User talk:You Can't See Me!

Hello, and welcome to everyone reading this. I am You Can't See Me!, a regular editor here at Wikipedia, primarily on articles pertaining to Naruto, Ben 10, Super Smash Bros, and Pokémon species. Due to my laziness, you might have ended up here via redirect from my user page or my doppleganger's talk page, so don't get frustrated if you meant to go to one of those spots instead.

Please feel free to leave a message if you wish. Only in extremely rare instances will I ignore a message, and to ensure that you get your reply, I will reply directly on your talk page. I will always try to respond as civilly as possible, and I'd prefer that you do the same. Remember that old saying: One shall close his door to save himself from the flame, but will open his door to... to the... Er, just remember that I will always be open to suggestions and arguments, but you're more likely to reach me if you're not flaming.

My signature was intended to blend into the background of a talk page to go along with my username. I have had several complaints, though, so the sig's tone has changed over time. I'm sorry if you don't particularly like my signature. If you want me to change the tone again, I'll (reluctantly) comply should you ask nicely. Well, with that said, you may proceed. Thank you again for coming to my talk page, watch out for apostrophes, and have fun! Regards, You Can 't See Me!

My Signatures

You may have reached me from one of the following signatures. If you're here to request a change in signature tone, please be aware that you may not have clicked on my most recent version. Use the following as a guide:

28 March 2007 - 24 May 2007: You Can't See Me!
24 May 2007 - 27 September 2007: You Can't See Me!
27 September 2007 - present: You Can't See Me!

Welcome!

Hello, You Can't See Me!, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Triona (talk • contribs)

i've responded to your comment, i wasn't sure if you were watching the page so i thought i'd leave you a message. -Zappernapper 15:41, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. I had forgotten. You Can't See Me! 04:14, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Plot of Naruto by arc

Sorry about not seeing your comment on the episode list; I'd taken that off of my watchlist a few weeks ago. Anyway, I got tired of writing plot summaries after the Tsunade arc, and asked someone else to write the Sasuke Retrieval arc in my stead. By the time I got around to asking someone to do that, however, the handful of people that had supported the idea seemed to have lost interest. Also, this is somewhat disheartening and doesn't give the impression that this little project would be very successful.

If you want to revive the idea, feel free to do so and I'll pitch in where I can. I think Plot of Naruto II has enough information for each arc to simply be split up amongst multiple articles with little re-writing. Given the four arcs that I've already done (albeit in more detail than necessary), that would just leave the Sasuke Retrieval and the filler arcs to be put in single article form. The prospect of writing another arc doesn't interest me at the moment, so someone else would need to write these two. Also, having not watched the fillers, I really don't know how to how to effectively split them up, so someone else would need to come up with a method for that as well.

So, yeah, I still like the idea, especially since I loathe the concept of 220+ episode summaries, but Wikipeida seems to favor those 220+ articles instead of around 12. Should you (or someone else) decide to write those two (or more, depending on what is done with the fillers) articles, we could try the experiment and see how it plays out. ~Snapper T o 23:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It starts off good, but everything after Sasuke's "death" gets kind of skimpy on the details. I'd suggest re-expanding that area a little more. This area also gets visually short, and stylistically two sentence paragraphs aren't very attractive. I'd suggest combining these short paragraphs should they remain short. Save these qualms, it's a good job, though I'd make sure your names for things match its name elsewhere on Wikipedia (Multiple Shadow Clone Technique instead of Mass Shadow Clone Technique). ~Snapper T o 20:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought of doing something like that, and it could very well be successful, though I don't know if it would eliminate all of the individual episode summaries. Anyway, List of Bleach episodes has a similar approach to what you've done, and not only does it provide some "real-world context", but it can also be read through as one large plot summary. There's nothing in depth about it, and it's a little vague at times, but it certainly is more informative than the current list of Naruto episodes. Speaking of which, List of Naruto episodes has gone through a stylistic facelift since I did those plot summaries. You may want to use the new look for your draft rather than the one you're using now. So, yeah, I'd suggest using List of Bleach episodes as a model, and that might even allow for of the Part I plot summaries to be put in one or two articles rather than six or seven. ~Snapper T o 20:45, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd definitely follow the Bleach list's lead; the fewer articles that need to be created the better. If you can fit information on the first 106 episodes into one article (ie. everything prior to the Sasuke Retrieval arc}, I think that would be an ideal first article. It might get lengthy, but we'll see what can be cut out when that problem arises. Also, to nitpick, you've got more headers than is necessary. I'd suggest limiting your headers to the arc names used throughout the rest of the Naruto articles. ~Snapper T o 20:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, the fewer articles that need to be made, the better the chance of success there is. Size isn't so much an issue, as article size constraints don't apply to lists. How about aiming for completing the Chunin Exam arc in one article? Or at least up to episode 52 (end of season 2; intermission between preliminaries and finals). And to again repeat my earlier comments, another stab at condensing it can be made before it makes it into the main article namespace. ~Snapper T o 15:26, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can edit your sandbox if need be, though I'd prefer doing it this weekend when I don't have other things I should be doing. Remind me of this on Friday or something. ~Snapper T o 03:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All done. You might want to look into putting that in the main article namespace now so more people can edit it. ~Snapper T o 01:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This may help...

