User talk:A Link to the Past

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives: 1 2 3 4 5

Contents 1 WikiProject South Park 2 Dispute 3 Minnesota meetup 4 Ape Escape 5 Lakitu 6 Crash Tag Team Racing 7 Pot Kettle Black Reply 8 Clarification 9 LTTP/FS 10 Re:Sorry 11 FFX sales figures 12 Wikipedia:WikiProject Nickelodeon Shows 13 Youkaimura Article Deletion 14 Talk:The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past/Four Swords 15 Zelda template 16 Danny Phantom 17 Danny Phantom discussion 18 Notice 19 re:Previous discussion 20 Enough 21 Wikipedia talk:Featured Article Help Desk 22 Frank Grimes 23 Blocked 24 3RR 25 RFC AMiB 26 Poochy 27 blocked for trolling 28 Taunting him isn't going to help anything. 29 Getting this RfC formatting straightened out 30 User:InShaneee 31 Wikibreak block 32 Stop 'N' Swop 33 VCGchart 34 re:Inshanee's talk page 35 User talk:InShaneee 36 3RR on List of best-selling computer and video games 37 VGCharts 38 Regarding reversions made Nov. 17 to List of best-selling computer and video games

[edit] WikiProject South Park

I have thought of creating a WikiProject for South Park since it is now near its' 10th anniversary and has more articles than ever. I feel we could all do the following things through this project:

• Cleanup any short/poorly written/unformatted articles
• Merge/lengthen the many character articles
• Improve the South Park main page

I have seen your South Park fan template and wondered if you were interested in joining. If so reply to my talk page and I'll get back to you as quick as I can. Thanks, Mr. Garrison

[edit] Dispute

Please, stop reverting each other and discuss here whether Vgcharts are reliable enough, so that others can participate in the discussion. Thanks. -- ReyBrujo 05:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minnesota meetup

A meetup of Wikipedians in Minnesota is proposed: please stop by the discussion page if interested. Jonathunder 01:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Reminder: Meetup October 29, one o'clock, Mall of America. Jonathunder 20:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info, but I'm far too busy to attend such a meetup. Perhaps next year. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ape Escape

"(cur) (last) 04:56, 8 October 2006 A Link to the Past (Talk | contribs | block) m (moved Kakeru (Ape Escape) to Spike (Ape Escape): Spike is the name used in all English-speaking regions for Ape Escape games.)"

I thought this was changed in Ape Escape 2...

I know Natsumi was originally Katie in the UK but is now Natsumi WhisperToMe 06:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lakitu

Lakitu is up for a featured article review. Detailed concerns may be found here. Please leave your comments and help us address and maintain this article's featured quality. Sandy 02:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crash Tag Team Racing

OK ALTTP, listen up and listen carefully...you CAN'T just edit all my contributions to the Crash Tag Team Racing section of wikipedia just because you can't accept the truth. EVERYTHING I keep saying is completly true (ESPECIALLY about the part where some people say that it is a rip-off, others (and that's only including me) saying it isn't) and should be stated, but you obviously can't accept this because you're a Mario fanboy. Well listen here, buster. I don't take kindly to Mario fanboys barging in, trying to wreck the Crash Bandicoot franchise (or any franchise that Mario fanboys so wrongly try to beat up, for that matter). If you can't accept it, just leave it. Don't try and run from the truth. Besides, Mario cloned many games in his time as well, and you don't see any complaints on the CTR/CNK sections, do you?

[edit] Pot Kettle Black Reply

OK, now you're just being DAFT! How can Crash Tag Team Racing be a clone of Mario Kart: Double Dash and Crash Team Racing NOT be a clone of Mario Kart 64? THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE, buster. Are you even paying attention to the works of these things? Not from where I'm standing. You're just being stupid. REAL stupid. For one thing, instead of trying to accept that other people might (and this is only a might) have a point, you tell lies about them. You did that to me! I repeat one more time, I. Am. Not. The. Only. Person. Around. Who. Thinks. Crash. Tag. Team. Racing. Is. NOT. A. Mario. Kart. Double. Dash. Clone. I'm trying EVERYTHING here to keep BOTH sides of the fandom happy, and you just vandalise everything, simply because you want everything to go YOUR way and YOUR way says that CTTR is DEFINATLEY a MK:DD clone, obviously. Your way is not the wikipedia way here kid, and you obviously can't accept the wikipedia way, which says that CTTR MIGHT be a MK:DD clone, but on the other hand might NOT be. And as you obviously can't accept this, I think we all know who the vandal is. I mean, I don't like Mario, but I don't actively go about trashing all of the sections. Think about it kid, and perhaps go away, mature, then come back. After all, I'M not the one losing my temper, and I'M not the one trying to wreck the wikipedia boards.

