User talk:Zarbon/archive2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page, hence, its contents should be preserved in their current form. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello, Zarbon/archive2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

Archived

I have archived your previous discussions; the link to the page is above. Kafziel 07:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

wow! thanks. i'm grateful for your help. as a token of my appreciation, i swear not to vandalize or do anything of that nature to any page. i'm sorry for whatever happened in the past and i'm sorry for saying to you that i won't stop. i take back all the nonsensical and blatantly negligent things i said. i hope to continue to be a part of the wiki community and you can count on me to keep my promise. thanks again. - Zarbon

I have also removed the sockpuppeteer tag from your user page. I am keeping your name on the list for the time being by putting that category at the bottom of your page, and the sockpuppet tags will remain on the various IP pages, but at least now you do not have the big tag at the top of your page. Assuming all goes well for a while, I will remove you from the category completely. I have faith in you. Kafziel 15:44, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job...

I like what you've done for Zarbon's new page; it's the makings of a fine pice of work. My only beefs are that the section titles aren't supposed to be linked (per Wiki standards) and that Dodoria shouldn't be listed as a "sidekick", he's more of an associate, cohort or partner. They're Freeza's right and left hand men respectively.

But overall, very nice. *claps* Papacha 06:05, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ah, cohort is a fine wording. as for the race issue, i think he's listed as alien...but since that's technically not a race as you pointed out, captain ginyu is listed as mutant so would that qualify them as mutants as well? - Zarbon

Image Tagging for Image:Fortissimodo.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Fortissimodo.JPG. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 12:41, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freeza & Zarbon...

...I can be agreeable (once in a blue moon >_>) so I s'pose I can go along with your reasoning. Though Freeza surely already knew about the Saiyan threat, being the paranoia freak that he is, and was probably merely humoring Mr. Zarbon with his psuedo-polite tones. Still...

I'll cover the "henchmen" bit on my discussion page. Papacha 05:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heads-up ~~

I removed a pic that was fan-art from the Bushroot page you've been working on. I know you're good at seeking out caps, so while I could grab another myself I'll leave the new picture in your hands. Papacha 18:13, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ah. no problem. i noticed the fanart but i hadn't removed it since i didn't see it necessary. but since its gone, i'll find a screenshot and put one up. thanks for the heads up. - Zarbon

Orphaned fair use images

Cholmes75, the pages the images belonged to have been deleted long ago. the images can be deleted. - Zarbon

OK, I will go ahead and just tag them, but not leave any more notices if that's acceptable. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 14:21, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added back the Image:Cui4.JPG where it was needed, so you don't have to tag it for deletion. - Zarbon

Favorite Oz Character

Sup man, why is Barlog your favorite Oz character? He is nothing but one of keller's gay lovers, and he gets owned while giving him a BJ. explain it man

hi. Barlog is my alltime favorite Oz character because of the way he dies. i'm glad you're interested by the way. Please post your name next time so we can chat. I love the way he dies. It's my favorite scene from the history of Oz. My second most favorite character from Oz is Richie Hanlon for the way he dies. And my third most favorite character from OZ is Nikolai Stanislofsky for the way he dies. They all die so awesome is why i love them the most. If you look at my main page...you can see a top listing of all my favorite characters there. - Zarbon

Wikipedia:Image use policy

Zarbon, after I read your comments on the maximum number of images for articles, I just wanted to point out that Wikipedia's Policy on Image use states no maximum number of images on any article. This, however, does not imply that a user is free to add random images that really don't contribute much to an article (e.g. Wiki-star). While we are all glad that the Majin Buu problem is over (at least for now), I would like to point one last thing out. The problem with wiki-star is that he thinks that just because he likes a character, they can get 40 images on the pages. I doubt that you should accuse Wiki-star of this unfairly as you have also acted on favoritism many times in the past with Zarbon. Not necessarily in the article itself but just little things here and there (e.g. Dragon Ball Z: Budokai Tenkaichi). Anyways, I just wanted to clear up the Image Policy issue.-3bulletproof16 04:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

understood. however, ten images on the buu page is still far too many, so please...do not add any more. much more major characters have even less than 5, so please keep him at 7. - Zarbon

That is your own POV, which in term is also against Wikipedia Policy. The reason why the Goku or Vegeta articles do not have images for most of their transformations is because there is already an article on Super Saiyan with more than enough pictures to illustrate the transformations. Buu as well as other characters whose transformations are exclusive to themselves should include images depicting the forms since there is no other specific article on that matter. And just because an major character has less than 5 is still no reason to keep the maximum at 7 for others, partly because it still is favoritism but mostly because there is no limit to the number of images used in articles. However, like I said, only images that don't contribute much to an article and are just there at random should be considered to be removed. But images that clearly illustrate a subject have no reason to be removed.3bulletproof16 01:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

but the added images aren't of his forms. they are simply absorptions, where he changes his clothing...it's still all a part of super buu in different clothing. - Zarbon

Whether or not they are "actual forms" or absorptions could be your superstition (though the definition of Transformation is "A change in appearance, nature, function, etc."), and that's fine, but the images do not suggest unnecessary, random, or irrelevant information. The images illustrate the state of being in which Super Buu is in, depicting the matter at hand, and quite frankly, this is the basis in which images are used. To add depictive information.-3bulletproof16 06:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zarbon page

Hey Zarbon, after that mess on the Buu page with Wiki-star, the last thing we need is a potential edit war. So I figure I'd talk to you here. First off, you should recall from a previous encounter with me that as far as Zarbon and the whole Freeza clan go, I'm coming from a place of love. My edits to the Zarbon page were really small, with these intents: Have the names match those of the relevent articls (see comment page for a link to where you can weigh in if you disagree, but theres no sense in writing Frieza to link to a Freeza page or Krillin linked to a Kuririn page- this will only confuse readers), keep things NPOV, and straight facts. Again, it was mainly just two name spellings, a couple of words, and a few sections slightly reworded to read better (i.e the transformation section was a little cluttered, two snipits later and it reads perfect). Comment me here, there or my talk page with disagreements and we'll come to a consensus before a repeat of the Buu experience can happen. Onikage725 21:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i understand very well...but i don't link to the krillin page...so i don't need it read as kuririn and all japanese version namings for that matter. also, the frieza page is spelled as such....as FRIEZA, not freeza. so lets just leave it without the japanese version linkings. it's less confusing that way. i wrote more in the actual discussion page so be sure to check it out so we don't have any further argument. - Zarbon

It didn't before. In fact we had a vote and got it changed back from the last person who did that. I don't know who keeps doing this without discussion but I'll see to that. Also, considering that you don't own the article (read up on wiki policy), what you feel you need for naming conventions effectively counts as a single vote. BTW, your one vote doesn't count as 4 on the Freeza page. Keep that in mind before you go against the consensus. Onikage725 23:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that's understandable, but why are you going against me on the handsome thing. i already told you that i know for a FACT that he is stated as handsome, it's not my opinion. It's the way it is. please stop rewording it. it is the intention of the character. Also, please stop writing under his picture, "introduce you to the beast,"...it's one of his quotations...the picture itself is his transformed state and nothing else. it doesn't need more confusing emphasis. - Zarbon

