User talk:TTN/Archive 15

Hi, TTN. I welcome you back to Wikipedia! Thank you for all of your edits. I hope you like editing here and being part of Wikipedia! If you need help, ask me on my talk pageJack Merridew 13:30, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

↑ waz lulz. Good to see you return. Cheers, Jack Merridew 13:33, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to keep it short:

It is very likely anything you merge - warranted or not - related to works of fiction is going to run into controversy given your history with merges on television shows and characters.

I, or other editors, may agree with a few, some, most, or all of the merges you are pointing to, but all thins considered, go through the red tape. And that includes getting the links right on the merge templates. They should point to the section you set up, not just the talk page.

- J Greb (talk) 23:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yea, just a word of caution that we have not fully resolved all issues on fiction (and may never do so - the likely result being that an essay will guide fiction beyond the GNG, but this isn't set in stone). It's a very tense stalemate, and while merge discussions are fine, I'd make sure you've got good reason to do so, lest the situation becomes unbalanced. --MASEM (t) 23:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I removed the speedy deletion (repost) tag from this article and brought it to AfD for discussion. Please contribute at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bill Dauterive (2nd nomination). Thanks, ... discospinster _talk 23:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Noticed you merged this. Was there a discussion about it first? It's not that I'm objecting to the merge (I probably would have agreed with your proposal if I wasn't retired), just as a matter of course. JuJube (talk) 20:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

No discussion as of yet. The articles are dead, so going ahead with it unless someone objects (which they shouldn't unless they honestly think that the articles are good as they stand) seems like the best course. TTN (talk) 20:51, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I worked hard on the articles, and it's a shame they're dead and all, but it's not a big deal to me. Heck, at this point I wouldn't mind if Zatch Bell and Kiyo Takamine was merged; too much stupid shit gets thrown in there, and the way I am now, once it goes off my first "My contributions" page, I won't bother checking it anymore. JuJube (talk) 20:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, could you hold the merge of Megumi and Kiyo for a bit? I'll be reffing them some time this weak and have begun cleaning up the Kiyo and Zatch article. DragonZero (talk) 21:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, you can go ahead and merge Megumi and Tia, I was not able to find notability for them.DragonZero (talk) 01:09, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi TTN,

I never thought I would say this, but I am glad to see you back here, and as such sincerely welcome you back.

A small request: Could you please list proposals for, and in progress, anime and manga related mergers here (just follow the current format)?

Kind regards,

G.A.S^talk 10:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is List of Paper Mario series characters. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Paper Mario series characters. Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

If you have time, could you merge the character articles into this list? List of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED characters. Thank you. DragonZero (talk) 22:57, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, there are instances where this is appropriate. A specific example regarding fictional characters discusses keeping them in media-specific categories (like Category:Sonic the Hedgehog characters) to maintain "lists" though not in other fictional categories like Category:Fictional raccoons.— TAnthony^Talk 16:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, Template:CharR to list entry is what should be used in those cases. The regular categories become too clogged up if the redirects are kept within them. TTN (talk) 17:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello TTN, I was wondering if you could take a few extra seconds to list TFD nominations of animanga-related categories at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga, as this will help draw attention to them. I have a script that can help with this, if you're interested in giving it a try. Thanks in advance! 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 19:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Were you planning on doing anything about this "article"? Despite the result of the recent AfD, I was thinking of renominating it, since WP articles deal with single topics and one can't confect a notable article by combining several nonnotable topics that happen to share a name. (A Nobody's use of this tactic while deletion discussions are running has previously been a subject of negative comment.) A mistake in an 80-year-old journal is certainly not notable, and I can't see that the book is notable. The only topic that may be notable is the short film, but frankly I'd contest that as well. What do you think would be the wisest course of action here? Deor (talk) 14:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I would turn that into a disambiguation page for now, and split out the two subtopics. Then, each can be nominated or expanded on its own merits. TTN (talk) 14:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

To respect the close in which the closer said to discuss merges and other editorial decisions on the talk page. And what's with dredging up bad faith assumptions from last year? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 16:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

