User talk:Zappernapper

I'm lazy..... what can i say, you know what to do

User talk:Zappernapper/Image archive - an archive of image warnings from bots.

Quilava

What I reverted wsa nonsense, you called Typhlosion a Stage-3 and started going on about water and dirt. Highway ^{Return to Oz...} 08:48, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But HighwayCello, total page reverts are not the way to handle a few mistakes or formatting concerns. --Brandon Dilbeck 20:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oz, Liir, etc.

Hey, Zappernapper. Thanks for the invite, but I'm pretty busy at the Doctor Who WikiProject and I'd rather not divide my energies further. Feel free to improve the Liir and Wicked (novel) entries — I don't own them! I may drop in from time to time to see how things are progressing, but I trust my fellow editors. I'm not really an expert on Baum's Oz either — I just read the books a lot when I was a kid, and enjoyed Maguire's novels as an adult.

I agree that the character profile should have more than just a summary of his actions in the two books. It sounds like you've already got some good ideas for expanding and revising the articles. If you are going to work on them, you might be interested in this guideline that I recently learned about. In any case, I wish you luck and good editing! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 02:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PAC/S

Looking great! :). —Celestianpower ^háblame 18:01, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge tag you put on power points

i dont konw where you wanted this comment so i thought i would leave it here.

I am not a pokemon person, and i did a simple google search on this site for weasel words listed on the weasel word page, and added a tag for it.

so long as the weasel word is corrected, I dont care what you do to the page.

good luck

Stwalkerster 13:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

erection index page deletion

Hello, there. Thanks for defending the Erection index page I made, though it was deleted. As per dispute resolution I have sent the delete voters messages asking for clarifications and have begun working on a replacement page with some additional explanation and references. I'm thinking since this has a popularity contest element to it I should keep your handle and let you know when the Erection index page is under threat again. The deletion process has my respect, to a qualified degree, but in my opinion--as you pointed out--there were some pretty unqualified and arguably contradictory complaints against the erection index page. Anyway, thanks and maybe more later (and any advice gladly accepted). Cheers! -- M0llusk 05:33, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vote solicitation

Hi. I agree with your comments about vote solicitation, which is why I only messaged people who had already voted. Cheers. Remy B 09:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Pokefair template

You forgot to subst it. Anyway, I've fixed it for both the images. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 08:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:LureBall.jpg)

Thanks for uploading Image:LureBall.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently specifies that the image is unlicensed for use on Wikipedia 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. Nilfanion (talk) 00:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PokeVideogamesIntro

Are you absolutely positive that this is the best way to introduce the Video Games section of each pokemon? See my comment there for more details.

Re:hi raven

Apparently, that conversation got archived. :o Anyways, thanks for reminding me, I'd totally forgotten about it. However, I'd rather wait and hear what AMIB says before commenting. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 14:21, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Bisexuality

Thanks for letting me know. I left a note on Angr's talk page, and hopefully we can resolve the issue. I wasn't really protecting the page out of the number of vandalism edits, but out of the type of vandalism (libel, slander, etc.) Nishkid 64 20:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geisha

Thanks for supporting my Geisha nomination; hopefully having it as a featured picture will inspire people to work on the shoddy article itself. --Iriseyes 15:02, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: BiCon (UK)

Yes, a direction to human sexuality was my intention, I just forgot the split between that and the sexuality page. Simply put the field of discussion and experience at BiCon encompasses many other areas not directly linked to bisexuality (or other sexual orientations), such as alternative relationship styles and BDSM. I had used the term sexuality in the article in it's true broad sense, instead of the unfortunately common misuse of it as a euphamism for sexual orientation. --Myfanwy 19:37, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gloves

Actually, although I've had rats in the past, I don't have a strong interest in them; I created the article on degloving because... well, I don't remember what specifically made me look up degloving, but after I created the article, I linked all the mentions of it to the article. Plus I just did touchups for the article while I was there.

I'll have a look at the How-To section later on. DS 18:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah!

Figured it out.

