User talk:Weedle McHairybug

Welcome!

Hello, Weedle McHairybug, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! - Dravecky (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice job...

...on the Characters page for Beauty and the Beast! Cactusjump (talk) 23:54, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Cactusjump has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. {{subst:if||| {{{message}}} ||subst=subst:}} To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add {{subst:Cookie}} to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with {{subst:munch}}!

Thanks. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 02:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do I suspect that you're this guy? I sure do hope I'm wrong... --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

As I said when I was first accused of being him (which was the reason why I signed up on Wikipedia in the first place, as before then, I was an unofficial editor.), not only am I NOT Bambifan101, but prior to you blocking my IP address, I have never even heard of him. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 22:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No problem; I'm glad you're online and that we could settle this promptly. Welcome to the project and please accept my apologies for the error. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

It's all right, Mistakes like that happen. Heck, I learned from the mistake of relying on IP addresses as an unofficial editor of Wikipedia by signing up. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 22:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You bet. Thanks for being so nice about this. That big ol' cookie Cactusjump gave you along with the fact you've activated your e-mail should have been a tipoff. I feel terrible about this; Bambifan has a lot of us tilting at windmills. Believe me, you are most welcome here. --PMDrive1061 (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

August 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Purple, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 12:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Strange, you didn't seem to require that with Yzma's article (Which is where I found the fact that it was a symbolism for Evil and Madness, in addition to ambition/royalty.) Weedle McHairybug (talk) 13:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Other stuff exists. My recommendation would be to place a {{fact|August 2009}} tag on the place in Yzma's article. If they can support it with a citation then you might have a citation to use here depending on what the source says. For future reference though, Wikipedia can not use itself as a source. Hope that helps,
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 13:32, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

When placing that tag, you don't want the nowiki tags...those make it a comment. See the difference:

{{fact|August 2009}} becomes

Cheers,⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 14:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring

Do be careful fighting edit wars. By simply reverting 70.127.200.19's edits over and over without attempting to discuss on the talk page, you risk violating the three revert rule. Many admins will block both of you in such a scenario. I'd suggest creating a topic on the talk page and sussing it out there. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 20:29, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry about that. I'll try to do better next time. All I hope for is that we don't meet again. I also hope I can actually find a talk page to discuss the problem at. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Do you not know how to view the talk page for an article? I'm not sure if I'm misinterpreting your last statement above. I did provide a link to the talk page in my message above. Just click the linked "talk page". And to get to it for any arbitrary article, just click the tab "talk" in the far upper left corner of the article in question.

As for the specifics of your war, I suggested this to your IP "opponent", and I thought I might mention it to you as well. Would you be okay with using the IP's version of the edit, but adding "apparently" before "killed for good"? It conveys the additional information (that it appeared to be killed) while leaving open the door for another possible resurrection. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 20:59, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, that works. And I know how to use an edit page, but I'm not sure how to do so with a person who isn't registered. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 21:08, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah. That explains the confusion. In any event, this shouldn't go on the opposing editor's talk page, it should go on the article's talk page. Remember, this isn't a personal conflict (or shouldn't be), it's a debate over the article contents, so it belongs on the article's talk, where others can participate. As for reaching an unregistered user (for other reasons), the easiest way is to bring up the history of a page they edited and click the talk link next to their IP. If they don't have a talk page yet, it will be a redlink to create one. Just make sure to put a header on your correspondence, just to keep things organized. --ShadowRangerRIT (talk) 21:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Please, hold off for an hour or two on Baby Blues I'm working on it. Mlpearc MESSAGE 01:30, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

• Hey, Thanks I'm done Mlpearc MESSAGE 01:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Krusty the Clown

Hello! Your recent edit to Krusty the Clown introduced the ref name "TZWCtD" without including a source to go with it (making it appear at Category:Pages with broken reference names). Would you please revisit the article and add the source you intended? Thanks. - Salamurai (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

