User talk:The Rogue Penguin/Archive8

Welcome!

Hello The Rogue Penguin/Archive8, 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
• Help pages
• Tutorial* How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

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 have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!  ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 19:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Warning,

You Have Violated the 3RR rule. Try to hang low for awhile :P Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 01:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

You are correct! Also the page is now in RPP, just letting you know that help is on the way(Sorta...). Good Luck, Compwhiz II^(Talk)_(Contribs) 01:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Troll?

Please Wikipedia:Assume good faith. I would not have written several essays on Wikipedia policy or put forth the constructive edits that I have if I was simply a troll. A total lack of clarification on WP:IAR has harmed Wikipedia. Making it an "essay" diminishes it, such that nobody will read it. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. It is not my intent to revert more than three times. And if I am successful, it would substantially help Wikipedia. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

How can you protect the page in response to a content dispute, in an article you're involved in editing?! Or are you, yourself, ignoring all rules? If so, how is it justifiable for you to violate admin policy, call me a troll in bad faith, all in the name of "upholding policy"? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 01:59, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Ack! Pardon me! ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 02:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:No credential policy has been renamed WP:There is no credential policy to avoid giving it an "aura of support" for the idea that credentials should not be used. If the article is my opinion and not a policy summary, I ask:

• That you vote in the poll on the talkpage
• State clearly what original opinions are being put forth

☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, your claim here [1] seems to contradict WP:BOLD. I changed a single sentence once and you accused me of violating consensus through "unilateral action." Let me be bold. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

No one did tell me different. Somebody said, "This isn't a supplemental essay because it's not on WP:V or WP:User page", so I added it. They said it wasn't there, not that it shouldn't be. It's not an unnecessary expansion. It's a common sense clarification because, myself, I came across two users with credentials -- one of them was a sockpuppet who was probably lying, while the second person checked out. It's not explicitly stated on how people should treat credentials, but it's a big issue. The essjay controversy should be enough to establish that. I'm not trying to "get my way" on anything, because nothing I'm doing is my opinion on anything. All I'm doing is summarizing existing policy for sake of clarity.

If I'm NOT doing that, then tell me: What opinion am I putting forth in my "essay"? ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 07:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember, everything on Wikipedia is recorded. You were told by Newbyguesses specifically why it is not a supplement. You ignored him, added the little mention, then reintroduced the tag anyway under a faulty rationale. You are either choosing to be ignorant or just being belligerent about the tag, neither of which will get you a favorable outcome. Common sense doesn't make a supplement, consensus does. The proposal has already been rejected in both positive and negative form. This is not consensus. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 08:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

His claims baffled me and amount to nothing more than what you're saying, "There's no consensus, revert," which is an appeal to tradition.

Please, if it's an essay, vote in the poll provided and tell me what opinions I'm putting forth instead of just saying "No consensus, revert, No consensus, revert," etc.. Per WP:BRD, we're not going to go anywhere if you keep doing that. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 08:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The B in BRD is on your side. Therefore, the D is likewise on your side. In conclusion, we will not get anywhere if you keep doing that. It's only bold once. You're just trying to keep it in place while quoting things like "appeal to tradition" in an attempt to avoid building consensus. You'll find this behavior will fail. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 08:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:BRD is something we do together, so that it is collaboration, not clobberation.

I bold, you revert, I discuss. You discuss too. Then either you or I bold based on our combined discussion, and the whole thing starts over again, with me or you possibly reverting again. Without your discussion and my discussion together, the whole thing can't work. WP:BRD is a combined effort and you're required to do more than just revert and say, "No consensus" in the revert summary. You're required to actually back up your revert with rational argument. You're an experienced editor. You know this! For now, I'll leave it alone and we can discuss this later when you're a bit more calm. ☯  Zenwhat (talk) 08:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Article: Shinigami (Death Note)

The addition I have made seems to give a good description of the thoughts on "Light Yagami" being the mysterious Shinigami. It is true that there is speculation on this article. Looking at past records you have even stated this:

22:34, 17 January 2008 The Rogue Penguin (Talk | contribs) (12,232 bytes) (please stop, it's speculation)

The statement that it "is speculation" is a fact. Thus it has an appropriate place in the article until cited evidence stating that the Shinigami is not Light is found. I think that is fair and should incorporate all the views that have been given so far.

