Archives
User talk:The Rogue Penguin/Archive 1 User talk:The Rogue Penguin/Archive 2 User talk:The Rogue Penguin/Archive 3 User talk:The Rogue Penguin/Archive 4 User talk:The Rogue Penguin/Archive 5 User talk:The Rogue Penguin/Archive 6 User talk:The Rogue Penguin/Archive 7 User talk:The Rogue Penguin/Archive 8 User talk:The Rogue Penguin/Archive 9
How to archive a talk page

You Have Violated the 3RR rule. Try to hang low for awhile :P Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 01:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You are correct! Also the page is now in RPP, just letting you know that help is on the way(Sorta...). Good Luck, Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 01:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Please Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I would not have written several essays on Wikipedia policy or put forth the constructive edits that I have if I was simply a troll. A total lack of clarification on WP:IAR has harmed Wikipedia. Making it an "essay" diminishes it, such that nobody will read it. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. It is not my intent to revert more than three times. And if I am successful, it would substantially help Wikipedia. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

How can you protect the page in response to a content dispute, in an article you're involved in editing?! Or are you, yourself, ignoring all rules? If so, how is it justifiable for you to violate admin policy, call me a troll in bad faith, all in the name of "upholding policy"? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ack! Pardon me! ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:No credential policy has been renamed WP:There is no credential policy to avoid giving it an "aura of support" for the idea that credentials should not be used. If the article is my opinion and not a policy summary, I ask:

• That you vote in the poll on the talkpage
• State clearly what original opinions are being put forth

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, your claim here [1] seems to contradict WP:BOLD. I changed a single sentence once and you accused me of violating consensus through "unilateral action." Let me be bold. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No one did tell me different. Somebody said, "This isn't a supplemental essay because it's not on WP:V or WP:User page", so I added it. They said it wasn't there, not that it shouldn't be. It's not an unnecessary expansion. It's a common sense clarification because, myself, I came across two users with credentials -- one of them was a sockpuppet who was probably lying, while the second person checked out. It's not explicitly stated on how people should treat credentials, but it's a big issue. The essjay controversy should be enough to establish that. I'm not trying to "get my way" on anything, because nothing I'm doing is my opinion on anything. All I'm doing is summarizing existing policy for sake of clarity.

If I'm NOT doing that, then tell me: What opinion am I putting forth in my "essay"? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember, everything on Wikipedia is recorded. You were told by Newbyguesses specifically why it is not a supplement. You ignored him, added the little mention, then reintroduced the tag anyway under a faulty rationale. You are either choosing to be ignorant or just being belligerent about the tag, neither of which will get you a favorable outcome. Common sense doesn't make a supplement, consensus does. The proposal has already been rejected in both positive and negative form. This is not consensus. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 08:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

His claims baffled me and amount to nothing more than what you're saying, "There's no consensus, revert," which is an appeal to tradition.

Please, if it's an essay, vote in the poll provided and tell me what opinions I'm putting forth instead of just saying "No consensus, revert, No consensus, revert," etc.. Per WP:BRD, we're not going to go anywhere if you keep doing that. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 08:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The B in BRD is on your side. Therefore, the D is likewise on your side. In conclusion, we will not get anywhere if you keep doing that. It's only bold once. You're just trying to keep it in place while quoting things like "appeal to tradition" in an attempt to avoid building consensus. You'll find this behavior will fail. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 08:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:BRD is something we do together, so that it is collaboration, not clobberation.

I bold, you revert, I discuss. You discuss too. Then either you or I bold based on our combined discussion, and the whole thing starts over again, with me or you possibly reverting again. Without your discussion and my discussion together, the whole thing can't work. WP:BRD is a combined effort and you're required to do more than just revert and say, "No consensus" in the revert summary. You're required to actually back up your revert with rational argument. You're an experienced editor. You know this! For now, I'll leave it alone and we can discuss this later when you're a bit more calm. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 08:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The addition I have made seems to give a good description of the thoughts on "Light Yagami" being the mysterious Shinigami. It is true that there is speculation on this article. Looking at past records you have even stated this:

22:34, 17 January 2008 The Rogue Penguin (Talk | contribs) (12,232 bytes) (please stop, it's speculation)

The statement that it "is speculation" is a fact. Thus it has an appropriate place in the article until cited evidence stating that the Shinigami is not Light is found. I think that is fair and should incorporate all the views that have been given so far.

