User talk:Angry Sun

Can anybody tell me what -Random Number and +Random Number are there for?

If you're talking about the green and red numbers in Recent Changes and your Watchlish, that represents how many bytes of information were added or removed from the article -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 02:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorta-late welcome!

Hello Angry Sun! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking

or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 00:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

And those number things are the number of bytes changed; see Wikipedia:Watchlist#What do the colored numbers mean?. — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 00:14, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank You. :) Angry Sun 00:25, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:1081.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:1081.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:34, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose I should contact the owner of www.lemmykoopa.com for those other images... Angry Sun 14:20, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How do you not get this yet?

As I have explained this to you before, unless the character can have all of the stuff that I have mentioned, it doesn't need an article. Goto the Nintendo wiki, so you may expand upon any topic that you would like. TTN 21:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to go there.

You have screwed up every article. EVERY SINGLE ARTICLE. Alot of users disagree with your changes and change them back for good reason.

You should just link to the main article like every other one does. Angry Sun 21:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really care if they disagree with me unless they are backed by policy like I am. Fans can complain as much as they would like, but it won't change much. This isn't a place for fans to spew anything that they would like; Wikia is the place for that. If you don't want to go there, then learn how this site works. TTN 21:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what freaking policy are you backed up on?

Everything was fine until you came and merged articles that didnt't need to me merged.

WP:FICT, WP:WAF, WP:N, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:ATT, WP:NOT all have bits and pieces that back my arguments for removing these pages. Everything was fine from a fan's perspective, but not from an encyclopedic one. TTN 21:57, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This place is FAN-BASED. So no everything is not okay.

What the hell are you talking about? This is an encyclopedia that has the advantage of being able to cover more topics than a paper one. It is not a fan site. To say otherwise is ridiculous. TTN 22:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tell that to the entire population of forums.nintendo.com!!!! Which is the entire population of Nintendo basically. For you to delete those articles killed the Encyclopedic feel. Angry Sun 22:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just stop with your inane bantering. As I've shown, your opinions are completely meaningless when compared with the policies and guidelines of this site. You have absolutely no basis for your argument besides WP:ILIKEIT and WP:USEFUL. TTN 22:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have freaking time for this TTN. My mom got hurt badly. Angry Sun 01:28, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't act like I'm the one who brought this upon you. And why have you bothered to come onto this site just to notify me of your mother's injury if you have no time? TTN 01:37, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because I just got back when I posted that. I just want the articles to return. Maybe a merge and a link to the Main Article. Angry Sun 01:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging is to take information from an article, place it in another, and redirect it. Thus, it is impossible to have a main article link. Just accept that this site doesn't cater to fans, use it as a place to gather brief information, and use Wikia for specifics. TTN 01:59, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine whatever. When a Admin finds out what you did I'm sure he'll change it back. Angry Sun 02:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You just said "Fine whatever." How is that not agreement (although it was not stated happily)? TTN 02:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I said I wanted the articles to stay and you can make a seperate article and link it to the main. LIKE ALL THE OTHERS DO!

Have you not read any of this? I have beaten your simple argument to the ground various times, yet you stick with it. Why? This isn't the place for fans and their articles. The guidelines and common sense are against you. TTN 02:47, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the admins made those articles to remain intact.You deleted Petey Piranha.

A major character. Angry Sun 03:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone can make articles; in fact, an IP made Petey's article. Petey isn't a major character, only a minor recurring boss. And per WP:FICT, which you just blatantly ignore, only characters with the true possibility out of universe information need articles. TTN 03:31, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop typing stuff up I didn't say...

Screw it.

You know I'm gonna read the Wiki News.

"Wikipedia taken down thanks to the idiot who wrecked 10,000 articles cause he didn't think they were worthy."

Angry Sun 03:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

What did I say that you didn't? Now that your argument is fully crushed, you're resorting to personal attacks? Please just give up already. TTN 03:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Point is your deleting major articles that don't need it. Not everyone freaking loves Nintendo Wiki okay. They want this info on WIKI. Not NWIKI. Angry Sun 15:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you even acknowledge the existence of rules? TTN 15:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And do you realize that the people that posted that didn't care about the rules and obviously every one of your stupid links doesn't matter. People are going to keep reverting your edits and I'm going to be proud of them. Angry Sun 02:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:8_2.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:8_2.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 05:46, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of fictional characters

If you are not already familiar with the notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia, you may wish to review WP:FICT, as this has a direct bearing on your content dispute on List of Mario series enemies. Particularly relevant sections of the guideline include the following:

“

Major characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be covered within the article on that work of fiction. If an encyclopedic treatment of such a character causes the article on the work itself to become long, then that character can be given a separate article.

”

“

Minor characters (and places, concepts, etc.) in a work of fiction should be merged with short descriptions into a "List of characters." This list should reside in the article relating to the work itself, unless it becomes long, in which case a separate article for the list is good practice.

