User talk:Zaphraud/2007

Carbon tetrachloride

Don't worry, the portion you removed was complete vandalism. A little trick: drug names never end with -is. the edit would have been deleteable for other reasons as well ("A noted professor...) Physchim62 (talk) 17:47, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Mudkip egg

I'm a little unclear as to why mudkip eggs need their own article. As far as I can see, it'd be better merged with the Mudkip article. Is there some significance I'm not seeing here? (P.S. I don't hate Pokemon, I'm even part of the Pokemon wikiproject, so I'm not complaining that this is fancruft.) -WarthogDemon 01:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Rationale for article: I placed them in their own article after any mention of them was removed from the Mudkip article several times. If the mudkip eggs clutter up the mudkip article too much, this is understandable objection and they can be moved to separate article, as I have done. Zaphraud 01:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

user page

Don't vandalize User:Ksy92003's user page like you did. Thanks.►Chris Nelson 02:22, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, was not aware that Ksy92003 had the ability to predict the future. Its not 2008 yet, said user can't possibly have gone somewhere in 2008 yet. I stand by my edit but will allow it to be reverted, it just shows what an ----- he is and proves my point for me. Still I resent the allegation that was vandalism, its not like I covered his talk page in ----ting --- ---ples or anything. It has become increasingly apparent to me that several of you think yourselves to be outright gods when it comes to some of this stuff... Zaphraud 02:54, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. Like I said, don't vandalize the page.►Chris Nelson 02:59, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I dont? Last time I checked, it was 2007. Thats what all the timestamps say anyways... besides, like I said above, I won't be making any corrections to that user page anymore, as the errors that are there illustrate his pretentiousness and arrogance for me.

Wow. Just... wow. I think you might need psychological help.►Chris Nelson 03:03, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you are aware of this, but there is something called "scholarships." I received a scholarship to UCLA and will attend that university after my senior year in high school. So please tell me how you know that I'm not going to go there.

And don't call me an idiot, for absolutely no reason. I view this as a personal attack and I really don't appreciate it. You have no right to tell me anything about myself and my life. ––Ksy92003(talk) 03:08, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, but if you get creamed in a car accident in a week, someone will have to remove that line because it will be, at that point, a bald-faced lie. Right now, the best you can claim is that it is an unknown.

Alright, I've got 4 points to make to you:

1. I don't even know you or why you're behaving this way at all.
2. If I did die in a car accident, nobody would know that I died, so nobody would know to remove it.
3. I was told by the college that I got a scholarship and accepted, meaning that I am going there.
4. It's my user page, and I'm free to edit it however I want; I'm free to add whatever I want to it.

––Ksy92003(talk) 03:17, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the allegation from this talk page that you viewed as a personal attack. However, I am leaving the attributes "arrogant" and "pretentious" because of a view that any attempt to declare the future as if it already happened is indeed arrogant and pretentious, even if it comes from the mouth of an actual deity. Zaphraud 03:21, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether you removed those words or not, I was still offended by them and hurt by them, even if you used those words in a message to somebody else.

And I don't know how to be any clearer. I'm not declaring the future as if it already happened. Look, Sochi, Russia was announced to host the 2014 Winter Olympic Games, right? But that hasn't happened, so does that mean that they won't? They officially were given those games, but it's gonna happen in 6½ years. It's been officially announced, and it's going to happen, but is it excluded from the article because it hasn't happened yet? The university told me that I was given a scholarship to UCLA, and I accepted it, making it official. But I can't put that in my own userspace because it hasn't happened yet? I really don't know how to be any clearer. ––Ksy92003(talk) 03:30, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

This is absolutely insane.►Chris Nelson 03:33, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, once again, Chris Nelson, I absolutely agree with you. Thank you for reverting Zaphraud's vandalism on my page. ––Ksy92003(talk) 03:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

No problem. How anyone could possibly conceive a bit on a USER PAGE that essentially said "I plan on attending UCLA in 2008" as wrong is beyond me.►Chris Nelson 03:39, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

It's even stranger because I haven't done anything in the past to offend this user, nor have I had any previous contact with this user in any way whatsoever. So why s/he was even monitoring my user page is beyond me. I don't even know what else I could possibly say to this user; I really don't know how to be any clearer about how this isn't speculating a future event. I really don't know how to be clearer to him/her. ––Ksy92003(talk) 03:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Mudkip

In regards to your recent edits to Talk:Mudkip, I ask you politely if you would please try harder to insert your comments at the end of a section. You have recently placed your comments in the middle of sections, and even in the middle of another user's comment (such as mine, in the past), and this makes it tedious to try to find your comment. If you have an opinion, then please place it at the very end of the section so other users may be able to see it. Otherwise, if nobody can see your opinion, it makes little sense to insert the comment anyway. Your opinion means nothing if nobody can read it. Please tyr to do this. Ksy92003(talk) 21:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've been trying to respond to the section that matters and use the colon tags, but with the size of the debate the way it is I can see how that rapidly gets confusing... Zaphraud 04:08, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Charizard