If you continue to say that a source is needed for speculation then just look around. There are plenty of past changes to that article that state that the Shinigami IS Light. Google it, you will find plenty of people who believe it, youtube has a very clear example of somebody who thinks that the Shinigami is Light: [2] .

The idea of siting speculation is ridiculous. If more then one person thinks that it is or could be true then there is speculation.

Bokugakira (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:T2T Vizier.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? You still haven't shared your point of view yet. I apologize for my previous attitude and would appreciate your reply.
Arexodius (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

i just saw that you reverted my edit (putting luppi at the end of the list). the reason i did that was so that people could easier see what the rankings of the current espada are. ordering the espada based on power (putting luppi after grimmjow) will mix the current espada with the ex-/dead espada. i don't think this way of ordering has any advantages compared to the ordering of the espada based on their ranknumbers. don't you agree that the majority of the visitors are probably wanting to see the current espada and their numbers? in the future, when other espadamembers are dead and replaced as well, the list will get even more 'polluted' because of the mixture of dead and current espada. my guess is that the visitors will be having a hard time figuring the ranknumbers out when that happens. well anyway, i just wanted to know your reason. thanks. Twsl (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. Thank you. Earthbendingmaster 18:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Leave me and User:JunKazamaFan alone! We're only trying to make the List of primary characters in Code Lyoko article better and longer, and you keep messing up our work! So I strongly suggest that you leave the edits we write alone! Oh, and for the record, he is NOT a sockpuppet! He is a friend that is trying to protect me from jerks like you! Angie Y. (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What we have added isn't from any point of view. They are all facts. We're just trying to improve the article. By the way, I am not a sockpuppet, The Rogue Penguin. Whatever gave you that idea?! Just because I try to help Angie Y. out?! If so, then I find that ridiculous. I'm just a great friend of hers! JunKazamaFan (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

yea i am, why do we need a picture of a hand when it can be summed up in words--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 03:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

-_- its a wikipedia policy, of you are not obeying it--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 03:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

you will never be an admin if you dont know that--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 04:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: List of Welcome to Paradox episodes and TTN, I'm inclined to agree with you. It's one thing if he was redirecting to a nicely developed list, but there wasn't even anything on the LOE. I was able to merge the entire contents of all of the articles, and they all fit nicely. I'll write up something about this. While I defend TTN on a lot of areas, this is one where he needs to work on it, or let someone else do it. -- Ned Scott 09:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't find that keeping that information will help anyone in any way. They are badly written, and forcing me to merge them is counterproductive. If setting up a table with the names of the episodes will make you happy, I'll do that, but I will not be forced to salvage bad information. TTN (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to merge bad information to satisfy your ego, and these are going to remain redirects. Merging them will not help anybody, and I am not going to be forced into it. If you want, I will set up a table because that would actually help something. TTN (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Merging happens when there is information to salvage. Copying and pasting summaries that are going to have to be completely replaced anyways (thus negating the dumping work onto others argument) to a mostly empty list is pointless. If this had anything to do with salvaging useful information, you would be in the right. Right now, all you're trying to do is force me through a pointless hoop to satisfy your ego. The most helpful thing I can do is set up a table; I'd be fine doing that much. TTN (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, with that movie, you were trying to justify keeping the article. Merging it was the compromise, and there was something to actually work with at that point. This time, you're just trying to get me to merge a bunch of useless summaries (even the one sentence ones tell little of the actual episode) just to justify your position. It has nothing to do with keeping actual relevant content or anything like that. The best thing to do is create tables, and possibly provide links to the old articles on the talk page (and a hidden comment on the main article). TTN (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as over half of them are going to have to be written up anyways, and these really do not do a good job at all of giving a basic understanding, that seems rather irrelevant. As I'm willing to take the time to set up tables, which would take much longer, you can obviously tell that I'm not doing this to avoid doing "work". This has to do with the fact that not keeping bad content, allowing new, better content to be written, is much better than allowing the bad content to stay, and having people never deal with it. Also, seeing as you'd be fine with commented out material, why isn't providing links to them fine? TTN (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is it that everyone else cites "No deadline", yet never applies it to themselves (not that you used it in this discussion)? It's fine if the article is blank until someone improves upon it. I have absolutely no obligation to save content that I do not find salvageable. On the other hand, you could just do it yourself if you find it to be worth saving. From your last comment, it seems like you expect me to fill out the whole list at this point. TTN (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That'd work for me. Do you just want me to fill in the tables besides the summaries or something like that? TTN (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The tables currently have names and the first one has dates. I just accidentally closed the window before saving the version with the rest of the dates, so I'm not going to be doing that over for a little bit. TTN (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

