User talk:Dragonball1986/Archive1

''''''

DO NOT EDIT OR BEGIN TALK PAGE HERE. LEAVE WORD OR DISCUSSION AT MY TALK PAGE.

''''''

Dragon Ball canon

If you want to know why it was deleted, see the discussion page. I beleive that after you read it you'll understand the reason a little more. If not, and you are still strongly against this article's deletion, you should take it up with the users who voted in the deletion discussion (in a civil manner, of course).--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 19:28, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi Dragonball1986 - sorry for the mistaken revert. I have removed the warning posted - sorry for any inconvienience I caused you! Happy editing! --Skenmy^{(talk)|(news)} 17:54, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Kurenai Yuhi

Don't put in things that don't contribute to that article. --Htmlism 17:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A little side note, this goes for talk pages as well. Your recent edit to Talk: Kurenai Yuhi (diff) has been reverted and is the perfect example of what not to add to an article/talk page. When people see this, they don't normally think very high of the user who adds it. It makes people look childish and immature. Sasuke-kun27 20:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Your recent edits to Kurenai Yuhi

Congradulations. You just got a warning for adding vandalism to the Kurenai Yuhi page (diff), which has been reverted (by yourself. Why am I not surprised?) Here's a couple of hints, though: Don't put "I'm vandalizing... ha ha" in the edit summary (honestly, are you asking for warnings like this?) and stop talking to yourself through the edit summaries. It's not cute, it's not funny, it's annoying. This is just a little friendly warning, but I will not be so friendly if this continues. Thank you for your cooperation. --Sasuke-kun27 19:32, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Look man

The character is is listed on the list of humans. Just because you find him to be important, doesn't mean he is. He plays a very small role, so he doesn't need his own page. Nemu 19:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

What is it that you agree with? Nemu 19:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

He doesn't need it. If you take a look at the page, you can see that he only has a paragraph of actual relevant information(just like on the character list). The rest is just cruft. Nemu 19:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

He's on that page. The image deletion thing is keeping it from showing up in the contents box. Nemu 19:32, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Your archive

While archiving your talk page is a good idea, selectively archiving it is not. Moving all of your warnings to a subpage and calling it by a misleading name (these are not "misinterpretations", these are users who are trying to improve your conduct) can be viewed as disruptive. You might want to consider undoing your archive, or archiving all your messages chronologically. -- Merope ^Talk 19:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Furthermore, when you archive content, you must not change what the user wrote. You've changed Avriette's[1] comments so that they no longer reflect the message he left for you. -- Merope ^Talk 20:06, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

signatures

I'm not sure whether you're just being cute or not, but it's a lot easier to sign your messages with four tildes (~~~~), and let's say, more conventional, than using {{unsigned}} ... aa:talk 20:07, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Typically, other users use the "unsigned" template when another user doesn't sign their comments. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vercalos (talk • contribs)

However, in this case, I made mention of it because Mr. 1986 used the template to sign his own message. Such as here. ... aa:talk 20:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please remove the "You have new messages" box

Hi. As far as I know, that "new messages" box at the top of your user and talk pages isn't technically against any rules...but it's really annoying. It doesn't serve any useful purpose, so how about dropping it? -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 20:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

While you do have the right to put basically anything you want on your user space, that box could be extremley annoying to certain editors. Somone could be in a heated discussion concerning an article, and is receiving numerous comments on his talk page because of that. You are involved in the argument, so he drops by to tell you soemthing, and see's the new messages thign for the millionth time. He's already pretty mad. He clicks it, and sees it's a practical joke. Personally, I would start swearing and hit my computer.--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 20:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict -- this response is to Dragonball1986)

Until it becomes a Wikipedia:rule...

