This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Please erase all agressive comments from Daishokaioshin on your talk archive. I will not permit that any insults, as violent as Daishokaioshin committed (she went as far as racial insults) remain on a public archive.

If they remain, it will only force me to react to them here.

You have not moved a full discussion. You've forgotten the message from Daishokaioshin which triggered it all. Without it, the discussion you have moved didn't make any sense, and you're letting very offensive comments remain to the view of anyone, without the possibility of rectifying the lies of Daishokaioshin. I'm deeply offensed, and we must all respect each other (we are forced by the rules). Please delete these horrible comments. Folken de Fanel 12:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Go ask someone's (most preferably an admin) opinion on if they are severe enough comments (or if they're even attacks in the first place. I didn't reread them, so I have no clue.) to actually warrant them being removed. Nemu 12:20, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

If you have moved my answer to those comments, in the first place, it's perfectly logical for those comments to be moved also (and in fact they were, until you reintegrated them, without their answers). I'm only asking that either you don't alter comments (the full discussion remains), or you remove all comments related to this discussion. There's not even a need to ask someone about the severeness of these comments, it's only a matter of neutral point of view and of respect. Folken de Fanel 12:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never seen such minor things removed. The only time I see personal attacks removed is if the whole this is just a big one. I'm not going to bother unless you can get someone to state otherwise. If you want to stop fighting, just give it up. You're still taunting Daishokaioshin, so stop acting like it's just her fault. Both parties just need to back down. Nemu 22:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

But, see, it's not your talk page. It doesn't matter what you want, or whether you think they were personal attacks, or if you don't like someone speaking the truth about your past actions. Other people's talk pages are not yours. If you don't like that someone said something that portrayed you as less than perfect, that's too bad. People are going to say things that you don't like, in life. This is not justification for throwing a fit and spamming their talk pages with nonsense, demands, and lying (for instance, saying I made racial insults when I didn't). Leave Nemu alone and let him run his talk page how he wants to. No further comments from me on this subject, so unless Nemu asks me a question, I am not going to be responding and spamming up his talk page. I recommend you do the same.

On an unrelated issue, Nemu, I have been unable to keep track of some of the articles, since I have over three hundred marked for my watchlist. Some of them, like Muten Roshi and Kuririn have been suffering due to a lack of people catching all the vandalism and meaningless edits that go on. I believe that someone re-added the Trivia section to Muten Roshi at one point, for no reason, after it had been removed, and adding speculation and utterly meanginless rubbish. Do you have any interest in watching those two articles and cleaning them up a bit, or should I focus on them myself, until they are cleaned up? I don't know how busy you are when you're not on Wikipedia, so I don't know if it's feasible for you to invest time in dealing with certain articles. If it is not, then please let me know, and I will refrain from bothering you.

One more thing, I'm sorry for saying what I now recognize as being rather hostile things in the past towards you, due to my perception of your actions being unwarranted. Due to having Asperger's Syndrome, I have difficulty coping with change, and so when you merged all those articles, I failed to realize at the time that my opposition to their being merged or deleted was primarily due to my reluctance to accept change. Now that most of the merges have been made, even though there's not as much information about the characters, the world hasn't ended, and things may be better off for it. So, sorry for arguing with you about things. I think you do a lot of good on Wikipedia, and I don't want to make your stay here as intolerable as some other people are making mine.

Thanks for your time, and good luck with future editting.

Daishokaioshin 20:29, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Roshi's page pretty much requires a complete rewrite, so I'll deal with it when I have a good chunk of time. I'll take a look at Kuririn's later. Nemu 20:56, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

By Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks:

"Whenever you refactor, do not destroy the context of a conversation -- all statements in the discussion should still make sense after the refactoring. So if you refactor a personal insult, but do not refactor an insulting response, that destroys the context in which the response has been made. Don't do that."

...Please remove the said comments by Daisokaioshin.

The question here is not whether it is personal attack or not. You have chosen to "refactor" a discussion between Daishokaioshin and me. But in doing so, you've forgotten to remove a part of the discussion, thus destroying its context. Folken de Fanel 22:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

That WP:RPA is just an essay, but I'll still respond to it. I didn't "refactor" (is that even a word?) anything. You made a statement that had nothing to do with the current discussion. Dai's previous comments started the new discussion, but they are not part of it. Nemu 22:42, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

No. You did' make a refactoring, there's no point in denying it.