so he Pssing you off too, bad choice lol--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 18:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Penguin. Where should we make an official discussion for solving this rampage of redirections? Any suggestion? @pple complain 19:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the Heroes (TV series) talkpage and give us an honest peer review. The page has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at the Heroes Wikiproject some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. We have all worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. I you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Wikipedia:Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I realize you mean well, but the general discussion section exists for a reason, as it did in the previous case and every other ArbCom case. Please stop moving it. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It belongs to the talk page. My GOD I cannot even move discussion to the talk page... You know, just forget it. I won't even try discussing this. I surrender to your revert-waring skills as I clearly can't compete. -- Cat ^chi? 19:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Always good to see the skills are recognized. Seriously, though, the General Discussion section belongs there. Perhaps what they're discussing belongs on the talk page, but in that case you should have just moved the discussion, not the whole section. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 21:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I suppose I have misjudged you. I am just so sick of revert wars. Why don't you do what you suggested? -- Cat ^chi? 22:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Very well. Seems a reasonable thing to do. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yay! I owe you an apology. This episode thing has been way too intense :( -- Cat ^chi? 03:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

What's the problem with the protein/gene template. i noticed you were getting frustrated with something but could not figure out what you were trying to cure? David D. (Talk) 05:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel like using WikiHate. You're not a CL fan, and my edits are NOT POV. I strongly suggest that you get outta my face! Angie Y. (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I'd like to ask you about your opinion on Angie Y. Me and others keep trying to help her understand that she shouldn't put POV into articles, but it isn't working. What do you think should happen? Thanks. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 04:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You're annoying me. You're seeming to be following me around on Wikipedia and then not listening to me. Stop. -Karaku (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Garage Kids. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Chetblong^{T C} 07:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm starting to think you're a troll. You're constantly following me around Wikipedia and REVERTING NEARLY EVERY GOD DAMN EDIT I MAKE, THEN NOT LISTENING TO ME. Stop now. You're annoying me, and i won't have a problem with reporting you as a troll. -Karaku (talk) 07:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. B (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi The Rogue Penguin , I noticed you un-redirected an article about a television episode [3] [4] [5] , and I am letting you know that there is currently a temporary injunction that applies to all editors[6] while this arbitration case is open. The injunction was enacted on February 3, 2008 and it reads:

"For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction."

The arbitration committee would like all editors to hold off on such actions while the case is open. I will also notify you when the injunction ends. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I started an AN topic [7]. You may want to comment. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 00:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

So why did you feel the need to change that?--Marhawkman (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. He replied to a statement about the possibility of using the form by saying he can't. It seems very simple to me.--Marhawkman (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Following your efforts of this morning, I've done some more clean-up and standardization of data for articles using this template. Feel free to make any adjustments that you may deem necessary! --HailFire (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I went through all the pages that link to the template and adjusted them one by one. It took some time. Do you see any that still need fixing? --HailFire (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching those. I think I've fixed them all now. It's my first template, so I wanted it to be tidy, and your recoding cleaned it up nicely. That other campaign template was a bird that took off before it was fully cooked. --HailFire (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Eurekaepisode1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Would you happen to know what the missing genre would be? Only Action and Fantasy are given there. Three would be the limit because the guideline asks for no more than that. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, do you like Adult Swim? If so, here's the userbox. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I know, I just want to be tidy. Can't figure out whether it's missing Adventure or supernatural fiction. Which of these two do you feel applies the most? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Think I'll place Adventure. Because there's more of that (I think) than any amount of supernatural themes. Correct? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that as a yes. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Shakuku.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:33, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the WICU template. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I've started a discussion over cleanup of the Bleach characters here. Comments would be appreciated. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Must have been a pain for you to fix all those Bleach redirects (sure was for me). Well, I'll double check if any were missed. Regards, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The categories on the list of Espada and list of hollows, you think they're right? For example, speed is here but not on the lists. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

I noticed your edit to the above page, and I rather object to it: would the decision behind such a revert not be more suited to being left to an arbitrator? Surely it is the Committee that makes the call as to whether they wish to consider a matter posted on the proposed decision page, or whether they wish it to be placed elsewhere? AGK (contact) 23:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

{{Talkback}} AGK (contact) 23:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

You accuse me of pointyness? Maybe I tried the talk page of multiple arbitrators and they failed to respond in a satisfactory manner? -- Cat ^chi? 23:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Wouldn't know if you have or not, but the point stands. The page makes it clear that you should use the talk page. Just because your proposals haven't found any traction doesn't mean you should try to force them into use. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:51, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not forcing anyone to do anything. For example if they gave me a single rational explanation why they are completely ignoring the evidence I provided - that would be a satisfactory response.

