User talk:TTN/Archive 10

Married with children episodes category

Hi there - my understanding of the conventions of Category:Television episodes by series is that episodes should be categorized by show there, not in the parent category of Category:Television episodes. That way, the episodes can more easily be found when looking through Category:Television episodes by series. Ordinarily small categories are to be avoided, I entirely agree, but I think that this situation is an exception to WP:OCAT#Small with no potential for growth. Any thoughts? Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 01:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the MwC category again, the list of episodes article would fit into the episodes category as well. Plus it's not as though there is no possibility of expansion of the category: further articles may yet be written about other episodes. Bencherlite^Talk 01:17, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

There will be no need for thirty small categories. That whole category will eventually be pared down to around five to ten series with more than ten episodes, so any others will be one to three episodes at most. It will be just as easy to use the main category, and the list category to find search through them. The chance for more episodes is rather slim at this point (the previous articles were redirected, and only a couple showed potential). If it does get to that point, the category can be recreated. TTN 01:21, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, you seem to be doing a lot of editing in the field of TV episodes, so I'm perfectly happy to let you get on with it. I keep thinking that I've seen some useful comments one way or the other at WP:CFD recently, so I may have a dig around and see what I can find, for my own reference. Do you happen to recall any such discussions? Anyway, as far as I'm concerned, you can reinstate the speedy tag on the MwC episodes category. Regards, Bencherlite^Talk 01:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Found something, anyway. At this discussion, the eponymous category was deleted, with comments that episodes of a TV show X don't belong in an eponymous category X but in a category of X episodes. Just a thought. Bencherlite^Talk 01:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

With that many episodes (and the fact that the category was useless), it makes sense, but this is just two articles for one category. TTN 01:51, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Would it be helpful...

if you annotated the message that you leave on "list of episode" article talk pages to state that other users would be responsible for merging any plot information into the list? Also that in most cases this information can be obtained from the history of the redirected episode articles? I don't mind doing this in a few cases, but I don't have time to do them all. Hewinsj 18:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it'll probably be a good idea to do that in the future. TTN 18:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello again; just wanted to make sure of this:

TTN, you did say that there were issues with those episode articles I did for Iggy Arbuckle, which made them unsuitable for Wikipedia, right? And another user, in the debate over their fates, said that a few paragraphs in the episode page would be sufficient for info-giving, right? Well, at the bottom of the Iggy Arbuckle article, there is a list of the episodes; and in there I've put much of the info that was originally in the individual articles. I plan on doing that for the other episodes mentioned as well. You don't hold anything against that, do you? You aren't going to go and erase all of that, are you? (Begins to shake nervously.) Wilhelmina Will 00:45, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

3rd Rock from the Sun Episodes

I am just giving you a heads up that I am going to revert your changes to the 3rd Rock from the Sun articles. You are flat wrong that the redirect took place because of the discussion. The discussion was to keep and not redirect, so per the discussion, I will be reverting your edit. However, before I do so, I will give you opportunity to show me that, outside of your personal interpretation, the community wants this. I will not be backing down on this, so be prepared to bring support. Nor am I trying to be disruptive, however, per the discussion of the editors, your interpretative changes were not warranted and will be reverted. I will give you a few days, however I will also be reading this post to see if the community backs you and your interpretations. This is not an attack, but a strong disagreement on how you are interpreting things. In good nature, but a disagreement of your actions. --Maniwar (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Consensus is global (policies and guidelines), not local. As you failed to show any way for them to meet the policies and guidelines, the opinions presented were irrelevant. If you must have numbers, there are plenty of people that feel the same way as I do, so we can always take that route. Seriously, why don't you do something productive with your editing time like bring the main article to featured article status or the episode list to featured list status? Fighting to keep four very substandard articles is quite silly. TTN 22:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Be careful, I will report you for 3RR violation. You must understand, unlike everyone else, i will not back down from your reverting your interpretation. I do not see the community accepting or wanting your interpretation. I will not attack you and I do respect you for doing something you believe in, but know, that unless the community supports your interpretation you will not win here. Save yourself some frustration and valuable time and move on. Cheers! --Maniwar (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Please read over WP:3RR, especially the nut shell. Anyways, I'm sure you'll back down before I do. TTN 23:20, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Scrubs

Hi, in the past I believe I have called you names over your incessant diatrabe against TV show articles, and for that I would like to apologise. I have seen what has been done to articles such as Allison Cameron and I support the goal. However, I question your tactics. I'm sure you're bored with having the same argument over and over, but every time you tell a sub-community that it needs to change, you do it in a very confrontational way, which doesn't much help matters. You go in and essentially say "I don't care what you think, I'm going to do this anyway." I concur that the end result is worth fighting for, but it would be better if it were reasoned for. mattbuck 00:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

If I'm not confrontational, things just don't work out. It's one out of ten times that the group of users actually tries to improve the articles themselves rather than me having to force them. Otherwise, they feel that they can just "overrule" policies and guidelines with their own numbers. There is no reasoning with that point of view. TTN 02:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I beg to differ. When I merged two divisions of the Wikipedia: Manual of Style-something.... articles into the main article, I mentioned that I was sorry if anyone had any issues with it, or if there was any notable information lost. I then said that if anyone wished to argue with me on it, then feel free to do so on my talk page. I am also polite to the users who give "inappropriate appraisal", as I like to call it. For instance, one user, in Spike (from the Land Before Time)'s article, mentioned that it was a great movie. While I agreed with them on that, I mentioned that it is not appropriate to say things like that in a seriously-focused encyclopedia like this one here. I even suggested to them where I would look if I wanted to voice my opinion on such things. It's how the women in my family have handled matters in similar circumstances for generations; I'm only trying to carry this legacy onwards. Wilhelmina Will 21:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

My God, you've deleted all the interesting information about all the Scrubs episodes too! You're not doing productive work here. Again, Wikipedia's goal is stated as follows: "The main goal of this project is to ensure that Wikipedia has a corresponding article for every article in every other general purpose encyclopedia available...". Why the destructive, counterproductive attitude? We don't have to worry about a page count on an online encyclopedia. Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales expressed the desire to encompass "the full body of human knowledge" made available to the entire world, and in hundreds of languages.[1][2]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Gekritzl (talk • contribs)

Isn't that act illigal in Wikipedia?

When that robot warned you about the image you uploaded, you removed his comment. You've told me so yourself: Things like deletion debates, or warnings for anything involved with your edits, are illegal in Wikipedia. Be careful!!! Wilhelmina Will 21:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

No, users may remove anything that they would like from their own talk pages. The bot message is just a general space-wasting spam message anyways. TTN 21:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Drawn Together

Please desist from redirecting contrary to consensus. It is quite clear that consensus has been established in this discussion, based on reasoned argument. There is no justification for you ignoring the discussion which has taken place, within the normal framework of Wikipedia policy. Please also familiarise yourself with WP:OWN. Thanks, DWaterson 23:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your reply. I'm afraid I'm going to ignore all rules in this case, given that there is clear consensus against your preferred result after over a month of discussion. Had this been an AFD and not a merge discussion, we could have avoided this sort of dispute easily through admin closure. However, as both of us have been involved in the discussion, in all good faith I suggest we both withdraw from any further involvement in proposals to merge or redirect these articles in order to avoid the appearance of sour grapes. DWaterson 23:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your further reply. I apologise for my slow response. Firstly, of course, WP:IAR applies in all circumstances where mindless devotion to written instructions is defeating our common objective of building an encyclopadia. Secondly, yes - we can all cite policy willy-nilly. But your continued assertion that policy has been wilfully ignored by contributors to the lengthy discussion - and therefore you can simply disregard clear consensus - simply doesn't wash. Finally, your comment that, "These will be redirected unless you provide the information to please them or we can just place each single article up for deletion, one at a time over a few months" sounds like a provocative threat to disrupt Wikipedia to make a point by gaming the system. I hope I have misinterpreted your comment, but "placing each single article up for deletion, one at a time over a few months" would be a most inappropriate method of generating consensus. I hope you choose not to go ahead with your assertion that you will "just go [..] ahead and redirect them when I get the chance", contrary to consensus, as this will no doubt simply end up in an unproductive content dispute/revert war of the kind I have no interest in engaging in. I'm optimistic that you'll see that threatening to redirect contrary to consensus is not a productive way to work with others in order to build the encyclopaedia, but I see from other editors' comments on your talk page that you have rather long form on this sort of behaviour :-/ Cheers, DWaterson 00:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Reply

Hi TTN, sure I think that's fine if we can get it to stick. No-one responded to my suggestion for an arb case, so we might as well try again. Let Jack know so we can, as required, keep up a vigil aginst any committed reverters who are drawn from the woodwork. I'll follow it as well of course. Eusebeus 00:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Yo! Per your previous comment, I've started in on the Farscape stuff. Can you keep an eye out? If we are both diligent we may be able to get the point across. How many times do these guys need to be slapped down at AN/I before they'll learn? Eusebeus 18:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Will do. TTN 18:46, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Since your blankness seems to mean yes...

Wilhelmina Will has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you for not removing the episode description paragraphs from the main Iggy Arbuckle page! Wilhelmina Will 01:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

What the hell have you done?

Way to ruin the Drawn Together entry. Now I lose all the fun of the trivia, obscure references and animation cameos that are one of the reasons the show is written and drawn the way that it is in the first place. I thank you for adding to the mangled, Phantom-of-the-Opera-burnt-face reputation that is Wikipedia on the Internet. Now if you'll excuse me, Uncyclopedia is calling me on my cell phone and I'm pretty sure it's about making a Drawn Together parody entry. --Iwriteu 05:25, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Wilhelmina Will has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Please put whatever you erased back in, or else I'll have to eat this cookie myself. Wilhelmina Will 05:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

TTN did nothing, actually. He proposed a merger; the discussion has not been closed as of yet. Someone attempted to merge the entire episode article into the list, but has since been reverted. TTN you need a large sign akin to Betacommand listing your standard replies. Save lots of time. — Soleil (formerly I) 05:40, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

In that case...

Wilhelmina Will has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy munching!