Then, I'll remove it, k? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonball1986 (talk • contribs)

Sure, I understand your argument. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 20:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to express that I dislike the box. I don't really see the point of keeping it up there: all it does is confuse or anger readers. Editors have had their request for adminship opposed because of this kind of practical joke; it's clear that the community frowns upon it. Please reconsider your position. -- Merope ^Talk 20:46, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I was dumb enough to try out the link and now I'm smarting!!! =] But I agree - what's the point of it? Lady Nimue of the Lake 04:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

May I point out that it is technically a rule?--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 04:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

for what it's worth, many other users have used this (inane) trick in the past. Moe ("the king of kings") being one of them, Gators222 (and its foul spawn) being another, and those two monkeyed it from others. you really have a problem, it's the same problem those idiots who blindly click attachments in emails have. you'll probably notice i'm not the Number One Fan of this user, but i expect people who are long-term wikipedia users to understand that since their browser parses html, anyone who knows html can co-opt its behavior. maybe those users should get a better browser rather than blaming the ninny who comes up with a way to coopt their browser. or maybe that doesn't protect their pride enoughgh. either way, your comments read of laziness, not righteousness. ... aa:talk 04:38, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

You lost me there, Avriette. In what way would choosing a different browser affect the way this is rendered on the screen?

<div class="usermessage">You have [[talk|new messages]][[Special:Newpages|.]] ([[Edit|last change]])</div>

-- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:30, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

clearly you don't understand how to modify incoming data with firefox/mozilla. the point of the matter is, you don't have to blindly accept everything other side of a link. of course, you never accept a blind link (such as with alt tags, and so on). why is is this a problem except for people who cannot. resist. the. urge. to. click. ? ... aa:talk 06:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I am but your humble student, Avriette. Show me how to tell Firefox that this link telling me I have new messages is bogus.

The point is that Dragonball1986 added that link to the top of his user and talk pages specifically because it's annoying & disruptive, and because it amuses him. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 06:46, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Clarification on Talk page Policy

Yes, I don't mean to say that your comments on the talk page weren't constructive, just that they weren't vandalism warnings - and really, those are the only kinds of comments that really must stay on a user talk page, to avoid confusion with other editors or administrators. The warning you gave me is not legit because of the removal of regular comments. Once a user has read the comments left on their talk page, they are "free" to delete them, in the sense that there isn't any Wikipedia policy which strictly forbids this, but if I really don't need those comments lingering on the talk page for the account, then it's my prerogative. The same prerogative, incidentally, that you and I and all other Wikipedia users enjoy. I hope that clarifies it. Cheers. -- bulletproof ^3:16 00:29, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity?

What is a sock puppet? Like - what it was referred to on your userpage... Lady Nimue of the Lake 04:21, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Basically, it means that I can't use two user accounts at a frequent time. It's either one or the other, also because I'm only using one IP Address to access the Wikipedia network. Dragonball1986 15:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah. Thank you. Lady Nimue of the Lake 07:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Akatsuki

They don't need their own articles. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 19:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

He's an exception becuase of how much can be written about him. The same doesn't go for the others. Remove that "new messages" box from your user pages. It's irritating and you're only adding it specifically for that reason. Also stop making new sections for every comment and adding your own personal commentary into articles. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 19:37, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is a rule. Don't be a **** as well as that one mentioned above. You're a deliberately disruptive user. You're doing nothing but copying and pasting content into articles. There's no point. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 19:42, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's the same basic rule as m:Don't be dense, which, frankly, you appear to be. So far you've altered other editors' comments; shuffled them off to a page with a misleading name; used inappropriate edits summaries (excessively long and irrelevant ones, ones full of nonsense, ones with dozens of links, and ones that call other users names); you've refused to comply with a reasonable request solely on the grounds that no one can make you; and you've put that horrid new message bar onto other people's talk pages. My guess is that you enjoy being disruptive, and that is damaging to the community. If you're serious about being a valuable contributor, I'd suggest you re-evaluate your behavior. -- Merope ^Talk 20:04, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's called leaving an edit summary, in case you were wondering. Dragonball1986 20:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's called being disruptive. My edit summary for this edit is a proper edit summary. You don't summarize anything. You just add a long line of nonsense and link it to a completely unrelated term. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's like talking to a donut for crying out loud. You people just love to accuse the accused. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dragonball1986 (talk • contribs) .