I will cease responding to you or anybody on this any more because I know people are waiting in a long queue seeking a mere excuse to block me over the most trivial error (this isn't an accusation directed at you, they know who they are). I will not give them the satisfaction. To put it mildly, I am very frustrated.

-- Cat ^chi? 23:56, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Very well. I understand you may be frustrated about your evidence not being seen, as I went over Krill's talk to see an example, but it seems to me that Krill at least has acknowledged it. Just because they don't accept it doesn't mean they're ignoring you. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:00, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated Category:Bionicle places ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:29, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated Category:Bionicle objects ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

sorry about my friends idea about aelita's surname. she is really stuborn and refuses to do anthing on wikipedia unless she has an account, and her mum ont let her. hence her using my account and then pinning the balme on someone else, lol.

sorry again —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vitual aelita (talk • contribs) 23:17, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

The arbitration committee have reached a decision in this arbitration case and the temporary injunction related to television episode articles and television character articles has now ended. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 02:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

you dont get it, the raw is out just because you cant use google to do a simple search doesnt mean it doesnt exist, and the white snake does have meaning, if you dont get it read the manga again--The Last Uchiha 08:36, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

i just went through your edits and i can see you need to calm down and not snap at people, and people that disagree with you also dont add rude edit summaries--The Last Uchiha 10:05, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I got this one, but messed-up here. I shall correct myself on Talk:Death Note. Regards, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:37, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Okay, this is what I intended to do. Thanks anyway, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:44, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Cheating on inline links? and how would you suggest doing it then? commercials are a verifiable source, and the alien power descriptions are unverifiable without that source. Jeremy8419 (talk) 00:34, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I recorded the commercials on VHS. If I put them on youtube, would that work as a source? Jeremy8419 (talk) 00:58, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

As you can see, this user seems to be pretty upset at the moment. If you're willing, please give them some room to breathe. You may want to start an article RFC regarding Code Lyoko, to better establish consensus by involving more people in the discussion. In the meantime, I've encouraged Karaku to try copying the article into their userspace, to work on a temporary page there; if edit warring continues, you might consider the same. You've been around too long for me to really link WP:DR, but bear in mind that it's there if you need it. :)

Hoping some peaceful solution can be reached, here, but also willing to do what's necessary if it comes to that. Be careful, eh? – Luna Santin (talk) 03:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and please do mind WP:3RR. – Luna Santin (talk) 03:11, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Code Lyoko. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Gwernol 20:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violation of WP:3RR. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

Gwernol 21:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I just wanted to know some things, like how to put pictures on pages. Or Those little boxes with info in it. Also (on your page) what are Userboxes or those award thingys at the bottom? How do you get them and more importantly how do you get them? Sorry, I know it must be a little tedious explaining stuff to me, but please respond. Bye! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdude222 (talk • contribs) 05:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

wasn't particularly upset that you rv'ed my changes, its that your edits summaries are very non-existant or unusable. Upon reviewing and seeing your recent block, i though you were a vandal. Also, filler is a somewhat confusing "insider" term that many people are not familiar with. If you look at the main bleach article and also the bount article, it specifically states that certain characters or stories are exclusive to the anime. I think if you are adding things from filler arcs, you should find some way to actually spell out that something is anime original.--Finalnight (talk) 05:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I am recording my changes/warnings regarding you as mistakes in my VP log.--Finalnight (talk) 05:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message on my talk page. It looks like User:Rikara is the puppetmaster account and User:Karaku is the sock account. I'm waiting to see what, if anything, Rikara says in response. Gwernol 11:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you think this could be Rikara again? Seraphim♥Whipp 11:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I was just following the D.Gray-Man list of anime episodes example, even if they also mix up the chapters there, and thought it would be fun and useful to do it. But I won't break up a useless war here, sorry about it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nightmare017 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

See discussion here. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 07:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Merge complete. See discussion on stuff to do here. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:25, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

If you could, keep tabs on this particular user. His blanking definitely is disruptive, and his blanking of our messages (and my second message) is definitely not civil. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Bring to WP:ANI if this comes up again though (particularly in the common field of articles we edit). Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 22:45, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

