would you mind taking a look at Johnny Depp? That many images seem excessive to me, but I'd like your thoughts on it. CovenantD 04:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Despite that fact that his overall goal of achieving a consensus of moving the FS content to FS/ALLTP was achieved, ALLTP keeps re-inserting a sickening personal attack about me wanting to "kill all the jews". It's irrelevant to the discussion and based on absolutely nothing. My suspicions regarding his motivation about the page move are, on the other hand, directly correlated to his past attempt at deleting the page and his subsequent statements detailing his motivations. I earlier stated that I entirely objected to the move, but I have compromised and agreed to the move, so long as sourced, un-fan-cruft data doesn't get deleted. I don't believe that I deserve to be compared to Hitler by any means, especially when he uses me being suspicious of his motivations as an excuse to do so. The two aren't comparable by any means whatsoever. Can I get a hand here? Ex-Nintendo Employee 00:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Please list your reasoning for deletion in the edit page. Thank you. -- 71.227.245.113 20:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Did I miss some memo or something? What's with this organic growth thing going on in AfD lately? I can't figure out how a bunch of electrons can grow organically. *shrugs* Whisp e ring 21:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Should [Category:Pokémon images] be sorted into: anime, game (generation I-IV), character, cards, region etc... i find it hard to locate images. thx. Ragnaroknike 14:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Why do you keep deleting this image? The image was sourced as coming from a comic book and had a rational. What are you looking for specifically???? Do you want the exact issue?? It was also be nice if rather than just deleing peoples work you contact them with whatever issue you may have an fix it. I am seriously questioning your Admin credentials. FrankWilliams 21:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Here is what I hoped to do... This is somewhat a little history lesson. When I started writing about the series I wasn't even aware of the OVA, mini and manga series. I later realised that the series is too vast for a single person to write about. I simply didn't have the time to expand all AMG serries related articles. I have a mental idea on how I want to use each and every image. On occasions I "update" this when better images become avalible.
Let me explain, for instance Image:Keiichi Morisato (Oh My Goddess! Manga).png is very important to explain keiichi's extraordinary personality and extraordinary situation. Angels are the "other self" of the host. If you look at Urd, her angel has a black and a white wing representing her true nature. I can give more examples but dont want to spoil it :P
It is an excellent series, I highly reccomend it btw.
-- Cat out 09:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand the importance of the angels, and I'm not ignorant of OMG/AMG. Where were you planning to put the Keiichi/angel image in the article? I offered to undelete it for you on ANI. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 18:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that fair-use images can't sit around until they're placed somewhere relevant. They need to be removed until they're made relevant and useful. While I can sympathize with real life intervening, the problem is that Wikipedia can't be an archive of fair-use images that might someday be used. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 20:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
You skipped the "placed somewhere" in the sentence above. Cramming four images into the infobox is not placing them somewhere relevant.
Yes, the images need to be investigated on a case-by-case basis. Get cracking! All you need to do is put the images somewhere relevant in the articles and we'll get started talking about individual cases.
There's no compromise here. All I'm asking of you is the bare minimum; these images can't be in the infobox, feel free to put them anywhere else. I haven't deleted any images save for one image that was unusuable and one image that I've offered to undelete for you if you tell me where you're going to put it. If you can't - or don't, or won't - do that, then the images will be and should be deleted, but I've done nothing to accelerate that deletion save remove some ridiculous galleries crammed into the infobox. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 04:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Um. The only thing I can suggest is that you not use gigantor images in tiny section headings. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 04:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
If that's where you want the image, it's staying deleted. The personality section doesn't say anything at all about the angel, let alone anything that needs to be illustrated. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 05:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Now how do you suggest we tackle the edit link problem? -- Cat out 05:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I got the image as a screenshot from a video I had. I'm not sure how to write a source for that. Gdo01 02:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's an idea. Instead of tagging and deleting the trivia, why don't you add it to the main article yourself? You appear to know you're way around Wikipedia, so what's your malfunction when it comes to actually doing the things you want done? Gamer Junkie 05:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
It is entirely irrational. Not to mention that this comes from your anti-triva page itself: "This guideline does not suggest deletion of trivia sections. Instead, consider it a list of "facts pending integration" or "facts lacking sufficient context for integration". Seek to minimize it, but meanwhile leave it in place as a raw store of facts for both readers and editors to work with." - Wikipedia: Avoid trivia sections in articles Not only has it been minimized to almost nothing, what is left can only be described as "facts lacking sufficient context for integration". The trivia section passes every stipulation for remaining in the article. Not only this, but if you are unprepared to add the information yourself, it should be left as a raw store of information for other editors to work with, just as the guideline proposes. Now that you have a guideline expressly suggesting that it remain, that's eight less articles you need to worry about. You can thank me later. Gamer Junkie 06:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
No, they don't. I'll leave your tags alone, but the points do not need to be added to the bulk of the article. I see why you hate them so much, you've got some sort of obsessive-compulsive neatness disorder, don't you? I specifically messed up my last post to see if you would correct it, even though this action would serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever. You did. Don't let your personal issues with neatness and order obstruct the construction of articles and information that will benefit Wikipedian readers. Gamer Junkie 06:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
If you can't source a claim but suspect it's true, tag it with {{ fact}}. If you can't source aclaim and don't know if it's true or not or suspect it isn't, just remove it. A relevant quote from Jimbo:
I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.