Spread the goodness of cookies by adding {{subst:Cookie}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I'll give you a total of two cookies if you call off that merging discussion, TTN. Two cookies! How can you turn down an offer like that? Wilhelmina Will 05:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop wiping Billy & Mandy's Big Boogie Adventure

You aren't discussing anything with us at all on the matter and what you're doing looks like and is about as helpful as vandalism. Besides that, the discussion/agreement you say is on the list talk page isn't there. If you want to make any major changes to an article, please talk with people about it beforehand instead of just getting rid of all the content and ignoring/blanking us and having revert wars.

Thanks. *Still Calico 15:47, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a merge tag back in June or July that lead to this this discussion. TTN 15:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I don't quite follow. There is nothing there about merging the movie article - just the individual episodes. That's a completely different kettle of fish. *Still Calico 15:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The merge tag was placed in that article, and it was pointed out that all of the articles in the category were going to go. If you want to keep this article, you need to find commentary, reviews, and other things like that from official sources, and apply them to the article. TTN 16:00, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually no. You need to show that they probably don't exist.Genisock2 14:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Uh, how do you prove that something doesn't exist? You can show that it is unlikely, but someone can always claim that it exists. That is why the burden of proof is on those wanting to keep the articles. TTN 15:14, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I said probably doesn't exist. In this case a search of google news and a major libiary index (congress or british say) would probably surfice.Geni 16:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Now, why exactly should I be the one to search through for sources for many unrelated articles? It is up to those that would like to see the articles flourish. And in this case, why are you even arguing? These are minor video game characters from games that have a hard time establishing themselves. TTN 18:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

You should be the one because you want to make a major change to them. Generaly not a good idea to do that if you don't know anything about the subject.Geni 20:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

And yes, it would be nice of me to do so, but these articles should not have been created in the first place anyways, and again, it is up to those that want to keep the articles. TTN 18:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

No it is up to you.Geni 20:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

RE:List of Paper Mario series characters

Seeing as nothing has happened with it, will you be fine if the actual article is redirected at this point? We can leave a hidden message to work on it at your sandbox. If it is brought up to our standards, it can come back. TTN 17:34, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

RE:Yeah, please go ahead and do that. I wasn't able to spend a lot of time finding sources for it right after our discussion and then (honestly) I sort of forgot about it. I was also hoping Czarbender (creator and strong supporter of the article) would have done more to add sources, but only added a few sources to the main characters, which obviously isn't enough. During the little time I did get to play around with the article I realized how all the characters (with the exception of the main characters) really only appear in one of the games. This really negates the reason for a single article containing all the characters - if lots of characters had appeared in multiple games, then it would've been the best option to keep a single list (but that is not the case). Also, I'm sorry for our previous discussions which got a little heated. I hope that is now history and we can work together, if need be, in the future. -Zomic13 19:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Ohmygosh! According to the message in italics, TTN! Is it true that you showed an article some mercy? Oh, that's just wonderful! Wilhelmina Will 19:32, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

arcane

How do you know that the Jan 6, 2001 independent article doesn't meantion the characters?Geni 20:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know. That is why it is up to you to show if that information appears in some random article. The burden of proof is on those that claim something, not those who deny it. TTN 23:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

So you are makeing your edits out of ignorance rather than knowlage? Acticle is hardly radom. Less than a minutes research would have told you that.Geni 23:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, it it up to you or someone wanting to keep the article to provide the real world information. That is all. You can either prove me wrong or wait until someone else does. TTN 23:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Actualy no it is up to you as the one who wants to make a major edit. BOLD, revert, discuss cycle but that rather assumes you are makeing your bold move based on knowlage rather than ignorance.Geni 00:07, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

From WP:V: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." That is it. TTN 00:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Did you move it to the talk page? did youuse the "{{fact}} template, the section with {{Unreferencedsection}} or if the entire article is unsourced by adding {{refimprove}} or {{unreferenced}}"?Geni 00:20, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

We have different procedures with fictional topics; they do not generally improve. If the topic does not assert itself per WP:FICT and WP:WAF, it is merged or redirected. If this were a series of games that are likely to improve with work, then just adding tags and cutting information would be the proper procedure. Just drop it unless you can show that these articles have the potential to become more than the usual crap. TTN 00:25, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

We? Which "we" would this be?Geni 00:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not getting into this with you. This is the point where you start to assert that your personal, by-the-book way of doing things is the only method. Drop it until you see that I am actually redirecting articles that exist in the real world without giving them as much as a glance. TTN 00:33, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

So you reject by the book and instead follow something produced by some mysterious "we"?Geni 00:39, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

A request regarding the Grimmjow Page

I know you tagged it for deletion and thats all fine and dandy I suppose, but instead of a deletion, could it just be a merger, and move him to that Hollow page? I know the standards and all but its just going to be moved there anyway, and as I said in the discussion, the History is all that is really needed. So is it possible that when this discussion is said and done, the page just be redirected?--TheUltimate3 17:47, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

At this point, it is going to be a majority keep seeing as an admin that will delete in the face of that many keeps is probably one in a thousand. I'm sure it would turn out as merge way before delete anyways. If you want it merged, you'll have to convince the people wanting to keep it that it is the best option. If for some reason it is deleted (unlikely), you can probably just request it to be undeleted, so it can be merged. TTN 17:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I was under the impression the discussion wasn't going our way. I put in Keep simply to preserve the History. Thanks for the tip/fast reply.--TheUltimate3 18:05, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You're a Vandal! YOU stop!

Yes, I do know the final outcome, when you're in charge, which is that NOTHING is reliable enough for you! --DanTD 01:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Quit lying. You're one of the people who condemns editors for using TV.com as a source. ----DanTD 01:22, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

One, I can't get onto TV.com. I tried to get in when they took over TV.Tome, and the website wouldn't let me in. I'd like to think it was a glitch, but I have no evidence of that. Two, TV.com actually lists Alyson Stoner as having been in a sitcom that ran for four episodes in 1986, despite the fact that she wasn't even born until 1993. Does that sound reliable to you? Three, as I've pointed out in the past, there doesn't seem to be any source that you find relaible enough to make an episode article worth keeping. ----DanTD 01:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

And once again, you've got impossble demands, since interviews for TV episodes are too rare!! If that's all you find reliable, then THERE ARE NO SOURCES!! ----DanTD 03:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've mentioned that I tried that and it didn't work. Also, just because YOU think a source is unreliable, doesn't always mean it is. And since you keep changing your criteria for what's considered reliable, it's clear that many of the complaints I and others have had about you have been proven right. ----DanTD 03:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I know you're talking about the wiki. In the case of the Kim Possible Wiki, I haven't been able to get the articles up to the quality they had on mainstream wikipedia(images, infoboxes, etc.), and I haven't been able to make any headway with an Even Stevens wiki. And since I haven't been able to do so, all the images that were meant for it were deleted because YOU deleted the articles they were attached to. Either way, the criteria you're setting is still impossible to live up to, and now I've heard you're going after articles about much more popular TV shows. ----DanTD 04:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I did copy and paste the actual articles, and transfer over templates and images as I needed them, and the results were nowhere near as good as on the main wikipedia page. If you haven't seen them yet, maybe I should show you the results, including my attempt to ask for help in changing a title, that nobody ever replied to. While you may not have set the standards, your vicious enforcement is still making it so that they're impossible to live up to. You trash everything before we can make any improvements. And if I'm not mistaken, these articles were supposed to have been frozen to protect them from your destruction. ----DanTD 04:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

And even when sources are provided, you still think the articles are worthless and you tag them for deletion or redirection. Again, it goes back to the same issue that an episode has to be the Who Shot J.R.? episodes of Dallas, M*A*S*H; Goodbye, Farewell and Amen, or the series finale of The Sopranos, or it shouldn't be covered. And even then, you'll probably find some excuse to trash those in the future as well. I don't think you've paid attention to the consequences of your actions. Go check out the List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes and look at the episode "Team Tipton." If it weren't for you, that plot "summary" would be a synopsis on it's own page. Never mind the fact that you've pissed a lot of people off, you've made a mess of the regular episode lists. --DanTD 04:46, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I do realize there are people who put a lot of idiotic crap in these articles. It's safe to say that if somebody posted on an American Dragon: Jake Long that Jake & Rose had tawdry sex in one episode, it's pure bullshit. But official sites, fansites, IMDb and TV.com should be considered reliable. The official sites and fansites you claim are unrealiable are actually worthwhile, because they make more sense of the articles, even if they don't have the NPOV required by wikipedia. And yes, I know you're not the only person who deletes these aticles, but your the one who does nothing else other than deleting articles, and you do it faster than anybody can possibly improve them. This is why so many of us are pissed off at you. By the way, did you look at the problems on the List of The Suite Life of Zack & Cody episodes caused by your rampant deletions? ----DanTD 14:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I told you I've been having trouble with the damn fansites, and I also told you what was wrong with you're rampant deletions. I've also added sources, which in fact don't violate WP:RS, and you still don't give a shit. If you can't see why what you're doing is wrong, then you are the problem. If you're going to tag these articles, you're going to have to do everything. And when you do(which I know you'll do), I can't wait until all the Trekkies get on your case about deleting Star Trek episodes, if you haven't done it already! ----DanTD 16:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

First, I don't just use links to TV.com as references. I've also used IMDb, and others. Second, I know as well as you, that they're not the best sources, but unless there are articles or interviews regarding these episodes, they're the best most people can get. If I had the ability, I'd make screengrabs and use them as sources, but that would serves as an official source, and be a copyright violation, making it invalid. You see? We can't win this way. We also can't fix articles that violate the standards of wikipedia, if you keep DELETING EVERY GOD-DAMN ONE!!!

Sources are used:

• To support an assertion made in an article. Sources used in this manner should be directly referenced for the point that is being supported.
• To give credit to the source, to avoid the appearance of plagiarism or copyright violations.

