User talk:Dai Grepher

I apologize if you are unable to discuss Zero Mission due to technical issues. Editing is how replies are made; you edit the section or page and add your comment below the current one. Deleting other user's text is considered unacceptable, and can be checked by looking at the page history.

Use colons (:) at the very beginning of a line to indent it, and add your signature (name and timestamp) by typing four tildes (~~~~). Skim through Wikipedia:How to edit a page for more details on the code used on this site. Poiuyt Man talk 8 July 2005 22:57 (UTC)

Also, when a user makes a comment on your talk page, it is best to reply to it by commenting on that user's talk page, not your own. This ensures that the user is notified by a message at the top of his/her page upon logging in.

I am assuming you are ---. I did not mean to sound hostile or threatening with my previous comments, but fact-checking is taken pretty seriously at Wikipedia. Unexplained major changes to the content of a page is often interpreted as vandalism. Poiuyt Man ^talk 8 July 2005 23:02 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome!

Hello, 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:

• The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• Merging, redirecting, and renaming pages
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, please be sure to sign your name on Talk and vote pages using four tildes (~~~~) to produce your name and the current date, or three tildes (~~~) for just your name. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome! Poiuyt Man ^talk 8 July 2005 23:10 (UTC)

Zero Mission

I've restructured the "Zero Mission prequel status" topic on Talk:Metroid: Zero Mission into three major sub-topics: "Nintendo's word", "Text from the manual and box", "Map inconsistencies", and "Abstract". Frankly, it was a bit difficult to reply to everything at once, so hopefully this will be somewhat easier. I split some comments (both mine and yours) so that they go in the correct sub-topic, and re-arranged the replies so they aren't mixed in with the original comments like before. I also deleted some of the text related to editing difficulties. Hopefully it's coherent. Let me know if you feel any of the restructuring has altered your meaning or placed anything out of context. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 9 July 2005 19:16 (UTC)

The standard thing to do if a topic becomes too large on a talk page is to move that section to its own separate subpage, such as Talk:Metroid: Zero Mission/prequel, and link to it from the main talk page. This shouldn't be a concern yet, since there's nothing else on the Zero Mission talk page.

Inactive topics on talk pages are also archived when they become too large (for example, see Talk:Gasoline/archive2). --Poiuyt Man ^talk 02:23, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

User page edit

Hello, Dai Grepher. Could you please explain this edit? Thanks, Sango123 19:25, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Answer: He's a vandal. 'Nuff said. -- A Link to the Past 06:17, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

Retcon

I would just like to point out that your statement, "Retroactive continuity refers to storyline that gets added to a preexisting plot in a reversed method," is entirely incorrect. Please read retcon. jglc | t | c 14:14, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• The page you cite, http://www.jargon.net/jargonfile/r/retcon.html, was created prior to 1993, and states both that "The word `retcon' will probably spread through comics fandom and lose its association with hackerdom within a couple of years," which is the more popular current definition (the definition you cite may be considered alternate, secondary, or even archaic). Second, an update to the html file circa 1993 states that "some comics fans on the net now claim that retcon was independently in use in comics fandom before rec.arts.comics. In lexicography, nothing is ever simple." jglc | t | c 15:32, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

It depends on how the alteration of facts is performed. The revelation that Xorn is not actually Magneto, for example, is a retcon, though it substantively changes the continuity and themes of Uncanny X-Men. That is to say: It occurs in current continuity, and does not create a "parallel" version of events, but changes the interpretation of prior events. Ultimate X-Men is a rewrite of the traditional X-Men mythos. jglc | t | c 15:41, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Curious

Why do you put your user name in front of all your edits on, for example, Talk:Metroid:_Zero_Mission? You realise that, when you sign the edits, your username automatically gets added at the end, right? jglc | t | c 10:17, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Zero Mission: remake, not prequel (well, at least not prequel).

I cannot see how you support your statement that Metroid Zero Mission is a prequel, not a remake. It is definitely NOT a prequel to the first Metroid game (it's obviously a prequel to the second Metroid game, but that's not my point), since it is intended to contain the events of Metroid 1, then add some more. It's what I'd consider a 'remake', as opposed to a 're-release'--something like Super Mario Advance (SMB2us) or the recent Final Fantasy Chronicles, Anthology, and Origins. It's WAY different from the original game, as we all know, and therefore re-tells the story, and then some more.

