. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: TimySmidge's DBZ articles

I saw your note[1] on TimySmidge's talk page. Right now, those articles are at the crux of a different dispute entirely (specifically, he keeps using Fair Use images in the user namespace). I'm watching the situation unfold closely, and if you could hold off on submitted the MfDs, that'd be great (you said "in a few days"). If it turns out that Smidge is unwilling to communicate about this, I'll probably just speedy them rather than have them run through MfD (where they'd most definitely be deleted). Thanks. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. TTN 22:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

House of Erebus

This "secondary source" also acknowledges where to find the same information for the House of Erebus, and that's in the special features section of the DVD. If the official Blade website was still open I'd be happy to reference it, but unfortunately it's not. That website is the closest thing we've got going for this article.--The Scourge 23:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You actually have to be able to use the information to make a decent article. There is little chance for that to happen, as they are a part of a relatively small movie series. You should focus on describing the group within the actual series and film articles instead. TTN 23:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

History

I have a long history huh? Give it a rest people. This is jawdroppingly stupid. -- Cat ^chi? 14:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Dragon Ball character lists

I gave a good response here. Did you read it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, you are watching that section are you not? I mean, I really would like to go forth with my test, but I wanna hear your thoughts directly. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Merging

If you're going to cite WP:BRD, don't you think you should actually follow it's guidelines? "1) Boldly make the desired change to the page. 2)Wait until someone reverts your change or makes another substantial edit. DO NOT revert this change! 3) If a disagreement arises, gracefully back down a bit, and explain and discuss your reasoning with the reverter and consider their different views too (don't go for discussion with too many people at once). Once you reach agreement, start the cycle again by making the agreed change."

I didn't notice you "gracefully back down" or "explain and discuss your reasoning". Which is odd, given the fact that the explaination for "that guy's" revert was specifically because you didn't discuss the merge. I *did* notice you reverting his change, which is specifically what WP:BRD says not to do.

I know you think that discussion is useless and that all it does is slow down your crusade to rid Wikipedia of "useless" articles, but it is the essence of collaboration, which is what Wikipedia is all about. If you followed these guidelines and took other people's views into consideration *before* making big changes without discussion you'd spend less time fighting people and more time doing something useful. Rhindle The Red 18:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? How do you know why he reverted? You don't seem to have asked him. If you did, I don't see it. How do you know he's not the "most interested person"? I checked User talk:Keenan Pepper and I don't see you talking to him about it, which is what WP:BRD advocates. So how exactly did you know he isn't "interested"?

I happen to think that BRD is a nice idea and have used it myself. But it only works properly when you follow it, which you did not. You made your move, it was reverted and then you reverted it back without attempting to engage the reverter in a discussion. Why claim to use a process if you're not going to follow it? Discussions, by the way, are not meant to occur in edit summaries. If you really wanted to have a discussion, you should have written to Keenan Pepper directly. BTW, how does it "go into effect"? It's not a policy. It's not even a guideline. It has no weight of its own. Especially if you don't follow it. You need to re-read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle#What BRD is, and is not and Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle#The BRD process.

And you always talk about "wasting time". You do realize that there really isn't any time being wasted by following procedures properly. We're not on any dealine. There's no publication date we have to hit. What you call "wasting time" others call "having respect for your fellow editors". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhindle The Red (talk • contribs) 22:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I look at 100 discussions as 100 opportunities to improve Wikipedia. If they go unanswered, then you have your course of action and can also have the knowledge that you didn't trample on other editors to get it. I'm glad you're waiting the five days. If you took that careful approach more often in the first place, you would cause fewer fights. Rhindle The Red 02:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I second to that. If you can only follow wikipedia's Standard Operating Procedure of discussing articles for merging before reaching an amicable concensus. Waste time? Why? Are we in a hurry or something? Its better to delay an inevitable if the end-result is agreeable in both parties. And who says the reason I want to keep the Blood Pack (Blade II) article because it's the same as my username? Fine. I'll let this slip, but with your kind of attitude, I assure you you'll encounter more of this issue in the near future. I may not be the one to convince you but rest assured someone out there you'll meet will turn the tables on you. Have a nice retarded day †Bloodpack† 22:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

World of Homestar Runner

OK. BTW since you are knowledgeable about the topic, what's your opinion about the fate of this article? `'Míkka 00:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I won't bother commenting in the AfD, but on its own, its probably not a large enough to truly signify an article (the third party source is good, but it needs more than that to really be significant). Though, if it could possibly be mentioned in a Videlectrix article if its large enough or in a section about Videlectrix in the main article. TTN 00:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You're

You put a comment on my talk page. You're message sounds so familiar. Who are you? --TimySmidge 20:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Doom

Trust me, I agree with you on many levels. However, you were reverted ~9 times. You were perfectly within right to redirect it without discussion under WP:BOLD. However, if you're reverted in good faith, BOLD no longer applies and you must discuss. I understand your longstanding frustration with lack of discussion. (All the way back to the episodes) However, it is an edit war unless there is discussion. So I suggest that you make a post on the talk page. If there is lack of response, you can redirect, because under WP:BRD lack of discussion = consensus. And if there is discussion, we can just disregard the ones that contradict policy; we can call an administrator to determine consensus if need be. Good luck. — i ^said 02:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking Back at the South Park pages which were merged...

I noticed that another user had mentioned that Dr. Mephisto is notable enough to have his own article. Then you said that his article would have to be improved before it could be restored. Have you tried looking at his article in [Park Wiki]? Perhaps you could take an example from there? Wilhelmina Will 20:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The articles there are quite terrible by the standards of a fan wiki, let alone this one. Look over WP:FICT and WP:WAF for what you need. TTN 21:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I was well aware that certain things in the articles in the wiki could not be included in an article here, but why do you say that the articles are terrible, even by that sort of wiki's standards? I'm rather insulted by that, as I created a lot of the pages, and rewrote/repaired/extended/all-three-or-any-combination-in-such most of the others. User Mr. Garrison (who is an admnistrator there) also said that he liked them. Wilhelmina Will 00:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Koopa

Koopa redirecting to Koopa (disambiguation) is a malplaced disambiguation page. If that is how this should be, then the dab needs to be moved to the base name, but since that destroys history, the loss of the article content formerly at Koopa should be discussed at Talk:Koopa first. If you feel that that is the solution, please bring it up on the Talk page. -- JHunterJ 03:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Be BOLD!

You know what I am talking about. How's this for the 3 (or so) hopefully well written paragraphs:

"The 12 characters of this cartoon show exist as three subsets: the "Eds," the cul-de-sac kids, and the Kanker sisters.

The "Eds" comprise the three main characters: Ed, Edd, and Eddy. Ed is a large, smelly buffoon who speaks in non sequiters. Edd is a thin nerd who wears a ski hat to cover some secret on his head. Eddy is a loud, megalomanaical manipulator who commands the Eds through all sorts of schemes. The schemes always involve hair brained attempts to make money from their peers, which they wish to spend on jawbreakers. The schemes always fail.

