User talk:DurinsBane87/Archive 3

Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series

Since TTN decided to go ahead with gutting the page (once he had decided to, I helped, so that it would be done with), I copied the data to User:KrytenKoro/Enemies in The Legend of Zelda series. It's not truly userfied, but it preserves all that was there before the list was gutted. We can work on it there, if you want, and I put some reasonable guidelines on the talk page, to keep it from becoming the problem article that got it so heavily cracked-down on. (Of course, the guidelines are always up for discussion - I was just starting with what I thought was wise). Once we get it cleaned up and more proper-ized, we can re-merge it. Or try to, I don't know.KrytenKoro 21:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

sorry!! ekk

sorry for accidentally reverting your edits to Da Boom(if you noticed), don't know what I was thinking, my trigger finger got a bit itchy...--Kerotan^Talk Have a nice day :) 07:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I understand, it looks like vandalism at first, anyways. DurinsBane87 07:17, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Okay, cool cool.--Kerotan^Talk Have a nice day :) 07:36, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

quick deku reversion question

You've undoubtedly been at this Wikipedia thing longer than I have, but please bear with me. I'd just like an explanation of why my edit to the Zelda characters page was reverted before I try and change it back and get labeled as a vandal. If I'm messing up the Internets unintentionally, I apologize.--Jorgezoltan

Because it was speculative. When you use logic or reason to come to conclusions that aren't supported by reliable sources, it's called Original Research, which isn't allowed. If you can find an article detailing your claims, however, you can revert my reversion and add the citation. DurinsBane87 05:54, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

good point...i apologize for my blatant wikipedia n00bery and will get straight on that.

Don't worry about it, you handled the correction well. DurinsBane87 05:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

KrytenKoro Enemies page - ChuChu and Buzz Blob

Since the enemies are essentially different versions of the same thing (like Sparks, Bubbles, and Anti-Fairies), I amassed their info together. However, both the split ChuChu article and the Buzz Blob section were a bit crufty, so I boiled it down to notes. I'm going to try rewriting it, but at the very least I'm going to need help on the references, if not the whole rewrite. Thanks!KrytenKoro 02:47, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

PS: The notes are on the Talk page.

Why the removal?

(Messages condensed to this talk page. Regarding the article Red-eared slider)

Why was the loyalty section removed? I know there weren't any sources, but it's true. Peteturtle 10:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about truth. It is about truth through verifiability. If you cannot find sources to back up your claims, it has NO place on wikipedia. This is also besides the fact that when you added that section, you also accidentally deleted about half of the article. DurinsBane87 13:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

(I can't find the message that would have been here)

It's ok, it happens. Sorry I was a little harsh, it's just hard to tell honest mistakes from vandalism sometimes. DurinsBane87 00:38, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Er, Sorry

Seems you had to clean up after User:Holmes.sherlock. I too have been watching him. I think he wants to be an admin because he's thinking it's something completely different than what it really is... -WarthogDemon 17:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry :(

Sorry I messed up the article; I didn't mean to. I see now that everything on Wikipedia has to be verifiable. Thanks for letting me know ;-) Peteturtle 00:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

RE:holmes.sherlock

(I've moved all my replies to my talk page for clarity)

I've been watching you, and i have a few questions. The main one I would like answered is simply:

Why do you want to become an administrator so quickly and so soon? DurinsBane87 07:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I want to help wikipedia as soon as possible.Holmes.sherlock 02:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

But what is it that you can't do without being an admin? You have a nearly free range of editing available to you without being an admin, so I still don't understand it. What can an admin do that you can't do that is so important? DurinsBane87 03:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you want to know so much about me? Holmes.sherlock 13:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I just don't understand the motivations here. It just doesn't make sense to me, so I was trying to make sense of it. DurinsBane87 21:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Discussion

(my message was originally left on Gogo Dodo's page)

I have a suspicion I would like to communicate, but would like to do so without backlash from other users (this sounds much more serious than it is, trust me). Do you have an e-mail or some other form of communication I could use to cantact you? DurinsBane87 04:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Re your message: Email on my account is enabled. You can contact me there. -- Gogo Dodo 04:16, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Revert

Sorry about my quick revert. I guess I thought it was vandalism at first glance. However, I don't need four people telling me about it on my talk page. Thank you for the message nonetheless. — Super-Magician ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 21:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks (Reply from "Car Lists")

(My message has been placed here for clarity)

Car lists are considered to be unencyclopedic and game guide material, so they aren't supposed to exist. Just giving you the heads up. DurinsBane87 01:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up about the car list. user:Kissfan1996 4:57 August 2007

(RE:)Super Smash Bros. Brawl

(Question added for clarity)

I had NO idea how do undo that, thanks for clearing it up. DurinsBane87 01:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It's not entirely fixed yet though; database lock is preventing two admins from cleaning everything up properly, though they're working on it as we speak. The fellow vandalizing has already been banned though, so it should be fixed soon. Arrowned 01:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

August 2007 WP:FILMS Newsletter

The August 2007 issue of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by BrownBot 03:40, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Ace Combat 5 Aircraft list

Hello DurinsBane87,

I hope this response is OK. You wrote:

"I'll be the one to tell you, if you revert that list back there within a certain amount of time, you'll be breaking the 3 revert rule. However, to explain the actions."