Hi there, I noticed when checking the Sandbox was in order and that the header had not been remvoed that you reverted blanking of it and said leave the line alone and i would just like to say well done for that, its hard for one person to do, heres some templates which I created a little while back to warn users with for doing this, they are unofficial but they come in useful:

Again thanks and please dont forget to subst' them (example = {{subst:uw-sandbox1}} ) Cheers!

FYI - I guess the templates got merged into {{uw-sandbox}}. -- allen四names 07:19, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

List of villains in Ben 10

You wrote:

“

Rather than edit warring, please discuss this on the talk page. I'll start the section. In the meantime, I'll put this where it originated.)

”

If you didn't want edit warring, why then, did you revert the article rather than leave it stand until the talking was done? --Jason Palpatine 03:07, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

“

It is also generally recommended that you start a discussion before making a major change. Since the page was altered before the discussion, I restored the page to its default condition to simulate the above situation.

The logic behind this is that the page was in that condition for a longer period of time, so one can assume that the page was generally accepted in that state; contrarily, if a page is left post-edit, one runs the risk of putting off readers and wikipedians not used to that revision.
You Can't See Me! 03:25, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

”

An interesting reply. Please refer to PILAR #5 of *The five pillars of Wikipedia. But, let's see what the others have to say about this. You know, I once participated in a discussion where the powers that be ruled the results CONTRARY to the majority opinion. --Jason Palpatine 03:48, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

and as a small side note, Why did you feel the need to revert the change explaining the Origin of Joey/Rojo's name?--Marhawkman 14:28, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Jutsu migration

I'm moving the jutsu of characters who have only one or two jutsu to their entries. Everything else is being consolidated into a list here. ~Snapper T o 15:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ben 10 redirects

Stop reverting the redirects. I'm sorry that you disagree but you are disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. You've seen us reach consensus, you did not do anything to stop it until after the fact, and you refuse to listen to our reasoning for the sake of your own personal enjoyment. Please stop now. You Can't See Me! 07:27, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CONSENSUS! BY WHO? You and TTN? That is just a pair, not a consensus of any kind. NOT by any definition I've ever heard here.If one person here can say YES to an act of vandalism, one person can say NO! The hypocrisy here is astronomical. The fact that you are a colaborator here does not legitimize the action. The fact that you are evidently an administrator does not legitimize the action either. This vandalism, plain and simple. No matter how much verbage or posting or rose by any other namineing you do here, the blanket deleting of 39 article worked on by dozens of contributors (the majority of the work on these was not done by me!) is Vandalism. And that can not be allowed to stand. Someone once said do unto others as you would have them do unto you. You have done and I am merely doing as you would have me do in turn. And as for me disrupting Wikipedia to make a point -- the Pot is Calling the Kettle Black. You are the ones doing the disruption by an orchestrated act of vandalism. I will say it again and for the record -- VANDALISM. These articles were crated and have been in place too long for them to suddenly just be flushed down the toilet because a couple of individuals don't like them!