The "cul-de-sac kids" consist of Kevin, who is a a jock and a bully; Nazz, an attractive but somewhat clueless unattainable love interest; Jonny, a loner who plays by himself along with his imaginary friend Plank (a board with drawn on facial features); Sarah, who is Ed's perpetually angry younger sister; and Jimmy, a little boy who is best friends with Sarah, and who is bound to her in an almost symbiotic relationship.

The Kanker sisters live in the nearby "Park 'N' Flush" trailer park. They are the show's antagonists, and their constant target is the "Eds," who they fancy they are in love with.

Eddy's older brother left the cul-de-sac before the show began, but is referred to often enough, and enough of his character exposed, that he can be considered an unseen character. A view of his bedroom reveals that he is something of an art deco fan. His communications with Eddy consistently contain derogatory references to his little brother."

I would put this in the beginning of the Characters section in Ed, Edd n Eddy. -- Elaich ^talk 04:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It can probably be refined, but its a good start. TTN 22:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you went against yourself there...

When you suggested merging the episode articles for The Nanny, you said unless anyone objected, they would be merged. But Peregrine Fisher objected, and even gave a reference as to why he did, and you merged them anyway. And now I'm objecting as well. Fans of the show, or people interested in it, might want to read further into the individual episodes, and learn more about them.

For the record, I would hardly call it a "merge" when no info is even put in on the episodes in the main page. Couldn't you at least have included a synopsis for every episode? Wilhelmina Will 02:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That was a random spam message placed because I was using merge tags only. And the objection would only lead to discussion, not keeping the articles. Please read over WP:EPISODE if you wish to push the issue. Fan interest matters little without notability. TTN 14:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Fan interest matters little without notability? Ha! Why don't you just say "Wikipedia developing matters little without notability"? It would sound just as absurd, not to mention just plain lacking-in-emotion. Wilhelmina Will 18:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Episode reviews

Do you have a general idea of which ones have ceased discussion? I haven't been following all of them that much. If you don't know, then I'll go through them all...it isn't a problem, just that it will have to wait a couple hours for when I get home from work. I don't have the time at the moment to go through each discussion and close out. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'll go through and close them when I get off from work, which will be in about 3 - 3 1/2 hours from now. That cool? I'm off my lunch break now, be back later. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've closed some discussions. I'm only closing the non-controversial ones. Here is the list:

That should keep you busy for awhile. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

SMRPG Talk

I didn't understand what you wrote in your last reply. Can you please see the talk page and rephrase it? Thank you. Taric25 01:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please stop vandalizing the Wild ARMS 5 page. It took a long time to restore all the imformation you altered or removed.MagicalHopStep 17:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Magical has posted a note on W:AN, but it would be helpful if you posted on the article talk page links to the specific standards. I think that would stop this misunderstanding immediately. Thanks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It won't do a thing. I have already shown him a few featured video game articles, and he still has it set in his mind that the information is important. I'm just going to ride it out for a bit to see if others can actually convince him otherwise. TTN 18:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

TTN, you are wrong. That's not how video game articles should be. And I, for one, am seriously angry and upset at how you just deleted section that me and fellow editors like Magical spent such a long time working on. She's right-it is vandalism.24.3.186.152 18:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No, TTN's not wrong. The article looks a lot cleaner without the fancruft. The Prince of Darkness 18:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

I have initiated a thread concerning you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Potential problem conerning episode articles. -- Cat ^chi? 21:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologizes....I seen the above article, clicked on the associated link (which was your contribs) and accidently reverted one when my TWINKLE links came up. That was a unintentional mistake on my part and I apologize. Take Care...NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There is significant disagreement about your episode article redirecting at the ANI thread. Would you mind ceasing your mass redirecting, at least until you comment in the discussion? Mr.Z-man —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing to comment about. I'm following the standard merging practice, I've already stated that up above in that discussion, and that's it. The people that do not want the episodes removed can discuss at WP:EPISODE. The people that think I should "merge" can bring it up here, as that is a personal thing. Adding merge tags is not contraversial in itself, so there is nothing wrong there. I believe those are the only issues, none of which pertain to AN/I. TTN 23:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that most episode articles should be merged; however, if somebody calls for a discussion, the least you could do is halt until discussion is over. You said yourself that you were making bold edits; some people have reverted. Naturally, the next thing to do is to discuss, per WP:BRD. Pardon me for "eavesdropping," by the way; I happened to see a familiar name on AN/I. You Can 't See Me! 00:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no actual specific discussion. It was started by someone that thinks all episodes are notable, so the correct place for that is WP:EPISODE instead of complaining over me. There are other people that don't like that I don't waste time summarizing giant plot summaries that would take me weeks and weeks to do, when fans can do it ten times quicker. That's just how I work. And then there are other minor complaints that really mean nothing. In the very least, any discussion belongs here instead, as they are all just personal peeves instead of actual AN/I complaints. TTN 00:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Report at WP:AIV

I have removed the reports presented by yourself and the one by the named party on you as this is obviously a dispute and not blatent vandalism. Please consider taking this matter to WP:ANI if you are unable to resolve it. LessHeard vanU 21:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Weird, most of the time single purpose tag removers are blocked. TTN 21:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

thats probably because you are acting out of line trying to force your opinions on the subject when everyone else in the discussion has gone against your view... 68.72.139.134 21:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's all Thanks to You.

Why on earth did you delete my episode pages? And without notifying me first! When I created Iggy Vs. the Volcano//A Dip in the Pole, I specifically said that if it contained inadequate info, then to contact me in the discussion for that page! And here you go, pompously removing it, like you did to the episode pages in The Nanny! I tried to control my temper with you on that one; it may not have looked like it, but believe me, I really tried, but when you kill my own child-articles, that does it! That blows it all away for me! I can't deal with that kind of abuse! Please read my userpage, and see what you caused to happen by not minding your own beeswax. As I said in there, I hope your satisfied. Wilhelmina Will 18:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Jackie Chan Adventures

Wondering if I could toss one of my watched shows your way: Jackie Chan Adventures. I'd merge some of these myself but I'm not too sure what's salvageable and what should be merged where:

List of Jackie Chan Adventures episodes
List of Jackie Chan Adventures characters
- This is an extensive list. If you think it needs to be cut down, I think the only ones worth keeping are the main characters, the villains, and the demon sorcerers.
Demon Sorcerers Pretty much all I can see that's worth keeping would be who does the character voices. It could easily go into the character list.
Shadowkhan Probably redirect to the characters list too with just brief descriptions of them.

What do you think? -WarthogDemon 05:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll chop them up a little later. TTN 13:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

Please explain why you are redirecting all of the [[3rd Rock from the Sun]] episodes (i.e. [[The Thing That Wouldn't Die‎]]). --Maniwar (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

They fail the television episode notability guideline, and there is no real chance for improvement. There were too few to actually need a discussion, so I was bold about it. Feel free to revert if you disagree, I guess, but if you cannot assert real world notability, they'll just be redirected again after the discussion. TTN 00:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go ahead and revert to give them a chance. If they fail, then I'll absolutely go with the community, but I at least want to give them a try. Thanks for replying though to my question. --Maniwar (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Mario RPG locations

Are you willing to actually discuss cutting down the content of the article yet (I mean "sourced" content)? I mean, you just added a section that is 95% gameplay information. That's the kind of information that has no place there. TTN 16:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, as I said on the talk page of the main article, I am currently willing to discuss content that is unreferenced and does not allude to other media, such as the geography section. Per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I would like you to listen very carefully. You are trying to get my full and considered views, because I care enough to disagree with your edits. If you do not listen and do not try to find consensus, you are wasting everyone's time. Thus, per Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change, I am offering you a reasonable, temporary compromise to integrate my ideas with yours.

