We are not in the business of 'outing' people, and we must continue to have deep and profound respect for the subjects of our biographies. ---Jimbo Wales 14:33, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:MegamanZero/TopNav User:MegamanZero/Templates/TalkArchiveBar User:MegamanZero/Talk Template

(Spooky box removed)

• Thank you for supporting/opposing/commenting on my request of adminship, sadly the result was 54/20/7 an thus only 73% support votes, resulting in that the nomination failed. As many of you commenting that I have to few main-space edits, I'll try to better my self on that part. If you have any ideas on what kind of articles I could edit, pleas send me a line. :)_→AzaToth 09:41, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the link again. I am very serious about this. I will eventully prepare my case for arbitration, I just haven't gotten to it yet. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:10, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed that you placed a misleading link (I still have yet to see proper steps and procedure pertaining to dispute resolution). I guarantee the Arbitration Committee will reject this nonsense over a heated naming convention; please don't do that kind of stuff, it's silly. -Zero^Talk 18:24, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Issue isn't about a naming convention but more about Fadix as well as others dominating the article not allowing contribution from anyone but people they agree with as well as accusing them of being my sockpuppets or me being theirs.

Fadix for instance have reverted me with the edit summary of pov pushing when my edit was spelling corrections (this was long ago). My latest request was to the inclusion of the turkish reference of the incident which was whelming opposed but eventually added to the article. Even something so basic had taken me weeks of "discussion". It was later removed regardless. This is unacceptable as per WP:OWN.

Weather or not if arbitration will accept the case or not is to be seen when I submit my case. I am waiting for the arbitration queue to heal a bit. I am also overwhelmed with the mess I am dealing with atm most notably on the three rfcs.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 14:52, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, Cool Cat, just try to be tolerant. Working with people you feel are beneath you is an important aspect of being successful. -Zero^Talk 21:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think the links to video game credits is spam? WP:EL specifically "ites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article" a lot of what you have decided is link spam is widely considered by other not so. --Flipkin 06:08, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You ask why. I've told you why. You're abusing Wikipedia to insert unreasonable, unencyclopedic links in regards to full-flegeded articles. You're violating the beforementioned policy and you're bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. It's time to stop this. There are plenty of ways to expand articles at Wikipedia, being which you should research and write summaries, rather than spamming every article you encounter. I'm asking you to go and edit these articles to a higher standard of quality. -Zero^Talk 06:22, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but you have made an unilateral decision. I believe there was already a discussion not once but twice at Wikipedia_talk:WP:CVP and the consensus was MG links were OK. Especially when they were used as a reference creating the article. I can see disagreeing with an already fully fledged out article and saying MG provides no additional information. I disagree since I consider the video game credits useful data. I do not a fair amount of people at WP:CVP support the links and consider them useful. --Flipkin 06:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to add another talk but a reference for what I was talking about Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games/archive3#MobyGames_template- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Flipkin (talk • contribs)

On a compromise, would it be appropriate in your opinion for Moby links to be inserted into stub articles instead of significantly improved ones? This may involve expanding the article which could be quite informative as a result of the editing process. As you're probably aware I have a very, very good record of making and expanding articles that were previously non-existent and taking them to near-unanimous good article status, sometimes with just an hour or two of research, so I'm not proposing an unilateral decision, nor would I tolerate such abuse. I'm talking about content that, for whatever reason, has been wrongly inserted and which your links somehow fails to remedy. That spamming/external links section is a failing process isn't just my opinion; it has been discussed at policy level (see recent pages such as WP:EL talk and meta). I'm trying to remedy this and I sometimes feel as if I'm the only person actually inside the process trying to do so. -Zero^Talk 06:51, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that is a fair compromise. Additionally what do you think the of value of credits information? In the past that has been my criteria for adding links. It doesn't seem like the 'pedia is geared to document that information. MobyGames does that well. Admittedly the articles here are much better here than the descriptions of MG. Appologies for spelling et al. --Flipkin 08:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is late where I am. Also what about the 40 or so link that you tagged as spam when the concensus is that they may not be so? --Flipkin 08:35, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Megaman, the system works by concensus. If you look at number 5 WP:EL#What_should_be_linked_to "Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.". The concensus on [[WP::CVP]] that credits are valuable. Also removing links that have been in the system and accpeted by the community unilaterally is not very 'pedia like. Saying the links are link spam or they add nothing I do not believe is correct. They are links to additional data and some high value data for a lot of people, mostly game developers. Having worked at EA and Sony Online Entertainment crediting the people who have worked on this art form is something that I feel is important. Also often the linked to page have a higeher detail, though not as well presented as wikipedia like release info --Flipkin 16:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on this. A slew of votes isn't consensus by any stretch of the imagination.

We've now got a link that is neither informative nor expansive, but says in plain words what the article has been saying all along--that its a video game. Unlike the other links, it is not higher detail.

Consensus isn't a matter of counting votes. We have a strong consensus that some content is unacceptable for Wikipedia. You cannot subvert that by assembling a subset of Wikipedians and getting them to agree to suspend it in one particular instance. Consensus involves all of us, not just a few people who believe a case of vote-stacking dictates the good of wikipedia. As for your alleged “consensus” I do not see it.