Sources are of utmost importance; an unsourced claim on Wikipedia is of no more value than something scribbled in permanent marker on a bathroom stall door. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 07:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah say, ah say, that was a joke, son, a joke, yah heah? - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 08:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
How do you become a admin- I wanna be one- at me school!
You're right. Removing the dog makes more sense than adding Spoiler. Doczilla 00:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Please review this newest AfD, your opinion would be appreciated. PT ( s-s-s-s) 00:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Your analogy does tend to work; FFX, X-2 and FFVIII were the first to really attempt to strike a balance, and they have reasonable plot sections for the level of detail in those games. Even FF6, FF7, and FF4 have decent lengths, considering what they are. Chrono Trigger, however, is only half as long as most final fantasies; thus, its plot summary shouldn't suffer much with a 400-500 word reduction (or at least to the length of FF8 and FF10). Nevertheless, my major problem is when people are ignorant either way; as editors, we should go by what is generally accepted in the community (and what's best for the readers); if it changes a lot (like with plot summaries), that is when balance kicks in, and that is why Ryu and myself had a great system going. What are your more detailed and general thoughts on the "length" situation (Ex's comments aside, as I found his arguement to be more on citations, and the fact that he missed the whole point of those citations). — Deckill e r 03:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe the decision to delete this article was made in error, so I have asked for a deletion review. Since you were involved in the AfD on this, I wanted to inform you so that you might weigh in. PT ( s-s-s-s) 17:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Re: McClard photo - I THINK I've fixed it. I've often had trouble doing the photos for articles correctly. Thanks! PT ( s-s-s-s) 22:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Why are you suggesting that the NSF article be merged into the main Deus Ex article. I think its rather idiotic. Im getting rather tired of your deletionist and meger spree on the whole article. Exiledone 20:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I need some help dealing with editors Catkitty and 202.158.101.80; they are placing information regarding Glacia's stats and movepool in the article. <EDIT> They're also doing the same to Milotic in regards to Diamond and Pearl. - Jeske ( Complaints Hotline) 02:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Well met, shadowed one. I must ask for your aid in the second Acid Reflux deletion vote, as you were one of the few who knew the comic's past prominence in the first vote (and I'm nearly not as eloquent as I should be). The deletors are claiming non-notability to a man and putting the burden of proof entirely on the other side. One even tried to get the article speedily deleted and another demands a reputable newspaper article. What can be done about this? Is the nominator even allowed to have another go because the last time didn't give the result he wants? -- Kizor 09:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
...on the Comics Project editorial-guidelines talk page. Now here's something I hope you really like: Go to Bob Powell (comics)#Post-war Powell and check out the image. -- Tenebrae 05:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I only reverted some of the edits made by an IP address on The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy episode articles because an admin did most of it. I thought if an administrator reverted that kind of edit, then it would be okay to do it. Squirepants101 03:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. That helped settle some points of dispute. Now I'm going to bed. Three people shouldn't be editing the template box at the same time. Take care. Doczilla 07:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Since you're me, get me a biscuit, will you? XD H ig hway Grammar Enforcer! 11:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
would you mind taking a look at Johnny Depp? That many images seem excessive to me, but I'd like your thoughts on it. CovenantD 04:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Despite that fact that his overall goal of achieving a consensus of moving the FS content to FS/ALLTP was achieved, ALLTP keeps re-inserting a sickening personal attack about me wanting to "kill all the jews". It's irrelevant to the discussion and based on absolutely nothing. My suspicions regarding his motivation about the page move are, on the other hand, directly correlated to his past attempt at deleting the page and his subsequent statements detailing his motivations. I earlier stated that I entirely objected to the move, but I have compromised and agreed to the move, so long as sourced, un-fan-cruft data doesn't get deleted. I don't believe that I deserve to be compared to Hitler by any means, especially when he uses me being suspicious of his motivations as an excuse to do so. The two aren't comparable by any means whatsoever. Can I get a hand here? Ex-Nintendo Employee 00:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Please list your reasoning for deletion in the edit page. Thank you. -- 71.227.245.113 20:31, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Did I miss some memo or something? What's with this organic growth thing going on in AfD lately? I can't figure out how a bunch of electrons can grow organically. *shrugs* Whisp e ring 21:37, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
