Welcome!

Hello, Wiki-star, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Kukini 06:00, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki-star, I noticed that you removed several warnings regarding copyrighted images from your talk page. Please do not remove warnings from your talk page without discussing them. You may wish to consider archiving your old discussions, but please do not blank your page without replying to the issues with copyrighted images. I would strongly suggest that you refrain from uploading any images without first reading the image use policy as I've told you before. Isopropyl 04:48, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wiki-star: I had to! They were taking up far too much space within this talk page. But thanks again though. Wiki-star 17:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:ARCHIVE. Please do not simply remove warnings. Isopropyl 17:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:222-83.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:04, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Wiki-alf. I've been asked to look into your image uploads, and I've a few comments to make. Firstly, I'm glad that you've such a strong interest in Wikipedia, and I hope you continue that. However, your addition of images without sources aren't helpful. Because of the copyright problems that Wikipedia faces, we have to delete images without copyright and source information. If you can't provide source and copyright info, it's better to not upload them at all as it wastes the time of someone who has to go through the images and delete them. Please don't do this anymore. If you have any questions, you're more than welcome to ask me on my talk page. Yours, Snoutwood (talk) 07:56, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wiki-star: I'm actually in the process of doing that. But because i uploaded such a tremendous amount of images, it seems like i'm not getting to all of them. But i'm on it, no doubt! Wiki-star 17:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than uploading them and then putting sources on them, why not simply put the sources on them in the first place? That would solve all of these problems. Snoutwood (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:026-06.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:13, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:048-20.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:049-15.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 01:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep in mind that you will be reported if you continue to vandalize the buu article. this will of course result in your banning for your not following the 3rr revert rule. - Zarbon

• Wiki-star: I'm not stopping you from reporting me. However, i will stop you from adding more "decoration" to the Buu article when it isn't neccessary!

Wiki-star 20:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• that would mean that you will eventually get banned for constant and unneccessary reverts. - Zarbon

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Voice of Treason 16:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wiki-star: Why are you warning me about something that you yourself is also commiting? Don't be a hypocrite me good sir, life isn't all about that! One more thing you should understand laddy, is that this is not a debate. The article is fine the way it is, theres no need to keep reverting it! Wiki-star 17:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly seems to have been a debate as others (that being, several) severely disagree with your application of the word "fine". And as you already knew, discussion had been done, and yet, you still reverted at first opportunity you got. So no, I'm not particularly worried about hypocracy coming from someone who says one thing and does another. And if the admins do deem me responsible, I'll take my licks like any reasonable editor. Thanks for the response. Voice of Treason 17:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have bene reported to WP:AN/3RR for violation of the three revert rule. Isopropyl 18:17, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wiki-star: Go ahead and report me, you're also guilty of this. If i am banned from this site, it has definitelty been a very pleasurable experience! Wiki-star 18:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is definitely not the attitude that you should have with regards to editing here at Wikipedia. If you have gained nothing from this second block for 3RR at Majin Buu, I would recommend that you be permanently banned from editing the article. Isopropyl 19:32, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

--jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 18:54, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reversions[1] made on June 7 2006 (UTC) to Buu

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 18:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let me first say that you should reconsider committing WP:POINT violations (such as reverting Buu) and asking to be permabanned (such as at Talk:Buu. I actually thing you'd make a fine contributor if you could get over your WP:OWN issues; however, if you wish to leave Wikipedia, please do not vandalize on your way out the door. In response to your diatribe at Talk:Buu, you should have a look at the history and WP:3RR before you accuse other editors of anything. It's plain to see from the aforementioned documents that Voice of Treason did not violate 3RR. Hopefully that clears some things up. Isopropyl 16:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wiki-star: Thanks for your concern, i really appreciate that. However, if i wish to be permanently banned, then thats my business.

I've served a purpose on this site long enough, i just can't be getting punished unfairly! And what do you mean he did not commit the voilation as well? He reported me because i kept reverting the article the right way, whereas he wanted it his way! I could've reported him, but thats a waist of my time. Anyway, thanks again! Wiki-star 16:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you. Voice of Treason 00:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wiki-star: Thanks for your concern, but i've got other ways of removing any unneccary information within the Buu article. And unless you approach me in a compromiseable manner, you will not stop me! End of discussion!

Wiki-star 17:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding reversions[2] made on June 14 2006 (UTC) to Majin Buu

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future.

