Archives
June 2006 to September 2006 September 2006 to January 2007 January 2007 to April 2007 April 2007 to May 2007 May 2007 to June 2007 June 2007 June 2007 to July 2007

I disagree with your completely unnecessary redirects (and so does everyone else). Upon reviewing your edit logs, it is clearly apparent that the majority of your edits are redirects. Please discontinue, as your edits are approaching vandalism. --ProteinTotal 23:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, you might want to have a look at Goomba and Koopa Troopa (and Lakitu and all). Someone waking up after the end of the discussion and is trying to unilaterally decides stuff. Thanks. Kariteh 18:35, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

1. It was AfDed for having no content.
2. The article does not adequately cover the plot.
3. As they are in a series of games, it could be an idea to merge the two M&L lists. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:40, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at the discussion, no one seems to EVER discuss Tingle. The fact of the matter is that Tingle has more notability than many characters. He has his own ever-growing series of games (two games released, one rumored by EGM for Wii), has appeared in many Zelda games, and Nintendo often promotes the character. That's definitely more than Impa or the Great Fairy, meaning that a single discussion for all Zelda characters is NOT adequate. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Buh? Most merge tags do NOT have a merge discussion associated with them. I'm not going to be blamed for not participating in a discussion which you never told anyone about which did not even discuss Tingle AT ALL. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

And I disagree that treating Tingle, who has significantly more notability and Out of Universe info than most Zelda characters, shouldn't even be acknowledged in the merge discussion. And like I ALREADY said, merge tags rarely have merge discussions. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I say that the "discussion" had nothing to do with Tingle and didn't acknowledge the character at all. I'm calling for a different discussion, and I'd appreciate if you started one. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, is there some logical reason why you absolutely despise discussing merges? It seems that in any case, you fight tooth and nail to avoid discussing. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Like with Ness, you clearly hated the idea of discussing the merger. I doubt anyone wouldn't notice that you simply wanted to have it done with ASAP. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

With most of your recent merges, you up and merged them in a day or so. That's very sudden and abrupt and annoying to many. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You knew that I opposed any merge of the character of Tingle, and yet didn't acknowledge that opposition when making your decision. Did you decide that because my opposition was not declared in the discussion, that it was worth less than the people who participated in it? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You knew I opposed the merge. Just because you have this idea that you any opinion not expressed in the discussion you created doesn't exist doesn't change reality. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The PROBLEM is that you grouped Tingle in the discussion and just ignored the FACTS I showed which clearly prove Tingle to be by far more notable than every single character involved in that merge which involved only four people even participating it. That was a pretty pathetic discussion - it was only you giving your opinion, and three others saying "I agree". You DO seem to be the kind of guy who ignores arguments - first you ignored undeniable fact that Tingle is more notable than Impa, Great Fairy, Vaati, etc., and then you ignored the fact that merge templates are rarely accompanied by an actual discusssion. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

On top of all this, you never announce your proposals on WT:CVG - I've seen a single post on the current page from you, and it had nothing to do with merging. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me for assuming that because no one ever adds discussions along with merge tags that you'd be the one who does. You have to be responsible to make sure that the discussion is known to all those interested. Are you implying that those three people involved wouldn't change their mind on Tingle if you didn't include him with characters of lesser importance? You knew my opposition you knew why my opposition existed, but you ignored it, plain and simple. You ignored absolute facts - Tingle is a main character in two games, two games which exist outside of the Zelda universe (like how Wario Land does). That is more than most characters in the series have. Is there any [good] reason why you ignored that fact? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, just to note, I also see that you have a general problem with alerting people to your actions - such as when you merge, add an AfD, or tag images. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:42, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking at the discussion, I see several people saying that they do not want articles such as Koopa Troopa and Goomba merged. I have no idea what you're talking about. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Just curious - were they AWARE of the new discussion sections? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

So basically, you decided that their opposition doesn't count? I'm pretty sure it clarifies that just because someone doesn't participate in a new discussion doesn't mean that they no longer hold their opinions and that their opinions don't matter. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

So you're using an assumption to achieve what you want? The discussion over Link's lead image just screeched to a halt, but people clearly still had opinions on the matter. You are not in a position to assume what someone is thinking. Just because they bowed out does NOT mean that their opinion has changed or that it no longer matters. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Unless you are some kind of mystical deity with the ability and/or right to make such an assumption, that doesn't matter. It's stated that there opinion STILL stands. You can't just throw them away for such a stupid reason. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Their opinion hasn't changed as far as you know. It is your responsibility to not try to dig up reasons to ignore people who disagree with you. There opinion still exists - they don't have to constantly announce their stance on the issue every quarter. - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't assume that something they once felt is something they still feel, but you can assume that something they never felt is what they now feel?