You should go to Wikibooks. If there isn't already material on How To Keep Pet Rats for you to add to, you can start it. DS 23:54, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

bulba change....

i love your proposed bulbasaur change, it cuts out so much redundant information that can be found elsewhere in WP. And of course, WP should not be a guide, and so cutting gaming strategies was good... although i kinda only skimmed your thing, and noticed a few things that i'm not 100% for, your proposed change is 100% in the right direction. I don't know how the hell it got featured while being so bloated. Blueaster 00:30, 30 November 2006 (UTC) i didn't fully understand what u said... and could u tell me exactly what happened to u when u got "wikibonked"? Blueaster 00:37, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: a request for futher input

You asked for my input regarding standardized section headings, so here it is. I haven't seen much success with this sort of thing in the past. I think the best way to handle it is through the WikiProjects, as you've attempted in the Pokémon case. In general, attempts at standardization tend to be seen as bureaucratic, for better or worse. In the case of Cat and Dog, the relevant WikiProjects are Wikipedia:WikiProject Cats and Wikipedia:WikiProject Dogs. It might make sense to have a Wikipedia:WikiProject Pets or Wikipedia:WikiProject Domesticated animals, but this should probably be dicussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Council to gauge the level of interest. Mike Dillon 05:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poke Ball

I don't think you can really use a page entitled 'Satanism in Pokemon' as a reliable reference. Veinor (ヴエノル^(talk)) 19:07, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

 Mr.Veinor should listen to your athouratay, or you should just not call it statanism, but something less harsh

Note: I'm not insulting anyone, I'm just giving adv-icePikazilla 19:53, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Rat breeds

Are you moving all the articles out to Category:Rat species ?? Headphonos 20:26, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yes. these are not breeds, but species, and therefore inaccurate. The categorey should only contain links like Dumbo rat or Hairless rat if they ever exist.

The best thing to do is put them back in the Category:Rat breeds and then ask for a WP:CFD rename vote to Category:Rat species. If the vote is successfull the wiki "bot" will move the articles over automatically. 20:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi, We better wait for this vote to finish first. Vote Once this vote is done, we can have a send vote to fine tune the Category. Species might be the way to go. We want to make sure that all rat "Breeds" or "Species" articles are under one category so people can find them easily under one roof. Whatever, the final category name voted on is fine with me, once we get input from others and agreement. Thank you. Headphonos 20:50, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No #redirects wait for the current vote to finish, then we will have another vote to fine tune everything. Please put everything back to rat breeds +cat for now and we will have a vote soon. Currently, you have split it in half making the situation confusing. Thanks Headphonos 22:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't put humans into the Category:Pet rats this is for rats not humans. Headphonos 00:14, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This +cat is already being used for fictional rodents Category:Fictional mice and rats Headphonos 11:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you put the categories up for vote before the first vote is completed ? Headphonos 11:09, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

There are moves by some of the more biologically oriented editors to boot the 'in popular culture and trivia sections out of what are predominantly biological artilces' and I consider I have a half way attitude - I really think they should have see also's in the species articles - perhaps a smaller section than the one in rat - but some of the orang utan edit war was over total removal. The big problem with the in popular culture articles - is that they are anecdtoal ad hoc collections of items from us-based tv and film watchers who dont even know what a ref or citation is - they are not in a stricter term encyclopedia articles but badly unalphabetical created lists. Oh well - there is a whole academic literature on the issues that hardly one of the arts in the range of category animals in popular culture even acknowledges as well. sad. SatuSuro 03:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh well we are at least honest and direct on our preferences as to the issues - I appreciate that - maybe there might be some compromise somehwere rather than drawing lines in the sand - if you think rats ok - but point out an issue with dog - well there's something gained. I appreciate you going to the trouble to answer - all the best! SatuSuro 23:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And the issue of size is a point well made. I suppose if you detest sub pages - you can tell my problem - anecdotal ad hoc unalpha order lists with mainly tv and film info with no refs! Hey - as I said - thanks for responding SatuSuro 23:37, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok looks like we agree in the end! cheers! SatuSuro 02:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

new world rats and mice and OWRAM

i have left a solution at the discussion page but no one has provided any feedback and i fear that is why the discussion was not closed today, could you please respond so that it could be closed? I will also be contacting visvia and headphonos, thanx! -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 02:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. - jc37 04:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting of animal phyla