Should [Category:Pokémon images] be sorted into: anime, game (generation I-IV), character, cards, region etc... i find it hard to locate images. thx. Ragnaroknike 14:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Why do you keep deleting this image? The image was sourced as coming from a comic book and had a rational. What are you looking for specifically???? Do you want the exact issue?? It was also be nice if rather than just deleing peoples work you contact them with whatever issue you may have an fix it. I am seriously questioning your Admin credentials. FrankWilliams 21:22, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Here is what I hoped to do... This is somewhat a little history lesson. When I started writing about the series I wasn't even aware of the OVA, mini and manga series. I later realised that the series is too vast for a single person to write about. I simply didn't have the time to expand all AMG serries related articles. I have a mental idea on how I want to use each and every image. On occasions I "update" this when better images become avalible.
Let me explain, for instance Image:Keiichi Morisato (Oh My Goddess! Manga).png is very important to explain keiichi's extraordinary personality and extraordinary situation. Angels are the "other self" of the host. If you look at Urd, her angel has a black and a white wing representing her true nature. I can give more examples but dont want to spoil it :P
It is an excellent series, I highly reccomend it btw.
-- Cat out 09:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand the importance of the angels, and I'm not ignorant of OMG/AMG. Where were you planning to put the Keiichi/angel image in the article? I offered to undelete it for you on ANI. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 18:23, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
The problem is that fair-use images can't sit around until they're placed somewhere relevant. They need to be removed until they're made relevant and useful. While I can sympathize with real life intervening, the problem is that Wikipedia can't be an archive of fair-use images that might someday be used. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 20:05, 15 October 2006 (UTC)
You skipped the "placed somewhere" in the sentence above. Cramming four images into the infobox is not placing them somewhere relevant.
Yes, the images need to be investigated on a case-by-case basis. Get cracking! All you need to do is put the images somewhere relevant in the articles and we'll get started talking about individual cases.
There's no compromise here. All I'm asking of you is the bare minimum; these images can't be in the infobox, feel free to put them anywhere else. I haven't deleted any images save for one image that was unusuable and one image that I've offered to undelete for you if you tell me where you're going to put it. If you can't - or don't, or won't - do that, then the images will be and should be deleted, but I've done nothing to accelerate that deletion save remove some ridiculous galleries crammed into the infobox. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 04:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Um. The only thing I can suggest is that you not use gigantor images in tiny section headings. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 04:54, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
If that's where you want the image, it's staying deleted. The personality section doesn't say anything at all about the angel, let alone anything that needs to be illustrated. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 05:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Now how do you suggest we tackle the edit link problem? -- Cat out 05:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I got the image as a screenshot from a video I had. I'm not sure how to write a source for that. Gdo01 02:33, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
Here's an idea. Instead of tagging and deleting the trivia, why don't you add it to the main article yourself? You appear to know you're way around Wikipedia, so what's your malfunction when it comes to actually doing the things you want done? Gamer Junkie 05:28, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
It is entirely irrational. Not to mention that this comes from your anti-triva page itself: "This guideline does not suggest deletion of trivia sections. Instead, consider it a list of "facts pending integration" or "facts lacking sufficient context for integration". Seek to minimize it, but meanwhile leave it in place as a raw store of facts for both readers and editors to work with." - Wikipedia: Avoid trivia sections in articles Not only has it been minimized to almost nothing, what is left can only be described as "facts lacking sufficient context for integration". The trivia section passes every stipulation for remaining in the article. Not only this, but if you are unprepared to add the information yourself, it should be left as a raw store of information for other editors to work with, just as the guideline proposes. Now that you have a guideline expressly suggesting that it remain, that's eight less articles you need to worry about. You can thank me later. Gamer Junkie 06:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
No, they don't. I'll leave your tags alone, but the points do not need to be added to the bulk of the article. I see why you hate them so much, you've got some sort of obsessive-compulsive neatness disorder, don't you? I specifically messed up my last post to see if you would correct it, even though this action would serve absolutely no purpose whatsoever. You did. Don't let your personal issues with neatness and order obstruct the construction of articles and information that will benefit Wikipedian readers. Gamer Junkie 06:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
If you can't source a claim but suspect it's true, tag it with {{ fact}}. If you can't source aclaim and don't know if it's true or not or suspect it isn't, just remove it. A relevant quote from Jimbo:
I can NOT emphasize this enough. There seems to be a terrible bias among some editors that some sort of random speculative 'I heard it somewhere' pseudo information is to be tagged with a 'needs a cite' tag. Wrong. It should be removed, aggressively, unless it can be sourced.
