User talk:Apostrophe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Castlevania: Portrait of Ruin

Hey, I was wondering if you could help get Castlevania: Portrait of Ruin ready for GA. It's something that I've been working on here and there, and it's slowly crept up in quality. It is kinda lengthy and most of the article is in need of copy editing and trimming in some sections. After copy editing and beefing up the reception section some I think it'll be ready to nominate. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC))

Thanks man, I really appreciate it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 18:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Superboy-Prime

Uh, let's discuss this edit on the article's talk page. Pairadox 01:06, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ion (comics)

Before you make accusations against me, please cite my original research in the Ion article. --CmdrClow 07:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

I took time to look at the edits removed, and what you apparently failed to realize is that the information involving Ion before it was revealed as a creature was taken from the various stories including the character while bonded with Rayner the first time, and was also added by other users in the time before your "clean up." Why you singled me out I'm not really sure, but people were contributing to the article and were happy with it well before you deleted most of it. Instead of making such a drastic change, perhaps use the article's talk page to come to a consensus before you make such changes.

I also saw the very questionable edit you made to the Superboy-Prime article, and encourage you to look closer at what constitutes WP:NOR especially when balanced with NPOV. You also seem to not realize that if anything in an article explains the inclusion of an image, then it is alright to use. If you continue to make such hostile and unwarranted edits regarding images or information in articles, I will report you to an administrator. --CmdrClow 07:22, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Because that was the first story dealing directly with Ion, that would logically be when the creature first bonded with him. Comics are not real events. They do not always have a citation, but many times depend on the reader to understand continuity. By saying that the Ion creature first bonded with Kyle at the beginning of the first Ion story falls under common sense. You should know this. --CmdrClow 23:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Before such drastic changes are made to the Hal Jordan article, or any other for that matter. DISCUSS IT ON THE TALK PAGE. Thank you. --CmdrClow 23:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recommendation

As a fellow editor, I encourage you to work with fellow editors on comics-based articles. Possibly by joining WikiProject Comics. --CmdrClow 23:35, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as you have been warned by an administrator, I simply make a kind suggestion to do as you're told. It would be unfortunate if you were blocked. Please start using talk pages to discuss your changes instead of being singular of mind and purpose and making them yourself. --CmdrClow 04:17, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Please note the 3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Hal Jordan. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. - Caribbean~H.Q. 00:09, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] King Bowser

Why did you move this article? The last move request failed, and there has been no discussion of a move since then. This would not be considered a non-controversial move, so the correct thing to do would have been to try another move request. TJ Spyke 21:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Digimon and seasons

Please have a look at Talk:Digimon Adventure. Circeus 13:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fictional Battles

You might also want to look through the rest of the fictional battle pages. I noticed that a fair number of them also use that info box. LloydSommerer 16:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of Japanese N64 games

I noticed your one of the people that wished there to be a list of Japanese games online for Wikipedia which I tried to make for the Nintendo 64 a few months ago, but just like when they where added to the orginal List of Nintendo 64 games they are trying to delete the new page List of Japanese Nintendo 64 games here's a link Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Japanese Nintendo 64 games to the discussion, how about giving your view. (Floppydog66 16:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Tragic villain

Good call. I'll watch the page too. If it turns into a regular AfD, I'll vote to delete. Doczilla 07:51, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, somebody removed your delete prod on Tragic villain. Doczilla 07:40, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Org 13

How is the info presented in Final Mix+ "fannish"? Fractyl 03:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Except it wasn't just Final Mix information. You're adding excessive detail that doesn't flow. ' 13:29, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

But you disposed of the "Final Mix" stuff (Like Axel becoming a rouge, and Xemnas giving Saix the order to take Kairi.) Fractyl 16:43, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Avatar sources

I respect and approve of your attempts to get a more out-of-universe perspective in the articles on characters and events in Avatar: The Last Airbender, but you're using the wrong tags to do so. The tags which you've put into the articles, and which I've removed, ask for sources to verify information in the article. Since most of these articles are little more than plot summaries, they are perfectly verifiable by information from the show (primary sources). There's also the occasional creator comment, and those are sourced, too. What you're asking for are not sources to verify information, but secondary sources to provide a more out-of-universe perspecive and and improve the encyclopedic quality of these articles. It's just as simple as using a different tag. The {{in-universe}} tag is a good general tag for this problem, and is already in most of these articles, and the {{primarysources}} tag is even better, since it specifically mentions the need for sources outside the show itself, and it is actually not present already. Either of the two, or both, will tell people that a more real world perspective is needed, but just asking for more sources in general does not fit. JBK405 22:05, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Redirecting pages involved with Kill Bill

These are MAJOR edits and potentially controversial. You have no right to unilaterally decide wipe out entire articles like this without first discussing and reaching consensus on the talk page of the article. It is a violation of WP:CON and WP:OWN. Stop it. If you continue I will make a report of vandalism. Ward3001 16:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The links are quite relevant. It is inappropriate to get rid of an entire article without discussing it first. I notice you have a history of edit warring. Please don't start one here. Consensus and discussion are the norm for Wikipedia, not one editor forcing his point of view on everyone else. Ward3001 16:28, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