The spaces in the sort keys of the animal phyla was deliberate, and prevents the phyla from being mixed in with the other categories. The only alternative would be to separate the phyla out into a Category:Animal phyla or Category:Animals by phylum, but I think that would overcomplicate things. --Stemonitis 16:34, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for any inconvenience i may have caused. I was under the impression that it was common for the next level of taxonomy to just be included, rather than separated. In truth, it is acually more confusing to have them seperated without a clear reason why to the common layperson. I recognized Chordata along with some others but a few were unknown to me and i thought that they were all just mistakenly put there, the spaces being accidental. I've seen the convention to use an asterisk before to denote a special group, but never just a space. Is this a convention that the relevant wikiproject proposed or one that i missed when reveiwing the category conventions? Pls respond on my talk page. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 00:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC) copied from User talk:Stemonitis[reply]

There's no need to apologise. I don't believe that there is a standard for such things; it was my personal preference. I had previously found it confusing and time-consuming to have to search through a list of "exploding animals", "animals in politics" and so on to find articles about taxonomic groups, and thought it would be easier to keep the phylar categories separate. As regards the use of the space, that's another thing that has been widely adopted without being specifically agreed upon anywhere (to my knowledge). It achieves the same thing as an asterisk, but looks a bit neater. I have used both in some categories, in order to create two independent sections. --Stemonitis 11:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Approved for AWB!

Thank you for your recent application to use AutoWikiBrowser. I have approved your request and you should now be able to use the AWB application. Be sure to check every edit before you save it, and don't forget to check out the AWB Guide. You can get any help you need over on the AWB talk page. Feel free to contact me with any questions, alphachimp 00:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon game mechanics

I've removed the {{inuse}} and {{underconstruction}} tags because they were up for over a week. I do like the reorganization you've done and am looking forward to your improvements on the article. Feel free to msg me or start a discussion on the talk page if you'd like any help in developing your ideas! -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 22:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That’s fine, as I said in my last edit summary, other users should feel free to edit. Just be aware that I am still working on it on my computer every day, though, and hope to unveil some major rewrites and additions within a week.( Though Saturday obviously is Egg-retrieving day.) --WikidSmaht (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vaporeon

The article was assessed with the Cryptozoology template because it is contained in the Category:Fictional mermen and mermaids. All the articles in that category were given the banner, because, if you look at the banner, mermen and mermaids are kind of one of the primary focuses of the project. Also, the majority of the articles in those categories, even Aquaman and Namor the Sub-Mariner, are ones which contain content the new project would probably be best aware of. Personally, I have no objection to seeing the banner removed. However, if you do not want the article to be considered to be one about mermen and mermaids, I suggest you remove the misleading category. It is of course entirely your decision what you will do. However, if the banner is not replaced within 24 hours, I will remove the article from the misleading category myself. Badbilltucker 19:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Please attend to your bot

Sorry I was sound asleep when I got the message and forgot to check my watchlist when I woke up, delaying the fix even more. It has been fixed now, thanks for the reminder. BJ^Talk 23:18, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pokeball

Singular their

Thanks for the comments. You're right, I'm a bit of a grammar Nazi, I'll stop. You might not have noticed, but I try to eliminate the annoying pronoun whenever possible, i.e. "The player can use their Pokedex to..." becomes "Players can use the Pokedex to..." or something like that. SubStandardDeviation 07:13, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How Thrifty :P

Nice job being thrifty at the new page bazaar. That certainly gave me a chuckle...¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 20:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Species of rats and Category:Species of mice

Where did these categories go to ? Were they voted on ? Headphonos 13:02, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No I was not accusing you of deleting them, but I do believe you add very little to wikipedia. bye Headphonos 22:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

hey

i'm back on WP from my absense from WP.... :P

Anyways, I think I've finally been able to come up with a suitable change to all the Pokemon articles' intros. I've tried it out on the Pikachu and Torchic articles... Would you mind checking my edits and telling me what you think? Including the adding of singluar case and in/definate articles... Which is sure to provoke an uproar among the more unthinking, dogmatic editors who are so resistant to change... Blueaster 21:20, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

category proposed for deletion _again_

Category:Ailurophiles, which survived an Afd in October, has been put back up for deletion by a user with no new fresh reason why. Please go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_4#Category:Ailurophiles and vote accordingly. Chris 05:56, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