Now if it's a web host you're after, I can recommend schtuff.com, which provides up to three different spaces with each of its free accounts. You can add pages using a wiki syntax very similar to that used here, the pages can also be organized as blog entries, and there is provision for pictures. You can decide, on a page-by-page basis or by the use of categories, whether to let others edit, or to allow only invited friends to edit, or to leave the pages closed to editing by anyone except yourself. You can also, if you wish, make pages visible only to yourself and invited friends. Although of course I wish that you would not engage in link spam on these expansive articles, you may do so to your heart's content--off Wikipedia. According to your contributions, this is more or less all you've been doing since you arrived at Wikipedia. Honestly? Go write some articles. Participate in wiki-discussion and breathe in the air. There's much more to Wikipedia than external links. -Zero^Talk 17:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not after a webhost. Look at the policy also the concensus is not just your own opinion no matter how correct you feel you are. You have written a lot of articles. They are almost without exception really good. Just because you write a lot of articles doesn't mean your opinion is the only one that counts. A lot of people have found the links useful and have communicated so. I am not trying to subvert anything. I have an opinion, you disagree. Hopefully we can come to a reasonable understanding. Also to my first question; what about video game credits? Do you have an opinion? If you honestly feel these are not notable pieces of info I can understand where you are coming from kinda. I think we both need to take a deep breath. --Flipkin 17:17, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, a deep breath might be the best course of action, less this become an uncivil argument. I hope you'll reconsider your hasty judgment, Flipkin. Your apparent belief that others will see things the way you want them to is misplaced. You have falsely claimed, for instance, that the policy is in your favor, yet you present no evidence to support this claim. Now, back to discussing these problems, your propensity to declare consensus, we now need to work on that.

As for credits, that's still on the jury. Do we really need such things..? I know such could be mentioned I the article where appropriate, and the release date information certainly requires no link as you could have simply fixed that in the infobox of your own accord.

Just because you write a lot of articles doesn't mean your opinion is the only one that counts

No, I only meant that, by writing and merging together the words in the link and the verbal description it gives, you could make a more sufficient contribution to Wikipedia, instead of simply adding Moby links to and froth.

But no external link is strictly necessary. I have encountered articles who function very capably, explain, elaborate, have great thesis and whatnot, without having one link. You know (assuming you yourself are considering article construction) you could probably do quite a bit more by writing what you feel is necessary in pharagraph format, rather than allowing a link to do all the work. -Zero^Talk 17:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The consensus I was talking about were debated at WP:CVG. Some are early days stuff Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games/archive6#Article_structure and I am sure if you dig around a lot of people use them for refrence. My big thing is game credits. Maybe if I make this more clear? Also what is the policy on when other sites are used as refrence. I was under the impression that it was a See also or External links. Also saying MG is spam or provides not value I think is not correct. I feel some links are appropriate and other may not be. Universally saying they are all junk I do not think is fair. --Flipkin 17:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously we are disagreeing again. I suggest to get closure you bring it up on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Computer_and_video_games for discussion. --Flipkin 20:11, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My two cents: The use of a MBG page or any related links depends on what is provided in it; if the contents are not sufficient or contain lesser or duplicate info than in the WP page, there are not normally encouraged to be included. As quoted in Wikipedia:External links#Links to normally avoid, point 2:

In general, any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes an example of brilliant prose.

Equally, the inclusion of such external links may also depend on the current state of the article. Stub articles with little to provide may benefit with the inclusion of such external links initially, but as they grow, we would have to weigh in the quality of both the Wikipedia page and external links. If the external link's contents have not expanded significantly as the WP article has, it's usually advisable to remove it, as it may be redundant and no longer needed. ╫ ２５ ^{◀RingADing▶} 01:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC) ╫[reply]

These will be tough to permaban...they all only have a few or even one edit in total so it may be a long road. I can always semiprotect the article again...let me know what you want and I'll check back in tonight. Keep up the good work!--MONGO 14:55, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They all need a indefinite block (except for the AOL proxy) per the blocking policy. The policy explicitly states: Users that have been banned are typically blocked from editing Wikipedia. Such bans may occur as the result of community consensus that the user should be banned, ruling by the Arbitration Committee, ruling by Jimbo Wales, or ruling by the Wikimedia Board of Trustees

When it becomes clear that a user account is a "reincarnation" of an existing banned user, the reincarnating account can likewise be blocked. See Wikipedia:Sock puppet for discussion.

They won't be tough to permaban at all. They are no service to the site, and I garantee a IP check will verify a shared location. The policy is very clear on things such as this. -Zero^Talk 15:05, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can do this, but as I said, the one IP has a total of one edit to the site, so what's the sense? I'll take care of the other one, but I think that s/he will continue to mess with the article unless I semiprotect it for a couple of weeks.--MONGO 15:09, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked two and sprotected article for ya...let's see what happens next.--MONGO 15:21, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Time to desist feeding the bees with honey and bring out the flyswatter. -Zero^Talk 15:34, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you are a member of the WikiProject Business and Economics, your help is kindly requested in the section of the AIDS article linked to above. Any help would be appreciated. --Bob 18:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain your reasons for this revert to Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. —Guanaco 02:42, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know what you're doing. You deliberately recreated an addition that had been removed because it is misleading and against consensus. Please don't it again. You have already made the point of reverting twice, with various editors constructing a revert and up to a point that is acceptable. I've no argument with you or your activities on Wikipedia, which seem to be in good faith, but you shouldn't expect to be able to recreate policy sections that have been deleted because they're unacceptable. T1 applies to pages created anywhere on Wikipedia, in any namespace, for the purpose of transclusion, as well as with Jimbo's support. -Zero^Talk 02:49, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left a few minor suggestions about the article on the associated talk page...you may want to put a larger image in the upper right as imagery really adds to the articles...no reason to hide them. I'll watch your progress and add more as I learn more and can be more subjective about the subject matter.--MONGO 09:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've responded to your suggestion on the talkpage. -Zero^Talk 12:45, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since Wikipedia is to document information for use by everyone, isn't omitting information going against what Wikipedia stands for. You know what you reverted, The Wonderswan Tekken game although only released in Japan is still of Tekken lineage and made by Namco. Sure it might not be well known but it's still a part of Tekken history. I would have added the Tekken pachinko game in there as well, but I thought it would have been reverted more than this one.

