Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Radiant! (talk | contribs) at 23:01, 13 September 2006 (→Vote canvassing?: WikiBloodPressure). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Unsigned

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

Bleach

Yo, I think I remember you from several months back when I was active. You were a good contributer then, and I thank you for your support in the name change bid. :) Hobbeslover 04:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I haven't been so active lately, due to massive amounts of schoolwork, but I try to still watch the pages even if I don't contribute so much. (I have no clue whether to respond here or on your talk page, hopefully you've temporarily watchlisted this one. Sorry about that) --Tjstrf 15:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Heh, message received. No problem :D Hobbeslover 00:03, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

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

Bleach

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

Fire Emblem edit conflict

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

Re: Femocracy nomination for AfD

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

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

I have reverted your misopening of the closed AfD and tagged the article for speedy deletion as a repost. Kimchi.sg 09:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You may or may not see this here, but thank you. I spent over 45 minutes trying to figure out exactly how to nominate an article for redeletion, and finally gave up since it was the middle of the night and I needed to sleep. Glad to see that someone knew what to do. --Tjstrf 18:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Metroid Items

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

Hardcore Emo Metal Hip-hop Band

From AfD:

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

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

Bleach capitalization

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

Re:RfA

Thank you for the kind words :) I hope to be voted in, but can think of some reasons to oppose my own nomination too :P hopefully they're not important though, in the eyes of the community. I'll be sure to update you if I become an admin. -- Template:Country data flagicon Ynhockey 19:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it's too bad, but at least this proves my theory that copyright paranoia is disruptive ;) none of those voters noticed that I never had a complaint about copyright issues in my edits, and tagged a bunch of pages for copyvio which were infringements. -- Ynhockey 09:24, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Re:TfD nomination of Template:User intercal

Thanks for the head's up. -- llywrch 15:20, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Off DRV continuation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

WP:VAIN

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

profanity

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

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

Reply on my userbox proposal

Thanks for your input at my sandbox! I've replied there and I'll be keeping your points in mind. (I just hope I'm not too late for it to have a shot... ^^'') Thank you! --AySz88^-^ 03:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, and I to hope that the debate isn't "settled" simply for the sake of peace without actually resolving anything. --tjstrf 06:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I've updated with some better examples - feel free to comment and edit. :) --AySz88^-^ 02:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

Bosnians

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

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

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

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

But then we could just remove the other text, the intro is enough. Damir Mišić

No, we can't just axe the rest of the article. You cannot have an article that consists of nothing but a definition, that's what wiktionary is for. --tjstrf 20:08, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

]

http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Bosnian&oldid=57393068

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Adjuchas and Vasto Lorde

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

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

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

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

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

Stalking

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

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

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

brenneman 06:27, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

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

My biggest complaint would be that filling the entire day's DRV with closures betrayed a rather unbalanced interest in the behaviour of the editor in question, and had a significant chance of starting an argument. It's not like Sidaway will be swayed from his rather, shall we say, "singular" administrative practices by people following him around and DRV'ing everything he does anyway. If early closure of AfD votes is disruptive, then mass DRV'ing isn't much better. Basically, as I commented there, I would think that leaving it to the editors of those articles to decide whether they think a DRV is appropriate would be the best course. --tjstrf 07:41, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

I can well see the logic of what you're saying. While I was looking for (and recieved) a general consensus of "err, bad form on some of those closes," I accept that A) It raised some stink and B) It may have little impact. I am frustrated by Tony's almost pathological indifferance to the input of others, and am rapidly running out of ways (short of ArbCom) to deal with the behavior of this problem user. Thanks for taking the time to reply, I'll consider your comments next time a situation like this occurs. - brenneman 12:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

More concisely and to make it less like I'm dodging - I'll try to not do it again. - brenneman 00:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

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

Bleach Episodes

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

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

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

re Talk:Lolicon

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

Delist talk

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

IM

Do you have IM? You seem to be online, if possible I would like to contact you. If you don't want to make it public, please e-mail the address to me through the e-mail this user link. Thanks. -- Ynhockey 20:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I do, and have no trouble with giving it out, ("Erachima" on both msn and AIM) but I am not on an IM equipped computer at this moment. You could contact me either by e-mail now, or by waiting until I get back to my house in ~2-3 hours. --tjstrf 20:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't seem to have accepted my invitation. Maybe I typed the address wrong? Anyway, if you can please add me (ynhockey at hotmail dot com on MSN Messenger). -- Ynhockey 22:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