Sources are of utmost importance; an unsourced claim on Wikipedia is of no more value than something scribbled in permanent marker on a bathroom stall door. - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 07:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Ah say, ah say, that was a joke, son, a joke, yah heah? - A Man In Bl♟ck ( conspire | past ops) 08:31, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
How do you become a admin- I wanna be one- at me school!
You're right. Removing the dog makes more sense than adding Spoiler. Doczilla 00:16, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Please review this newest AfD, your opinion would be appreciated. PT ( s-s-s-s) 00:42, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Your analogy does tend to work; FFX, X-2 and FFVIII were the first to really attempt to strike a balance, and they have reasonable plot sections for the level of detail in those games. Even FF6, FF7, and FF4 have decent lengths, considering what they are. Chrono Trigger, however, is only half as long as most final fantasies; thus, its plot summary shouldn't suffer much with a 400-500 word reduction (or at least to the length of FF8 and FF10). Nevertheless, my major problem is when people are ignorant either way; as editors, we should go by what is generally accepted in the community (and what's best for the readers); if it changes a lot (like with plot summaries), that is when balance kicks in, and that is why Ryu and myself had a great system going. What are your more detailed and general thoughts on the "length" situation (Ex's comments aside, as I found his arguement to be more on citations, and the fact that he missed the whole point of those citations). — Deckill e r 03:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I believe the decision to delete this article was made in error, so I have asked for a deletion review. Since you were involved in the AfD on this, I wanted to inform you so that you might weigh in. PT ( s-s-s-s) 17:31, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Re: McClard photo - I THINK I've fixed it. I've often had trouble doing the photos for articles correctly. Thanks! PT ( s-s-s-s) 22:27, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
Why are you suggesting that the NSF article be merged into the main Deus Ex article. I think its rather idiotic. Im getting rather tired of your deletionist and meger spree on the whole article. Exiledone 20:21, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
I need some help dealing with editors Catkitty and 202.158.101.80; they are placing information regarding Glacia's stats and movepool in the article. <EDIT> They're also doing the same to Milotic in regards to Diamond and Pearl. - Jeske ( Complaints Hotline) 02:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Well met, shadowed one. I must ask for your aid in the second Acid Reflux deletion vote, as you were one of the few who knew the comic's past prominence in the first vote (and I'm nearly not as eloquent as I should be). The deletors are claiming non-notability to a man and putting the burden of proof entirely on the other side. One even tried to get the article speedily deleted and another demands a reputable newspaper article. What can be done about this? Is the nominator even allowed to have another go because the last time didn't give the result he wants? -- Kizor 09:40, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
...on the Comics Project editorial-guidelines talk page. Now here's something I hope you really like: Go to Bob Powell (comics)#Post-war Powell and check out the image. -- Tenebrae 05:00, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I only reverted some of the edits made by an IP address on The Grim Adventures of Billy and Mandy episode articles because an admin did most of it. I thought if an administrator reverted that kind of edit, then it would be okay to do it. Squirepants101 03:04, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your input. That helped settle some points of dispute. Now I'm going to bed. Three people shouldn't be editing the template box at the same time. Take care. Doczilla 07:32, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Since you're me, get me a biscuit, will you? XD H ig hway Grammar Enforcer! 11:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)