-WarthogDemon 02:59, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I had a reason for editing the entry under the 11th division. In the latest chapter, we are never explicitly told that the Kenpachi they're talking about is Zaraki Kenpachi. Unless they show him or say that it's Zaraki, we can't assume that he is the one they are talking about. It's possible that he's the one they're talking about, but it's also possible that it is someone else entirely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.28.213.114 (talk) 03:45, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but in this chapter, they don't outright state that the guy they're talking about killed his predecessor. It does sound like they're implying it, but it's not an actual statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.28.213.114 (talk) 03:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I still say it's conjecture until it's stated outright, but I'll stop taking it off the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.28.213.114 (talk) 04:14, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Toadsworth, Hammer Bro., and Dixie were confirmed so please stop removing them.SLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 03:34, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The link there seemed pretty reliable to me. I'm trying to start a fight, only tell you that they were confirmed.SLJCOAAATR 1 (talk) 16:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The vandalism of the Yahiko section needs to stop. I have left a reference supporting my information.

It is currently unknown whether Pain is Yahiko, or Nagato. This needs to be left in, stop changing it, because you are misleading the viewers of the page.

Indeed Pain says that "Yahiko is dead". But it is widely accepted that he is just reiterating the fact that he has evolved into the entity: Pain.

Naruto manga chapter 380; page 04: Well after Pain tells Jiraya that Yahiko is dead, Jiraya asks him: Are you Nagato, or Yahiko? Who are you? Tell me!

If this evidence is not enough alone to prove that Yahiko is in fact Pain, then it should definitely make it a question mark.

We know that Dojutsu's in Naruto can be passed to individuals without the Bloodline limit. We also know that the Pain as we know him not only follows and believes in the same morals that Yahiko believed in, but Nagato's present day body is not part of Pain.

With all this stifling evidence, I sincerely hope that I will not see any more vandalism of the Yahiko page, because I will be watching it daily, and I will revert it if key parts are deleted or changed. Socalsharkzfan (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The information I posted about Yahiko is crucial to the storyline. I believe it is important enough and well founded enough to be included. It is not information that should simply be left out. I could understand you rewording it, but to take it out completely is nothing short of ridiculous. I'm starting to think you are basing this dispute over your personal feelings over the subject. Socalsharkzfan (talk) 16:07, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

"nor is it well-founded. What's you're doing is original research"? I'm not sure if you understand the material you're discussing. This is a manga. I am citing the very same manga as my resource. What better source than straight from Kishomoto's mouth? How is anything on Naruto going to be stated as fact if my argument is not well founded? Please think before you act from now on, and stop trolling. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Socalsharkzfan (talk • contribs) 16:33, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_shinigami_in_Bleach&curid=11995813&diff=202761746&oldid=202759352

Erm.. I thought she was... why do you say otherwise?--Marhawkman (talk) 11:08, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

All the even numbered captains are on the left side of the picture, and all the odd numbers are on the right side. The only two odd numbers not known on the right side are 9 and 11, and Kensei is not Kenpachi. Making him number 9. Think about it. And no this is NOT original research. It is a FACT that the odd numbered captains are on the right side, and a FACT that Kensei is not Kenpachi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B the Blue (talk • contribs) 02:10, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit on Code Lyoko? I corrected a typo, fixed a red link, and converted an unneeded section into a Goofs section. And more. Why? And you also reverted my edit on Code Lyoko: Fall of X.A.N.A. for no reason. -Sigmadium (talk) 03:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hiya; see my very last post on that talkpage... the image DOES have to meet the NFCC. I can't remove it now, I'm at WP:3RR, but I'd ask you to do so, based on my comment over there. Thanks. —TreasuryTag—t—c 08:28, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I forgive you :D It's quite a sensible precaution, though, to require registration, isn't it? —TreasuryTag—t—c 08:36, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

See discussion thread concerning merging Akatsuki (Naruto) here. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 06:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Has he been blocked? Because his reverts are getting old. Rau's Speak Page 01:03, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I'll do that. But if he touches my page, this becomes personal.^{shakes fist angrily} Rau's Speak Page 01:06, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, there is a new chapter out, and I just read it. I am not lying, and will be happy to reference you to where I found it. Sasuke9031 (talk) 05:40, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's seriously getting old. And the real reason you deleted my edit was because you want to put up the info yourself when the episode airs. You do that with every new info from shows. Not just me, but you insult, snap immediately, and cause edit wars and you've been blocked too. Your supreme attitude needs to stop, because you're not all mighty and you do not control the pages you edit. --Naruto134 00:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This does make sense, your too stuborn to stop your constant removing of edits. And undoing is not vandalism. --Naruto134 00:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

What? I don't have a own problem and I never said I own those pages, while you act like you own them since you constantly remove every edit (even edits that are needed and are not disruptive) on the pages you edit. --Naruto134 00:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

It's true even though you hate to admit it. --Naruto134 00:00, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.