MGS Peace Walker

the same anon has been insisting the same in the main Metal Gear article's talk page. I've deleted it before because it's nothing but a forum article, but he has since restored it and continued his rants. perhaps you might want to put what you said in the anon's talk page in there too. I know you have a Wikia account, but even his diatribes wouldn't fit there either. I've raised this matter in WP:VG, but nobody has stepped in. --Eaglestorm (talk) 13:46, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

They would not have crumbled to dust

They were not like the FROGS. Their bodies were only burned to a crisp. They didn't turn to dust. Hell, their heads didn't even get burned to a crisp. I don't care that you believe they survived. You didn't even play the game. We've been through this before on Metal Gear Wiki. The codec conversations with Drebin make it clear that all B&B members died. Why you, Bluerock and Fantomas can't realize that baffles me. At least they aren't here to help you this time. The only thing you and I seem to agree on is that Coldman forced Volgin to launch the nuke. Why Bluerock can't realize that is still a mystery to me.--68.45.60.20 (talk) 22:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I should point out that my personal viewpoint is one of neutrality. Because of this, since there is no explicit confirmation that they died, I can't say they did. Heck, I could imagine them being killed, for one thing, but unless there is irrefutable evidence that they died (ie, when they burst into flames, they end up crumpling as well from touch a'la FROGs, since they had a similar enough flame to them when dying, or even if they are tranquilized, the exact same scene of them immolating is shown and not them simply passing out), we really can't state they are dead when it wasn't confirmed.

And no, the Codec calls don't actually confirm a thing. First off, Drebin's exact words were that it was "word on the street" which implies a rumor, and rumors aren't a verifiable or reliable source, not on Wikipedia. In fact, it's original research. Second of all, considering how in Peace Walker, Big Boss actually said "was" in reference to the radioman after he shocked him despite the fact that the game explicitly stated that the stun rod only had enough power to knock people out cold, not kill them, I really doubt that grammar should be used as proof for someone's survival.

Heck, with Laughing Octopus, as you said before, Snake checks her pulse and then subtly points his gun at her even when she was dead. Aside from the obvious part about the body disintegrating after being touched ala the FROGs, if she were dead, why would he point his gun at her as if she were only knocked out? Weedle McHairybug (talk) 23:01, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't point his gun at her. He checks her pulse. Why check someone's pulse if they were only knocked out? Also, I was refering to Snake asking Drebin how old "was" Raging Raven. Why ask someone how old a person "was" if they are dead? Anyway, you clearly are not neutral. You believe they survived. I'll finish this later. --68.45.60.20 (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Funny, I tried to edit the Laughing Octopus article on Metal Gear Wiki to make it clear that his pointing his gun at Octopus was only when she survived, but you edited it to make it seem as though the only difference was that the controller vibrates. Also, had I believed that they survived, I would have edited it in such a way that actually doesn't leave room that they were killed (IE, I would have said that he knocked them out, the absolute opposite). Saying he defeated them is neutral, as it doesn't state one way or another that they were killed or not. Also, why would someone say that the radioman "was" wearing [a film badge], and whoever he "was" talking to mentioned 'spears' if the radioman wasn't dead (and BTW, I'm referencing Peace Walker, so you are aware). Besides, the Metal Gear Solid 4 Database listed the BATB unit as being neutralized, not killed, but neutralized, which leaves an ambiguous fate. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 23:26, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You're right. I forgot about him pointing the gun at her in both cutscenes. No need to be sarcastic. To be honest, I don't even remember if the controller vibrated. What I do remember is that Octopus can be heard breathing if Snake knocks her out. There is no breathing when she is dead.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHtu0pYIKvY

