Finally giving the article proper verification was my pleasure. I later added an important one that had somehow escaped my notice. I can't argue with the removal of the dictionary entry, but the TV Tropes wiki is a respectful source, wiki or not, and doesn't really overlap with the Wikipedia entry badly enough to suggest copying. I know I'm quite pragmatic (read: lax) with the rules, though, and won't contest its removal if the article is appropriately sourced without it, as it seems to be. I don't suppose you could get your hands on TFOS? I hear that it both mentions and codifies Hammerspace, and having a printed reference would be good. I'm kind of stuck on another continent with no credit card myself, and my bookwarez searches have turned up blank.

I'd quite like to remove the two original research templates. The "similar concepts" section is simply a list of occurances the editors have sighted, such as the list of films by gory death scene and its numerous more tasteful brethren, with the works cited serving as primary sources. I wrote the simple preface from what can be seen on the list. There's very little original analysis going on, and no conclusion is drawn. The "Hammerspace in games" section has a slightly weaker claim, but the second paragraph is a similar list, while the first uses common knowledge and makes a comparison, not a conclusion; Hammerspace is an anime fandom term, but it doesn't exist in a vacuum. Again, little analysis. --Kizor 14:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. But it should state that it ONLY lists MAJOR sites then otherwise people will continue to add them on.

Faris b 04:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it didn't always look like that. however there were things that should have been rm prior to it getting featured. however, if you review FA guidelines, some of the stuff that we've been calling "bloat" that has proliferated into other articles as "boilerplate" was written for comprehensiveness necessary in an FA article. This has led some people to think that all articles should have a lot of extra text that doesn't even really apply the specific species and they cite it as the "unoffical guidelines for writing FA and GA articles." -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 00:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ps - leave some comments for more specifics of what you do't like about how the article is writtn on my Bulba's talk page, or fix it yourself, user pages are editable too. If i disagree with you, i can always change it back to how i like it, but you changing stuff will gimme a better idea of what you'd like to see. I'm talking about the comprehensiveness that's referred to here. This bloat has been added to Torchic and Quilava among others. Wikibonked is basically what happens after becoming addicted, it's like ODing on wiki. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 00:44, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article has gotten really bloated and badly written.... I've fixed up what I can, but I need support in cutting alot of stuff that doesn't belong there- I don't want to end up fighting any revert wars by myself.

Again? It's probably a necessary evil. Thanks for the heads-up, I'm with you as soon as I get up on Sunday.
A word of warning, though -- I will support retaining Hammertime. --Kizor 01:37, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put up a better version of the article. Rintrah 13:19, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i've decided this conversation would best be discussed at Talk:Poké ball -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 12:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you have yet to reply to my disagreement about your removal of the Master Ball material. I'd like to talk this out in order to avoid an edit war. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 07:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, got your message on my talk page. Is all ok with you? Mallanox 12:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your deletion of a cleanup template from this article because you did not use an edit summary or post on the talk page explaining the deletion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 12:07, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I see you're point. Lemonparty itself is notable, but the current info isn't. Know any sites that have info about it without the shocking image? During the mean time, I have tagged the lemonparty section with {{verify}}. --AAA! ^(AAAA) 02:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

while i agree that we needed to make the articles less bloated, i don't feel your edits were any better in the end.

(diff)

Firstly, the plural/singular thing was discussed, and no one seemed to have any opinions after i mentioned that we tend to refer to them in the plural because the games and anime do (i have no idea about the manga). Secondly, while the change from -

The purpose of Pikachu in the games, anime, and manga, as with all other Pokémon, is to battle both wild Pokémon—untamed creatures encountered while the player passes through various environments—and tamed Pokémon owned by Pokémon trainers.

to-

As do all Pokémon, Pikachu fight other Pokémon in battles central to the anime, manga, and games of the series.

makes it more succinct, the phrase "As do all Pokemon, Pikachu fight other Pokemon..." is more awkward than the previous version. Thirdly, you changed the word considering into the phrase due to the fact which is obviously lengthier, the opposite of what you were trying to achieve, the whole sentence could have been fixed by merely making the correct subject-verb agreement in the beginning-

Pikachu are among the most recognizable...

I also don't think it was a good idea to do this controversial edit on high-traffic pages, it would have been better to pick... say Cascoon or something. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has nominated List of personifications of Death in fiction, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not"). Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of personifications of Death in fiction and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. Jayden54Bot 18:08, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, but remind yourself to never post blank articles, as they are indeed instantly deleted. --Sn0wflake 07:10, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You should also remember to use the "+ button" instead of the "edit button" when you intend to post a message on an user's Discussion page for the first time or to post on a new subject, as common courtesy rules say that it's good to use a subject header to help the user keep his/her page organized. Hm... also, don't be discouraged by all of this, you'll soon get the hang of everything. :) Regards, --Sn0wflake 07:18, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be worth going through and deleting all unreferenced deaths, then making new contributors provide sources before sticking stuff on the page? I'm up for enforcing something like that, but not on my own... Vizjim 08:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For picking me up on that, I didn't even know what a Cultivar was. Sorry for the confusion. Regards, Dfrg.msc 06:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

note* evian seizure and bra

Having noticed that you had participated in discussion of the naming of Tisane, I am giving you notice that a second move has been proposed, this time to the more common Herbal tea, which is currently a redirect, in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines and reasonings posted on the talk page. Feel free to contribute if you are still interested in the issue. --♦♦♦Vlmastra♦♦♦ 17:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I transferred the material from Domestication to a new article, Domestic pigeon & gave a link. Barbara Shack 12:08, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

According to this: [1], you are the one who wrote "Other: Provide sources for questionable content in Korea section or remove immediately, as per Wikipedia:Libel". Is this true? If so, do you still feel the same way about the article? Chrisrus (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Solresol, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Morphology. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:15, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Blueaster. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Blueaster. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Blueaster. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]