”

As such, it would appear that Petey Piranha and Tatanga do not meet the criteria for having their own articles, and should be merged into List of Mario series enemies. --Kralizec! (talk) 14:17, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you revert that? Both Petey and Tatanga are exactly the same size, and they lack any sort of possibility to meet the above guideline, just like King Boo. Is there a reason that you ignore that? Why did you let those stick, but not this one? TTN 01:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wait...I reverted King Boo...because Karzelic said that it was okay for it to have it's own article. Angry Sun 01:08, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was because he only looked at the articles by their content instead of their quality. If that had been like this at the time, it would be gone. How exactly is his word better than mine? Why did you listen to him the first time, even though I have explained this to you at least twenty times? TTN 01:11, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say the article was ok, I said it appeared to be right at the threshold of the notability criteria in the WP:FICT guideline. However the article was also in desperate need of {{cleanup}} and very un-encyclopedic in its writing. Angry Sun, please remember WP:UNENC: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. And TTN, I gave my opinion on the King Boo article based its then-current state, not as it could have been; you of all people should know that WP:FICT indicates that fictional characters are only forked into articles of their own when they become long. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:45, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should have been quite easy for you to make a quick judgment call based upon seeing the entry on the list. And even then, it's when the encyclopedic treatment of a character causes it to become long, does it need to be split. It was pretty obvious that it had no quality. It is much better to base it off of what it should look like instead of what it does look like. A lot of articles may look decent enough, with the thoughts of a possible clean up, but they really are just cruft. TTN 01:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His word seemed more credible... Angry Sun 01:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How? He just quoted the same exact guideline that I have told you to look at numerous times. So, anyways, can you just let this go? You know for a fact that it would be gone if he took the time to actually assess the quality of the article. TTN 01:15, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine. People are probably just gonna revert it though. Angry Sun 01:23, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Only PoD will try due to his bizarre grudge. Can you please revert it if you don't mind? I have racked up a good number of reverts on it, and that'll keep PoD from bothering. TTN 01:27, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the un-encyclopedic information has been removed from King Boo, it no longer appears to meet the notability criteria for fiction, and as such, I merged it into List of Mario series enemies. --Kralizec! (talk) 01:32, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask why you have reverted King Boo? We have been over this; inclusion in the games means nothing in the task of deciding if it needs an article. Just because a couple people have taken it upon themselves to supply "encyclopedic" information, it doesn't make it all right. TTN 17:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed your speech about how he's only a boss...Which is partially un-true.

He's was a racer in MKDD. and he'll be a Board Host in MP8. Angry Sun 20:31, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And your point? Wow, he's a player character and in a couple spin-offs! That really makes him worthy enough for a page! Can you actually answer the question? TTN 20:49, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was just correcting you. You can revert if you want.

Looks like Lord Crayak agrees with me.

He put "As a Boss" back in there. Angry Sun 20:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before I shove my foot in my mouth, what can I revert? And Lord Crayak seems to be fine with whatever version. He has fixed up both the cut version and the bloated version without any comment. TTN 20:55, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever it is you want to revert at this point. Probably the "As a Boss" line.

I want to revert it back to the non-bloated version. Are you going to resist it? Please remember WP:FICT and WP:WAF. TTN 21:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I'm not gonna like it though. But I won't revert it.

What does WP:MERGE have to do with this? There is no consensus building happening here. It is just two people wading around the guidelines without actually diving in. Consensus isn't built by numbers; it's built by constructive discussion based around policy. If it was based around numbers, SpongeBob SquarePants would have an article for each episode. The episodes fail WP:EPISODE, so they're redirected (despite a numerous amount of people wanting them). Their only argument is "discussion is needed", which is not true, and the various arguments covered by WP:ATA. That has all to do with being a fan, and nothing to do with building a good encyclopedia. TTN 01:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just didn't want you to give up and merge King Boo. Despite it being okay to stay.

What am I giving up on? Am I giving up on a good discussion that has brought about ideas? No, I am giving up on listening to fans. It is not OK for it to stay by the standards of this site. After the many times that we have gone over this, do you really think that that article fits this site (your own personal beliefs aside)? TTN 01:25, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personal Beliefs Aside? Yes. We can add to it in the future. With Creation,Development,Trivia. A SMALL(5 Game) List of Appearances.(Merely Idea)Angry Sun 01:33, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please pay attention. We have been over this; creation and development information doesn't exist to us at this point in time. That is what is needed to pass the guidelines, so that is why they are being redirected. We also cannot expand upon the rest of that per WP:TRIV and WP:NOT#IINFO (game guide material). TTN 01:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well. POD will just rvert anyway. Or is he done with that? Angry Sun 01:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter if he is going to revert or not. He will be blocked for that eventually if he keeps it up. Are you going to concede or are we going to continue? TTN 01:41, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Depends on if we get info in the future.

As for right now. I'm done. Angry Sun 01:43, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you revert yourself then? I want to keep the look of edit warring down. TTN 01:45, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't you already do that? Angry Sun 02:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After saying that, I reread your comment and assumed you left for the night. TTN 02:21, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. It's only 9:25 here.

I'm also dealing with an IP and Godzilla Boy. Angry Sun 02:26, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Smash Bros.