Block quote

How do any of these violate the policy? If anything, articles on TV episodes strictly of major significance is an indication of eliteism! ----DanTD 17:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it isn't that I don't understand the policy. It's that aspects of the policy conflict with one another, and that your actions are viciously disruptive, and fall into another violation of Wikipedia policy. And I know you don't participate in Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, but perhaps you should at least read Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Episodes, so you'd realize I'm not the only person who feels this way about you. If you don't care to join the discussion, that's your business. In the meantime, I'm going to go there myself, becasue I think I might be able to introduce some kind of compromize over this issue. ----DanTD 17:35, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if you're aware of this, but somebody else tagged Crush (Kim Possible), as unreferenced, trivia, and notability, and I was ready to fix the article so that it wouldn't violate the standards, until I saw that you deleted the link to So the Drama. This and A Sitch in Time are a lot more significant that the regular series episodes. I know they're not exactly Gone with the Wind, but so what? Even if you had been the one who put the most recent tags there, I would've tried to fix them. For the record, "Crush" is notable simply because it's the first episode. But that never matters to you. If it's fiction, it goes. And even if it's not fiction, and simply doesn't look right, it goes. I also know you have people on your side, but they're as guilty of the same things as you. You all make writing and maintaining the articles a huge pain in the ass! It shouldn't be a pain in the ass, so quit making it one!----DanTD 18:33, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

What the hell do you expect me to do in order to get evidence that this is the first episode?! Do you think I can go to the Internet Archives and try to find a schedule from the Disney Channel from June 6, 2002?! They've deleted webpages that are far more important that that. Oh, wait -- that's an official site, so that makes it invalid too, right?! When have you ever written an article?! Because somebody on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Episodes thinks you never have. I don't take everything at face value, but considering your record, I believe that editor. All I've ever seen you do is destroy them. So until I find evidence that you've written other articles, I'm going to believe that destroying them is all you ever do. ----DanTD 19:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the requirements;

You need production and reception information, which Disney would never have.

Honestly, how many other articles on other episodes of other TV shows have this? And how do we as editors know whether or not this will be enough to repel the wrath of the likes of you? Because at least one of the KP episode articles did have some reception info, but I don't see that article anymore. ----DanTD 19:24, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I already told you I've been having too much trouble with that, and like you, nobody there has been helpful. I've joined at least four other wikis, including the fan wiki. And I've also told you, that if you keep redirecting everything, they can't be fixed. ----DanTD 19:41, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatley, I still can't make a sandbox to save my life, so I normally tend to work from a text document instead of a Word Pad one. And when I don't, I'll write and expanded version of the plot sumamry from episode lists, and save expanding them for later. The trouble is, when you redirect and delete all these articles, "later" never comes. In any case, I just don't see how redirecting everything gives us a failsafe for unimproved articles, when you keep trying to make it so that nobody can ever do so. Do you know what I was looking for a few minutes ago? Judgment at Nuremberg. But not the 1961 movie. I was actually looking for the Playhouse 90 episode. You do realize this episode is noted for having it's sponsors censoring the word "gas," don't you? My question about this is, would you tag something like this, and why? ----DanTD 20:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

No, later never comes, because you keep deleting the articles before later can come. Before you trashed all the Even Stevens episode articles, I was working on many of them bit by bit, but I was still working on them. I didn't always check and see if other people were working on them, but I did. Others only seemed to need some minor adjustments. But when you got involved, they all had to go regardless of how they were written, and suddenly neither I nor anybody else could do anything with them. On another subject, I hope the sandbox prototype you sent me will work better than the one sent to me back in June. ----DanTD 20:58, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll say this -- I will give the sandbox another try, and not just for TV epsiodes. Having said that, I still fear that much of the content(infobox, images, and such) will be deleted before they seem acceptable to you, and others like you. ----DanTD 21:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

TTN, this user is really impassioned by this debate. Couldn't you at least give him a chance to find notability for the articles? Maybe two-three weeks to do so in? Please? Wilhelmina Will 21:16, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Wilhemina Will, if you look at the rest of his talk page, not to mention many of the articles he has touched, you'd realize there are editors who are just as impassioned as I am. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against standards. I'm just against obstructions to reaching these standards. ----DanTD 21:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Please stop redirecting episodes without discussion when multiple other editors disagree with you

• Yes, please stop this. You redirected The Plan (Six Feet Under episode) to List of Six Feet Under episodes, even though 2 users already disagreed with you at Talk:List_of_Six_Feet_Under_episodes#Episode_notability AND you never responded to us on that talk page - and the article you redirected cites (8) sources already. You are not engaging me in discussion on the talk page and I ask that you please stop this, and allow me more time to expand the article further. I would think (8) citations so far already asserts notability. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 21:44, 11 November 2007 (UTC).
  • There are (754) articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject The Simpsons. Do you plan on redirecting all of those as well??? Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 21:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC).
    • I will expand the article and add more information from sources within the week. Please, stop. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 21:53, 11 November 2007 (UTC).
      • I have already said that I will expand it with info from sources - just now. Please, stop redirecting episodes unilaterally without discussion. Read comments from others, above, many other people disagree with you on this. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 21:56, 11 November 2007 (UTC).
        • As long as you are aware that multiple other editors disagree with what you have been unilaterally doing without consensus or discussion, then fine. I will work on that article, so please, do not redirect it. Thanks. Curt Wilhelm VonSavage 22:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC).

• I have spoken out against the actions of TTN many times. As more and more informative articles such as video game characters and TV show episode guides get merged, I believe that TTN is really destroying a great encyclopedia and he deserves nothing more than to get banned and most of his mergers reversed. Wikipedia is about expansion, not deletion. If something really deserves to get deleted or merged, then a consensus needs to be met and an admin should carry out the task. Many of the people I know who are WIkipedia users, and not editors, are appalled at the disappearance of many article that they use as a primary point of reference. The first time I became aware of TTN's actions was when he merged all the character articles of Soul (series), which have been since reversed due to the outrage of many readers. What really pissed me off right now is when I noticed the Batman: The Animated Series episodes all got merged and a once informative episode guide is now completely unavailable. These actions can not continue unpunished. —TigerK 69 07:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

On sandboxes

Right now, I'm trying to look up other users who have sandboxes, in order to get an idea of what I can and can't do in them. I've just checked out About the Sandbox, and it answers a few questions, but not the ones I want to know. Like for instance, can I work on more than one, and can I hold onto images indefintley. ----DanTD 22:00, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Somewhat disappointing, considering the number of articles you've redirected. As for the images, I just hope the administrators will say "yes." Nevertheless, I've started a couple of articles I want to work on. ----DanTD 23:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe this page List_of_Six_Feet_Under_deaths to be important to the series

and I do not agree with the deletion and redirect by TTN http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:TTN#Please_stop_redirecting_episodes_without_discussion_when_multiple_other_editors_disagree_with_you [3] rkmlai 01:26, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Kim Possible Movie: So the Drama

I think you goofed in making the redirect. It does not go to the film. Please check it out. Ward3001 02:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Mighty Boosh

To prevent edit wars I suggest you revert your work on the 'Mighty Boosh' episodes. There is not particular problems with them and I showed my objection to getting rid of them and you showed no response, I hope I am never so rude as to do the same.--Wiggstar69 13:32, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Infact, now I have looked into it I can see you have just gone around wikipedia trying to get rid of episodes for shows you actually know nothing about, hopw could you possibly know if its notible or not?--Wiggstar69 19:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

You been overuled on this one, even the wikipedia policy disagrees with you it is a valid wiki page if its 'notable' which it is, you simply wish to be pedantic and you are going out of your way to not listen to others and simply redirect page after page of useful information.--Wiggstar69 19:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll give you an example of how wikipedia actively encourages growth of these pages; the page Doctor Who has been been used as a featured artical even though it holds almost 1000 sub-pages which people such as yourself would believe to be non-notible for example List of Doctor Who serials which itself has a wiki page for every Doctor Who episode aired since 1963, there are pages for each book as well as audio adventures, charicters and spin-off media. If the people who are making these rules are celebrating the huge 'Doctor Who-wikipedia' comunity where is the strength in your argument.--Wiggstar69 20:22, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggest how 42 (Doctor Who) is better then a Mighty Boosh episode.--Wiggstar69 20:28, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If this is all we need then you are suggesting all we need to do is "add some 'outside references' and its all sorted!" I doubt it the 42 (Doctor Who) are at the same level as the Mighty boosh aricals and your argument is flawed.--Wiggstar69 20:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I might be able to do this for the newest episode which hasn't aired on televsion yet, this one has a poor artical without even a plot but i'll try to add what is needed, if not then fine.--Wiggstar69 22:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay I understand, I'll tell you what, can you give us some signifiacant time (ie. a month) to re-watch episodes and put together an outside references section on each artical then we'll wait for news re-actions for the new series and make a section for that too, we'll get no-where if we constantly fight, this way the standard of the aricals will improve and earn the right to be.--Wiggstar69 21:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The Problem with the Sandbox method is there are an awful lot of episodes to create a sandbox for each one, also this will make it less likely for others to help in the new edits to be made (and this will need a lot of people), this way will stop edit wars whilst the articals are being improved, if you leave the notice up for one more month then reveiw the articals after that time we'll make sure there is an improvement.--Wiggstar69 21:42, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Its a bit dissipointing that your not going with me on the 'lets compromise' front but I'll do it your way if you insist, although I request that you send out a message informing those conserned on the 'merge info page for the articals'telling them whats happening again to stop constant reverting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiggstar69 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunatly in the real world i've been very busy and this managed to slip by without me realising, is it really going to cause much upset to keep it for one more month? If so then I'll leave it, but I honestly think this will go down better with those concerned and stop the constant angry battering whilst the articals are improved, also it will be easier on me since its simpler to get to all the articals without reverting things and making a mess etc.--Wiggstar69 22:02, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I sthis more what you are looing for? Eels (The Mighty Boosh episode).--Wiggstar69 22:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have referenced dates, but much like many other episode pages I am unable to reference the continuity unless I say somthing like 'Featured in dialogue'. Would that be fine?--Wiggstar69 23:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The Smallville piolot episode artical is outstanding however I am unable to obtain that much information on production and casting etc, this isn't required for the Doctor Who pages is it going to be neccesary here?--Wiggstar69 23:30, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I have done all I can on Eels (The Mighty Boosh episode). It is to the standared required for the Doctor Who episodes. WHat do you think?--Wiggstar69 11:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion about non-notable episodes