Now, here's the part to which you have to you have to listen very carefully. I am offering you a temporary compromise. If you want to us to reach a consensus, then you have to prove to me that you are interested in working on the article in regards to improving it. You really hurt my feelings when you wrote, "I am not interested in working on the article in regards to improving it." I felt like you didn't care about my edits and that you were wasting my time, so first of all, I would like you to take back what you said, because it really hurt my feelings. If you can honestly say that you'll change your interest in the article with a genuine desire to improve it, then I can learn to trust you, and eventually, we will work on the rest of the sections, such as metaphysics, languages, concept & creation, etc. Once that happens, I will be more than happy top discuss sourced content. Until then, I am offering you this temporary compromise. Taric25 17:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

See, you're not offering a compromise; you're completely avoiding the issue at hand. My claim is that the article is just fluff. Your response is to ignore that and just keep going on your own path. I have asked for a third opinion in the past, and that person agreed with me. Many of the people from the video game project said the same thing. And even bypassers have said the same thing. This is not just my way to destroy the article or remove your work.

Honestly, would it hurt to go my way even a little? Is it going to kill you to remove information? The answer is no, so excuse my bad faith assumption, but given the fact that you haven't touched upon any of these issues at all, I have to assume you're purposely ignoring them to avoid having to remove anything. TTN 17:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Even though you have voilated policy by assuming bad faith, please understand that just because I am asking you to show that you are interested in working on the article in regards to improving it does not mean I am assuming bad faith. Please assume the assumption of good faith by understanding that I am still willing to trust you even after you hurt my feelings and that I am neither ignoring you nor avoiding the issue at hand because "it's going to kill me to remove information", because you have openly declared, "I am not interested in working on the article in regards to improving it.", and I still care enough to discuss this with you. If I didn't give a fuck, then I would deny you recognition.

I am offering you to remove sourced content after we have removed the unsourced content from the Geography section. Also understand that regardless of the comments by others, we still have no consensus, because contrary to what you just wrote, "I have asked for a third opinion in the past, and that person agreed with me.", not everyone did agree with you. For example, after User:Axem Titanium quoted you writing that you are not interested in working on the article in regards to improving it, he wrote, "I think this is a dangerous attitude because it means you are not committing the time needed to actually do a good job." Others have also shown interest in improving the artice, such as User:Sjones23. Taric25 19:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

In fact, it was because we could not come to a consensus that I even offered a temporary compromise. I did not ignore you when you brought the languages section up, because when you wrote, "I'm going to chop the OR (most of the language section)", I replied with "I really don't mind if you chop anything, as long as isn't referenced, meaning it doesn't have a citation, or if it doesn't allude to outside media. The problem is, the entire languages and metaphysics section is referenced, so if you wanna' start chopping, would you please start with the Geography section?" It was after that you did the exact opposite of what I offered. If you would have cut unreferenced text from the Geography section that didn't allude to other media, then I would have accepted that and been more than happy to discuss the languages section, but you went against the consensus I thought we had established.

In addition, when you said, that you are not interested in working on the article in regards to improving it, that is serious. The deliberate and intentional attempt to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors is trolling. Taric25 19:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm referencing back to the old discussions, not just this current one. You did nothing but jump around the issue. I have now cut the geography section down to the basics. Any references worth salvaging can be added back as it is built up, so please do not revert for that reason. I guess it is just my wording that confused you. I'm saying that the topic is not interesting or valid enough for me to want to work on. I either want it removed, or I want nothing to do with it. I don't want to just kill it for fun. TTN 19:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Urgh, fine, it looks like I'm going to have to put the first foot forward. Oh, if you're going to complain about what you believe is my OR, then please don't write anything like "they echo to those nearby." Honestly, what is that supposed to mean?

I'm not going to totally revert, but at least your edit kickstarted me to getting the images the adventures use when journeying from one part to another and starting to rewrite the geography section. I'll let you know when I'm done, so we can go over it. Taric25 20:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

Okay, really. I know I've heard of you before. Who are you? That message you gave me sounds familliar. Are you a sock of a different person? --TimySmidge 20:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

You can ignore this user and his baseless allegation, as he is involved in sockpuppetry himself, see here. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:AWB

How did you get the external link for WP:AWB to open for you? I've already added my name to the list, but have tried countless times to get that link to open and "Page Can Not Be Displayed" is all I get. I have Windows XP, but is there something amiss? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 11:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

What link are you talking about? The one to download it? TTN 04:30, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Every time I try to install it, it makes me lose connection. Which is it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:35, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

It was mainly a quick in and out process for me, so you would probably be better off asking somewhere else. Does the AWB page link to a help page? TTN 13:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Galaxy Rangers

Dwanyewest 22:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)I dont think you checked the links for the about each episode

The air dates provided are hear [2] noteworthy source

The official galaxy ranger website has the correct episode order and summaries

The official website of the Galaxy Rangers

Dwanyewest 22:36, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Oh My Goddess characters

Hi. Care to comment at Talk:List of Oh My Goddess characters? There is further discussion of this at Talk:Oh My Goddess!#Merge suggestion and User talk:Tone#User:White Cat. See also: [3] and about 40 reverts just like it. --Jack Merridew 07:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion

Regarding the amount of mergers you suggest (but would be unable to perform yourself); would you mind including those 3 steps in the merge suggestion? It would make the anonymous editors work a bit easier. There might also be use in adding the suggestion to Wikipedia:Proposed mergers. Maybe someone there could help with the actual process. Regards, G.A.S 18:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

As I really do not care enough to go that far, I will leave a hidden message detailing how to get to the redirects through an old version of the article, and then how to merge using those steps. And I don't know if you have had any worthwhile experiences with PM, but I have never seen it do any good. TTN 19:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I guess that will help... As for notifying PM — CYA (even if they do not do anything about it). That way no one could complain about the redirects or if you do not actually merge it. G.A.S 06:10, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Episode articles

Please leave a better explanation as to why you are redirecting an article, either in the talk section or at least in your edit comments. Putting just "rv" (which to me stands for revert) is misleading and unhelpful.

