User talk:TTN/Archive 9

; Archives
	June 2006 to September 2006; September 2006 to January 2007; January 2007 to April 2007; April 2007 to May 2007; May 2007 to June 2007; June 2007; June 2007 to July 2007; August 2007;

Joey episodes

I've merged and redirected List of Joey episodes to Joey (TV series)#Episodes based on the fact that the list is just titles and airdates and the parent article can cope with the size. This shouldn't affect your current review of the individual episode articles. Brad 17:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Bijuu

...the only section that even attempts to describe the creature is the Nibi's, and it only says "a fire-breathing two-tailed cat". As these are fair use images, they don't have to absolutely necessary - so long as they help illustrate the concept, and don't clutter the article, they are acceptable. They also help demonstrate what Kishimoto was basing the beasts on - cementing the claim that he adapted them from real Japanese folklore, as previously, it was a bald-faced assertion in the "Creature Type" section - there wasn't even the least bit of explanation that they weren't entirely Kihsimoto's creation.

If a section on their historical basis, and more detailed word-description's were added, then the pictures could be able to be removed, but even then, what are they really hurting?KrytenKoro 21:34, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

They look ridiculous in this context, have nothing to add more than the links already provide (the images are present in those articles), and I doubt that they'll do anything more than confuse people as they first look at the article. It is just ridiculous to include them, as it would be ridiculous to use pictures of animals to describe Pokemon or video game enemies (I can just image a picture of a mushroom for a Goomba). TTN 21:39, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: Bleach images

So you're suggesting that we replace all those images with group shots? Sure, great idea. While I'm at it, would you like me to trap the moon's reflection in a bottle?

In the vast majority of the cases you're trying to force us to replace, there are no group shots. This is not a case of "I'm lazy and don't want to find any", or "but that won't show off my favorite character as well", or "stop being a whiny jerk TTN", or "do it yourself", they simply do not exist. And why should they? Many of those characters have had nothing to do with each other in the series. In the places where logical groupings of the characters in those lists do exist, like the Numeros 5 or the 3 filler modsouls, we already use group shots.

I can see maybe 5 images that might be potentially combinable into a group shot with one other character, but that's it. I'm off to see if they really do exist right now. --tjstrf talk 03:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm asking people to find easy group shots. It should be easy to get a group shot of the captains, the important vice captains, the Bounts, the school children, the Kurosaki family, and the shop. I'm not asking people to mix and match here. TTN 10:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I spent 2 hours earlier looking for any sort of usable screenshot of Keigo and Mizuiro, and did not find a single one that wasn't either of the back of their heads or only showed one of them or had Keigo horribly off-model due to some visual gag or bad animation. May I add them back in now or do I have to show up at your front door with a timecard and prints of all the shots that wouldn't work?

Also, using group shots of the shinigami characters would require we use medium or hires color spreads of the entire captaincy, and this would actually be less acceptable under Wikipedia's fair use policies than the use of the individual lowres anime frames. Since the list only discusses about 14/26ths of the characters that would be on those spreads, we would be using an unnecessarily large amount of Kubo's intellectual property (the entire spread) to illustrate certain elements from within it. We cannot justify use of a group shot to just illustrate some of the group while giving no description of the other characters or the group as a whole any more than we can justify putting our images at excessively high resolutions, or using 3 shots of the same element, or any other stretching of the WP:FUC. Using several smaller shots is a much more minimal use than using one huge shot with a bunch of extra copyrighted material in it that we aren't utilizing.

In conclusion, there's much more to consider than blind numbers here. Start thinking about the fair use criteria as a whole. --tjstrf talk 12:25, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There are various times where all of the students hang out together in the beginning of the series. You cannot seriously say that there is not a clean shot within all of that. With the captains, one 200 by 200 screen shot from the anime can easily cover them. We don't need crystal clear images for a topics that don't even follow guidelines (if you can do something like Characters of Final Fantasy VIII, many screen shots would be acceptable). TTN 17:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You completely ignored his whole "copyright/WP:FUC/fair use/etc" argument. Unless you don't care about the rules of Wikipedia, I advise you attempt to explain yourself or just stop. --NightKev 00:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Stop merging articles with no discussions