Hello! Sorry about the pic of Gardevoir; I wasn't aware of the fair-use rule thing. I hope it didn't cause problems for you... Anyways, would it be possible to upload something like my own artwork or something? If so, how would I go about doing that? Hope to hear from you soon!-Floramage! 17:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re.: Image:01 map02.jpg

Nope, no idea, try asking the uploader, who seems to have a reputation for uploading unsourced images. I just came across it while tagging all images in Pokémon Regions and assumed it to be a screenshot from the games. (And I know this reply's late, but I couldn't help it, I have exams on right now.) Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice^{(Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 07:25, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, thanks. I'll check out WP:ATT. As for the image, just tag it as unsourced, someone or the other is bound to upload an official image after OrphanBot's finished with it. Cheers, The Raven's Apprentice^{(Profile|PokéNav|Trainer Card)} 07:12, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chess openings

Hi, I noticed you commented on this category. I noticed a similiar problem back in November, and so far as I can tell, the pages simply have not been improved. I'm not sure whether they can, or can't be, but I'm wondering if you still feel something should be done. Mister.Manticore 17:18, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, assuming I understand your concern correctly, that your problem is with the lack of sources, then I don't disagree with you, but my first priority is establishing whether they belong on Wikipedia at all. The subject of openings in chess, I can concur with suitable for a general purpose encyclopedia. Some of the openings themselves might well qualify, but if the only content is a listing of the moves and strategic information? Not what I'd consider appropriate.

I do think we agree, though, there is work to be done. Mister.Manticore 17:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feebas

I think you need at least one more citation to call it "the most annoying Pokemon" to catch (WP:WEIGHT). I also think it's a tad bit too detailed, especially regarding the comparsion between Magikarp and Feebas, but whatever. Hbdragon88 08:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for your help

Thank you for helping better understand what everyone meant by what everyone meant by indiscriminate. I'm rather new to this whole jig. mroberholt 10:57, March 11, 2007 (UTC)

Re AWB Feature Request "Open text selection in browser"

Hi, I've added it for the next release

=)

Reedy Boy 21:22, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What discussion?

I did not see any discussion relating to not having Pokérus in the game mechanics page. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Okay. - A Link to the Past (talk) 19:00, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Frontier

I've userfied the old contents of that page to User:Zappernapper/Battle Frontier per your request here. I've commented out the unfree images used in the article so that they don't display, since unfree images aren't allowed in userspace. You can continue to work on the article now, though you should contact me if you decide against working on it anymore, and I can put the history back in the old place. --bainer (talk) 04:54, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Hi Zappernapper, thanks for the welcome on my talk page. I like the fancy rat page here on wikipedia but I find that I have to be very careful to remain objective when editing it: I have seven rats of my own so there is always a danger of losing neutrality! I'm looking forward to help make the page even better.Mumby 10:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pokémon by Evolutionary Line

Hi Zappernapper. It seems as though you and I had the same idea on what to do with the List of Pokemon articles at some point: grouping by evolutionary lines. As you pointed out, there are flaws in the system, but I think I can work around them. I'll tweak my original proposition just a bit...

At present count, there are 33 legendaries and 32 otherwise solitary pokemon (including Tauros and Miltank, since they're not quite a pair, as you pointed out). So, here's an idea on what we can do:

Add a section in Legendary Pokémon to serve as an index.
We can list out all of the applicable monsters alphabetically, spanning several articles, naming the articles appropriately (List of Pokémon without evolutions (A-G), or wherever the divide might fall)
Then, we can join them all together with a template at the top of the page, such as the one found on the List of ninjutsu in Naruto articles.
Last but not least, we can create an index page for List of Pokémon without evolutions and repeat the process. Make sure to have a link on that index page to Legendary Pokémon, since they don't evolve, as well as main article: links instead of content under the headers of the eight pokemon in pairs.