I haven't made any further changes to these things, and in return all I want is the naming to be universal so that readers aren't going from one page to the next with different versions of the names. And be aware this isn't "what I want versus what you want" or me throwing my weight around against you. The consensus has been reached on more than just these pages (Freeza and Coola were the most recent), and in the Coola debate there was no opposition and in Freeza only yourself and Wiki-star. I'll leave handsome alone if it showed up in character blurbs as you say. I'll leave thw quote out, I just figured it would go to illustrate the point made in that section about his personification of beauty and the beast. But it could do with out. The unstated power level has remained out, and the sidekick thing, and the only other thing I care about is consistent naming between articles (and I don't see the big problem with a link to Kuririn's article at the mention of his name. It's a fairly common thing to do). Onikage725 10:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no, that's not what i meant mate. Kuririn is better known as Krillin. This seriously isn't even a spelling dispute. In Krillin's case, it's simply about version differences. The differences in versions means that we should stick to the Funimation names. And nowhere in Funimation is Krillin ever hinted as Kuririn. Please just keep the US names, that in itself is following a simpler guideline. If it isn't any trouble to you, I can change the Krillin links on all the other pages to Krillin as well. - Zarbon

Straw Poll

Hello, you are invited to take part in a straw poll at the Majin Buu page to avoid another revert war with User:Wiki-star.--Orion Minor 23:46, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Armadilloq.jpg)

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Armadilloq.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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.

If you have uploaded other fair use 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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. meco 18:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Dezerian.jpg)

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Dezerian.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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.

If you have uploaded other fair use 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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. meco 18:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Terrycrowley.jpg)

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Terrycrowley.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image can be used under a fair use license. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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.

If you have uploaded other fair use 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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. meco 18:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forum

I wanted to ask you, where's your forum? With you-know-who being totally banned (boy what you can miss in a day), he may be hitting you again. Onikage725

With a song in my heart ~~

You can't always get what you want. But if you try sometimes, well you just might find... you get what you need. Papacha 05:45, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well isn't that always true, my good friend... You know, kinda makes you wonder if he'd really clean up his act this time around... ... ... NAH... --3bulletproof16 06:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

However... I am going to miss his dramatic way of writing... that Final Atonement speech almost (ahem... ALMOST) brought a tear to my eye. Well not really, but still pretty dramatic. --3bulletproof16 06:19, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Return of Wiki-Star

Well for once I'm somewhat flattered that he actually addressed me this time. Though I'm not too fond of him saying that he was going to kill me, I do, however, manage to find some comedic relief in all this at the thought of him attempting to kill me. Here's my analysis: He can't write at all so my guess is another Dragon Emperor "Sockpuppet". However, the IPs responsible for the recent vandalism are AOL trolls so there is a slim possibility that Wiki-star could indeed be making himself look like an ass again... --3bulletproof16 21:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am extremely tired of his incessant babbling and idiotic maneuvers and mannerisms. I'm glad there's guys like you to help keep him in line because he seriously needs to be brought under control. He keeps creating other names, etc. and continuing his moronic escapades. He recently entered a forum of mine and tried to vandalize it with curses and ads. He definitely isn't on the verge of changing. - Zarbon

Those pictures are pretty pointless

They are just random pictures used for nothing. They aren't even depicting anything important. The ones in the Buu article aren't really a good example. One thing is that he's a major character making the images more important, some of the pictures could be removed for being pointless, and most of the pictures are depicting forms and not some random thing like checking a scouter. Nemu 01:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless, many characters have upt to 30 images, 6 is not harmful. and they aren't pointless. that is more of an opinion. many people have commented on the actual helpfulness of the images prior and they have been there for a very long time now. - Zarbon

jigsaw

This is my wikipedia acount Prince Zarbon. Run the power 22:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stolen Image

In the future, all images uploaded to Wikipedia that are stolen from [1] must be tagged with "source: http://www.grnrngr.com" or risk being removed. JPG-GR 00:07, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Kiwi

Dude, seriousley, cut it out. We use the english manga names for DB Characters, and Kiwi is his name in the english manga. Please Stop reverting it just because it's the name you like before you end up blocked again.--Koji Dude ^{(viva la} ^BAM!) 02:30, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

man, i created all the pages dealing with those characters. and i intended to keep the english names, not the japanese names. you can post those somewhere else, like the japanese wiki. - Zarbon

Zarbon, Kiwi is the English Manga name. We use the English Manga names for the articles. Stop changing it to your personal preference.--Koji Dude ^{(viva la} ^BAM!) 02:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

did you just come up with that...we should be using the english version names, not from the english translated manga, from the english anime. Please leave it alone. When i made the pages, I intended to stay true to the widespread anime of the english version. - Zarbon

Ask any Dragon Ball editor. All articles use the English Manga names. Tenshinhan is a good example.--Koji Dude ^{(viva la} ^BAM!) 02:41, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

which i am fighting against as of now. the intended names are not the japanese ones. His name is CUI in the English version. Even the game that's coming up, it's Cui not Kiwi. I've loved Cui for ten years, you don't need to tell me which name to go by. - Zarbon

You can't "fight against" the rules because you've "loved it for ten years". You're only doing this for yourself, not for Wikipedia, which is bad faith. Please stop. All you are acomplishing is pissing people off and making an ass out of yourself.--Koji Dude ^{(viva la} ^BAM!) 02:44, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh like you aren't. why the hell do you keep changing it if you don't care. you are destroying the best known persona of the character for your own interests. the character is most known as Cui, not Kiwi. it's foolish. - Zarbon

I like the name Cui better than Kiwi, as Kiwi is a stupid name for an alien. I despise the names Kiwi, Hirudegarn, and Bebi, but I still enforce the rule that those are the proper names. Please stop.--Koji Dude ^{(viva la} ^BAM!) 02:49, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

please man. the three characters i love the most on this planet for the past ten years are Zarbon, Dodoria, and Cui. Come on, let's just keep good faith between us and leave it as Cui. People will laugh at the awesomeness of the character if it's titled Kiwi. Think about it. The English anime uses Cui. Lets just keep Cui for the goodness of the character. - Zarbon

Ahem... ahem... Some contributors feel very possessive about material (be it categories, templates, articles, images or portals) they have donated to this project. Some go so far as to defend them against all intruders. It's one thing to take an interest in an article that you maintain on your watchlist. Maybe you really are an expert or you just care about the topic a lot. But when this watchfulness crosses a certain line, then you're overdoing it. Believing that an article has an owner of this sort is a common mistake people make on Wikipedia.

You can't stop everyone in the world from editing "your" stuff, once you've posted it to Wikipedia. As each edit page clearly states:

If you don't want your material to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. [emphasis added]

If you find yourself warring with other contributors over deletions, reversions and so on, why not take some time off from the editing process? Taking yourself out of the equation can cool things off considerably. Take a fresh look a week or two later. Or if someone else is claiming "ownership" of a page, you can bring it up on the associated talk page. Appeal to other contributors, or consider the dispute resolution process.