Hi, how about you spend five minutes asking them? - A Link to the Past (talk) 20:47, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I read the conversation at WP:POKE and while I partly agree with your edits there, shouldn't you clarify the merger consensus? Or am I reading it wrong? Lord Sesshomaru

You should wait until WP:CONSENSUS is completely reached. Please don't merge the Bulbasaur article (and remove those tags) again without having a complete resolution. Lord Sesshomaru

Hey dude what was the point of deleting the Psychopaths article and main character articles. You must have a good reason. DeadWood 11:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

They're covered in the main article. TTN 14:47, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Please check my reply to your observation, and note that the dialog should be moved to an appropriate location. --Tbmorgan74 23:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

He's been confirmed as a character in Super Smash Bros. Brawl. Does this notability warrant his own article like Marth's and Roy's? It can easily be renewed from the redirect. Thanks. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 11:21, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

There's a conversation on Talk: List of characters in Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance, if you want to respond there. This way would allow anyone to participate. Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 19:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello there, TTN! Damn, hasn't it been stifling hot the past few weeks? Well, my reason to be here is simple. The articles were long and informative, and were not one liner stubs. Plus, you never talked this over on the talk page, you are just redirecting on compulsion, and judging by some notes on your talk page, not everybody is happy with it. I really wish that you will stop. I don't want to be tough, but if you continue, this will be going to RfC. It doesn't matter if you don't think that they should exist, but what the general consensus is. Doing what you are doing would be like just out of nowhere merging Mercury Sable with Ford Taurus. Anyways, I wish you will stop, because I will either start a RfC or bring administer intervention. Plus, remember to sign you posts, please. Karrmann 01:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I hate to be rude, but you are just being a jerk now. Sorry that I had to say that, but I did. I think when they invented WP:BOLD, they didn't mean to take information away from the encyclopedia without any reason or discussion. Karrmann 01:19, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

In case you didn't realize, one of the first things they states on that article was that if the information on a main or major character becomes long, then it warrants its own article. So, if that the case, then why did you merge Doug Heffernan, since his article is long and he is the main character on The King of Queens? Karrmann 01:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

"OK, here's the deal." You left a snarky comment on my talk page, so here I am. I'm going to revert all your deletions to characters from [{Daria]]. In general, it is considered at the very least polite to discuss and reach a consensus for large scale content removal. It was certainly "bold" of you to delete so much information, but now that you've been bold, I'm going to go ahead and undo your edits, which were essentially merges and deletions without building a consensus. There's a reason we have procedures for merge and deletion discussions, and you may want to consider why those exist rather than simply say, "Hey, I was being bold, leave me alone." You may also want to consider that others worked hard on these articles, even if you personally would not include them in an encyclopedia that you published. Croctotheface 02:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:AfD and WP:MM are established procedures for deleting and merging articles. WP:BRD refers to content within articles, not essentially removing them. I do believe that at least some of those articles should stay. I very strenuously object to your methods. Croctotheface 02:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

BRD exists as a way to generate a response from editors. You seem to view it as an end run around having to gain consensus in the first place. You've said several times that "if you don't disagree with me, leave it alone", which I have trouble seeing as anything but an intention to avoid discussion. In other words, "BRD" stands for bold, revert, discussion. You had made your "bold" changes, they were reverted, and then rather than discuss, you have sought to avoid discussion. Croctotheface 02:17, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I feel that, first and foremost, you should take the advice offered at WP:BRD and try to be a bit less abrasive. Again, it seems to me that you are trying to avoid a discussion by virtue of some of your comments. I am not surprised that other editors may not have wanted to have a discussion with you based on the way you've discussed your changes with me. Croctotheface 02:27, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I really feel like I'm not getting through to you. BRD is described on WP:BRD as "a proactive method for reaching consensus". When someone reverts you, you are supposed to take that as a sign to begin discussion about the content dispute. Instead, you have tried to avoid or cut off discussion by telling them that they should not have reverted you in the first place. Then you cite a process called "bold, REVERT, discussion" as the reason you made your intial edits. If you were really interested in using this process to engage in discussion and figure out what the consensus is for content, you would take the revert as an invitation to begin discussion. Instead, you took it as a reason to be snarky and generally off-putting. Croctotheface 03:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit annoyed that you merged alll the My Family characters articles onto one page without any form of discussion or reason. I have reverted all pending a discussion. --UpDown 07:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, there was a discussion, a long time ago, and it resulted in WP:FICT. -- Ned Scott 07:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Which says major characters should get their own page if the main article would be too long. This is the case here, the articles are all of good length, although of course there is room for expansion. And even if the articles should have been merged, which they shouldn't, TTN should have merged some of this information. This was not done so information was lost. While I agree minor characters like Alfie Butts, should not have pages (indeed his was rightly deleted), the main characters should. --UpDown 08:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Did you actually read the first point concerning main characters in WP:FICT? It actually allows main characters to have separate pages if it prevents the list page from becoming too long? WAVY 10 14:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