Still, you neglect to ignore the fact that after the fight with Wolf, Snake tells Otacon that the wolves are now guarding the GRAVE of Wolf. Face it, all of them were killed by Snake. --68.45.60.20 (talk) 13:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Has it ever occurred to you that they may have been referring to Sniper Wolf's grave? Don't forget, Sniper Wolf died there, and she actually DOES have a grave by that point (at least in terms of her being buried under the snow overtime). One last thing, the only way to absolutely confirm that they died is if they reused the exact same death animation each time they were defeated, regardless of how they do it, similar to the Cobra Unit or Fatman from MGS2. To make it a bit more clear in case you still don't get it, if they were to be killed by the player lethally, they burst into flames and collapse. If they were not defeated within the time limit, they burst into flames and collapse. Finally, the most important part, if the player tranquilizes them, they are shown bursting into flames, onscreen, and collapsing, exactly like the previous two scenarios. I mean, they had the Cobra Unit members exploding even when tranquilized, so its not like they couldn't do the exact same scenario with the others if the BATB were tranquilized. And as I mentioned when I earlier edited it, claiming they were killed without any definite, irrefutable proof (ie, you actually see their death even when you tranquilize them) is Original Research, which isn't allowed on Wikipedia, so saying they are defeated is the only way to go in regards to this. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 14:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

He said "now that they are guarding the grave", hence it's Crying Wolf's grave. Also, Sniper Wolf's body was recovered after the Shadow Moses incident. Nastasha Romanenko's book confirmed that. Anyway, I edited both sections to be as neutral as possible. I hope this makes you happy. --68.45.60.20 (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Scar's death

Hello, I was interested to see this in your edit summary for List of The Lion King characters: Okay, first off, the Hyenas mauled him, not ate him. Especially when Simba's Pride implies that he burned to death (something about Scar's Ashes were mentioned shortly before the ambush)

I don't remember anything in Simba's Pride about Scar's ashes. Simba says "Fire is a killer", but he's using it a a metaphor. I thought it was fairly well-accepted that the hyenas ate him, since it's his fault the hyenas are starving and Ed licks his chops as the hyenas close in around Scar. But I'll see if I can find a source! ~ Kimelea (talk) 08:23, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

It was when he was telling Kovu the full story about Scar's rule and what happened at that time. I believe it was also right before Kovu apparently causes a flower to grow from under the ashes (how, I don't know). And besides, considering the fact that the flames were rising up just as they were doing so, and Nuka's mention about the Hyena's "running off" from the Elephant Graveyard when visiting it to get fire for their trojan horse plan involving Kovu by burning the Pride Lands, had the hyenas stayed to eat Scar, they'd die from the fire as well, making Nuka's statement a contradiction in terms, so its still more likely that he burned to death, and the best the hyenas did was maul him. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

Simba told Kovu the story of Scar's rule (offscreen) and we catch up with them when Simba is saying Scar's hate destroyed him. Kovu says "He really was a killer." Simba replies "Fire is a killer. Sometimes what's left behind can grow better than the generation before, if given the chance." Simba brushes a pile of ash away and there's a plant underneath, I don't think he makes it grow. :) But he's just using fire as a metaphor for Scar's destructive nature, and the flower as a metaphor for Kovu, the hope for the future. Anyway, interesting thoughts about the Pride Rock fire. I never thought that any animal died in the fire, including Scar or the hyenas. (I think Nuka's line about the hyenas running off was just a quick scriptwriting excuse for having no hyenas in the SP script - they were going to be Zira's allies but then the storyboarders remembered they killed Scar, oops. That's not WP:OR but I can't be bothered to find the source right now) ;) Going to stick with my personal belief that we are meant to understand that Scar was eaten alive, but I won't put it back in the article unless I find my old novelisation and it supports it. ~ Kimelea (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

April 2012

Your addition to NCIS (season 9) has been removed, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without permission from the copyright holder. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other websites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of article content such as sentences or images. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. AussieLegend (talk) 20:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Re:Reliable sources

Just because a facebook page covers Metal Gear, it doesn't make it reliable. The same goes for fansite. Still those teasers have little to no information and would more suitable in a promotion section from Rising Revegeance as Raiden's sections just say what he actually does in the game. Moreover, none of the citations were formatted and were just bare urls.Tintor2 (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Kurds are not Arabs