To show that you've been told before not to attempt to "rescue" articles by shoveling in material about unrelated topics with similar names. Any further efforts of this sort by you will lead to another thread on the administrators' noticeboard. (Sorry to use your talk page for this, TTN, but AN deletes all messages I try to leave on his own talk page.) Deor (talk) 16:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

What I have been told in bad faith is not really relevant and nor are attempts to bully/threaten me or any other editors. A discussion closed as no consensus with a call to "Editorial decisions, such as merging/redirecting, should be discussed elsewhere" and so acting unilaterally and starting yet another AfD a mere day later is hardly considerate to the administrator's closers or any effort to see if merges, splits, redirects, etc. are workable. Seriously, it would have been that harmful to first try discussions on the relevant talk pages per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE? Immediately renominating is akin to immediately recreating a deleted article. Neither is really helpful and likely to have desired results. Just as deleted articles being immediately recreated are usually redeleted, so too do most editors find day later renominations pointy, i.e. trying to force one's way on the community and in disregard of a discussion that just closed. Where was there any discussion with the administrator who closed the first Afd? Where are the merge discussions on talk pages as the adminsitrator suggested? Or is this another case of you don't like me and because I argued to keep and it wasn't deleted, well, you can't have that? If so, then that is not really fair to the others who argued to keep and worked on these articles. I am after all not the only editor who worked on the Salvation article, as Michael Smidt worked on the film portions. Please be considerate of your fellow editors' efforts and give some greater credence to closers for the same reason why it has been a long, long time why I have not bothered starting DRVs or just going ahead a recreating deleted articles. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The entire reason I have to do things like this is because of people like you. You don't care about quality articles or proper information management. You obviously know the difficulty of trying to start discussions for articles only looked at by anons, yet you still state that a discussion should have taken place. The only thing you care about is pure numbers and for some reason you actually care about edit history. I really suggest that you stop worrying about minor fiction articles, and start using the time you would gain to really do something good, like bringing something to FA status. TTN (talk) 17:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Editors matter. Those anons frequently lay the foundations of articles and eventually become established eidtors. We do not cultivate their time and efforts by dismissing them as somehow inferior to us or disregarding their opinions altogether. I care about edit history, because authors and contributors who are not paid for their work should at least have their contributions remain public and also because edit histories are useful when considering RfAs as only admins can see deleted contributions. As far as telling me to not worry about fiction articles and work on bringing something to FA status, if you would like to do just that, I would gladly help. Why not lead by example and show us how to bring some of these to the next level? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:29, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Honestly, only like twenty-five percent of actually editors matter, and an even lower percent of anons matter. If the articles that they've worked on do not contribute anything to the site, their edit histories do not matter either. I doubt an RfA will come down to a few edits on some minor character, so that doesn't matter either. What I do is actually beneficial to the site. I merge and redirect articles until they are in a state where they can actually be edited, and often trim them to make sure that they do not go back to the way they were. You attempt to save such articles no matter what, and then you never even touch them again. I don't know about your activities outside of filibustering AfDs for fictional topics, but I'm sure they are probably actually useful. If you were to take the wasted time, and mix it with those activities, you would be far more productive. As for myself, I don't have the attention span to productively work on building articles. I can spend an hour chopping down a character list, but I get bored after five minutes while looking for sources. TTN (talk) 17:45, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I disagree that only 25% of editors matter and would not disparage 75% of our community in such a manner. I do not contribute to Wikipedia merely for myself, but, as an educator, for the sake of our readers. An appeal of Wikipedia is its attempt to catalog human knowledge, a worthy humanitarian goal in the manner and tradition of the Library of Alexandria or the Enlightenmnet encyclopedias. "In truth, the aim of an encyclopédie is to collect all knowledge scattered over the face of the earth...All things must be examined, debated, investigated without exception and without regard for anyone's feelings," wrote Denis Diderot explaining the goal of the Encyclopedia as quoted in Timothy Gregory, Exploring the European Past: Text & Images, Second Edition (Mason: Thomson, 2007), 33; Lynn Hunt, R. Po-chia Hsia, Thomas R. Martin, Barbara H. Rosenwein, and Bonnie G. Smith, The Making of the West: Peoples and Cultures: A Concise History: Volume II: Since 1340, Second Edition (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2007), 611. And no, I do not believe all fictional character articles should be saved: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tony Cunningham (Tony & Friends), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lord Nog, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeremy the jellyfish, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Carrie Petrelli, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Starr, etc. Oddly enough, I have actually argued to delete more articles than a number of those who say I always argue to keep have themselves argued to keep. That you admittedly "get bored after five minutes while looking for sources" is telling, because to do a really thorough source search, it sometimes requires more than just five minutes and that is why some of these nominations are frustrating. As far as how I approach arguments in AfDs, like Socrates, I want to challenge editors to discuss actual sources and to consider all options, not to just drive by vote. It is not about winning arguments or about always being right. Sadly, it sometimes takes challenging editors in these discussions to produce actual research on the subject, even if in the case of the Salvation, Texas one to show that the source I found for the suspected real city was a misprint. Now, we have a discussion that actually discusses that correction rather than just a list of "per noms" that do not address the status of sources, i.e. we have an animated debate rather than a vote. If I was solely here to make friends, I wouldn't bother in AfDs, but it is far more important that human knowledge is discussed in a more serious and careful manner--regardless of how I look to anyone--that reflects consideration of specific sources and searches and other possible solutions. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Nobody edits the site just for themselves, unless they really, really like reading what they write. The fact that we can collect everything is fine. That does not meant that every subject needs to be spread like butter or duplicated. The Grail is already covered with Preacher and in the character list. Everything that needs to be known about it is written, so it is just pointless to duplicate it any further. That goes for most articles that you try to "save." Note that the only reason that you argued to delete those is because of the fact that you could not find a source that mentions them. That is not the proper way to gauge articles related to fiction. The proper method is "Is this article a burden to the parent article because it has too much real world focus to adequately fit within the parent article?" You don't challenge people; you hassle them over and over, all while just presenting the same argument. If you note, anyone besides the group of people who vote with you, finds your methods to be very annoying. You do fine work outside of this area, but you are quite an annoying burden inside it. TTN (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