The duration of the block is 48 hours. William M. Connolley 20:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is getting boring. 72h. 1 week next time. Please learn to talk and collaborate William M. Connolley 19:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Wiki-Star My name is Dragon Emperor i used to be an IP adress user but now i have decided to create a real account i was involved with some heated debates on wiki Dragon Ball articles and have noticed that you are kind but opposed by most. In me you will find a supporter at long last Dragon Emperor 05:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wiki-star: Dragon Emperor i see. Nice to meet you. If you would like to assist me, by all means. Wiki-star 19:55, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you are invited to take part in a straw poll at the Majin Buu page to avoid another revert war with User:Wiki-star.--Orion Minor 23:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just done the leg work for conducting a proper straw poll. Specifically, going to all the users and informing them of the poll, and erecting the proper format. Sorry for all the work you put into your version, but it is not the proper form. Under the discussion section of the poll, post a short summary of your edits. A list would be best. --Orion Minor 23:51, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

• Wiki-star: I honestly don't know what you're talking about! Wiki-star 01:34, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Truth-honestly? Changing Orion Major's comments on a whim to this and that, as its "fun". One would think you'd remember, considering you've done it no less than six times. Perhaps we expected too much out of you...? Papacha 01:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wiki-star: I'm vandalising? HE'S VANDALISING!!!! I'm correcting the guy's ignorance. Thats an insult to say something that is false of someone. Don't get me started man. Know what you're doing before you yap! Wiki-star 01:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia.

• Considering your "re-phrasing" is only done to tick him off, I'd say it's a fairly accurate assessment. He's yet to do anything other than move comments to their proper place or revert your notes off his own, so how HE'S VANDALISING!!!! is quite beyond my scope. If your issue is with "seems", voice your beef in discussion instead of charging others with ignorance within their own additions. Papacha 01:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wiki-star: Haaaa... it's useless, you wouldn't understand. You're just another one of those two timers who will never get my drift because you dislike me, and you have no beef with him. Go ahead and block me, wouldn't be the first, but i hope it's the last! Wiki-star 01:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe if you would think logically for a second, you'd realize they dislike you because you always vandalize articles and never provide proper evidence. All you do is say you're right, and break the rules. You just can't handle being wrong.(If I'm not supossed to coment on a subject like this, you can delete my coment Papacha, I'm sort of new so I don't know all the rules.)KojiDude 02:05, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wiki-star: What i'm doing isn't vandalizing. I have contstantly tried to sit down and invite people to see my point of view, but obviously knowone gives a dam. Knowone within that Buu article has yet to prove some of my points wrong. But because i am being neglected, i neglect as well. It's not the right thing to do, i very well understand that! But when people like the administrators turn on you as well, you are left with no other choice! I appreciate your concern, but you are no match for the frustration and hard work that lingers on my wikipedian shoulders. As a result, you most likely would never understand! Wiki-star 02:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you eve think that maybe, just maybe, people don't understand because you aren't making any sense?KojiDude 02:14, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People have proved your points wrong many time.

• PE #1: Allow Super Buu w/Gohan the title for Buu's strongest form - This one is fine.
• PE #2: Allow Super Buu w/Gohan the title for "least evil" Super Buu - This has plenty of evidence against it that you refuse to take in.
• PE #3: Allow External Links to be visible for other resourcing - There is one link that would be good.
• PE #4: Delete the Budokai 2 informations - Many people have shown that the information should go in this article.
• PE #5: Comine the Uub sections, into a new, more Concise section - I don't know what this one means.
• PE #6: Add any more known facts about each of Buu's forms and transformations - Don't know what information you're talking about.
• PE #7: Remove each of Buu's transformations under each Video Game title, to save space and irrelivance - There is no space to be saved. It fits on the same line as the game. It shows which of the characters are in the game.
• PE #8: Allow the Image Capacity to exceed the recommended limit - If you mean adding pointless images, no.
• PE #9: Custamize any Section Title, Section to better gramar or more suitable for the article - There is a policy against this. Nemu 02:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Wiki-star: AHA! THERES MY POINT EXACTLY! Half of the Proposed Edits (PE's), Nemu DOESN'T EVEN UNDERSTAND OR KNOW!!!! And instead of taking the time to ask questions to know them better, the bastard automatically votes Reject because he doesn't like me! Thats what i'm talking about. Ignorance, and neglect. This is what fuels my fire, and burns eveyone around! Wiki-star 02:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]