Also, Iraq is in Asia. --Niemti (talk) 20:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

RE: Portable Ops Canon

The main reason why I changed "tenth entry in the Metal Gear series" to "eighth game directed by Hideo Kojima" on the opening of Metal Gear Solid V was precisely to avoid this kind of pointless edit warring and turn this into a Snake Soup thread. The Truth timeline is not a mere marketing stunt (whatever that means), it's partial reprint of content from Hideo Kojima's 2004 book Metal Gear Solid Naked, which featured plot and game design commentary on each, along with new content covering the MGS games Kojima has directed since then. The site uses the term "『メタルギア』シリーズ正史" or "Metal Gear series canon", which only takes into account the seven games he directed (all of the content on the site were supervised). On the Peace Walker page, they say this sentence "本作は『メタルギア』サーガ（本史）初の携帯ゲーム機プレイステーション・ポータブル用ソフトである。", which means "the first PSP game in the (mainline) Metal Gear Saga"). Not only that, but Kojima Productions omit all mentions of MPO in the Metal Gear 2012 Schedule Book and in other related products. I know MPO was heavily promoted as a canonical entry during its release and even prior to PW (which borrows heavily from MPO), but it's pretty evident it's been demoted to some sort of semi-canonical status since PW (especially given its omission in the Legacy Collection, the various inconsistencies with MPOs plot in PW and the fact that PW was promoted as the legitimate sequel to MGS3 in Japan).

To be honest, I wouldn't be even bothered that much by your reversion if it weren't for the fact that you're reverting other users' contributions as well (particularly the plot summary). Jonny2x4 (talk) 03:57, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

BTW, the Metal Gear 2 plot summary mentions nothing about Big Boss dying from sulfuric acid. It just says they fought near sulfuric acid. Jonny2x4 (talk) 04:05, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Actually, going by what I've read from another user's blog, they did actually mention Big Boss dying from sulfuric acid (falling into it, specifically) (and was mentioned in the Chronical section, specifically). For a site supposedly supervised by Kojima, it was riddled with quite a few errors on its part, either containing outdated information or quite blatantly false info. Either way, there were plenty of instances where the "truth" timeline failed to do the proper research. An example would be reusing the MGSaga's timeline's entry of MGS4 despite it already having a defined date, or claiming that The Boss went to space in 1960 and 1961, despite Peace Walker establishing that they went up to space AFTER Ham (1960). Besides, why would Kojima even bother to add in that reference to San Hieronymo, or make that reference to Coldman getting Granin's blueprints from contacts at the CIA in one of the briefing files despite stating everywhere else that he was a pariah with at best minimal contact from the CIA thanks to Operation Snake Eater, or heck, even mentioning in the podcast that MPO "happened." Also, last time I checked, despite having the opportunity to remove those stills from MPO in MGS4 when they redid it to remove the Online Component for trophy compatibility, they didn't remove the references to MPO. Let me also remind you that this timeline had omitted the MSX2 games, and that was clearly made under Kojima's direct supervision (It's in Japanese anyways, so it would have had more supervision than, say, the English site). And the marketing stunt was not in reference to the truth website, I was actually referring to the Legacy Collection website timeline regarding it being a marketing stunt, which is precisely what it is. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 08:33, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Metal Gear Rising isn't in the timeline either, does that mean that game isn't canon either, Jonny2x4? Rising and Portable Ops are spinoffs. Not part of the main series but still in its universe.--68.45.180.241 (talk) 12:23, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes, and besides which, Portable Ops has already been acknowledged in two games, three counting the MGS4 Database, not to mention pretty much every other timeline, even the timeline that was formerly on the MGS official site. Heck, even the Chronical referenced Portable Ops as well. Might as well make a correction, the blog cited that the MG2 section did mention it, not the Chronicle. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 13:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Once again. The Truth site mentions nothing about Big Boss dying from sulfuric acid (the Chronicle page only mentions that the Zanzibarland incident occured in 1999). What it says about the final battle in MG2 is this:

硫酸が立ち込め、即死必至の戦場でビッグボスとスネークの一騎討ちが始まる。はたしてスネークはビッグボスの呪縛から逃れることができるのか。"父殺し"を思わせる、宿命の闘いの決着は……。

A one-on-one battle between Snake and Big Boss began in a battlefield covered with sulfuric acid, where anyone could die at any moment. Will Snake ever escape the curse of Big Boss? The destined battle ends with Snake feeling as if he had committed patricide...

