User talk:Druff

Punks Getting [messed with]

Hey! I think I understand your point now(thought I'd post it here as to not clutter up the punk talk page with off-topic shit). And I guess I am prepared to live the part, if only till I grow up and cut my hair. [/sarcasm] Feel free to delete this when you've read it, sorry for the inconvenience Tias 09:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think much has changed. I do want people to detest me, at least on a subconscious level - There's something immensely satisfying about knowing that people watch one and think "If people like him can exist, our society is fucked up". Of course, few give it that much thought, but if some do it's great. Tias 08:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Emo

As I tried to contribute before you so cavalierly wiped it, "emo" was originally applied to Rites of Spring and Rites of Spring only. Flipside #47 from 1985 (probably found on eBay without too much trouble) contains a interview with RoS in which they mention offhandedly that some folk in the DC scene had taken to calling them "emo" because they sometimes became emotional during performances. I'm sure it didn't take long for the term to also be applied to Embrace and then other DC bands, but it didn't apply to anyone but RoS at first. Druff 05:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't "cavalierly" wipe it: what you said here isn't what you wrote in the article. Your edits made it sound like nobody called it "emo-core", which is factually inaccurate. Regardless of the specific origins of the term, people spent the next decade using the term "emo-core" to almost exclusively describe the DC scene, which is significantly more important than where the term started in its first weeks of existence.

Here's the real problem: the original source of the word "emo" has been under debate for years. The initial accounts credited a Flipside interview with MacKaye, but nobody's been able to cough up any of those articles, including the Rites of Spring interview. You've suggested that I go look for the article, but, honestly, if you're making this assertion and trying to add it to the entry, YOU should find the article to confirm it first. At the very least, if you have the article, you should provide a partial transcript to discussion. It's the responsiblity of each editor to provide sources for their edits, not the responsibility of other editors to verify it for them.

Even still, if Rites of Spring didn't coin the term themselves - if it was something that DC folks called them - then Rites of Spring's viewpoint can't the end-all be-all answer, even if ended up being the first printed usage of the term. Regardless of whether the band said what you claim, are there enough available sources to support the case that they were the first band ever tagged as "emo", and that NO other bands were being called "emo" at the same time?

This is the first I have EVER heard this assertion made, and, as I said, it's not my responsibility to verify your point for you. I've tried to rewrite the article to accommodate your point, but it would be journalistically dubious to make the claim without the proper sources to support it. (And I suspect you'll need more than just that one interview to do that.) -- ChrisB 05:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All right, my friend, two can play this game: Where are your sources to back up your facts? Where's your "proof" that the term "emo-core" was used in the mid-80s DC scene? Where's your proof that the term "emo" was applied to other bands besides Rites of Spring in the beginning? Don't accuse others of failing to cite sources when you haven't done so yourself. I suggested that you find that issue of Flipside because it's a 20 year old print magazine, it isn't online. If I can't ask you to take me on my word as someone who was there at the time, how can I ask you to accept a transcript from my own hands? But, if I can, I'll dig my zines out of the closet and transcribe the pertinent segments. Although apparently you've already invalidated it, since it's "just that one interview."

I'd say one of the real problems here is that history is being written by people who weren't there to witness it first hand. I have to ask, what makes you such an authority? I hate to play "My dick's bigger than yours," but I'm a 36 year old fart and I was following the DC scene as early as 1982. I continued to follow it into the 90s. And I can assure you, the term "emo-core" was definitely not widely used in the mid-80s DC scene, if it was used at all. I don't know exactly when it popped up, but I've always been under the impression that it was coined later to describe the more "extreme" sounding bands that cropped up later, chiefly the Gravity bands. Much of the point of bands like Rites of Spring and Embrace was to leave the hardcore punk cliché behind, and there was very little impetus for anyone to tag the label "-core" onto them. Druff 17:51, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Xenogears vs. Evangelion

Stop editing the Xenogears page by removing legitimate data regarding blatant Xenogears vs. Evangelion connections before discussing their removal first, and successfully providing acceptable reasons that warrant their removal rather than mild alteration. This is what the "discussion" page is for. All of the deletions you made of my entries over the past few days were for inaccurate and inappropriate reasons, as I have argued on the discussion page. I notice you didn't bother to respond there, but kept on making deletions. Regarding my Aeon edit, I included additional information not to support any sort of "vendetta," but to make the article more informative after having glanced it over. Study general definitions of Aeons and Angels; what they are in nature; and you'll see there is a distinct similarity between the two. Both are servants of God, both are emanations of divine power, both carry out the will of God, and in fact, certain Aeons, such as Armozel, are Angels[[1]]. But again, even if that wasn't the case, the "Aeons" in Xenogears still look like traditional angels, and bear multiple similarities to Evangelion's angels.