If I "annoy" anyone, it is because they don't like being challenged to actually show evidence of looking for sources or making efforts to improve the articles under discussion. People do not like being called out when their "argument" is really an WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than an actual consideration of available sources. Some would much rather vote than take the time to discuss sources or try to improve the articles under discussion, and that is inconsiderate to those who do write and care about the content under discussion. Your comment to me about "anyone besides the group of people who vote with you" is somewhat misleading given all those posts on my userpage of dozens of editors who have agreed with my arguments or given me barnstars and can actually be put back on you given that while you similarly have some likeminded editors, many more have criticized and started arbcom and other threads over your AfDs and seemingly unilateral redirects. What matters really is whether the subjects are verifiable and so long as they are and are relevant to some segment of our readers then we do them a disservice by getting rid of them. We have many articles here that do seem trivial to me, but just because I think that does not mean much. What is trivial to one might mean the world to another. And especially as fiction has a tremendous influence on people's lives, both emotionally and culturally. So long as the content is neither libelous nor a hoax, there is rarely a pressing need to not at worst merge and/or redirect. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

When someone states "per nom" and then goes on to explain why they agree with the nominator, you still post generic link and message. That is not challenging someone; that is annoying. I've even seen you do it after someone had written a fairly sizable paragraph. Then, you also respond to every single person, and you just keep going, even if they have perfectly explained their point. This whole discussion is within reference to your activity in fiction related AfDs. As I have said, you probably do fine work outside of them, so barnstars probably have little to do with this, or any that do have to do with it come from like-minded inclusionists. I'm not talking about my actions here, as anyone could be having this discussion with you. I already get that you find everything to be important, but I'm just telling you that you would be better off ignoring such things. In the end, the article on the Grail will be removed. It should not matter whether it is through deletion or redirection. TTN (talk) 18:40, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

