User talk:Sesshomaru/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

< Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4 >

redirects

There's really no good reason to delete titles that are just capitalization discrepancies. I guess I just don't see any benefit in not having these redirects. Yes they are mostly useless but I'd rather have that than people creating these pages with useless forked content. Pascal.Tesson 07:09, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ok, I've restored List of Extraterrestrials in Dragon Ball as a redirect. Oh and don't go too paranoid about warnings. Nobody will come screaming on your talk page as long as you're trying to improve Wikipedia and the worst that will happen to you is that someone will politely point out your mistakes (like I did earlier I guess!). Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 07:20, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirects

Why do you need these redirects? Try creating the first two accounts. If successful, you would need to get them blocked. =Nichalp «Talk»= 11:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

<Messages by harrassing troll removed again. Please view these links: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], if you wish to see them.> Lord Sesshomaru

Others Pages

People are allowed to say whatever they want (within reason) on their user page - comments like hose that you removed are fine, it is the users choice to have them on their page. By making this such a big deal, you are the one most likely to get blocked - so I advice you cool down, and if it doesn't work try for mediation. If you have any other queries, don't hesitate to ask me. I have watchlisted this and his talk page, and will take action if you both don't stop. Matt - TheFearow 23:53, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but he is ALLOWED those comments on his page. It's his talk page, and it is up to him to have what he wants there (there are some things not allowed, however those sorts of comments are allowed). Matt - TheFearow 00:02, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is disruptive, and on any other page it would be deleted and he would be warned. However, on his talk page, he is allowed it as he is expressing it himself, on a page about him. Personally, I would also remove the comments, however policy states he is allowed them on his talk page. Matt - TheFearow 00:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on User talk:TheClownPrinceofCrime. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Matt - TheFearow 23:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

The title of the header is dependent on what it's used for. "Notes and references" is for situations where you're both citing something here and noting something there (see Kaname Tōsen for an example). {{Reflist}} is already a standard. Use of columns is only for those situations where there's 10-20 some-odd refs. As for the template names, "bleach" vs "Bleach" doesn't affect the template call, so fixing that is a waste of time. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go ahead. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Matter of opinion, I suppose. Characters are by their nature fictional, as they are acted out by others. Change it if you want. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:28, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beelzebub (Sand Land)

It is undergoing another good article review as requested by another reviewer to see if it meets good article criteria (see User talk:OhanaUnited#GAC backlog eliminiation drive). I'll let you know the final decision. For now please consider it as B-class article. OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 04:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the talk page of the article, but I'm not sure what the other reviewer's demand is. Another note, please fix your signature so that it directs to your userpage or talk page instead of contributions. OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 05:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's just convention, that's all. OhanaUnited ^{Talk page} 04:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linking

Sometimes it's good to link a term more than once. That would be one of them, as it gives context to the statement. Linking to a general term doesn't help the reader draw an idea of the importance of the statement. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 22:20, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE:RfA

Be that as it may, I'm not running until it's over. I wouldn't normally have withdrawn over a dispute, but this particular dispute happens to be potentially on the fast-track to arbcom if it keeps up. --tjstrf talk 23:23, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The necessity of the sub-headers

The sub-headers are important because the redirects use them. Mr. Popo for example. Without the sub-headers, the redirects simply point to the top of the article which is less efficient. Malamockq 00:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Class dispute

Do not revert a legitimate edit without giving any reason for doing so. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:11, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lists are often described as a problem with a featured article. A B article should be well-written and well-referenced - length is entirely irrelevant. - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:33, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that sure did validate the AN/I thing - I mean, what's better for someone to find out about the filer than they purposefully attempted to mislead them? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What??? Lord Sesshomaru

Not to recreate the argument, you went to say that I was doing something disruptive with changing assessments, and provided links to my reversions instead of links to when I first changed the assessments, which contained my reasoning for the assessment changes, and the only way to know that I was the one who changed the assessment is to look who changed it, which would also show my edit summary, which contained my rationale. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:12, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really, really don't know what you just said to me. Lord Sesshomaru