Please do not insult the vandals. — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 20:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for vandal fighting, but please also issue warnings

Hello. I'm in agreement with the recent revert you made to Super Smash Bros.. You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. --Kralizec! (talk) 21:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do realize that they are doing it on purpose right? Angry Sun 21:49, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:VAND and WP:AGF. It's standard procedure to first warn vandals appropriately, and only block if a user vandalizes after being warned enough. Of course, there are exceptions, such as blatant sockpuppets. — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 23:08, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King Ghidorah

It's not a King of anything. What evidence is there to do with it being "the King of Space"?--Marhawkman 03:08, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

His aliases include "Destroyer of Worlds" and "King of Space".

Source: Toho. The people who MADE HIM!

Angry Sun 16:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are aliases. IE nicknames There's never been anything in any of the movies to show him as having an actual title.--Marhawkman 22:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh you mean other than Toho actually CALL HIM KING GHIDORAH!

that's just it, not all versions were called "King" Ghidorah. And in the ones where he is called King Ghidorah, it's an honorific and not a title.--Marhawkman 05:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As of Godzilla vs King Ghidorah in 1991.

He was officially named King Ghidorah. Angry Sun 05:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The point here is that the name alone isn't enough to warrant inclusion in the fictional kings category.--Marhawkman 06:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Could you post on Wikipedia:Request for comment/TTN because I understand you've had problems with him as well. Bowsy ^{(review me!)} 10:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um...What do I post? Angry Sun 16:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother with that unless a proper one is created. That user is under the impression that discussions must always happen, and that only admins can merge articles (both of those are obviously false). TTN 17:16, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey Kong

Cleanup is more than just removal (although I admit I did a lot of that). The article is currently poorly written. The part you point to ("Old DK Jr/New DK") isn't even in chronological order, which is odd for a section entitled "Chronology". Besides, a lack of a tag does not mean that an article doesn't need cleanup.

But, in the spirit of collaboration, I'll give you a chance to fix the section in a way that preserves what you feel is vital. But as it stands, it needs work.Rhindle The Red 17:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Controller

Sorry. I had only heard that the game would be compatible with the GC controller, not only playable with the game cube controller. DurinsBane87 18:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wii-mote will probably be used just not in the Main Game. Which is what I heard. Angry Sun 18:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editing problem with Toad

I was viewing the history and it looks like you and TTN had some problems with the Toad's Species section of the article. I need to know the entire story because I put that section in that was originally from Toads (Nintendo) (don't click on it, it redirects). I was asked to merge it into the Toad Article by A Link to the Past. Ok? So kindly get back to me as soon as possible.

Thanks!
P.S. I Will put it back.
Tyty1234 01:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well he thought it was cruft or worthless and I didn't.

Short Story really. Angry Sun 01:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither did I. But he deleted it again as I tried to put the section back up. He claims that it is riefly explained in the beggining.

Tyty1234 23:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Waluigi categories

Regarding this reversion, categories like Category: Fictional golfers are intended for fictional characters that are well-known for golfing. For example, Adam Sandler's character in Happy Gilmore and Will Smith's character in The Legend of Bagger Vance are fictional golfers. Categories like these are not intended for any fictional character that ever happened to pick up a golf club. To give a real-world parallel, Bill Clinton has played golf on occasion, but he is (rightfully) not in any golfing categories. I would appreciate it if you would not remove inter-language links, also. Pagra shtak 00:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla

Careful on Godzilla - you appear to be about to go over the Three-revert rule. I haven't edited the article at all today so I can keep an eye on it for a while. We appreciate your hard work; keep fighting the good fight! --ElKevbo 02:18, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Godzilla Boy keeps putting that stupid stuff on there.

We don't need "IN MONSTER REVEAL STAGE!!!"

That makes it look stupid.

and someone keeps changing the Confirmed Kaiju Section. Angry Sun 02:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't carefully examined the history of the Godzilla article but you appear to be close to or over the line with respect to the three-revert rule. Please also keep in mind that no one owns any article in Wikipedia. --ElKevbo 16:54, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know. But this IP keeps reverting it like he doesn't know what a Kaiju is. Angry Sun 16:55, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:941.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:941.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 03:58, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't bite the newbies

I appreciate your work to keep List of Mario series enemies clean. But I think you should you should try to clean up the work by newbies, or ask them to clean it up, rather than simply reverting it. The images were too large, but they did not break the layout. So it would have been OK to keep them while you or the newbie repaired it. Just a thought. Novalis 16:07, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I keep telling him to post it correctly. And he doesn't do it. Angry Sun 16:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

new users typically don't know how.--Marhawkman 04:32, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You got a link to a page that explains? Angry Sun 04:33, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Images--Marhawkman 07:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Smash Bros.