As for me waiting until after the fact:

I disn't discover what happened until after the fact, remember? I even posted it.
I didn't initiate this earlier on accout of the matter of time. I was engaged in the discussions with you and the others. I then had to go to sleep and then had to go to work. I didn't have the time. I discussed the matter with you first out of conssideration for others -- yes even you!

But your vandalism can not be allowed to stand as a precident -- it puts hundreds (or even thousands) of similar articles at risk. I have acted. You are the ones doing the diruption -- not me. All you had to do was accept it and leave well enough alone. Three reverts are the limit for any one -- that's why you entered the action. 2 against 1. Nice and conveinent -- but you are the disruptors.

NO

Note the remark in my signature, your actions here are a prime example of what I mean. -- Jason Palpatine 07:54, 2 May 2007 (UTC) This User wishes (but too often fails) understanding of Wikipedia's systematized logistical projection of its balanced policy contingency. (speak your mind | contributions)[reply]

Again, quit trying to shift the blame to us. Everyone wants to be the hero in his or her own story. I'm here to tell you that your "heroic" actions are against consensus, against policy, and rubbing against my nerves. I honestly don't want to make enemies here, but you don't appear to know when you are at a loss. You Can't See Me! 08:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take your own advice! Rationalize as much as you want. Throw Wikpololicies on the table as much as you want. The action of 3 administrators deleting 39 articles which were created by multiple users here is an affront. You call it a consensus and you cite policy to rationalize it. You are perverting those policys. The blanket deletion of 39 articles by a single individual (or 3) (even if they admin) is outright VANDALISM. I merely did what you did in reverse. As a Wikipedia member, it is my duty to revert acts of vandalism where I find them....Vandal. -- Jason Palpatine 17:10, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This User wishes (but too often fails) understanding of Wikipedia's systematized logistical projection of its balanced policy contingency. (speak your mind | contributions)[reply]

Jason, I'm sorry if it appears that I'm just being mean, and I'd like to apologize on behalf on Someguy and TTN if you feel that way about them too. I don't mean to be harsh, and I'm pretty sure that the others share my sentiments. We are just out to clean up articles so that they adhere to Wikipedia policy, and you have taken to defend that which we see as unnecessary. I'm very sorry if I offended you at all over the course of our debates. I shall try to be more civil in the debate from this point on, but may I ask that you try to be more civil as well? Regards, You Can't See Me!.

Apol accepted. And Apol reciprocated. It is now a moot point. You have your way. But I have said what I have had to say POV on the matter. It's all there -- both of us, in black and white. One way or the other. But I still feel the precedint you are establising is dangerous. So dangerous, that I almost put the matter up for review. Curiously, it wasn't an AFD, but AFD review was the only thing I could think of. I'm sorry if you guys feel the way you do. You have interpreted policy and utilized it -- but in a manner that is shocking. The only reason I have not posted a request for AFD review is on account of the fact that the most prominent contributor to these articles is one of you. What there was to be said has been said. Nuff said. -- Jason Palpatine 03:36, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Epilogue

During our little debate, you posted a set of reference links to various WP items that related to the actions taken by the others that you supported. It's very helpfull. Just wanted to say thank-you. --Jason Palpatine 07:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quick Question: Before I end up starting a Edit War

Why did you delete the Part II section in the Naruto Uzumaki article? I don't know but I was under the impression while a seperate part of articles was ok, something that could be counted as a "laundry list" was not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 138.88.64.132 (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

List of Konoha ninja#Ninja of Unknown Rank

To be honest, the section looks odd. Perhaps merge the two into Land of Fire#Villagers? Sephiroth BCR 05:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. Snapper already did it. Sephiroth BCR 05:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding rejection of Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon/Layout

Hi, I was just going through the apparently dead guideline projects to clear out the back log. It seems that people are proposing almost as many rules as articles recently so people are getting more watchful regarding new rule-sets. Maybe an essay would be more appropriate for this project when you ramp up again. Regardless, enjoy the new releases and have a great summer. --Kevin Murray 23:46, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Pokemon articles

Stop This right now! You are not officially permitted! Vikrant Phadkay 16:01, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes he is. AgentPeppermint 19:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, Vikrant, you are not permitted to revert because your preference to keep all 493 articles is not supported by consensus. hbdragon88 23:08, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- yes, you can't see me! can do this, but i'm also asking that you hold off a little right now. we need to figure out the content a little better. i noted as much in the discussion here. also i think you should hold off on the redirects. the group articles are not quite perfected, rather than making more, why don't we work on improving the ones that exist, so we have a consensus agreed upon template for writing these. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 11:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep.