Refrain from the above as no one else does it. Stop merging inappropriately as you did with Toad and Jirachi. You have never done a discussion for any of your pointless merges bar Mario enemies and Toad was not in that discussion. You aren't even starting sections on talk pages so you aren't giving anyone a chance to object. This isn't fair and you are biasing these merges in your favour. You are also acting like you own Wikipedia, doing what you want and expecting people to comply and reverting their efforts to oppose you until they give up. This is not following policy or guidelines by any means in any way. As for Jirachi, there is OOU info so that crappy excuse can't be used. Stop. I am going to report you and will take you to as high an authority as I need to to get you to shut your face and abide by policy like everyone else. Henchman 2000 18:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

He is abiding by policy. He can do pretty much anything he wants to. He only has to stop if someone objects. If you object, take it to the talk page. i ^said 18:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello. Please don't forget to provide an edit summary, which wasn't included with your recent edit to Jirachi. Thank you. Kariteh 20:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, "rv" is a perfectly fine summary in that case. TTN 20:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No it doesn't, REASON is what you need, since you have none, stop reverting. One thing you aren't allowed to do, act like you own Wikipedia, which you do. See WP:OWN for more info. Henchman 2000 17:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You already know that the Pokemon were merged per a project consensus instead of just a random redirect, so it was a perfectly fine summary. If you did even a little research, you would see that Toad was discussed. TTN 19:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Listen up. The new "lists" of Pokémon shouldn't be here. This is an encyclopedia, not a list of lists. -ILikePikachu v|d 15:35, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Kim Possible episodes and characters

Do you think the episodes and characters from Kim Possible should be redirected? I attempted to do so, but I was reverted. The Prince of Darkness 13:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but there is no point if obsessive fans keep reverting, and if there is no way to have an actual discussion. You can use Wikipedia:Television episodes/Review‎ for the episodes if you would like. With the characters, you'll just have to make them understand or find an admin who is willing to step into a content dispute. TTN 13:29, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for being so naive in the past. I was ignorant and didn't respect the guidelines. I know now that unnotable articles don't belong on Wikipedia, but rather on Wikia. The Prince of Darkness 13:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, yes. The question of "unnotablitiy," and what defines it. And I reiterate, there's no reason to delete these pages, and the same goes for shows that other editors(including myself), might think suck. ---- DanTD 13:44, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability arguments aren't resolved by deletion and redirects without any discussion or consensus. If you think an article's not notable enough to stand on its own, you first discuss it in the article talkpage, and maybe put a merge-proposal template on it, or propose it at AfD. Either way, you have to provide a chance for all sides of the argument to be heard so that a consensus can be reached. It's very hard for people to assume good faith when massive, undiscussed, unilateral actions are being taken; it results in an assumption of vandalism and a siege mentality that has those who contribute to the articles in question just digging in and fighting harder. Wikipedia has a procedure for deleting articles like this for a reason; please follow it in the future. Rdfox 76 14:06, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Batman: The Animated Series episodes

Sorry, I was going to speak to you about this once I'd made the changes, as the history page shows you did this in the first place and I wanted to explain myself. My theory was that the articles should be restored to their former form, so that they could then be fitted to meet the episode criteria. However, so as to not to upset people whilst the articles were essentially incomplete, I would not link them back to the episode guide.

As for the criteria, I stand by what I said in the discussion page. Individual episode pages should not be done away with solely on the basis of the inclusion of trivia pages (the relevant page itself specifies that the rule should not be used to delete pages, just to better them). My belief is that by using the director commentaries from the DVD, trivia and more detailed episode guides could be incorporated to improve the episode, as well as how they fit into the DC Animated Universe as a whole, as much of this series helps inform later series. In that this is an Emmy award-winning series, I believe that this series does deserve individual episode pages, they just need to be done better. My friends do a podcast where they review each episode in depth and I'm sure they'd be upto the job.

That is my explanation. I hope we can reach a common middle ground because the episode guide, as it stands, is very unsatisfactory for what was a ground-breaking animated series. Apologies if my approach initially rubbed you up the wrong way and I look forward to your response. Slothian 12:14, 5 September 2007 (GMT)

Sypha Belnades

Why are you merging 'Sypha Belnades' with 'Castlevania III: Dracula's Curse', simply deleting information not given in the latter article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Prime Blue (talk • contribs) 14:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

billy and mandy episodes

Who told you to get rid of the billy and mandy episodes, people need more imfomation about them, give them back, NOW. Rhinoceros lover 10:50, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Red Ring Rico