So what was the reasoning behind the revert?--Scott.Moss 12:16, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, my apologies. I'd never heard of such a game, and I made a hasty assumption that it was a jest. I reverted just to be safe in case of such a situation. I'll replace the entry since it was not. -Zero^Talk 12:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you found the Tekken Card reference; this should definitely be included in any article, as I'm sure LordVid would be the first to agree. Excellent work! In the meanwhile, I've gone ahead and created the entire article here. -Zero^Talk 17:09, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I should say sorry, that was posted at a bad hour so I'm sounding rather bitchy. I thought that might have been the case with the revert, that and there's a lot of crap come through the page recently that you guys have been wonderfully editing out. Additionally do you think that it would be too much to include a history of the Tekken online community to the page. I've been around for about 5 years over the different sites and pretty much know the history back to tekken.net's early days (pre Zaibatsu). I never really added it thinking it might have been information not really needed. Anyhow keep up the good work, and I hope that I can continue to add to the information sooner or later. Scott.Moss 09:41, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. If you want to help to further the article, please drop a copy of your proposed summary here on my talkpage and I'll see what I think. -Zero^Talk 11:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The outside view you endorsed doesn't include any mention of my being disruptive or needing to cool off, it endorses Cool Cat taking a wikibreak and robchurch being a bit nicer, but your endorsement comment implied myself needing to cool off as well. If this is your view, could I ask you to explain it further in an additional outside view, so that I can see your reasoning and suggestions? It's a bit confusing at the moment :) Thanks -M^ask 18:43, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd. You must have misunderstood my comment. I was referring to Cool Cat and robchurch. Those two are getting a tad too heated over this.-Zero^Talk 03:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, my bad then. My first RfC, so I'm trying really hard to listen to any complaints about MY behavior that may stem from this, to correct them. Guess I listened a bit too hard in this case :) Carry on, then -M^ask 03:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Welcome to wikipedia. -Zero^Talk 03:48, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I remember. I've actually gotten Mega Man 8 the way I think it should be. I just haven't gotten up the initiative to do the same with the others. ~ Hibana 04:20, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, may I ask what you think of the new articles constructed...? -Zero^Talk 04:22, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like them. And I like the fact that there are now easily navigatable (is this a word?) templates for each of the series. If you spearheaded it, props. The only major thing other than cleaning up a few of the older articles is fixing all the redirects that exist. ~ Hibana 04:25, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that was me. I "spearheaded it" (as you described) and did a massive overhall on many pages, and creating new ones all detailed in the templates I constructed below:

• Template:megamanbattlenetwork

• Template:megamanx

• Template:megamanclassic

• Template:megamanlegends -Zero^Talk 04:28, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. I need to go ahead and mark each article as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games, so that there'll be more help in fixing up these articles. If you want, just go to the talk page of an article and put {{cvgproj}} at the top to denote it for any new articles you makes. ~ Hibana 04:33, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well please don't insert them in just yet. I think it might be a better course of action to ask the project on thier talkpage beforehand, as they might not take active participation, evicerating the point of the template inclusion. An example would be the Samurai Shodown character articles I constructed. I requested assistance on the talk, but recieved absolutely no help on them (I had to do all of the pages myself; took me a bloody month). This is why there's not a template on every video game article talkpage; the project has to actively pursue the goodwill of that paticular article(s). This is also why I departed the CVG project. -Zero^Talk 04:39, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Well, I suppose it couldn't hurt to still try and acquire GCOTW for one specific article that really needs cleaning or expanding. I think Mega Man X (video game) had it a few, or several, months ago, and it allowed for substantial improvement. Of course, this could only be for a less obscure article like an actual game. However, if you don't feel comfortable having me request it because of your previous involvement in the project, I understand. ~ Hibana 04:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For the article...go through all the external links you can find and start by simply doing inline external links. That way I can come back and then add the ref|note or similar style and after I do a few, you'll figure it out. Also, we still need to add significantly to the general descriptions as that will be important for laypeople such as myself. Finally, let's get you to spread the images out a bit better in the text and try to eliminate the gallery style.--MONGO 12:13, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll try to conjure up something to expand the opening sentence; but I don't understand what's the matter with the images. Please feel free to format them, and I'll see what I think. -Zero^Talk 13:30, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to create a WikiProject devoted to discussing what articles qualify as gamecruft, and what do not. Contact me if you are interested, or have questions. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds intriging. Would User:A Man In Black have anything to do with this..? -Zero^Talk

No, but I'm inviting him. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:10, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is how it will be:

• Part 1: Gather up articles that are believed to be in need of being merged or redirected.
• Part 2: Gather up people to discuss what articles deserve to stay, and what do not.
• Part 3: Discuss this as a group.
• Part 4: Act on our discussion.
• Part 5: Hopefully, this part will involve us doing the same against the Pokémon articles, Fire Emblem articles or Final Fantasy articles. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:25, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Different name. Please.