DAISHOKAIOSHIN made a statement that had nothing to do with the current discussion. Dai's previous comments started the new discussion, and they are part of it.

Anyway beyond that, this is a matter of Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks, which is "often seen as an appropriate reaction". This essay doesn't seem to cover archived talk page personal attacks, neither does the "archived" template. So I might concider doing it myself. I assume you'll have no problem with it since you've archived it. Folken de Fanel 00:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI, you blanked Tournament Announcer and moved it to the appropriate list page. While I consider this a good thing, you should note that it has been WP:PRODed and failed. That means that your redirect could be considered controversial. In this case, I doubt it will be challenged but the more correct response might have been to open the move for discussion. JRP 01:31, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

With something as minor as that, I just didn't feel like bothering. I would start a discussion for semi-important characters, but with that, it would have just been pointless. Plus, it was removed by some random anon that gave no real reason. It wasn't the 100% correct thing to do, but it seemed better than leaving a message, waiting a week to get a reply from someone that doesn't understand why every single character doesn't need a page, and then trying to explain it to them for two more weeks. Nemu 01:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes. I agree with you. I just wanted to make sure you knew the rule that you were applying WP:IAR to. JRP 02:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Don't revert other people's pages that have been edited by other people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.18.145.172 ( talk • contribs) 76.18.145.172

Dispute

When ya can, see the respective talk page for your opinion. Thanks! PL(DB) 17:48, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It's been taken care of. Power level (Dragon Ball) 19:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

When you can, see Talk:Power level (Dragon Ball)#Okay, let's get these power levels right!, thanks! Power level (Dragon Ball) 19:12, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey TTN, would you be interested in joining our Wikiproject? Wikipedia:WikiProject Dragon Ball -- bulletproof ^3:16 02:33, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

I should let ya know too. Whenever you can, please see Talk:List of Dragon Ball special abilities#Garlic Gun. If you see that Garlic Gun there, that is just a sample of how the techniques should be classified and titled. I am going to change all of the techniques on the list (except Kamehameha, Dodonpa, Genki Dama, Kaio Ken and any others that were used as romaji names in the English manga/anime) into their literal English translation in about five days from now. This change will be similar as to how Bardock was changed to Burdock (name pun) and Hercule to Mr. Satan (which was his original Japanese/romaji name). Please comment on anything else if you have something you may want to add on to it. Thanks! Power level (Dragon Ball) 23:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This was indeed a bold move ;) Pea ceNT 13:27, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

I undid your edits again to those pages. Please wait for bulletproof, SUIT, or DDF to share their opinions before you do that again. Thanks! Power level (Dragon Ball) 04:19, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

If I may make an observation: articles that you take the time to condense/clean-out seem to have an easier time getting redirected. I realize that this is an extra step that you shouldn't need to do at times, but doing this first seems to lead to fewer arguments with Dragon Ball editors. Just thought I'd point that out for one reason or another. ~ Snapper T o 00:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I did fully clean out most of those articles. It doesn't matter because of the people that believe any subject should get an article if they can regurgitate any sort of info onto it. All I can do is make them realize that they don't or put each one up for deletion (something I really don't feel like doing). Nemu 00:13, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