It would appear you are on a mission to eliminate every episode article. Slow down. I agree we need to get rid of the junk, but redirecting large swathes of episodes is pure destruction. Consider pruning over clear cut methods. Clerks. 15:13, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Put the comments relating to each episode you are redirecting on the episodes talk page. That way someone will have a chance to read it and maybe improve the article, so it can be resurrected. The point of editting Wikipedia should be to improve the information this source provides, not to try to drum up conversations (arguments) with other editors. Clerks. 15:35, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Here's a tip for you, Clerks; TTN is on a sabotage mission against all TV episode articles. He doesn't care whether you can improve an article or not or anybody else can. It's all about increasing his own edit count. ----DanTD 00:32, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That was really uncalled for...WP:CIVIL, DanTD. — Malcolm (talk) 00:37, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Considering his recent actions, I'm going to have to disagree. In case you haven't noticed, I'm not the only person complaining about his activities. ----DanTD 01:01, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

In fact, that abuse of AN/I you cite resulted in a warm endorsement of TTN's activities by all outside parties who reviewed the circumstances and should be interpreted as a sanction to continue exerting the standards that are required by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Eusebeus 01:39, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

"Warm endorsement"?!? That is fiction, for certain, and can in no way be taken as a "sanction to continue". The AN/I just proves the divisions these merges are causing. --Ckatz^chat _spy 05:18, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. You and others who believe that Wikipedia policies are optional and to be followed as it suits you object. Everyone else sanctioned his actions. Eusebeus 12:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

What episode articles are these? Does the show in question have a fan wikia in it's honour? Then if the episode articles aren't in there, just put them there. That should be good enough. Wilhelmina Will 21:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Paper Mario Characters

You say it's been open for over a week, yet I received no word on a merge tag. Maybe next time, you should contact the author of the article, which would be me. C. Pineda (クリス) 06:26, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I never said I owned it, I said I was the author of it. And it's common courtesy to contact the original author of it. common courtesy, something you failed to give. And as thus, I think you should keep it unmerged until a situation is resolved. Otherwise, I shall show the same discourtesy that you have shown, but taking up to another power, an admin to be specific. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Czarbender (talk • contribs) 04:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not claiming that I HAVE to agree to its merging, I'm saying, if you place a merge request or anything similar to that, you should contact SOMEBODY. People have other things to do then check one single article every day, so you should contact somebody about it, and its ethical to contact the author, or somebody at all! Just placing it, and not contacting anyone, is discourteous, and I can take this up with someone, and they will agree, that's standard practice and procedure. Look at my other talk sections, and you will see they contacted me about whatever they did to an article I created. C. Pineda (クリス) 00:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You have now violated the 3RR any future reverts will considered vandalism and will be reported to the admistrators. 66.109.248.114 18:58, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

The 3RR is four over three reverts in 24 hours, not over a few days. TTN 20:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Farscape

Please visit the Farscape issue when you can. Thanks. --Jack Merridew 12:47, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Commendation

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		I applaud your tremendous effort in preserving the encyclopedic integrity of this place by diligently compressing the articles of TV shows and their episodes into content that matters. I can tell that the going has been tough, but the precedent that you are setting will only make Wikipedia a stronger bastion of knowledge. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 21:05, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, that's a rather nice change of pace. TTN 22:21, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

In response to your edit summary, no prob. -WarthogDemon 00:12, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Fighting Spirit articles

I have a question regarding the edits to the various Fighting Spirit. I completely understand that those various articles do not satisfy WP:FICT. However, shouldn't there be a suggestion to merge the articles into an appropriate main article, and then an effort to try to merge them? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 06:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC))

Unless there is someone readily available to defend the articles' existence, it's easier to be WP:BOLD about it. It's all plot information, so there really is no need to merge anything. The list entries really don't need to be beefed up at all; they just need to be rewritten. TTN 11:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not talking about defending the articles' existence. I'm talking about following the guidelines to WP:MERGE. Removing the content and switching it to a redirect doesn't really fall under the be bold part of merging. You're right about the articles needing to be rewritten, they are in terrible shape. But rewriting content is also part of merging articles. That and there are now a good number of double redirects, and the series templates were removed. Besides, how did you know that there was no one to defend them? Purposing a merger will inform those possible people and probably bring forward someone familiar with the content that is also willing to do the merger. Look, I'm not trying to nag at you or argue about your reasons for doing what you did; I actually agree with them. But following the guidelines are meant to help the articles and foster good will between the editors. Yeah it slows things down some and it isn't as easy, but they are there for a reason. Now, if you don't object, I'm going to undo those redirect edits, and do a selective merge into the respective articles. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC))

The procedure is not a guideline. It is just the recommended procedure in garnering discussion over the existence of articles. There looked to be little chance of discussion, so there is was no real point in it. If someone like yourself was to come afterwards, then a discussion could have happened. It would be easier if you just take information from the redirects, as nothing should really be merged. The character entries should remain as short as possible, and the only things you can merge deal with the plot. Plot information should remain very short. TTN 15:53, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll just work on bringing information over. TTN 16:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Heroes (TV Series)

Please do not redirect the episode articles for Heroes. Per the lengthy discussions at AN/I, which I know you're aware of but not participating in, I will be bringing this to the heroes WIkiproject, and handling this internally. In a couple weeks, I might be able to bring something here agian for review, but in the mean time, I'd like to see our project fix itself. Thank you, in advance, for not doing anythign to the Heroes episodes. ThuranX 16:36, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't redirect on sight at this point. I especially wouldn't do it with a series that probably has a large fanbase (they would be reverted in twenty seconds). If you guys will be working on the episodes, that's fine, but please actually try to bring them up to the standards of WP:EPISODE. TTN 16:41, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, then... take a look at this, if you could, and see if you feel I've given out project the right start on things? see here, and the section immediately following, where I start with episode one. [4] thank you. ThuranX 16:55, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no need for a synopsis section while the plot section exists. I imagine the plot summary needs to be shorter (unless the x words per y has been changed again). Continuity needs to be well sourced or removed. The sources should be directly from the creators or experienced reviewers. It may be better to just nix it.

Production should take information and combine it into a few well written paragraphs (see Cape Feare). The information should be important, and it should be significant enough to actually flow well. It should have a reception section that contains how well it was received by critics, any awards, and any controversy over it. If you want a more in depth review, ask User:Bignole. He has at least one featured episode article under his belt. 216.246.159.87 17:14, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops, that's me. TTN 17:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

hahaha...'Nole and I work together often, I'll drop him a talk page note. Thanks. ThuranX 17:21, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Apology

I apologize for constantly pestering you about a question that you refused to answer. I have gotten off on the wrong foot. I fear that you think of me as a bad person. I hope that you don't, and I hope that we can forget this. So, I'm sorry. Please forgive me. This will not happen again. I was just trying my best to support Angie Y., a good friend of mine. I will not do anything that can be considered as attacking you (or anyone else) anymore. I will remove anything that can be taken this way should there still be anything like this that exists. I am not a bad person. I am actually a nice guy. I only want to make Wikipedia better. I now know that this is clearly not a way to do this, so I'm going to stop. I will continue editing Wikipedia, and I will change my ways. I don't want to get a bad reputation. I want a great reputation. I know you want to make Wikipedia better, too. So, instead of opposing each other, we should work together. Well, this is my apology, and I hope you accept it. Goodbye. Have a nice day! JunKazamaFan 23:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

