User talk:Blaze The Movie Fan/Archive May 2007

Permenant Page Protection.

{I've been wondering that for a long time and hopefully I will now get some answers. Why can't articles that get vandalized every 7 or so, or less, hours get permenant page protection? I know there is a reason for that, I wanna know why.

See WP:RFPP. Real96 23:07, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't answer my question, I'm asking why it can't be permenantly protected, I'm fully aware of how to request for protections. I mean, why does every protection have to expire? TheBlazikenMaster 14:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Does every protection really expire? Because I'm almost certain that I've seen protected pages that are always protected. I think the Tupac article is one such page, but I could be wrong. But I'm really sure that there are at least some permanent protections. They say they're "semi-protected", but they never seem to be unlocked. There must be a way to implement that usage for everyone. But the reason, I think, that this doesn't happen is because someone may need to update or otherwise change information on the article. Again, I could be wrong. --6_xB 14:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I understand now. Thanks. I now know it's only used when it's very serious. TheBlazikenMaster 15:01, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. Happy editing! ;-) --6_xB 15:05, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Beast

Why did I revert the beast comment you added?

1. WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a dictionary.
2. WP:NOT: Wikipedia is not a place for things made up in school one day; we need WP:RS.
3. WP:MOSDP: this one is a bit more obscure, but this appears to be the case of a "Primary topic." Under that heading the MOS dictates that "Since it is very unlikely that this well-known meaning is what they are looking for, it should not be mixed in with the other links. It is recommended to place the link back to the primary topic at the top, like this:" which implies that the primary topic link (in this case "animal") should be just like any other entry, just formatted a little differently. Regular entries have several guidelines that your change does not meet:
   1. Entries should nearly always be sentence fragments.
   2. The description associated with a link should be kept to a minimum, just sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link.

This gives the implication that the entire purpose of this page is to point people to a new page, we shouldn't have any strange comment. If the usage of Beast which you describe is attributable. I'm fairly sure that it belongs on a page different than the disambiguation page. I'm not entirely certain on this, so if you think you can convince me otherwise, please clear up my misconceptions on the issue. McKay 15:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: YouTube question

I don't have a YouTube account. Why do you ask? Oh, and I'm still checking my messages, I just haven't been actively editing lately. – mcy1008 (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Protected pages.

This page doesn't have a search fuction. So how the hell am I suppose to know for how long a particular page is protected? TheBlazikenMaster 20:35, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Go to the history and click at the top where it says "view logs" and there will be a history of all loggable events, i.e. deletion and protection. If there is no time given, it's indefinite. You can request protection or unprotection at WP:RFPP. John Reaves (talk) 20:48, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok... TheBlazikenMaster 20:53, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Speedy

Hi there; "only one editor and nothing links here" is not a valid reason for speedy deletion. Please, when tagging articles, use a tag contained in WP:CSD. Thank you.--Anthony.bradbury 23:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

A little problem.

{{HelpMe}} I was reading a history of an article as usual, and noticed this: Applebirthday did nothing but vandalism, and might strike back. I don't know wether or not I should report vandals that aren't blocked, and have done nothing but vandalized, and haven't vandalized recently. That's why I need help, is that a valid reason for going to WP:AIV? TheBlazikenMaster 00:57, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I checked there contribs and they haven't edited since octover 06. You could report them to AIV if you want but they'll most likely say he hasn't vandalized in a while or you might get a strict admin who will block him for being a vandal only account. It's basically a coin toss on what admin sees it. It won't hurt to list it anyway since theres always the chance of him coming back to resume his vandalism. --Malevious Userpage •Talk Page• Contributions 01:08, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Mars today's featured article?

How the hell can that be? Last time I checked, it already got its featured status.

Featured articles can appear on the Main Page more than once, and sometimes really old featured articles go on the Main page. I find it bizarre also. Perhaps Talk:Main Page is the place to discuss this, I could not find any other specific page.--Commander Keane 09:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Oops, Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article is probably the best place to discuss this issue.--Commander Keane 09:09, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Helpme request: What the hell is going on?