So you have; I hadn't gone back far enough in the histories to notice. Still, what you did for Android 19 is an excellent effort at cutting down the information. Were you to propose its merging now, I think you'd have a much better chance of people agreeing with you than you would had you left it in its old state. Editors sometimes need to see how what can be said compares too what actually needs to be said when determining how necessary something is. ~ Snapper T o 00:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I cut back these two pages a while ago [1] [2]. It really didn't help too much. I try to cut stuff down in my regular editing most of the time anyways (that was what I did with 19. I don't really plan on trying to merge it unless I can get PL to realize how pointless these pages are.) So when I did it for those two back there, it really only helps with the editors that actually get the concept of the lists. My only real problem with merging these is PL and his like-minded friend. Nemu 00:34, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Power Level has always been very set in his viewpoints, and doesn't give-up until he's outnumbered or an admin tells him to stop. I don't think I've ever seen him to be in favor of merging an article, and I wouldn't be surprised if he objected to the merging of an article on Dolltaki. Regardless of how Power Level sees things, short articles are much more attractive merge/redirect candidates to the average wikipedian than articles that look long. ~ Snapper T o 00:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Talkin' 'bout me behind my back, are you now? Snapper2, you don't know me, okay? Just cause you've never seen me in favor of having an article merged, it doesn't mean that I've always been against a redirect or merger. YOU DON'T KNOW ME. Also, about that Dolltaki character, leave him alone Snapper! I wouldn't want him to have his own main article because he did nothing of importance in DBGT except get all " pedophile" with Pan, which is also unimportant. So, Snapper2: I understand where you're comin' from, but really, don't push it... I am what I am and that's all that I am... 03:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Must I say (again) that you must discuss the proposed redirects of Tullece, Janemba, and Bojack and reach a new consensus before stupidly making those redirects. Open up a survey or something about it on WP:DBZ and I might support you if you have good reasons. Power level (Dragon Ball) 18:43, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've read all of the WikiProject Dragon Ball reviews regarding the matter: look Nemu - Heat P and Snapper2 (I think) is on your side. While Dark Dragon Flame and DesireCampbell is on mine. Wikipedia is not a democracy I know that, but the thing is, both sides are even so ya can't redirect them like that. Put 'em up for deletion instead (like ya did for Raditz) and then I may reconsider my vote. Power level (Dragon Ball) 01:35, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll AfD them. It's the only way to stop his nonsense. He will wikilawyer over the articles' existence for as long as he possibly can. He will do everything imaginable to keep them intact because he seems incapable of letting it go. He is also incapable of listening to what you or I tell him because we are not admins. He will only pay attention to those capable of making him shut up. PL, once you read this, do not bitch. This is exactly how you act. — Someguy0830 ( T | C) 02:34, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

All three are up. Feel free to vote. — Someguy0830 ( T | C) 03:05, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

First you call me an "image whore" Someguy0830 and now this?! I'd watch my mouth and wash it with soap if I were you. You always talk dirty! Power level (Dragon Ball) 04:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I've been tagging everything in the Nintendo category, and I've arrived at the Pokemon section. I was also unsure, but I was told that they are a part of the Nintendo project because stuff under umbrella projects is still covered by larger projects (ie. That's why Nintendo games are tagged under C&V and the Nintendo Project). -- Scorpion 20:30, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey Nemu. Are you sure Garlic Jr and his henchmen constitute as "earthlings?" I though that they were from Makyo-sei or another dimension or somethin'... Power level (Dragon Ball) 05:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

According to the article, it's just his power source. Move it back if something else says otherwise. Nemu 05:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I might just post a question on the WP:DBZ talk page about it. Thanks! Power level (Dragon Ball) 05:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Hey, why not merge saiyans into aliens? Saiyans are other aliens too, aren't they? Power level (Dragon Ball) 06:06, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

That, I would get people's opinions on. Nemu 06:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Could you do that? Let everyone know? I'm thinking that we should have one big list of all the aliens that appeared in the Dragon Ball seires, maybe keep the aliens that appeared in Dragon Ball GT separate. Like DesireCampbell said, one list, not twelve. Power level (Dragon Ball) 06:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, naming the category List of aliens in Dragon Ball sounds much more appropiate. Merge the namekians with them also, I think, since they're aliens to earthlings. Power level (Dragon Ball) 06:19, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

The one list might be sort of messy. I'm pretty sure it's being discussed on WP:DBZ's talk page. Try doing it there. Nemu 06:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Beowulph moved the list of earthlings page back to its uneeded capitilized title. Do you know why? Power level (Dragon Ball) 18:25, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Well your opinion on the Shichibukai thing staying defeats the practice on the One Piece pages that has been there the last 2 months. This is the benfit for everyone and all real or fake chapter info is treated as "rumours" until the scanalation is out. Those fake spoilers a month ago caught a lot of people out even the bigger editors like me. You have to draw a line Nemu... Whether you want to or not.

