1. Be Civil
2. No Personal Attacks
3. No Vandalism

I have the right to remove any comments from my talk page, especially ones that violate the above rules. If you send me a message, I will respond to it here. I do this so that any discussion that follows is not fragmented across several pages.

Archives

February-March 2007 April 2007 May 2007 1/2 May 2007 2/2 August 2007 September and October 2007 November 2009-March 2009 Warnings n' stuff

Please start a discussion on the talk page actually outlining and getting consensus on your proposed changes before attempting to implement such major organizational changes. You left a note at the task force page, but have not even waited for replies. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back old friend! So much has happened that I can't even begin to describe. Collectonian's right about the names though, as there was a major consensus last summer (you can thank A Link to the Past for starting the discussion). Look through the archives at WT:ANIME, it's there. To tell you the truth man, I've been looking forward to having you back (thought you died or something, no joke). What happened to you anyway? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saw that. Really wish you'd said something before your big leave. In any case, I'm glad to see you again ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:00, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you started trimming the character list. I can't speak for Collectonian, what concerns me are the redirects for those characters. They have to find somewhere to go. Thoughts? Please reply on your talk page, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The redirects can direct to the Dragon Ball page, or the character list page. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:09, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not group them under a single header instead of just removing? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:16, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The characters you mean? The reason grouping them together is a bad idea is that they little to no connection to each other, so merging them wouldn't really work, plus, said characters do not have much significance anyway, so getting rid of them is not a loss by any means. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It just doesn't make sense for links like Turtle (Dragon Ball), Spopovich, Bra (Dragon Ball), etc., to take the person to a page where they're not mentioned. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:35, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't the only solution, I just found it better than simply deleting the redirects as well. Keeping these characters is definitely going to clog it up and keep it from becoming featured. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe deleting the redirects will do. However, I honestly don't see a dire problem with the list at its current state. Why not begin a discussion like Collectonian said? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunetally, the list is in pretty bad shape. Our goal is to turn it into a featured list. A good reference might be The Naruto Character list. And right now, we have way to many characters with little plot significance to get close to that goal. There are also general problems with sourcing, and a lack of out of universe info. The list can become featured, but it is going to take some work and the first thing we can do is shorten it, as it is way to long. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How come you're not drawing out a plan on Talk:List of Dragon Ball characters first? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because, I simply saw something on the article I could fix, and thus, I fixed it, planning to fix the redirects later. I didn't think a discussion was necessary to simply clean up the article. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 22:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quick note to let you know why I reverted your adding the link to the Dragon Ball Kai episode list. It is already in the main episode list linked to the main section. Though the more I think about it, the more I wonder if maybe revisiting a discussion on having individual links to the episode lists in each section might be better (and maybe help deal with some of the issues with people complaining about the merge as they can more clearly see each anime has its own episode lists). What do you think? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that having each section link to their respective series (Dragon Ball Z, GT, Kai) etc. would be good for article structure, as it would be a bit easier to find each series respective episode lists. One may argue that the template handles this, but I think it would be a postive change to the article. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 02:07, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What was wrong with it, Thanks ? GrahamHardy (talk) 09:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you preemptively feel it was a good move to merge an article with cited real world coverage (which does support WP:N) into a series article, especially after two people objected on rather solid grounds? You don't jump the gun in a case like that, it's detrimental to the wikiproject as a whole. As it stands the article has enough development and reception to avoid content forking. If you want to take this matter further I'd suggest taking to the WP:VG talk page and getting more input on the matter.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 10:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I'm sorry but that's not how Wikipedia's concept of notability works. Otherwise any game that has similar gameplay to another would be merged into a series article, which would encompass many titles with stand alone articles. I would suggest reading up on Wikipedia's guidelines on notability and what articles need to exist, and also the policy on merging. If an article is actively being actively improved and reliable sources have been added to flesh out both a development and reception section, then despite similarity to other titles it can stand alone as a separate article. And no, consensus was not agreed up on all articles, so you jumped the gun quite badly.

Like I said, take it to the video game project's talk page if you want to discuss this further. You don't impose that discussion happen only after a subject has been merged in a case like this.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:10, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We'd already had a discussion on the video game project page on the subject of content forking over there. The discussion resulted in that if the game is a remake but has significant content different from the original, it can pass. In a case like this though, the game is a part of a series, but has significant enough content to warrant it as a separate article granted notability can be established then it's fine to keep. The reason I keep suggesting to bring it up there is that it'd be a more open forum which this needs, rather than a few passing by editors.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

please don't ignore this, as i am being civil, but what is up with you and your three or four friends who rabidly support the merging of Dragonball z articles? doesn't that detract information from wikipedia instead of adding to it? if your a dragonball z fan, wouldn't you want more coverage of the series instead of less?--show the way, HadoMaru (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A while ago, you gave me a message on my talk page, saying that redirect pages aren't supposed to have categories. If that's true, then have I seen plenty of redirects with categories? Nintendoman 01 talk, 9:16, 14 June 2009

While I don't disagree with your merger of the characters' articles, I think that you should have at least consulted the other members before making such a decision. As I have mentioned in the talk page, I think that the Meisters are notable enough to warrant for their own character pages, given how often these characters are featured in TV shows, events, magazines, and other mainstream media outside of the fandom. The Slimy One 08:45, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

err... you needn't have *replaced* that image in the article Vegeta under "Abilities" section. you could've simply added yours on top or something. its currently deleted - no idea how, whether automatically or manually, as I did not get *any* info on what was going to happen - noticed by chance and i've had a nice time figuring out how the file got deleted from the servers. happy? thank you. yours, Krishvanth (talk) 21:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey mate. I'm asking if you'd be interested to check out the section I opened on the DBZ character talk page in regards to merging. It deals with moving many of the characters listed in the secondary section to the other (tertiary) section, as many more influential and important characters have now been merged or deleted. It would only be proper to sustain and maintain the same consensus on the entire page; I haven't made any changes as of yet as it may not be considered constructive to move characters without a proper debate. Those that are debatable, I've listed them in the same format and hope to get your vote for keeps and merges into the other section. I've only listed the ones I've found to be primarily lesser appearing characters and who are limited to one or two sagas at the most in their appearance, or remain background characters for the most part. As many of the characters who are listed in the secondary section are actually much lesser than those in the other, I was hoping to hear from you and get your votes on the matter. - Zarbon (talk) 23:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:BuumakeSatandevelop.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:55, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My main problem was not it wasn't really a merge, you essentially removed all the content from the articles without any actual merging. I could argue that all individual character pages like stuff from Dragon Ball, Gundam and other anime are equally insignificant. Let's discuss this on the character talk page. - plau 06:39, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi, DBZROCKS. I have undone your current redirect of Second Bloody Valentine War. It's improper to take action like this while the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Second Bloody Valentine War is still open for discussion. Regardless of how obvious you believe the result of an Afd will be, please wait for an uninvolved administrator to close the Afd before taking action -- especially in cases like this where there are dissenting opinions. And there is no real urgency here to circumvent the 7-day minimum debate period. Thanks. — CactusWriter | ^needles 08:28, 25 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:PiccoloSuperDragonBallZ.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 07:02, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Garlicgunshot.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:36, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

	The Original Barnstar
	Thanks for choosing the username "DBZROCKS"! I really like that name! Homestar Editor (talk) 14:35, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipediholism test. Thanks. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 04:46, 23 May 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) 16:35, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Super DBZ Vegeta pic.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:17, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]