One big point: Remember, there are Wikiprojects which will often have overlapping coverage, so be careful not to set up Us Vs. Them situations. It's one thing to come in and clean up orphaned unexpandable stubs, but the Pokémon and FF Wikiprojects are active and outspoken. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 05:55, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. As well, I'm not sure whether there really is a role for this project- all the points are covered by the general video game wikiprojects or specific projects. --maru (talk) contribs 20:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a Gamecruft Cabal? Then nobody will take the name seriously, nor will anyone think we're usurping the purview of any other project. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 23:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minding this project sounds like tough, grinding work. If it comes to, I'll take a gander, but I tend to go off and do my own thing for the most part. -Zero^Talk 04:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing against you personally, but I hate you personally for what I perceive you to have done to the Rockman articles on Wikipedia. Since you made the effort of writing on my talk page without reading the notice on my talk page, you should know that I am leaving you to your own devices; you may continue creating needless crufty articles with no standards, organisation, coherency, etc., rife with false information and plagarism, free from any chance of interference by me. I have given up: you win. Enjoy your 5'10" X and your 14-year-old Rock and your virus-controlled Sigma and all of those other completely false things that you and yours are perpetuating. --Boco XLVII 23:26, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your use of the phrase "Nothing against you personally, but I hate you personally for what I perceive you to have done to the Rockman articles on Wikipedia" in an instance where you clearly intend to convey malice is somewhat disturbing. Are you sure that Wikipedia is really the place for you? It's hardly a civil way to behave, and I am deeply hurt by your words.

If I wasn't doing good and productive edits, then my changes would not stick. Now whilst I wish you could refrain from false allegations upon my person, then perhaps we can proceed to seek a neutral understanding. If me and mines actions are so outrageous as to be detrimental to the encyclopedia, I'd have departed long ago, otherwise I'd stop doing them. -Zero^Talk 02:32, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"5'10" X and your 14-year-old Rock"...? Wow! Did you even bother to read the articles? -Zero^Talk 12:00, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for commenting on my recent request for bureaucratship. I deeply appreciate your kind words, and also the comments and feedback that you left me. I hope that I can improve and gain your support in the future. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 23:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I edited the protoman entry with factual information. There is an interview in the megaman collection in which the creator makes this statement, but the information was deleted. -— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.206.3.69 (talk • contribs)

That's a shame. However, a source is required for its inclusion. No source, no insertion. -Zero^Talk 14:00, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How do I site a source I saw in a video game?

Hm, you viewed the source in the video game..? If so, that's different. Could I humbly ask that you to tell me which one...? -Zero^Talk 14:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Megaman collection for the gamecube I belive.-— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.206.3.69 (talk • contribs)

No problems then. I'll take your word for it.-Zero^Talk 17:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bigot is a bigot and a troll is a troll and I will identify them as such. I will not apologize for that. No way. We all need to stop being such wimps about hansdling these kind fo users and be more strict with calling them on their poor behavior instead of going after the few editors who do so. Thanks for the advice, but I disagree. In good faith though, I have nothing further to say to him as lng as he remains blocked/civil. Thanks.Gator (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm inclined to believe in your actions are for the protection of the encyclopedia. That does not excuse rude behavior however, and I think it a tad unfair to be incivil as you have been, especially taking into consideration that he's heading towards a indefinite block or probation anyway.

I did not inquire for a apology. I saw where you were coming from, I simply think it no reason to flog the dead horse, considering there's scant oppurtunity of his block being lifted. Just a thought. -Zero^Talk 17:05, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you call rude I call totally justified. We'll JUST have to agree to disagree. I support an unblock by the way, just not with the additioanl conditions that he has the nerve to demand. (he is not entitled to ANOTHER warning, you gotta be kidding). Just letting you know.Gator (talk) 17:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the problem. He's blocked and (acting) in a civil manner. Disparaging him will not assist in coming to a conclusion in this issue. If he returns to even the first case of misbehavior or naughtiness, another indefinite block will be issued. I'd still prefer to see this rfar filed though. I'm gay that this issue is being dealt with hastily; the MSK situation occurred for months. Been there, done that. -Zero^Talk 17:19, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh - thanks! --Celestianpower ^háblame 17:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're very welcome. I had a jolly good time writing it and doing the research. -Zero^Talk 17:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol. It's a really fun game, I don't get why it got so many bad reviews... --Celestianpower ^háblame 18:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow. Nice catch. I don't know how I missed that one. I must have though it was the Super Mario Bros. 2 article. ;) Well, I've found another typo so I'd better get to work. :) --Optichan 17:59, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I wrote the section, it would only be plausible that I clean up behind myself. :) -Zero^Talk 18:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing to do on that article is to add a fair use rationale to the images. I'll get on that. jacoplane 11:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know who has the copyright on images such as Image:Pealligtator.jpg? If I'm going to add the fair use rationale, I need to know this. Are they from Square? jacoplane 11:43, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. All the images are copyrighted by Square and the respective artwork was released proceeding the game's retail outlet. The screenshots are taken from the game's themselves. -Zero^Talk 11:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, all fair use rationales done. jacoplane 12:00, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its pretty good. Anything else..? -Zero^Talk 12:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Megaman Zero, I just want to say - Thanks. You've added so much data to Wikipedia, and you expect nothing in return. Since I cannont actually thank you, I bestow this made up medal of peace.

See?

Anyway, on to criticisms, however few. The article is great, but I would prefer personally knowing where you got this data. -— Preceding unsigned comment added by Phantom.exe (talk • contribs)

Sure you can thank me! There's a slew of awards down at Wikipedia:Barnstars, take your pick. :) Of course, your coveted medal of peace is just as honorable, you know.