{Barnstar moved to my Userbox page}

Sweet! My first barnstar! Thank you, Kizor!

Hate to be a pest

I personaly have no problem with it but your sig is hard for me to see against a white backround because of me having a little bit of color blindness. But your sig is only not there for a couple seconds bfore I see it but what I'm trying to say is that to someone with a case of color blindness worse than mine it could seem that you have no sig what so ever. Again I have no problem with it but someone else might. Sam ov the blue sand 23:52, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks you realy didn't have to I just noticed that one day I saw what time your post was made but saw no user! I guess I thought that you'd gotten realy good at not being seen, but 5 seconds later I could see it. ^_^ Thanks for changing it a bit. Sam ov the blue sand 03:16, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Just as a reminder, if you perform another revert on Gaara, you will break WP:3RR. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 01:24, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

np. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should merge pages be restructured?

Hi, I was shown a draft by The Babbling Shockersleeper from Alexandria of what a merged Eevee line page would look like, and I think that looks great. Notice it divides each species fully by individual section; supposedly that's part of what makes this merger concept appealing to readers, the fact that each specie feels like it's still getting its own article, but the articles are being put together in the same actual pages. Which is apparently what people like both inside and outside the Pokemon project; see Meta Knight for an outside example of two separate articles being covered together. Also, it had been said that users and readers would like the fact that any of these full sections for individual species can have the opportunity to easily become back to their own separate pages if necessary (such as if something new comes up, like a new controversy for a particular minor species. Notice that needing some seemingly mergeable species in their own pages seems to be what happens with Eevee itself in his draft, it would be put in its own page because there's a lot to say about it).

Anyway, I think it has garnered more support and approval for any merged evo-line pages to follow the previous, individualized way the pages were structured, rather than the more integrated layout your way provides and you had proposed a while back. I had thought yours was a great idea at the time, but it's possible the other way will meet more success, so I would suggest restructuring the pages you made already like Porygon evolutionary line in the Zappernapper style so that the merger effort will seem more active. It also occurs to me that having the multiple-articles-in-one-page style of articles like Meta Knight allows the Poke-infoboxes to have more cells without the text being broken by large amounts of whitespace. Thanks, Erik Jensen ^{(Appreciate|Laugh At)} 04:39, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request

WP:POKE is doing some housecleaning

This notice is to inform you that because many people have added their names to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon#Participants but do not seem to be active, all names are being deleted in an effort to find out who is still truly interested in the project. All you have to do is re-add your name if you'd still like to be considered a member of WP:POKE. Any questions, you can contact me on my talk page. -ΖαππερΝαππερ ^Babel_Alexandria 17:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

About Robot-Dude

Oh okay, I'll hold off on including the purple robot guy in the Brawl article till we get more info. But did you also notice that he appears to have a fuse on top of his head? Hmmm... Nintenboy01 17:46, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zelda/Sheik and Pokemon Trainer

So Zelda and Sheik used Pokemon in the game, aside as an item? That's news to me! --Son 23:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but Zelda and Sheik have nothing to do with Pokemon Trainers ability as far as i know. Where did you get that info from? ChristoCracker 07:07, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that sheik would be in Super Smash Brothers Brawl but i could be wrong, maybe they will make Sheik the Zelda with black ropes from Twilight Princess. Nightwolf3000 07:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Land of Fire edit war

+pimpedpope+

Got any proof the tobi is madara. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pimpedpope (talk • contribs) 19:25, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

+pimpedpope+

ok i have read every chapter of naruto contianing that of madar. the nine tailed fox said he existed a long time ago unless u yourself have proof my bot will continue to edit it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pimpedpope (talk • contribs) 20:03, August 20, 2007 (UTC). http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Land_of_Fire#Tobi http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Land_of_Fire#Madara_Uchiha http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Talk:Land_of_Fire#Tobi_and_Madara most ppl believe otherwise —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pimpedpope (talk • contribs) 20:29, August 20, 2007 (UTC).