How is it any different from you responding to everyone who argued to keep in the most recent nomination? And I would imagine that it will probably be kept per WP:SNOW at this point. If it is covered elsewhere and is redirected, no big deal, but redlinking is totally unnecessary. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 18:44, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I've done that a few times in the past, but I figured that I was being overly zealous, so now I only respond to a few choice people (i.e. you and Warden in the current AfD), or I just let it run its course. The thing I'm trying to get through to you is that you should not care in the first place unless it is something that has actually been merged (not by you) and you feel the need to point that out to people, or you actually have personal knowledge of the material and wish it to be merged. Instead, you just comment on every single AfD out that you find without prejudice. In the very least, I hope this little discussion can possible get you to calm down a bit, even if it doesn't dissuade you at all. TTN (talk) 18:53, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, I have nominated or argued to delete scores of articles since I started editing in 2006. Sure I have argued to keep many more than to delete, but I do not think everything should be kept and I do not go back and forth with editors in every AfD I comment in. Really, what does it matter that we have articles that are verifiable and relevant to someone if they are kept? How could that possibly bother anyone that articles that are relevant to some other people exist? So long as they are not just made up nonsense or personal attacks on real people, why wouldn't we want to humor those editors and readers who find them worthwhile? Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

As I've said, I don't know or care about your activities outside of fiction articles, so you may argue to delete more real topics. In the case of fiction, you only argue to delete hoaxes or articles where you cannot find a single source. Everything comes down to a single source. That is the main problem with that ideology. And trust me, you do respond to the majority of people, and you are very unyielding. There is also the fact that many of your methods are very underhanded, such as "merging" a single source so that you can claim the article can never be deleted, instead of just ignoring it in the first place.

As for why these articles shouldn't exist, it is because they are burdens. When trying to work towards any sort of status, It could easily be daunting if you have tons of sub-articles. People also flock to these articles instead of actually working on main articles. Anons, while usually worthless in their efforts, sometimes do have something to really add to an article. Instead of doing so with the main article, they'll edit something like the Grail over and over, which leads nowhere. Take a look at Necrid for a more developed example. The article looks perfectly fine at first glance, but the fact is that most of the information belongs in the parent article, Soulcalibur II, which is horrid in contrast. Soulcalibur II could easily be an FA at this point if it had been worked on. TTN (talk) 19:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Then, again, help to make Soulcalibur II a featured article and just ignore ones that do not interest you as much like Necrid by allowing those who are interested in it to continue to work on it. BOTH articles should be developed and improved. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 19:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I have speedily closed the second afd for Grail (DC Comics), and listed both my closure and your re-nomination in as neutral a statement as I can at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#User:TTN. Please add your input, as I strongly believe in the right to reply, and I apologise if I have misrepresented your actions, feel free to strike any part of my statement you find contentious. Hiding T 21:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I suggest a DRV rather than a renom... the closer didn't do a thorough job of separating the two articles, in my view. Further, if that doesn't work out, I suggest you work to effect a merge for Grail, as consensus seems to be that a straight keep isn't warranted (take the deletes and merges and they far outweigh the keeps in argument strength as well as numerically)... ++Lar: t/c 19:39, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

TTN, speaking of the above AN thread, what is with trying to deflect attention from yourself by spinning it to me? I neither started nor even commented in that thread so of all the people to say something against, dragging my name in is rather lame, especially when we were discussing relatively civilly above and I even said something like a per TTN in a recent AfD. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:26, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Because what I said was entirely true. The whole mess was directly your fault for using editing practices that you know were only meant to jumble things up. You could have easily created two other articles, which would have been the proper thing to do, but instead, you decided to throw it all on one page to force a keep. That also messed things up for the Grail, which could have easily been deleted were it not for the confusion. I don't plan on responding to this again, as I really, really dislike our discussions. TTN (talk) 20:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Not really. I did what was necessary to actually improve content and by default improve Wikipedia. I even ended up with a DYK credit! :) Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