If you want to respond to me (as I'd think you would), please write to me on my user talk page, so I'll easily know if someone's left me a message.

Just in case I sounded harsh, I did not mean to sound harsh in the above paragraphs.

~GMH 07:50, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Request for Comment

It is advised that I give you a fair chance to clean up your act, so here goes:

Stop ignoring consensus.

Stop accusing vandalism b those who use the consensus.

Stop claiming Sakamoto's interview is in favor of prequel. The word prequel, or any variant of such, so this fact is more your theory.

Do not do the vandal on anymore user pages.

If you refuse to comply, and continue ignoring that you are the only one on your side, you WILL go on the RfC, where you may express why consensus is not important (but do not drag the dispute into the RfC). -- A Link to the Past 00:38, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

If you continue to revert, ignoring consensus, I am going to block you for 24 hours. Then we'll take it to an RfC. You have been warned. Andre (talk) 02:01, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

From asking an admin to rate the necessity of consensus, he had rated it a ten (out of ten). Admins are chosen based on their ability to understand policy. You could always contest that they're incompetent. So, have fun when admins tell you off. No one but you has ever called it a prequel, you're just taking evidence and assuming that it proves it's a prequel. -- A Link to the Past 04:06, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Well, how about the question of why you have not explained what in the world Sakamoto why he was spouting remake out like it was going out of fashion. And why you're the only person that's ever called it a remake. -- A Link to the Past (talk) 04:17, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher, please direct the five Nintendo.com forum members to Talk:Metroid: Zero Mission, and have them review the whole "Summary: facts and evidence" section. Let me know if they still agree with your argument. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 06:20, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dai Grepher Andre (talk) 22:37, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

You and I both know I haven't vandalized anything. Stop trying to push your minority theory and let this issue drop or I'll just block you again. Andre (talk) 00:07, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

What vandalism is

Please do not accuse editors of vandalising articles when it's obviously a content dispute.

Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia. The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, namecalling, or other wholly irrelevant content. K1Bond007 03:18, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher: Those that edited the Zero Mission article to display the game as a remake have commited vandalism. They made deliberate attempts to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia when they chose to revert it to favor their personal theory. I proved that the game was a prequel on the talk page, and those that changed what I had written clearly ignored those facts because they are using Wikipedia to promote their beliefs. Dai Grepher 03:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Please don't argue this because I surely won't. Whatever your feelings on this game are, whatever you believe is irrelevant to what I'm telling you now. What they did is not vandalism, plain and simple. It is an obvious content dispute proven by the enormous discussion on the talk page of the article. K1Bond007 04:20, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher: There is no content dispute as proven by the facts that I posted on that discussion page. They ignored the facts and edited the page to be incorrect just to suit their own beliefs. That is vandalism. You people have no sense of duty or responcibility. You merely abuse your privilages to your own amusement. Dai Grepher 20:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Block

I have blocked you for ignoring consensus, 3RR violations, and being rather mean to some users of Wikipedia. Redwolf24 (talk) 03:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher: I did not ignore the 3RR and I have never been mean to anyone. You are another irresponcible moderator/admin that misuses his or her privilages. I have reported your actions to another administrator. Dai Grepher 03:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

You ignored 3RR: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. Theres no question here. K1Bond007 04:20, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the backup, you guys. Andre (talk) 18:58, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher: Those were edits, not reverts. The consensus is bias and those who voted ignored the facts. The consensus is worthless, and by consensus rules, it does not dictate what information is presented in an article. You are misusing the consensus to push your own bias point of view. Dai Grepher 20:50, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Zero Mission Arbitration

If the arbitrators are unsatisfied with the consensus and request evidence, I'll copy and paste from the "Summary: facts and evidence" section. --Poiuyt Man ^talk 18:00, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Stop it.

If you want to take this to arbitration, do it already. Stop reverting the page. Andre (talk) 19:09, 19 December 2005 (UTC)