You are not following the proper procedure. You claim to be merging articles, but instead you are simple redirecting them. By redirecting articles you are in fact deleting them. Before an article can be deleted it needs to have go through the Article for Deletion WP:AFD process. Please refrain from this destructive behaviour. Clerks. 17:47, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I have replied to this misinformed comment here. Eusebeus 19:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Your actions are in violation of the GFDL. Until you understand the GFDL and the problems your actions are causing (consider term 4 among others) it is inadvisable that you continue with them.Geni 21:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You're going to have to be a bit more specific. When redirecting, nothing special needs to happen. When merging, I place {{r from merge}}, which unless I'm way out of the loop, is perfectly acceptable. TTN 21:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Your argument as to how this is acceptable within the GFDL is going to be interesting. And no R from merge is not on it's own valid as far as the GFDL is concerned. If you have a problem with this take it up with the FSF although they have raised stonewalling to an art form.Geni 21:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, if you're going to complain about that, you may as well post messages on most other users' talk pages. While that isn't the perfect way of following it, very few people actually do everything required. What I have done is the general way of doing it (though I probably should have linked it). You'll want to propose a pure policy to force people to do otherwise. TTN 21:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

policy would be Wikipedia:Copyrights if you wish to argue with that you will need to take it up with the foundation. Most users don't merge stuff.Geni 22:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Many, many, many users merge things; maybe you just edit topics that do not require it that often. Again, the level of "compliance" varies from person to person, so you're going to want to go much wider with this than targeting one single user. Some just cut, paste, and redirect, while I have seen others that ask for history merges. TTN 22:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Already gone wider. Just noticed what you were up to first.Geni 22:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Look, I don't mean come across as a nag about this. I'm quite sure you were acting in good faith for those redirects. You've been on Wikipedia for some time now, you obviously are aware and knowledgeable of many of the rules and guidelines of Wikipedia. I get the impression that you're trying to clean up Wikipedia and in doing so, you hope to improve the overall quality, and its perceived image.
I think the thing that is was most agitating about the method you executed the mergers/redirects is that the opportunity to include others in the process was not offered. There are plenty of people that share your idea of a cleaner and more reliable Wikipedia. I know that's what I'd like, if nothing else to shut my friends up that bash on it.
Trust me, I'd really like to sort some of this out on a higher level. But until it gets sorted out on that level, we'd simply like the opportunity to be included in the merger process of some of these articles. If I may be so bold, where would be the appropriate place to bring this matter up? (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:35, 15 October 2007 (UTC))

It has already been brought up various times, and there is no clear view on the issue. Some people like to place messages even before changing a sentence, while others will completely overhaul an article without even mentioning it. It's all about interpretation. I go with WP:BOLD during times where opening a discussion is just useless, so if they're reverted by a user that it is possible to discuss with (someone that isn't an anon or a user that comes to revert and ignores dicussion), I'll discuss. I'm currently merging those articles, so there should be no reason to undo them. TTN 22:39, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for being bold, but quite frankly, there is no sure fire test for determining whether or not discussion is useless. I myself have put up merge tags and split tags on articles, waited a while, didn't hear anything, and proceeded with the action. Now, that was pointless. But there's no way I could have known that for sure beforehand. If I may ask again, where did these discussions with no clear view take place? I would like to initiate them again, because I think the current state of the matter is causing a lot of misunderstandings. Surely there is a way for everyone to meet in the middle. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC))

Again, it's up to interpretation. You do it your way (tag everything and start discussions), and I'll do it my way (tag depending on the likely hood for a discussion or to avoid wikilawyers in some cases). We'll meet in the middle when discussion actually comes. TTN 22:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no specific place. There have been cases on WP:AN and WP:AN/I for example. TTN 23:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

First, thank you for making an effort to merge the information with the Fighting Spirit articles; not exactly the way I would have done it, but it works out and I appreciate it. Well, I guess we're at the point where we have to agree to disagree. Thank you also for the links, hopefully a final yet mutual resolution can be reached there. Sorry your talk page has turned into a halfway discussion of the topic. Happy editing. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC))

List of Pee-wee's Playhouse episodes

It appears you put {{merge}} tags on every article that this list links to based on the belief that there is a notability guideline for television episodes. That is false. On Talk:List of Pee-wee's Playhouse episodes, you mention WP:EPISODE, but that is not a notability guideline, it is a content guideline. There is currently no notability guideline for television episodes, and no mention of television episodes can be found on WP:N.[5] Merging articles is barely mentioned on WP:EPISODE, which says "It may be inappropriate to merge or redirect an article about a television episode just because it is a stub." I think you may want to re-read WP:EPISODE [6] again. Thank you. --Pixelface 06:29, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Crescent Heights episodes

Hi,

No, it doesn't exist — yet. But it's something to watch for and could be part of a good argument against episodes in general.

--Jack Merridew 11:31, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Wow, you sure are a busy guy. Regarding the Ness (Earthbound) article you redirected (x2)

I felt that the character Ness deserved bigger representation, as well as more information, on Wikipedia than the measly section on the List of Earthbound Characters article, and others have contributed to the efforts I've made. I feel that the article is legitamate, and If you can, you should take some time to add to it. I sure will. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CarpainterBlue (talk • contribs) 02:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Mighty Max

I notice that you just cut all the links to the episode articles without moving the episode summaries into the list I made for that purpose. Are you going to actually merge these or were you just deleting everything? Hewinsj 05:34, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

So I take it you aren't going to be doing cleanup from your redirects? Hewinsj 14:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Take it easy

Hi TTN, I stumbled across your request to merge a whole lot of articles - it was strongly opposed to, yet you seemed to ignore everyone else. Most of your edits seem massively unpopular - just look at your talk page. This is a clear indication that what you are doing is not based on consensus. At every stage you seem to propose that some guideline or other is the absolute law (which it isn't), and then ignore other people on the basis that they don't agree. Wikipedia's aim is to become the "Sum of human knowledge" - and although very virtuous, and guideline abiding, what you are doing defeats this purpose. You are removing information and upsetting contributors, the two things that Wikipedia needs the most. I have to confess I agree that it reflects very poorly on humankind if most of the information people want is completely fictional and trivial, however that is no excuse for disrupting this project. If you disagree with what I have said, I would be interested to hear why. I will also happily conceded that I am a hypocrite and should probably read this myself. Conrad.Irwin 22:27, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have explained this over one hundred times at this point. I feel no need to do it again, so just know that this is grounded in the best interests for this site, and the amount of people that disagree doesn't really matter. I probably won't respond again. TTN 22:36, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. I think that the best interests are in other pages, because when you research a topic, finding a small blurb on a list is worthless and makes Wikipedia a last resort for research. Wikada - ^{TALK CONT ISU} 18:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

My input on this subject:

If I might say so, sir, you're behaviour regarding the feelings of others seems to be very cold and heartless. If masses of people are disagreeing with your destructive merges, (and they are that, I fear), then it is indeed wrong. You might even trigger a collapse in people who use Wikipedia for research (I mean, seriously, merges make it hard to include all the information there is on a topic. They also might confuse a reader who was used to seeing everything on a certain subject in its own article before. And who wants to learn from an encyclopedia that can't even settle on one basis?), and we don't want our customers to drop in rate, do we?