How is a merge discussion not a discussion?. I've meant edit-war between User:Dream Focus and User:Kung Fu Man. That's why I wanted to stop edits before consensus is taken care of. Thanks, Sir Lothar (talk) 17:41, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm still poking at it here and there, I'll tackle it, Morrigan Aensland and Felicia (Darkstalkers) fully down the line, just got a lot on my current todo list I want to get somewhat to GA before I go after others. There's some development information in a few Japanese artbooks I'm trying to track down as well as the cartoon/comic appearances for the character I still need to work into the article.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that it's wrong for you and Retro Hippie to speedy redirect Captain Falcon without some kind of discussion. The thing was a former good article--it can't be that bad. I think that we should take the article as it was when it was good article, and paste that. In fact, I may just do that. Purplebackpack89 (talk) 15:33, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

I see a lot of editors on ANI, etc. are concerned with your edits and widespread deletion of hundreds of editors edits again.

But I am encouraged that you seem to be working with editors on these pages, to either make these pages more encyclopedica, or merge them to a more applicable and encyclopedic topic.

Thank you. Ikip (talk) 20:28, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I know you're fairly involved in TV episodes and have a knack to determine the suitability of episodes having their own separate articles, where "suitability" means adherence to various policies and guidelines. If you'd be willing, I'd like to ask your input on a few "feature-length" episodes that fall in to the realm of the Cartoon Network wikiproject. Please let me know either way; thanks. Yngvarr (t) (c) 13:10, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't really guarantee that I will be correct, but I can certainly try. TTN (talk) 13:15, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I suspect you've got a more level head regarding this stuff, which is why you came to mind. Anyways, here are some that come to mind:

• Billy & Mandy's Big Boogey Adventure
• Billy & Mandy: Wrath of the Spider Queen
• Ed, Edd n Eddy's Big Picture Show

That last one is already in AFD, but I'm only mentioning it because it's one of those never-say-die articles. Thanks again. Yngvarr (t) (c) 13:45, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

For the first one, I would probably merge the production information and the award nomination into the main article's section on the films. Out of the two review sites, only DVD Verdict is actually used often, so it could probably go there too. The plot section could be used to fill out the one in the episode list a bit more. If you can find more reviews for it, it could be a reasonably stable article. The other two don't assert any sort of notability, so they should be redirected or deleted unless a good chunk of reception information can be found. TTN (talk) 14:00, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Think we ought to have some discussion on the article's talk page prior to just removing it like that and replacing it with a redir. --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Why? It's a stub of an article that is unlikely to ever expand. If you want to keep track of the series, you should create a template. TTN (talk) 20:30, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

It's got content that isn't on another page. It's a seminal video game character. --Oscarthecat (talk) 20:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I reverted your redirecting there. If you think he is not notable, may I suggest an AfD? I think he is quite notable, as the main protagonist of a popular Polish TV series - through of course he wouldn't be known in the English speaking country. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 20:21, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I really don't get why you're arguing over a character that only has three sentences written about it. TTN (talk) 20:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to thank you for the recent trimming and rewrites for the List of Fairy Tail characters page. I appreciate the help and like if we could work a little closer so we could make the article even better. You hav e my thanks, GENERALZERO (talk) 23:25, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Where is the consensus to merge these? I have not seen any, and you have essentally deleted the talk pages. SimonTrew (talk) 17:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Their articles are badly written and filled with original research. It should be obvious that they don't need to exist. I guess I'll put them up for deletion later. TTN (talk) 17:22, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Are you planning to do all of the merges here? I'd be very grateful if so, I never got around to finishing what I started, and my internet connection is rather rubbish at the moment due to moving. If anyone objects to any of the merges, I'm happy to provide 'backup'. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I was just planning on doing those four, but I guess I can do the rest. Should every single one of them be merged or do some of them have the potential for real world information? TTN (talk) 17:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