Although working on an article does not entitle one to "own" the article, it is still important to respect the work of your fellow contributors. When making large scale removals of content, particularly content contributed by one editor, it is important to consider whether a desirable result could be obtained by working with the editor, instead of against him or her - regardless of whether he or she "owns" the article or not. See also Wikipedia:Civility, Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Assume good faith. -- bulletproof ^3:16 02:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zarbon

Zarbon I'm going to be real with you. This really has to stop. You have already violated numerous Wikipedia policies in a matter of minutes. There is no need to continue this disruption. You are a respected editor on Wikipedia and it is sad to see you stoop down to Wiki-star's level for a stupid cartoon character. It is nonsense. Please for your own good, take some time off and cool down a bit. -- bulletproof ^3:16 03:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will help you maintain the article to improve its quality. However, you must let go of the personal feelings you hold for these characters while editing on Wikipedia. It is not healthy to be contributing to articles that are that meaning full to you. You have to let go of your OWN issue with these articles. It's not helpful to anyone and only causes disruption like the kind found today. How do you think the whole Wiki-star thing started? I would appreciate if you could save us the trouble of going through that again. I'm glad we could reach an understanding. -- bulletproof ^3:16 03:56, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The images in the Kiwi article are placed the way they are per Wikipedia:Manual of Style, so you won't see me remove any of them any time soon. However please try to consider removing at least one image such as Kiwi checks his scouter. Having a bit too many images in an article with an average amount of text makes the article seem disorganized and reduces its quality.-- bulletproof ^3:16 04:24, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please just let me revert it to my last version. The scouter image is pointless, the full body makes a much better info box picture, the strength section isn't needed as it can go under abilities, and the appearance section should be at the top to make it look neater. If he really is one of your favorite characters, don't you want the page to look good? Misplaced sections and pictures take away from the page and drive people away from it. Nemu 04:35, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zarbon, what you have to understand is that it isn't your article, and this isn't your encyclopedia. Make your own website. There you can use any pictures or names or info you want. What's the point of all this disruption and agitation?--Koji Dude ^{(viva la} ^BAM!) 04:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you believe all those images have a purpose. However, Wikipedia policy does not believe so. Unfortunatly, when it is personal preference versus Wikipedia policy, it is Policy that has the final say. I am sorry. -- bulletproof ^3:16 20:25, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

is that why there's game images on the buu and frieza pages? save me the policy. i know what the policy believes. when you can prove otherwise, i'd comply. however, the wikipedia policy has nothing against having 6 images on a page. most have around 20. - Zarbon

The page doens't have enough text for 6 images. The one of him using a technique is useless, as all it shows is his face and it takes up space. The second scouter image is more or less the same as the one in the character table, so it's pointless.--Koji Dude ^{(viva la} ^BAM!) 20:29, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? Because there is ACTUAL content on it's section. "Your" articles have minor content. I have nothing against the articles that you love, but you have to use your common sense on this Zarbon, those images are unnecessary. -- bulletproof ^3:16 20:32, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what is the excuse for deleting the game images. do not delete the gameshots since all the characters have gameshots. i am referring to the Zarbon and Dodoria pages. I don't see any point in deleting them. they aren't even repetitive. so you can't use that "doesn't accomplish anything" excuse. leave them alone, please. Zarbon

Using the Pokémon argument as an excuse to violate Wikipedia policy is futile. You are strongly encouraged to consider following the Wikipedia Manual of Style, since many of your edits are departing from the customary guidelines in ways that other editors report as being very disagreeable. Wikipedia does not require writers to follow all or any of these rules, but their efforts will be more appreciated when they do so. -- bulletproof ^3:16 20:37, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what "pokemon" stuff you are referring to. however, there are too many game images on the other pages and you don't have enough excuse or any excuse for that matter to delete gameshots, or ONE for that matter. - Zarbon

Click that blue link and you'll get the Pokemon thing. Also, what the hell are you talking about with the game thing? All we removed was the "Kiwi checks his scouter" and "Kiwi prepares energy blasts"--Koji Dude ^{(viva la} ^BAM!) 20:42, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to the images of Zarbon and Dodoria from the Budokai Tenkaichi game that have been there for nearly a year already. Those are what I am referring to. I dropped my argument about the Cui article. I am referring to the other ones. There is no excuse for those to be removed AT ALL. - Zarbon

The point of the Pokemon argument being that if a notable article has one thing, then another, less important article related to the notable one, should have the same thing as well. It is only a pointless argument that fanboys usually use to defend "their" articles... Pathetic... -- bulletproof ^3:16 20:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

interesting argument. although I wouldn't consider myself a "fanboy"...more so as a fanatical fan. However, you still haven't proven why the images don't belong on the zarbon and dodoria pages. I somehow can see what you mean about the Cui images i added. But you still have no excuse for the Zarbon and Dodoria images. The gameshots are a good feature depicting the same quality as the Frieza, Cell, Buu, etc. pages have. - Zarbon

Ok then the game images will not be removed, However, the pointless ones such as the scouter ones will. They are redundant. -- bulletproof ^3:16 20:51, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have to realise the fact that Cui, Dodoria, and Zarbon are minor henchmen. They are not major villians, so they don't deserve the same things. Really, I would go as far to say that Cui and Dodoria don't even deserve articles. Not every single one needs a game picture. Zarbon shouldn't because it doesn't go well with the fighting game moves box.Nemu 20:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a good thing you see that the game images hold merit. But the reason why I wanted to keep the scouter images was because the rest of the page didn't have a pic of them with a scouter. See what I'm saying? Shouldn't there be a pic of him wearing a scouter. It's only relevant? I won't edit it anymore. I need to hear your arguments. I am satisfied with the gameshots being left in. - Zarbon

Nemu...the box was a BROKEN LINK. It had been for over a month already. I got rid of it just for your standards. Happy? - Zarbon

Explain your reason for the scouter images being relevant. Entertain me. Do the images depict something important, informative, and valuable? Or do you just think "They look cool!". ?-- bulletproof ^3:16 21:00, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

None of the above. I just thought it covered the full look of the characters. Hence why Frieza has pics of all his forms and looks, even with and without scouter, etc. I'm just glad to see you found the gameshots relevant regardless. - Zarbon

Where do you see the Freeza scouter picture? Nemu 21:04, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The scouter pictures are completley pointless. They're basically the same thing that's in the info table.--Koji Dude ^{(viva la} ^BAM!) 21:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yeah- Zadsat 17:31, 7 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dodoria

Even though you're just going to say "he's one of my favorite characters, so that makes it reasonable to keep a glob of information that doesn't belong on the page", why do you feel it's necessary to keep all of that information on the page? There is no reason to keep every single thing he has ever done. It might as well say "Dodoria took a step, took another step, and then he opened his mouth to say something..." It's just pointless. Nemu 04:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that's your opinion. and there isn't a lot on the page. it just separates all the sagas he appears in instead of "globbing" everything into one. also, all the other profiles are done the EXACT same way so there's no point to stray from the writing style and structure. - Zarbon

Just because pages use the same format, doesn't mean this one should. Most of the articles need to be trimmed anyways. The point of a summary is to summarize, not to give every minute detail. Nemu 03:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that's not a minute detail. the sagas the character appears in aren't minute. it is minute to smash everything into one section instead though when a character appears in more than one saga and plays a significant role. Just because you don't feel this way, doesn't mean that others don't also. Besides the fact that he's my second most favorite character, it's best to follow the same consensus format as all the other pages. - Zarbon