Why the heck do you keep trying to turn valid articles into redirects? --Stormwatch 17:54, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

The amazing thing about discussing with people to reach a consensus is that you actually need people to discuss and reach a consensus. These articles are dead, so there is no way to discuss. I mean, if you look at that Dark Force article, you are the only person who cares. Speaking of that, if you must have a number consensus, it is currently two to one. If you don't mind, I will redirect that one soon. TTN 18:12, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Use some f*ckin' common sense, will ya? You are destroying information for absolutely no reason. What's this called again... oh, that's right: vandalism. --Stormwatch 18:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, we have various policies and guideline that show these are unneeded. And common sense would say that we don't need to cover completely minor topics that belong in another one. Are you going to go with the wonderful two to one consensus or not? TTN 18:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: TTN, I've just read Wikipedia:Vandalism, and realized that my use of the term was incorrect. I wish to apologize for that. However, I still think your edits are erasing valid content. -- Stormwatch 21:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, we have various policies and guidelines that can be applied to show how they are unnecessary. Fan content doesn't belong on this site. Non-notable fictional subtopics belong on alternate wikis, not this one. TTN 21:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Then our point of disagreement is calling those "non-notable". Red Ring Rico is a very important character in Phantasy Star Online: although she is not seen in the game, her messages are found all over the game, and give the whole sense of plot developement in it. About Dark Force... the series' main villain isn't worth an article? Forgive the sarcasm, but you might as well delete the articles about every Star Trek character other than Kirk, Spock, and McCoy. -- Stormwatch 14:49, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you think I would say that "we have various policies and guidelines that can be applied to show how they are unnecessary" if it boiled down to an opinion? First off, notability in general requires objective evidence. When applied to fiction, this requires non-trivial, real world information that is verified by reliable sources. Star Trek, a very large series with a very large following, can easily have its fictional subtopics pass that. Phantasy Star, a mildly popular video game series with a much, much, much smaller following, has little chance of that much past the basic video games. TTN 16:20, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Vegeta overhaul

Be careful my friend, that article was massacred a few days ago and ever since Wiki:Anime has been trying to fix it. But I smell an edit war. Don't let yourself get pulled into it. Good luck. --Amaraiel 18:54, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Vegeta just got reverted. I'll notify Wiki:Anime. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amaraiel (talk • contribs) 19:08, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

TTN you said that you are removing content per the discussion on the DBZ wikproject page, but there was no consensus on the page. Before Deleting stuff I think we should get some consensus eh? DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by DBZROCKS (talk • contribs) 19:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed you don't tend to actually take others opinions as much as just indent your own unwaveringly. Theres basically you and two others making decisions for ALL of DBZ articles and it isn't on. Them wanting condensed articles doesn't automatically mean they're all for you just removing all data from articles that have come close to good article status as where.Darkwarriorblake 19:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Everyone involved needs to see the page on Resolving content disputes This is getting out of hand. There needs to a consensus. --Amaraiel 19:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry, I was just going with one revert. That's usually fine in order to avoid long discussions if necessary. And even then, it really is just one stubborn editor. TTN 19:17, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Edits to List of enemies in Doom

If you feel the article is unfit for inclusion in Wikipedia, please use Articles for Deletion to nominate the article for removal. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to mince words here: what you did is an effective deletion of the article. I know it. You know it. DOGS know it. The vandalism warning above reflects that quite clearly. You blanked the page without retaining any of the content in the article to which you redirected.

As to consensus, your edits have been reverted by four editors other than myself, three of whom also identified your edits as vandalism. I just happen to be the only one who had the thought of pointing that out on your talk page.

Now as to the article's merits, honestly I don't care. Really. The only thing I care about is that you're trying to brute force your "verdict" on the article's merits through. That's not cool. That's not Wikipedia either. Seriously, use AfD, or PROD it, or suggest a merge. The fact is that drastic changes like the one you've made (deletion, merge, WHATEVER you want to call it) should be discussed first per policy, not done first and discussed afterwards.