My argument is coherent. WP:OWN applies because, by assuming that only your opinion mattered and discussion for elimination of an entire article was not needed, you did assume ownership of the articles. WP:CON applies because you ignored Wikipedia's procedures for achieving consensus by making a unilateral and potentially controversial decision to eliminate several articles. WP:BOLD is not the only guidelines for Wikipedia. Read the five pillars of Wikipeida, which is at the very core of what Wikipeida is about: "Wikipedia works by building consensus." I'm not going back and forth with you repeatedly. You are not entitled to make such unilateral decisions without discussion, and I'm not arguing that point any further. But my position still stands that if you continue to remove entire articles without consensus I will report you for vandalism. Ward3001 17:07, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Personal attacks

With regard to your comments on User talk:Ward3001: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. Ward3001 16:27, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] You have violated 3RR

You have violated the three-revert rule. You are edit warring, according to the reverts you have made on Template:Infobox Kill Bill Group‎. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Ward3001 20:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

From WP:3RR: "An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time." Each edit changed the actions of another editor, not just your reverts of my edits.

You are skating on the edge in your behavior. I already have sufficient grounds for reporting you for violating rules about consensus, incivility, personal attacks, and now 3RR/edit warring. Any one of these can get you a block. Ward3001 00:26, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template:Infobox Kill Bill Group‎

AGAIN, if you do not copy the descriptive information, it will not appear on the page where the template is inserted. CEASE EDIT WARRING. Ward3001 20:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Want some advice?

Since you've already violated 3RR, I would encourage you not to do it again. Unless of course, you have a desire to be blocked. --CmdrClow 20:44, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Orphaned non-free media (Image:Censorship2-US.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Censorship2-US.JPG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 13:25, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TougHHeads Userpage

Don't change my userpage please? I did not change yours and you shouldn't change mine. Why the Brawl tank picture gets removed while the Pave Low, Apache, Abrams Tank and F-22 Raptor pictures stays? Its not fair and How did you know me?(TougHHead 05:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC))

Also who are you in Wikia and how do you know me?(TougHHead 08:19, 4 November 2007 (UTC))

[edit] "Wevangeliwon"

The kana ヱ and ヲ are obsolete since 1946, and are no longer used in modern japanese except as pure stylistic devices. Their original pronunciation (which was indeed "we" and "wo") has "devolved" into "e" and "o". Indeed, they became stricts equivalents of エ and オ.

Hepburn romanization is based on english phonology, thus aiming at reproducing (or being close to) the real japanese sounds, instead of sticking to the writing. Writing don't change, but pronunciation does, and Hepburn reflects that. The Hepburn romanization of ヱ and ヲ was indeed officially modified as the characters became obsolete and were absorbed by others. Nowadays you won't find a Hepburn chart featuring the kana ゑ (ヱ) and を (ヲ) romanized as "we" and "wo". You'll only find "e" and "o" (see there: Official website of Tokyo Metropolitan Bureau of Citizens, Culture and Sports)

Thus, ヱヴァンゲリヲン is pronunced "evangerion", not "Wevangeriwon". You just have to listen to the various japanese commercials... ヱヴァンゲリヲン is a modern word, and Hideaki Anno just used obsolete characters for a stylistic purpose, but the pronunciation remains exactly the same as it was with "エヴァンゲリオン". There is thus no reason to use the obsolete, historical pronunciation of ヱ and ヲ. Since with Evangelion, we're not dealing with a historic of japanese phonology, historical and obsolete pronunciations dating back from 50 years ago won't be used. Hepburn reflects pronunciation, not writing.Folken de Fanel (talk) 12:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Mario & Sonic

What does "za" being or not being in their have to do with it? TJ Spyke 22:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Video Game Kaiju

Stop redirecting them. You've had problems in the past redirecting pages like Kill Bill. Yes I know, I too had problems, and you don't need to point it out to me. But they are kaiju too and don't need to be redirected. And don't use fowl language at me, I will report you if you continue this and if you cuss at me again. Don't make me repeat this. --Naruto134 00:00, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Angel's Egg Symbolism Deletion

Howdy, I noticed you deleted the Angel's egg symbolism section because of NOR. I think this could be a special case, since there are no official sources available for symbolic interpretation of this film. Rather than delete the entire section, i would rather collaborate with you to make the section more palatable. peace and grace, Saderlius (talk)

Thanks for uploading Image:1992 G-vs-Mothra2 G.jpg. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

[edit] Semi-protection

Hi Apostrophe,

Per a request on WP:RFPP, I've semi-protected your userpage for a month. I'm not sure why you're the target of so much IP vandalism, but since this is a userpage rather than an article and you're clearly an editor in good standing, just let me know if you would rather have the protection removed or extended and I'll be glad to help out. Thanks! --jonny-m t 01:49, 22 May 2008 (UTC)