Again, do not insult the vandals. — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 02:07, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of saying "Vandal..." or "Wrong" for reverting vandalism, it's better to use "revert vandalism". — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 22:47, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alright fine...*sigh* Angry Sun 22:49, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

King Kong vs Godzilla

What you are doing is vandalising that page with misinformation. Kong was the victor (and star) of this movie. He wins the fight in BOTH versions. The Japanese version is identical to the U.S version in terms of the endings. Toho themselves said Kong was the victor in thier press book TOHO FILMS VOL 8 which was released after the film was completed.Giantdevilfish 17:39, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not what I heard. I heard that there are two different endings. Angry Sun 17:41, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not surprised you did. Its a famous myth that originated in Famous Monsters of Filmland back in 1963. It was made up Forrey Ackerman. And for years people here in the West believed it. But when people in the West (mainly fans) got thier hands on the Japanese version on video cassette, actually saw the Japanese version during its many re-releases in Japan (just ask August Ragone), and began to read japanese publications about the film, then it was realized that "Godzilla winning in the Japanese version" was nothing but a B.S urban legend. Here is the Japanese ending. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E0Xuic--2bg

Giantdevilfish 17:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It should actually be noted that neither Monster won. It was a tie. Godzilla lives(As seen in Mothra vs. Godzilla) Same goes for King Kong. Who we see later in various King Kong movies taking on Mechani-Kong and even Gorosaurus. Angry Sun 17:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to kill an opponent to win a fight. If you listen to the dialoge, they are speculating that Godzilla might be dead, and aren't sure if he survived. In the sequel Mothra Vs Godzilla, a typhoon blows Godzilla's comatose body in from out at sea and washes him up on a beach burying him under mud. So its pretty obvious that he was defeated underwater in the previous film. And as I said earlier Toho themselves said Kong won in the 1962 press book TOHO FILMS VOL 8.Giantdevilfish 18:03, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um...Bullcrap. Godzilla rises from the sand Alive and takes on Mothra. Angry Sun 18:04, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry its not "bullcrap". Toho said he won the fight. And just because he rises from the sand alive doesn't mean he wasn't defeated in the earlier film. He was blown ashore onto that beach from the Typhoon from out at sea. Also you are violating the three revert rule, with your constant edits.Giantdevilfish 18:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bowser

I am not a vandalist. I just made Bowser a disambiguation page also in Swedish (sv:Bowser). King Bowser is now at the sv:Kung Bowser page in Swedish. J 1982 21:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. Whoops. Angry Sun 20:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Idea

I've been watching Super Smash Bros and have been seeing a lot of vandals popping up lately. Have you considered going to Wikipedia:Requests for page protection to semi-protect it for a while?--Clyde (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Angry Sun 20:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with vandals

No—you can't block someone. That requires an administrator. If you find yourself reverting a persistent vandal that ignores successive warnings, you can report him or her at Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism. If you do, make sure you read the instructions and only report vandals that meet the criteria. (Active vandalism, has been properly warned, etc.) Hope this helps. Pagra shtak 21:18, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scorry I was traying to fix some outher vandolisom but something went wrong. Anubiz 00:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wrinkly

File:Wrinkly kong.jpg Here she is.

I don't think we should jump to conclusions just yet. Angry Sun 01:04, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Still we should add her. --Coconutfred73 01:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well we don't know if it's her. That's why I said we shouldn't jump to conclusions. Angry Sun 01:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please remain civil

Comments like this are not helpful. The uncivil behavior of other editors (even anonymous editors) is no excuse for making uncivil comments yourself. Everyone can read the comments you write, and you may give others a bad view of Wikipedia. Often, editors will behave rudely in an attempt to provoke others — do not allow yourself to fall into this trap. (This and more is discussed at Wikipedia:Civility. Please take the time to read it, if you have no already done so.)

This editor is apparently unfamiliar with our policies. There was no need to be insulting to him. Instead of an edit summary of "Go ask Nsider for god sakes. We aren't GameFAQS.", try something along the lines of "Removing discussion unrelated to article." Remember — Edit summaries are intended to give a description of your edit. Pagra shtak 05:08, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nintendrone

That guy is a blogger. He has no credentials at all, and he can claim anything. I could easly make a blog and say that I have interviewed people as well. That is in no way a reliable source. Please revert yourself. TTN 20:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if I got you a source. Angry Sun 20:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A source that says what? That guy is a fake, so there will be none. TTN 20:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Nintendrone has gained a power-up! What is it you ask? A possible VIP invitation as an independent journalist to an event which will be occurring soon. I can't talk much now, but at the very least, I have almost secured an interview with someone very closely tied to the development of the game. Wish me luck. At the very worst we'll have an interview and no Brawl news, but some other Nintendo-related juicy-ness." Angry Sun 20:26, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That isn't a source. That is a false claim that cannot be backed. I can do the same thing - "I, TTN, am going to interview the developers of Brawl. They plan on telling me everything about the game!" See, like that, my statement is bull. TTN 20:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What if I email the guy? Angry Sun 20:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The guy isn't a source either. If what he says on his blog isn't reliable, how will an email be? Give it up; he is a fake. Read WP:RS while you're at it. TTN 20:31, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey Kong

It has not been made clear by Nintendo that the current incarnation is to be considered anything other than the same DK from the original game. Two examples that contradict your view: in "Super Smah Bros. - Melee", the DK trophy clearly mentions the Kremlings, yet lists his first appearance as "Donkey Kong (arcade), 1981" and "Mario vs. Donkey Kong" states that "For the first time in ages, Mario squares off against his original foe!" The article needs to reflect the fact that Nintendo has not been consistant with Rare's old position that the modern DK is not the original DK. Rhindle The Red 22:41, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And SSBM had alot of Eratta. So don't use that has an excuse.