It's certainly minute. While it's fine to give an outline of what they did, it doesn't need to go into every detail. We don't need to know that "He did this, then did that, and did this again." It can be summarized much better. If you look at the other characters, you aren't going to find every single thing that they did. If you do, it needs to be cleaned up. None of the good looking articles will be like that. Nemu 21:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't show all the things they do. It shows the main things they do. The fact that he explains to Vegeta the destruction of his planet is not a minute thing. He's the only one who tells him about that. - Zarbon

That's why I left the statement about his attempt to survive. I removed the pointless things like Dodoria seeing Vegeta's power level, the exact ways he killed the villagers, the exact fight with Vegeta, and other things. Did you actually look at the edit before reverting it? Nemu 19:06, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

yes, I did. The ways in which he kills them is important. The same way its important the way in which HE is killed. That's what makes him substantially an important character. Also, the separation into sagas is a very smart method and has been used for ALL the characters. It's not good to mash everything into one column. - Zarbon

How exactly is it important? If those really were important, Goku's page would be ten times larger to account for everything that he did. We don't need to list everything, just the important things. The exact way he killed them isn't important, it's the fact the he did kill them that's relevant.

As for the sagas, he only appeared in one saga. The rest were just little tiny flashbacks and stuff that just build his connection to Freeza. That can all be put into the opening part of it. That's why it's not just about the Bardock special. His appearance during GT is just a sentence, so it doesn't need a section. For characters that appear throughout multiple sagas, it's fine, but Dodoria only lived through one of them. Nemu 17:06, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's foolish because characters like Tapion and hildegarn, who are MUCH lesser characters and only appear in SOME of one movie, are getting separated sections. This can also be said for the likes of Janemba, another page with hooplah of jibberish. Those characters are the ones that need less information. Every single one of their steps are traced in those pages and they had unnecessary images on the pages that were completely not needed. As of now, Dodoria's page is well-written and encompasses the sagas he is in well in a precise format following all other pages. All info on it is substantiary and important. If there's some real need for cutdown, it's definitey on pages like Bebi, Janemba, Tapion, Hirudegarn, and Broly. Those guys are seriously not even tertiary characters. They are, in fact, quatrary characters who aren't even manga-oriented and only appear in as follows for example...Tapion is in 38 minutes of one flick. Hirudegarn is in around 28 minutes of one flick. Janemba is only in HALF of on flick...even Hoi, the guy who resurrects Hirudegarn and tries to control him, is a more onscreen character than Hirudegarn and he doesn't have his own page. That is what's outrageous. First, I suggest these issues are dealt with before trying to reduce a currently very well built page like Mr. Dodoria's. - Zarbon

Personally, I don't believe that any of the one shot movie characters need article, so I don't tend to deal with them. The Dodria article is a plot summary. It looks like half of it has nothing to do with him. It goes way into detail. Ask most people, and they would most likely agree with me. Pretty much every single article needs to be cut down. Besides needing to be cut like most other articles, Bebi and Broly are fine in that they are more important, fleshed out, and around longer than Cui and Dodoria(and possibly Zarbon). Nemu 17:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See, that's the mistake that most people are making. Broly only appeared in 2 movies as Broly and he appeared in another as bio incarnation. Within the COMBINATION of air time he received in those two movies, he's still a minor character by far. Just because the character is popularized for younger audiences, people tend to forget the fact that people like Broly are seriously not important or essential to the manga or even the plot. A saibaman plays a larger role than Broly and that's an understatement. If you want to help me, you can help me maintain control of the movie character pages, which are seriously becoming overcrowded with garbage and fan perspective with every little detail since they only appear in 1-2 movies max. - Zarbon

Broly is important in the relm of the movies. While I really don't care for him, he plays a big role in three fairly long movies. You really shouldn't use a minor character argument because Cui and Dodoria are much more minor. Cui existed in about five chapters, and Dodoria was around for seven to ten. In some of them, they were only on one or two pages. Zarbon is the only one with some notablilty, and he's really not that notable in the first place. 17:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Funny. I would never argue that. It's obvious that they are the major villains in the entire namek saga for 30 episodes worth. Zarbon carries the story for the full saga...surprising to think he's lesser than Broly...who isn't even a major character to begin with. Dodoria is of course not as major as Zarbon, but he is very important because of the major role he plays prior to Namek era in the Bardock movie. Who else has the reputation for beating the crap out of Goku's father? Yeah, all the more reason to separate and give them the notability they deserve. What's superfluous is the fact that there are so many pages out there in MUCH WORSE condition and you are bothered by very miniscule details on the Dodoria page. Dodoria is a major character, one way or the other. He plays more of a role than most of the ginyu force bar Captain Ginyu from the example. It would be foolish not to rank him as the second most major villain in the Namek saga. Note that I essentially separate Namek era from the Ginyu and Frieza eras regardless of the fact that they are all one. If you look at Namek era alone, Zarbon and Dodoria are the two major villains in the saga, receiving MUCH more airtime than frieza himself. - Zarbon

Ok, this has gotten off topic. I don't really care who you find to be important, so let's move on. Have you looked at any other neat character articles? Do you see that they don't list everything play by play, and just summarize the important items? Nemu 18:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through ALL the articles. I like the format of the Pikkon page. That also follows the same good format I put for the lovely zarbon, dodoria, and cui pages. - Zarbon

The way you feel about the articles don't mater. Put those feelings aside. If you look at the Pikkon page, it doesn't list everything he did. It just says that he went to hell to take care of Cell and co. It doesn't say that "he went to hell, looked around, kicked Cell..." Do you see my point? Nemu 19:56, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it does separate all his appearances. There's separation to his appearance prior to world games, during world games, after great saiyaman saga, during buu saga, and in janemba movie. this is what is meant by good separation. It's much worse looking if the page is screwed with one section called "biography". that's bad. it's good to separate all the character's appearances like the pikkon page. that's what i was hinting at. not the actual written information. The page setup. The more that is added to the sections, the better. I'm not that interested in making pikkon's page longer than it is, so i don't get detailed about his history. But that doesn't deter from the fact that his character page is in correct format. - Zarbon

It's really pointless to list every appearance like that when there's no substance. If each part was, say, three paragraphs long, it would be fine. They are all very short and give too much information that has nothing to do with the character. Two of Pikkon's sections have nothing to do with him besides a couple sentences in one(out of almost two paragraphs) and a paragraph in the other(out of four paragraphs) If it's someone like Goku, fine. Dodria and Pikkon on had a major appearance in one saga each. The rest were very minor. Nemu 20:11, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is your opinion. That's not the code though. You asked me to find a similar page in the same format and I did. The Pikkon page is a prime example. That format is the best. What needs to be cut down, SERIOUSLY, is the janemba and tapion pages. take a look at those. they are VERY GIBBERISH. - Zarbon