Look, there's a way that I see these things. Saying a game is a rip-off of another game is an opinion. Saying it isn't is also an opinion. But saying some people say it is a rip-off whilst others say it isn't, that isn't an opinion and doesn't even involve you directly into the conversation, which is not the aforementioned "Wikipedia" way, if you ask me. That's the reason I edited the piece of text out, then tried to alter it, to make it cover both sides of the argument. It's not what I'd call an opinion, and I know several areas which can back this up.

Look, you're not helping. It's all very well saying "Post a link to show that people say CTTR isn't a MK:DD clone", but I can't post links here, can I? No one ever told me how to do it here.

Link, when you edited the article, you clearly stated that people complained that CTTR plain-out copied Mario Kart Double Dash's two-people in a kart feature. Now, if you said people complained that CTTR used that feature because they believe it copied that feature, even though games before MKDD (I know for sure there was a Cartoon Network one) used it, it would be okay. - Klaus Kratchet

[edit] Clarification

Just a little clarification, which article are you referring to in your edit summary here? Axem Titanium 00:11, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] LTTP/FS

I already responded on the appropriate talk page. I had gotten involved after Ian Moody had moved the page. It began on Four Swords but had shifted its way to ALTTP/FS after the move, which gave it the appearance that you were attempting to removed ALTTP/FS, not FS. While I do disagree with some points you've made (as I stated on the page, the Jewish thing for instance), I don't have the same motivational suspicion and I was wrong about my earlier accusation. I've apologized on the talk page for the misunderstanding. Ex-Nintendo Employee 01:00, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Re:Sorry

Thanks for the apology, I know I could have seen the situation from your POV a little better too. If you need any help with articles, just leave me a message. Harmonious editing, Highway ^{Grammar Enforcer!} 07:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FFX sales figures

Can you give me a link to the discussion ? Renmiri 16:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Nickelodeon Shows

This is to advise you that the above named project page is currently being considered for deletion. Please feel free to join in the discussion at the Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion page. Badbilltucker 16:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

• I hope that this isn't taken as being something it isn't, but there is also a new Wikipedia:WikiProject Nickelodeon. I think that the difference between the two projects is rather minimal, and you might consider merging the two of them together. Just a thought though. Anyway, that's why I didn't indicate a preference one way or another. Badbilltucker 19:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Youkaimura Article Deletion

I've a few things to discuss with you, which seem kind of fishy to me. When you originally posted to my Talk page that the vandalism of the Youkaimura article was done by the website's author, I assumed, and thus replied in a like manner, that you were a sympathetic user who was kindly informing me of said fact. I didn't really even look at your username on my Talk page until recently. Now, though, I can see that your comment there was actually a retort to my usage of the term "vandalism" or "vandal" when I restored the article. I guess what you were basically saying was that I was inaccurate in saying that he was a vandal, since he was altering information about his own creation.

In this light, I've begun to think about the fact that, while Hushicho claimed to have filed for deletion, it was you who actually did. When one considers that you and Hushicho share video gaming as an interest, and the fact that a separate website run by the owner of Youkaimura, about video games, prominently mentions the character Link and the game "A Link to the Past", well... This is an awful lot of coincidence going on, especially for a person who seems to uphold policies like "notability" which concur with his stance toward the article in question, but disregards other policies like "no vandalism" because they don't concur with said stance.

At least I was open with my intentions toward the article.Shikino 15:17, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

The main point I wanted to make had nothing to do with valuing your argument or anything like that. I don't really see how you could have come to that conclusion. What I thought most interesting, besides the possible connections addressed above, was that while you clinged to the notability policy, the anti-vandalism policy didn't seem to bother you too much when you defended Hushicho's vandalism of the article on my Talk page. Shikino 03:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

So you just happened to see the article and nominate it for deletion, just around the same time Hushicho claimed that he himself had done it? And I'm sorry, but you're wrong. The only time I used the word "vandalized" in regards to this article is when Hushicho did vandalize the article. Too late to check the article's history now, but if you'd bothered to do that, you would have seen that twice he deleted the entire article's text and replaced it with something along the lines of "This page is being deleted because of slander and copyright violations" -- two claims which, I might add, were totally baseless. Shikino 14:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:The Legend of Zelda: A Link to the Past/Four Swords