Furthermore, you may feel what your doing is right, and I'll give you (that much) for it, but the least you could do is apologize to the creators of the articles you merged. Imagine how heartbroken they all must feel; those articles might have been like children to them, and by redirecting them to a merged page, you effectively killed them! You might have seen higher up this talkpage how enraged I was when you killed mine, and I'm still awaiting the apology you rightfully owe me. You also insulted my ability to create and rearrange good articles in South Park Wiki, and I'm also awaiting an apology for that. And while you might be tired of explaining your reasons for merging articles in Wikipedia, I still deserve an explanation as to why you think the articles in South Park Wiki are "pretty terrible, even for a wikia's standards". If you can't do that for me (on here or on my talkpage, I don't care which), then call this a personal attack if you like, but I think you're an absolute, insecure coward. That is my honest and heartfelt opinion, which I've spent several weeks considering as maturely as possible. Wilhelmina Will 00:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

While I don't always agree with TTN's actions, "because someone wrote it/worked hard on it" is not a good reason against a merge, re-direct, or deletion. Notthegoatseguy 17:09, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Rash edit to Ike (Fire Emblem)

As I'm sure many other people have said, you need to stop rashly wiping out articles because you believe it is correct. Why don't you wait for a consensus before deleting the article? Also, in regards to the two rules I "need to follow", it IS written from an out of universe perspective (and if you don't think so we can always fix that), and it HAS recieved coverage from reliable secondary sources (eg. IGN had information about Path of Radiance and other games with Ike ON ITS FRONT PAGE). As Wilhelmina Will wrote above, why don't you think about what you're doing and APOLOGIZE to other people for destroying pages that they write. Before I made the first edit on that page, I'd been spending a couple weeks getting it ready, at least the layout, so that heartless robots like you don't wipe them out in one breath. How would you feel if a page you had been working on got deleted by some cruel, ignorant.... bot (for I can't imagine a person so cruel) in one blow. Also, I've added the creation/concept part, so it's going back up. Thanks Wikada - ^{TALK CONT ISU} 15:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Your redirect behaviour

It has come to my attention that you have been bypassing discussion on merging episode articles into the articles on their associated works and simply redirecting them without actually merging content. Can you please clarify exactly what it is you are doing? -- Denelson 83 01:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I place discussions for most of them (I sometimes just redirect if it's just one to five episodes), and most of those discussions come up empty or with WP:ILIKEITs. I have no obligation to sift through thousands of paragraphs just to dig out a small number of sentences that a fan could come up with instantly. If there is important information, I merge it. TTN 01:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You "police" nothing! You simply tag ALL episodes for redirection, whether they're written well or poorly, and then you just ditch them! And what's worse is that you fail to see the consequences of your actions. Plot summaries on mere episode lists have grown too large. This is the kind of thing I warned you and other editors who supported these activities would happen, and now it is! ----DanTD 21:37, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

And the fact that you refuse to apologize is what's got me so enraged. I believe this was quoted in at least one of the remakes of The Miracle Worker, but I'm saying it now: "Everybody else is right; Wikiada's right, whoever created the episode pages for the Nanny is right, I'm right, and you're wrong! Did it ever occur to you that for once in your life, you might be consummately wrong?!"

At any rate, I'm still waiting for those apologies you owe me, and if it takes waiting till we both are dead and I have to track you down (in Heaven or in Hell), I'll get them. And I mean that in the nicest possible way. Did I mention that the reason why what you're doing is wrong, is because you don't even apologize to the parents of those articles for killing their children. It really just comes down to this: You're a murderous, self-centred coward. Perhaps you've had some terrible things done to you in your life, but that doesn't give you the right to take it out on our children. And if you aren't what I just described you as, well, you sure as bell-bottoms act like it! October 22nd, 2007. —Preceding comment was added at 02:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't necessarily disagree with what you're doing (although in general I would like accepted practice to dictate policy rather than the other way around), but you'll catch more flies with honey than with the continued insistence that anybody who disagrees with you is stupid. I can appreciate that you're probably tired of fighting the same battle over and over by now, but that's what's going to happen when you try to change the entrenched behavior patterns of ton of disparate, disconnected groups of people. ShaleZero 05:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Just to preface, I still support much of what you do killing the cruft that is pervading the pedia. However, I would offer a friendly suggestion that you try to be more accommodating. I know most of the stuff you deal with are ILIKEITs and the like, but it is better for your case if you maintain a listening attitude during the discussion. Just a thought. i ^said 19:24, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If someone actually provides ideas to implement real world information, I'm all for it, and I will try to help them sort it out. I'm not going to pretend that every opinion matters; I have no interest in listening to fans ramble and misinterpret/wikilawyer policies and guidelines. Past experience shows that when ever I try to be nice to the people like Wilhelmina Will, nothing comes from it. Though, there have been a few (probably less than five) that actually understand the guideline after it is explained to them. If you can find any times where I have ignored someone that is not a diehard fan, please point it out. I shouldn't be doing anything like that. TTN 19:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

You don't need to defend yourself. I understand where you are coming from; I only saw a bit of the fantacism in the episode thing, and you've done way more than that. Or, as pointless as it is, dicuss redirects every time. I understand that you have said you are unwilling to do such things when they are pointless, but it's a thougt. i ^said 19:58, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Why do you want to avoid me? I mean you no harm. I just want an explanation. Just explain what you think is wrong with those pages in the South Park Wiki, and I promise I'll leave you alone. Wilhelmina Will 20:09, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Throttle (Biker Mice from Mars)

Hi. If you're not too busy, could you please take a look at this AfD? The Prince 13:15, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Video games lists

Hey TTN, wasn't there a discussion on WP:WPDB concerning the removal of every video games lists on every Dragon Ball character? I'm sure we were supposed to get rid of all of them? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like for you to gander at Kuririn's, Bulma's and Roshi's afds when you answer the above comment. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:37, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh My Goddess characters

Hi, Feel like dealing with this issue? I'd rather not get all scratched up again. Expect to have this mischaracterisation quoted [7]. See also: [8] --Jack Merridew 10:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, let's try to put this behind us.

I'm sorry I've been harassing you so much lately. But I was just so fed up, what with all the redirects and deletion requests you made on my articles. And I was especially fed up when, before that even happened, you said that the articles in South Park Wiki were "pretty terrible, even for a fan wiki's standards". But when you've worked incredibly hard to improve a wikia which (as the only currently active administrator said) "is a bit of a ghost town, with little active users", and you feel rather proud of how far it's come since then (there's a minimum of about five-ten edits there per day now), to have someone say that the articles are terrible even for that sort of site's typical standards is very frustrating. When I pressured you to explain this, and you refused, we kind of got engaged in an edit war, now didn't we? (laughs). And I only kept restoring those South Park character pages (well, Wendy's, at least), to get revenge on you. (That's why I used your summaries which you had used whenever you removed my comments from your talkpage.) I realize I was wrong. Several other users even pointed out that I was being uncivil, and I knew right away that they were right (though I still tried to get back at you with the character pages.). I'd really like an explanation as to why you think the articles in South Park Wiki are so terrible, but if you really want to keep it to yourself, that's okay with me. But I'd also really like for this conflict of ours to end, and for us to cooperate with each other in future, come moments when our editing paths intercept. (But if I ever create an article, and you decide it should be deleted or redirected, could you please notify me on my talkpage first? I might feel a little more understanding of your POV that way.)