Also Translation can be such a bugger at time. They probably didn't translate it correctly.

OR...Mario and Donkey Kong were putting on a show. And DK was fulfilling his father's role. Angry Sun 22:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Or maybe you're just wrong. All of your comments are at best, original research and at worst, just your personal opinion. They cannot be stated as fact. Most recent publications from Nintendo have either ignored or directly contradicted Rare's position on the modern Donkey Kong's identity. I'm not sure why you are so defensive over this issue, but personal feelings cannot get in the way of a proper encyclopedic treatment of the subject matter. Rhindle The Red 17:01, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DesGhidorah

(Funny... Godzilla isn't Ancient. Ghidorah isn't Ancient. But Desghidorah is proven to be truly Ancient...)

Lets see....

Godzilla, Baragon, Varan and Angilas are dinosaurs, thus putting them in roughly the same age range as Death Ghidorah....

Mothra, Battra and Manda are undisputably very ancient.....

King Ghidorah (Mothra trilogy) was also a throwback to prehistoric times. Ghidorah (GMK) was thousands of years old....

Better yet, Destroyah was around MILLIONS of years BEFORE the anscestors of dinosaurs even evolved, thus making him even older than Desghidorah...

As I said, calling Desghidorah ancient does not sum up what he is, as there are kaiju just as old, if not older.83.100.253.141 15:12, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Desghidorah was around before Godzilla...

See there. Mothra isn't ancient.

Mothra keeps getting babies...

Destroyah was born in 1954.

Shows what you know. Angry Sun 15:16, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battra is older than Mothra. Heisei Mothra (GVM is not canon with the Mothra trilogy) has never given birth, and the cosmos gave no indication the two moths were any different to the creatures that fought for Earth millenia ago.

Grand King Ghidorah is still the same age as Desghidorah, so there goes Desghidorah's distinction as ancient out the window

Destroyah is a precambrian creature, thus making him far older than any other kaiju, whether mutated in 1954 or not

Let's not forget the Meganeurons now, which were themselves older than the dinosaurs...83.100.253.141 15:25, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First of all...

WRONG!

The Mothra in GvsM is the one in ROM.

GKG: SAME MONSTER!

Destroyah was created by the Oxygen Destroyer: You Fail.

Point is... Toho stated that Death Ghidorah is a Ancient Dragon. So give it up. Angry Sun 15:33, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The Mothra in GvsM is the one in ROM."

WRONG! Not only do the people in ROM not recognise her, DESPITE her fighting Godzilla alongside Battra in GVM, but it would mean that the Futurians (GVKG) COINCIDENTALLY created a creature that looks virtually identical to Grand King Ghidorah by simply exposing pets to radiation. Not only that, but their sizes are completely different. According to official Toho stats, Leo's mother is much smaller than the Mothra seen in GVM.

"Toho stated that Death Ghidorah is a Ancient Dragon."

Toho also stated that Godzilla is a living Nuclear bomb. Your point?83.100.253.141 15:42, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

They weren't the same people stupid. You know what you are just being stupid.

The Futurians had nothing to do with that.

Toho is always right. THEY ARE THE ONES THAT CREATED DESGHIDORAH! Angry Sun 15:44, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure wikipedia has policies against calling people stupid. And somehow, I doubt a battle between Godzilla and Mothra wouldnt have made the headlines elsewhere in Japan. The only things linking GVM and ROM is the fact that they both occurred in the Heisei era (which isnt enough, considering the millenium series has taken plenty of liberties) and that the same puppet for the adult Mothra was used. That's it. Toho officials never once stated they were canon. The Shobijin are no longer cosmos, but Elias, Mothra has somehow shrunk, and now there is a history of hundreds of Mothras in the past, despite the fact that the Cosmos in GVM never mentioned any other Divine Moth aside from Mothra and Battra. If they truly were of the same timeline, Battra would have been butchered by the army of Mothras, not just a single one.

Toho is always right. THEY ARE THE ONES THAT CREATED DESGHIDORAH!

They also say Godzilla is a living nuclear bomb, and that Ghidorah is a king... These are obviously symbolisms, not literal truths.

And if you don't like the Des argument, there are the Meganeura which are still older than Desghidorah. Desghidorah apparently killed the dinosaurs. Well, the Meganeura were around millions of years before that.

The fact that he absorbs the life force of plants is a far better summary of what kind of creature he is. Heck, that factor was a central theme of his character83.100.253.141 15:57, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care anymore. I'm not letting you win... Angry Sun 16:06, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you taking this so personally? I'm simply trying to display accurate information (which is wikipedias goal) by showing Desghidorah for what he really is. He is not distinctly more or less ancient than a few other kaiju, some of which being equal or older in age. Death Ghidorah's distinction from other Ghidorahs and other kaiju for that matter is his habit of absorbing the life force of plantlife.