If you continue to say that a source is needed for speculation then just look around. There are plenty of past changes to that article that state that the Shinigami IS Light. Google it, you will find plenty of people who believe it, youtube has a very clear example of somebody who thinks that the Shinigami is Light: [2] .

The idea of siting speculation is ridiculous. If more then one person thinks that it is or could be true then there is speculation.

Bokugakira (talk) 08:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:T2T Vizier.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:T2T Vizier.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) 06:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Article edit: Ichigo Kurosaki

What do you mean? You still haven't shared your point of view yet. I apologize for my previous attitude and would appreciate your reply.
Arexodius (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

order of the espada

i just saw that you reverted my edit (putting luppi at the end of the list). the reason i did that was so that people could easier see what the rankings of the current espada are. ordering the espada based on power (putting luppi after grimmjow) will mix the current espada with the ex-/dead espada. i don't think this way of ordering has any advantages compared to the ordering of the espada based on their ranknumbers. don't you agree that the majority of the visitors are probably wanting to see the current espada and their numbers? in the future, when other espadamembers are dead and replaced as well, the list will get even more 'polluted' because of the mixture of dead and current espada. my guess is that the visitors will be having a hard time figuring the ranknumbers out when that happens. well anyway, i just wanted to know your reason. thanks. Twsl (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

Ok. Thank you. Earthbendingmaster 18:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Leave us alone!

Leave me and User:JunKazamaFan alone! We're only trying to make the List of primary characters in Code Lyoko article better and longer, and you keep messing up our work! So I strongly suggest that you leave the edits we write alone! Oh, and for the record, he is NOT a sockpuppet! He is a friend that is trying to protect me from jerks like you! Angie Y. (talk) 20:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

What we have added isn't from any point of view. They are all facts. We're just trying to improve the article. By the way, I am not a sockpuppet, The Rogue Penguin. Whatever gave you that idea?! Just because I try to help Angie Y. out?! If so, then I find that ridiculous. I'm just a great friend of hers! JunKazamaFan (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

RE: trying to make a point?

yea i am, why do we need a picture of a hand when it can be summed up in words--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 03:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

-_- its a wikipedia policy, of you are not obeying it--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 03:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

you will never be an admin if you dont know that--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 04:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

List of Welcome to Paradox episodes

Re: List of Welcome to Paradox episodes and TTN, I'm inclined to agree with you. It's one thing if he was redirecting to a nicely developed list, but there wasn't even anything on the LOE. I was able to merge the entire contents of all of the articles, and they all fit nicely. I'll write up something about this. While I defend TTN on a lot of areas, this is one where he needs to work on it, or let someone else do it. -- Ned Scott 09:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Dexter's Laboratory episode