Wilhelmina Will has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

(By the way, I really laughed when I read that summary "Away! Away, I say! I have no time to play! Away! (I have no interest in entertaining you with a response, so please stop trying.)" I was also a fan of Dr. Seuss when I was a child.) Wilhelmina Will 01:17, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Bulbasaur Afd and barnstar

Thank you for changeing my afd close on bulbasaur to withdrawn from nominator this was my first afd close and at first I put withdrawn but after reading the closing policy I changed it to keep explaining it was withdrawn(which I assume was a mistake). TonyBallioni 02:06, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

		The Special Barnstar
		Also I am awarding you this special barnstar for correcting my afd close to be more accurate than what I closed it as. Again thank you TonyBallioni 02:12, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Your contributions

Could I have some explanation over your contributions to various episode articles? You seem to have developed a pattern that you can presume that a discussion left up for a short period of time, yet unanswered means you can mass-redirect. This is not the case.

One single case of redirecting without any actual consensus, and no objections, could be attributed to WP:BOLD. However, you seem to be editing with a single purpose, and that is something which cannot be permitted: it is detrimental to the articles in question, and to the encyclopedia.

Anthøny 14:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Redirecting the episodes fits our policies and guidelines (there have been AN/I "reports" that back this). I left a discussion for nearly a month (how is that short?) to see if it was possible to improve the episodes. The consensus itself is already found in the policies and guidelines. TTN 14:19, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:AN/I is not a location for consensus, regarding article content. Have you ever undertaken any talk page discussion, and made an action (esp. redirecting articles) based on consensus on that talk page, supporting such an action? Anthøny 14:52, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have been through this exact same discussion at least fifty times by now. While your concerns are appreciated, my current method is fine, and there is no reason to continue this discussion. If you want to start a user RfC, be my guest, as other methods (AN, AN/I, ect) have shown that this is a personal problem that people are having. TTN 15:03, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: List of Samurai Shodown characters

They are being added. -Missing NOOO 14:50, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Please make it a priority to exercise patience. Without it, Wikipedia as a whole is a bastion of hot air with no content whatsoever. -Missing NOOO 15:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Saying that my word "is no where near reliable" is rather uncalled-for, in my humble opinion. I hold myself to a high standard of chivalry, to tell the truth (cf. Matt. 5:37). I don't mean to make my reply curt, but I ask for your continued civility and respect for community consensus. In regards to your specific request to show my sources, I have access to a rather badly organized website that I'm not afraid to wade through and cross-reference, a knowledge of Japanese language better than most (which helps me in turn verify material, because bad translations and sources are everywhere), and a passion for Neo Geo games and Wikipedia editing that focus on article quality and validity of the opinions of others as to what should or should not be included. If you have any specific objections as to why the article or specific material in it isn't fit for inclusion on Wikipedia, you should put them on the article's talk page and/or nominate the article for deletion so that consensus can be reached instead of unilaterally reverting the page and contributing little to the discussion. Thank you. -Missing NOOO 15:53, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I didn't make this too clear, but there is more than just this one source I am using, and I have resources to access them, too. The source I have pointed you towards contains real-world information such as interviews with developers/artists, voice actor and artist listings, specific information on games (such as which character is in what game), and so forth. It only goes so far because it is an official company website (thus they can put whatever spin they like), but as far as official information needs to be, it suffices.
The goal here is not to keep cruft in, of course, but rather to head towards a goal of adhering to the guidelines of WP:FICT. Therefore, if you would be so kind as to take a gander at the footnotes of WP:FICT, you will see what have been deemed to be exemplars, such as the multitude of Superman and related comic book articles, Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, etc. ad infinitum. There are many references to Samurai Shodown in Japanese culture (especially manga/anime culture), even if it isn't quite as prevalent in the English-speaking world (and understandably so).
If you have an objection as to the notability of specific material and characters, put it in the talk page of the article, because as a whole, there are a lot of notable Samurai Shodown characters (do a Google search for "Haohmaru" or "Nakoruru" and you will see that there are right few hits that aren’t related to the SS characters in any way).
Finally, I would appreciate your continued civility and co-operation instead of your consistent lack of good faith. Maybe other people have promised you things and broken those promises consistently, but frankly, I don't know you, and you don't know me, so this would be the first time that I am promising you jack. Keep that in mind. -Missing NOOO 16:32, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Au contraire, there is nobody rushing to revert the page (except perhaps you, but I will keep my yap shut about what others think). My continued diligence will not only show that the page not only satisfies WP:N and WP:FICT, but also will encourage further work and removal of cruft, two things the de-facto deletion that a revert is will not do. I will quote the relevant portions and emphasize as necessary (granted these sections are about deletion, but provide specific criteria pertinent to the situation):

The article is kept if the subject has received substantial coverage in reliable secondary sources and this coverage is explicitly referenced in the deletion discussion or is used to add real-world content to the article. Articles about fictional topics that are notable should be given time to develop.

Show me an arcade gaming magazine that doesn't mention Samurai Shodown, and I'll show you a magazine that stinks to high heaven. I don't have any of these said magazines, but I sure do know people who do. At any rate, this article needs to develop.

Editors must prove, preferably in the article itself, that there is an availability of sources providing real-world information by: providing hyperlinks to such sources; outlining a rewrite, expansion, or merge plan; and/or gaining the consensus of established editors. Otherwise, the article will be subject to the options above. Place appropriate clean-up tags to stimulate activity and mark the articles as needing attention.

Now there might be a dearth of sources in the article, but is most certainly no lack of (non-first-party) information on the Internet about the subject, which certainly attests to the notability. Moreover, I intend on outlining a "rewrite/merge plan" once I am done marking what needs sources. Finally, I am also placing the appropriate tags where needed and most certainly think that I have the implicit consensus of anyone who has posted in defense of keeping the article around as is. Perhaps you should consider marking articles with appropriate templates (such as {{notability}} instead of frustrating the efforts of lazy editors who don't find sources by performing de-facto deletions; I only need to look at the rest of your talk page to know that you have quite the history of doing this. While you may have the letter of policy neither approving nor disapproving of doing what you have done, I insist that the spirit of good faith should include notable information that lacks proof of notability unless it is downright false or harmful as is. -Missing NOOO 17:13, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

See, it just doesn't work that way. Wikipedians are doing their best to contribute information, and you're just doing this sophisticated form of trolling, where instead of addressing the real issues at hand, you keep just poking at people to "prove it". It only goes so far. Instead of opening your eyes and seeing things for the popular phenomena that they may or may not be, you put pressure on other editors to find sources while seemingly contributing little yourself and deleting and merging pages without a sense of decency, or respect for that matter. I am most certainly not going to find sources for you. I am going to find them for content. So stick that you your bong and take a huuuuuge hit, because that's just how it's gonna be. -Missing NOOO 22:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have brought back an article that was redirected for "months" (and brought back by various different people several times over the past month in order to attempt to begin working on the large amount of work that needs to get done on it) because the information is relevant to an encyclopedic documentation of the storylines of certain notable fighting games, and I have the original article to "start off of with". That is the real issue. I have provided you with the official website for information to assert notability, and suggested that you check a certain popular web engine called Google if you don't believe me, and you seem to have absolutely no intent in yielding your preconceived notions that the subject isn't notable, even if that means saying that I "lie about it". If this were something I could fix in a matter of a few minutes, I'd do it, but for now, doing it gradually is just fine. I don't need your "slack", I need you to be reasonable, and I really hope that isn't too much to ask; however, calling me a liar is neither respectful nor reasonable in the least. -Missing NOOO 22:22, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This is the third time you have called my reliability of word into question, when in fact I have answered your demands about as straight-faced as I can. I have done everything I can to show you that Wikipedia policy supports giving the article the benefit of the doubt. Your constant pestering and trying to portray me in the worst lights possible only distracts me from working on the article itself. I am open to anything you might say if it is constructive, but for now I do not feel like escalating a conflict. If you have nothing constructive to say or contribute, I am actively not listening with open ears. Do not call me a liar, do not call me unreliable, do not act generally condescending, and then we'll talk. -Missing NOOO 22:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