Woah, woah, guys, it's not that seriouse. The pages aren't meant to be play-by-play like Zarbon did to "his pages". Pikkon's appearences are seperated for the sake of making it easier to read. Zarbon, Cui, and Dodoria have only one Saga they appear in. Their articles only need to be two or three paragraphs long. Wikipedia is not an indiscriminent collection of information. Mind you that it is a Policy I have just cited, meaning that if your (Zarbon's) actions continue you will probably be blocked.--Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 20:38, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I don't care that much. It's just something to do during commercials. I just find it pointless to have minor characters with like five small sections. It woun't be a big deal if they were major, but with just small appearences, it seems pointless Nemu 20:44, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. Sadly, my TV is broken until Friday. =/ --Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 20:50, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Zarbon and Dodoria aren't minor. They are major in the sagas they are in. Pikkon may be considered minor since he's a filler character overall and isn't in many episodes to begin with. If you looked at it based on how many sagas they appear in, then Frieza, Cell, and Buu don't appear in all the sagas either. They are each in 2-3 sagas at most. So based on the onscreen appearance alone, Zarbon and Dodoria are very major characters in the episodes they are in. - Zarbon

Freeza, Cell, and Buu are three major villians, so they don't need to appear in every saga. No matter how much you want them to be major, Cui, Dodoria, and Zarbon are minor. Cui was around for about five episodes, and his only purpose was to show Vegeta's strength. Pretty much the same with Dodoria. Zarbon is a little better, but in the whole retrospect of the series, he's minor. Nemu 21:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Freeza had a big impact on the series, as he was the cuase of Goku's Super Saiyan transformation, which led to Vegeta's, Gohan's, ect...

Cell was the cause of Krillin's meeting #18, USSJ, SSJ2, Goku's Death, and Dende's becoming Kami, which are all extremley important events in the series.

What was Cui's great addition to the series? A funny looking explosion. What was Dodoria's? Tellign Vegeta a story he would've heard from Freeza anyway. Zarbon's? The two fights with Vegeta. None of them are major, in any way at all, and don't deserve all that information. Pikkon protected his fellow dead friends from being wiped out of exsistence, was the cause of Goku's training to become SS3, and gave Goku&Vegeta the opprotunity to fuse to stop Janemba. Tell me, is there any end to your pathetic attempt to make your favorite character's articles the way you want? Oh, there is. It's the day and admin looks into it and indef blocks you.--Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 21:55, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what the hell? zarbon didn't just fight vegeta. he also aided frieza for hundreds of years, conquering planets alongside him, and was also the one responsible for triggering the series as a whole, since he told frieza to pop the saiyan planet. that was the smartest thing to do since there would have been hundreds of super saiyans running around instead of like 5. zarbon is very smart and his cunning is portrayed through the series since he beat vegeta very nicely and deservantly. - Zarbon

"zarbon is very smart and his cunning is portrayed through the series since he beat vegeta very nicely and deservantly."

100% POV. He was murdered miserably by Vegeta by the way.

"he told frieza to pop the saiyan planet"

No he didn't, Freeza thought of it himself. Who cares if he "aided him for hundreds of years"? You might as well say everybody in Freeza's army were major characters and we should write huge, long pages for them. The long article's aren't needed. You're desperate attempt at keeping the Zarbon, Cui, and Dodoria articles the way you like isn't going to fall-through, so give it up already, man.--Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 00:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that's your attempt. and it's not my desperate attempt. it's moreso fact. without zarbon and dodoria, the fact is there would be no NAMEK saga. so when you realize that, it would help a lot. and it's none of your business what i like or don't like. zarbon's death wasn't miserable. it was beautiful and powerful. he deserved the gripping demise he received for treating vegeta like crap for all those years. that's all the more reason for me to love the character. it makes them more important and enigmatic in their demise. so, simply something is "miserable" for you, doesn't make it "miserable" for me. to each its own. its all opinion. and it's not a secret that he was the major villain to actually fight in the namek saga. without him, there would seriously be no namek saga. - Zarbon

Firstly, Name one important thing in the Namek Saga that involved Zarbon that would've changed the entire series. Second, importance alone doesn't earn an article length, it basically earns an article the right to exsist. Third, the adjetive I use to describe his death doesn't matter at all. It is completley un-related to this discussion and has nothing to do with wether or not his article should be long. I'm following Wikipedia policies and guidelines here. What are you doing? Pushing POV into an article about a useless anime character. Maybe you should read up on WP:NOT and WP:NPOV. Oh, and WP:OWN.--Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 01:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I can't convince you otherwise if you state that the character is useless to begin with. Nonsensical comments like that will not help me to convey the importance overall. I'm not pushing POV, by the way. I don't see POV anywhere. The only part you could even pull an argument is when he is stated to be "handsome" as POV. And even that isn't POV, because AKIRA TORIYAMA, the maker of the manga and pretty much the coordinator behind who's what. He himself said all the things in description of the character. So you seriously have absolutely no argument because every single thing attributed with the character was described by Mr. Tori. So for your information, its not just my personal opinion that the character is handsome/elegant. It's displayed throughout and mentioned by the maker to further solidify my claim. - Zarbon

...Dude...When did I ever mention that? The POV is that you think the characters are important. They are very minor characters with no important contributions to the series, and that only appear in one Saga.--Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 19:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That is seriously your opinion. If you broke down the sagas, they are major characters in the saga they are in. You need to stop looking at the "over 500 episode" series as a whole and concentrate on sagas separately. If you were to do this, you'd recognize their level of importance. - Zarbon

There are four true sagas(three if you put the Saiyan saga with the Freeza saga). The rest come from the fact that they need to sell DVDs, so they break it down further. Even then, they do nothing. Zarbon is the only "major" villian, and he does nothing besides doing something Freeza could have done. Nemu 19:43, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well...it's really a matter of opinion. Even if you separated the sagas into three major sagas instead of 16 sagas, you still have to look at it like this. Zarbon is a major character in the Frieza saga, being the second most appearing villain in that saga, both by airtime, and by number of total episodes in appearance. Zarbon comes second to Frieza in level of importance. Even the whole Ginyu doesn't appear as much as him, all of them combined. And even then, they play a lesser role. - Zarbon

You're joking, right? Airtime has nothing to do with it. The Ginyu Force were the cause of Goku&Vegeta's Zenkai power-ups, which led to them being able to defeat Freeza. The Ginyu Force are a hell of alot more important than Zarbon.--Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 19:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're joking right? Zarbon was the cause of Vegeta's zenkai power up even more so. Now you're just being childish. Stop mentioning "zenkai" power ups, etc. Vegeta was still owned by Frieza regardless of whatever "power up" he received. That's pointless. The whole ginyu were mutilated by Vegeta, all the more reason for me to love them, but they still didn't play as major of a significant role in the saga. - Zarbon

I know pages have more information. That's why I'm (slowly) working on cutting them back. Vegetto(probably could be cut more) and Gogeta are examples. Nemu 19:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what? Things change. You and whoever probably weren't think of minor characters. I'm sorry if you have some weird obsession, but he's minor and doesn't need a bloated page. User:TTN 20:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. But these pages are already VERY LIMITED. I went through far too many arguments in the past for the amount of pics as well and at least 20 other members agreed for me to keep 5 images per page. I originally had 6 up. Other pages like the Buu page are COMPLETE gibberish and stupidity. The pages I created, Dodoria, Zarbon, Cui, etc. are already VERY limited. To destroy the info/cut down any more, would be humiliating. They need to have some form of info on the pages. Please just understand me. And no, things don't change just because you decide that, TTN, you don't own wikipedia. - Zarbon