I don't find that keeping that information will help anyone in any way. They are badly written, and forcing me to merge them is counterproductive. If setting up a table with the names of the episodes will make you happy, I'll do that, but I will not be forced to salvage bad information. TTN (talk) 12:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm not going to merge bad information to satisfy your ego, and these are going to remain redirects. Merging them will not help anybody, and I am not going to be forced into it. If you want, I will set up a table because that would actually help something. TTN (talk) 17:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Merging happens when there is information to salvage. Copying and pasting summaries that are going to have to be completely replaced anyways (thus negating the dumping work onto others argument) to a mostly empty list is pointless. If this had anything to do with salvaging useful information, you would be in the right. Right now, all you're trying to do is force me through a pointless hoop to satisfy your ego. The most helpful thing I can do is set up a table; I'd be fine doing that much. TTN (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, with that movie, you were trying to justify keeping the article. Merging it was the compromise, and there was something to actually work with at that point. This time, you're just trying to get me to merge a bunch of useless summaries (even the one sentence ones tell little of the actual episode) just to justify your position. It has nothing to do with keeping actual relevant content or anything like that. The best thing to do is create tables, and possibly provide links to the old articles on the talk page (and a hidden comment on the main article). TTN (talk) 20:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as over half of them are going to have to be written up anyways, and these really do not do a good job at all of giving a basic understanding, that seems rather irrelevant. As I'm willing to take the time to set up tables, which would take much longer, you can obviously tell that I'm not doing this to avoid doing "work". This has to do with the fact that not keeping bad content, allowing new, better content to be written, is much better than allowing the bad content to stay, and having people never deal with it. Also, seeing as you'd be fine with commented out material, why isn't providing links to them fine? TTN (talk) 20:59, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is it that everyone else cites "No deadline", yet never applies it to themselves (not that you used it in this discussion)? It's fine if the article is blank until someone improves upon it. I have absolutely no obligation to save content that I do not find salvageable. On the other hand, you could just do it yourself if you find it to be worth saving. From your last comment, it seems like you expect me to fill out the whole list at this point. TTN (talk) 21:52, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

That'd work for me. Do you just want me to fill in the tables besides the summaries or something like that? TTN (talk) 22:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The tables currently have names and the first one has dates. I just accidentally closed the window before saving the version with the rest of the dates, so I'm not going to be doing that over for a little bit. TTN (talk) 00:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

so he Pssing you off too, bad choice lol--Blue-EyesGold Dragon 18:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Penguin. Where should we make an official discussion for solving this rampage of redirections? Any suggestion? @pple complain 19:45, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

peer review

I was wondering if you could take some time out of your schedule to head over to the Heroes (TV series) talkpage and give us an honest peer review. The page has gone through some major changes in the last few months, and it would be fantastic if a prominent editor/contributor like yourself, could head over and give us at the Heroes Wikiproject some sound opinion and ideas on improvements for the page. We have all worked very hard at improving the page, and we need great outside, reliable and trustworthy users to come over and help us improve. I you are interested in joining the peer review discussion with other prominent users/contributors, much like yourself, please follow the link. Thank you very much for your help and your continued effort to improve Wikipedia and its quality! Wikipedia:Peer review/Heroes (TV series)/archive2--Chrisisinchrist (talk) 05:10, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

General discussion in ArbCom

I realize you mean well, but the general discussion section exists for a reason, as it did in the previous case and every other ArbCom case. Please stop moving it. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 19:36, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

It belongs to the talk page. My GOD I cannot even move discussion to the talk page... You know, just forget it. I won't even try discussing this. I surrender to your revert-waring skills as I clearly can't compete. -- Cat ^chi? 19:56, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Always good to see the skills are recognized. Seriously, though, the General Discussion section belongs there. Perhaps what they're discussing belongs on the talk page, but in that case you should have just moved the discussion, not the whole section. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 21:58, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. I suppose I have misjudged you. I am just so sick of revert wars. Why don't you do what you suggested? -- Cat ^chi? 22:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Very well. Seems a reasonable thing to do. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Yay! I owe you an apology. This episode thing has been way too intense :( -- Cat ^chi? 03:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

gene template

What's the problem with the protein/gene template. i noticed you were getting frustrated with something but could not figure out what you were trying to cure? David D. (Talk) 05:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel like using WikiHate

I feel like using WikiHate. You're not a CL fan, and my edits are NOT POV. I strongly suggest that you get outta my face! Angie Y. (talk) 03:34, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Angie Y.

Hello, I'd like to ask you about your opinion on Angie Y. Me and others keep trying to help her understand that she shouldn't put POV into articles, but it isn't working. What do you think should happen? Thanks. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 04:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Stop.