I originally received much of it from studying the analysis’s down at the loveliest fan-site on the internet, Megaman-network. They are having some server problems at the moment, so it’s essentially copied, but as soon as they get up and running again; I'll rewrite the article in my own view. Thanks for your medal. -Zero^Talk 23:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also List of Soul Calibur terms which is about to be deleted for the same reason. Stevage 16:30, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware of that. I'm the one who placed it up for deletion! -Zero^Talk 16:33, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lol. :) Stevage 06:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I just wanted to explain why I added the "| " to the Mega Man category for the Mega Man (series) article. I did so because usually articles which are generally the "main" article for their category are given a sort key of " " or "*", to force them to the top of the category. Not a big deal, but I was wondering why you disagreed with it? Thanks. — TKD::Talk 05:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry. I was under the impression the line insertion was intended for something that never got in. I then made a "safe" revert in the situation that it was nelligible. -Zero^Talk 11:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I probably should've provided a better worded edit summary; I was fixing up a bunch of categories at the same time. — TKD::Talk 12:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm ecstatic this was brought to my attention. I never knew the inclusion of the single line would construct that formatt. You can always teach a reploid new tricks. -Zero^Talk 12:06, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the title to List of deaths attributed to computer or video games and would like to request that you take a look again at this nomination. The attributions are verified, including, in at least one case the deputy coroner. There is no policy against such lists, and it serves a useful purpose in identifying deaths that have, in fact, been attributed to c&vg by reputable source. Yours, For great justice. 06:52, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked your sources and input, so there's no problem there.

The only predicament that I perceive with the article is not the naming convention but the fact that its not notable and it doesn't warrant its own individual article. Dear Jacoplane has created "video games current events" I believe, and it should have a place there. I also would like to think it could be added into a larger, more notable list of deaths. However, it counts as indescrimite information as it stands, I'm afraid. -Zero^Talk 11:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do you really think it's indiscriminate? It seems to me that there is much discussion about the role of c&vg in violence - a listing of actual occasions when video games have been widely and verifiably accused of being the cause seems legitimate to me, and a subject that could be of considerable interest and use in that debate. For great justice. 15:59, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't think it would be truly informative or an substantial addition to the encyclopedia. What particularly upset me was that it was not a notable subject and that this doesn't truthfully reflect upon the content we permit here at wikipedia. -Zero^Talk 18:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's a 'clear admeddeum'? For great justice. 21:21, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See Addendum. -Zero^Talk 21:24, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to press this issue, but, assuming its a typo, the sentance 'lack of clear 'addendums' are not reached on the talkpage' still makes no sense to me. For great justice. 21:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In lamens terms, I was saying there's no clear way of making the article workable in the ongoing discussion I noticed on the talkpage. There seemes to be a bit of discordant views and ideas. Bit of a mess, really. -Zero^Talk 21:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, I did indeed make a typo. Sorry, I misremembered. -Zero^Talk 21:35, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could help you here...I really don't know a lot about the Legends series, and I've never been clear myself on exactly what Trigger is; he certainly seems like both a human and a robot at the same time.

Incidentally, I knew Boco years ago on GameFAQs, and he was always a knowledgeable guy; I have no idea what's happened since then to make him so sour. -TPIRFanSteve 18:43, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suppose I'll leave it as is to avoid any confusion. As for dear Boco, I think he's a great chap and an asset to the community, but he's a storm in a teacup for the moment. Hopefully, in time his animosity for me will pass and we'll wonder what all the fuss was about. -Zero^Talk 18:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Leave links on my user talk page alone. Thanks. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:32, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now stop being a silly sausage. -Zero^Talk 19:33, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gosh, that was rude! What I meant is, Cool Cat, could you please just stop taking that article so seriously....? -Zero^Talk 23:11, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mistakenly removed my comment from WP:DRV. Would you please restore it? Silensor 22:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I have restored your comment. My aplogies, it was due to a edit conflict. -Zero^Talk 22:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He has a 2nd account: User:Quena@sympatico.ca. here - UtherSRG (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The soockpuppet hasn't made any edits since January 17. It seems unlikely he'll become active again. In the meanwhile, I've left a note to the blocking administrator Mindspillage that it is his account. -Zero^Talk 19:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Roger that. Unwatching. *grins* - UtherSRG (talk) 23:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Zero - I looked at the links you posted, and can't find any personal attacks. I think you are confusing factual errors with disagreement. My comment concerning English not being his first language was a genuine error on my part - there are a lot of people who don't speak english as a first language, and his misinterpretation of the meaning of words lead me to think he might be one. I did, in fact, apologize for the misunderstanding. There is an important point about correcting obvious factual errors though. If someone disagrees with me, that's fine - if they insist that black is in fact, white, up is down and Nigeria is a town in Alabama, I do feel the need to set them right. Have a nice day! For great justice. 15:25, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You don't set anyone "right".

We are all equals here, and when disagreements arise, keeping a cool head and following dispute resolution is preferable. If you think another's analysis is in error you attempt to sway people with respect for opposing opinions and keeping a level tone.

Your respective comments are personal attacks because you continually disparage another's standpoint with complete inability to accept you could be wrong, as well as insulting remarks to intelligence. Please take that into consideration.-Zero^Talk 15:33, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I'm not making personal attacks, and, while we are all equals, if someone has made an obvious error (like not knowing what a word means), we should set them right. It's about standards of accuracy. I'm sorry you don't think that's important, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. Again, there's a difference between having different opinions (on whether to delete something, for example) and being wrong (for example by claiming a word means something it doesn't). I hope you can see the difference. Yours, For great justice. 15:38, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Please just be nicer to people. -Zero^Talk 20:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken. I'll make an effort. For great justice. 23:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reverting the vandalism my user page! I really appreciate it, especially since I'm not on much right now, so it could have easily stayed there a long time otherwise. BryanG 02:17, 13 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you liked it. I'm vehemently opposed against false, imflammatory claims and against wikipedia vandalism. -Zero^Talk 14:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The nomination seems to be muddled up. Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Mega Man weapons (2) should be an archive with the new nomination at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Mega Man weapons. Do you need a hand to fix this? -- I@n ≡ talk 14:58, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer of assistance. I'm very happy that someone noticed my muddle, and I hope it solves the original problem of the talkpage archive. -Zero^Talk 15:26, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I redid it as per http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite/Cite.php but it does need checking. Could you do that? Note that your reference "legd3" didn't seem to be referenced directly from anywhere in the article so I've left it under =references= for you to remove or link to as you see fit.