" If an encyclopedic treatment (a real world perspective backed sources independent of the work) of a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, that character is given a main article." No, it does not allow the articles that you are talking about to have their own articles. Raw size alone does not justify an independent article. -- Ned Scott 05:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

What's the big deal? Wiki is not paper. Even Jimbo Wales has said that:

"there is no reason why there shouldn't be a page for every Simpsons character, and even a table listing every episode, all neatly cross-linked and introduced by a shorter central page. Every episode name in the list could link to a separate page for each of those episodes, with links to reviews and trivia"

...or do you think he meant that only for The Simpsons? Ospinad 19:05, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

It is based upon real world information. The Simpsons has that for a lot of its topics. A random children's show will not. TTN 19:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Are you saying that there shouldn't be any information on Wikipedia about the character's of a show that isn't as popular as The Simpsons? Or that they just shouldn't have their own page? If there is enough information to fill good sized page then what's the problem? And if not then we could also add more to it. Besides, do you think that EVERY character in The Simpons is going to have a lot of "real world" information about them? Ospinad 19:36, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Real world information (see WP:WAF and User:Deckiller/Notability (fiction)) is what defines notability on this site. The Simpsons has more of it for some of its topics. The rest are covered on lists. If other topics only have in-universe information, they are merged or deleted. TTN 20:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

So in other words, you don't think that there should be a page for EVERY Simpsons character? If so, then that contradicts what it says here: WP:PAPER Ospinad 13:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Not Paper assumes that the topic meets our policies and guidelines. It doesn't override them. TTN 18:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

To clarify what I meant, bold does not equal reckless. WAVY 10 19:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to get the folk over there to put this all in a Characters in Back to the Future but maybe you should do it. PMA 11:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. Just noticed on some of your previous merges it doesn't look like you've changed the Pokemon articles into redirects, such as Celebi and Ho-oh. Are you going to change all of them at once, or would it help if I did for ya? :) -WarthogDemon 23:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I redirect them all afterwards due to some people complaining about it. TTN 23:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh okay. Just checking. Though feel free to ask me for help if ever you need it. I've been checking the articles for reverted redirects anyways. Happy editing. :) -WarthogDemon 23:44, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Just because someone's involved in an article does not mean that they are aware of the discussion. You could have sent a courtesy message to a few people about the FMA episode list discusssion. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:30, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

...because only in OoT does he appear "with no origin" (which is shaky, since all the evil in the Temple's is claimed to be of Ganon's design). Plus, the OoT part, which is one of his biggest appearances, is not mentioned at all. I guess the OoA section is unneeded, but other than that, all I'm changing is the OoT and "no origin" bits, which are wrong.KrytenKoro 11:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll try to trim down the OoT section as much as possible, and find a useful picture, but the OoT section does need to be there.

Also - I can't find a good pic online, but I do have scans of the FSA manga. Would we be allowed to use, as a picture for Dark Link, a cropped image from the manga? If so, I'll crop one and try to upload it, though I'm not sure what the fair-use would have to be.KrytenKoro 11:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

The OoT mention is not a defining appearance, and there is certainly some unneeded information in it. Why should it be included? FSA is only included due to its large role in it. TTN 12:17, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess that works, though I still think that most of his notability comes from OoT, even if he didn't have a big role in it. (I mean, I like him best in FSA, but the OoT appearance is what seems to be how the fandom and game newssites remember him)KrytenKoro 13:26, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed you removed the cvgproj template from Talk:Torchic. Please do not remove such templates, as they are being used for assessment purposes. Thanks, JACOPLANE • 2007-08-5 14:13

Hmm, I didn't notice that the page had been redirected. Nevermind. JACOPLANE • 2007-08-5 14:14

Since everyone seems to approve except Nydas (who is complaining about the prose when we are still trying to iron out the content), I'm going to start polishing it up. Feel free to give me a hand; I would enlist Tony on this matter, but he knows very little on how fiction is handled (it's not his field of editing). I might ask him to proofread the final draft later. — Deckiller 15:31, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