As for naming conventions on the articles of evolving pokemon, I'd suggest going by "(First monster) evolution line," where the first monster is the first to appear in the National Dex, not necessarily the first evolutionary stage. For instance: Caterpie would head Caterpie evolution line since it comes before Metapod and Butterfree in the dex; Pikachu would head Pikachu evolution line because it comes before Raichu and Pichu in the national dex. The only line I think would be more convenient with a different naming scheme would be Tyrogue evolution line, since Tyrogue is in the center of it all. For the monsters in pairs by similarity, both names can go in the title in Pokedex order (Plusle and Minun, Volbeat and Illumise, Zangoose and Seviper, Lunatone and Solrock).

Do you think that could work? You Can't See Me! 06:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

I left a reply on my talk page for you. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 18:03, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Chess again

Hey, I was just wondering if you had any houghts to add about the problems with the various chess articles to the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Chess. Sadly, things remain in the same state as they were a couple of months ago, so if you don't want to get into this can of worms again, I can understand. Mister.Manticore 22:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AWB bug

Hi - I've replied on my talk page for threading purposes (I want to point one or two others at the thread). Wikibreak - no chance! Martinp23 19:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon images cat

Reinstated per your request. NawlinWiki 00:45, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pokemon image templates

Honestly, that's what deletion review is for. I'd recommend going there. The consensus was pretty strong for deletion. Reinstating the deletion debate is ok in alot of circumstances, but I don't think it applies here. It's not as if the debate just lasted a day or two. TfD debates last a week. To me, that's more than enough time to catch things such as that. Usually, we only relist for consensus. Well. This had consensus...so...I'd suggest going to deletion review, where I might very well be overturned. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 08:26, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feebas and Milotic will never become GAs if they're separate?

Challenge? I'll make Feebas and Milotic GAs by May 15 2007 and they should not be merged if I win. Do reply on my talk page before May 2. Vikrant Phadkay 15:11, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Layout

Zapper, you may want to have a look at this. I had a brief chat with the person in charge, and recieved this response. You Can't See Me! 05:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stop merging Pokemon articles

You are not doing any merger legally. So stop it. Do you understand? Stop It! Vikrant Phadkay 16:05, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

I would suggest that you advertise your Pokemon layout proposal, e.g. at the village pump or WP:RFC, to get more feedback from the community. >Radiant< 09:07, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In part because it's under attack, as is the other one. -Jeske ^{(v^_^v)} 16:19, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removing todo from Template:PCP

do you have a reason for this? i wasn't aware of a consensus that todo shouldn't be transcluded into other templates, and as the project has over 500 articles, it seemed like a simplistic way of incorporating todo lists unilaterally. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, actually. When you try to make the template "small", the todo box shows up and is impossible to remove. So I just removed the todo box from the actual template, and problem solved! "Unilaterally" I don't think is the word you're looking for, unless you have a very different idea of Wikipedia's basic policies than I do. ;) Anyway, I don't think most pages need a "todo" added on automatically. If a certain poke actually does need it, it can be added on easily enough, right? Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:15, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well rather than rming the template it may have been better to try and find a coded workaround (like just making todo not be transcluded if the small paramter is set). those boxes helped facilitate the project's focuses and now there are invisible pages (to do pages with no link to them) on whtever articles used todo. i'll put the above code i mentioned in, to prevent any problems, but in the meantime, could you also give me a page that uses the small parameter so i can see what the problem is? i may be able to fix it. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 12:27, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good point, I hadn't thought of that--of course pages that had already had a todo would no longer have the todo showing. Snap. Anyway, the page was Talk:Bulbasaur that I noticed the problem on. If you can do something to fix up the template like you said, that would probably be the best possible solution (or just include an option for the template not to be transcluded--say, notodo=yes). Actually, I see you've already done something to fix it, and I think that what the template is now will work just fine. Thanks and congratulations. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 21:47, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Battle Frontier

I wrote an artcle on the Frontier 3 weeks ago and it got deleted because your article on it already existed. It's time you put a direct link to your article on the disambiguation page for the Battle Frontier so no-one else does this. I copied the article and relocated it here. If you want it removed then just delete it.(Eternal dragon 08:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Template talk:PokeAnimeIntro

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Template talk:PokeAnimeIntro, by Danielfolsom, another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Template talk:PokeAnimeIntro fits the criteria for speedy deletion for the following reason:

Do we need a talk page for a deleted page?