I really don't want to get into the image argument again, but Buu is a major character with many forms. All of his pictures(besides the ones in the plot summary) are ilustrating something. You just fill "your" pages with images, so they can "look pretty." The Buu page is fine besides the long plot summary, something that needs to be cut down in ALL of the articles. There needs to be a good, concise amount of info. The Dodoria page is just bloated with needless information. Nemu 20:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're one revert away from breaking 3RR, Zarbon.--Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 20:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what would you be doing ttn, you've been foolishly reverting for absolutely no reason. - Zarbon

What does that have to do with my comment? Would you care to reply to that instead of making random comments? Nemu 20:23, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you've broken the 3rr rule for a long time now. please stop reverting. - Zarbon

No, I haven't. I've only reverted three times in the past 24 hours. It has to be four to break it(which you just did a minute ago). Nemu 23:25, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

but you just did four reverts if you reverted again. why are you nitpicking? you shouldn't be reverting in the first place ttn. there's nothing wrong with the appropriate formatting of the page right now. - Zarbon

I reverted three times in twenty four hours(only two in a few hours), and once six days ago. I haven't reverted it again, so I wouldn't break the rule. Actually, the article looks ugly. There's one section that goes way too far into the plot of the Bardock special, a bunch of paragraphs that go way too far into detail(it looks like a full plot summary, which isn't very good), a section devoted to flashbacks that can be mentioned elsewhere, and a paragraph that should just be a little note. And there's also the unneeded pictures that make the page uglier. Nemu 00:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong. The article looks perfect. A bad looking article is the buu page. that is a prime example of a bad looking page. The Dodoria page is a masterpiece compared to that page. - Zarbon

OK, that right there just sounded like something Wiki-star would say. Kinda creepy there Zarbon... -- bulletproof ^3:16 04:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding it very humiliating that you would bring wikistar as an example. I am quite offended about that statement. We've collaborated together prior so I don't want to allow something like that to destroy our work ethic. Generally speaking, wikistar's antics are the prime example of what we are trying to avoid here. - Zarbon

You mean that you're trying to avoid having someone obsessed with an article so much that he will revert anyone because he believes he's right? Avoid having someone "owning" the article and calling it "pretty"? I think you've done a pretty good job at that. Face it, you're acting exactly like him. Nemu 17:18, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt it. I'm nothing like him. He just recently came to my forum and vandalized it with flamatory remarks and opened moronic topics. I don't generally go around doing stupid things like this. However, about the destruction of a page, in essence, I don't agree with him. He created a mess of many pages with about 60 images on each. My limit is 6 images on a page. I don't put more, I just want all the important ones in there. Also, I don't want substantial information left out, so I try my best to follow an alignment procedure of separating sagas, no matter if its one minute of appearance or one hour. This organized method allows for a better setup. - Zarbon

Dodoria (again)

[2] You've broken it 5 times. I broke it twice-- the first was un-just as I wasn't warned, and the second I shouldn't have been blocked according to WP:IAR. I've listed your fifth revert at WP:AN/3RR#User:Zarbon reported by User:KojiDude (Result:) as well, and you will be blocked shortly.--Koji Dude ^{(Contributions)} 23:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block

I have blocked you for one month for disruptive edit warring on Dodoria. Tom Harrison ^Talk 23:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Greenrangermoving.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Greenrangermoving.gif. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

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 any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Gay Cdn (talk) (Contr.) 19:00, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Kifkrokerfigure.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Kifkrokerfigure.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. —SeizureDog 10:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hi

Whats up Prince Zarbon.

Recoome vs Guldo

Why do you like Recoome better than Guldo?

well...because recoome is the brute of the team, plus he actually does some fighting while guldo appears in 3 episodes and doesn't get to do anything but pull off his signature move...

"Your" pages

If you want to keep those pages in their "perfect" state, place them here: http://dragonball.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page. This site isn't the place for that kind of crufty depth, but it should be fine at that place. Nemu 19:15, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please just stop. Wikipedia isn't a place for giant globs of info for such small characters. Go to the above site for that kind of thing. Nemu 19:41, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listen to me. The pages are fine. They have been fine for over a year now. Leave them alone. Stop detracting from them. You can add to them, but stop taking away from them. They have been fine. This idiocy started when wiki-star cloned all his sockpuppets and started to try and destroy the pages. I'm sorry about that person's foolishness, but please leave the pages alone. I understand what you mean about the opinion guidelines, but the pages have been that way, in correct format, for a VERY long time, and there's absolutely no reason to destroy them now. Please just leave them alone. Please, I am not a bad member, and I try my best to follow guidelines, and therefore I do not want to cross boundaries, but destroying a page is wrong. You stated that you feel the characters are minor. That is an opinion in itself. The characters are major in the saga they are in. - Zarbon

The characters are nothing in the whole of Dragon Ball. Many pages are bad for a long time before anyone deals with them. Also, I'm the one that cut them down in the first place, not whoever you're taling about. You don't seem to get the point of this site; it's not a little place for fans to shove info into. It's a general encyclopedia, so articles need a general overview. Places like the site up there are for fan info, not here. Nemu 19:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course I understand. However, the characters are still extremely important in one saga. They aren't minor. The moment that you get past that dogmatic view, you'd come to realize that there are pages in need of major help right now. The pages that you are depleting from: Zarbon, Dodoria, etc. are all in perfect format and do not need depletion. For one, you keep completely deleting all the information dealing with their return, segmented and separated, as well as the "beautiful treachery" main mode storyline depicting the characters as major characters in the game. Please do not deplete the information. It is not fancruft, nor is it falsified. Everything within it is fact based and encyclopedia attune. - Zarbon

What part of"brief overview" don't you get? Those pages go into way too much detail. We don't need to know their every action or everything they did in a minor part of a video game. We just want a quick explanation of what they did. Nemu 20:00, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is still rather brief. Believe me, the pages were three times the amount before I depleted LOTS of information from them myself. But to decrease them to three sentences per segment is just complete destruction of the page. Leave them at the current ratio. Also, bare in mind that the person who is deliberatly depleting from them is a sockpuppeteer and vandal known as wikistar. He is using many names, including frieza bomber, general cui, dasnedius, and myer link, among many others. he is making multiple names for the sheer purpose of deliberatly vandalizing the pages and reverting constantly. Please be sensible to help me stop his chaos. Also, he is trying to put up an ultimatum on my page. Read the last part of my user talk page to see all the stuff he has written, purposely trying to instigate me in order to have me banned along with many other members. - Zarbon