Firstly, I am unsure why User:A Link to the Past is changing the proper assessments of "B-class" to "Start-class" or "Stub-class" to several of the Dragon Ball-related articles; it hints that he is doing that to most of them for no reason, see some links: [227], [228], [229], [230], [231], [232], [233], [234]. You stated that you did not know the reason why I was reverting, but the fact that I provided an edit summary explaining exactly why I did it shows that this is clearly wrong. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:23, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because too much of the article was a list of his works and video game that he's been involved in. If you want to see a good standard for a B article, check out Kirby's Dream Land. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What information, what a B article should be or why I reverted? I explained it in my edit summary that there weren't enough references and too much of it was list stuff - and as I stated, lists hurt the flow of the article. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:30, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for one, replace the video game section with paragraphs detailing his works, not a list of everything he's done. And also replace the list of animes he has done with paragraphs. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:36, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will strongly consider it. Nighty-night. Lord Sesshomaru

I presumed that there would not be controversy if I presented a guideline to back up my move.
I also made it under the WP:BOLD guideline. - A Link to the Past (talk) 07:41, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect names? Krillin is certainly correct, so is Goku. They are certainly the official names. Using the English names is for the reader's sake. It doesn't help to use the English facts, such as "good thing it was a Sunday."

Also, tell me, did they keep the "Bardock was a scientist" line in the new dub (the uncut dub)? - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And on a note, if they changed them to silly names and those silly named became accepted by English viewers as official like Goku, Krillin, and Master Roshi have become, they should be used for the simple reason that they're the most familiar to readers. - A Link to the Past (talk) 22:14, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge

Yeah, I'll do it in a bit. Just a comment on your list editing - It is fine to cut sections and unneeded pictures, but you don't need to go as far as you do with it. We don't need to list every minor character, but we also don't need to shove everything under single headers. You really should just copy what Characters of Final Fantasy VIII does anyways. That'll keep the anchored redirects working. And with the pictures, not every single character needs them, but you can also leave some for the larger characters. There is nothing wrong with some pictures as long as they show main topics described in the article. TTN 19:20, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unless we're just really lax with featured content, I would say that it really just depends on if they're needed or not. We shouldn't fill lists with pictures of trivial things, but we shouldn't ignore major ones. I'll try reformatting one of the lists in a bit. TTN 19:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck. Lord Sesshomaru

Eh, I really lack the motivation to do any of those, so you should probably merge them. Sorry. TTN 22:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Tomb of Dracula

Leave the categories in the certain Dracula (Marvel Comics) redirect. They need not, I say, be gone. From observation, they can stay. If you contact Gimmetrow he shall say the same to thee. DC&Marvel maniac 01:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As it may, it can. Nothing says, least naut negatively, that they shouldn't. DC&Marvel maniac 01:30, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Tis a processs in the making. What gets me more worried is that fact of an Ogon Bat rename due. Categories, smategories, is what I have to conclude. Gimmetrow and I did have quite a scuffle over this, I do naut want another. Most categories are being made into lists anyways, why, I would and might prefer it that way anyways. DC&Marvel maniac 01:45, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on the fence about the Bleach thing. It seems appropriate, and such notes are common. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove it if you want. It doesn't technically need it, as disambiguatin is really for non-disambiguated titles. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 03:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Popups means nothing, it's just a tool. You've got good reasoning, and the policy/guideline/whatever probably supports it. Remove it again and he more than likely won't notice. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mangahelpers is my source. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check the releases and scantalators tabs on the sides. The side keeps recent manga. The old stuff has to be tracked down. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wells

This is the *exact same content* that was in the section to which the redirect formerly pointed. Please discuss on the article talk page, not my page, in the future. Gimmetrow 05:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is your point? Gimmetrow 06:02, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you asking me? I didn't write the text. Gimmetrow 06:06, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The cover art image shows annual #2 (1983), and says "introducing superwoman". Is that what you were looking for? Gimmetrow 06:12, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This again

Why did you delete every picture in list of extraterrestrials in Dragon Ball? Look at the article! It looks horrible! Also thier is no policey that states that their should be this few headers, I am reverting this. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 16:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Demons

Variety implies other demons exist, for starters. The manga chapter is somewhere in the 250s to 260s. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where to find that manga. Haven't had any luck. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:02, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dragonball Z

What is the story with this? History merges are not just for any two pages that share the same subject. The text must be derivative, and should not interleave with the text of the other page unless in special circumstances. —Centrx→talk • 05:12, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Werner reply