List of Akatsuki members

The List of Akatsuki members AfD you participated in has been brought to deletion review here. Please take a look if you're interested. You Can 't Review Me!!! 20:00, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am utterly confused by the workings of your talk page. — xDanielx ^T/_C 22:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just answering the question.

Kabuto I thought was more on the lines of "Of fudge, the guy that was protecting me is down dead I'm screwed." Wasn't more sorrow for Orochimaru than for his own behind. Good catch though. Can delete this message when you wish.--TheUltimate3 22:47, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of Characters in Ben10

Erm so why did you feel the need to edit out the pictures?--Marhawkman 02:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Page blanking

Please do not replace Wikipedia pages or sections with blank content, as you did to Itachi Uchiha. It is considered vandalism. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:15, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. I intended to transform it into a redirect per the merge, but I accidentally left out the ever important redirect line. You Can 't Review Me!!! 06:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought you were one of those disruptive users. What I'm trying to say about the article is that it should not be merged before an agreement on the discussion page is settled, as this appears incomplete and I can get plenty of people to support my view. It just seems that I'm the only one who noticed. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the warning, even though it's spread out over several days. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 21:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Note that

Reverts of vandalism and nonsense don't count towards 3RR; ergo, your edits on Kakashi Hatake are fine. Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 04:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't help it

It would be a lie to leave the article stating that it's been established that they are father and son as it hasn't. It's been heavily implied, extremely heavily. But it has not been clearly stated. As such, it is not a fact. But the people who would just love for them to be father and son are refusing to see that. Heck, they're even refusing to even read the Naruto talk page. Can't you just lie down YOUR opinion in the talk thread and get an end to this, like someone did on Naruto's (character) talk apge? Since it is not yet a fact, it has to remain heavily implied in the article.

Hmm... just noticed that you're not actually a moderator or whatever Wikipedia has >_>'. User:FallenAngelI 10:53, 10 September 2007 (GMT+1)

5RR

Note my idea was 5RR per idea. So only one sock could do a max of 2RR and a 2nd sock would be useless. This is focus more on ideas than simple reversion.Archtrain 20:56, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: List of Naruto episodes (Seasons 1-2)

What amazes me more is that no one at the FLC caught it either. I only noticed it now since I was using it as a template for rewriting List of Fate/stay night episodes, which I recently watched (the last episode actually made me shed tears. Thus is drama). Sephiroth BCR ^(Converse) 02:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your Sig

You need to change your sig, It is extremely difficult to read. β^_command 17:09, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your sig (2)

Hi. Please actually change your signature, since the change you proposed at User talk:Betacommand/20081201#RE:Signature is really no different to how it is now and doesn't satisfy the concerns multiple people have with it. We sign comments to make communication easier and you are going out of your way to make it harder just so it "goes along with your username" which no-one cares about. Please be considerate to other people; they have legitimate concerns and you are responding with these non-solutions. Thanks. – Steel 22:59, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that you are going out of your way to be inconsiderate; I said that you are going out of your way to make it harder to read. Note the difference. Regardless, most of what I said above still stands. There is practically no difference between any of your various signatures and I don't understand why after several people have approached you about it you have only managed to go from this colour to this colour which isn't much of a step. Again, please consider that making interacting with you easier for other people might be more important than this little blending in gimmick you have going. – Steel 23:27, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: You deserve it!

Well, thank you. I’m glad someone noticed :) (what? huh? I have a talk page? blahh) -Missing NOOO 23:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Errr...not quite sure how this works

I write my message here? Right? Hope so, 'cause I'm doing it, if not, sorry for any inconvenience. I hope you and I can come to an agree with the info we BOTH feel that is useful to expand the knowledge about the Naruto-verse (ugh, what a word, haha). I'm by no means trying to be a bother, just hope to share what I feel add a bit of spark to the info here. On the Madara-Tobi issue, it was a mistake, I think, I don't remember removing that tidbit, but I must have done so, so I apologize. On other facts, the Mottles or Speckles meaning is best conveyed as a Trivia fact, rather than the main body, I think, but that can be only a minor fix- if you agree. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kohitsuji-no-bushi (talk • contribs) 06:27, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Energy blast

An article that you have been involved in editing, Energy blast, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Energy blast. Thank you. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:22, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SSBB Logo

I was just about to revert that, but I had trouble with the image name >_> I'm getting beaten at everything today :P Dengarde ► Complaints 23:37, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Smash Brothers Talk Pages...