Hi. As you may or may not know, some of the criticism concerning your merge/redirect efforts of non(?)-notable TV episode article has now changed to that you redirect the articles without doing the actual merging part. But what if you would just take the (admittedly sometimes excessive) plot summaries (without trivia etc.), planted them untouched onto the episode list and slapped something like {{plot}} and {{shorten}} at the top? This way, the fans can still merrily go on editing (maybe even follow the advice of the cleanup tags, create new season overview pages,...), and some of the criticism becomes moot. I do realise that the resulting episode lists still don't conform to WP:NOT#PLOT, but the unproportional proliferation of ep articles would at least be stopped. (Personally speaking, it is much easier to trim the plot when you already have the text, instead of coming up with a summary yourself.) This whole suggestion is just for TV shows where there is some controversy going on. What do you think? – sgeureka ^t•c 19:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It may work for a couple people here and there, but the rest will just complain about something else. All they're doing is moving from one thing to another. First it was that I was being bold about it. After, it was that I was moving too quickly with redirecting. Now, it's that I discount "valid opinions" and other stuff like the "deletion" of the articles. I really doubt anything will make them content besides leaving them as they stand. TTN 19:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

lady in waiting

I suspect that most people would consider "Billy Goldenberg the artist who made the music for this episode was nominated for an Emmy Award for Outstanding Achievement in Music Composition - For a Series or a Single Program of a Series, for this episode" to be real world information.Geni 23:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Farscape Redirects

Please do not bring those back until it is shown that they can reach even as far as the first episode's condition. The first episode barely establishes notability as it is, so you're going to have to put in some work for the non-special episodes to become decent. As for consensus, only WP:ILIKEIT comments have been given for reasons to keep, so consensus is found in policies and guidelines. TTN 18:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:QuizzicalBee"

NO, YOU stop. Your discussion page is full of numerous complaints from people for your obsessive redirecting of TV pages without consensus or explicit need. I, and other Farscape editors, will continue to work on the Farscape episodes. Your redirects are invalid, for the numerous reasons already mentioned on your talk page many times. It would be a far more profitable way to spend your time to ADD INFORMATION to Wikipedia. Instead, you force people to waste hours and hours on unproductive editing wars that add nothing to Wikipedia, but instead make less information available to all. One of the great things about Wikipedia is that unlike published sources, these pages can be continually edited, continually improved and the learning experience can be enriched for all. To say that because at any given time you happen to notice it, something doesn't meet the standards, and must be removed immediately lest Wikipedia be soiled by its presence, is simply ridiculous. In all the time I've wasted debating back and forth with you, I could have greatly improved several of the Farscape episode sites. And it's a very real concern that when I do add things, they're just going to be deleted and/or redirected by you, which will waste even more of my time and increase frustration levels. If you have something positive to contribute, then do it, rather than destroying what others create.QuizzicalBee 18:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Everything eventually leads back to our policies and guidelines, and none of the complaints even come close to being based from their standpoints. Do not even pretend that you cannot improve the articles because of me. You could easily work in a sandbox, or just apply the sources and go from there. As I said, you only need the level of the first episode, which would take ten minutes if it is easy as you claim. I suggest that you head over to TV.com and Wikia if you would like to continue to write about the episodes. TTN 19:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:QuizzicalBee"

Your arguments are contrary to the policies and guidelines. There is plenty of reason to keep these pages, and the work WILL be done. There is no reason these things need to be redirected right this second. I'm not working to YOUR timeline. That's overstepping the bounds of Wiki editing; you've just appointed yourself the redirector Wiki articles you've arbitrarily decided should go IMMEDIATELY. The idea that one of these episodes doesn't belong, but a random episode of, say, Lost, is fine because the far larger pool of editors available to a currently airing network show found the time to add a bunch of links before I have gotten a chance to add similar links to the Farscape pages, is ridiculous. Of course it takes longer than 10 minutes. It's a lot of pages, and a lot of potential things to add. Chill. Why the obssession with redirecting things?QuizzicalBee 20:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

oh TTN, you evil man! This exchange is a perfect (albeit depressing) example of how policies are simply ignored. Why don't these people go to wikia and fancruft to their hearts content? Eusebeus 20:34, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Notification of Request for Arbitration "TTN, part Deux"

Just a heads up, I've requested Arbitration with regards to your merge/redirect edits to TV, video game and whatnot articles. The request can be found at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#TTN.2C_part_Deux. Please add your statement as soon as you can. -- Y|yukichigai (_ramble argue ^check) 21:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Request

The Ike discussion on List of characters in Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance is starting to infuriate me and this Wikada bloke seems pretty tenacious about the subject. He's stopped listening to me, so do you fancy providing an extra opinion? Ashnard _Talk ^Contribs 16:17, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a previous discussion about Frank West (Dead Rising)

There was a discussion about this and the result was opposed to a merge. link

Smile Lee 16:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

DUDE! Leave the article alone, it was put through a merge debate. It's over, let the article stay!

Smile Lee (talk) 16:16, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

• replied to Smile's talk page. Eusebeus (talk) 22:44, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Merging articles

When redirecting episode articles that are not notable please could you remove the wikiproject television tag from the talk page if it is present?--Opark 77 16:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Delisting

Hi - I noticed you delisted a few Pokemon articles simultaneously recently. I just wanted to draw your attention to the best practice for delisting articles described at WP:GAR. In particular, it encourages reviewers to leave comments on the talk page of the article, and to give other editors a chance to respond. Thanks, Geometry guy 21:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

TTN...

Just asking. Do you do any work for Wikipedia other than merging and deleting? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 21:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's his hobby. --HanzoHattori (talk) 03:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

T-bone, that Hanzo sir is very unhappy. Couldn't you gently go and explain what exactly is wrong, give extreme details, and provide him with a particular wikia for whatever characters he's complaining for? Please? (Of course, I might've, but I don't know what this is all about, and even if I did, I wouldn't understand the policies enough to explain it thoroughly. Please? Wilhelmina Will (talk) 04:50, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I leave Wikipedia in protest

I spent hundreds of hours writing for Wikipedia, I would have actually spend whole days just to improve this project. I started and finished dozens of articles, I did tens of thousands of edits in thousands of articles otherwise - mostly about the so-called "real world information". I put a lot of effort (I would correct every single coma), research, and most of all time into all this. Anyone may check my edits now to see my contributions.

However, I can't be no longer part of the community where some individuals are summarily and indiscriminately destroying, vanishing without trace these years of hard work of the a huge number of a real contributors who just tried their best, only because seemingly rules changed lately. Just like this. I came-I saw-I deleted. Hooray, good work! Congratulations from the fellow deleters! Here, have this this star award of an awesome deleter! What the hell is wrong with you people?

You know, Wikipedia used to be a wonderful idea, the encyclopedia that anyone may write on just any subject, and the others may correct, expand, perfect - and this ruled by democratic votings on averything to deal with the controversy by consensus. It went downhill a lot from there, and now it's no more.

So, after becoming enraged, I calmed down a little and decided to just stop my effort here. It wasn't that hard, actually. I see no place for me here anymore, where some e-fascist may decide tommorow my entries were worthless, because apparently the rules just changed again, and, how Encyclopedia Dramatica would put this, "delete fucking everything".

So, I decided to do something, and this is I quit. At one moment even wanted to ask to revert all my edits ever done or delete this account, but come on. What for. I'm just going to finish writing this and then repost this to the person who has sparked this, and logoff. Good-bye whoever concern this. --HanzoHattori (talk) 06:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

He's absolutely right, T-bone. Please see my userpage under the section in which I give my views on the policies. It's still going underwork, but it should give you some ideas of how silly it is to follow these policies. Wilhelmina Will (talk) 06:46, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree as well. This deleting and deleting and deleting is not constructive. I obviously can't defend every piece of work. Some of them have no place in an encyclopedia, but many of these episode articles are quite detailed and mean something to someone. It's a shame that some people are being turned off of editing and contributing, because of the deleting, deleting, deleting. I'm all for deleting something that is not factual, but I believe other articles can be pruned and nurtured allowed to grow. They may not all make it to the FA level, but I'm sure that with a community of editors more of them can advance over time to become better articles. Clerks. (talk) 18:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Prison Break

I was wondering if you could look into that? I have feeling that there are too many articles regarding Prison Break, I mean, there aren't many cultural references there. And I fail to see real-world info in the articles. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 11:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't being specific. I meant the episodes. See Prison Break episodes, and all the articles there. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll get around to it eventually. My current focus is on characters, so it will probably be a while. TTN (talk) 20:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Take all the time you need. I know it's hard work to merge so many articles, but someone has to do it. Just do it when you feel like it, I understand if you don't wanna do it, thanks anyway. TheBlazikenMaster (talk) 11:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Picaroon (t) 21:02, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

• sorry about that, I removed your comment and my reference to the arbcom. That's a totally bullshit decision, IMO btw. Eusebeus (talk) 22:56, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, they really aren't there to govern content/policies and guidelines. It's supposed to be the last part of our long and drawn out dispute resolution process. Though, it would be nice to get someone to declare that policy is more important than fan numbers. TTN (talk) 23:02, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Z Fighters

Why not redirect the article to Category:Z Fighters? I don't believe redirecting a page to a category is against policy or anything, though I could be wrong. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:05, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Last time I checked, Cross-namespace redirects are either against something or they are looked down upon. Feel free to look it up, and fix the redirect accordingly. TTN (talk) 21:08, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Dark Force

Why are you so hell-bent on destroying that article? - Stormwatch (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Keep up the good work!!!

Hey if you get bored with anime articles, theres a bunch of wrestling articles that could use a good purge. PS JB196 says Hi! 64.222.223.235 (talk) 04:23, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Wrestling articles? God help us! --Jack Merridew 08:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Quit being annoying

Seriously. The constant redirects of the Star Fox pages have no real purpose. The "real world information" you speak of does not exist, as they are elements from a VIDEO GAME. FYI. So stop it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with the arwing or great fox pages so leave it alone. 69.238.168.72 (talk) 07:09, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Shadow Dance

Hi, there's a problem with your changing the Shadow Dance article to a redirect page. Previously it had a disambiguation note at the top:

This article is about an X-Men: Evolution episode. For other uses, see Shadow dance (disambiguation).

Now people who request the page for Shadow Dance won't be informed about the disambiguation.

Instead, of the main material that was contained in the page didn't belong there, may I suggest that you change the page instead into a redirection to the Shadow Dance (disambiguation) page? —Largo Plazo (talk) 07:44, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed it. -- Stormwatch (talk) 18:03, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

One Piece Characters

Its not me you've got to convince... Its the other editors.