On protecting pages

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

Tjstrf the UN Peacekeeper

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

Userboxen

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

Eclair and Lumiere

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

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

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

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

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

Kiddy Grade Move

Thank you very very much for your contribution to the Kiddy Grade article. I don't wish to scare from editing, but the articles are going through AfD, and may be up for deletion. While that is occurring, the pages have to stay as they are, the formatting can change, but we can't move them around. I am sorry for this, I agree with this change, just not yet. --Crampy20 11:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't mind

Sorry, I didn't notice that you replied on the discussion page, don't mind my revert comment then. This is no original research but general balkan knowledge (the ottomans relocated major amounts of Serbians), let the version be there for the other active users to see, after that we can compromise. Greetings! Bosoni

Bleach arcs

The Ichigo Kurosaki article uses those arc names (Hollow arc and Soul Society arc) and List of Bleach episodes uses names similar to them in its list. I think the Soul Society arc is a valid name for the arc but I agree that "Hollow arc" is not informative enough as an arc name. I'm currently writing Ishida's synopsis for the rest of the Soul Society arc. Can I at least use "Soul Society arc" as its name?--Gdo01 22:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Advance Wars external links

Quoting guide, On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such. The problem is, people always want "their" site to appear. Thus, it is sometimes better not to show any fan site at all, and let the casual user to find them by himself.

When choosing which fan sites to stay, I usually consider forum posts and membership, creation date, updates, Alexa ranking and whether they comply with the extra style guide. Considering this:

• http://www.awbunker.com/: 435349 posts, 1860 members, Alexa rank 214,725.
• http://awbw.amarriner.com/: 99209 posts, 3432 members, Alexa rank 236,186, launched on December 3, 2004
• http://www.awrev.com/: 45,866 posts, 597 members, Alexa rank 1,160,855, launched on August 20, 2005
• http://www.advancewarsnet.com/: 410,742 posts, 1,979 members, Alexa rank 756,430, launched on 10/02/01
• http://www.gamefaqs.com/: Gamefaqs

We should choose one or two only. Remember, we are editors, so we should not care what someone in any of those forums say about a determined site being in a link here. From this data, I would either leave the Gamefaqs link using {{GameFAQs}}, or leave the most active site, awbunker.com. We could add another, awbw.amarriner.com (more members and better Alexa rank) or advancewarsnet.com (more active).

I don't really care which ones we should choose. My goal is to keep the articles with as few external links as possible. We can bend the guidelines, one or two, maybe three, but having four or more is abusing our ability to link. A casual user may want to learn something else from a link. He is not going to click the five links to research, so we should minimize the bother of having to do so -- ReyBrujo 05:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with either option. We could say that, since GameFAQs has its own template at Misplaced Pages, it may not "count" as fan site, but instead as an information site that can't be used as reference (as it is mostly fan-made). People will always complain, will always ask why their site isn't around. We are not supposed to determine which sites should be included, instead they should claim notability, give proofs, and suggest. Unluckily, people just add the links no matter the amount of warnings. -- ReyBrujo 05:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

When dealing with fans, they don't read warnings. The main problem is that the Official and Unofficial sections shouldn't be split with ===, but instead with ;. This way, there will be only an Edit link at the beginning of the External links section, and when they click it, they will be forced to read the warning. If there are three Edits sections (one at the External link header, another at the Official and another at the Unofficial links), we would be forced to add the note in all three places at the same time. -- ReyBrujo 06:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The Vengeful Vandal

A sequence of personal attacks and wrongful warnings by the banned user InterestedParticipant, since removed. If you want to see them for some reason, you can find them here. --tjstrf 01:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Calling Tagging blatant vandalism

Per the definition of vandalism (see WP:3RR and WP:Vandalism), neither the adding of tags nor the removal of tags is simple vandalism. Take care. SighSighSigh 23:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it is. WP:VANDAL#Types of vandalism lists "Improper use of dispute tags" as a common form of vandalism. --tjstrf 23:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Improper use of tags may be vandalism, (it also may not be and removal of tags may also be vandalism), but neither is simple vandalism that exempts one from the 3RR, even if it's determined to be vandalism. I just saw one of your edit summaries on the Homelessness article making that claim, which I agree that the article is a total mess. SighSighSigh 23:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Improper use of dispute tags

Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus. Please note that placing or removal of dispute tags does not count as simple vandalism, and therefore the reverting of such edits is not exempt from the three-revert rule.