And believe me. I don't give two hoots about Gecko not being on the page, he should be. But why develope a practice like this with a few others and then just let it slip for something like this. Everyone is excited we have a new shichibukai, thats all, normally we don't have a problem with removing the info. Angel Emfrbl 23:46, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

• I put it in to relieve people of the idea that Balrog and Mike are the same character. The statement Capcom made in "All About Capcom" gives it a source. JuJube 00:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
• I missed the "Cannon Spike" part about Cammy. Oops! ^_^ JuJube 00:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Although I agree in some way that the opening text is irrelevant, the trivia references other things and characters from later games the developer created, and most non-Japanese who have played this game originally did so on the ROM, prior to a re-release on the GBA in the Mother 1+2 collection. Without the ROM and development information (not to mention the reception), the article is a stub, and really serves no purpose. -- PeanutCheeseBar 17:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Opening text aside, I think the better thing to do would be to tag the article and say that the sources for the article should be cited. -- PeanutCheeseBar 18:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

You should have a little more faith in Wikipedia. I know that some people are quite lazy when it comes to listing sources, but if little else, I will attempt to weed out irrelevant information and find appropriate sources. If nothing else, a discussion should be opened on the talks pages of each article you take issue with prior to making multiple changes. -- PeanutCheeseBar 18:16, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

It might be irrelevant quite soon; Link to the Past is trying to get the article deleted as a retaliatory action for disagreeing with him and reverting his edits. -- PeanutCheeseBar 18:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Revert warring is not a very good way to go about it. -- Aurochs ( Talk | Block)

I will never use talk pages for something that trivial. It takes way too much time to deal with people over pointless trivia sections if they give up right away. It's also hardly a revert war with two reverts. Nemu 10:01, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

It's true that trivia is to be avoided. But the guideline is to integrate them into the article, and most of that list could easily be. - Stormwatch 12:43, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

None of it can be integrated. Level select: OR, and not important in general. Culture: OR. Tails: Not important, would go in Tails' article. HPZ: Not important. Dreams Come True: Could possibly be used, but I viewed it as unimportant. Split Screen: OR, and not important. It's all junk, hence my summary. I don't trash them without looking at the points first. These points are pointless. Nemu 17:14, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

I saw two people arguing about something through edit summaries, decided that it was on the track to becoming a revert war, and took appropriate action to prevent this. I apologise if I somehow offended you in doing so; however, I still feel my actions were proper, and I still feel that if somebody reverts another person's (good-faith) edits, there is obviously some disagreement that needs to be resolved through the appropriate channels. -- Aurochs ( Talk | Block)

Listen here, there's a rule that says do not get rid of other peoples stuff they just edited so please do not do this again. -- Naruto134 00:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Nope. If something doesn't help the article, it's to be removed. Neither picture helps, and on violates the fair use policy. Nemu 01:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

If something that doesn't help the article is to be removed, then how come people replace images and they don't get remove? Do not make stuff up! -- Naruto134 00:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Because they place useful images. Your images are pointless. Nemu 01:32, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

For merging the Crash articles. The was some drama I didn't want to deal with! - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

		Cool as a Cucumber Award
		For staying cool during discussions that would usually drive someone mad. The Dragon Ball merges for example-- $UIT 03:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for uploading Image:Docchaos.PNG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 07:54, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Me here, I noticed you and Darkwarriorblake are having differences about where ever we should merge this page or not. I won't revert changes made by either one but I will ask a favor out of you two, please discuss the change at Talk:Garlic Jr. before you violate the three revert rule, remember we are a group here and I don't want any of you getting blocked for violating the 3RR, I already leaved a simmilar note on his talk page so I hope he will cooperate, Cheers! - DDF 18:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I ususally stop at two. I wouldn't break it. Nemu 18:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ahem. Yes. I just wanna take the time to apologize for flying off the handle lately. I've really been the only one working on that article since it's merge into it's current state. I've had the goal of it being a featured article from the very start. I guess to see it ripped apart and nearly deleted over such small things just threw me over the deep end. It would have literally rendered the past few months of my life a complete waste of time and I guess I just couldn't take it. I mean, I don't mind it being edited and all but to see it come so close to GA and then vanish..gah..I'm just repeating myself. Anywho, I'm like...a way better dude than this and I just hope we can come to terms in the future. Gah..take it as you will GrandMasterGalvatron 19:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Was there some discussion somewhere that led you to do all that merging? If so, where? If not, I'm not sure you should have removed that much information without discussion. Rhindle The Red 03:13, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Because WP:FICT states if characters don't have info, they should go to a list or their source. If I was to wait for a discussion, it would take weeks just to get a response from somebody that likes them. Nemu 11:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