Personnely, I'd like to see the articles cut down anyway because we have too many and the Wikia is now well established. It would make life a lot easier for all of us in the end and take out all the problems with updating per chapters and going over info. Plus on another upside, it takes out most of the oppotunities for fans to add their 2 cents to the article (personnelly), which is the most common (and annoying) edit on the Wikipedia pages.

If you can make it work, go with your choice. The Straw Hats already have enough info on their crews pages, also all other characters. Had it not been for other OP fans, we'd have been able to alter things ages ago. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 09:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay I'll put up something (this will result in another round of hate against me lol) later when I'm back from university. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 07:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Personnelly I'd like things to go ahead, but we have to do things a certain way here on wikipedia. I'll put it up for vote, I'm looking for a reaction. I'm not going to back down from mergers, I did that once and I've felt somewhat annoyed I was convinced to back down. This time I stick by my guns. There is just too much fanism on the pages. I know at least two editors will be against it (the usual two). A notice is up on the main discussion page. I'll give it 24 hours to see the first reaction, meanwhile it can go to vote.

I'm actually tired of the way things are going with those pages. We're having arguments over whether or not Luffy and Zoro are on par strength wise now. I'd like these sorts of things to be taken away as they stop progress with pages happening. Angel Emfrbl (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That is a good point, I put it on the main page because thats what everyone tends to read. I'll move it perhaps now you've pointed it out. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 20:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Cut link to "Malcolm in the Midle" episodes

Hi. Could you explain why you deleted the links to the "Malcolm in the Middle" episodes, please?

They do not meet our standards for episode articles on this site. If you would like to read about them, tv.com would be the best place for it. TTN (talk) 22:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello. That the episodes are covered by tv.com only bolsters the argument against your censorship: Wikipedia's goal is stated as follows: "The main goal of this project is to ensure that Wikipedia has a corresponding article for every article in every other general purpose encyclopedia available...". Wikipedia policy on notability says that "notable" is defined as "worthy of notice" or "attracting notice"; it is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance". Yes, tv.com is the best place to look for it NOW, now that you've dismantled all the interesting information about the show that WAS on Wikipedia. You're tearing down the body of knowledge, while others are trying to build it. Geĸrίtz (talk) 17:01, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Legendia's Trivia

I am aware that trivia sections are discouraged, but did you have to get rid of Tales of Legendia's section? It housed some of the most cameos in the Tales series. Cameos are part of what makes the Tales series fun to play. Bokan (talk) 23:32, 26 November 2007 (UTC)Bokan

Edit summaries

The edit summary for this change seems to be inconsistent, since it references the article Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction). The article does not appear to be about a TV episode that contained any fiction, but an episode of a "real world" musical contest. This may also apply to other edits you have made to articles about that show - I haven't checked. NB: I stress I have no interest here, I was just vaguely interested in your edit history following The Report on Lengthy Litigation in this week's Signpost to see what the fuss was about! However, I suspect it won't help your cause if you make changes to articles for improper reasons. Stephenb (Talk) 11:37, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Oops. I don't know how I missed that. Anyways, I guess that would fall directly under WP:N and WP:EPISODE instead. TTN (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Klonoa

I noticed Klonoa (character page) was redirected to Klonoa: Door to Phantomile because of WP:FICT. Could you please explain this in more detail, and mention what can be done to make this page come back up. If I do not recieve a reply, I will go ahead and revert the edit. Thanks! 74.212.28.84 (talk) 05:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said in my edit summary, you need real world information. This means information from the creators and reviewers directly about the character. Do not bring it back unless you can add it. I suggest signing up, and creating User:*user name*/Sandbox, and moving the page there to work on it. Otherwise, Wikia is a good place for things like that. TTN (talk) 18:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

List of magical creatures and characters and List of secondary characters in American Dragon: Jake Long

What are your reasons for redirecting these pages? Are there any rules on Wikipedia that say that there cannot be branching articles? TrackFan (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Characters require a certain weight in accordance with the rest of the main topic. Having two lists gives them undue weight, as they are contained within the episode summaries and the main article. If you find it to be that necessary, I can add a paragraph summing them up. TTN (talk) 21:14, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and if you're looking for links see WP:N, WP:FICT, and WP:WAF. TTN (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Might as well just have them be redirected. In one way, I'm disappointed that all the work I put into those articles is gone and yet at the same time, I'm relieved that I don't have to maintain these articles. There is one thing that remains. I see that you removed one picture from the main article. I don't see why it should be removed. In the mean time, I have added it back in since it shows the other main characters. Thank you for the reply. TrackFan (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 21:19, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want, they can be moved over to Wikia. There is probably a AD or Disney wiki that'll take the information. TTN (talk) 21:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer. However, my question still remains of if it is necessary to have that picture added back into the main article. TrackFan (talk) 21:25, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh, it's usually better to only use one image in a section like that, but I don't really care about it at the moment. TTN (talk) 21:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Then it shall remain, for the moment at least. If you're hunting for other articles to redirect, you might want to redirect this article [4]. I would but I barely know how to redirect. TrackFan (talk) 21:30, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Opening this discussion again

When you removed those articles, it doesn't make sense at all when there are hundreds of TV show character pages on Wikipedia and yet, they have remained there for quite some time. TrackFan (talk) 20:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Nobody has been around to really mange them, so they have just piled up for a while. It's a slow process, but they'll eventually be at a good level. TTN (talk) 20:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "a good level"? It just seems to me that you might be going a bit far with this. TrackFan (talk) 02:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

That means when that all existing character articles will either establish or assert notability per our policies and guidelines. This is not a fansite, so we will only provide coverage in accordance to the characters' weight. TTN (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

So, in summary, you're saying that the main character summaries on the TV show article would be sufficient enough? TrackFan (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, with both the summaries and the episode list, all relevant information should be covered. There should be no need for a list or separate articles if the information is covered correctly. TTN (talk) 21:22, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

American Dragon: Jake Long article: Prose?

Instead of just labeling a section as "Cleanup", it would helpful if you edited the section to how it should be. TrackFan (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the series, so I cannot really describe the characters in an adequate enough detail for a section. TTN (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

But what do you mean by making it into prose? I don't see how these descriptions rhyme or look like a poetic work. TrackFan (talk) 21:28, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Prose means a regular paragraph format. In this case, it would be taking the descriptions, and describing how all of those characters exist and interact with in a few paragraphs. TTN (talk) 21:32, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

When you meant by that, do you mean by shortening the descriptions and turning fragmented sentences into complete sentences? TrackFan (talk) 21:36, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I think I may have fixed the section. The sentences aren't so choppy anymore since I removed information that seemed out of place and merged sentences together. TrackFan (talk) 22:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Deleting Postal Dude

I respect your honesty about The Postal Dude article but I must point out that this is the third time that it has been brought up for deletion. Maybe it is best just to cancel the deletion or try to improve it. i feel every person who has complained about the article has not ever bothered to try and improve it. If you can help me improve it then that would be great. Thanks - Mr.NorCal55 (talk) 22:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: your AfD for Master Shake

Congratulations, jackass. Agenda wins over common sense. --ChrisP2K5 (talk) 07:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Just so you know, that's a naughty thing to say. The "jackass" part, that is. Wilhelmina Will 18:57, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

and for the "Agenda" part, see WP:ABF --Jack Merridew 05:30, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I reiterate. It was an agenda, I was not assuming bad faith, and I'm surprised at the now silence of the agenda holder. What's the matter, TTN, was I right? --ChrisP2K5 05:36, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Captain Olimar

There was a no-consensus keep / merge / redirect. Shouldn't it be merged intead of slaughtered?

There is some duplicate information, so I want to make sure you won't jump all over me for moving the best and most important stuff over.

Kirby-oh 19:50, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Move it over if you wish. It's mostly repetitive plot information, so I saw no reason for it. TTN 19:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Lol, that's got to be a first! Fair enough. It was pursuant to my comment [[5]]. Why don't these people go to wikia...? Eusebeus 19:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

• I'd keep an EfD template up frankly. That is the funniest thing I've seen all week. Eusebeus 20:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

TTN...

Why don't you like me? You keep asking me to go away. I thought we were having fun, all this time! Wilhelmina Will 00:10, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

An idea on lowering the repeated comments

I haven't been watching your talk page for a long time, but I can see that you still get the same comments month after month. Some comments are pretty much nullified by Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions, so I was thinking that maybe putting a notice at the top of your talk page could lower the, uh, clutter. Yes, I know it's an essay, and people don't need to follow it, but I think it's useful. The essay was written for deletion discussions, but most of it would apply on any talk page discussion. - Zero1328 _Talk? 08:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Klonoa redirect

I have reverted the redirection and added design information, which is classed as "real-world" information. Next time, please raise a discussion. This was not mentioned on Talk:Klonoa, Talk:Klonoa: Door to Phantomile or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. You should know better. Before this happened, I was intending to write real-world information with merchandise and reception, but it couldn't done immediately. If you had notified someone of your intention to redirect Klonoa, I could have told you my intentions, and you wouldn't have needed to bother. --Teggles 08:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, next time, PLEASE look at the talk page first, it will be MUCH easier for all of us, because then we will know what is going on. Thanks you. Tails0600 20:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Before you touch Naruto articles...

Before you bring about merge suggestions or AFDs to Naruto articles, I thought it would be important for you to know that we are currently merging our own articles together and are beginning to start to satisfy the guidelines and policies about fiction. Before you send random merges out there, I suggest that you look up what we're doing and what will be done before you suggest merges (aka think before you act). Artist Formerly Known As Whocares 18:07, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: List of locations in Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars

Yeah, I've been reading through it to get a better feel for it but its a bit hard to take in as it is now. Without seeing all of the sources used it's kinda hard to tell for certain. I'm gonna keep reading through it and see what can be trimmed down to make it easier to read through, and then decide what to do after that. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 23:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC))

I've dealt with people/editors like that before, so I think I can get things cleaned up some. If it gets out of hand, we beat him at his own game and have more editors at one time than he does citing the appropriate guidelines/policies. We call in arbitration if needed. I don't think it'll go that far though. I'll see what I can do after I get more familiar with the article. (Guyinblack25 ^talk) —Preceding comment was added at 23:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Well..