My plan was to tag them 3-5 at a time, and leave them for a few weeks to see if anyone edits them in a positive way or made some comment on the proposal. I was going to leave Ranma, Akane and Ryoga as being likely to have enough real world discussion. A couple of others might have the potential, but tbh I really don't see anyone likely to be adding anything of value to them (the same goes for the above 3, but they can be re-evaluated at a later time). Those 3 were suggested by one of the intial contributors to the articles who was discussing the merges with me at one point. They seemed like a good compromise for the time being. You could always do the 4 in the mergefrom tag, then add a few new ones and do it that way if you don't have the time/energy. Once the merges are done we can chop that ridiclously oversized list from the main Ranma article. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Maybe you could help in merging some of these characters to the List of characters? Thanks, Magioladitis (talk) 20:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I might get to it at some point. I'm working on merging like five different series right now, and even the ones I'm familiar with are a pain to trim. TTN (talk) 21:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree that the article is way, way over-stuffed with fluff. But that's not a reason to delete/merge the article. Cleanup, yes. And you should have seen it about 8 months ago -- check the history to see what it used to look like before it got this clean. SpikeJones (talk) 21:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I know what's gone on with it; I merged most of the single character articles. The reason to remove it isn't because of the fluff. It's that without the fluff, there is no actual content worthy of an article. The amount of actual content equals that of a cast section. TTN (talk) 21:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hiya :) As you were apparently the sole party to the reduction of Starcrossed (Justice League episode) to a redirect, I'd invite your opinion of my intent to re-establish an article at that location. The discussion has been started (resumed?) at Talk:List of Justice League episodes#Starcrossed. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 04:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know if you looked at the edit history for that at all, but it has had only thirteen edits this year (including the two of us). That's a good indication that nothing is going to happen with a discussion. I don't know if the article falls under your area of interest (it doesn't seem likely given you've only edited it once before), but I would really like to follow WP:BRD, where the "revert" is by someone who actually feels the articles should still be around. TTN (talk) 17:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Whether you think I've an interest or not (irrelevant), there's no discussion anywhere on these multiple merges, even at the talkpage of the target, so that doesn't really hold water. Chris (クリス • フィッチュ) (talk) 17:37, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Discussion stems from possible conflict; it is not something that is mandatory for every change. Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus as a result of the editing process explains it fairly well. Forcing discussion for the sake for forcing discussion is just counterproductive. You have little to no interest, and there are no constant editors dealing with these articles. It's not like you would have even noticed the edit if not for the character's nationality falling under that project, so there is nothing to be found in having a discussion. TTN (talk) 17:56, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey there TTN. Been meaning to ask you this, why the sudden redirect change to No. 16? It occurred to me that the same type of edits should've been done to No. 17 and No. 18. Thoughts? Please reply below, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

An article that you have been involved in editing, Master Shake, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Master Shake (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Deor (talk) 00:50, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I wish you luck if you are going to summarize all 15-20'ish Elite Four/Champions. I would like you to know that I will be working on making a List of Elite Four members or Elite Four article in my userspace here. So all the content you are removing will be saved. I think the list will look alot better after the E4 arent clouding it up anymore. Thanks again, _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 19:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I really don't think very much can come out of such a list. The anime and manga appearances don't need to be fleshed out in detail (the anime episode lists and the manga volume list should cover that information), so the content shouldn't take up very much space. TTN (talk) 20:12, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I dont know if you realize, but you are removing every character that isnt in the games and turning it into a List of Pokémon game characters. You removed the main anime and manga characters. This is supposed to be a list of all the main characters. Not just the game ones. If you wish to change it, then contact WT:POKE. _Blake ^{(Talk·Edits)} 17:18, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

They can be included, but just not in list format. It takes up too much space and it is redundant to those two lists. Paragraphs should take their place. TTN (talk) 17:32, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello TTN, I was wondering if you've ever considered joining WP:ANIME's cleanup task force, and if not, I'd like to extend a formal invitation. You certainly do a great deal of work on articles within WP:ANIME's scope already, and we have a number of tasks listed there you might be interested in, so even if you don't feel like joining, you could always keep an eye on the page or something... ;) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not really interested in specifically joining projects for whatever reason. I've looked over that page a few times anyway (I started on the Ranma articles because of it). TTN (talk) 20:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