But many of those *had* information that you didn't carry over. What kind of information are you expecting? There's something to be said for being bold, but I think you've gone too far. Rhindle The Red 01:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

If info wasn't included, it was because it was cruft, unnecessary, or an oversight. Just because we have info, it doesn't mean it's always needed. Nemu 01:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I will respectfully disagree with you and some of those articles may re-appear, though with more substance. Rhindle The Red 02:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You're free to try, but expect them to end up redirected again if they are nothing more than a plot summary and some junk (trivia section, speculation, OR, ect). Nemu 10:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

All I ask is that if they *do* come back that you engage in some discussion before removing information in the future. That's what the "merge" tag is for. Rhindle The Red 15:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The merge tag should be used normally, but not in cases like this. It would take far to long to do anything with stubs that are hardly edited. Leaving messages on main articles is also impossible due to the fact that nobody ever answers (It's been answered about one out of the five times I've done it.). So, there is no point when doing it with stubs that should have only been on a list in the first place. Nemu 18:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Again, we will simply disagree. I disagree with your assessment of the quality of some of the articles you blanked. I disagree with your definition of "hardly edited". I disagree that your personal experience with leaving messages is a justification for circumventing the process. (It never bothers me. I give them ten days and if I don't see anything, *then* I move.) But most of all, I disgaree with the fact that you blank these pages without discussion, with no regard for preserving any information that was found on the pages and without fixing the redirects you cause. I will ask you again not to do this in the future. Rhindle The Red 19:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I look at these articles, and frankly, I see trash. Most of them were a quick overview of a character, which is fine, but the rest is just junk (trivia sections, OR, ect). There is no reason to waste time with asking for objections when they are in such a stubby state and have not been edited very often (most of the articles have under fifty edits, and only a few break one hundred). I know there isn't a deadline or anything, but there is certainly no point in waiting for ten days just to have a few fanboys try to keep their articles (once again, this has happened to me). I do add the tags with true articles that have edits, but certainly not these.

As for information, as I said up there, it's trash most of the time. I dump the trash, and cut the plot description to a reasonable length. Look at the pages I redirected, and find true info that needs to be kept. You won't find much. If the pages are popular (as in the redirects are actually used), or if I'm bored, I fix the redirects, but for stubs such as this, it's easier to let a bot get it (I probably should fix them all of the time, but I don't really care). I know you just simply disagree, but you have to think from the point of view that these articles are not true articles; they should have been on the list in the first place, and then expanded when they have actual info. Nemu 20:05, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the Pixar character merging is fine, as long as you say what you are going to remove on the talk page, and make sure at least two people agree with you. Your recent removal of Stanley from the List of Car characters should have been discussed on the talk page. A•N•N•A hi! 00:32, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I go with the try first, talk later method. It usually works better. Nemu 00:35, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

So... you merged E-102 Gamma into the E-Series article. Why? Paul Haymon 11:30, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

To add a bit of information to my question, the entry for Gamma at the current E-Series article is relatively poorly written and lacks detail. I saw no reason to merge it; actually, the old article stood a chance of eventually becoming featured or at least good. Please explain; thanks. Paul Haymon 11:32, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I merged it because, while it's not that great looking, it's all he needs. He's a one game character (with a true role), that stayed in that game besides a few cameos. All of the info was bloated, unneeded, speculative, OR, and generally junky. If I had edited it, I wouldn't be much larger than his current entry. Nemu 11:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the response. But now work needs to be done to make the entry in E-Series of higher quality. Paul Haymon 11:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

So, you think it's all a character deserves, eh?

Do me a favour, and go delete all articles for TV series episodes they are not needed.