So the brass tacks of it: you're in the wrong here, and I'm calling you on it. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 23:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, just discovered that people have been trying to discuss the redirect. They seem perfectly willing to participate in a discussion on the merits of the article. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 00:46, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Jynx

I've posted a question at Talk:Jynx_(Pokémon)#Why_redirect, which you may be able to answer. When you have a chance I'd appreciate it if you could drop in and give your reasoning the the redirect. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:53, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikilink destructions

Hello, when redirecting an article and removing the main link in the other articles, please don't forget to remove the inline links too. You forgot to do that in the Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars#Characters section. Kariteh 14:46, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Cross Epoch up for deletion

Hey there, TTN. I don't know if you have any interest in the article, but I've listed Cross Epoch for deletion mainly per notability reasons. If you can, please check out the AfD page and post your thoughts on the matter. At any rate, that's pretty much it. Just wanted to give you a heads-up. Hope to see you around, and happy editing! // DecaimientoPoético 20:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Goku techniques

There are two suspicious users, Peter Vogel (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) and BSDB (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), that keep re-adding the list of abilities in Son Goku (Dragon Ball). I've been repeatedly taking it out but these guys keep putting it back in without a reason, even after I've warned them about WP:CRUFT. As you (and others) were one of the users apparently against such lists at WP:WPDB, can you get rid of it there? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

There are still users who continue to add the same WP:FAN and bunk to Goku, Pikkoro, Gohan, Mirai Trunks, Chibi Trunks, Goten, Vegeta, and possibly others. TTN, you proposed the removal of these elements yet they're still being added. Not to be imprudent, but aren't you going to help revert some of these guys or do I have to put them all for deletion to end this cruft war? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll revert them as I see them. They're usually reverted by the time I check up on things, so there isn't much I can do. Just give it a little bit of time and they'll start dieing off (like with the merging of all of those characters). TTN 21:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you read this suspicion I lefted for DBZROCKS? There might be others involved but these are the only guys I've seen do this, without edit summaries. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:49, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

You can probably try Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser. TTN 21:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

CheckUser does look confusing. I mean, I've never actually started one before, though it can't be that hard can it? Albeit I'm not even sure if I have enough evidence, would you happen to know who *might* be behind the hinted sockpuppetry? Some long term abuser who is blocked? This way, a known suspect could ascertain the one pulling the strings, I think. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that I look at it, Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets is a better venue for this. You just have to assert that those three are the same. You don't need to have a "mastermind." TTN 22:12, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

That actually seems easier to do. I'll consider it if these same one or two people keep it up. Unless, if you want to make this report yourself now I can support you with all the evidence. Well, whatever the cost, thanks anyway. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: TimySmidge's DBZ articles

I saw your note[1] on TimySmidge's talk page. Right now, those articles are at the crux of a different dispute entirely (specifically, he keeps using Fair Use images in the user namespace). I'm watching the situation unfold closely, and if you could hold off on submitted the MfDs, that'd be great (you said "in a few days"). If it turns out that Smidge is unwilling to communicate about this, I'll probably just speedy them rather than have them run through MfD (where they'd most definitely be deleted). Thanks. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:50, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. TTN 22:52, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent, thank you. EVula // talk // ☯ // 22:58, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

House of Erebus

This "secondary source" also acknowledges where to find the same information for the House of Erebus, and that's in the special features section of the DVD. If the official Blade website was still open I'd be happy to reference it, but unfortunately it's not. That website is the closest thing we've got going for this article.--The Scourge 23:01, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You actually have to be able to use the information to make a decent article. There is little chance for that to happen, as they are a part of a relatively small movie series. You should focus on describing the group within the actual series and film articles instead. TTN 23:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

History

I have a long history huh? Give it a rest people. This is jawdroppingly stupid. -- Cat ^chi? 14:20, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Dragon Ball character lists

I gave a good response here. Did you read it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Just curious, you are watching that section are you not? I mean, I really would like to go forth with my test, but I wanna hear your thoughts directly. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 07:33, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Merging

If you're going to cite WP:BRD, don't you think you should actually follow it's guidelines? "1) Boldly make the desired change to the page. 2)Wait until someone reverts your change or makes another substantial edit. DO NOT revert this change! 3) If a disagreement arises, gracefully back down a bit, and explain and discuss your reasoning with the reverter and consider their different views too (don't go for discussion with too many people at once). Once you reach agreement, start the cycle again by making the agreed change."

I didn't notice you "gracefully back down" or "explain and discuss your reasoning". Which is odd, given the fact that the explaination for "that guy's" revert was specifically because you didn't discuss the merge. I *did* notice you reverting his change, which is specifically what WP:BRD says not to do.