You're annoying me. You're seeming to be following me around on Wikipedia and then not listening to me. Stop. -Karaku (talk) 07:02, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

February 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Garage Kids. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Chetblong^{T C} 07:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Troll

I'm starting to think you're a troll. You're constantly following me around Wikipedia and REVERTING NEARLY EVERY GOD DAMN EDIT I MAKE, THEN NOT LISTENING TO ME. Stop now. You're annoying me, and i won't have a problem with reporting you as a troll. -Karaku (talk) 07:11, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule . Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. B (talk) 20:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Notice of temporary injunction

Hi The Rogue Penguin , I noticed you un-redirected an article about a television episode [3] [4] [5] , and I am letting you know that there is currently a temporary injunction that applies to all editors[6] while this arbitration case is open. The injunction was enacted on February 3, 2008 and it reads:

"For the duration of this case, no editor shall redirect or delete any currently existing article regarding a television series episode or character; nor un-redirect or un-delete any currently redirected or deleted article on such a topic, nor apply or remove a tag related to notability to such an article. Administrators are authorized to revert such changes on sight, and to block any editors that persist in making them after being warned of this injunction."

The arbitration committee would like all editors to hold off on such actions while the case is open. I will also notify you when the injunction ends. Thank you. --Pixelface (talk) 09:57, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Angie Y.

Hello, I started an AN topic [7]. You may want to comment. JetLover (talk) (Report a mistake) 00:57, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Eon (ben 10)

So why did you feel the need to change that?--Marhawkman (talk) 00:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. He replied to a statement about the possibility of using the form by saying he can't. It seems very simple to me.--Marhawkman (talk) 03:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox U.S. federal election campaign, 2008

Following your efforts of this morning, I've done some more clean-up and standardization of data for articles using this template. Feel free to make any adjustments that you may deem necessary! --HailFire (talk) 16:38, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I went through all the pages that link to the template and adjusted them one by one. It took some time. Do you see any that still need fixing? --HailFire (talk) 21:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for catching those. I think I've fixed them all now. It's my first template, so I wanted it to be tidy, and your recoding cleaned it up nicely. That other campaign template was a bird that took off before it was fully cooked. --HailFire (talk) 23:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Eurekaepisode1.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Eurekaepisode1.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) 21:47, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Genres for Naruto

Would you happen to know what the missing genre would be? Only Action and Fantasy are given there. Three would be the limit because the guideline asks for no more than that. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

By the way, do you like Adult Swim? If so, here's the userbox. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I know, I just want to be tidy. Can't figure out whether it's missing Adventure or supernatural fiction. Which of these two do you feel applies the most? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:10, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Think I'll place Adventure. Because there's more of that (I think) than any amount of supernatural themes. Correct? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:21, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll take that as a yes. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Shakuku.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Shakuku.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, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

WICU template fix - thanks!

Thanks for fixing the WICU template. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Bleach character cleanup

I've started a discussion over cleanup of the Bleach characters here. Comments would be appreciated. Cheers, Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 03:45, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wow, thanks

Must have been a pain for you to fix all those Bleach redirects (sure was for me). Well, I'll double check if any were missed. Regards, Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:40, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

The categories on the list of Espada and list of hollows, you think they're right? For example, speed is here but not on the lists. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 05:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Episodes and characters 2/Proposed decision

I noticed your edit to the above page, and I rather object to it: would the decision behind such a revert not be more suited to being left to an arbitrator? Surely it is the Committee that makes the call as to whether they wish to consider a matter posted on the proposed decision page, or whether they wish it to be placed elsewhere? AGK (contact) 23:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

{{Talkback}} AGK (contact) 23:53, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

POINT

You accuse me of pointyness? Maybe I tried the talk page of multiple arbitrators and they failed to respond in a satisfactory manner? -- Cat ^chi? 23:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)