I get the impression the blog post you linked to on MGS Forums merely filtered the site through Google Translate or some other translation software without actually understanding what it was actually written.

Either way, it's a minor point to nitpick just to dismiss the greater implications of Kojima's treatment of MPO after the release of MGS PW. The timeline on the Legacy Collection website is not a "marketing stunt" (whatever the heck you mean by that), is merely there to help new users familiarize themselves with the chronology of the series and it also omits any mention of MPO. I'm not arguing that MPO wasn't canonical at one point (see how it was covered in the MGS4DB), but it's obviously been demoted to a non-important entry in the series since then.

The other reason why I want to downplay the "canonical" importance of the games and focus on Kojima's involvement in MGSV is because Metal Gear Rising has completely different play mechanics from the proper MGS titles and is a bit absurd to claim that MGS V is a sequel to MGR. Jonny2x4 (talk) 16:35, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Misty's religious beliefs

I am interested in Misty's religious beliefs. What Japanese episode was it implied that she believed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.140.66.148 (talk) 07:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

It was the episode where she and Ash fought for Totodile. Right before fighting Ash, she basically made a prayer to some sort of water god for her victory. In the dub, its just a listing of accomplishments. And although this was in the dub as well, Misty also attempted to use a crucifix against Gastly (granted, it was more as a way to ward off vampires, but then again, the crucifix method would only work against actual vampires if the person using it was a full believer in God Himself.). Weedle McHairybug (talk) 12:14, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Dark Lord (fiction), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Sleeping Beauty (film). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nihilism, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Killing fields. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:44, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spectre (comics), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ragman. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Helena Douglas

If you won't make it any better and make this article better yourself, it will eventually get redirected back to the list. Many of the sources used for other DOA characters (such as gameplay guides) discuss also Helena, you can use just some it would be enough, for now. I might work on it more seriously when I get enough time for that. --302ET (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

• I know, but the problem is where I can find out anything about Helena Douglas on the web. I only knew about the IGN thing because of Dead or Alive Wiki. I don't even have anything regarding how they created her (well, okay, I saw some concept arts, but seeing how I only know Hiragana and Katakana, that's not useful for me). And I'd use gaming guides if I even had them. I'll try to look at those other sources (non-gaming guides, I mean) if possible, but if they don't have anything directly relating to her, I can't do much. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 01:53, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 6

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carmine Falcone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Black Mask. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

April 2015

Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we cannot accept original research. Original research refers to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Helpsome (talk) 20:43, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

1. I'm not a new user. 2. The stuff you reverted came directly from the games themselves, stated by the characters and story themselves. That's as reliable as one can get. That INCLUDES the nihilism bit, BTW (in case you've forgotten, nihilism means "believing that nothing matters", which is exactly what Kefka claimed in that speech I sourced. Same with Monsoon. And, heck, the description for Fighting Fate in Theatrhythm even explicitly used the term "nihilism" in reference to Barthandelus.). Weedle McHairybug (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Your personal interpretation of dialogue (a primary source) is not an acceptable source for the claim. For that you will need a reliable secondary source containing such a claim about the interpretation of the primary sources. --Saddhiyama (talk) 21:36, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Except it's NOT my "personal interpretation" at all. Heck, even Kefka Palazzo's article on this very wiki mentions he is nihilistic. And let me remind you that the Fighting Fate description for Theatrhythm Final Fantasy explicitly referred to Barthandelus's motives as being nihilistic. And saying "why do people create when it will ultimately be destroyed? Why do people cling to life knowing they must someday die? ...Knowing that none of it would have meant anything once they do?" IS nihilistic in every way, not merely from "personal interpretations," but actual fact. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 21:44, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Nope. Besides the fact that Wikipedia is not a reliable source the Kefka Palazzo article is unfortunately one of the worst examples of WP:OR in existence on Wikipedia. While he is described as nihilistic several times there, not a single one of the primary sources, that is erronously being used to cite descriptive and interprertative claims in the article, contains the term. All the citations are thus personal interpretations, not only for the nihilism description, but for everything else stated in that article.