He moved it to the Grand Line. Its linked over on daizex (I never recall the URL, I just go their usually). EDIT: http://www.thegrandline.com/dbzinfo/ And I just mentioned him because he has the interviews posted their. I've seen some of them translated in other places too, and they were pretty much consistent. I'm not suggesting using his personalized sections, but aside from a handful of translation errors (a couple in the attack list, and the 15 million/150 million typo), I really don't see what else would be wrong with using him as a 3rd party source for something like the interviews. I mean, we could just cite the Kanzebans themselves, but someones gonna get up in arms about "English wiki," so I figured use a translation. Onikage725 16:20, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, most of the old ones are gone. SREDBZ, Planet Namek, 3G... only ones I've seen last are Daizex, DB Arena, and Werner's un-updated but still hosted page. Onikage725 19:14, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wind benders?

As the title suggests. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I mean what's a wind bender, and Naruto's the only one who actually manipulates wind. The others don't show anything beyond simple blasts of force. Well, Baki might. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Airbender might be a more appropriate redirect. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Bender" would associate better with that show than any other media. "kinesis" is a much more common term. The others just need a "See also" section listed under them with the page. Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:28, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Characters, for characters you'd list the page under a see also section. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Akira Toriyama

I saw your comment about moving the 'Toriyama in reflection' pic to the right of the article. You said, "(That image locationed at the left screws up the header)". I was wondering if I could convince you otherwise. Although it may not be apparent at first, I think the picture illustrates the biography section of the article well, because it shows him looking back on his work while describing his 'clean line and design sense'. It also highlights the desciption of his name. Also, simply from a layout point-of-view, I think the two pictures look better opposite and facing each other.

Worst case, I could flip the picture so he's at least looking towards the article. But, I do like the original. Please let me know what you think. -Blue Sky 4→talk

The page doesn't even need the image. Aside from that, the image had no fair use rationale last I checked. Lord Sesshomaru

Thanks for the rationale fix. Much appreciated.-Blue Sky 4

Goku's abilities

You can turn it into a paragraph if you'd like. I'm primarily focused on the Bio right now. I just removed all that stuff because some of them he only uses a few times, therefore having them in there would be considered cruft, it also takes up space. I also uploaded a new picture for the Goku article, I'm assuming that people like it because no one's reverted yet. I like it a lot more then the other one. The angle on his face is better and I think his expression fits his personality better then the other one. --VorangorTheDemon 01:51, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I actually threatened to report him as a vandal if he moved the article to Goku. He backed off for now. --VorangorTheDemon 04:19, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bleach

I haven't seen the English anime, only the Japanese anime and the manga. However, I remember no such line and she's never demonstrated any ability of flight, so it sounds like a dubbing/translation error to me. They probably meant the air-walking thing, which while it isn't technically flight is close enough that the dub translators may not have cared to split hairs about it if it resulted in an ackward or confusing phrasing. (Rukia: "I can't walk on air in my gigai!" Fans: WTF???) --tjstrf talk 23:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Flight is the process by which an object achieves sustained movement either through the air by aerodynamically generating lift or aerostatically using buoyancy, or movement beyond earth's atmosphere, in the case of spaceflight."

As applied to super powers, we're looking at abilities that allow you to travel through the air by flapping your wings/magic rocket boosters/levitating and jetting about/making yourself lighter than air. Bleach's air-walking is essentially making platforms to stand on/leap from with your spirit energy, not flight. --tjstrf talk 23:20, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If there isn't anyone in the category that's not from Bleach, then it's totally pointless since it's already explained in the articles and would just result in overcategorization. --tjstrf talk 23:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, missed your post, I've been mostly gone for a couple days. I have no objections to placing an intangibility category on Category:Fictional ghosts. --tjstrf talk 15:21, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Turning ethereal is not the same as flying, so yes, that was a correct removal. --tjstrf talk 23:40, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Recoome

No, I never saw that. --Deskana (talk) 02:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Itachi Uchiha

Well, I was going to give you a lengthy explanation for how the specifics of Zabuza's killings are unknown, but then I remembered he randomly killed all of his classmates one day. That would indeed make him a mass murderer. So not only do I look stupid, but I'm inclined to agree with categorizing him as a mass murderer. ~Snapper T o 19:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It shall be done. Lord Sesshomaru