If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 02:27, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

How can an episode of one series contradict and episode from another? Regardless of what happens in Alien Force, that happened in Ben 10. I came here because I did not want an edit war, and was unsure of whether that would fit in an edit summary. Rau's Speak Page 03:20, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

With out having an episode in the same series contradict it, it is canon. Ben 10: Alien Force is not the same series as Ben 10, so the original series did in fact end on that note. Rau's Speak Page 03:28, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

And? It was in the same series, but later contradicted. That is a different issue than one series contradicting another. Rau's Speak Page 03:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well now it sounds like the last episode wasn't canon. And thats not good at all seeing as there is no relevant source to contradict it. Rau's Speak Page 03:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

It never stated that the episode was non-canon. And what is "Ben 10 Week"? That event before Alien Force? Rau's Speak Page 04:14, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Fine, I'll leave it alone. But if someone brings it up again I will participate. And as for the Ben 10 Week, if anything contradicts the show, then it is incorrect. The show trumps all, even movies. Rau's Speak Page 04:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Being made for TV does not mean that they are in the same series as the show. There have been no in show events to cement either movies place in continuity. And with out that, the final episode is in-continuity because nothing is able to contradict it, other than the live action movie, which has yet to be cemented in continuity with the show. Rau's Speak Page 17:32, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

I have nominated Category:Bionicle characters ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 05:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Grimmjow says the following line: "I can tell just by looking at you that that move hurts your body. Ichigo's inner hollow never damaged his body. If explicit statement isn't enough to "prove" something to you, I don't know what is. 70.138.167.143 (talk) 03:02, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I don't even want "bones" added on there anymore. Look at the recent additions to the talk page; this belongs in the GT firing limit, like Snapper tried to add. We know it hurt his body when he fired that specific GT. Put it in, with the word "body" and not "bones," and stop being so damn stubborn about it -.-. 70.138.167.143 (talk) 20:51, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

When did I say "might as well be dying" or any of that? Ichigo makes no mention of bodily harm, but he doesn't deny its presence, and thus that point isn't valid. "Body" means "bodily harm," which is hardly a novel. Unless Ichigo specifically says that he did not recieve bodily harm, you're grasping at straws. Stop acting like your opinion is superior to mine; if you look at the facts, my theory is supported by evidence and yours is not. Your inability to accept defeat annoys me, quite frankly, and someone else voiced his agreement with mentioning "bodily harm." I'm changing it and that's that, if you want to make an edit war out of it be my guest.StardustDragon 00:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

My proof is Grimmjow's quote. For the last time, a single piece of evidence trumps your flawed rationalizations, plain and simple. I gave you the source. You refuse to believe it, claiming it has some underlying meaning. It doesn't. "Body" means "body." It does not mean I am twsting body out of context, I think it's you who's doing that. Rather, I'm twisting it into context by trying to get you to understand what it means. Don't have proof that Grimmjow was wrong? Stop arguing. A third opinion was already found in my favor, and further refusal to accept the edit will result in an edit war of your own creation. Checkmate. StardustDragon 00:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Strike one. Care to try for three? Because 3RR applies to you too, last time I checked. Guess it wouldn't be the first time you had a tangle with that rule, eh?StardustDragon 00:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Still not seeing why 3RR doesn't apply to you. The source is Grimmjow's own words. StardustDragon 00:34, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Forgive me if I'm eager to report an uncontributive editor. StardustDragon 00:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I've always wanted an oppurtunity to use the word 'retrothrust'. HalfShadow 03:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I put up the comment in the continuity section of The Doctor's Daughter page about Martha knowing about regeneration, which you removed. I did not mean to point out a plot hole but just a comment that she must have found out from elsewhere, possibly UNIT. I am not going to re-instate the text (I am only a very occasional contributor, so I don't intend to make myself difficult) but perhaps you might consider a re-wording rather than a removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.144.106.144 (talk) 09:00, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Started a new discussion here. Feel free to join.--Tintor2 (talk) 01:38, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Blocked: two days for edit warring. When you're released from your block, please strive to edit in a less hostile manner and try negotiation before devolving into blindly reverting. I'm particularly unimpressed by your attempt to game the protection noticeboard one minute after you got a revert in; please strive not to repeat such behavior in the future. east.718 at 03:06, May 14, 2008

Please check onemanga.com for the released scanlation of Chapter -102, with the information regarding the Kido Corps. It is released, and as such warrants an update of the affected character profiles. DestradoZero 05:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

What I was trying to say was that when Ichigo turned into his full inner hollow, his shinigami outfit was gone. Kensei's apparently not in this state.