That is not brief at all. All we need to know about bob is that he ate a hot dog. We don't need to know how he made it. Those pages are full of junk. If you can find any other non anime or comic articles that goes into that much detail in comparison to the subject, and I'll drop this. But, I don't really think it'll matter because soon you'll probably be reported for breaking the 3rr, they'll see you've had this problem before, and you'll be blocked for a few months, if not indefinitely. Nemu 20:12, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TTN, listen to me. I am not trying to break the 3rr rule. You are doing so by reverting it. Also, the page was that way prior. In another note, a REAL sockpuppeteer is currently looking to destroy the pages and you aren't helping me stop him. Another thing is that the buu page, for example, is a COMPLETE mess. and I can look through to find more. I barely depleted the page's 60 images to about 15 although there should be less. Currently, the zarbon and dodoria pages have VERY FEW pics, and information. they are perfect the way they are. The information is very little. please understand. - Zarbon

I haven't reverted any more since my second revert. You've probably reached ten by now. I don't agree with how he's handling or his motive, but he's bringing it back to the correct place, so I don't care. I told you not to compare it to anime articles as most of them need work, so that's moot point. The pages are crap. Your obssesion is annoying. Nemu 20:20, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but if you think the pages are crap, then you shouldn't be reverting them at all. Seriously though, the pages are fine. I wouldn't have reverted them to begin with if the sockpuppeteer hadn't started this in the first place. I will however have to notify other members to help me maintain the page the way it was because the page shouldn't be depleted further. It's already short as it is. - Zarbon

I mean the pages as you want them. The pages were already cut down for a while before that guy started to do anything. Nobody besides you and your meat puppets want the pages like that. You don't own the pages. If you didn't want your writing to get edited, you never should have added it in the first place. Nemu 20:40, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with it getting edited. I do have a problem with 80% of it getting deleted though. The pages are deleted so much to the extent of the character list pages. We know for a fact that the main character pages can be expanded upon. But deleting all the information (not fancruft) but information is complete misuse. - Zarbon

forum

How did they react when I made all those nonsense topics? I am also Jig-Saw. I vow that I will be back on there someday. Also, I am not the real wikistar, but someone who was a user during his rampage long ago, and I decided to impersonate him, knowing that you were PZ, When I get back, I am going to trash that board. Every spamoid after my first wiki impersonation was an incarnation of me. Jigger, Rei, Willy. Since I am not the real wikistar, I can mess around all I want with you pages. And believe me, if you dont let me back on frieza force, Im sure there are a lot of users who would like the Cui article and the Dodoria article deleted. Let me back on the board or the pages will fall before me!

-Myer Link 19:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you are an idiot. You will be banned constantly from wiki. I already put up all the stuff needed under your sockpuppeteering names. I know you are general cui,wikistar, and all that other junk. it's only a matter of time for you to get yourself banned by reverting. it's just funny how stupid you are, making numerous accounts just to ruin pages. what a moron. - Zarbon

I am NOT the original wikistar, I went on there, I was once a user on here. And calling me an idiot, wikipedia no personal attacks.

stop coming to my discussion page. Leave me alone you maniac. - Zarbon

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing Wikipedia for a period of two months as a result of your disruptive edits. You are free to make constructive edits after the block has expired, but please note that vandalism (including page blanking or addition of random text), spam, deliberate misinformation, privacy violations, personal attacks; and repeated, blatant violations of our neutral point of view policy will not be tolerated.

This is your fourth block for violations of WP:3RR (you've reverted Zarbon four times in the last two hours), and comments like the one above ("you are an idiot") don't help your cause. | Mr. Darcy talk 21:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I've slapped an extra month on to that for using sockpuppets, as I told you on your other user talk page. --Deskana (talk) 00:37, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've extended this block to indefinite. Between the sockpuppetry, between four and six major 3RR vios from this account and at least one more as User:Dodoria, and the incivility shown above, I see no reason for leniency at this point. | Mr. Darcy talk 00:45, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. --Deskana (talk) 00:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request (moved on user's behalf)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Zarbon (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I will do whatever is necessary as long as I can help somehow reactivate my account. I promise that the edit warring, etc. is over. I am a person of my word and I do not lie. The only reason I had done that puppeteering or what not was to stop a real puppeteer from continuing to create more and more incessant reverts. I understand that it was wrong, and I swear that I won't do it again. I do not want to create more accounts and commit other incessant behavior and I want to maintain my original account. I will not create any new accounts. I will not make any of the errors as I did in the past. I've learned my lesson, please help me to reactivate my original account. Much thanks.

Decline reason:

You are clearly not a person of your word. By editing the Wikipedia, you agreed to adhere to Wikipedia policies and then blatantly violated them. Not once or twice but over and over and over again. Given this, I have no grounds to unblock you at this time. If you avoid editing or requesting that anyone else edit the Wikipedia for a full year, we may reconsider your block at that time. -- Yamla 18:01, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Moved on 1/21 from user page to talk page. | Mr. Darcy talk 17:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you. BetacommandBot 13:56, 28 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Simpsopranos.jpg

I have tagged Image:Simpsopranos.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Burstmeets 20:42, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Sopranosgame.jpg

I have tagged Image:Sopranosgame.jpg as {{no rationale}}, because it does not provide a fair use rationale. If you believe the image to be acceptable for fair use according to Wikipedia policy, please provide a rationale explaining as much, in accordance with the fair use rationale guideline, on the image description page. Please also consider using {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. Thank you. Burstmeets 20:46, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Skelerena.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Skelerena.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bogwoppit 17:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Genierangers.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Genierangers.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 (talk) 20:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Ticklesneezer.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ticklesneezer.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 (talk) 20:57, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ep03 brendan bathtub.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ep03 brendan bathtub.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ep16 silvio.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Ep16 silvio.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ep19 matt sean.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ep19 matt sean.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ep20 bigpussy.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ep20 bigpussy.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:34, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ep23 scatino.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Ep23 scatino.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ep29 jackiejr2.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Ep29 jackiejr2.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ep67 06.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ep67 06.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ep68 06.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ep68 06.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:40, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ep69 02.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ep69 02.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Ep73 01.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Ep73 01.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:41, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Armadilloq.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Armadilloq.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Fangpr.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Fangpr.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Fanman.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Fanman.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 06:51, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Mattbevil2.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Mattbevil2.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Minotaurbad.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Minotaurbad.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Kingsphinx.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kingsphinx.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 19:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Armadilloq.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Armadilloq.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. BJBot (talk) 05:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Sopranosgame.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Sopranosgame.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. BJBot (talk) 05:28, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sopranos Episode 13a.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Sopranos Episode 13a.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:04, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sopranos Episode 5.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Sopranos Episode 5.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Sopranos ep211b.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Sopranos ep211b.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 07:14, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Terrycrowley.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Terrycrowley.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Squatt2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Squatt2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 05:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bian Yixhue

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Bian Yixhue, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Baboo2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Baboo2.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Brendanchris2.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Brendanchris2.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:32, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Brendanfilone.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Brendanfilone.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 04:33, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Dinozerilli1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Dinozerilli1.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:01, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Dickbarone.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Dickbarone.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 21:19, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Kavanaugh.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Kavanaugh.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:23, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Greentommy5.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Greentommy5.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Greentommy7.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Greentommy7.JPG. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 22:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Porto66.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Porto66.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Hilaryking22.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Hilaryking22.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. BJBot (talk) 12:08, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Camjones.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Camjones.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. BJBot (talk) 12:12, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Seangismonte.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Seangismonte.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. NotifyBot (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Stanislofsky4.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Stanislofsky4.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Antwonmitchell.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Antwonmitchell.jpg. You've indicated that the image meets Wikipedia's criteria for non-free content, but there is no explanation of why it meets those criteria. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If you have any questions, please post them at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