Simply stating that Toho said so is tedious, considering Toho has said lots of other things on it's creations. Godzilla being a living nuclear bomb is obviously metaphorical in nature, Death Ghidorah being described as ancient is hardly a summary of what he is. And do not ever insult me again please.83.100.253.141 16:59, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1. Because Toho stated that he is a Ancient Dragon. 2. THE MOVIE said he was a Ancient Dragon. 3. I didn't insult you. Angry Sun 17:03, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Desghidorah is never directly reffered to as a "dragon" in the film. In ROM dialogue, he is reffered to as a "Mythical creature" and a "Terrible space monster". You called me stupid twice in one sentence. I could go on, but I'm satisfied with your compromise. Thanks83.100.253.141 17:19, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mythical meaning Ancient. Angry Sun 17:23, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not really. I know you mean well, but you can't infuse articles with your own personal opinions.--Marhawkman 00:09, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't. Toho said that Desghidorah is an Ancient Dragon. Why did you have to start this up again? Angry Sun 00:19, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"mythical" is not a synonym of "ancient". Other than that I really don't care. BTW "doppleganger" desn't really fit into the article.--Marhawkman 05:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Neither does clone. Angry Sun 17:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

??? Clone is not mentioned in the article.....--Marhawkman 21:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you had reverted it... Angry Sun 15:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl. 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. — Malcolm^{Use the schwartz!} 19:03, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

don't forget to sign your user warnings

Don't forget to sign your user warnings with four tildes. This is in reference to [1] Thanks. MKoltnow 20:13, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Blast...

I've been forgeting things alot lately... Angry Sun 20:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What the Heck!!!!=

We already had dicussion and it was decided to get rid of the Sonic Info. So back off!Marioman12 20:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Daisy page about Playable Appearances

The lists are needed this is not speculation. Please put them back in.141.158.38.160 20:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't whine to me. Whine to TTN. Angry Sun 16:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic

The information about Sonic the Hedgehog is still in the section. I changed it to read better. It makes the article better. Please, remember to assume good faith. I didn't remove the information. --myselfalso 21:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mario series enemies

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we remind you not to attack other editors, as you did on Talk:List of Mario series enemies. 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. Kariteh 21:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla: Unleashed

Idiot, did you not see the images? They're proof stupid. If you say "duh it doesn't matter" then your more of an idiot than I thought. Use your head, it's good for you. --Naruto134 00:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

If they are not on the official Atari site for Godzilla: Unleashed they are not proof.

For all we know they may be photoshopped or fake. Angry Sun 02:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shut up. Just because Atari didn't say them on their site (yet), doesn't mean they're not true. And your telling to use my head... --Naruto134 00:00, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Drop the friggin subject. I put themn all back. There was no need for this somewhat personal attack against me. I suggest adding an image of King Caesar to prove the point further in the article. Angry Sun 02:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anubiz

1. Dont ccall me any names, that is a personal attack

2.Apparently he has and was abusing accounts.

3.We arent a babysitting service for when he plays around

He is blocked, time to move on.And an admin did block him --User:Fonzie77

Talk:Super Smash Bros. Brawl

Angry Sun, you've had issues with civility in the past; if you continue being uncivil, a request for comment may be in order. — Malcolm ^talk 17:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Please refrain from repeatedly undoing other people's edits. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. The three-revert rule (3RR) 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. Rather than reverting, please discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you.

Wait wait... What Article? Angry Sun 19:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla: Unleashed, apparently. — Malcolm ^talk 19:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was correcting one of my own edits. The 3RR is in effect for that too? Angry Sun 19:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but this is a warning of what will happen if you violate 3RR. Continuously reverting other users' edits (besides vandalism, of course) is frowned upon, even if it doesn't violate 3RR. — Malcolm ^talk 19:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note aboutl External Links

Although less preferable, those other six IGN links should probably be references, not external links. Same with the other previews.--Clyde (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Main characters

Please remember what we have spoken about various times. Notability in the series means nothing. You need to find reliable sources before you bother with the article. I really doubt that you can find any. TTN 01:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh so you mean without sources Mario wouldn't have his own article?

Yeah that's crap.

Ye have little faith in me TTN.

Little Faith. Angry Sun 01:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the article asserts no possibility of any real world information, then yes, it is a likely candidate for a merger. I take the claim "I can find sources" with a grain of salt. It has never worked, and it will continue to be false. Show anything relevant, and I'll back off. TTN 01:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name your price...or is it poison...

Just tell me what info you want... Angry Sun 01:25, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I just said, any real world information that is actually relevant. You likely won't find a thing, though. TTN 01:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was hoping you would give me something to find...

A Challenge or something geez... Angry Sun 01:28, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why exactly does a article need Real World Info anyway?

Can't it do just fine with regular info? Angry Sun 01:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All articles must have verifiable info backed by reliable sources that assert notability. Those are non-negotiable. TTN 01:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like what I just did to the Banjo Bear Article? If you could look. Angry Sun 01:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have added OR, which doesn't meet any of those. You need development, reception, and, if possible, impact on culture. TTN 01:40, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the edit summary and give me a minute. Angry Sun 01:41, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that he is a bear is not out of universe unless some sort of development notes are behind it. It's basically useless. TTN 01:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look. Proof he is a Honey Bear.