The only thing I'd like done with the pages... I agree with a merger, but just a small merge into the different crews. While I'll agree with the idea the Straw Hats need their own pages I know from experience that isn't a good method of handling them at all. We already have the ness. input for them on the Straw Hat Pirates page and thus don't need much more then that. I'd be happy with whatever the end results are. I just deal with the results of debates and get on with the work at hand; there is no other way of approaching wikipedia otherwise. If you want to take things to the extreme, I'll deal with the end results.

All I want is to just get this over with and move onto the next thing. I have other wikipedia pages I'm now interested in editing that aren't OP related. Right now, between this and uni (which ends for me on Monday), this is getting in the way and preventing me from doing so. Angel Emfrbl 00:24, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The situation doesn't so much stress me out, annoys me because it shouldn't have to come to this. I see your reasons for doing so are legit, though as I said I would prefer a less extreme version, but would accept the outcome no matter what. As wikipedians, it is our job to get things done if we choose to or not, if we do nothing we have to accept the outcome of the debate. I'd like more general wikipedians in on the conversations rather then anime/OP fans which most of the people are arguing are. Fans (myself included most of the time) find it hard to loose pages and accept it, a lot of those apposing are from the vast sum of OP fans. But you get this with every series... Star Trek, Superman, Dragonball, etc. Angel Emfrbl 15:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry case

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/TTN for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Taric25 20:53, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the talk page not because I support the case or even believe it to be so, but because the tag needs to remain until the case has been decided. --Maniwar (talk) 18:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

and because of Eusebeus' weak rationale for his revert. --Maniwar (talk) 18:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• This was a moment of very poor judgement by Taric25, and I have deleted the ill-advised report to spare his blushes. Guy (Help!) 20:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

This was not a moment of poor judgement by me whatsoever. I echo Maniwar, and I am very serious by the evidence I have presented that my claim needs serious consideration. Taric25 (talk) 16:47, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello, just to inform you that I've closed the SSP report. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:20, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Apology

Hello, TTN, I would like to apologize for edit warring on your user page, and I have also apologized to the other main editor, User:Eusebeus at User talk:Eusebeus#Apology. Please understand I do not apologize for reporting you for sockpuppeteering, because I really do believe you are guilty, however, in the future, I hope other users and I can discuss these types of situations more before they become so problematic. I hope you will accept my apology and forgive me. Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 01:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Stop Merging Character Articles

Please stop it. You come in to all these fine articles, then bithch about them not having real-world information when they are fictional. And then once you get all the little robots on your side, you just merge the articles instead of trying to improve them. If you think there is a problem, improve it, don't just waste tons of work people have done because you like seeing your name on a talk page. I saw what you did to Scrubs, and now One Piece?! It aggravates me, I mean look at all the other comments on your page here. People don't like what you're doing. But looking at your own page it shows you don't have the will to write, just simplify everything down to the last freakin detail. Don't be so pedantic. FACE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.251.82.213 (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Pikmin (species)

Although I agree with most of your merges, I respectfully ask that you take Pikmin (species) to WP:AFD. If it is decided to merge, I will of course abide. Thanks. RyanGerbil10(Говорить!) 01:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Primeval episodes matter

• I have looked at the pages pointed to by your edit comments "'(Redirect per WP:FICT. Do not bring this back without adding real world information.)",but such a big deletion merits discussion, which may as well be here. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• They fail various guidelines and policies and should be redirected until they can fit them. If you know of non-trivial real world information that can be added, please add it or redirect them again. TTN (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Which guidelines and policies? How would such guidelines not apply to every page on Wikipedia which describes fictional events? At least, this big multiple deletion is likely to be controversial and merits an AfD discussion. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• The main thing that they fail is WP:N because they do not have or assert significant coverage in reliable sources. There are a couple references between them, but they're primary and trivial. There are plenty of others that can be applied if you really need me to explain them. Also, per WP:EPISODE (one of the others that can be applied), we are to avoid AfDs because there is the possibility that these could become good eventually and so information can be merged in the future. TTN (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• These events are fictional. What real-world information can there be about them? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• See WP:WAF for examples. TTN (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• See #Stop Merging Character Articles above. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• What about it? It's an invalid concern from someone that does not understand that this is an encyclopedia. Fan information belongs over on Wikia. TTN (talk) 16:23, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Childish evasion. State why its an invalid concern and provide evidence of this fan information otherwise you have no case, or is Ad-Hominem all your capable of? Nubula (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• I have already explained why. These fail policies and guidelines (if you need a blow by blow explanation, feel free to ask), and unless the articles are brought up to their standards, they do not to be covered. Maybe the information exists for this series, maybe it doesn't. That's up to you to find. TTN (talk) 17:02, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• I did ask retard, answer my questions if you can. Also if your so confident then propose them for deletion. Or do you not have the Courage of your convictions?. Nubula (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Fine.

• The first beauties we have are the "main trio" - WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. All topics on this site must assert notability by containing verified, non-trivial information backed by reliable sources.
• The next ones are child guidelines of the above three. They apply to specific cases of notability. In this case, WP:FICT, WP:WAF, and WP:EPISODE are used. All fictional topics must assert notability with real world information from reliable sources. Episodes also have specified criteria and standards.
• Then there are miscellaneous ones like WP:NOT and WP:OR. Topics can fail them by having giant plot summaries, trivial information, and original research.

• And that's the main stuff (I'm sure a couple more can be applied). Also, mind WP:CIV in the future. TTN (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Yawn. I asked for examples and you just link to other pages. Give me examples of what specific rules are being broken, not a link to a page with long lists of rules, and what on these episode pages are breking said rules. Because just linking to pages and expecting me to wade through them is not going to happen. Burden of proof is on you, you know so you have to do the work. Oh as as for civility, you endulged in Ad-Hominem why can't I, or are veild insults not included in that rule. Nubula (talk) 17:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Um, they are giant plot summaries that do not contain an appropriate amount of real world information to hold a page, so they fail all of those besides WP:OR for the most part. As it seems that you really don't care about what I have to say, please just state that, so we can try some other methods to get these redirected for now. TTN (talk) 17:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

the Ad-Hominem's never end with you do they? I asked for examples and you have failed to give me any appart for your opinon that they violate these rules. You opinion is not enough. And I did say for you to just nominate them for deletion. So if your case is so strong, propose them for deletion because we are not going to agree and that's the only way your going to win this. Is it that you not have the courage of your convictions or are you just not man enough to take a chance with possible defeat. Nubula (talk) 17:43, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

How is it my opinion? The plot summaries do not apply our "x words per minute" rule, and there are no sources to assert notability. That's hardly subjective. I am not going to nominate them for deletion because the standard way to deal with episodes is to merge and/or redirect to avoid loosing possibly good content. TTN (talk) 17:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• I say again, for the last time, I did say for you to just nominate them for deletion. So if your case is so strong, propose them for deletion because we are not going to agree and that's the only way your going to win this. Is it that you not have the courage of your convictions or are you just not man enough to take a chance with possible defeat. Nubula (talk) 17:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• Again, I do not want these deleted, so I am going to use another medium such as a merge discussion. TTN (talk) 17:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

• It could be said that there can not easily be totally direct real-world information about a fictional event: e.g. I cannot go onboard the USS Enterprise and ask Picard or Worf what happened in this or that incident. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 07:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Please click the link's up above and read them. TTN (talk) 12:37, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Nominating articles in the scope of WP:VG for deletion

Would you be so kind to add future articles you nominate for deletion that fall in to the scope of WP:VG to the deletion list of that project? The list can be found at WP:VG/D. Thanks in advance, User:Krator (t c) 20:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:EPISODE

^{This conversation was moved to User_talk:VigilancePrime#WP:EPISODE, but it relates directly to the following sections from above as well: "Please stop redirecting episodes..." - "Stop Merging Character Articles" - "Deletion of Primeval episodes..." - "3rd Rock from the Sun Episodes..." VigilancePrime (talk) 02:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)}

suggestion

There is clearly no agreement over any aspect of WP:Fiction at this point, so why not admit it. The wording changes being discussed go the core of the guideline--the basic questions are over the meaning of in-universe, and over the general idea that there should be one article per fiction--and the ramifications of that is the whole matter. i dont say my view is necessarily going to be the one that prevails, but you cant really say the same either. I think any attempt to make it appear that the guideline is agreed upon is mis-stating the situation. Let's argue it out fairly--we will either have to persuade each other, or wikipedians in general, or reach some sort of compromise. (what io would prefer, as I always do, is compromise. If you have an idea, suggest one, on my talk p, thea rticle p,or by email). 02:04, 9 December 2007 (UTC)DGG (talk)

Space:1999 Episodes

Hi, I'd like to know what you're up to regarding this, you delinked some leads that just lead back to the main article, fair enough, but there are seperate pages for some of the episodes like Breakaway, and If I'm not mistaken you seem to have scrubbed some entries altogether, I'm sure there were entries for Another Time, Another Place, Earthbound and so on. If you're going to scrub them are you going to do the same with ALL episodic entries. Douglasnicol (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies, you haven't scrubbed the entries, I can still access them through the redirect history Douglasnicol (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Cartoon Network character article redirects

I may as well say it, thanks! For months, the Wikiproject who oversees these articles have been shying away from doing this even though we knew we'd be right to go and redirect these articles. The people who created these articles are defensive about this and would most likely than not undo the redirect and create a editwar which most of us would rather not get into seeing as even with the rules in our favour we'd still end up losing our decision. Once again, thanks for doing this for us and even though it's not great for me to ask for this, I'd like for you to redirect the satellite character and location articles surrounding Codename: Kids Next Door ({{CKND characters}} lists these articles.) There's no obligation on your half to do this but I will award a barnstar to you if you can effectively keep the redirs stuck. --treelo _talk 23:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The ones you're talking about are up for deletion, so you'll have to wait for that to be over before anything happens with them. TTN (talk) 23:11, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Right, my mistake. I'll be considering some of the locations for notability myself, thanks for the update anyway. --treelo _talk 23:36, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

I really appreciate what you're doing, however I must ask [6] do you own past issues of Nintendo Power? Those could be of some use for the F-Zero character list. « ₣ullMetal ₣alcon » 23:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The references from that edit were just merged over from other articles, but I do own issues from one hundred to where ever the magazine turned into the generic crap that they have now. I think that it may be around 160 or 180. If you can figure out general areas to search through, I can try searching. TTN (talk) 00:02, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

List of locations in the Star Fox series

• What did you mean by saying "add real world information before bringing this back"... it's an article on the planets in a video game series. It's fictional and doesnt' take place in the real world... RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 12:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You need information about how the topic pertains to the real world. That would be creation and reception information (See WP:WAF#Secondary information). TTN (talk) 15:42, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

• See discussion in User_talk:TTN#Deletion of Primeval episodes matter. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:39, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Anthony: that link for the discussion was nothing more than a giant ego showdown, and it confused me. Nothing regarding the actual merging/redirecting took place, and what TTN is saying is incredibly confusing to me, as he doesn't directly state what violates what, and using "how it pertains to the real world" is a tenuous (at best) reason to merge things... RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 17:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC) It's not in-universe material, it's information about the levels that take place in the series and the games. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 21:14, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

List of characters from Samurai Jack deletion

I feel that the edit you did to List of characters from Samurai Jack was, in effect, a deletion without review. If you think the article should be up for deletion then nominate it, but I don't think it's right to just change it without discussion. In defence of the article, most other programmes have separate character lists, I don't see why this page is any different. It allows greater depth into the characters which is impractical in the main article. What are your views? Jack (talk) 18:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

King Dedede and Kirby_(Nintendo)#Concept_and_creation

I absolutely see no connection between the two. How does a lawsuit effect King Dedede? FangzofBlood 23:33, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What you are doing is somewhat in bad taste, Bowser's article lacks that connection as well. FangzofBlood 23:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

What you are doing violates WP:OWN, an official policy of Wikipedia. FangzofBlood 23:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I did the changes upon the agreement of the discussion, which was a hair thin discussion. If you remerge it again without discussing it, you shall receive a warning.FangzofBlood 23:46, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Still, you must also obey WP:GAMECRUFT. This is an additional rulebook which you have been ignoring. I have also noticed that WP:FICT is being disputed, and the administrations have removed it as an official policy. FangzofBlood 23:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Please also note

I am not an overprotective person as well. I purposed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Koopa Clown Car today. FangzofBlood 23:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Take a break, edit an article

Some of the recent comments on AFDs you started are valid. You are nominating quite a number of articles for deletion. First and foremost, I agree with most of your nominations, though not with some of the arguments used for it. Regardless of that, you do great work. But, in order to preserve credibility (like editors in good standing doubt at a recent AFD) and a constructive atmosphere (getting new editors who make gamecruft to come and cooperate with us), I sincerely advise you to take a break from nominating articles for deletion.

More concretely, I hereby propose to go and edit one of the extremely high priority WP:VG articles to FA standard. Perhaps computer role-playing game? User:Krator (t c) 00:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm only nominating those that come back after a bold redirect, where it looks like there will be no way to rationally discuss (though two of them were used as WP:WAX examples). I don't think there will be any more for a little while anyways (unless you're also including everything that I'm doing as whole). As for editing, I've been working on and off on an obscure game in a wordpad, but otherwise, I cannot force myself to work on something. TTN (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I cannot force myself to work on something.. That's what the other contributors think you are doing to them thus generating the hate. Heed Krator's advice and edit an article to FA standards. For someone who is good at criticism, he must have the goods to back his credibility.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:26, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

To comment on a specific question ..."unless you're .... as a whole" - I am including all your work in the past few weeks I have seen at WT:VG and WP:VG/D. User:Krator (t c) 00:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Because you deserve it. I (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Although it seems as if I am in a minority, I do appreciate your edits and believe they are in the best interests of the enyclopedia. I am impressed that you can deal with all of this harassment and trouble and continue to do the good work you do. That said, I do urge you to take the ArbCom case into mind and try to be less brusque and work more to be amiable. But again, I think what you're doing is very beneficial, and deserves recognition. I (talk) 00:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You're actually rewarding this guy? PUHLEEZ. After all he's done, he hardly deserves it. -- ZeroGiga 00:28, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion is duly noted. I would adivse you to respect mine as well, and manifest your opinions in more appropriate locations, and not to make unhelpful and rude comments such as these. I (talk) 01:21, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Codelyoko193

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Angie Y. 2. Thanks!, Codelyoko193 (T/C) 01:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I restored one Rocko episode because of real life info about its production

As you know, Joe Murray restored his website. Since it has info about the production of Trash-O-Madness, I restored the ep's Wikipedia article so that it contains the information about its production; unlike the other episodes it was animated in Saratoga. WhisperToMe WhisperToMe (talk) 10:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

EDIT: I also restored Wacky Delly due to the info about the shooting of the live action meatloaf scene. WhisperToMe (talk) 10:27, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Optimus Prime (106 Kb)

Thought you might enjoy this. --Jack Merridew 13:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That was funny! You might want to check this out too! FangzofBlood 15:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Pee-wee's Playhouse Christmas Special

Twice I have reverted the Pee-wee's Playhouse Christmas Special and requested a discussion on your redirect, and twice you have ignored my request for discussion and re-reverted. Please stop and lets discuss on the article's talk page. Otherwise, I may involve Wiki admin for consensus. -143.43.204.21 (talk) 16:45, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Although this person does not appear to have a user account, please respect the wishes of others and talk about this with the other editors, we'd all appreciate it! Tails0600 (talk) 17:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You might want to discuss about it here. FangzofBlood 17:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

You misread WP:FICT

It clearly states with this tag how it should be treated.

FangzofBlood 23:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

It states that these rules are not in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. I would love to find on how the character was created, but Hal's site is in Japanese.

FangzofBlood 23:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Would this be acceptable?

King Dedede was one of the most requested Villians characters in Japan when the requests were going throughFangzofBlood 00:15, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Rocko ep discussion

Please see the main episode page discussion, as I am still discussing the two episodes and since we are now also trying to find sources for Emmy award stuff :) WhisperToMe (talk) 04:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

By the way...

		The Augean Stables Award
		For your efforts in ridding the encyclopedia of cruft, I hereby award you the Alpheus and Peneus, to aid you further in your Herculean labours. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Nurse (Romeo and Juliet character)

Here's one for you (and others). What pisses me off is the anti-pop culture bias (episodes, video games). I'd be interested what happens with "cultural" articles. The JPS^{talk to me} 18:08, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop deleting the information in that article. It is far from perfect, but it is not worthy of being removed completely. Please improve it rather than deleting everything. It contains real world information, even if it is not sourced. What it needs is sourcing, not deletion. Wrad (talk) 18:23, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at the many AfD's Shakespeare character articles have gone through without success. It has been proven again and again that characters like the nurse are plenty notable. Have a little faith. Just because the info isn't there now doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Anybody who knows anything about Shakespeare knows that. I've turned several character articles considered unnotable into GAs in the past just to prove this point. Wrad (talk) 18:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

What real-world information? That article is chock-a-block with violations of WP:OR, WP:PLOT, and so on, to say nothing of what probably could be cited but isn't. And the performance history which I take to be your real-world information is as bad trivia as any thorough list of seiyuu would be in an anime article... --Gwern (contribs) 18:37 12 December 2007 (GMT)

It is real world, just not cited. I know enough about Shakespeare to know that much. Anyway, I started a discussion about this on the article's talk page. Please treat this like an AfD and wait for consensus before deleting everything. I think that is only fair. Wrad (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

That's what they always say, and they're always wrong in the end. Go ahead and try to delete all of the Shakespeare character articles that are like this one. You will fail because most people recognize that Shakespeare characters are plenty notable and not worthy of deletion even if not very good quality at all. Deleting does nothing in these cases, improving does. Wrad (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia's definition, thank you. I don't appreciate the assumption that I don't know about wiki guidelines. Kindly direct your arguments to the articles talk page where all can see and discuss them. Wrad (talk) 18:51, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, if you want to talk about this, do it on the article's talk page. These are arguments everyone needs to hear. Right now were just fighting head to head and not getting anywhere. Sorry I'm kind of feisty, but Shakespeare character articles are one of my foci on wikipedia and I get a little on edge whenever something is getting deleted rather than improved. Wrad (talk) 19:03, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Dead Rising - Redundant opening

I'm going to try to edit that article over the next few days because it is a little bit of a mess. I moved the "biography" section from the Frank West article there because it is a nice summary of the plot of the game. Ultimately I want to thin down the excessive story description and copyedit the gameplay section, which after skimming looks like it may be on the verge of game guide. Would you be willing to help with this or at least give me a week or so to work on it? Hewinsj (talk) 16:24, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Edits to Eric Cartman

		The Editor's Barnstar
		Sometimes, you have to shovel out the barn... Mdsummermsw (talk) 20:18, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[7]

Hey, I Might Help You Something For Ya

Just incase ya don't know, I think you'll thank me for this later. I appears that some characters from THIS game series need a little "tweaking," if you don't mind as such. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatal_fury Peace. :3 ZeroGiga (contact) 20:16, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm currently waiting for a KOF discussion to be over, so I'll probably move on to those and the other related characters afterwards. TTN (talk) 01:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I have an idea. Why not merge the KOF exclusive characters into a list, then merge those from Fatal Fury and Art of Fighting into their own respecting list? Sounds like common sense, don't you think? Just a suggestion. ZeroGiga (Contact) 02:19, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Purely for curiositys sake

Why don't you go after the articles for every single episode on Seinfield instead of Anime/Games/Random Character lists that have importance to the series? They have much less importance, and are taking up 10x the space, seeing as all of articles have trivia sections, and screen shots to go along. Robert the Small (talk) 13:26, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Each topic will have its own turn. Though, many of that show's episodes should have potential, so I'll probably hold off on it until we reach a more stable point. Feel free to put up merge tags for them if you would like, though. TTN (talk) 13:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Kratos

Whoa. 19k bytes of information removed in one edit? Was there a discussion about this somewhere this that I missed? GlassCobra 05:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you've also done this for Guts Man, Mudman (SNK character)‎, and multitudes of others, just in these past few days alone. Is there some explanation for this? I know we're encouraged to be bold, but this seems like it's overstepping the line quite a bit. Did you gain community consensus for the removal of all this material? GlassCobra 05:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