Thank you for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Darkonda1.JPG

Thanks for uploading Image:Darkonda1.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 description 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. --20:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Mysticforcemorticon2.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mysticforcemorticon2.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. BJBot (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Mysticforcemorticon.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Mysticforcemorticon.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. BJBot (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock Request (after long interval)

{{unblock|Hello all. I would like to clear things up here as much as I can. I am still very upset for being referred to as a sockpuppet, actually. I already stated on numerous pages, countless times that I am the only ip address of that user. I have been trying to get unbanned for two years already. If any of you can help me, I would greatly appreciate it. For those who are interested in looking through my history of bans, you will find that my great error back then was breaking the 3rr rule, which I inadvertently did many times because other people who created sockpuppets forced me to revert their nonsense. However, the fact remains that up until now, I have not been given a chance to speak up. This is actually very oppressive. I did make a mistake back then by creating a single sockpuppet: Dodoria. Bare in mind that when I did that two years ago, I did it to combat other sockpuppeteers who kept deleting information from pages. But I have made amends since then and I genuinely want to continue using my original user page, Zarbon. I brought up my Unblock Request approximately 2 years ago and it was turned down by Yamla. He told me to wait at least another year, which I clearly did. After another year and a half after originally being blocked by Deskana, I came here again and asked Yamla to help me with my unblock here and I also asked Deskana here. Yamla simply said that I need to bring it up again the same way I originally did. Frankly, I am excessively tired and distressed from this entire ordeal. And if that were not enough, another person who has abusively been creating tons and tons of sockpuppets and meatpuppets has been running wild using names similar to my one and only user page. This person started with the name Wiki-Star and kept putting me in situations where I was forced to get enraged. I am sorry for the negative attitude, but I'm sure that all of you have had your share of annoyance with that fellow. As of now, after nearly two years of being banned, I believe I deserve another chance at using my original user name, that is all I am interested in. I don't think that is too much to ask for. Also, I don't use any other ip addresses, so for informational purposes, if you would like, you may tie this current ip address with my user page in order to believe that I am who I am. I would also like to mention that I am very annoyed and heartbroken that every time an actual sockpuppet or vandalizer has shown up, you have all heavily criticized those people as being me. There is absolutely no relation to me and all the other people who cause chaos and havoc on the pages. My only error, up until now, has been the creation of one single sockpuppet, of which I have paid dearly. But seriously though, two years of being banned is enough, I'd assume. If I were someone who was trying to create sockpuppets, which I am not, I would not have brought this up in the open. I simply followed Yamla's original instructions since then. If any of you can help me get unbanned, I would greatly appreciate it. I only want to edit using my original user page, that way you can all keep track of my activity without questioning who I am. I also have the same exact account on Wikiquote, Wikimedia Commons, and other wikis and have been contributing there as well. The only user page name I go by is Zarbon. I do not have any other user pages. The same cross-wiki vandal came to wikiquote of recent, and I was forced to bring this issue up there, which helped have him banned. However, this person has incessantly been creating names in order to incorporate me in his idiotic mess. For example, not only here, but also on wikiquote, this person has created over 100 user names and has been following my activity and basically vandalizing any pages to which I have made contributions. This escalated into a revert war, where I was forced to bring it up to administrators. I simply want to point out that my ban has seriously been prolonged and I would henceforth like to use my only user page instead of an anonymous ip address to edit. Although this has truly been the only ip address I've used for the last 6 or so months, I would like to mention that I'd much prefer editing with my user name. For one, it would make things easier on me, having the same account on the other wikis, and for another, it would make things easier on everyone else contributing here, so that you may all keep track of my current activity. I want to prove to everyone here that I am a good contributor, and I want to prove that just because I made the mistake of making one sockpuppet two years ago, does not mean that I don't repent over it. I just want my user name unblocked so that I may continue to contribute and that is all. I feel the punishment has been severe, but I don't know how else to explain this. My recent activity has shown that I do agree with the page cleanup for all the characters and I do agree with TTN, etc. However, the fact that my favorite characters are Zarbon and Dodoria is obvious. Anyone can tell that. But is that reason enough to punish me? With all sincerity, I believe it is time that I be given another chance. Please, you are all fellow contributors and you all know that being an anonymous ip address destroys your own integrity. I want to try and rebuild the trust that was originally lost. I want to try and fix my mistakes. But the only way I can do that is if my user page be unblocked. I am pleading that you all look with mercy at my situation and I hope that I can one day edit using my user name, Zarbon. That is my one and only request. Thank you all so much for your time and patience, I greatly appreciate it and I hope you can help me come out of this situation. Zarbon (talk) 00:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)}}[reply]

Two years is a long time. I'm completely in favor of giving Zarbon a second chance, and I find the indef blocking to have been way too harsh in the first place. -- Ned Scott 06:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with Ned Scott and support an unblock. — Athaenara ✉ 13:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:ANI#Zarbon_unblock_request. Since the blocking admin is unavailable, I have brought it there. --B (talk) 13:13, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are two things that I would like to mention. First, that the opinions mentioned here of Ned Scott and Athaenara be moved to the same place that B moved the initial request. Second, I'd like to mention, that I am going to try my best not to edit war, as one member particularly stated that he/she would like me to mention this. I hope to be unbanned soon so that I may prove my sincerity. Zarbon (talk) 01:37, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I occasionally read too much into things, so please forgive me if I am doing so here. When you say "try", that implies that there is some set of circumstances under which you might not be successful. But I can envision no circumstances in which you would be forced against your will to edit war. Would you be willing to amend your promise to something more like "I will not edit war and I understand that if I do, my block may be reinstated"? --B (talk) 02:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you just said was pretty much what I meant to say. If I say "try", it holds no negative implication. I will do my best not to edit war, which means that I will do everything in my power not to make the same mistakes. I implicated that much already in the initial unblock request. I hope that I may be given the chance to redeem myself. Thanks again. Zarbon (talk) 03:15, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On another note, I like the way you referred to Yoda. Baring in mind that Maul, Sidious, Tarkin, Amedda, and Dooku are some of my favorite Star Wars characters, I can pull out some nice quotations myself, in order to enlighten in all ways of the force. As Sidious has very passionately said "If one is to understand the great mystery, one must study all its aspects, not just the dogmatic, narrow view of the Jedi. If you wish to become a complete and wise leader, you must embrace a larger view of the Force." It's of no wonder that my favorite star wars characters are those that embrace the dark side, what with their brilliantly concocted, magnificently enthralling quotations. However, just to make sure, I WILL NOT edit war, my dear friend. Zarbon (talk) 03:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):

Per here and ANI. Go forth and revert war no more. --B (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request handled by: B (talk) 04:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much B. In a less philosophical yet easily understandable thanks, I would like to say how happy I am to have encountered such thoughtful and generous administrators such as yourself. I hope that this trust never be broken and furthermore, I would like to say to you my dear friend, may the force be with you. Zarbon (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]