As for Sasori, with him I can go into a long spiel about how the specifics of his killings are unknown, though I won't. Best to leave him as murderer. ~Snapper T o 02:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shonen Jump

Sorry, orange notice must not have gone up for that one. I'm not sure who was featured in the issue. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 17:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcuts

Hi. I used to be called User:I'm anonymous, can you comment over here? Lord Sesshomaru

What's going to happen? May I change the page according to the discussion? Lord Sesshomaru

I recommend that we wait a few days before implementing the proposed changes.

Please note that administrators have no special authority regarding such matters, so I'm treating the above question as a request for advice (not permission). —David Levy 19:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Signature

When signing your posts, please use four tildes (~~~~) instead of three. Otherwise, the timestamp will be omitted. Thanks! —David Levy 18:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: A few things

I don't see why you'd need permission to create a portal, though I really know nothing about it; I simply keep it on my Watchlist in case someone discovers and decides to use it. I will say that I see no reason for Dragon Ball to have a Wikiproject and a Portal. As for the Bleach character introductions, I can't help you any more than I could with the Naruto characters. ~Snapper T o 19:26, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey

<Messages by harrassing troll removed. Please view these links: [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], if you wish to see them.> Lord Sesshomaru

He didn't remove them, he archived them. If you click the archive he created to the right, you'll see the warning you gave him at the bottom. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:44, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there is a time restriction of when you can archive. I've seen people literally archive every discussion after it happens. It's like "oh, yeah...here's my response..now I'm archiving". That's extreme, and annoying, but I don't think there is anything wrong with it, especially since it's right there for anyone to see if they wish. Plus, it boils down to that whole "deleting comments thing". The consensus, I believe, was that you can delete a warning if you wish because it will always be on your history, unless you blank that (which only an Admin can do). So, if he blanks it and someone thinks "who he's perfect", then you can say, "no, check his history, block log, and archives, because he isn't as perfect as he appears". I'm not saying that he is trying to make that the appearance, just that it isn't the end of the world if he archives or removes a warning. If you feel threatened you can go to the AN/I and easily provide links to all the instances, regardless of whether he removes them. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 15:54, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, every editor has a right to be informed, so consider this your informing. He's already reported you to the board, so I'd go check that out. Everyone deserves a fair chance to give their side of the story, and I didn't see a notice on your page stating that you were involved on the incident board. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 16:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hello

im new to wikipedia and im still trying to figure it out. I was wondering if you could help me. How do you fix the items on youre front page? i cant get them to get into a row and i noticed yours are. Can you help me? BlueShrek 19:51, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind i figured it out do you know a place i can go to find more boxes? Thanks.BlueShrek 22:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I none-free rationialed all the Naruto images that I could see

The Dragonball ones are on their own. thats not my Realm. —The preceding comment is by TheUltimate3 (talk • contribs) TheUltimate3: Please sign your posts!

Shortcuts 2

Which two shortcuts should be removed in WP:TRIVIA? I myself find WP:TRIVIA and WP:TRIV more useful than the other two. Response? Lord Sesshomaru

I agree that the other two shortcuts are less useful. I shortened the page title, thereby enabling the creation of the shortcut WP:ATS. In keeping with our usual practice of including one initialism and one word, I left WP:ATS and WP:TRIVIA. —David Levy 16:06, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now Wikipedia:Vandalism is pushing it. What do you think? Lord Sesshomaru

Wow, that's ridiculous. I recommend leaving WP:VAN and WP:VANDAL. —David Levy 16:16, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you do these things from now on? Almost every time I do it it gets reverted. Or do you have other ideas? Lord Sesshomaru

Sure, I can handle the edits (though I sometimes get reverted too). If anyone objects, please back me up.