OK, all is cool. I just saw your summary and I was bit confused :). SighSighSigh 23:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I said as much on your talk page. My original statement was based on a misunderstanding of your meaning. I thought you meant that spamming dispute tags was not vandalism, which it most definitely is. After reviewing my edit summary, I realized my mistake. I would also argue that, given the circumstances, this particular instance was blatant vandalism, but that's beside the point. Thanks for the correction. --tjstrf 23:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The Stormtrooper Effect

Hi. I was wondering what the reason is you deleted my addition the article about the Stormtrooper Effect. In my opinion it was a perfectly reasonable addition. You deleted my addition, but I didn't find why. Could you please explain, or otherwise just put it back? (RagingR2 14:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC))

Hi, I read your reply on my talk page. Thanks for replying. As for the Matrix: well, my point wasn't so much about that film, it merely used it as an example to illustrate the manifestation i was describing. But maybe if there's so much discussion about that particular series of films, then maybe it's a bad example indeed and it should not be used as an example in the article. On a sidenote, I read the discussion about the Matrix having or not having the Stormtrooper Effect, and frankly I think what I described was a different issue. I wasn't talking about Neo being able to fight agents so easily, because here I agree that's part of the story and in that sense doesn't really qualify as the stormtrooper effect. My point was specifically about the issue of agents being seen waiting their turn to fight proponents in some scenes in the film, which I think *does* qualify as the Stormtrooper Effect, even when the story of the film provides a general explanation for Neo's strength. But as I said, I merely used the Matrix as an example of the bad-guys-waiting-their-turns-issue, and I suppose other examples might do just as well, such as the scene in Kill Bill Vol. 1 I was talking about. Personally, I'm more in favour of using examples that everyone can agree with, than going through the whole process of finding outside sources to prove your point. I think the examples are not that important, after all they're just examples. It's the manifestation that counts. I didn't think the bad-guys-waiting-their-turns issues was already covered in the article, that's why I added it, and I hope it won't be necessary to provide outside sources to justify adding this manifestation to the list, I'm sure everyone who's seen a few films has seen it a few times. Let me know what you think. Greetings, (RagingR2 20:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC))

Re: RfA

Thanks for thinking about it. I'd like to talk about it privately, please contact me on MSN at ynhockey at hotmail dot com, or tell me that you only have ICQ/AIM/YIM (in which case I'll install a client...), or e-mail at ynhockey at gmail dot com. Thanks, Ynhockey 06:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I grow tired of protecting articles from bully users.

AMIB and this other guy, the one word I can associate with them is "bully". They think that they can get away with telling people that their opinions hold no weight in this matter and delete an article. Both of the users are trying to make up reasons for the article to be deleted. The first was that it was of low quality and beyond repair, the second was (and this is the worst) is that a result of keep can result in a redirect, on the basis that redirect votes add to keep, not delete and the third one is that it is unsourcable and should be deleted - unlike the majority of articles which have no sources. There is no logic to this. They didn't create for fun. I'm not in the mood to be polite with people who aren't interested in acknowledging any other view but their own. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

rv GUS page

I was as careful as possible to add more information, not delete any as well as maintaining as strict NPOV as possible. If you want to discuss specifics, that would be helpful, but mass rv isn't helpful in this case. --NThurston 22:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 12:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Mistranslations in scanlations

Hi, I'm compiling a list of all known mistranslations in Bleach scanlations which somehow affect the storyline or distort facts. So far I've got the following:

Common

• Soi Fong, Fong Shaolin -> Soifon, Fon Shaolin

Jūni

• Chapter 205, page 18: The dye slowly dissipates -> The dye slowly fills in

Manga Rain

• Chapter 51, page 11: boss's only relative -> boss's close friend
• Chapter 118, page 8: few hundred years -> over a hundred years
• Chapter 122, page 1: 11th Division 10th Seat (about Aramaki) -> 10 years spent in 11th Division

Basically if you know any others, please let me know. This list probably won't be good for any articles on Misplaced Pages but could serve as a reference for editors.

-- Ynhockey 22:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

List of Bleach manga chapters

Also don't forget to vote here - some newbie nominated the article for deletion. -- Ynhockey 22:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Concise refs

I guess it may have been changed, but a while ago refs also had popup bubbles with the Name field in them, so it was important to have a name. I guess this no longer applies.

By the way, what about the mistranslations? Do you know any? -- Ynhockey 08:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

sence of humor?