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Template talk:PokeAnimeIntro, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Template talk:PokeAnimeIntro itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 03:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: removing to-do from Template:PCP

Sorry for my late reply; you'll find it on Template talk:Pokeproject.

Thanks! — Madman bum and angel (talk – desk) 23:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Editings on BOTS

My mistake, I'm sorry, but I saw a massive removal of content from an anon with only one change in history... Cheers. Pac72 15:12, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As you can see I'm a newbie :-) I'm patrolling recent changes from anons and, as a newbie, I'm trying to be cautious: I follow the assume good faith principle (that's why I reverted without mentioning vandalism) and, when in doubt, I leave the task of reverting to more experienced editors. Thanks for the hints! Pac72 15:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quixtar

I had removed it because of redundancy. There is an entire subsection on this issue. I am not questioning the controversial nature of this topic.

75.73.188.53 03:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request you to please correct it and help us in cleaning up the article, if you are intrested

75.73.188.53 04:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No doubt . . .

. . . it's a small world. Heh. How about those Jesse White Tumblers ;) IvoShandor 07:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A comment on your comments

You always seem to make really good points on talk pages, but... how do I put this... you're very... "blah blah blah"... Your paragraphs are always so large! I suppose that what I'm trying to say here is that your contributions to talk pages sometimes get a bit big, and perhaps a little intimidating. When I read through them, I lose concentration halfway through and get to the point where I'm just scanning the text. I just thought I'd let you know that. --Brandon Dilbeck 07:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i know :D that's why i try to summarize at the end. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 07:56, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's my short attention span. I'm sorry to be so blunt. --Brandon Dilbeck 07:59, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Username

I'm confused. Are you going by a new user name now? But I liked your old one! Did you go through Wikipedia:Changing username? I think that by doing it that way, you can keep your history of contributions. --Brandon Dilbeck 07:18, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i created a second user name, thereby gaining a second watchlist which i can use just for pokemon stuff. however, i'm tempted to still use this one for XFD discussions and reviews because having Poke in my name might undermine my credibility... -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding pokemon merges

Well, the current format of Eevee evolutionary line violates GFDL. A note should be left in the page history indicating that the page was a merger of several other pages. --ɐuɐʞsəp (ʞɿɐʇ) 22:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the merge

I left my comments here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pokémon. I was actually very surprised when I saw you reverting the merges. It's quite disappointing that you want the project to remain in such a horrible condition, but I guess you believe it's in good condition. --Teggles 23:59, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's not enough real-world context. Where's the information on creature design? Where's the information on reception? What about cultural impact; cosplay, fan coverage? Because that information is not available for every creature, instead the articles are filled with two paragraphs of "gains Flamethrower at level 28, gains Tackle at level 5 etc." and an in-depth coverage of every single minor appearance in the anime. What you're doing is simply copying the content of the game and anime. The "first appearance" dates are a good start, I commend that. But if there is no possibility for real-world information to overweigh fictional information, then the articles should be merged. Every single creature article has fictional information overweighting real-world information. --Teggles 01:00, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't reinstate any more Pokemon articles. A majority consensus has been arrived at that there's not enough information to give each Pokemon their own article and that they're easier to navigate in list format. Trying to get all Pokemon articles up to snuff by themselves would be a massive job that would take forever, while lists are more manageable. Heck, if even the Pokedex has a one-sentence description, how would we fill up an article? (If you're thinking of an anime synopsis, moveset listing, or other such cruft, it wouldn't work...because it's a plot summary, not an article.) And as the above post states, you wouldn't be able to drum up real-world info for every single Pokemon, only the major ones (starters and Pikachu, mostly).--Zxcvbnm 00:24, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting the evolutionary line articles

In order to list-ify the Pokemon articles, we are going to have to delete all the "evolutionary line" articles and redirect the Pokemon names to the lists instead. It'll provide an easier and less confusing way to organize the Pokemon, as well as avoiding any anime summaries/fan speculation, etc. If you have some good reason to oppose this, feel free to try and convince everyone.--Zxcvbnm 14:30, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of Battle Frontier

User:A Link to the Past has reverted the Battle Frontier page, the one containing your original page with my merger into a disambig several times, and this has sparked some debate as to whether this article should be kept.