This matter already was under discussion at Wikipedia talk:Vandalism, so I replied with my opinion. —David Levy 16:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you found the discussion too. :-) —David Levy 16:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When a change is made by a sysop it is more likely to stay than a regular user's change. I'll back you up, sure. Lord Sesshomaru

Yeah, it's unfortunate that sysops are treated differently. This is one of the things that bothers me the most about Wikipedia and other wikis. —David Levy 16:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shinigami

In order, I don't see anything particularly wrong with the wording, and Urahara isn't a street merchant. The latter would imply his place of business is unfixed, when it's not. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 19:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shopkeeper, businessman, something like that. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 01:37, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The latter. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 02:40, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flight

Except Sasuke, none of them fly. Float maybe, but not fly. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He does it during his battle with Deidara, too. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:11, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The recent chapters. Deidara mentions it. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 04:20, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baki sensei article

Um...go ahead. I thaught it was deleted like..a year ago. Feel free.--Count Mall 04:13, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BOLD

Excuse me David, can you remove one of the least important redirects in the box at Wikipedia:Be bold? That WP:SOFIXIT seems to be the most obscure IMHO. Lord Sesshomaru

I'm not sure about this one. I agree that WP:SOFIXIT is the lest logical of the three, but it's been around for a while and is widely cited. This might be a rare instance in which it makes sense to leave three shortcuts listed. —David Levy 05:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're sure? Perhaps there should be a comment on the talk page about it? Lord Sesshomaru

No, I'm not sure. I would prefer that only WP:BB and WP:BOLD be listed, but I suspect that the removal of WP:SOFIXIT from the box would be controversial. A talk page discussion might not be a bad idea. —David Levy 06:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. Or would you prefer I bring it up there? Lord Sesshomaru

You seem to be surer than I am, so I would prefer that you do it. —David Levy 06:31, 14 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No one besides me commented at Wikipedia_talk:Be_bold#WP:SOFIXIT. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru

You might try removing the link and see if anyone objects/reverts (in which case he/she should join the discussion.) —David Levy 04:18, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TRIV

The logic behind listing WP:TRIVIA is that "trivia" is an actual English word. It was included for the benefit of individuals who have difficulty remembering arbitrary abbreviations (such as "triv"). Users without this difficulty can save an additional keystroke by typing WP:ATS. —David Levy 21:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Correct, but did I do something wrong? Lord Sesshomaru

No, I'm just explaining why I believe that it makes more sense to include WP:TRIVIA in the shortcut box than it does to include WP:TRIV (which is shorter, but also more difficult for some users to remember). —David Levy 21:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It says in the above dab, ""WP:TRIVIA" and "WP:TRIV" redirect here..." WP:TRIVIA is easier to remember, that's why I thought WP:TRIV should be placed in the box instead. Perhaps then we should have three shortcuts in all the boxes from now on? Three doesn't really bloat it IMHO. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru

I mean that there isn't much point in advertising WP:TRIV (because WP:ATS is shorter and WP:TRIVIA is easier to remember).

Including three shortcuts does cause bloating at higher resolutions. (Even two sometimes can, in fact.) —David Levy 21:42, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understandable. Lord Sesshomaru

Uh-oh, it has been placed back. Lord Sesshomaru

Yeah, I noticed. There appears to be some sort of content dispute going on, so it might be best to step aside and allow that to play out (rather than getting caught in the crossfire). —David Levy 03:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I don't want to deal with these matters anymore. Unless there is a policy / guideline that enforces a rule implying only two shortcuts allowed in a shortcut box, then we shouldn't go out of our way to endorse this ourselves. Your thoughts on a proposed Wikipedia rule? Lord Sesshomaru

I wouldn't oppose the creation of a guideline, but please keep in mind that guidelines are descriptive (not prescriptive). In other words, they document how things are done, not how they should be done (though the former often implies the latter). Consensus can exist without a guideline, but a guideline of this nature cannot exist without consensus. —David Levy 08:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, do you want to begin something regarding this or do you have another plan? Lord Sesshomaru

When I get a chance, I'll write something up at Wikipedia talk:Shortcut and leave a note at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy). —David Levy 08:17, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for not reporting me.

You left a warning on my page I know I broke the three revert rule but you said I left no explaination as to why I did so even though I did leave several reasons why I reverted them and they reverted back and I guess it got a little out of hand. thanks for not reporting me though I just wanted to point out that I did state why I reverted them. Again thanks for reporting me. And I'm not the only one who wants the article built there are serveral others.Sam ov the blue sand 15:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, just take it to that talk page I told you. Lord Sesshomaru