Meh, guess what, Nemu? You are an hypocrit. People like you are the cause of Wikipedia's bad reputation. People like you are the cause of lack of information. I hope you never have to do a thesis, otherwise, you'd be screwed. User:Eriorguez

Wow, that's a new argument that has never been addressed before! I won't bother saying anything else. Nemu 17:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, if the merge is done, don't destroy information. Just copy and paste.

I see you've redirected Nack to the minor characters area... I don't think he's that minor. Besides, his article was fairly large before it was redirected. Perhaps we should give Nackery his own article back, but have him also listed in the Minor villains area, with a link to his article, possibly like this:

What is your opinion? RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 18:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I did, but no one listened. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 00:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

That means that you should give up. Nemu 00:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Not very mature-sounding, especially if you're an admin. I'm starting to agree with the others on your talk page that are critical of you. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 00:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. Giving up is the mature thing to do as to keep pestering people after a legitimate merger is annoying. Nemu

I'm not pestering you. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 00:59, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I mean asking to bring it back, and actually bringing it back. I should have said disrupting things. Though, it is sort of like pestering. You also may want to read WP:SIG. I don't know if it's violating it, but it seems likely. Nemu 01:03, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

My signature is not in violation. i've been through it several times with the administration, and this is their "wikipedia-friendly version" that we came to an agreement upon back in 2005. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 02:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Really? I've never seen a box sig stay around for too long. Nemu 16:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

We came to a compromise. i originally had the flag of Windsor Ontario in my signature, but they helped me customize this one last year. I chose these becuase they look like patterns and colours of a raccoon. :) RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 17:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Look. It's a list for minor characters. All the major characters have enough information and importance to keep their own articles, only merge if they're only a stub or a couple of lines. Besides the article is long enough as it is. Retiono Virginian 21:41, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Stop what? Are you treating me like I'm some kind of vandal? Well I'm not. I am a very experienced contributor here, and I really think this merge plan is obnixious. Retiono Virginian 14:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's obvious you don't know how character lists work by how you were trying to move it. That would have required the creation of a second list that definitely has no point. Nemu 16:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you were correct in removing the information from the article. While it's true that "video game guides" are not to be included, that was not a guide, it was a list of the contents of the game, akin to a plot summary. As it is, it is referenced by the work itself and completely independantly verifiable, not requiring additional references. Rhindle The Red 12:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's listing every single gameplay feature, which is a game guide in essence (It's basically a list of levels). All it needs is a quick summary on the gameplay (paragraph or two). Nemu 16:54, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Then why not do that instead of just deleting things? It doesn't make the article any better just to delete what you don't like and not work to improve it. Rhindle The Red 17:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Because I have no idea on how the gameplay works. The descriptions are all in-universe, so I can't properly describe them without actually playing the game (which I can't). Nemu 17:19, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Then you could have given it an "expert" tag so that someone who actually knows the subject could improve the article. If you've never played the game, how can you say whether or not the content you deleted was valid? Rhindle The Red 17:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I guess I can place it now, but that still doesn't make the content any better. Personally, I find the tags to be pointless because nobody ever uses them. They just stay there until someone actually interested in the article decides to fix it. Game guide material is game guide material. Nemu 17:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"They just stay there until someone actually interested in the article decides to fix it." That's why the tags exist. So that someone interested in the article can fix it. Rhindle The Red 18:23, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I mean the main point is to have it in the category, which barely anyone bothers to look at. It doesn't mater if the tag is there or not because if the person interested wants to fix it, they found the article on their own. That makes the whole thing pointless. Nemu 18:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

You understand that putting the tag (be it "expert", "triva", whatever) puts it into a category and there are people who just troll the categories looking for articles to help, don't you? That's why leaving the tag is important. It helps people finds articles that need attention. I'm sure people do find articles on their own, but the tags are a useful tool that should not be ignored. Rhindle The Red 21:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

It's never worked on most of the articles I've seen. Maybe it's just with fiction and video game related articles, but I've seen countless tags that stay on articles for at least six months to a year. Those usually get removed by annoying anons, or random people without any work being done. Some people go through the categories, but not enough to truly make it worth it. Nemu 21:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I've gone through the trivia one a few times myself, and it never seems to change. It only get larger. Nemu 21:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)