This is exactly what they're talking about. Your reply and your edit summary are not "cute", they just annoy people. Sasuke-kun27 20:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Guys... this is really, really, really LAME. And yes, DB1986, that new message box is very annoying. --tjstrf 20:40, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

User page freedom.

While it is true you can fill the thing with random drivel if you so choose just because you feel like it, you have ignored the following two rules:

• Other users may edit pages in your user space, although by convention your user page will usually not be edited by others.
• Community policies, including Wikipedia:No personal attacks, apply to your user space just as they do elsewhere.

In other words, you are not allowed to forbid others to edit your user page, and you cannot make personal attacks on other users utilizing your user page. --tjstrf 21:54, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Also note that we could always run an WP:MFD on your user page if it got particularly disruptive. --tjstrf 21:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Wakata (I understand), I shall comply, but any edits added to my user page or talk pages that people made wihout my consent, non-approval, or authorization shall be decided by me. (Unless you were an Administrator that is following the Wipedia rules, that is.) Dragonball1986 23:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a forum

Please stop using Wikipedia like a forum. It is not a place for your personal opinions and theories. Please familiarize yourself with WP:NOT, WP:OR, WP:AGF and WP:NPOV (I suggest you read these, as they are all policies which, if violated, will result in blocks).--KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 01:40, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Understood, Wikipedia is not a forum. Dragonball1986 13:24, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Reply

Two of those are your socks, so don't think you have any sort of consensus. You have terrible grammar. That you do not recognize this fact makes it that much worse. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:00, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You are mistaken. Kabuto was the only marionette I ever controlled. Dragonball1986 20:03, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

That IP is also yours, so don't try to play off your mistakes by misusing it. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:10, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, your IP is slightly different. Instead, you've picked an IP with a grand total of four contributions, not one of which is directed at me. You're just saying nonsense when you try things like that. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 20:12, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Dude, this proof was directed to you. Accept it, it ain't me. You always like to blame people, don't you? You Americans are all alike. Dragonball1986 20:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

You're just acting foolish now. That link edits my userpage. Can't you at least bother to post supposed proof I can't debunk with a single click? Quit accusing people of things when you have no basis for it. Also learn how to make proper hotlinks. – Someguy0830 (Talk | contribs) 01:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, excuse me Mr. Perfect! You'd think I'm an American like you huh ("everything has to be perfect when you're on Wikipedia!") Dragonball1986 03:00, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

You are an American, as evidenced by your two IPs. But why does that matter anyway?

Also, this is probably the edit you meant to link to. If I may point out, the IP probably made the edit becuase he didn't like Someguy telling him that his picture of an unmasked Kakashi was fake. ~SnapperTo 04:21, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. --Vercalos 04:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

And I warned both of you for breaking wikipedia's Civilty policy, In the future, if you want to send me a message, leave it on my talk page, rather than my userpage.--Vercalos 01:48, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Your use of images

I know you may not want those images from the character list to goto "waste", but could you keep from adding all of them to the pages? Only important characters really need to have them in the first place, and it goes against the Fair Use Policy. Nemu 22:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you keep adding pointless images to pages? I'm sorry that you find it wasteful, but there is no use for them. Please stop adding images for the sake of adding images. Nemu 19:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

They were orphaned when I tagged them as such. Just because you miraculously found a use for them after I did so does not make what I did wrong.