...seem to be going down hill...like...at an alarming rate. There seems to be a gigantic influx of forum-like discussion. What can we do to stop this? It's all done by repeat offenders who can't seem to understand the rules. -Sukecchi 20:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Smash Bros Brawl Daisy?

Do you think Princess Daisy going to be on Super Smash Bros Brawl? 68.162.125.183 23:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't think she will only because you could change Peaches color into Daisy.Nightwolf3000 23:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SSBB

Then is the list of bosses in the article Bosses in The Legend of Zelda series unencyclopedic, and would you be willing to remove all that work. I did work multiple hours on my article dude. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spitfire19 (talk • contribs) 23:59, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shorten

Re: [1]

Awesome! I've been looking forever for a way to do something like that. Thank you so much! -- Ned Scott 20:46, 13 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ben10

um... Why did you guys remove ALL the images from the page? I've seen no explanation or reason why. and yes I did read the rules on Fairuse images.--Marhawkman 22:52, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That didn't really answer any questions. In fact it raises MORE questions as to why someone would endorse such a draconian interpretation of policy in the first place.--Marhawkman 04:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering why the spanish copies of certain pages lacked the pictures the english versions have.--Marhawkman 05:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there...

Hi, it's me, Kohitsuji-no-bushi. Remember the recent Naruto-Madara Uchiha edits? I haven't been doing much over in Wikipedia, since college is eating up most of my time. Thanks for stopping by my page and for your comments. No harm done at all, don't worry.

I do feel that this "no image" movement in wikipedia has no place. It DOES interfere with the general purpose and content in wikipedia (it is after all an encyclopedia, and an image means more than 1000 words, right?), but I do understand that it is not your call. Thanks for pointing out the articles, very informative, and also cleared up some doubts. Also, some of the style tidbits in Wikipedia feel archaic, don't you think. Sometimes it is best to leave trivia in a special block, so as to not clutter the main article with these...still, in a page of several characters it makes sense to integrate it. Just remember that even if the style guide tells you to put it in a way, you have your creativity, and that can beat a style guide at times.

I would like to ask if you know how to edit the content on category articles.

Thanks for your help, and hope I can be of help to you as well one day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kohitsuji-no-bushi (talk • contribs) 22:11, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you

By the Way, I saw you on Ben 10 article talk! --Alien joe (talk) 21:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon Userbox

I have viewed your Pokémon userboxes:
{{User:You Can't See Me!/UBX/Pokeevolution}}
This user is a Pokémon Evolutionist and believes that Mew is the origin.
{{User:You Can't See Me!/UBX/Pokecreation}}
This user is a Pokémon Creationist and believes that Arceus is the creator.

I really don't get your Pokecreation userbox. Pokémon does evolve; it's a fact. I guess Pokémon is both a creation and a evolution. They were probably created and they later evolve. So if you just believe in Pokémon's creation, that's plain stupid. Pokémon does evolve.. they don't get created everytime they hit the level. --Staka 20:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Page

User:Destructo 087/Userboxes/Fooled2

Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon

The list of participants of the Pokémon WikiProject is quite sizable, however, there is no way to determine which of whom are active contributors to that project. All participants in the list have been moved to Inactive. If you consider yourself to be an active member of the Pokémon WikiProject, please go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pokémon#Participants and move your username to the Active section. Thank you. Useight (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tatum, Yuehon, and Dien from the Digimon anime

According to the editor of the Digimon Wiki, you were the one who added these names under the International Digidestined. I was wondering how we know these names, as they weren't mentioned in the show (at least in the subs I'm watching)? How is Yuehon spelled in its original language, out of curiosity?

173.89.68.40 (talk) 03:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:UC'tCM!/'

I have nominated User talk:UC'tCM!/' for deletion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User talk:UC'tCM!/'. Cunard (talk) 00:46, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:20, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

If your going to have a name like that, maybe you should match the color? I can clearly see it Allaoii ^talk 21:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]