I know you think that discussion is useless and that all it does is slow down your crusade to rid Wikipedia of "useless" articles, but it is the essence of collaboration, which is what Wikipedia is all about. If you followed these guidelines and took other people's views into consideration *before* making big changes without discussion you'd spend less time fighting people and more time doing something useful. Rhindle The Red 18:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? How do you know why he reverted? You don't seem to have asked him. If you did, I don't see it. How do you know he's not the "most interested person"? I checked User talk:Keenan Pepper and I don't see you talking to him about it, which is what WP:BRD advocates. So how exactly did you know he isn't "interested"?

I happen to think that BRD is a nice idea and have used it myself. But it only works properly when you follow it, which you did not. You made your move, it was reverted and then you reverted it back without attempting to engage the reverter in a discussion. Why claim to use a process if you're not going to follow it? Discussions, by the way, are not meant to occur in edit summaries. If you really wanted to have a discussion, you should have written to Keenan Pepper directly. BTW, how does it "go into effect"? It's not a policy. It's not even a guideline. It has no weight of its own. Especially if you don't follow it. You need to re-read Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle#What BRD is, and is not and Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle#The BRD process.

And you always talk about "wasting time". You do realize that there really isn't any time being wasted by following procedures properly. We're not on any dealine. There's no publication date we have to hit. What you call "wasting time" others call "having respect for your fellow editors". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhindle The Red (talk • contribs) 22:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I look at 100 discussions as 100 opportunities to improve Wikipedia. If they go unanswered, then you have your course of action and can also have the knowledge that you didn't trample on other editors to get it. I'm glad you're waiting the five days. If you took that careful approach more often in the first place, you would cause fewer fights. Rhindle The Red 02:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I second to that. If you can only follow wikipedia's Standard Operating Procedure of discussing articles for merging before reaching an amicable concensus. Waste time? Why? Are we in a hurry or something? Its better to delay an inevitable if the end-result is agreeable in both parties. And who says the reason I want to keep the Blood Pack (Blade II) article because it's the same as my username? Fine. I'll let this slip, but with your kind of attitude, I assure you you'll encounter more of this issue in the near future. I may not be the one to convince you but rest assured someone out there you'll meet will turn the tables on you. Have a nice retarded day †Bloodpack† 22:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

World of Homestar Runner

OK. BTW since you are knowledgeable about the topic, what's your opinion about the fate of this article? `'Míkka 00:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I won't bother commenting in the AfD, but on its own, its probably not a large enough to truly signify an article (the third party source is good, but it needs more than that to really be significant). Though, if it could possibly be mentioned in a Videlectrix article if its large enough or in a section about Videlectrix in the main article. TTN 00:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You're

You put a comment on my talk page. You're message sounds so familiar. Who are you? --TimySmidge 20:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Doom

Trust me, I agree with you on many levels. However, you were reverted ~9 times. You were perfectly within right to redirect it without discussion under WP:BOLD. However, if you're reverted in good faith, BOLD no longer applies and you must discuss. I understand your longstanding frustration with lack of discussion. (All the way back to the episodes) However, it is an edit war unless there is discussion. So I suggest that you make a post on the talk page. If there is lack of response, you can redirect, because under WP:BRD lack of discussion = consensus. And if there is discussion, we can just disregard the ones that contradict policy; we can call an administrator to determine consensus if need be. Good luck. — i ^said 02:08, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking Back at the South Park pages which were merged...

I noticed that another user had mentioned that Dr. Mephisto is notable enough to have his own article. Then you said that his article would have to be improved before it could be restored. Have you tried looking at his article in [Park Wiki]? Perhaps you could take an example from there? Wilhelmina Will 20:20, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

The articles there are quite terrible by the standards of a fan wiki, let alone this one. Look over WP:FICT and WP:WAF for what you need. TTN 21:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I was well aware that certain things in the articles in the wiki could not be included in an article here, but why do you say that the articles are terrible, even by that sort of wiki's standards? I'm rather insulted by that, as I created a lot of the pages, and rewrote/repaired/extended/all-three-or-any-combination-in-such most of the others. User Mr. Garrison (who is an admnistrator there) also said that he liked them. Wilhelmina Will 00:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Koopa

Koopa redirecting to Koopa (disambiguation) is a malplaced disambiguation page. If that is how this should be, then the dab needs to be moved to the base name, but since that destroys history, the loss of the article content formerly at Koopa should be discussed at Talk:Koopa first. If you feel that that is the solution, please bring it up on the Talk page. -- JHunterJ 03:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Be BOLD!