All right, cool. Joining wouldn't really mean anything significant, just that you're willing to help out if necessary, but no big deal anyways (it's more than obvious that you'd probably help out if asked regardless). =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 20:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Where can I receive the "Original Air Date" and "ProdCode" for every episode? Tell me, please, if you know. And who and why traited my poor article so cruelly? The original article was too large, I agree, so I thought that splitting it would kill two birds with one stone, that is, the every new article would be less than the original one and more interesting. Am I wrong?--User:He-l-en1959 Mirabella Star 17:15, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Well...I'll try... But I need an information which I had pointed already. When I'll receive it, I'll begin to do the job again. User:He-l-en1959--Mirabella Star 18:18, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

• Thank you very much. Maybe he will write to me himself if he agrees to help me? I'll can make the table and rewrite the episodes, it will be even rather interesting... User:He-l-en1959--Mirabella Star 18:51, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

This seems to me to be a drastic and unannounced change to the page, and I have reverted it so that some discussion can take place as to whether it's a good idea. Would you care to propose a merge on the talkpage? Mahalo,  Skomorokh  18:05, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

The purpose of BRD is for people who actually care about the content, not someone who thinks a change is too drastic. If someone actually cares, they will revert it. Really, people like you are completely ridiculous. A bold change is somehow so bold that it needs to be discussed, despite the fact that nobody who cares for the article has voiced a dissenting opinion? That logic doesn't make any sense. I guess I'll just forget about touching it for now. I really don't feel like dealing with such a pointless endeavor. TTN (talk) 18:15, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, why do you assume I don't care about the content, and secondly, what chance have you given anyone to voice a dissenting opinion? Correct me if I am wrong, but you don't seem to have asked if anyone had a problem with the merge, did you?  Skomorokh  18:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Generally when one cares about content, they state "I believe this character article is appropriate, so please start a merge discussion" or something to that effect. Your statement is identical those who wish for discussions to be started, yet they don't even bother to comment after such a discussion has been started. I apologize if that is not your intention, but your actions are identical. There doesn't have to be a merge discussion for someone to voice that they want to keep the article. All it takes it for someone to revert it with a reason similar to my example. TTN (talk) 18:39, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

If I didn't care about the article, I wouldn't have watchlisted and noticed when you redirected it. I don't take it personally or anything, but it's rather poor form to jump to negative conclusions about the goodwill of other editors before it's been demonstrated. I'll continue to watch the page, and will participate if you do choose to propose a merge. Regards,  Skomorokh  18:45, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

There are numerous people who watchlist every single article the edit, even if they just perform minor edits, and many of those people are the same as the ones I'm talking about. Given the people I deal with, it's not really that much of a leap, especially considering you've only made one minor edit to the article in its years of existence. I probably won't bother with a merge discussion seeing as you're the only person who would likely respond. TTN (talk) 18:56, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to thank you for your work on the World of Monkey Island page. Your changes are along the lines I was imagining when I originally merged the page, but your attempts at trimming were far more successfully ruthless than mine :) Playclever (talk) 23:23, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I see a little point to the category, but I honestly wouldn't fight its deletion. Probably wouldn't support it either though. Please feel free to do what you think is best. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:33, 10 September 2009 (UTC))

We've been discussing what you brought up here. We're a bit lazy with our 1000+ articles that need to be reduced to the 100-200 level, but if you could help in a constructive way, that would be great. If you have a comment, do it there so it's all in one place. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 04:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello TTN, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Roger Durling has been removed. It was removed by DGG with the following edit summary '(significant character in major series of novels--possibly merge, but not delete.)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with DGG before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 20:23, 11 September 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Would you consider redirecting this article to Zoids right now? The article is obvious not notable in its current form, so this material can be removed right now, with only a redirect remaining.

This listing was posted on several days ago, and has received no !votes yet. One keep vote could mean that it was kept non consensus. Whereas a redirect is immediate and the information is assured to be removed.

I could redirect the page right now for you and close the Afd. Please let me know as soon as possible, because as soon as someone else comments on the AfD, they must agree also before I can redirect the article and close the AFD.Ikip (talk) 02:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

What are you doing to this article? Your changing it into a redirect to that list page contributes nothing to describing the emulator itself anywhere on wikipedia. Wiping a whole article and making it into a redirect should probably be discussed on the article talk page for a while first.