A simple summary of the cite system is:

1. if a reference is used only once in the article, insert an inline reference in the format:

<ref>{{cite web | blah blah}}<ref>

2. if a reference is used more than once in the article, you need to name it so it can be referred to by name in subsequent referrals. Insert the first inline reference in the format:

<ref name="abc">{{cite web | blah blah}}<ref> (note that the name must be inside quotes)

3. subsequent uses are in the format:

<ref name="abc"/> (note the trailing "/" and that it has no trailing </ref> tag)

4. add a tag in the =References= or =Footnotes= section in the format

<references/> (note the trailing "/")

I hope that helps. -- I@n ≡ talk 07:03, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear. Prior this post, I had already proceeded to construct a successful attempt at the list's references. Oh well, your format accomplishes the same goal and I accept your help with gracious thanks. -Zero^Talk 08:15, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• According to Tiamat's FAQ, Ibuki's fighting style is listed as "Ninjitsu and Bushido", so that's what it should be listed as. Danny Lilithborne 20:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its still a fan made document. I take it with a grain of salt when my common sense knows better. -Zero^Talk 20:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a fan made document, it's actually a compliation of all official information Capcom has released. You'd do well to read said documents before dismissing them off-hand. I'm reverting again, and WP:3RR is in effect. Danny Lilithborne 20:38, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I read it quite a bit. It positively is fan made. I presume Capcom did not make it, and nor did any other company on thier behalf. Henceforth it was compiled by fans into one elaborative effort. In fact, I think its lovely. That doesn't mean everything is right. Looking at the FAQ, dear Tiamat leaves a disclaimer that some of the information may indeed be incorrect

Now, I was aware of the concept of Bushido well before I noticed it included, and while it affects personality and the carrying of one's self, it doesn't have anything to do with martial arts. This is even furthured by the fact that Ibuki is a ninja and were henceforth vehemently opposed to the civilarous ways of the Samurai.

As for your provocative comment of I violating 3RR, that's a little naughty. I don't break 3RR. I prefer discussion to this, and I think it would be more constructive should we attempt forbearence in the matter. Finally, looking at the offical works (which, I beleive should be held above all other sources) it looks unlikely,. Please fix this with your data. -Zero^Talk 20:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't meant to be provocative, it was merely a warning. Given that Tiamat's FAQ is the only source for those who don't have the benefit of understanding Japanese writing, and that it strives to be as accurate as possible, I would take it as an authoritative English-language source. In the meantime, please cite official works which can be cited as canon (and therefore serve as contrary sources). As for the FAQ, here's a quote from it:

In general, any info that isn't tagged with something like an 'it is likely' disclaimer or 'it is possible' disclaimer has been confirmed to be official.

As little sense as it may make, unless you can find a contrary citation, the "Bushido" part should stay. I might come off as ornery, but I'm not upset; I just want the Wikipedia articles to be in harmony with Capcom's information as much as possible. Danny Lilithborne 21:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I can't accept this line of conjecture (but see my recent afd's of crufty articles). The Ansatsuken, for instance, suggests that its a implemented fighting style by Capcom and it was changed from the incorrect Shotokan due to Capcom of America’s misgivings. At one point I checked this in various news articles (he was correct). So the Akuma thing isn't an issue. Since the only problem here may be his conjecture on the subject, I'll take his expressed views as sincere. It also counts as a good point with me that he is the primary author; I view a primary author prepared to defend his work on a comprehensive subject with some kindness.

• However, if the statement were close (which it is, even if I discounted the fact that the Street Fighter 3 instruction manual does not cite this) I'd be prepared to favor a well-expressed opinion by the author in defense of his work. But it contradicts the meaning of the vocabulary down to its meanings and violates the reason for the places in the respective Japanese society. It's all about respecting the sincere intentions of the variability of the contents of this encyclopedia. He simply does not provide the source he with took the basis of the term from, and I simply cannot condone basis without sourced and correct findings of fact.-Zero^Talk 21:22, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • If I can track down Tiamat, I'll ask him. He sometimes appears on EFnet. Danny Lilithborne 21:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No big deal. I've got his e-mail address. I'll give him a shout. -Zero^Talk 21:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I sent the e-mail and referred him directly to this conversation. I'll now stand by and await developments. -Zero^Talk 21:50, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I got your talk, Zero. Thanks for the heads up:) Danny Lilithborne 11:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problemo. -Zero^Talk 11:25, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a page for the Cross System. I took the info from the Soul Unison page since they're not Soul Unisons, I just don't know how to edit the Sereis box. Can you help me out with this?

I also took the Cross System info off the Soul Unison page.Sukecchi 20:41, 15 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The existence of the articles are what puzzles me most. Looking at the articles, it's clear that they have a serious failing in the description of encyclopedic summaries. I don't know what you intend to convey by simply describing statistical information extruded from the games, but if it means that we have to make a move to wikibooks then it's correct. I've purposed this by placing the {{move to wikibooks}} template on the articles. I will begin moving the information as soon as I accumulate the time to do so. This activity is also known as a transwiki. -Zero^Talk 20:45, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, well I just wanted to thank you for giving me the heads-up on the WikiBooks, I'll move all or any movelists I made there. Sorry for the inconvinience and thanks for your help. -— Preceding unsigned comment added by Koho7 (talk • contribs)