You know what I am talking about. How's this for the 3 (or so) hopefully well written paragraphs:

"The 12 characters of this cartoon show exist as three subsets: the "Eds," the cul-de-sac kids, and the Kanker sisters.

The "Eds" comprise the three main characters: Ed, Edd, and Eddy. Ed is a large, smelly buffoon who speaks in non sequiters. Edd is a thin nerd who wears a ski hat to cover some secret on his head. Eddy is a loud, megalomanaical manipulator who commands the Eds through all sorts of schemes. The schemes always involve hair brained attempts to make money from their peers, which they wish to spend on jawbreakers. The schemes always fail.

The "cul-de-sac kids" consist of Kevin, who is a a jock and a bully; Nazz, an attractive but somewhat clueless unattainable love interest; Jonny, a loner who plays by himself along with his imaginary friend Plank (a board with drawn on facial features); Sarah, who is Ed's perpetually angry younger sister; and Jimmy, a little boy who is best friends with Sarah, and who is bound to her in an almost symbiotic relationship.

The Kanker sisters live in the nearby "Park 'N' Flush" trailer park. They are the show's antagonists, and their constant target is the "Eds," who they fancy they are in love with.

Eddy's older brother left the cul-de-sac before the show began, but is referred to often enough, and enough of his character exposed, that he can be considered an unseen character. A view of his bedroom reveals that he is something of an art deco fan. His communications with Eddy consistently contain derogatory references to his little brother."

I would put this in the beginning of the Characters section in Ed, Edd n Eddy. -- Elaich ^talk 04:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It can probably be refined, but its a good start. TTN 22:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you went against yourself there...

When you suggested merging the episode articles for The Nanny, you said unless anyone objected, they would be merged. But Peregrine Fisher objected, and even gave a reference as to why he did, and you merged them anyway. And now I'm objecting as well. Fans of the show, or people interested in it, might want to read further into the individual episodes, and learn more about them.

For the record, I would hardly call it a "merge" when no info is even put in on the episodes in the main page. Couldn't you at least have included a synopsis for every episode? Wilhelmina Will 02:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

That was a random spam message placed because I was using merge tags only. And the objection would only lead to discussion, not keeping the articles. Please read over WP:EPISODE if you wish to push the issue. Fan interest matters little without notability. TTN 14:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Fan interest matters little without notability? Ha! Why don't you just say "Wikipedia developing matters little without notability"? It would sound just as absurd, not to mention just plain lacking-in-emotion. Wilhelmina Will 18:55, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Episode reviews

Do you have a general idea of which ones have ceased discussion? I haven't been following all of them that much. If you don't know, then I'll go through them all...it isn't a problem, just that it will have to wait a couple hours for when I get home from work. I don't have the time at the moment to go through each discussion and close out. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:33, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok. I'll go through and close them when I get off from work, which will be in about 3 - 3 1/2 hours from now. That cool? I'm off my lunch break now, be back later. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 17:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've closed some discussions. I'm only closing the non-controversial ones. Here is the list:

That should keep you busy for awhile. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:30, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

SMRPG Talk

I didn't understand what you wrote in your last reply. Can you please see the talk page and rephrase it? Thank you. Taric25 01:04, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please stop vandalizing the Wild ARMS 5 page. It took a long time to restore all the imformation you altered or removed.MagicalHopStep 17:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Magical has posted a note on W:AN, but it would be helpful if you posted on the article talk page links to the specific standards. I think that would stop this misunderstanding immediately. Thanks. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

It won't do a thing. I have already shown him a few featured video game articles, and he still has it set in his mind that the information is important. I'm just going to ride it out for a bit to see if others can actually convince him otherwise. TTN 18:29, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

TTN, you are wrong. That's not how video game articles should be. And I, for one, am seriously angry and upset at how you just deleted section that me and fellow editors like Magical spent such a long time working on. She's right-it is vandalism.24.3.186.152 18:44, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No, TTN's not wrong. The article looks a lot cleaner without the fancruft. The Prince of Darkness 18:51, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

I have initiated a thread concerning you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Potential problem conerning episode articles. -- Cat ^chi? 21:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