I want to draw your attention to several policies you've been violating here, particularly WP:3RR, WP:NPA, and WP:CIVIL. This inane edit war over a talk page has died down, but that kind of behavior is completely unacceptable. If this was still going on, you'd be blocked now. Do not undo the edits of others, don't make personal attacks, be civil, and WP:RPA does not give you license to remove the comments of others that you disagree with. Mangojuice^talk 04:48, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, LTTP. Mangojuice^talk cut/pasted the same terse warning on my user talk page as well; you are welcome to read the reply I left there. Basically, while yes, I do feel that the Jewish thing was a personal attack, I think for the most part we both maintained WP:CIVIL pretty well, and the reverts were contained only to that one aforementioned part, so WP:3RR didn't really come into play either. I explained that the misunderstanding was entirely my fault; heck, the entire argument was pretty much based on the fact that I hadn't seen that the "I'm going to move this article" talk bit had originated on the FS article and then later been moved. Seeing as I think that the argument was settled in a rather civil manner, I would rather not have any residual hard feelings creep up from my error. Ex-Nintendo Employee 06:56, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zelda template

Link, I'm not saying that you don't have a good argument for removing the cancelled games and Soul Calibur. I'm saying that when major edits are done to template pages, it should be discussed and agreed upon in the talk page, in accordance with the templates section ofWP:BOLD. The Soul Calibur edit, in particular, does not increase the length of the template, and there are very few non-Zelda games where Link is a playable character (unlike your example of Pac-Man), so it is reasonable to leave it in the template. That's why it's the "Related games" section. This may just be my opinion, but that is why we come to consensus on templates before changing them. Sraan 20:19, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

And, incidentally, the Pac-Man template currently does list Mario Kart Arcade GP. Sraan 20:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Danny Phantom

What the fuck do you want from me? I don't give a fuck about you and I personally don't care about that AFD anymore. I made my comment there, I made my case, if you don't understand, hire someone to translate it for you because I'm tired of explaning it to you. — Moe 01:08, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

And if you don't like the cussing, get over it because Wikipedia is not censored. Bullshit you never got annoyed at my viewpoint, if you hadn't, you wouldn't have carried on like you did on the AFD. I am not going to provide a reason as to why I think it should be deleted anymore. Review every comment I made on that AFD, and you will see the reasons set right in front of you. I also refuse to admit you're right, because you're not according to our latest poll at the AFD. — Moe 01:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I never once said that you hated Danny Phantom. I said that it seemed like you had bias towards it because of your comments here [at the AFD]. I never once said that. — Moe 01:22, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that you are acting in an uncivil manner on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Danny Phantom (character). Please remain civil and don't resort to making personal attacks or instigate edit wars. Yes, you also need to cool off. --tjstrf 01:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Danny Phantom discussion

Hello. You recently participated in a discussion on the possible deletion or merger of some Danny Phantom characters. While all the articles were kept, I noted that many of those commenting on the debate suggested merging some characters into a main list. Seeing this, I've compiled a list of some of the minor characters who may not need their own article, and would like the opinions of those who weighed in originally. You can participate in the discussion here. Ral315 (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notice

Any more edits like this will result in a block. This is your final warning. Naconkantari 19:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re:Previous discussion

No, you have not proved it. The diff you friviously readded to my archive proves nothing. I said you had a bias towards characters having thier own articles. You were supposed to provide a diff that said that I said you hated Danny Phantom. That diff you provided didn't even have the text "Danny Phantom" in it. I am not about to say you were right, and I find it very annoying that you continue to troll at my talk page demanding to say you were right over a AFD that is now over, which you clearly are not by the outcome of the AFD. I refuse to keep taking messages from you on my talk page refering this Danny Phantom AFD that is over. — Moe 20:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I said it seemed like you had a bias towards them. Regardless of your real feelings, you were acting like it. No, again I'm not about to say that you were right and I never will. I don't want anymore long posts about how right you were and how wrong I was from you anymore. Understand? — Moe 20:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Not taking it back more or less means that you think those statements were correct.? I can't take back something I never said, and I will never take back anything I have said about you. And I never once said you were "biased against Wikipedia", so you can stop you're false quotations right now. — Moe 20:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? We were talking about me supposedly saying that you hated Danny Phantom (which I didn't). Stop confusing the issue at hand. Yes, I most certainly did say that you had a bias against characters having articles, and with great admiration, I present you this: a diff *shock*:

Congratulations, you've figured out my plan. I didn't think anyone would realize that because I don't think Danny Phantom characters deserve an article, I want to delete every television show character article. A Link to the Past (talk) 04:54, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Now say that you aren't biased against it. — Moe 20:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Enough

This argument is going nowhere and is becoming disruptive. You two are not going to become the best of friends anytime soon. Just leave each other be. -- Steel 20:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Just an update, Moe Epsilon has agreed to stop arguing. Any more edits to his talk page on this will be considered disruption. -- Steel 21:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

You have been blocked for 24 hours. -- Steel 21:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not fair! Of course Moe will stop arguing, why would he want to argue to prove his false statements when he can make it go away and not have to worry about spreading bullshit? Why should I have to stand for him telling me that I clearly am wrong about my opinion? And why the Hell should I say "oh, okay, after he just manipulated a statement to make it seem like I said one thing that's completely different from what I meant, I'll drop it! I mean, it's only win-lose with me losing the situation and him winning it". - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:28, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Featured Article Help Desk

I think it is truly exelent that their are people out there with enough initative to start something like this and perhaps when I am more familair with the process, I will join you. Perhaps though, you should consider changing the waiting time for help from 1-2 Days to an indefinte period. If you need help with any less complicted work, don't feel any hesitation to ask me. Thanks, Dfrg.msc ^{1 . 2 . 3} 10:53, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frank Grimes

Hi,

I noticed that you nominated the Frank Grimes page for mbeing merged. This page was just recently under discussion for a merge and that was defeated. As well, you have not started any sort of merge discussion. -- Scorpion0422 02:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

You really need to be a fan of the show to understand his importance though. I would rank Grimes as being more important to the show in his one appearance than many characters who have made close to a hundred appearances. But, it's your choice. There have been several merge debates (one only a couple months ago) and you'll have to make a new merge section. -- Scorpion0422 05:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blocked

It seems that I've been blocked for 3RR. And guess who blocked me?

Was it a person who liked what I was reverting back to?

No, it was someone who specifically disliked what I was reverting back to, which was changing it from redirect to a full list - which *gasp* is what people clearly wanted, with the exception of AMIB and his close-knit clique. I wonder why AMIB hasn't been blocked for being an ass and, in so many words, telling everyone who disagrees to go shove it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

You have been blocked for revert warring on List of Animal Crossing characters. After the block expires, please use talk pages in the future instead of - not in addition to - engaging in revert wars with multiple users. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 08:45, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point, I guess I should have used the talk page.

Oh, wait, my bad, I did. I accidentally mixed the two of us together, since you seem to be the one who is against discussing it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 08:50, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[1] [2] [3] [4] Four reverts is four reverts, stated in black-and-white as a violation of WP:3RR in the policy. There was no conflict of interest, because there is no ambiguity in this case. You reverted four times in 16 hours. Daniel.Bryant 12:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

While I would have had another admin do the block if I were in A man's position, the block seems justified. You made 4 clear reverts. JoshuaZ 18:31, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but AMIB only blocked me for what I was reverting back to (or at least was more inclined to block me because of it). Additionally, I was only reverting because I wasn't going to discuss it again - we've been discussing merging, redirecting, and deletion for months, with all discussions resulting in a consensus for keeping the article where it stands. But AMIB continues to insist that we have to rediscuss is every single month for no reason other than to kill this article. Why the Hell doesn't he have to discuss it when he's the one making a controversial edit? - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:08, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC AMiB

Read about it on CVG, something I've witnessed. Wikipedia:Editor_review/The_Bread --Twlighter 02:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You also might want to take a look at this and this IMO, violation of WP:OWN, also the archived talk here, another WP:OWN violation and a prime example of his hyper agressive attitude aswell as his ignorance of the consensus, good luck with the long overdue RfC, If you need any help, don't hesitate to ask

†he Bread 02:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll be happy to comment if you wish. Just be aware that my opinion of him is varied. Like many other editors (including yourself) he's a good contributor in general, just not the best at getting along with others in certain situations. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 17:21, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Poochy