I like the way you worded your comment on my user page. I have now removed the fictitious boxes and have left the genuine ones. As you can see I really am deaf but I cannot pilot a plane that was just me experimenting.--Lucy-marie 21:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Amy MacDougall-Barone

On the user talk page for the user Samuel Blanning, I left a comment about the Amy Macdougall-Barone page not being linked to by typing in Amy Barone. I guess thanks for doing it. But I am actually fairly new to Misplaced Pages. Well, at least I'm fairly new with editing content, and do not completely have it down. I would have much more appreciated it if you had just told me how to do it instead of actually doing it yourself. Because now, I still don't exactly understand how do redirect.

If possible, could you respond to this on my talk page. I'll be looking at my page, and not this one.Free-encyclopedia 02:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Everybody wants me to stop about these puns relating to Raymond

No problem. Thanks a lot for telling me how to do it, but it also wasn't that bad that you did it yourself, as long as you still had room available for me to practice myself. Actually, this could be looked at almost as a metaphor for Misplaced Pages itself. You did the changes to make the article better, but I will now make the changes based on something you suggested ... and we were communicating via somebody else's talk page! This website, where you can change any article, is also a great source for communication and information, and I think this is a great example of how three users got together to help make one page better.Free-encyclopedia 17:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Able Sisters

I believe they should be referred to as porcupines. While the guide calls them hedgehogs, guides can be wrong. I mean, we have a porcupine reference in the English version (which would logically be there for a reason), and them being referred to as porcupines in the European version, which is not only as important, but is actually more so, considering Animal Crossing WW in EU has either outsold or is going to outsell the NA version. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing Misplaced Pages:Counter-Vandalism Unit, I'm tired right now and kept messing up the syntax! — xaosflux 02:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Everybody ... oh, I'm too tired to make some sort of 'Raymond' related pun. I mean, it's 8:26 at night.

You told me how to redirect the Amy Macdougall-Barone page, to make it so that if you typed it without capital letters it would redirect, or something like that. Anyway, it appears somebody has already done that. So I did it with a different page ... which I created, I might add! (Both pages, I created; the new page, and the redirect.) Anyway, check it out. Tech Buzz Game Somebody on the discussion page had suggested changing the title to 'Tech Buzz Game,' because that is what it is 'officially' called. So I did this. Thanks, tjs ... well, whatever your username is. Free-encyclopedia 00:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Dr Philip Attiya (user)

Don't bite. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 20:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Dr Philip Attiya. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 21:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Human rights and social justice

Can I copy your words onto the user's talk page or you could? I personally stopped responding since it is not all that important to me though it might be more important to others.Gdo01 03:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do that then. --tjstrf 03:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

subheaders

is there a policy on the usage of sub-headers within talk? why people do not use them? I do not know if it is good, or bad practice/why it would be bad practice. User:Yy-bo 16:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"We don't need instructions?"

I'm sorry, what do you mean? Does my suggestion in some way smell like an instruction? Your suggestion makes sense to me, I'm simply trying to make the text so understandable that editors who use English as a second language can not fail to understand the idea of WP:NPOV Terryeo 17:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I have read your comment to my discussion page and responded to it there. In general though, may I let you know? A number of editors follow me around and almost any edit or discussion page comment I make, immediately and brashly state what they think my statement (or edit) means. So I understand, yeah, you are real sure that any word I put on the page has one and only one purpose. And for sure, any of those persons whom you talk with with take every opportunity to tell you that again and again. However, just to let you know, it is just barely possible, isn't it, that I like to steak and potatoes just like the next guy, you know what I mean? Terryeo 17:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with, Clarity is best achieved through simplicity. Full expoundment of an idea for clarity is only necessary if people are not understanding the simple form. Which is why I introduced the idea of two sentences instead of a sentence with a tag end which introduces a slightly different, but ajoining idea. Your separating the two into two sentences, seems like a solid idea to me. Terryeo 18:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Vote canvassing?

I guess so. At any rate that announcement has absolutely nothing to do with CVU, but the reasoning seems to be that the "VIE" page was the cause of deletion of the CVU (even though the CVU appears to have been undeleted, so I'm not sure what he's worried about). I don't know how CVU treats such things, but it's basically an overreaction based upon a misunderstanding. HAND! >Radiant< 22:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

• I'm about to log off for the night, but if you don't mind, could you keep an eye on the CVU page for a while so it doesn't get overly panicky? We're having a decent discussion on VIE's talk page and comments are welcome, but panic simply doesn't help anyone. I wish I had a WikiBloodpressureMonitor invokable on other users. Thanks! >Radiant< 23:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)