No problem. Thanks for being so understanding. -Zero^Talk 07:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that your removal of the red link is in good intention, please let him have it, it doesn't harm anyone. Fad (ix) 23:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm just attempting to help by taking that troublesome subject off his mind. Its difficult if he won't listen, but I'll resign to leaving it be. -Zero^Talk 06:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He'll probably remove it himself in a few months, it isen't the first time he has similar stuff in his user page, obviously his problem is the existance of the Armenian Genocide article, no one can change that to satisfy him. So if his opposition now is to add empty links it is a little price to pay for now, given that he already did much, much much worst. Fad (ix) 20:25, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he's just a little upset about the content dispute. It's okay now, I just hope he forgives my advances and still considers me a helpful friend, which should keep us all happy. -Zero^Talk 20:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment..I think we have been through this now like 3 times....I'm sure I can find almost the same nonsense in other sections in An or AN/I in which the same issue has popped up...Prasi90 keeps emailing admins that know nothing about his history hoping he can get a concnesus based indefinite block overturned. It gets tiresome having to constantly explain actions...anyway, thanks for the que...I've been busy at work and working on stubs.--MONGO 06:48, 21 April 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. -Mysekurity ^[m!] 09:41, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

No problem. We're going to have to do something about these false claims of not attempting discussion though. -Zero^Talk 09:47, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(automated clutter removed)

Hi Megaman Zero, since that I wish to protect my identity, you may able to delete my self-picture that I've put into Jimbo Wales talkpage 10 days ago. Anyway, by any means make my self-picture that I've uploaded to be delete as soon as possible. Thank you. — Emrrans ^Talk 15:03, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No harm done. The top of my talk page is a place where I keep my ongoing disputes. Sometimes those are red links for what I'm planning. I genealy hope to resolve the dispute w/o rfcs or rfars. That is one of the reasons why that link has stayed as a red link.

I do not believe there are any seniority among wikipedia comunity

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 00:56, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm so glad to hear that. Hope everything is going well. -Zero^Talk 02:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please notify me when you edit my user page. I found it extremely rude when you preformed such an action without my knowledge or even mentioning it on my talk page. A user had notified me about the images and I was about to remove them. --Dangerous-Boy 21:17, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I simply noticed them and removed them per policy. I didn't intend to convey a sense of rudeness. I deeply apologize for my haste. -Zero^Talk 10:48, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now many, many years ago, when I was twenty-three, I was married to a widow who was pretty as could be. This widow had a grown-up daughter who had hair of red. My father fell in love with her, and soon they, too, were wed.

This made my dad my son-in-law and changed my very life, My daughter was my mother, cause she was my father's wife. To complicate the matter, even though it brought me joy, I soon became the father of a bouncing baby boy.

My little baby then became a brother-in-law to Dad, And so became my uncle, though it made me very sad. For if he was my uncle, then that also made him brother Of the widow's grown-up daughter, who, of course, was my stepmother.

Father's wife then had a son who kept him on the run, And he became my grandchild, for he was my daughter's son. My wife is now my mother's mother, and it makes me blue, Because, although she is my wife, she's my grandmother, too.

Now if my wife is my grandmother, then I'm her grandchild, And everytime I think of it, it nearly drives me wild, For now I have become the strangest case you ever saw As husband of my grandmother, I am my own grandpa! --MONGO 03:33, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lovely. Cheers! -Zero^Talk 12:56, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why does everyone drag me into these things? :P I'm not like a world renowned mediator, I'm not even an admin! I'll take a look. Cheers, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 17:29, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh its not that. I simply was aware of the fact that you involve yourself heavily in video game articles. With that knowledge, I contacted you to insert an third opinion for an attempt at concensus. -Zero^Talk 17:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure you did! :P Anyway I've tried to come to consensus, I'll check up later. Cheers, Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 17:47, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's time to get community involvement...it seems whenever I apply longer blocks I spend enormous amounts of time explain myself, so take it to AN/I...I can still block him, but wating on feedback. In the meantime, I can protect the page.--MONGO 19:37, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a fairly knowledgeable person on the subject, I cannot condone blatent ignorance and baseless rebuttals on it from a troll. There are an abundance of new editors substantially more knowledgeable on the subject, and we don't have time for people making the construction of this encyclopedia more difficult than it already is.

I'd strongly recomend that re-block in the meantime. -Zero^Talk 19:49, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of things were problematic with that last edit. First, the image you replaced was not a new version, but a completely different picture that overwrote the first (which is bad form, but not severly so). The second problem is that the Nemesis armor is not what Iron Man is wearing currently in the series - I don't see why a video game armor should be given prominence, as it gives the wrong impression that it is what the armor looks like right now. The context is wrong. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 22:53, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My only defense is that is what the lastest rendition is. I merely did an upload over the old image due to my dislike of cleaning up orphaned ones. According to multiple canons, he's wearing the Marvel Nemesis in game canon. In comics, he dons another. If there's two of the same image, that's a tad wasteful. I can not comprehend why there is two copies of an identical image (Image:IM78.jpg and Image:IROM002 COV.jpg). Please utilize one and leave the other out. -Zero^Talk 22:59, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The two images aren't identical. It's the same armor, yes, but not identical. In any case, why game canon should take precedence over comic canon (which is arguably more canonical, and some would even argue the game isn't canonical at all) is also something I do not see. The bottom line is that the image should show what a comic book character looks like in the medium that it is most often presented, i.e. comic books. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are identical. The purpose of those images are to convey his armor. They have the same rendition of armor, despite different poses.