Hi. I'm familiar with you from various video game-related edits you do and you generally do a good job. I'm just curious why you are set on redirecting the Poochy page to the SMW2: Yoshi's Island page. I feel that Poochy is a significant enough character to warrant his own page, rather than just the truncated bit of info available on the SMW2: Yoshi's Island page, especially since his presence extends beyond that game and it would seem out of place to put the Yoshi's Story and Tetris Attack info on that page. Anyway, please tell me what you think. Kidicarus222 18:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] blocked for trolling

You have now been blocked for 48 hours for trolling on the CVG Wikiproject. That page is for discussion of video game related matters; you've chosen to use it to harrass A Man In Black despite repeated warnings. --InShaneee 03:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Nice to know that some people follow Assume Bad Faith. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:07, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

96 hours. --InShaneee 04:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

For pointing out reality? You're assuming bad faith. What should I say, "wow, you assume good faith!"? I can't lie, you know, it's not respectable. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Unblocked. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. --Cyde Weys 04:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Please knock it off. You're being overly argumentative and it isn't helping anything. I've looked over some of your contributions, and your repeated insertion of the same comment on Moe Epsilon's talk page was uncalled for. Find a more productive way to interact with others, okay? --Cyde Weys 04:38, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, that is an old subject and I agreed on IRC with Steel to stop it. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

It's just that I'm seeing a repeated pattern here with little evidence that you're improving. --Cyde Weys 04:43, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

...You don't seem to know the situation. I asked for help on WP:CVG to form an RfC against a user, and InShaneee said it was trolling and I would be blocked if I did not keep it off. I refused to on the grounds that it would be saying I was trolling, which I was not, and was blocked for 48 hours. And when I claimed he was acting in bad faith, I was blocked for 96 hours. There is no justification for me to be blocked, let alone for that long. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not how RFCs work. You don't just try and find the most amenable group of editors (in this case a gaming WikiProject) and try to get together a lynch mob to take another editor down. Wikipedia isn't a battleground. How about try talking with AMIB? What I'm seeing from this end is that you're constantly in conflicts with a variety of different people. Have you considered that maybe the problem doesn't lie with everyone else? --Cyde Weys 04:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

How am I starting a "battle"? I wasn't saying "hey, go attack him". I asked for people to give evidence that could be used. Am I to create an RfC and then hope people notice it and add information, or rather, should I single-handedly search his entire history for anything that I could consider abusive? But this is a moot argument. Nothing I did violated policy, and many people agree. If you would like me to find them, I will gladly do so. Regardless, here is the thing - you bring up an old debate and claim that this one is similar, when it is completely insimilar. You are comparing a heated argument to a calm discussion that happens to have some conflict between users. Please, just stop trying to dig for reasons to dig into me when your original statement was shown to be invalid to this current discussion. Yes, I have conflicts, because other people have conflicts too. InShaneee had conflicts that I was announcing an RfC, but it is not a blockable offense. The fact that I have been blocked before is not relevant - did I violate policy? No. But regardless, InShaneee is so convinced that I need to be blocked that he has started a wheel war. Please, stick to the discussion at hand. I do not have a poor history - I have only one block that hasn't been overturned. - A Link to the Past (talk) 04:58, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Cyde, I am talking with ALTTP now on IRC and discussing the RFC process with him, so please relax all. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 05:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

You're still being too argumentative. And I think you may have misread my opening comment. I was already well aware of the current situation and didn't feel that it was necessary to provide a synopsis of ongoing events, so I decided to refresh you on something that happened a little while ago. That was another situation that was handled poorly. --Cyde Weys 05:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Wait, so by not violating any policy on Wikipedia, I have done something wrong? I ask you, where is it that says anything I've been blocked for is blockable for even a single instant in time, let alone 96 hours? If he can prove that I am lying when I say I'm not trolling, then I'll take it in stride. But all he does is say "well, looks like trolling, must be trolling because I said so". That's not good enough, I think I'll go with what I think over what he thinks about what I am doing. I am being argumentative because InShaneee has abused his right to be an admin by giving an excessive block for a nonexistant policy violation. I'm not going to stop arguing this JUST because I argued before. The only person that handled this poorly was him. I was doing nothing wrong in keeping this up. I did not violate 3RR, I was not trolling (despite the Almighty InShaneee telling me otherwise), and I was not harassing AMIB, and yet InShaneee decided that I should be blocked because of the mere possibility that he could be right. And I'm of the opinion that admins DON'T have the responsibility to treat non-admins like dirt and regularly threaten them whenever they want to force Wikipedia to go their way. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:23, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

If you're going to continue making personal attacks, I'm going to have to protect this page at the very least. --InShaneee 05:39, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Before you do so, read Wikipedia:Blocking policy. It states that blocks are meant to be protective, not punitive. What exactly is being protected by blocking me? You cannot prove that I am trolling, and are assuming bad faith, as any Wikipedian would tell you. All you have to show that I am trolling is the opinion that I am trolling, which is not a strong enough basis to block me, and you are certainly not preventing damage to Wikipedia. A 96 hour block for putting an RfC notice on a talk page and being sarcastic has no preventive value, and is clearly intended to be punishment. There is no way that any good Wikipedian would knowingly block someone out of punishment even though they know it's wrong. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:45, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Disagreement is not inherently trolling, and protecting this page was horribly inappropriate. -- Cyrius|✎ 07:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Taunting him isn't going to help anything.

Even if Inshanee's block was overturned, taunting him about it isn't going to help anything. Just because you were right in this case doesn't mean rubbing it in his face is appropriate. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 18:44, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

As someone who generally agrees with you on this issue, Link, I'd like to pass along some advice, which you can take or leave entirely at your discretion. (Advice, like opinions, has been compared to a certain part of the anatomy both for its fragrance and ubiquitious nature.) I'd advise you to drop it and walk away at this point. I think what needed to be said has been said - further comment tends to shift the focus back from InShaneee's behavior and onto yours. I don't think that's the right way to go - it makes it look like you're eager to escalate, like you're hard to get along with, and that makes his (I believe) unjustified block look more justified than it was. I think a lot of people are starting to feel that this has reached resolution (and in your favor, I think). It might be a good time to walk away from it and get back to editing. But that's just my opinion, for what that's worth. Thanks.--TheOtherBob 02:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Getting this RfC formatting straightened out

Dealt with, now instated at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/InShaneee. --tjstrf Now on editor review! 09:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:InShaneee

Heads up. InShaneee has deleted your comments. Brian Boru is awesome 18:25, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You and InShaneee should avoid one another during the RfC, or at least for a bit after its filing. Posting on their talk page for whatever reason can be turned around on you as trolling and baiting, no matter what good intentions you may have had in the first place. Just giving you a heads up, as there is no point in digging any holes. Also FYI, its acceptable to delete talk page comments, though its not preffered. --NuclearZer0 18:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikibreak block

I saw your comment on User talk:A Man In Black and I just wanted to say that It's against WP:BLOCK to enforce a wikibreak block (see WP:BLOCK#When blocking may not be used). Use Wikipedia:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/WikiBreak Enforcer if you have to take a wikibreak. semper fi — Moe 01:45, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stop 'N' Swop

Stop redirecting it, its perfectly notable. It's one of the greatest video game mysteries of all time, so stop doing that. If you want to explain WHY you want to redirect it, go to the talk page and explain and that might change peoples minds, but stop redirecting it just because YOU feel its not notable, and not even discussing or debating with others on if it's the right thing to do.. You don't know enough about the subject of Banjo-Kazooie to decide anyways, but always feel free to explain why. DietLimeCola 00:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VCGchart

As far as I'm aware there was no vote or survey, I have seen others who have dissagreed with you about the issue, I don't see a concensus. Dionyseus 07:59, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the discussion at CVG and I don't see a consensus there either, and it definitely was not 8:2. Voting is generally frowned upon, but in some cases surveys can be useful in determining whether there's any concensus, I think this is one of the cases in which a survey may have to be used. Dionyseus 09:44, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, A Link to the Past. The problem here is that, many of these numbers are real numbers, that can be found across the internet. Especially the highest selling games such as Super Mario Bros. 3 and Super Mario Bros. So I think the best solution here is to leave the numbers in, and try to find sources for all of them. That way there is some reference for someone who might be looking for information on this subject of sales. Deleting all of them is just quite silly if you think about. There are many numbers on this page that do not have citations and they haven't been deleted. So I think we should keep them as references.--Stardust6000 00:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure that all of the numbers are wrong? I've seen many source confirming the sales of many of those games. I doubt that they would just make up everything. Just to let you know, I finished deleting all of those sources. Now that it has been done the source reconstruction can begin. If we seriously cannot find any other sources confirming some of the sales figures then I would agree to remove them if someone opted to, but I wouldn't be the one to do that. I hope that helps, take care for now.--Stardust6000 00:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have the time to argue with the likes of you anymore. I don't know what your agenda is to delete even the new sources I put in the article. I will no longer be involved in this situation. Go ahead and destroy the article if that is what you wish to do, goodbye.--Stardust6000 22:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] re:Inshanee's talk page

Well, it doesn't really matter because your allowed to remove any comment you like on your talk page. Ultimately, he is not a factor in deciding what comments stay and go because there is no policy or guideline on this issue and there doesn't need to be. Anyone is allowed to remove what they see fit from thier talk page. It's always going to be in the talk page history and thats enough evidence supporting that you tried to talk to the editor.