Proof or as you like to call it. Source. Angry Sun 01:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't seem to be a reliable source. But that really doesn't matter due to the fact that it means nothing. "You need development, reception, and, if possible, impact on culture." TTN 01:48, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I guess it is one. The crappy layout confused me. It still doesn't matter, though. TTN 01:50, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyway...What about the Yogi Bear edit? I just don't think Hillbilly is a proper term. Angry Sun 01:51, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"You need development, reception, and, if possible, impact on culture [backed by reliable sources]." TTN 01:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know. But how does that help the Yogi Bear thing? Angry Sun 01:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm saying that it is OR, and doesn't matter at all. Please find some real information, or let them be redirected. TTN 01:58, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just give me some time.

I do have a bed time you know... Angry Sun 02:04, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Get sources, or there will be no article. You know what you need, so don't play dumb, please. TTN 17:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did find them. Real World Sources from official websites! And still you revert it. Angry Sun 17:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are sources about the game. They need to talk about the character in an developmental light, not in a in-game one. TTN 17:15, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, a reliable source needs to say "Banjo was designed as a bear because... He was originally going to be...", not "Banjo is a bear." TTN 17:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just trying to work on the Appearances. It takes awhile to find such sources when The Internet Archive is practicly failing on me. You want me to check the Old Rare Website or what? Geez. Angry Sun 17:17, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is why you need sources before working on it. You have none, and you will find none. Only on the offchance that you do find some can the page be brought back. TTN 17:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

June 2007

Be careful that you do not violate WP:3RR on Gruntilda. People have warned you and explained why that article should be redirected, if you disagree, discuss it on the talk page, do not just revert edits -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 02:12, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, you should have sources before you add info, not afterwards. If you cannot find some proof that she is notable outside of the video game, she should not have an article. For example, Bart Simpson has had a large impact on culture to the point where even people who've never watched the Simpsons can easily identify him, and even his catch phrases. The Crazy Cat Lady is not. -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 02:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why can't they just let me find the info. *whine* Angry Sun 02:13, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but you should try to act mature when you're on wikipedia. Whining and crying has been repeatedly shown to annoy people more than help your cause -- Phoeba Wright^OBJECTION! 02:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well this is not easy you know. Angry Sun 02:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like this? [2] Angry Sun 02:38, 26 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All begin

Please see my topic in Talk:Kremlings. You keep reverting my edit, but I don't think you're properly reading the sentence you're attempting to edit. --HeroicJay (not currently logged in)

Paper Mario

Heh, sorry about that. I actually haven't played the first Paper Mario (I know, it's horrible, though I have played the first two). I wish it would come out for VC soon... — Malcolm ^talk 23:29, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

your AIV report

Hello. I've deleted your report from WP:AIV. But in case you want to understand my reasons for doing so, here is what I deleted (below your original report)

Seems like a content dispute to me. It's unclear to me that there is an intention to vandalize. Sure, he's disruptive and less than civil but to say it's a vandal only account seems like a big big overstatement, especially given your involvement in that dispute. Pascal.Tesson 21:18, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And, to answer your question, the block was reduced by the blocking admin to 24 hours.--Anthony.bradbury^"talk" 21:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looking a little bit more into this, I'm afraid Angry Sun has a serious issue with ownership of Godzilla: Unleashed. Pascal.Tesson 21:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that you try to engage in constructive discussions with editors you disagree with rather than label them as vandals. Of course Godzilla Boy has indeed been uncivil but I think both of you are responsible for escalating this silly situation into a revert war. Please remember that you do not own articles on Wikipedia. Pascal.Tesson 21:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to own it. I was just trying to get him to catch up on what has decided to stay. Angry Sun 21:31, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Zilla article

Don't know who else to turn to, but at least you're a genuine G-fan.

Could you keep an eye on the Zilla article? I'm going away for the weekend and I won't have access to a computer. Some user called Scorpioman (a.k.a 75.182.98.201) keeps messing up the Final Wars section by adding that Zilla could have somehow survived. This is nothing but fan speculation (ergo, vandalism), plus, he obviously hasnt seen the movie itself, seeing as he claims the helicopters that killed Zilla in G98 were more powerful than Godzilla's atomic beam.... Anyway, just for the weekend.87.102.38.72 23:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure why not. Angry Sun 06:33, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Try footnotes

Please click here for information on how to create inline citations. Doing so protects against vandalism and explains what your sources are within the article text itself. Just64helpin 10:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa whoa whoa hey

Please stop edit warring on King Bowser. He's acting very poorly, but it's being disruptive to fuel his attitude. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:23, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

D: But he started it...

Common Excuse I know... the IP believes his edit are good when the previous was obviously better. Angry Sun 03:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Koopaling

Hi Angry Sun, please consider not editing the Koopaling article for a bit. The 3RR rule has been violated by both of you, and I think you don't want to be blocked. The best way is to take part in the discussion on the talk page. And don't forget about WikiLove – it brings more results than WikiHate :) Thanks, Andrij Kursetsky ⊗ 17:18, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kaiju

All article names are capitalized by default. The word kaiju itself is not a proper noun. Try clicking the on that link and please stop capitalizing it. Just64helpin 19:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it should be lowercased though. Angry Sun 19:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is not a valid reason for capitalizing. See WP:MSH#Capitalization. Just64helpin 19:09, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the whole area is about Kaiju.