My apologizes....I seen the above article, clicked on the associated link (which was your contribs) and accidently reverted one when my TWINKLE links came up. That was a unintentional mistake on my part and I apologize. Take Care...NeutralHomer ^T:C 22:00, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There is significant disagreement about your episode article redirecting at the ANI thread. Would you mind ceasing your mass redirecting, at least until you comment in the discussion? Mr.Z-man —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 23:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing to comment about. I'm following the standard merging practice, I've already stated that up above in that discussion, and that's it. The people that do not want the episodes removed can discuss at WP:EPISODE. The people that think I should "merge" can bring it up here, as that is a personal thing. Adding merge tags is not contraversial in itself, so there is nothing wrong there. I believe those are the only issues, none of which pertain to AN/I. TTN 23:16, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that most episode articles should be merged; however, if somebody calls for a discussion, the least you could do is halt until discussion is over. You said yourself that you were making bold edits; some people have reverted. Naturally, the next thing to do is to discuss, per WP:BRD. Pardon me for "eavesdropping," by the way; I happened to see a familiar name on AN/I. You Can 't See Me! 00:28, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

There is no actual specific discussion. It was started by someone that thinks all episodes are notable, so the correct place for that is WP:EPISODE instead of complaining over me. There are other people that don't like that I don't waste time summarizing giant plot summaries that would take me weeks and weeks to do, when fans can do it ten times quicker. That's just how I work. And then there are other minor complaints that really mean nothing. In the very least, any discussion belongs here instead, as they are all just personal peeves instead of actual AN/I complaints. TTN 00:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Report at WP:AIV

I have removed the reports presented by yourself and the one by the named party on you as this is obviously a dispute and not blatent vandalism. Please consider taking this matter to WP:ANI if you are unable to resolve it. LessHeard vanU 21:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Weird, most of the time single purpose tag removers are blocked. TTN 21:32, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

thats probably because you are acting out of line trying to force your opinions on the subject when everyone else in the discussion has gone against your view... 68.72.139.134 21:35, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

It's all Thanks to You.

Why on earth did you delete my episode pages? And without notifying me first! When I created Iggy Vs. the Volcano//A Dip in the Pole, I specifically said that if it contained inadequate info, then to contact me in the discussion for that page! And here you go, pompously removing it, like you did to the episode pages in The Nanny! I tried to control my temper with you on that one; it may not have looked like it, but believe me, I really tried, but when you kill my own child-articles, that does it! That blows it all away for me! I can't deal with that kind of abuse! Please read my userpage, and see what you caused to happen by not minding your own beeswax. As I said in there, I hope your satisfied. Wilhelmina Will 18:30, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Jackie Chan Adventures

Wondering if I could toss one of my watched shows your way: Jackie Chan Adventures. I'd merge some of these myself but I'm not too sure what's salvageable and what should be merged where:

List of Jackie Chan Adventures episodes
List of Jackie Chan Adventures characters
- This is an extensive list. If you think it needs to be cut down, I think the only ones worth keeping are the main characters, the villains, and the demon sorcerers.
Demon Sorcerers Pretty much all I can see that's worth keeping would be who does the character voices. It could easily go into the character list.
Shadowkhan Probably redirect to the characters list too with just brief descriptions of them.

What do you think? -WarthogDemon 05:43, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I'll chop them up a little later. TTN 13:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Question

Please explain why you are redirecting all of the [[3rd Rock from the Sun]] episodes (i.e. [[The Thing That Wouldn't Die‎]]). --Maniwar (talk) 00:39, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

They fail the television episode notability guideline, and there is no real chance for improvement. There were too few to actually need a discussion, so I was bold about it. Feel free to revert if you disagree, I guess, but if you cannot assert real world notability, they'll just be redirected again after the discussion. TTN 00:45, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I'll go ahead and revert to give them a chance. If they fail, then I'll absolutely go with the community, but I at least want to give them a try. Thanks for replying though to my question. --Maniwar (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:AWB

How did you get the external link for WP:AWB to open for you? I've already added my name to the list, but have tried countless times to get that link to open and "Page Can Not Be Displayed" is all I get. I have Windows XP, but is there something amiss? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 11:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Mario RPG locations

Are you willing to actually discuss cutting down the content of the article yet (I mean "sourced" content)? I mean, you just added a section that is 95% gameplay information. That's the kind of information that has no place there. TTN 16:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Again, as I said on the talk page of the main article, I am currently willing to discuss content that is unreferenced and does not allude to other media, such as the geography section. Per Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle, I would like you to listen very carefully. You are trying to get my full and considered views, because I care enough to disagree with your edits. If you do not listen and do not try to find consensus, you are wasting everyone's time. Thus, per Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus can change, I am offering you a reasonable, temporary compromise to integrate my ideas with yours.