Oh, and because some of the images you un-orphaned are orphans again, I'll be reverting your removal of the tag. Additionally, I'll be making sure that the images you found a use for deserve to be used, and that you didn't just add them to articles to save them from deletion. ~SnapperTo 22:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, it seems that two of the images I tagged were indeed being used at the time, and for that I apologize. The other 60 images I tagged, however, were not, so my accuracy is about 97%. ~SnapperTo 00:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edit summaries

The purpose of edit summaries is to say something useful about the edit. Please stop spouting nonsense in them. It's really annoying. Nemu 19:46, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I assume your reply was to this. Help:Edit summary says "Edit summaries should accurately and succinctly summarize the nature of the edit, especially if it could be controversial." Many of your summaries are just nonsense. I don't believe it's punishable, but I'm guessing abuse of it may be. Nemu 19:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Power Levels

Wikipedia:No original research is one of three content policies. The other two are Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in the main namespace. Because the three policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. The principles upon which these three policies are based are non-negotiable on the English Wikipedia and cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.

The information listed in the article is obtained from Official sources such as the Manga or the Daizenshū. Anything added to any article that is speculative or uncited can be classified as original research. If you could provide a link to a credible source that can correctly verify the information you contributed, then the information shouldn't be removed. -- bulletproof ^3:16 00:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Aren't you forgettin' anime only moves? Dragonball1986 18:33, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Son Goku

I would like for you to compare the following links: Son Goku#Dragon Ball and Son Goku (Dragon Ball). The first one, which you tend to link to when referring to the main character of the various Dragon Ball series, links to the article of the real Son Goku. The second, on the other hand, links to the article of the fictional Son Goku, which is what you should be linking to. So, in the future, please stop putting Son Goku#Dragon Ball into Dragon Ball articles, as it causes an inconvenience for others.

Also, I'll point out that adding |right to images that already have |thumb is pointless, as |thumb by default does the exact same thing as |right, so you're adding extraneous commands to articles whenever you feel the need to insert it. That's just something I wanted to bring to your attention. ~SnapperTo 18:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, I guess. If it weren't for you, I wouldn't have been a wealthy Wikipedia as I am now. I can't help but remember the first time we met... ahhh... ... ... Dragonball1986 ^{(Talk to me baby... | What did I just do...) 18:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)}

Game over

This business of vandalising and then self-reverting is pointless and disruptive. Please stop it now. Guy 19:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

[2]Please do not make personal attacks on other people. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. In some cases, users who engage in personal attacks may be blocked from editing by administrators or banned by the arbitration committee. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Please resolve disputes appropriately. Thank you. --KojiDude ^{(Contributions)} 21:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

And don't think that people aren't watching you very carefully... --Lord Deskana (talk) 23:35, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Do not vandalize other people's user pages. You went into my user page and edited on it. You are not allowed to vandalize other people's user pages. -—Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.68.168.154 (talk • contribs) 149.68.168.154

Correction, Dragonball1986 edited Zarbon's user page, not yours 149.68.168.154. --// Power level (Dragon Ball) // 18:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Fresh start

It is hard to make a fresh start, but you are welcome to try, if you are genuinely committed. It would be best to email some of those admins with whom you have had past conflict detailing your new account, so as to avoid sockpuppetry accusations. A fresh start is a valid use of an alternate account. Guy 14:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

If you do make a new account, I would recommend informing me too. Some of the users you've interacted with use me as a first point of reference for problems requiring an admin so telling me might be a good idea. Of course I can't force you to, but I assure you if you tell me the name of your new account I won't reveal that information to anyone unless it is deemed totally necessary, somewhat inline with the Wikimedia Foundation Privacy Policy. --Lord Deskana (talk) 20:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed your edits that you made to my talk page from the page history. That's only so that people don't know your new username. It was sat there for over 6 hours though so somebody might have seen it. Go ahead and create your new username, and make a fresh start. Now the warning bit: We won't tolerate violations of policy from any accounts, even new ones. Anyway, good luck. --Lord Deskana (talk) 07:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Personal Attacks

This is your last warning. The next time you make a personal attack, as you did at Image:Buyon.gif, you will be blocked for disruption.--Chris Griswold (☎☓) 17:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Konkichi.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Konkichi.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free 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. This is an automated message from BJBot 18:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Goodbye...

Dragonball1986 17:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)