I too am sorry for fighting over Danny Phantom and it thrills me to actually hear you say sorry. :) semper fi — Moe 19:44, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:InShaneee

This is bording on harassment. Stop it. -- Steel 23:35, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Harassment? The user is making it difficult for me to edit Wikipedia by reverting edits I make, assuming bad faith in what I am saying, and refusing to respond to anything I say. He is being a complete hypocrite, and ignoring other users for such a poor reason is not going to help on an RfAr. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

If you're considering taking this to arbitration, and if I were his advisor, I'd tell him not to talk with you. He doesn't owe you any response - all he owes you is to leave you alone. To the extent that he is not leaving you alone - i.e. that he is reverting all your edits or the like, I'd say to make a list rather than fighting with him over it. Just a little advice - as always, you can take or leave it.--TheOtherBob 23:43, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

(Reply from my talk page) Your comments might hold some water if you didn't have a knack for getting constantly into disputes with people. There's always someone twisting your words, revering your edits, assusing you of trolling, acting in bad faith, etc. -- Steel 23:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

(Reply from my talk page) Link, I'm largely on your side, as I have been throughout this. But he's not placing himself above you by refusing to discuss this with you. Right now neither of you are going to be able to have a calm, courteous discussion. He'll get mad, or you'll get mad, or a third party will get mad - whatever. The best thing to do is to not talk to each other directly - that's why you go to an RfAr. If you could work it out between yourselves, you wouldn't need arbitration. You can't work it out between yourselves. So if contact with him (a) has no possibility of resolving the issue and (b) will probably lead to more conflict, then why do it? If you're going to arbitration, wait to discuss these things with him there. --TheOtherBob 00:13, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

My advice still stands - make a list of all the times he does it rather than talking to him about it. Nothing you say to him will change his behavior. --TheOtherBob 00:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

I was the one that alerted Link to the removal of trolling or something. Brian Boru is awesome 00:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR on List of best-selling computer and video games

You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy by exceeding WP:3RR on List of best-selling computer and video games. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}}. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org.

I appreciate you feel you had consensus support for your edits, but they were clearly content reverts and this is explicitly prohibited. Please return after 24hrs and continue to contribute. Thanks. Rockpocket 09:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It was certainly not a content dispute; the user WhiteMinority was linkspamming vgcharts.

Additionally, I must apologize, I did not intend to commit 3RR. I was under the impression that 24 hours had passed since my last revert. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:54, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Well it was hardly a case of vandalism (the only justification for going over 3RR) as in addition to WhiteMinority (talk • contribs), experienced editors Dionyseus (talk • contribs) and Igordebraga (talk • contribs) singly reverted inbetween your revert. I accept that your intention was not to violate 3RR, but the spirit of the policy is to stop edit warring, waiting 24 hours and one minue for a 4th revert is simply gaming the system. Nevertheless, I commend you for accepting this block with good grace and, since it is not meant to be punitive, I'll lift it early on the condition your give extra consideration before reverting multiple times in future. Please be aware that if you violate 3RR again, the block may be longer. Happy editing. Rockpocket 19:22, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] VGCharts

I have know from the beginning that VGCharts may not be the greatest source in the world, and I certainly agree that its numbers are not accurate to precision. I also do not really care whether the sales data is used here or not, as all video game sales data is ultimately unreliable, making this arguement largely pointless. I think this page really should be deleted for a lack of reliable information or at the very least radically redesigned, but I know this would not go over well at all. We do have a rather nasty edit war here, however, largely perpetrated by WhiteMinority. I have only gotten involved in an attempt to understand what is going on and how this may be resolved. Can you think of a scenario where some of these numbers would be acceptable to show something as a compromise? If not, I think we should delete the numbers as unverifiable and bring an RFC against WhiteMinority if he tries to change it back. I would fully support you in this move and act as a verifying witness on your behalf, but I will not start the RfC myself. If you are not willing to take that step, I understand, but I just want you to realize that after discussing the matter with you fully I agree with your position and feel the numbers are not reliable for the purposes of this article. Indrian 23:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