Now, here's the part to which you have to you have to listen very carefully. I am offering you a temporary compromise. If you want to us to reach a consensus, then you have to prove to me that you are interested in working on the article in regards to improving it. You really hurt my feelings when you wrote, "I am not interested in working on the article in regards to improving it." I felt like you didn't care about my edits and that you were wasting my time, so first of all, I would like you to take back what you said, because it really hurt my feelings. If you can honestly say that you'll change your interest in the article with a genuine desire to improve it, then I can learn to trust you, and eventually, we will work on the rest of the sections, such as metaphysics, languages, concept & creation, etc. Once that happens, I will be more than happy top discuss sourced content. Until then, I am offering you this temporary compromise. Taric25 17:24, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

See, you're not offering a compromise; you're completely avoiding the issue at hand. My claim is that the article is just fluff. Your response is to ignore that and just keep going on your own path. I have asked for a third opinion in the past, and that person agreed with me. Many of the people from the video game project said the same thing. And even bypassers have said the same thing. This is not just my way to destroy the article or remove your work.

Honestly, would it hurt to go my way even a little? Is it going to kill you to remove information? The answer is no, so excuse my bad faith assumption, but given the fact that you haven't touched upon any of these issues at all, I have to assume you're purposely ignoring them to avoid having to remove anything. TTN 17:33, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Even though you have voilated policy by assuming bad faith, please understand that just because I am asking you to show that you are interested in working on the article in regards to improving it does not mean I am assuming bad faith. Please assume the assumption of good faith by understanding that I am still willing to trust you even after you hurt my feelings and that I am neither ignoring you nor avoiding the issue at hand because "it's going to kill me to remove information", because you have openly declared, "I am not interested in working on the article in regards to improving it.", and I still care enough to discuss this with you. If I didn't give a fuck, then I would deny you recognition.

I am offering you to remove sourced content after we have removed the unsourced content from the Geography section. Also understand that regardless of the comments by others, we still have no consensus, because contrary to what you just wrote, "I have asked for a third opinion in the past, and that person agreed with me.", not everyone did agree with you. For example, after User:Axem Titanium quoted you writing that you are not interested in working on the article in regards to improving it, he wrote, "I think this is a dangerous attitude because it means you are not committing the time needed to actually do a good job." Others have also shown interest in improving the artice, such as User:Sjones23. Taric25 19:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

In fact, it was because we could not come to a consensus that I even offered a temporary compromise. I did not ignore you when you brought the languages section up, because when you wrote, "I'm going to chop the OR (most of the language section)", I replied with "I really don't mind if you chop anything, as long as isn't referenced, meaning it doesn't have a citation, or if it doesn't allude to outside media. The problem is, the entire languages and metaphysics section is referenced, so if you wanna' start chopping, would you please start with the Geography section?" It was after that you did the exact opposite of what I offered. If you would have cut unreferenced text from the Geography section that didn't allude to other media, then I would have accepted that and been more than happy to discuss the languages section, but you went against the consensus I thought we had established.

In addition, when you said, that you are not interested in working on the article in regards to improving it, that is serious. The deliberate and intentional attempt to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors is trolling. Taric25 19:35, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm referencing back to the old discussions, not just this current one. You did nothing but jump around the issue. I have now cut the geography section down to the basics. Any references worth salvaging can be added back as it is built up, so please do not revert for that reason. I guess it is just my wording that confused you. I'm saying that the topic is not interesting or valid enough for me to want to work on. I either want it removed, or I want nothing to do with it. I don't want to just kill it for fun. TTN 19:50, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Urgh, fine, it looks like I'm going to have to put the first foot forward. Oh, if you're going to complain about what you believe is my OR, then please don't write anything like "they echo to those nearby." Honestly, what is that supposed to mean?

I'm not going to totally revert, but at least your edit kickstarted me to getting the images the adventures use when journeying from one part to another and starting to rewrite the geography section. I'll let you know when I'm done, so we can go over it. Taric25 20:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi!

Okay, really. I know I've heard of you before. Who are you? That message you gave me sounds familliar. Are you a sock of a different person? --TimySmidge 20:55, 5 October 2007 (UTC)