It appears you have made a mistake, so I am on the verge of reverting your changing the article into a redirect. But from reviewing your user/talk pages, it looks like you're not a noob who has no clue what they is doing, I suppose I should ask you what your plan is. Or if indeed you intended this. DMahalko (talk) 21:16, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

There is very little chance of any emulator actually establishing notability with the exception of MAME. Please just leave it as redirect and work on the list instead. TTN (talk) 21:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I think that this edition is wrong, you need to merge the history of boths talk pages, also with the article Manuelt15 (talk) 19:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Do you mean a regular merge or a history merge? The content is mainly original research, so there is nothing to actually merge to the article. I'd just rather avoid an AfD if I can. If you mean a history merge, that is only done with articles that have their histories split by someone coping and pasting the information to another article. TTN (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you redirected United States government in Jericho to Jericho (TV series), with the edit summery "redirect". If you just want to say you redirected something, you don't even need to type an edit summery. Just leave the summery blank and (using United States government in Jericho as an example) an automatic edit summary will be added saying "Redirected page to Jericho (TV series).--Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 18:28, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Why did you merge Strogg without a discussion and without a content boost for Strogg session on Quake (series)? Robfbms (talk) 05:08, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

The content is mostly original research, so I only merged a small amount. If I missed anything important, feel free to add it to that section. TTN (talk) 17:40, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

I suggest you to undo the merge and put the "Mergefrom" template instead of merging it without a discussion. Robfbms (talk) 01:54, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

I undid the merge. Too much information was lost. The page does need to be cleaned up, but merging everything into 3 sentences is a little ridiculious. Chrono951 (talk) 07:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you planning to merge all the WKRP characters? If not, why are you picking on her? She got (almost) her share of plot lines in the ensemble cast. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:07, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll to get the rest of them eventually. Though, that's the only one that will probably actually be merged. The rest don't seem to be sourced at all. TTN (talk) 19:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:56, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I object. And, I am particularly disturbed at the idea of an editor unilaterally merging articles with no discussion whatsoever, and with not even the courtesy of putting a proposed merger tag on articles they think should be merged. I take it from the comments above that this is a pattern that you follow. I also take it that it has created problems for you in the past. I would thing that should give you pause, but apparently not.Fladrif (talk) 21:17, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the heavy lifting here -- I confess it had dropped off my radar. (Not surprising since I'm in an informal semi-wikibreak, but still.) —Quasirandom (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted your redirect on The Last One (Aqua Teen Hunger Force). You cannot just redirect an entire article to another article with no consensus and discussion. Once, you reply, please place a talkback on my talkpage. warrior4321 17:10, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it's up for deletion. TTN (talk) 17:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi there, it seems you redirected some articles (Project64 and Nemu64) to the list of video game console emulators, without any apparent reason. I'm sure the individual articles can be improved, and do not need redirection without proper discussion. --CoolingGibbon (talk) 23:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Likewise with Demonland and Witchland. If you wish, please propose a merger instead of redirecting. Goustien (talk) 22:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Why do you keep deleting Rayman's character article and redirecting it to the series? Rayman has been in a lot of games, including some that aren't his, and he needs an article. 98.239.56.66 (talk) 22:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

FYI. Ikip (talk) 03:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

• I am contacting everyone who participated in the previously AFD that Megatron (Beast Era) is up for deletion again. The AFD is at [1] Dream Focus 00:09, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place as to whether the articles Paternity (House), Occam's Razor (House), Maternity (House), Damned If You Do, The Socratic Method (House), Fidelity (House), Poison (House), DNR (House), Histories (House), Detox (House), Sports Medicine (House), Cursed (House), Control (House), Mob Rules (House), Heavy (House), Role Model (House), Babies & Bathwater, Kids (House), Love Hurts (House) and Honeymoon (House) are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paternity (House) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. _Xeworlebi ^(talk) 20:02, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, you send me this - I have nominated Recoome, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Recoome. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. TTN (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC) - but.. I don´t even know who Recoome is and I dind't create an article about him/her. That must be a mistake. Best regards.

P.S.: I don't know if it's suppose to wrote this here. Sorry if I am mistaken