What's your opinion on the list format? Nydas is the first user to address a problem with it, and I personally think it should stay because I find it easier to understand in list format. I can understand the markup issue, though, and have adjusted it accordingly. — Deckiller 18:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I think it's fine. I can't see anyone going "Oh, these lists are so cluttered. I wish they were just grouped into common paragraphs." TTN 18:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah. Besides, one of the hallmarks of business and technical writing is the list style. — Deckiller 20:53, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice compromise on our conflicting versions of the E.T. Gameplay section. :) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Talk:List of Friends episodes#Episode article review (Season 1)

I think we're going to need all voices! -- Jack Merridew 11:31, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I have to go back to my coursework but seriously, give me more than 5 minutes to improve the things. I can't help that I go away for a while and people fill it with "Goku was uber powerful and the first in 1000 years making him the legendary super saiyan". But your way isn't any better. CRUFT aside, it doesn't appeal to just an area of fandom, its an essential part of the series, hell, 90% of it is about transforming into something to beat someone who transformed into something else because you just transformed because he just transformed. New readers should be able to see this as much as old. Darkwarriorblake 23:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

That's fine, but a lot of them that you removed have been in four or five games, while you left the ones that were only in one or two rooms in Ocarina of Time (Anubis, for example). I would prefer you let us split the articles so we can work on compressing and filling up sections, as part of the reason that the ones you deleted were so short is that they're hard to find in the giant list.

Also, you deleted several of the mainstay ones down to their first appearance - even though they have been quite dynamic over the course of the series.KrytenKoro 20:38, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

...When your changes demand that other editors go back and either finish or repair what you've done, it's best to just discuss it on the talk page.KrytenKoro 20:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey, about the merging of Bleach characters, can you please wait until a precise decision is made at the Talk:List of Bleach characters? I have made a shinigami test page from my user space here, so we can see the best result first.--Hanaichi 04:24, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not interested in having an edit conflict over something irrelevant, however I'll just let you know that there is not any entry for Goomba in the List of Mario series enemies, you should realize that this will make users like a Link to the past to revert this several times. -- Caribbean~H.Q. 21:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

It was apparently removed by an anon and never readded. TTN 21:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine, I'll leave this one alone. For the record, were it to have gone to AfD I'd have suggested deleting it. I simply do not like blanket redirects of established articles, even if the content is "junk" as you put it. —Xezbeth 22:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

TTN, I'd like to take a moment to offer my opinion on the state of the VG merge discussion. Aside from my comments about the proposed merge itself, I think you're pushing a lot harder on this than you really should be or need to be. It seems like at least once a day, you leave a message in the form of "Are we good with merging now?", and after a while it starts to become old. I know you mean well, and I completely believe your edits and discussion are in good faith, but the way you're going about this makes you look really impatient, to the point of possibly having a deeper agenda in the situation. I realize you believe that RFC won't help, and that it's important to keep people involved in the discussion, but pestering people in the way I've seen you do actually tends to drive people away from the discussion, rather than bring them into it.

I'd really recommend that you back off a bit and exercise more patience in this discussion. I can't say for sure why this particular discussion is taking so long, but I'd guess that it has partly to do with the pestering. What might help at this point would be to start a new thread with a summary of what's been discussed so far - at this point, we have a HUGE discussion that editors are likely to skim over, and that might cause opinions to be unfairly skewed either direction.

I don't mean any offense with this criticism. I just want to help prevent any misunderstandings. Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:24, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I did that twice, both after it looked like we had a very clear consensus and discussion was at a low point. I wanted to make sure that something like the ordeal with ALTTP wouldn't happen (though it did). I may be a little pushy in my tone, but this is after what must be at least three months of discussing this in various places, dealing with the same "Oh, there are sources" arguments and wikilawyering over and over. There certainly has been nothing new in this discussion either. Other than that, I believe I have been cordial enough to the people that deserve it, and patient enough to the needs of others. TTN 23:32, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Well, if you thought you had consensus but then your actions were overturned and nobody else stepped up to enforce the consensus, it seems like that wasn't really a consensus. It seems like the discussion history here points more toward keeping the Goomba article as a separate article rather than merging it - not a clear consensus to do this, but also not a clear consensus to merge. In situations like this, perhaps the best course of action is to let things be - all I can see right now is that you keep pushing and pushing to get things to go your way, and it's apparently not working. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:44, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

We have a much clearer to merge than to keep (if you're not just going only with people that directly state their opinion), and we also have the general content guidelines in favor of merging also. As long as I am right, and I don't have an overwhelming consensus against me, I'm going to keep pushing and pushing, even if it causes people to get fed up with me. TTN 23:51, 11 August 2007 (UTC)