If you feel like commenting on my edits, there should be a arbitration case involving them still open. When these have no open potential, it's better to just redirect boldly, and wait and see. Any that get reverted by an actual editor will just be put up for deletion. Though, so you know, many do actually go through some discussion, such as Guts Man. It's just one of the few that didn't need to be merged in the end. TTN (talk) 13:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Why would they be reverted? Your edit summaries say "do not put these back." GlassCobra 15:11, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Generally, fans of fiction and the bad type of inclusionists do not feel that our standards actually hold true. TTN (talk) 15:16, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for some explanation about the Kratos article, which was over 19 kilobytes. Also, thanks for pointing me to the ArbCom case; I will be inputting my opinion. GlassCobra 18:47, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The size is completely irrelevant to the importance of the article or the need for a discussion. There are much smaller ones that have required discussion, while there have been larger ones that I have just redirected. In this case, there was nothing to merge (it was just repetitive plot information and game guide material), and there was likely little chance for an actual discussion, so it was redirected. TTN (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons (season 16)

Hey TTN, have you seen the episode articles listed at The Simpsons (season 16) article? Most of them don't look like they fit WP:EPISODE. Could you take a look at them? Thanks :) --Pixelface (talk) 11:10, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I really don't get why people try and bait me into the Simpsons. When other series have over sixty good episode articles (or a comparable amount), we'll talk about leaving the rest of their episodes alone. TTN (talk) 13:23, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm asking about one season. Could you take a look at it? --Pixelface (talk) 14:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

All besides There's Something About Marrying clearly fail the guideline (with the exception of some awards and stuff). What about it? Would they be fine staying as redirects until the editors of the Simpsons project get to them? Yes. Do I feel the need to pursue one season of a show that is going to have a very large amount of FAs and GAs in the future? No. If you have some roundabout point that you're trying to make, feel free to just state it. TTN (talk) 14:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The Simpsons (season 4) also has many articles that don't appear to meet WP:EPISODE: Lisa the Beauty Queen, Marge Gets a Job, New Kid on the Block, Lisa's First Word, Homer's Triple Bypass, Selma's Choice, Brother from the Same Planet, I Love Lisa, Duffless, So It's Come to This: A Simpsons Clip Show, The Front, Whacking Day, Marge in Chains. The Simpsons has 408 episodes. Clearly those 408 articles are in need of your attention. --Pixelface (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Again, they are clearly being worked on at a fairly constant rate. There is no need to bother with them at this point. In the future, there may be some episodes that cannot stand on their own. If that is the case, I'm sure that the Simpsons project will deal with them accordingly. TTN (talk) 15:08, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Is that what WP:FICT says? --Pixelface (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Press Gang

I appreciate your genuine merging of these articles before redirecting. The JPS^{talk to me} 01:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Character creation process

I see your point and I understand where you are coming from. I, myself, did not create those particular individual character articles and I see that you are worried about the notability and lack of real-world information. As an alternative to redirecting the entire page, I added a tag to indicate the article's need for real-life information so that people knew that they should add that information; that is just the way I would've treated the situation rather than a redirect. This at least gives people a chance to add the information that the article requires; I was under the impression that adding tags as a warning was the preferable way of indicating that a particular article needs attention, rather than redirecting it.

As for me, I operate by Wikipedia's first guideline: "Every policy, guideline or any other rule may be ignored if it hinders improving Wikipedia.". It is the most important Wikipedia guideline. You may state that those particular characters are not notable enough to appear in Wikipedia but, I have read those pages and they have been most informative and have provided me with information which I did not know. Most of them are actually very quality articles and deserve a place in Wikipedia. In Australia they are notable and are known by millions of Australians, not to mention the many places overseas where All Saints is shown.

If I could make a suggestion: Maybe you should consider discussing the articles in their talk pages before redirecting them; maybe even discuss them on their main contributors' talk pages as well. In my opinion, any major change which may be controversial definitely should be discussed before it is done. This is common courtesy and I'm sure it would be mentioned in Wikipedia's policy and guideline pages somewhere.

Daniel99091 (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

What discussion? Tim Q. Wells (talk) 23:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Just want to point out, if you have a question, comment, or complaint about an edit, please be sure to mention which article it is, I don't think TTN will know off the top of his head what you are talking about, I don't. Tails0600 (talk) 02:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

...this message was a reply to him. Tim Q. Wells (talk) 22:07, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Character redirect reverts

I'm just making you aware of the reverts that are occurring on the FHIF articles you redirected. I've reverted them so far but feel it will happen again, most likely by the same user so with me wanting to avoid a 3RR strike against me, keep a close eye on them as I mentioned before, some people are very militant about these things and won't take "you're wrong" as an answer. --treelo _talk 15:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

One Piece Articles

The discussion is still on... But I've given up on Justyn, he constantly ignore the discussion and fights everything no matter what. He focuses on one argument all the time as the soul reason for wikipedia looses its pages being Wikia. I'm tired of this. Shall we draw the discussion to some conclusion now, its been on for over 2 weeks and I would like to see it end. Nobody is seeing the bigger picture on the articles and we're going to be in the same positio. I swear, that if we leave the OP articles and nothing happens to them within a month to fix the heap of problems to them, I'm unwatching all the OP articles and just letting them rot. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 08:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I quit watching OP articles... Its Justyn mainly. I cannot believe there is a guy on wikipedia who will fight change, but won't do a thing to solve the problem. As far as I'm concerned, he likes the pages so much he can take over watching the helm and keeping the stupid crap off them. I'll be back in a months time TTN, if things are better then they are, I'll come back and help again with them. Until them, I've spotted other wikipedia articles I'd like to do something and OP has pulled my attention away from them. I'm tired of wanting and desiring something done to them, yet not seeing any editor who is prepared to fight change prepare to help fix these problems. I stress what the problems are and get told stupid things from everyone's because they know its true but don't want to admit it.

Sorry to leave you to handle this on your own TTN... But can you blame anyone for these kind of things? considering I've spent the last 6 months pretty much on my own monitoring them with little aid from most other editors I find the whole situation stupid and I'm done being the muggings who does most of the work here. I'll be at the wikia. Angel Emfrbl (talk) 12:23, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Userfy, compare, and compromise?

Hey TTN, I noticed the merge proposal that you have been working on over at Talk:List_of_One_Piece_characters#Merger. Would you be willing to go ahead and create a subpage of your vision of how the list/merger should look? It seems that you and Justyn are the most vocal on either side of the dispute, and since all the opinions have been hashed out, reaching a compromise with him (perhaps one of Angel's suggestions) is probably the most realistic course of action at this point. I have left a note in a similar vein on Justyn's talkpage. —Cronholm¹⁴⁴ 20:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Doctor Who

Hi, TTN. As an honest question, which serial and episode pages don't have the required real-word info as required by WP:FICT? I think the vast majority if not all of them actually do (I mean, even the interactive episode does), but I want to check so as to focus on the articles which may be in dangers. Thanks, Will ^(talk) 16:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes_and_characters

The above Arbitration case has closed, and the final decision can be viewed at the link above. The parties are urged to work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community and the editors committed to working on the articles in question to develop and implement a generally acceptable approach to resolving the underlying content dispute.

For the Arbitration Committee,
— Rlevse • Talk • 14:12, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

TTN, I'd like to underline the words "work collaboratively and constructively with the broader community" here. To rephrase that for you "don't go to a page, say I'll redirect it, discuss, ignore all those opposition and redirect. A fair number of your redirects were probably correct, but also a fair number were not, and you keep stirring up drama wherever you go. So, for the time being, stop ignoring the discussions and start listening to the consensus, until the community has revised WP:EPISODE etc.. CharonX/talk 17:31, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Ye Art Cordially Invited to the Annex

Hello, My good Fellow, listen and I shalt telleth Ye a Tale of a Wiki that well comes All Manner of Articles relating to Fiction. What is This wonderful Place of Fantasy, You ask? It is the Annex, Haven to All fiction-related Refugee Articles from Wikipedia.

Before nominating or proposing a fiction-related Article for Deletion, It is My sincerest Hope that Ye import It to the Annex. Why do This, You wonder? Individuals have dedicated an enormous Amount of Time to writing These Articles, and ’twould be a Pity for the Information to Vanish unto the Oblivion where only Administrators could see Them.

Here is a Step-by-Step Process of how to Bringeth Articles into the Annex:

1. Ye shall need at least three Browser Tabs or Windows open. For the first Tab or Window, go to Special:Export. For the second, go here. (If Ye have not an Account at Wikia, then create One.) Do whatever Ye want for the third.
2. Next, open the Program known as Notepad. If Ye haveth It not, then open WordPad. Go to “Save as,” and for “Encoding,” select either “Unicode” or “UTF-8.” For “Save as type,” select “All Files.” For “File name,” input “export.xml” and save It. Leave the Window open.
3. Next, go to the Special:Export Window at Wikipedia, and un-check the two small Boxes near the “Export” Button. Input the Name of the Wikipedia Article which Ye wish to import to the Annex into the large Field, and click “Export.”
4. Right-click on the Page full of Code which appears, and clicketh on “View Source” or “View Page Source” or any Option with similar Wording. A new Notepad Window called “index[1]” or Something similar should appear. Press Ctrl+A to highlight All the Text then Ctrl+C to copy It. Close yon “index[1]” Window, and go to the Notepad “export.xml” Window. Press Ctrl+V to pasteth the Text There, and then save It by pressing Ctrl+S.
5. Now go to the Special:Import Window over at the Annex. Clicketh on “Browse…” and select the “export.xml” File. At last, click on “Upload file,” and Thou art done, My Friend! However, if It says 100 Revisions be imported, Ye be not quite finished just yet. Go back to Wikipedia’s Special:Export, and leave only the “Include only the current revision, not the full history” Box checked. Export That, copy the Page Source, close the “index[1]” Window, and go to the “export.xml” Window. Press Ctrl+A to highlight the Code all ready There, press “backspace” to erase It, and press Ctrl+V to pasteth the new Code There. Press Ctrl+S to save It, then upload once more to the Annex. Paste {{Wikipedia|{{PAGENAME}}}} at the Bottom of the imported Article at the Annex, and Ye art now finally done! Keepeth the “export.xml” File for future Use.

Thank Ye for using the Annex, My Friend, The Annex Hath Spoken (talk) 04:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:FakeGroudon.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:FakeGroudon.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) 06:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Koopa Troopa

Did a little more digging and found the latest discussion you are referring too. That looks good enough for me, and if someone else tries to revert, I will be on your side of the matter. Your past history with this article probably has not helped in your attempts to make this change permanent. Indrian (talk) 22:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)