While I can understand that the amount of policy transgressions in pop cultural articles, created by fans with little understanding of Wikipedia, must be so great that regular Wikipedians have simply given up on enforcing them in those type of articles, I am not going to let that mess spill over in the articles I watch. I have removed all the unsourced and WP:OR crud from the trivia section, leaving the Barthandelus entry for now, as the primary source does contain the word "nihilism", although it is certainly debatable whether this warrants mention at all, and started a section on the problem at the talk page of the article. If you want to contest the deletion by providing some reliable sources you are welcome to participate there. I would warn you that you are way over the WP:3RR limit and further attempts at inclusion of this segment will result in a block. Thanks. --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:25, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Maybe, but has it ever occurred to you that the definition itself matches even if the term isn't actually used? He did say that nothing really matters, certainly not life, dreams, hope, and creation, which is in fact the definition of nihilism. Just look up the term nihilism in the dictionary if you don't believe me. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 11:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at Nihilism shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you get reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Acroterion (talk) 12:09, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

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) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

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) 14:04, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

November 2016

Please do not add or change content, as you did at NCIS: New Orleans (season 3), without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. AussieLegend (✉) 03:19, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

• Please also note that trailers are not considered to be reliable sources because they are not verifiable. --AussieLegend (✉) 03:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Trailers are not verifiable? You can watch them on the CBS app or on YouTube. Last I checked, that fits the definition of "verifiable." If you can see it and find it, prove it exists, it, by definition, is verifiable. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 11:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Do you have a source? --AussieLegend (✉) 16:59, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
      • Like I said, type in "Home of the Brave" trailer, "One Good Man" trailer, or even "Bedside Manner" on YouTube. That's your source. And for the record, make sure to click on one that has an airdate nearing October 25. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 17:15, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
        • "Look on YouTube" is not a source. Please refer to WP:V and WP:CITE for how to cite sources. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
          • I can also tell you to look on the CBS website, the trailers are on there as well. And if something can be found, it's verifiable. That's THE definition, period. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 17:45, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
            • Again, please read WP:V - "verifiability means that anyone using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source." ... "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed." An inline citation is required. If you don't provide one, it's not verifiable. --AussieLegend (✉) 18:26, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
              • I've also got a schedule for airing shows from the AJC, if that's enough for you. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Weedle McHairybug. 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)

Wesker / Resident Evil 7

Hello - Please take a look at the discussions I left on Talk:Resident Evil 7: Biohazard and Talk:Albert Wesker regarding Albert Wesker. I undid your edits and left a rationale explaining why the information form your provided sources cannot be used on Wikipedia. While I am okay with using the given sources to prove someone datamined the game before it's release, I do not think we can state Albert Wesker is the game given the limited and inconclusive evidence. Thanks. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  06:30, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Gaston

Hey there, I understand you're very passionate about transforming the Gaston (Disney) article and would very much like my assistance in doing so. Clearly the character is someone you feel or care very deeply about. The thing is, you see, I usually tend to prefer editing character articles about fictional people whom I feel deeply about myself which drives me to complete them as soon as possible, which is why I have since turned most my attention to the Clair Huxtable article which, within about four days, I have managed to transform dramatically and is currently nominated for GA awaiting review.