On some pages some links are red instead of blue even then they're not red links. Is it a bug on my computer, or is something wrong with Wikipedia now? I don't understand it. TheBlazikenMaster 15:29, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Can we get an example? ➪HiDrNick! 15:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It is a bug on Wikipedia. The developers are aware and it is being fixed. —Centrx→talk • 15:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It was a bug, wow it's fixed now. TheBlazikenMaster 15:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No it's not - Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Freedom skies. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 15:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it looks fine to me. TheBlazikenMaster 15:41, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

From where I'm sitting, the wikilinked policies in the opening arguments look like redlinks. Further, Infernape looks far too redlinked.-Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 15:43, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes it does. Well, I'm sure it will all be fixed soon. I first noticed this on the Abraham Lincoln article, that seems fixed. TheBlazikenMaster 15:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Your userpage

There's alink to your sandbox on your userpage, but it says it'll go toyour userboxes. So is that a typo or what?--Tempest115 13:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, thanks for pointing that out. Fixed now. TheBlazikenMaster 13:55, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

SpongeBob SquarePants

I did not make a POV statement about SpongeBob. It is within the scope of the LGBT Studies Project and Conservative Christian groups did accuse SpongeBob of being gay. Please use the proper Wikipedia conduits if you have a Wikipedia:NPOV_dispute rather than simply deleting the contributions of others. Thanks! Queerudite 18:42, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Queerudite 22:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

crappiness > crap

I don't understand. Why is it so that this redirect was removed because of this template:

{{db-meta|This article or other page provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. It is [[Wikipedia:Patent nonsense|patent nonsense]] ([[WP:CSD#G1|CSD]] G1).| |notes=<br/> :<small>''Please consider placing <nowiki>{{subst:Nonsensepages|User talk:Blaze The Movie Fan/Archive May 2007}} ~~~~ OR {{subst:nonsensepages|User talk:Blaze The Movie Fan/Archive May 2007|header=1}} ~~~~ on the User Talk page of the author. }}</nowiki>

I mean why? It was simply redirecting to that page.

Could you please restate the problem? DebateKid 15:49, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I made a page, several days ago. crappiness to let it redirect to crap and the reason it got removed was:

13:28, 24 April 2007 Anthony Appleyard (Talk | contribs) deleted "Crappiness" (content was: '{{db-nonsense}}#REDIRECT crap')

That was found in the Deletion log, but how was that a nonsense? How? TheBlazikenMaster 15:51, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

The helpme tag was placed on this page, am i right in thinking the matter is undercontrol? Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 16:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

No, I still don't know why the redirect was removed. TheBlazikenMaster 16:21, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Crappiness isn't a word is it? If so it should have been tagged with {{db-redirtypo}} or something like that. Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 16:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. TheBlazikenMaster 16:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Its alright Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 16:26, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

"Changes newer than 1 seconds may not be shown in this list."

What the hell is this? Thanks for stating the obvious, but what the hell is this? And how do I get rid of it? TheBlazikenMaster 21:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Its Just a Glitch with the Database and It will be solved very soon and Please remain civil..Thank you..----Cometstyles 21:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

They seem to be worsening it ("Changes newer than 11 seconds may not be shown in this list.") -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 22:46, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

User:70.44.136.88 has been doing that to a LOT of Pokemon articles. I stage 3'd him for it after he ignored my note the first time he did this by doing more the same to eleven other articles besides Infernape. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 23:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, for some reason I don't feel like warning vandals right now. Probably because I'm gonna see the 3rd movie of Jack Sparrow tomorrow, and that's the main thing I'm thinking about. But don't worry, as soon as I've finished watching it, I will think more about warning vandals. TheBlazikenMaster 23:31, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Lord of the Rings: The Return of the king move

• Although late, I must vote Oppose. To most Tolkien fans, "Lord of the Rings: The Return of the king", ignoring case of letters, means firstly the book. For the film the name ending in .."(film)" is clearer and should remain. Anthony Appleyard 21:50, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
• Judging by the discussion at Talk:The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (film)#Requested Move May 26 2007, others are disputing this discussion result. Anthony Appleyard 21:57, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Ninjas

You might like to know that I've re-nominated Category:Fictional ninja to have it moved to Category:Fictional ninjas. --Ptcamn 10:53, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, it got renamed. --Ptcamn 00:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Floatzel

Could you please tell me if I was in the right to revert it? Regards, Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 13:38, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Unfortuntely, I don't have Cartoon Network, so I can't confirm this myself. But the section was badly sectioned, and there was no source. TheBlazikenMaster 13:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Spoiler tags are being removed.

{{HelpMe|I think I know what the hell is going on. The spoiler tags are being removed because they don't follow WP:SPOILER, but what I'd like to know, will there be any spoiler tags left once a lot of them have been removed? And why can't there be in the plot? I mean, some people don't expect it to be spoiling the movie. So, are they all gonna be removed in the end? Thanks for reply. TheBlazikenMaster 17:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)}}

There has been a lot of controversy over {{spoiler}} and {{endspoiler}}. The initiating comment was that all main information should be added into the first paragraph, the RfC went on to come to the conclusion that {{spoiler}} and {{endspoiler}} should not be used in works of classic literature such as Shakespeare or the Bible, however, I'm pretty sure that {{spoiler}} and {{endspoiler}} can still be used in obscure works. ~ ΜΛGиυs ΛΠιмυМ ≈ √∞ 17:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)