What if we changed it to "Kaiju confirmed"? Angry Sun 19:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That may work, but the unusual wording may cause others to flip it back. Just64helpin 19:19, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We'll just have to explain to them... Angry Sun 19:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edits to Godzilla: Unleashed

Please do not revert large amounts of edits to undo a few ones. This is disruptive and considered vandalism. Try UNDO instead to avoid removing constructive edits, or manually edit the material.

Concerning your placement of the sphinx image, see Wikipedia:Non-free content. The image is watermarked and not to be used outside of the GameSpot site. Further placement is not only vandalism, but against copyright law.

Please also discuss the removal of the poster at the Unleashed talk page (click here). Official promotional material is preferred over a fan-made mock-up of boxart. Just64helpin 10:48, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, do not simply revert to a version you prefer, but try undoing a specific change, or edit the information manually. Further blanket edits will be seen as vandalism. Just64helpin 17:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, please indent your posts with ":", "::" etc. to clarify who you are replying to on discussion pages. Just64helpin 15:19, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've made at least three blanket reverts since I last posted in this talk page. I have reported you to WP:ANI. Just64helpin (talk) 03:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:534.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:534.jpg. 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:23, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:938069 20070222 screen004.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:938069 20070222 screen004.jpg. 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 21:45, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:942.jpg

Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:942.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. 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 non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Bleh999 19:50, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Angry Sun

Angry Sun, how about you shut up. The DS version is different than the Wii version. Look at Toho Kingdom and IGN. They say it's called Godzilla: Unleashed Double Smash. And quit acting like you own the Unleashed page, because you don't and everyone thinks your annoying. End of disscussion. --Naruto134 00:00, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I never said I "owned" it. Adding a page of the Ds Port sounds like Article Spam... Why can't we just keep one article? Angry Sun 03:46, 20 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Ss ss6.gif)

Thanks for uploading Image:Ss ss6.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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 19:32, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic17?

Is that you? MamaWaluigi 06:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... Yeah...

It's me. Angry Sun 02:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Did you get perma-banned, if you are who I think you are? Anyways, apparantly you don't have a very good reputation here.[reply]

No.

I'm taking a break... Angry Sun 23:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image (Image:942.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:942.jpg. 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 for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:38, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help get a disrespectful user banned

You also seem to be a victim of User:Naruto134 personal attacks. I just reported him to the administrator's User:Ryulong talk page. Anything you can say will help out greatly.

Alot must have happened since I've been gone...

What Exactly did he say? Angry Sun 05:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go here User_talk:Apelinq and here Talk:Keizer_Ghidorah to read it.--CLS 07:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use disputed for Image:Montajebt.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Montajebt.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 05:04, 16 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Donkey Kong, again

The Character section you reverted reads like fan fiction, and it's definitely in-universe. Please fix it or don't revert it next time it's corrected. ----217.132.73.153 10:14, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it's fact...

What was there described Cranky Kong. Who is the original Donkey Kong and was the antagonist.

And since when should I do something a random IP told me to do? Angry Sun 19:31, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I doubt you

but where in Sly Cooper does it say that it takes place in 1997? I'm just wondering. BlueCanary9999 02:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In the newspapers after every boss is defeated.

I clearly saw 1997. Angry Sun 02:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Thank you! BlueCanary9999 21:04, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:ClankerBK.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:ClankerBK.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 17:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Jinjorare.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Jinjorare.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 18:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Evilbottles.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:Evilbottles.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 20:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Godzilla 54

Um... got any proof that G'54 isn't in Earth Defender? If the game manual says he is, then he is. Regardless of whether he was shown to be a "nice" kaiju or not.--Marhawkman (talk) 19:46, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the game manual said it?

Oh well I was just going by what Atari had put up.

And they hadn't put him as a faction yet. Neither as TK and all. Angry Sun (talk) 05:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC) Actually I don't know what faction he's in. I was asking you if your edit was based on something other than your own opinion.--Marhawkman (talk) 11:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well no it isn't. I was just going by what Atari and Toho Kingdom said. Angry Sun 04:29, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion notice

Hello Angry Sun. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Angry Sun regarding an issue that you may be involved with. You are free to comment at the discussion, but please remember to keep your comments within the bounds of the civility and "no personal attack" policies. Thank you. - Rjd0060 (talk) 04:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:934602 20061006 screen008.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:934602 20061006 screen008.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 20:41, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template renaming of Template:Godzilla

A template that you used to be involved in editing, Template:Godzilla, has been listed for renaming. If you are interested in the renaming discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Template talk:Godzilla#Requested move. Thank you. — Enter Movie (talk) 17:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have Super Mario Wacky World?

Do you have this game? If you do please contact me, here's my details: AIM:xaozon YAHOO:xaozon ICQ:286412765 MSN:xaozon (put @ here) gmail.com E-MAIL:xaozon (put @ here) gmail.com xaozon (talk) 16:58, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:342.jpg}

Thank you for uploading Image:342.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check:

That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's escription page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.

Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 23:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free media (Image:SMWW.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:SMWW.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media 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 media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]