The ongoing issue with the Gaston article is simply that not much has been written/made available about him in terms of development and creation, especially in comparison to Belle (Disney) or Ursula (Disney character). Sure, lots of critics have reviewed and analyzed the character's personality and role within the film itself (most of which I found from doing a quick Google Books search), which is why "Characterization and themes" is pretty much complete, and he is included on countless Disney villain rankings by several publications – which will be great to eventually include in the "Reception" section. But pieces about how one of Disney's famous villains went from inception to the character we know him to be today are ... remarkably scarce. I'm not saying they aren't there, I'm just saying I haven't found them yet, but I'm still looking. I just have to keep working on other projects in the meantime (I also exist in real life; Wikipedia isn't my full-time job lol).

Now, it's since been brought to my attention that certain Wikipedians are threatening to delete the Gaston article/merge it back into the unappealing Beauty and the Beast character list. If this is so, I will gladly fight for the article to be saved and try to give them reason to leave it be. Keep in mind, however, that if the article does in fact get deleted, it can always be resurrected and continued from where we left off once I've found some more sources about his development (which can also feel free to help me with, I might add). As for now, I'll see what I can do about saving it.--Changedforbetter (talk) 18:22, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Well, I don't know about caring for the guy, but it just doesn't seem right for him to be relegated to a list character when he's the main villain and thus an important character. I could see why the triplets would be relegated to a list character even though I care about them a bit more than Gaston, but not Gaston himself (which reminds me, not that it really matters, but think the triplets are able to actually get their own article?). Anyways, I did add in some details of his development before the rewrite, but not much else. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 18:36, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• If by "triplets" you're referring to the three blonde girls in B&B? Highly unlikely. But yes I've noticed your recent contributions and very much appreciate. The article isn't going anywhere, don't worry; the overwhelming response on the deletion discussion page seems to be keep.--Changedforbetter (talk) 19:15, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Yeah, I was referring to them. I figured they probably won't get an article, as they're too minor, and have no real notability anyways, even if they are ensemble darkhorses for the film (I know a friend who definitely is a huge fan of them), and besides, due to something Glen Keane said and my own study of that period of time (that, and some pretty bad experiences with professors in college), I currently have more trust toward them than I do Belle. Just thought I'd ask just in case they are applicable. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 16:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

• We seem to have gotten ourselves into a bit of a minor dispute regarding my reversion of yours edits on Gaston. Now, I've always been fully aware that Beauty and the Beast was rewritten into a feminist story tale (I in fact used the same Daily Beast article when I was writing the Belle article). Now the in depth reason I reverted don't see the point of mentioning the film's transformation into a feminist story is necessary in the Gaston article is because I'm not quite sure how this specifically applies to Gaston, nor does the article mention Gaston's specific role in the feminizing of the film beyond the fact that Belle is considered to be a feminist character, while Gaston clearly is not. Until you find a source that specifically states something along the lines of "Gaston's character evolved in order to make the film a more feminist fairy tale"....the statement you're making is unfortunately just an insinuation/assumption. I hope this helps justify my actions a little bit more.--Changedforbetter (talk) 16:33, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Okay, fair enough, though I do know that his character as written by Linda Woolverton was pretty obviously meant to invoke feminist views of the patriarchy since she specifically stated she based his character on previous boyfriends, not to mention her overall comments about the film. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 16:38, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
    • I plan on making future edits to Gaston, I'm just taking a break because quite frankly that article is one of the most difficult and lengthy articles I've ever worked on (you're welcome, by the way lol). If you'd like to go ahead and make edits to the Appearances section in regards to the Marvel Comics, for example, this link should help you out when it comes to citing specific issues since they go into detail about his role in the comics. Simply cite them as you would a book.--Changedforbetter (talk) 22:56, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

The Simpsons (season 29)