As long as you are not going to assume good faith, I have nothing further to say. I think my edit record speaks for itself. -Missing NOOO 23:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have taken no part in sockpuppetry, vandalism, or lying, therefore, there is no reason for you not to assume good faith. Nonetheless, here is your sentence: "Legendary Maiden Nakoruru is a free comic devoted to Nakoruru, the immortal spirit of nature SNK invented for their game series Samurai Shodown (Samurai Spirits)." Now that takes dedication: a comic is hard work to make. This is a cult; it makes some people's lives run. Nakoruru alone inspired an OAV and myriad fansites. That's just one character.
If you need me (or anyone else, for that matter) to be more specific as to what would establish notability for these characters, you need to be more specific as to what establishes notability for characters as far as you're concerned. All WP:FICT requires is that it be strongly attached to notable real-world topics (which the games are) and be vital to an understanding thereof; fighting games are driven mostly by the characters rather than the play systems, thus it is paramount that at least the main characters get coverage. Any stricter standard is merely icing on the cake. -Missing NOOO 00:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

"Topics must establish themselves with real world information relating directly to the subject. Otherwise, they need to remain a part of a larger topic." - See, this is where you need to be more specific. The information is real-world, no doubt about it. I'm not suggesting that fansites are reputable sources, I'm suggesting that the fact that they exist have just a teensy relation to notability, which is what is to be demonstrated. There are reputable sources on this sort of thing, but I don't exactly have all the back issues of PSM or anything that would cover this sort of thing. In WP:FICT exemplar Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, for example, most of the information about the characters come directly from the game itself (this could come from other sources, but why bother?). However, the overall justification of the characters having their own article is that FFVIII in and of itself is notable. That the Samurai Shodown character list should prove any exception is an idea I find absurd. -Missing NOOO 00:26, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I am would be overjoyed to quit dodging your question if you'll quit dodging mine. Pardon the rude caps here, but -> WHAT WOULD BE A REPUTABLE SOURCE IN YOUR OPINION? <- I would appreciate a straight answer, not the indirect one you have given me. Sake neko's source below would seem to suffice, and I can procure reliable translations. -Missing NOOO 12:55, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Please pardon the intrusion, but I'm interested in the fate of this article as well. I have a "encyclopedia" of sorts on most of the SS games (SS1-SSWR) in a book called "All About SNK Head-to-Head Fighting Games 1991-2000" in my possession. Here are some scans taken from my lousy scanner.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y36/sake_neko/Untitled-1.jpg, the cover

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y36/sake_neko/Untitled-2.jpg, back cover + isbn

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y36/sake_neko/Untitled-3.jpg, opening page to game info of first game

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y36/sake_neko/Untitled-4.jpg, series section (since it includes other games as well)

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y36/sake_neko/Untitled-5.jpg, appendix section with Haohmaru, Hanzo, Poppy's puppies, Paku Paku bio

Though this book is in Japanese only and ignores insider-development information (since SNK delivered heavily to their official fanclubs and this book was published with permission from an outside party), it provides all the character endings, and an appendix of their official bio in each of their game appearance (since it does change). All I would need is the info in need of citing, and I could easily cite the page number it came from. Would this count as real-world information? I'm asking only because I want to make sure. Sake neko 09:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

It would need to provide information from the creators as to how they were thought up, tweaked, redesigned, or anything like that to count as anything. From your description, no it is not going to help. TTN 14:21, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Inquiry

Excuse me, but I'm just wondering what's going through your head as you rapidly delete gigabytes of content from Wikipedia. Do you have nothing better to do, do you actually think you're making Wikipedia a better place or what? Hungry minds want to know. - The Norse 18:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

He has said countless times on end that it's only articles of little to no notability that he redirects or deletes. Wilhelmina Will 21:16, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

No, that's what he used to do. Upon looking into his history I noticed that several months ago he focused mainly on merging stubs and useless articles into Lists but now he's deleting all those Lists he merged articles into without actually merging any information into their respective main articles. A specific case would be the List of Samurai Showdown Characters that seems to be discussed here. On a side note, I was asking TTN and not you. If you want an interview please leave me notice. - The Norse 23:58, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I know you were asking TTN, but he has said several discussions up that he is tired of answering these sorts of questions. A few days ago, I would have said he's just being arrogant and selfish, but now I'm trying to be more respectful. Wilhelmina Will 00:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

He is arrogant and selfish from any third party perspective. I want his view though. - The Norse 02:04, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

TTN, since you mainly seem to merge or delete episode articles...

Perhaps you ought to merge the episode articles for South Park. (Plus, there are over a hundred and fifty, so that should give you lots of work!) But please don't have them speed deleted, as a lot of the episodes don't have articles in South Park Wiki yet, and if the articles will no longer be, here in Wikipedia, I might use them in there.

By the way, could you take a look at that site again? A while has passed since the conversation held in Looking back at those South Park articles that were merged..., maybe they've improved? Wilhelmina Will 21:30, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Those episodes will come later, as it will have to be an episode by episode case, seeing as many of them probably have potential like Trapped in the Closet (South Park). There are over two hundred series to deal with before I get to that one. TTN 21:35, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't know how many episode articles there are for the other series you mention, but I think you should start with the largest populations first. In the meantime, I looked at one of those links you provided in that old conversation, and I think I understand, at least partly, why you think the articles in South Park Wiki are so terrible. It's because I've copied a lot of deleted information - including deleted images - from here, and placed it in there. Well, I did that because I don't really consider it to be a fansite, I consider it to be more of a miniature encyclopedia, dedicated to the South Parkites. It's just one that allows things like speculation and original research, and will allow any image on/off the internet (so long as it's related to South Park).

And if you can't get to those articles in Wikipedia yet, I'll do it for you (if that suits you). Wilhelmina Will 21:42, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Where were you man?

TTN, why couldn't you respond to this? Wish you told me about IU/OOU before I nominated Cell and Goku. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:47, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Weird, I thought that I did. I must have moved on without saving. Anyways, you should just cut them from the list, as they won't pass without actual information to back them. TTN 21:51, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, the lists shall be taken care of soon as I return. BTW, you like seeing things deleted and merged, correct? Would you mind if I categorized you in Category:Mergist Wikipedians? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:54, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't even add it in the first place, so do whatever you would like with it. TTN 22:57, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Please try to be a little more explicit in your edit summaries. "No need for it" tells editors nothing about the reason you're making the edit, leading to the multiple pointless reversions as seen on the Billy and Mandy episode list. Otto4711 15:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)