This user claims, as stated on my talk page, that "recreation of deleted material is very strong criteria that cannot be countered by anything whatsoever." He states that a previous article on the BF was deleted, however this was on February 2007, at least five months before I merged your article.

I understand, as stated in WP:CSD that recreation of deleted material is also criteria for sppedy deletion, however the new article adresses the issue as stated below. As stated in WP:CSD, the article is not an exact copy of the exact article and does not match the criteria. Recreation of deleted material is only a valid CSD if it is an exact copy of the previously deleted article.

(The paragraph below was the argument I wrote on his talk page.)

The reasons for the previous Battle Frontier article being deleted, as stated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle Frontier states the reason for the previous articles deletion was due to the fact that it failed to meet the criteria of verifiability and no original research, and contained no reliable sources. However, overall, while the article was deleted, many people agree that a BF aricle is still necessary due to the fact that it is actually a region on its own and is highly relevant to the Emerald video game (however there is so much information about it that it may not be able to be merged into the article on Emerald).

Thus, as the BF article is still relevant to the topic on Emerald discussed, however requires too long an explanation to be merged into the Emerald article, it is necessary to have a BF article on Wikipedia. The situation is starting to turn into an edit war, and the last time he reverted the article, he claimed that it needs a deletion review before it can be recreated. The thing is, he failed to seek a deletion review himself before deleting the article in the first place.

I am still discussing with this guy as to keeping the article but this may have to go into admin hands sometime. Eternal dragon 11:34, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks For The Notice

Even though I've added myself. We've had little interaction but I have to say I'm sorry to see you leave the project. :( Oh well, happy editing! -WarthogDemon 17:50, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well thanks for your Notice I'm gonna have to leave the project. I've been innactive. Uch iha 23 05:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I meant to say that i've been innactive for a while. Uch iha 23 05:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Portal

Hey, sorry about the confusion, but I thought that the naming conventions for cities were to have the city followed by the state, as in Baton Rouge, Louisiana? I forgot about that when I was making the portal for the template. I am not sure which is correct so I leave it to you to decide. Thanks for your attention. Arundhati lejeune 00:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks for the heads up, I will try to get an admin to help out. Cheers. Arundhati lejeune 09:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The note

Um, hi, you probably don't know me, but, yeah, I added my name to the Poke-project without thinking of doing the work, and I haven't been editing lately, so I'm resigning. Thanks a lot for contacting me and not just taking my name off w/o a notice. Hopefully I'll see you in future edits. Yours sincerly, Spotted stripe_(Talk2Me) 23:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Check

Should the message under the images be the same? (Pokemon, by Ken Sugimori) ? -WarthogDemon 16:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oopsie. Well I can fix all of that pretty fast actually. Do you still want the pokemon's name under the image, or no text at all? -WarthogDemon 18:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

odd request for your bot

hi! not sure if you would have rather had this request on your bot's talk page or not, but i wanted to be sure you saw it quickly. the pokemon porject is currently trying to downsize all the lead images and upload them with consistent, descriptive names. As there are about 496 such images, doing it by hand is rather tedious. If i supplied you with a .zip of the images and a general write-up, could you have PNGcrusader upload them for me? it would save a lot of time. please respond on my talk page. Thanks for your time! -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 16:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm afraid this isn't what the bot was designed or approved to do. You are welcome to create your own bot and request approval for it (see Wikipedia:Creating a bot to get started), or perhaps use an editing helper such as the AutoWikiBrowser. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism of pokemon

A tag has been placed on Criticism of pokemon, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to a nonexistent page. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. If you plan to expand the article, you can request that administrators wait a while for you to add contextual material. To do this, affix the template {{hangon}} to the page and state your intention on the article's talk page. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Schutz 20:19, 31 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings!

Greetings!, My fellow foreign friend, Nice to see someone else with foreign characters in their name, I thought I was the only one. I checked in with Can't sleep, clown will eat me to make sure my name was ok, but upon seeing yours I guess it is. Feel free to drop me a line whenever you're bored! Падший ангел 07:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]