I never claimed to have taken the fact of game over comic depiction. I've simply no idea why one would come to the conclusion of having the exact same image on an article, and how it tells the reader anymore than the first did. -Zero^Talk 23:13, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One could argue that it's in context, as it's in the right part of the article which is talking about recent history. But hey, you can always remove it. My point is simply that the infobox picture should depict the current armor in the comics. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 23:38, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm cool with that. Would it be feasible for an insertion of the image lower in place of the second image..?-Zero^Talk 00:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe as an additional picture under the videogames section. I'd still like the second image there because the caption actually contains information about the suit and the differences from the other armors. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 02:07, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Hey Zero. :) The picture of Shin Akuma in this article might be inaccurate, as the Shin Akuma from Capcom vs. SNK 2 does not derive all of his power from Satsui no Hadou (he has some Orochi power, too). Just a thought:) Danny Lilithborne 11:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I believe I see my error. I'll change the caption a bit. -Zero^Talk 11:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like to bear bad news, but your edits at Ridge Racer were brought to my attention and I've listed you at the Administrators' Noticeboard for a 3RR violation: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR#User:Megaman Zero. Just wanted to make sure you were aware. -- Natalya 17:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm making a post on my section now. -Zero^Talk 17:05, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. Im extremley new to Wiki. and Im an avid Mega Man Fan. Id like to werk on some of the pages, help make them better ( i.e. Rock Man ZX ) but I dont know how to go about it. Can u help me join in on the Board?... I didnt know who else to ask. Thanks for ur time. - MHv3 Rock Man X

Well there's quite a number of ways to go about assisting. I'd suggest the most advid way of starting out would be to post a comment on the talk page of the respective article you wish to improve, and start discussion from there, or perhaps even be bold. There's also posting on the Wikipedia:Help Desk for a good foundation for newcomers. The most prominent to a good way of how to learn to contribute would be a welcome to the wiki, which I'll copy to your talkpage and you can look over the links at your leisure. And I'll be happy to respond to any questions you have. -Zero^Talk 19:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a ton. Hope I can be of service to these pages. : ) MHv3 Rock Man X 20:02, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(various bits of silliness removed)

Okay, I'm fine with that. The discussion has taken place on the current talk page, so I altered this post. I also added the appropriate discussion to the talk page Talk:Ridge Racer. Please add any furthur comments there and here as appropriate. -Zero^Talk 19:40, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was going to respond to your email here, but I find various bits of silliness removed written above. Do you seriously expect me to comment if you talk like that? William M. Connolley 09:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "Do you seriously expect me to comment if you talk like that?" in this context. You mean to say that that 3RR template inserted previously was not misleading...? It held the text of "Please attempt to discuss your changes on the talkpage in the future" Look at the articles's talkpage. I discussed quite a lot and supported everyone of my statements with policy and an substantial amount of sources for my versions. That there was over 10 of them on one article by a single editor would be extraordinary, but whether it's abusive would depend on the context. Administrators may revert hundreds of instances of vandalism, for instance. However it would be normal to use other techniques long before the count got to 4 reverts.

I hesitate to describe this as a content dispute. When an anonymous editor frequently removes data from an article with complete lack of supported fact or one source, it causes one to err on the side of vandalism. Furthurmore, your statement on the 3RR board is incorrect. "This is is old, but the reverting continues". Are you positive you looked at the diffs in question....? My last edit was not a revert, but a comprimise. -Zero^Talk 11:12, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to strike through the bits you don't like. Removing the entire block notice and calling it silliness won't get you a reply. Errm... that seems rather obvious. I'm happy to talk, but not to waste my time if you're not prepared to be reasonably co-operative William M. Connolley 11:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry about it, I've seen him remove template messages off his talk page before. I think he does it only because templates are too formal and long and it just gets in the way of the subject. Though, I'd understand if someone took offense to that. - Zero1328 _Talk? 11:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Or dear William could refrain from blatently misrepresenting the facts. However, I've already explained that the template's text (especially the "did not attempt discussion" bit) was a simple fib, and that William's comment on the 3RR noticboard was completely unfounded and demonstrated an lack of comprehension for the situation in question. -Zero^Talk 11:42, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again... I added alot of images to the X ( Character ) and ZX ( Series ) pages... I have alot of images that would help the pages out. I just hope I added them correctly w/o breaking any rules. <_< I'll continue to try my best to learn all this. ( But I dont know how to edit the Main Images. Dont even know if I can. ) MHv3 Rock Man X 23:35, 1 May 2006 (UTC).[reply]

See Wikipedia:Images, Wikipedia:Fair Use, and other related links. Generally, one should utilize Special:Upload to dowload an image saved on the computer to Wikipedia. Make sure to read through all the image policies beforehand. -Zero^Talk 23:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note to self: Remember to construct the you-know-what articles and template. -Zero^Talk 00:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{unblock|Hit by the autoblocker}}

Who blocked you, and what is the reason given for the block? Prodego ^talk 18:33, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request denied, your block for 3RR on Ridge Racer has not yet expired. Prodego ^talk 18:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)3RR violation, dear [1]. The IP timer stated me for an unblock at 19:35, but that silly autoblocker still had me under lock and key around 20:50. Amazing. Perhaps your list depicts differently..? -Zero^Talk 18:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The block log shows you were blocked at 19:35, May 1st. Right now, it is 18:47 May 2nd, still about an hour short of the block expiry time. Prodego ^talk 18:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Laptop clock is different. Oh I see my mistake, I neglected to recall wikipedia time doesn't mirror my own timezone. -Zero^Talk 18:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you might have, I used to forget the time difference so much I added an auto-updating clock to my Monobook, which makes it a lot easier ;-). I should be back at 19:35 to unblock your 3 autoblocks. In case I am not, here are the numbers: #153456 #153047 and #152788. The last one (788) shouldn't be a problem, it expires at 19:36, but the others last longer. Happy editing. Prodego ^talk 18:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem at all. The wiki isn't going anywhere.-Zero^Talk 19:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Prodego ^talk 19:36, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I cheated. I went and played a video game. They're scientifically proven to speed up the passage of time, lad. -Zero^Talk 19:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have not-very-long to remove the attack on another user that you left on my talk page, or I'll block you for WP:NPA William M. Connolley 20:26, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]