That said, I have reverted your edits again, and will continue to do so until you can provide valid reasons for your actions and reach some sort of agreement. Please refer to Wikipedia's etiquette policy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Etiquette), and see that reaching agreements on edits and avoiding deletion are promoted guidelines. In addition, I have given you no reason to believe I am editing out of anything other than good faith principles of making articles more informative, yet you have assumed that I have some sort of a "vendetta" for adding information that is commonly discussed at large, and is written in an entirely non-biased manner. Assuming good faith, and not a vendetta, is yet another etiquette guideline that should be followed, as outlined in the above article.

-Fred 08:40, 25 April 2006 (PST)

Simply put, I delete any info which is blatantly erroneous or of dubious value. An example of erroneous info in this case is "Grahf is Fei's father." It simply isn't true, and I've explained why on the Xenogears talk page. An example of info of dubious value is pointing out that both EVA and Xenogears both have cutsey comic relief mascot characters with N-N names. That's akin to pointing out that both the 2007 Toyota Corolla and the 1998 Honda Civic both have four drink holders instead of two. While the statement might be true, it has no value, since so many other vehicles also have four drink holders. There's no point in pointing out that both EVA and Xenogears have cute animal mascots whose names are a repetion of a syllable when it's also true that Mach Go Go Go a.k.a. Speed Racer had a cutsey animal named Chim-Chim in 1967, Utena had a cutsey animal character named Chu-Chu (Japanese onomatopoeia for "squeek", as a mouse) and so on and so forth.

And besides, I did give my reasons for deleting the info in the comment line when I first made the deletions, as I always do. That should suffice. But don't expect me to repeat that courtesy when you insist on re-posting the same inaccurate info again and again.

Furthermore, I do have valid reason to believe you're pursuing a personal vendetta. A couple of quotes from your first edits to the Xenogears article:

...its similarities to aforementioned works (particularly and infamously Neon Genesis Evangelion) are so frequent and so similar in nature that its plot borders on flat-out plagiarism.

Other plot criticms include the allegation that Xenogears, like most of Squaresoft's titles, contains many "tiresome" and "uncreative" plot cliches, and to such critics, feels like a pulp production.

Blatant non-NPOV. You were wise to quickly edit those comments yourself, but they betrayed your true intentions from the beginning. Druff 06:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested reference

Provided the reference you asked for on the Xenogears page. I should have done it when I made the edit before, but I didn't think of it. Sorry about that. Also cleaned up the syntax I used to admit there's some vagueness used about the relationship between the two series, yet also provided the quotes used to support the seperation of the two. Hope that helps! Nezu Chiza 02:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Nezu, I just saw that. And I just left a comment in the article's talk page. Cheers! Druff 05:38, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Soraya Saga

Your changes to the article seem to conflict with one of the sorces that I used ([2]); do you have sources for your dates, etc.? --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:08, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no I don't. It was basically known back in 2003 (at least in Japanese circles) that Saga was off the project, but it was just a rumor at the time. When Saga posted about it on her website, it was basically to confirm those rumors in the hopes that people would finally stop pestering her about it. When she made the announcement, many people found out about it for the first time, while others who had been following Xenosaga more closely considered it old news. Since I don't have a hard source, I guess I don't have a leg to stand on. Do what you wish. Druff 17:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's OK — I only know what I found at the sites that I gave as sources. It would be nice to have citations, though, at some point. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:35, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Exdeath/Exodus

Well good then, thanks. I'll be sure to fix the typo on ja:Wikipedia. But really, we should use the current English names here until we get information otherwise.—ウルタプ 21:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually the summons seem have different names between FFTA and FFXII...whatever. Exdeath here for now, then.—ウルタプ 21:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is absolutely no need to convert roman numerals into phonetics for FF articles ?

Please don't take this kind of decisions alone. You edited 3 Featured articles and several Good Articles that have already been reviewed by hundreds of Wikipedia editors and judged good or best in class. Your point of view is certainly valid and should be heard, but please discuss massive changes like that at the WPFF. Specifically, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Final_Fantasy#Changes_to_a_bunch_of_articles

Welcome to the group of FF eitors, by the way Renmiri 19:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the welcome. It is my firm position that the phonetic renderings the roman numerals in FF titles is extraneous information, definitely a form of cruft. The first red flag is that if you look at any official Japanese FF packaging or literature, there is never any katakana key of the roman numerals. I don't think informing the world as to how Japanese speakers pronounce roman numerals is relevant to Final Fantasy. It's unecessary information. Druff 01:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the WPFF Talk page is the right place to raise the issue. I speak / read nothing of japanese so any pronunciation guide helps, but we do have a few fluent Japanese readers in our midst such as Ryu Kaze that will be able to evaluate your idea better. Renmiri 06:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: Don't forget to sign your name on the August roll call for FF editors File:Grin.gif Renmiri 06:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bahamut Lagoon / Final Fantasy Tactics

The Bahamut Lagoon project began under working title Final Fantasy Tactics. However, as the game gradually took shape, it was decided that it didn't include enough elements from the Final Fantasy series to merit the name. Most of the existing Final Fantasy elements were removed, and it was released with the new title Bahamut Lagoon. Soon afterward, a second Final Fantasy Tactics (1997) project was initiated and released with the title intact.