WikiProject Pokémon is working on merging into list, since Wikipedia is an encyclopedia NOT a game guide, TV guide and especially not a list of TCG cards. If you have any objections please voice it on the project itself, reverting a redirect without discussion is not how things work around here. TheBlazikenMaster 15:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thats all fine and good if you're a brick-and-wood librarian type working with printing-press media and needing to condense space, but deleting the hand-typed text of other human beings for the reasons you describe is absurd. There's not even any minuscule benefit, as in most cases the bytes remain used for quite some time anyways. What has been done to the Charizard article, which your vandalism "project" redirects to a mere stub, goes above and beyond removal of copyrighted images or material to censorship of the words of others describing that material. What real-world limiting factor that calls for the removal of this material from an Encyclopedia that is rapidly on its way to becoming the most encompassing source of human knowledge, mythology, and trivia? Zaphraud 05:06, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Tendency

Why do you have a tendency to always have the point of view opposite everybody else? You always tend to argue against something that has been agreed upon and discussed for some time. Just because you don't think it should be merged doesn't change the fact that the members of the project have agreed upon merging the Pokemon articles into groups. If you really want to contest the merger, when argue at WP:PCP. Don't simply revert somebody because you don't like it that way. The other user was carrying out the actions that were agreed upon by everybody at the project. So please don't revert him/her just because you disagree. Discuss it at the project page if you contest the merger, but don't revert somebody because you have an opinion that is different than one that has been agreed upon for some time.

This goes back to the Mudkip egg page. You said, for your rationale behind creating the page, that you created the page because other users didn't feel that the content was important enough for Mudkip. Nobody else agreed with you that the Mudkip egg should've been mentioned... nobody at all. But you still created the page because you wanted to put something in an article that nobody else thought needed to be in the article. Why is this important now? Because it proves that you have a tendency to deny any agreement and seem to just do whatever you want because you don't like the way things are being done. While being bold is something that is encouraged, if you disagree with something that has been agreed upon by almost all the other editors in the discussion, then don't edit against the consensus. Discuss it with them and try to prove that you are right. But reverting another user's work, a user who is simply doing the necessary actions per the agreement at the project page, and giving your reason in the edit summary isn't the right way to get your point across.

In other words, please don't do whatever you want just because you disagree with the opinion that everybody else holds. Ksy92003(talk) 08:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Generally speaking, in situations where a large group of people have one opinion, and my opinion is very nearly identical to the opinion held by the majority, I place little value in my adding a "Me too!" to the pile, unless there is an organized system of tallying votes that might make such a contribution meaningful. In situations where my opinion differs from the consensus, especially if a particular viewpoint of mine has not yet been specifically addressed, a contribution of an opinion makes more sense. I am also aware that opinions on many small matters that I have now are different than those I have held at various times in the past, often for no reason other than people change their minds over time for a variety of reasons.

When the mudkip egg article was created, it was actually an attempt to accept that other editors felt that the fact that Mudkip hatches from an egg didn't belong in the article because it wasn't terribly unique; from the perspective of Nintendo Gameboy or Pokemon cards, it is indeed totally irrelevant! I had then figured that only to someone who watches the Pokemon anime would such facts surrounding Brock's first time watching the birth of a Mudkip matter, and sought to move the information somewhere where it wouldn't aggravate editors not concerned with the anime. This wasn't done to conceal the information from those editors, but rather, to place it where it would be available to those who would look for it without continuing to irritate those who did not wish to see it.

Regarding getting in the way of projects that have been agreed upon, it is neither irrational nor without precedent to attempt to protect the most notable or historical example of a large batch grouping that is about to be eradicated, and many times arguments for preserving the one example are very similar to arguments that might be used to argue to preserve them all. The process of reaching a consensus often forces people into an either-or mentality; sometimes this is productive, sometimes this is not. In the case of the numbered Pokemon merger should major Pokémon have their own articles, while minor Pokémon should be merged into lists? was the poll. I believe the revert you are referring to in the above was my revert to the Charizard article; I didn't erase the stub that was created, just the redirect. I'm also pretty clearly not the only person who feels that Charizard belongs in the "major" category rather than the "minor" category, especially with the size of the article. Is there any particular place where it is determined which individual Pokemons fall into the "major" or "minor" category on a per-pokemon basis? I still haven't seen that part of the project. Zaphraud 02:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

If you really want to contest the megamerger, then go to WT:PCP. This is a discussion which was last added to about 3-1/2 weeks ago. There's nothing more I can say; the merger has already happened. If you seriously want to contest it, then go to WT:PCP. Ksy92003(talk) 02:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I've mentioned some objections before, you can see them in the archived section of the WT:PCP. Also, if you visit Wikipedia:Poképrosal, you can read the original rational for the merger, as well as the objection; the primary objection that prevented the merger from happening in 2005 was that people needed time to write well-sourced articles. That didn't happen for all the Pokemon, obviously, and instead it would seem that a lot of cruft accumulated for a variety of articles that pertains more to game play than the history of the particular Pokemon character from a broader human perspective.