For someone that fights so vigorously against original research, you seem to support a fair share of it yourself :P StardustDragon 21:33, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Kensei blew off the uniform, really? Snap, I seriously didn't realize that, but watching the anime version I guess you're right.

And I don't doubt that it's his hollow form, personally, but we should keep it out of the article until it's specifically stated. C'mon, same stuff you were telling me. Original research, we can't know for sure, that shit. For all we know, his Bankai transforms him into that thing. Also, you misspelled "false," lol. StardustDragon 21:45, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it wouldn't be too different from Dai Guren Hyorinmaru if that WAS his bankai. I made a small change to denote that it is uncertain that this is his hollow form. I'm gonna put a message there again saying not to change it, if that's cool with you. StardustDragon 21:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Another interesting thing I just noticed was that he has hair in this form. Ichigo's "complete" hollow form did away with that, although it's feasible his hollow just has similar hair. StardustDragon 00:44, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, but the hair changed with his form. Kensei's hasn't done this yet. Might be unique to Ichigo's, might not. StardustDragon 01:12, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess so, just seemed odd to me that Kensei's wouldn't change his hair. Guess becoming Jason Voorhees is Hollow-fied enough. StardustDragon 01:22, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Why remove my stuff? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.89.235 (talk) 02:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Code Lyoko. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Yes, it was yesterday, but you still need to be warned. Please try to reach consensus first before edit warring. Please stop violating WP:3RR as you have several times. Lyoko is Cool (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Assymcgee.JPG. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 10:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Bfahp design1.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 03:45, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

What are you thinking following me around and making all those snide comments. You clearly do not understand the issue. JeanLatore (talk) 00:14, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

It is not resolved because I am still carrying the debate. And what is the "First Admendment"? JeanLatore (talk) 00:19, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Seems like pretty heady stuff from a user who has been repeatedly blocked for edit-warring. I am considering filing an RFC against you for your harrassment of me and other good-faith editors. JeanLatore (talk) 00:28, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

yes the debate is still going on my friend. it is not 'resolved.' JeanLatore (talk) 02:14, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

From what I know, Vizard (disambiguation) needed at least two or three entries in order to pass. MoS:DAB#Disambiguation pages with only two entries says this practice is harmless, so I arranged it differently than it was before. What exactly is wrong now? Please reply on your talk page, or on Talk:Vizard (disambiguation). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It's because you're trying to make a need for the disambiguation page when it doesn't actually exist. Disambiguation pages result from multiple entires with similar names. You're trying to start from the end and work your way to the beginning: creating the page then manufacturing the entires so you can justify it, a frankly confusing way of doing things I must say. Furthermore, the second entry isn't an entry at all; again, this is a redirect you're attempting to boast as a second entry, and one no one is likely to ever search at that. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 02:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, the redirect was once an article [8] so it's quite possible that someone might look for it. If this doesn't sound convincing, here are some precedents: Rinku, Big Green and Goku (disambiguation). There a problem with these? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Your examples all have several noteworthy entires, whereas the vizard article was barely a stub and a wiktionary target. There's not enough meaning to the word to justify disambig except as a surname. A single wiktionary link covers the only other existing meaning. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:05, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see what you mean. The wiktionary box does indeed cover it. With this logic, shouldn't the box be re-located to Vizard (surname)? And I'd feel more comfortable with Vizard (disambiguation) re-targeting there too. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Changing the redirect target would only be appropriate if the singular vizard were linked in the surname article. Probably should do it as a see also with the wiktionary box. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Forget it, in hindsight it wouldn't work. Better to have the disambig page point back to vizard, with the wiktionary box on that page. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 03:47, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You mean remain as it is now? Generally, disambiguation pages that target a regular page are tagged with {{db-disambig}}, then deleted. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:54, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if it's deleted. It's not necessary anyhow. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 04:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help man ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:51, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You deleted my article and put "not ready for an article, if ever."

As she has now been shown to be an important character, a future companion, someone who knows the doctor's true name etc, please restore the article. (Wordforge (talk) 20:35, 12 June 2008 (UTC))

Also, you said: "Mere plot details aren't enough. Look at Jenny (Doctor Who). — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Penguin, Jenny appeared in one episode and she gets a page, but River Song appears in two episodes and gets no page? And she is now proven to be a companion?? If you delete River Song you must then by default delete the Jenny page. (Wordforge (talk) 12:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC))

Tell you what, take a look at that, and then explain how that is not synthesis or trivia. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 22:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Shinigami isshin.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 'image' 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 "Image" 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) 00:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

how is it "vandalism" is all true, and vetted. those are plain facts. you are the vandal. JeanLatore (talk) 15:15, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Plus, you get no barnstars from me, ever! JeanLatore (talk) 15:19, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not defending JeanLatore, but couldn't you have done that before he got blocked? joshschr (Talk | contribs) 16:30, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I had to revert your last edit. The images had been carefully placed to make sure that the subjects did not face away from the text (which looks weird). Please consider this on future edits. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello. Did you reverse the section on transformation in that it only shows Aizen's experiment lead to their hollowfication (instead of the fact it actually change them into vizard)? Even if so, I think that some parts of that shoudl be included. Thanks George Leung (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

See this discussion. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Hello.

I just had a question for you; why did you remove Senna from the "Soul Reapers" in Bleach page if you did not remove other non-canon characters such as Ran'tao, Kenryu and Enryu? I just feel that it is really not fair, because even though she is the Memory Rosary, she is also a shinigami, at least for a time.

I believe a description of her character should stay there, and belongs there. If you take her down, then you should take down the likes of Ran'tao and other filler shinigami as well.

Thank you very much.

Lorelei —Preceding unsigned comment added by Memory Rosary (talk • contribs) 10:56, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Good move on the redirect. But if I may be so bold, what is the reason for it? Rau's Speak Page 21:36, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That's what I figured. Rau's Speak Page 22:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Codelyoko fox cover.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 'image' 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 "Image" 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) 05:17, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

You are in danger of violating the 3RR rule with List of Soul Reapers in Bleach. Please keep this in mind while editing the article. I wouldn't want to see a fine editor like you get blocked. :) Dusti^{complain/compliment} 23:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Admin's really don't see exceptions when it comes to 3RR, if your edit warring, your edit warring. I got into trouble once for it, and I wasn't really a party involved, but I used rollback on it. Just be careful. Dusti^{complain/compliment} 23:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I would second that suggestion. It is easy to worry about ensuring the right version of the article remains on the live page, but the arguments to remove it are better sought via the discussion page, establishing a consensus for its removal. From personal experience, you put yourself on far firmer ground when others share the same ground. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Under Archive_1 I should have copy-pasted those old threads into the archive. I'm pretty sure I did. StardustDragon 23:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Kongre monster.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 'image' 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 "Image" 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) 05:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Krabe.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 'image' 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 "Image" 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) 05:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Manta.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 'image' 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 "Image" 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) 05:05, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Creeper.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 'image' 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 "Image" 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) 05:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Roach.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 'image' 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 "Image" 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) 05:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, we will leave it at that until -97 comes out, since Urahara is actually exiled due to Hōgyoku and research in hollowfication. George Leung (talk) 16:17, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Noting from your edits, I can see we both share an enthusiasm for Code Geass. I was wondering whether you would like to work together and create a WikiProject on Code Geass (WP:GEASS) to better organize all Code Geass related material. Thanks. - plau (talk) 09:28, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, I just hoped that my Beast with a Billion Backs edit would cause a new section about how "the incident" happened, who "did it", and 20th Century Fox's reaction. Also I was going to update the plot section with more information... but I'll take your comment to heart, and hush-up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.161.159.100 (talk) 00:50, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:NOTES#Resizing references suggests that {{Reflist}} should only be used for longer lists. There's only one citation on Visor so that tag wouldn't be totally appropriate yet. I didn't know about this either until User:Collectonian told me. What are your thoughts? Please reply below, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:13, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Done ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:40, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

...for reverting back to my CL introduction edit. It's the third time Falcon has tried to return it to the previous version, so I appreciate your intervention. Beemer69 ^chitchat 02:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I'd say the earth being taken over by six billion Toclafane would've been a pretty devestating event. How else do you explain it's exclusion.--Dr who1975 (talk) 04:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ryuken bleach.PNG. 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 'image' 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 "Image" 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) 05:01, 30 June 2008 (UTC)