This text in the Trivia section of the article Bahamut Lagoon has been present since August 2005, and nobody has found a reference yet. May I ask what was your source of information? Kariteh 11:36, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was a long time ago, but I recall the source of that information being the The Unofficial Squaresoft Homepage, a.k.a. square.net. It existed from 1995 to 1997, the webmaster was Andrew Vestal. Vestal actually had a relationship with Square. They even hosted his site for several months when he lost his server. Later he started the Gamers Intelligence Agency a.k.a. thegia.com, where Vestal had the honor of showing the world the first images from Final Fantasy IX, a full 10 months before Square even announced the game's existence. What I'm getting at is that the info came from a source that I personally consider to be extremely reliable. Vestal was truly an authority on Square lore, at least during the mid-90s. He was a great source of insider information, and virtually everything he reported as a "rumor" seemed to eventually turn out to be true. I wish the source was something that could be easily verified, but alas, we're talking about an obscure video game that was released in Japan over ten years ago and doesn't seem to have inspired many people to document its behind-the-scenes details. Druff 18:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some guy already removed the information from the Bahamut Lagoon article... Too bad, I don't think it can really be mentioned without a reference but this info is still interesting. I believe you personally :) Kariteh 09:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Chrotrig tenlightng.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Chrotrig tenlightng.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 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. BetacommandBot 04:47, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rollerball

I thought I had done my research. What is your source for "The Roller Ball Murders"? The reliable sources I've seen all give the title as "Roller Ball Murder", including this news story about the author, Willam Harrison, the story's appearance in The Year's Best Science Fiction No. 7 (1973), an academic essay that mentions the story, this overview of another book by Harrison, Fiction into Film Database, and this book cover. "The Rollerball Murders" and/or "The Roller Ball Murders" will get you 200+ Google hits--none from demonstrably reliable sources, and at least one of which repeats that Pulitzer Prize nonsense that was in the Wikipedia article until I took it out. "Roller Ball Murder" gets 1000+ hits. --ShelfSkewed Talk 04:04, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately for my credibility, my source is an old hardcopy paperback of a collection of Harrison's short stories, published more than 30 years ago. I had no idea that the "Rollerball Murders"/"Rollerball Murder" schism was so rampant. I haven't seen the book in many years, but my distinct recollection is that that the title was plural. It is entirely possible that it was originally published in Harpers as "Rollerball Murder", and the title was changed to "The Rollerball Murders" when it was later published in the collection. Perhaps it was a means to get through a legal loophole or somesuch. If I ever find my copy of the book, I will scan it and offer a .jpg as evidence. But for now, I suppose I will have to concede. Druff 18:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This cracked me up and I'm sure you'll appreciate it- Rollerball was recently, finally released on blu-ray, and it includes a new "making of" documentary. Discussing how they originally decided to make the movie, the director Norman Jewison referred to the short story as "Rollerball Murder." But when the actual author William Harrison told his side of the story, he referred to it as "The Rollerball Murders."

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Biehn snake comparison.JPG)

Thanks for uploading Image:Biehn snake comparison.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) 05:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GameFAQs

Ah, now I know where I've seen your screenname before. I'm SonOfYoungwood at GameFAQs; I've seen you around the FF13 forums. — Deck iller 14:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

License tagging for File:Dirtyrottenlp orig ver.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Dirtyrottenlp orig ver.jpg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 22:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned non-free image File:Konami 2nd logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Konami 2nd logo.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 "file" 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 "File" 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. J Milburn (talk) 14:50, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua tree

Your opinion is needed at Joshua tree talk page. -- Robinlarson (talk) 20:38, 26 March 2013 (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) 13:07, 23 November 2015 (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) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:JoePreston01.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:JoePreston01.jpg, which you've attributed to Josh Yelle^[who?]. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file has agreed to release it under the given license.

If you are the copyright holder for this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:13, 12 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Druff. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Druff. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Druff. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

February 2019

Hello, I'm Robvanvee. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Bullhead (album), but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Rob van vee 04:27, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's no "source" given for the erroneous May 3, 1991 date already listed on the page, so not sure what your point is. From a quick glance at your Talk page I can see that your apparent raison d'être is to go around passive/aggressively reverting genuine "good faith" corrections and edits because they don't have a source. Druff (talk) 18:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]