• I am unsure why you have not responded to me, as I see you have been lurking around wikipedia on a couple of occasions since I wrote the above, but I am a little surpirsed due to your sometimes heated exchanges on the best-selling video games page. I would appreciate a response even if it is just "buzz off, I really do not care anymore" (though I would hope you would put it more politely than that ;) I am fully serious about supporting you in an RFC and making sure these numbers do not remain on wikipedia, I just do not want to move to a more formal stage unless I know there is support to do so. Likewise, I would understand of this futile arguement has just made you sick of the whole thing and you want to leave things where they are. Either way, please give me the courtesy of a response of some kind. Thank you for your time, and I hope I am not annoying you too greatly, as this is not my intent. Indrian 22:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm too busy to discuss things on Wikipedia right now. I have to write >13 reviews. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I understand. I just wanted to make sure I was not just being ignored. Take your time. Indrian 23:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding reversions made Nov. 17 to List of best-selling computer and video games

The duration of the block is 31 hours. Also, please see WP:POINT#Gaming the system, so that you don't do it again. Khoikhoi 09:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

What in the world?! I'm not gaming the system! At what point does making three edits make it gaming the system, no matter what? The only reason I alerted him to it is because if he did break 3RR afterwards, he would have no reason to not know better.

And what in the world AGAIN. You know, I wouldn't be so pissed at this if you didn't decide that because I was trying to keep a bad edit off of this article I was trying to game the system. Oh, and I probably wouldn't be so pissed if it weren't for the fact that you blocked ONLY ME. So let me guess - someone who actually did something wrong and made three edits and is fully aware of 3RR and should know better since he reports all sorts of 3RR violations. But God forbid that an admin be fair.

So tell me - if I had reverted an IP replacing the article's content with curse words three times, would I be gaming the system? This user blanked the contents of the page because they are unsourced - is there any policy that says unsourced content should be deleted and, thusly, made unsourcable? - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I was actually referring to your first edit, which was essentially a partial revert to this. Please note that that WP:3RR says:

"Complex partial reverts" refer to reverts that remove or re-add only some of the disputed material while adding new material at the same time, which is often done in an effort to disguise the reverting. This type of edit counts toward 3RR, regardless of the editor's intention.

Regardless of whether the content was justified or not, it's best to discuss things more rather than edit warring, you might try following the one-revert rule. I didn't block Dionyseus because he only reverted three times.

As for the unsourced bit, I'm not sure if it's an official policy, but I know it's generally accepted on Wikipedia that there isn't anything wrong with removing unsourced information. See also the email by Jimbo. Khoikhoi 20:41, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

1. Yes, and my intention for the first edit was to remove the numbers. I was fixing links as I went along. I was not masking my edits - why would I have to? The website was proven to be unverifiable, no one was objecting to it, and it was three days old. I waited until the discussion about VGCharts was more or less complete.
2. And? I made a separate revert of something several days old. Under your logic, I would have to be blocked if I first reverted vandalism and then reverted three times afterwards?
3. I highly doubt that it's accepted to completely destroy the article. There is no way for people to contribute to the sourcing of this article if the article pretty much doesn't exist. The user was obviously seeking to get rid of the article now that VGCharts was proven to be a poor source. AfD threats, blanking of the article, and an eventual AfD (in which he stated that the AfD was to "improve" it, to pretty much force people to source it before five days is up). When the majority of the article was unsourced but still used VGCharts' numbers, he didn't care. But when the numbers were no longer there, then he decided that the article must be deleted. I don't care that you are assuming I am acting in bad faith, I am protecting an article from being blanked. - A Link to the Past (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually Khoikhoi is right, if a material is or can be challenged it must provide a source, if it has no source it must be deleted. The information can be placed back in when it is sourced. ReyBrujo also suggested that we remove all unsourced statements from the article. [5] Dionyseus 21:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

So Khoikhoi is right? Well, that's strange - he didn't say it "must be deleted". Show me a policy that says without exception, all unsourced material must be deleted. If it were policy to delete unsourced content at sight like you have done lately, then logically, anything that's added without a source right away must be deleted at sight as if it were no better than vandalism, preventing anyone but those who knew it was once in the article to source it. And if you really cared about an article being unsourced and felt that all unsourced content must be deleted, then why didn't you do so earlier? Only when VGCharts' complete wipe out from the article became highly probable did you bring it up as a concern. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)