Thanks for the warning. I'm prepared for the worst, though, because no good deed goes unpunished.  :-)

Actually, that list is not even my contribution. I was referencing it for months and I was disappointed to see that it disappeared. It took me a while to figure out what happened and how to restore it. When I finally did, it was deleted again within 3 minutes. I have watched the rather useful Ace Combat 5 page degenerate into a massive, useless wall of text. I was just trying to change things for the better a little bit.

"Lists for the sake of lists are generally avoided by more experienced editors."

That's perfectly understandable, but this list is not such a list. As I mentioned, I found it to be quite useful. It linked all the planes together in a way that no longer exists, so now all the separate pages of AC5 planes are not easily reachable. They have no context, especially the planes unique to AC5. Therefore, some kind of aircraft list is critical to tie everything together. I realize that you're just explaining the situation to me, so I'm not arguing.

"The Video Game Wikiproject has been going through game articles and removing the lists that run rampant in vehichle related games. Most of the focus has been on car lists and track lists. But the same reasoning and rules apply to the aircraft in Ace Combat. A list of aircraft isn't useful to the average reader."

Frankly, this project sounds like a bad idea to me, but if you need the storage space, I could understand that aspect of it. I think the average reader, upon stumbling onto the Ace Combat 5 page, would be quite entertained by those links to the various aircraft, much more so than anything else on the page. Someone who's actively looking for the page would find the Aircraft list indispensible, as I did.

"Wikipedia is not a collection of all information, nor is it an indiscriminate list of information."

Understood. To me, most of the Ace Combat stuff is not interesting, probably much less to the average reader. I don't read it, but I don't delete it either. However, the reason that the original Aircraft list was deleted is that it was "unimportant and indiscriminate", which is wrong on both counts, so the premise for deleting the list was flawed from the start. In an air combat game, the most important thing is the set of aircraft. That's what it's all about. Also, it is essential for any decent encyclopedia article about war to contain a reference to War Machines (i.e. aircraft).

The list of AC5 aircraft can hardly be described as "indiscriminate", as it contains exactly 53 specific aircraft, each of which is documented elsewhere in Wikipedia. The list was removed for the sake of the average reader, but without it, the average reader is now completely in the dark. Now the AC5 aircraft pages are only reachable by "veterans" like me who know where to look. So, ironically the end result is exactly the opposite of what was intended, just like the efforts of the United States Government.  :-)

I know this doesn't make a bit of difference. Just wanted to let you know where I'm coming from. Daapdary 20:28, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

COD3

(Added the other half of the convo)

Just because something is interesting does not mean it belongs on wikipedia. DurinsBane87 20:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

So? Should everything be boring then? NYyankees51 00:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I didnt say that no interesting things belongs on wikipedia. I said not ALL interesting things belong on wikipedia. There's a difference. DurinsBane87 01:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Not adding a guns list to COD3 is like not having a cars list for Ford. NYyankees51 00:58, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

The Ford article doesn't have a list of cars. DurinsBane87 05:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

You know what I mean. NYyankees51 01:38, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't know what you mean. You basically said that it should have the weapon list like Ford has a car list. But Ford doesn't have a car list. So I don't know what you're point was supposed to be. DurinsBane87 02:43, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thanks for reverting a vandal edit on my talkpage. Davnel03 08:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Films roll call

Hey fellow Wikipedian! Your username is listed on the WikiProject Films participants list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active on the project. If you still consider yourself an active WP:FILM editor, please add your name to the Active Members list. You may also wish to add {{User WikiProject Films}} to your userpage, if you haven't done so already. We also have several task forces that you may be interested in joining as well.

Also, elections for Project Coordinators are currently in sign-up phase. If you would be interested in running, or would like to ask questions of the candidates, please take a look. You can see more information on the positions at Wikipedia:WikiProject Films/Coordinators. Thanks and happy editing!

An automatic notification by BrownBot 23:08, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Dragon defs

(Added my response)

Technically, because of heraldry and mythology, there is a definite difference between types of dragons.

Wyverns, for example, are the two legged things on the British coat of arms.

I know it's all mythological, but there are real definitions.KrytenKoro 04:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That's in heraldry. There are far too many differences between all the different areas version of a dragon to make that distinction in a video game article. This isn't an article on heraldry, it's an article on LoZ. DurinsBane87 05:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Juiced 2 Car List

(I added my first comment and response for ease of reading.)

Car lists aren't allowed on wikipedia as per current consensus. If you want to talk about it, go to the talk page, but the list will just keep being removed. DurinsBane87 17:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for telling me it isn't allowed. I thought it was some jerk that just kept taking it away. Where does it say that Wikipedia doesn't allow them though? FogDevil 17:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games. Look for the category about lists of cars in racing games. The general idea behind it is that it's an indiscriminate list, it's not important or notable, and that it makes the articles into game guides. The same goes for lists of weapons in FPSs and stuff of that nature, too. DurinsBane87 17:45, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ahh that's so stupid, it doesn't make it a game guide, it's info about the game just like every other thing on the page. Well, I'll put what I think about this in the Car Lists section.FogDevil 17:49, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Whoops

(Added my first comment)

I was trying to revert that link to get rid of it. My bad. I reverted most of the rest of that user's spamming, he's been putting that link on a ton on pages. DurinsBane87 03:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Good job with the reverting. I went ahead and added the spam template to his talk page. --Maxamegalon2000 03:22, 24 September 2007 (UTC)