Hi. While I do appreciate the fact that you took the time to make a Season 29 article, I've reverted it back to a redirect for now. The reason I did so is because there is barely any info available about the season yet, and the sources you do include don't always back up the information it is citing. For example, this source, which you cited for the airdate of the season premiere, says nothing about it airing on October 1, and this source appears to be just a guess rather than something definitive. Thank you and I'm happy to discuss further if you'd like. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 15:21, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm capable of giving another source, specifically stating when the airdate for Springfield Splendor is. It's this one: [1] Don't know if that's enough for you. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 16:30, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Stuff from another Wiki always tends to be iffy (I personally don't mind Wikia, but if you were to post that as a source it would likely be removed by another user). Personally, I don't think it's enough content to justify creating an entire article yet (essentially that leaves two episodes we know something about, Springfield Splendor and Frink Gets Testy). I'd recommend waiting before creating another article, but in the end, it's up to you whether you want to pursue the matter. If you do feel strongly about the article being created right away, I'd suggest taking it to the talk page. If you're asking for my personal opinion on the matter, I'd say there's no harm in waiting. Cheers Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 19:26, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

Three episodes, actually. There's Springfield Splendor, Whistler's Father, and Frink Gets Testy. And that's just those with confirmed episode numbers. We've got at least 11 episode titles. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 19:35, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

"Probably 10/8" doesn't give us anything definitive for "Whistler's Father." Basically it's just him making a guess, and he's not confirming anything for sure. I made a post on the talk page under your thread, so I suppose we'll just have to wait and see what others think. Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 19:58, 26 May 2017 (UTC)

August 2017

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Cambodian genocide. I don't give a shite that you've been here since 09 stop being a twat Darkness Shines (talk) 18:06, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

That's not vandalism. It said literary and fictional references in that section, and last I checked, Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance is A. fictional, and B., made references to the Cambodian Genocide. If anything, my edit was well within the boundaries. Vandalism is more like altering the text to mention someone's privates in a crude manner, or posting a link that literally has no basis whatsoever in the article, like a puppy video. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 18:42, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

EDIT: But fine, you want me to give you a video source? I'll tell you: Go to YouTube, Search "Metal Gear Rising Monsoon Cutscene," go to the first one you see, go 81 seconds in. Then, type in "Metal Gear Rising Khmer Rouge," go to the video that says "Let's Play Metal Gear Rising Revengeance Part 14: File R-04 Codecs," go 275 seconds in, that's where the call should be. I'd give you the links directly, but YouTube's a blacklisted site. Now can you stop acting like I vandalized the page? Weedle McHairybug (talk) 18:48, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Your recent edits to The Simpsons (season 29)

Hi, while I really appreciate you adding these sources , it doesn't appear to be definite confirmation to me. Per WP:NODEADLINE, it is usually best to wait for sources which officially confirm an event (in this case, the air date). In both of those tweets, he is simply saying that he *thinks* it will air rather than undeniably confirming it will air or giving a definite confirmation that it will air that date. One of the tweets linked even lists an incorrect date 8/15 (presumably a typo on his part), so to guess at what month he actually meant is simply presumptuous. In the likelihood that the info would change, there's no really reason to add the information at this point when Al Jean hasn't technically given a definite confirmation of anything. Thanks, Katniss May the odds be ever in your favor ♥ 21:16, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Weedle McHairybug. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Weedle McHairybug. 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)

Thanks for updating Ayane storyline

Consider also the other character articles and/or the DOA6 article itself. SNAAAAKE!! (talk) 21:04, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:25, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed 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 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:30, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Content dispute at Tifa Lockhart

Please don't re-add material disputed material to the Tifa Lockhart page. As you can see by the edit history, you're the fifth account to add this information (most of these have been IPs or vandalism-only accounts), and at least three editors have removed it. It is currently under discussion. I ask that you please consider undoing your own edit as it is unproductive for this material to be re-added repeatedly without a consensus. Thank you.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:44, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed 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 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:40, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Bloom Into You, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Promise ring. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:03, 13 March 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed 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 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:32, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Dead or Alive Xtreme Venus Vacation for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Dead or Alive Xtreme Venus Vacation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dead or Alive Xtreme Venus Vacation until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Jotamide (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed 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 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 19 November 2024 (UTC)