For example, I find paragraphs detailing how the character of Charizard has been important in the franchise to be more important than the data in the table that says Charizard has the ability to do something called "blaze". It is my belief that knowing that Ken Sugimori was involved with Charizard may be important somehow to understanding the culture of the now, in 100 years, but knowing that a Charizard weighs in at exactly 90.5 kilos is less likely to be important in the same way.

Also, its worth remembering that the purpose of the merger is to eliminate unworthy articles, not to get rid of every last one of them. To make the extreme case, if there was a point where someone suggested that Pikachu ought to be merged, I didn't see it, and nobody has even attempted merging that article, that I can tell.

This is a grey area and we may now be at a point where it should be determined where to draw the line at? I can't see that it was previously determined definitively in 2005, when there were so many stubs out there to condense nobody was really worrying about what would happen when the condensing editors began to chew into the meatier articles...

Calling editors "morons"

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. The Raven's Apprentice ^{(PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 12:17, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

I beg of you to reread the text in question, for you seem to have decided to misquote me. I merely asked a question "What kind of a moron would ...". While I appreciate that its not hard to figure out exactly what kind of a moron, I did not fail to leave that as an excercise for the reader, hence completely nullifying your objection. Zaphraud 03:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What you said was "What kind of a moron thinks the comprehensiveness of Wikipedia will be increased..." The wording you used in this comment, intentional or not, can be viewed as insulting. For example, I view the opinion that the articles should be grouped together to lower the amount of articles from 493 to 25. So, I guess that means I'm a moron. And I know there are a lot of other people at WP:PCP hold the same opinion as me. So I guess that means they're all morons, by your comment. Ksy92003(talk) 03:47, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I recommend double-checking the definition of comprehensive. Adding 25 multi-pokemon-stub pages to the existing 493 articles would increase comprehensiveness, and I am not against this, however, erasing 493 articles doesn't add to anything, regardless of how many people think of deletion as a contribution. Zaphraud 03:51, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Everybody is entitled to their own opinions. You think the old way was better. I and many other people think the current way is better. Everybody can have whatever opinion they want. And your comment insulted anybody who thinks the current way is better by you calling them "morons." Ksy92003(talk) 04:01, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

August 2007

Please do not attack other editors, which you did here: Shark liver oil. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Ksy92003(talk) 19:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Zaphraud appears to have been making what is known as a joke. You see, if Shark liver oil can be used as a predictor of the weather and it is also used in hemorrhoid creams then any asshole can predict the weather. It didn't seem to me to be directed at any individual. Kinston eagle 19:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Because of the specific edit, where it appeared that he was doubting the accuracy of the anon's addition, it appeared to me that he was calling the anon that word. Whether it was directed towards him/her or not, it was still a poor choice of words and gave the impression that he was making a personal attack towards the anon. Ksy92003(talk) 19:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Ksy92003 has been policing my account for quite some time, it seems, and jumped to the wrong conclusion. Kinston Eagle nailed it spot on, and in fact without a citation its my belief that the original inclusion of such an obscure use of a preparation H ingredient was actually a far more subtle example of the exact same humor that went undetected. I mean, consider the historically hard to predict nature of the weather in that area and the lives lost as a result.. Far from a poor choice of words, the use of the word asshole was actually necessary in order to connect with the subject matter - preparation H. A more medically correct use of words, for example "So now any rectum can predict the weather", would be silly. However, I still welcome any elucidation on the matter, as I have noted some strange examples of such weather prediction myself, for example the observation that dark carbonated beverages often seem more fizzy in the hours before a large storm.Zaphraud 23:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I believe you, Zaphraud. But I just think it's best for you to be aware of these types of possible misconceptions when leaving edit summaries. Try to make absolute certain that your edit summaries or talk page posts can't be misinterpreted like that. Ksy92003(talk) 23:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Image:CSPC-DONOTWANT-Mudkip.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:CSPC-DONOTWANT-Mudkip.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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 it not being deleted. Thank you. east.718 at 05:54, 10/21/2007 05:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

CFC-14

Do not blank pages on WP, if you think a redirect is in error, nominate it for deletion at WP:RFD. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I replaced the redirect instead with a factual explanation of why its an error, complete with link to previously referenced section as well as what the correct abbreviation would be using that system (FC 14)Zaphraud (talk) 01:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC)