Self portrait, 16 July, 2004

Self portrait, sans the Giga City Rebellion

User:Megaman Zero

Wikipedia:The Signpost

Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list

My WikiSource page

My Meta page

My website on freewebs.com (Currently down)

My SchemeWiki page

Chez moi

Wikipedia Community Portal

Get Wikipedia content as XML

User posts:[edit]

User:TheOrgy[edit]

I asked TheOrgy to stop editing your user talk page to call you silly names, and he complained that you've been misnaming him as "TheOgry". I said I'd ask you to stop. Please stop upsetting him, and try to get along with him. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 20:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That was a misspelling error on my part, and if you look at his talkpage, I apologized. How is it insulting to make a spelling error of "g" and "r"...? TheOrgy is simply trying his best to dig up false claims on false personal attacks.-MegamanZero 20:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

E-mail[edit]

Check your email ok? :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Cool Cat. -MegamanZero|Talk 18:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On Iori Yagami[edit]

Instead of a poll

Instead of a poll, which obviously in this kind of case only produces division, I'd like MegamanZero and TheOrgy each to write a 100-word defence of their favored versions.

Two rules:

You must not mention the other person or his version; concentrate on the good points of your own favored version.
You *must* stick to the 100 word limit. I won't tolerate long, unreadable tracts. Write short sentences that emphasize the good points.

I'd like to see if we can get some agreement on what is good about each version. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 22:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Done.-MegamanZero|Talk 22:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Iori Yagami[edit]

Cool Cat, please see: [1]-MegamanZero 05:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad Tony is handling the matter, I failed you as a good mentor. :( --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 11:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you got a little hostile about the situation too quick, but you proceeded to put the incident on the admin board and helped as best you could. You are a very respected mentor in my eyes, Cool Cat, and do not think otherwise. :)-MegamanZero 11:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thesis MK- II[edit]

Mind looking at this, and telling me your opinion on the talkpage..? Thanks..! -MegamanZero 16:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I really dont know anything about the subject. It would not be right for me to comment... --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Signature[edit]

Can you please include a link to your talk page on your sig? :)

You can achieve this by

clicking "preferences"
sellecting "raw signature" check box
replacing stuff in the textbox captioned: "Nickname:" with something like [[User:MegamanZero|MegamanZero]] [[User talk:MegamanZero|Talk]]

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hehe! Cool Cat, you made me laugh. Thanks. Okay, I'll add a sig. :) -MegamanZero 16:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Megumi Morisato[edit]

Can you assist in completeing this table since you have a tallent in gathering such info. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You passed 85, now archive! :P --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nicole (DOA)[edit]

Following the press release that bungie made regarding the halo based DOA character, I have created and polished off the article for her. If you have the time please take a look at it, as I'd like to get some opinions regarding the article and anything I may have overlooked. Thanks a bunch.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 05:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You did a fine job. I'm wondering where you got all that information, though, since such in-depth analysis's can't usually be made when the game hasn't been released, but hey, that just shows how good you are! :) Also, about Mr.Sidaway's talkpage, he doesn't really dabble in video games or anthing like we do, so you perhaps shouldn't ask questions like that.. :) -MegamanZero |transerver 05:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I got all the information from the press release at the bottom of the article, coupled a smidge with my own (want to call it expertise but wont) knowledge of the Halo universe.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 06:05, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: revert[edit]

No problem, cheers. Christopher Parham (talk) 07:47, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Howdy[edit]

I saw you had posted a couple of times on my talk page. I'd be happy to help you, but I am not very familiar with the types of articles you tend to edit, so as far as content disputes, I may be of little help. However, if you link me to specific arguments I can at least leave my opinion.--MONGO 12:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Megumi Morisato[edit]

Can you assist in completeing this table since you have a tallent in gathering such info. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You passed 85, now archive! :P --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've overhalled Megumi, and I took the liberty to overhall Sayako as well. Take a look and check em' out if you like.-MegamanZero |transerver 22:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll finish up everyone else tommorow; I have to construct drafts and thesis for every character's personality section. Now is time for sleep, however... Need anything else..? :) -MegamanZero |transerver 22:58, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. :), oh is it posible for you to use the template rather than the table, it really does the same thing, template requires less effort. :P --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think the template is harder, because I can't keep track of the categories whilst I am writing. -_- -MegamanZero |transerver 16:17, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, how I do it is I copy an existing characters bio and overwrite it with data from tables you provide. Of course I am not complaining but you know... :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Oh My Goddess episodes[edit]

You may want to vote on this. Assuming you dont have objections to article recieveing a FAC status, this one is one step away from featured list status. It needs 4 votes. Feel free to review the critaria before voting. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Archiving[edit]

I finally got around to it ! Happy now? :) -MegamanZero|Talk 09:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 09:40, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How do you Like the archive infobox layout that I ~~stole~~ borrowed from Tony..? Nice,eh..? -MegamanZero|Talk 09:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What infobox layout are we talking about? :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 10:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean..? -MegamanZero|Talk 11:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A Thank You[edit]

For doing what I always wanted to do with the Tekken articles (but was too reluctant to), and for all your videogame contributions in general, I, LordViD, award you this Barnstar.

«LordViD» 10:26, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thx[edit]

I only just noticed: Thx for reverting the vandalism of my userpage yesterday; it is much appreciated. And sorry about the outcome of your RfA; I'm sure it well work out next time. Lectonar 12:33, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you move the wikibooks links?[edit]

Why did you feel it was necessary to go through all of the street fighter characters and move the wikibooks link from the top to the bottom? The point of putting them at the top was to alert people to the project and get them to start contributing. With the link moved to the bottom, hardly anyone will notice it. Unless you can defend your decision, I'm going to move them back up to the top.Plotor 19:18, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about not alerting you or anything, but in the current situation and my concensus, it should be obvious. I'm speculating that when you inserted the wikibook templates into the articles, you didn't use the preview button did you..? When you simply when in, and (apparently) disregarded the text's conformity, you should have noticed that sticking the template up top forces the character sprites, pictures, and sometimes contents link into the text and in a appaling manner that renders the nearby text unreadable. Concerning your query and concensus regarding people noticing the project, I'm sure it won't impede that, they just need to look at the bottom, and the wikibook link, being a well, link, belongs in the "external links" section anyway. -MegamanZero|Talk 19:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Bantha vandalism[edit]

Heheh. Yeah, I remember that. I was going to add it, but forgot. Thanks for adding it! Another too funny not to list entry, yet I forgot to list it! :O ;) The Wookieepedian 19:59, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Me as well. I have a "odd edits" section, similar to your "too funny not to list" section, and I'm going to add it in as well. BTW, take a look at my odd edits section (found here) and tell me what you think of them. Finally, notice anything different about my user and talk pages..? :) -MegamanZero|Talk 20:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's cool the way you've got your user and talk page formatted. And I'm going to add that list of strange edits to my "too funny not to list" section. The Wookieepedian 20:10, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not a bad idea. :) -MegamanZero|Talk 20:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

KoF Template[edit]

Yo MMZ, your template looks good. I'll take a better look at it later when I've got more time. For now I've added a category to the template so that every character you add this to will automatically be placed in the SNK Characters category. I couldn't find a specific King of Fighters Characters category ... perhaps you should create one ;) Cheers, Jacoplane 13:40, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Overhall[edit]

As you can see, I've made some big changes to my talkpage. My only problem now is getting the format to match my userpage...see how my talkpage's "pattern" consists of gray..? I want to do that to my userpage, but so far I can only get the red borderlines to encompass it... How do I make the inside of the infobox gray..? -MegamanZero|Talk 21:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed that one for you. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'll be blunt about a problem with your user and user talk page. If I don't complain about it someone else will, since you are an experienced wikipedian there are some legal issues you may want to fix. Usage of copyrighted images on userpages is a problem as that conflicts with the "fair-use" agreement. All Megaman and megaman zero images are copyrighted by Capcom or other various companies (anime etc). Hence are not GNU compatible. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:20, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see. I'll make sure we're cleared on those, Cool Cat. Also, thanks so much for helping me with that, I was doing quite well with making the templates and such, but for some reason, couldn't get that to work...thanks again. Now, most importantly, the question: What do you think of think of it..? :) I got the design as a melding of mine,yours, Mr.Sidaway's, and Master Jimbo's pages respectively. -MegamanZero|Talk 01:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbos userpage is my design, some of tonys userpage is also my design and my own page is also my design ;). --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 01:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:P I see! So, let me rephrase that: I got the design from Cool Cat! :) Still, the design, it looks nice, no..? -MegamanZero|Talk 02:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wait just a damn minute...[edit]

Wait, what have I been thinking..? You've been a great and creative mind at wikipedia, and you've helped so many of us make great-looking userpages... Here, have this barnestar for your creative mind.!

Thank you for the barn star! --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 05:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Could you answer my question, please..? :) -MegamanZero|Talk 02:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright thing doesnt bug me at all (its not like I own the copyrights), you dont need to apologies. I just wanted to warn you before someone else ;). Oh, I am not all that great, I make some prety nasty mistakes from time to time. I try to learn ~~fro~~ from them. :). Fluffy paws arent all that bad to type with :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 05:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment...[edit]

Maru: "Wikipedia is not paper."

Indeed. However, this was something asked of me by Tony in hopes of reaching a concenus for the article. Seeing that my first composition was more directed toward the Orgy's actions, I reconsidered and constructed a new thesis to depict my respective view on the article. As you can see, it was clearly shown at the top of the page, and in the end, I proved my point and the article has been conformed to a higher standard of quality. Just thought I should clear that misnomenor up. -MegamanZero|Talk 17:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was specifically referring to: "Also, the fact that my version cuts down on GB and space consumption rectifies its reason for not putting a strain on the servers." Which both doesn't make sense to me, and if you were trying to say that a smaller version was better, I strongly disagree (I am very much of the more is better school- superfluous data can easily be filtered out by a reader, and often turns out not to be superfluous, whereas missing useful data cannot be filtered back in, and often the lack of it goes un-noticed, so the reader couldn't fix it even should they have wished to.) --Maru (talk) Contribs 01:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see. My mistake, but I still agree with my reason for a smaller article. In this case, the exceeded use of images and quotes had no business in the article, as to put it quite simply, they didn't acomplish anything. So, why consume space and GB when there's no reason to..? -MegamanZero|Talk 01:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Now here we are disagreeing on the quality of the content itself; I supported removing the pics because of copyright considerations, but elsewhere we part paths. --Maru (talk) Contribs 02:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As as the quality of the article is concerned, I believe we agree: It still needs some work. In paticular, the text still reaks of POV and sounds very un-encyclopedic....

Also, concerning the template, you said why "didn't I make a full-fleged one?" I had, and I have inserted into other KOF articles as well. -MegamanZero|Talk 02:20, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, the template can be found here.-MegamanZero|Talk 02:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but it doesn't seem to be used at all, according to whatlinkshere. --Maru (talk) Contribs 02:51, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it does. :) See my contributions. -MegamanZero|Talk 02:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think what we have here is a failure to communicate- when I say use a template, I mean tuck all that html code away on a [[Template:FOO]] page, and only invoke it with {{FOO|bar|baz|etc}}, not do a cut and paste and fill in the approriate values. --Maru (talk) Contribs 02:57, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you, our cummunication is fine. The reason why I do not do it like that, is because it makes it harder to list and keep track of information while I fill in the table's respective contents, so I simply copy and paste the template on the article.-MegamanZero|Talk 03:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are reasons copy and paste is deprecated... syncing the many uses with an updated template, ease of use, and just plain aesthetics of the source code, among others. --Maru (talk) Contribs 03:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I understand....really I do...It's just it takes much longer to fill in a "updated template" than the copy and pasted one; as 10 minutes as opposed to 30... -MegamanZero|Talk 04:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Really? I always just copy the actual template over from a reference article (typically Yoda, for {{Sw character}}) and fill in the values. Even easier than copy/paste of the actual html and wikimarkup of the original template. (Plus it is vastly more easy to understand and add to.) --Maru (talk) Contribs 04:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no, no.....the actual information itself it not the problem...its just when you're filling in the "updated" template, there's no values to look to when you insert the actual information. It's akin to looking at a high school test and having to answer the questions, but there's no questions to look at... That's why its so...so difficult. -MegamanZero|Talk 05:48, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copperchair[edit]

He's back again!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Copperchair

Can you help me watch War on Terror also? He keeps reverting to his preferred version. Watch his Star Wars articles as well. Thanks. JG of Borg 06:41, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already keeping an vigilant eye on his talkpage, and War of terror, but which Star Wars articles has he been missing with..? -MegamanZero|Talk 10:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't really matter as he is blocked for a month now... but Wookiepedian and he had some trouble with Return of the Jedi (Copperchair kept reverting it to his months-old version) JG of Borg 20:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that...and for awhile there, I had wanted to applaud him on his leaving the articles alone... I guess I have to retract that statement. Hm, guess he'll never learn. -MegamanZero|Talk 20:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gah! You beat me again at the "Who can revert Copperchair's vandalism the quickest?" game! JG of Borg 07:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

:P Ah, don't worry, you'll have plenty of time to do it on your lonesome for the rest of the month, as I'm going back to the states with my girlfriend, and I might not have have interent access. -MegamanZero|Talk 07:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Come back[edit]

No, I don't fit in this side of the servers. Rob Church ^Talk 19:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, don't say that....I think you are a part of our community, and I want to stay...please don't leave like this... -MegamanZero|Talk 19:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-sexual[edit]

Emmm... I have been contributing for quite awhile now. I have no idea why a father of 3 daughters can have a gender of unknown? Somehow, some of the people seems to be just making random edits to things they do not fully know. MythSearcher 16:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, well regarding your edits, you haven't made many, so I assumed you were knew here, and that's why I gave you the welcome. -MegamanZero|Talk 18:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey....[edit]

Are you going to replay to my query or not...? -_- -MegamanZero|Talk 18:20, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I will not because I have no right to weight anothers overal edits. So long as ones intentions is to expand wikipedia they are good they can be even better if they follow wikipedia guidelines which exist only to increse the efficency of the process. Sorry. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstand the question... I meant could you give me advice on areas you think I am lacking in as far as a canidate for admin, etc..? I simply said I wouldn't ask you this until I made it past 2000 edits, but it has little to do with what I am inquiring of you. -MegamanZero|Talk 18:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

^-^'

You should IRC more :P.
editcountism can be fatal.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 18:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In order:

I cannot get it to work... -_-
Absolutely. But its one of the factors voters look at when selecting an admin.

Anything else I can improve in..? You know, like my dealings woth other wikipedians, for instance..? -MegamanZero|Talk 18:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Google for IRC FAQs. I really cant explain it better than them :)
False, editcountism is not an admin criteria. I would be an admin if anyone really cared about edit counts. Edit counts is generaly an excuse for people to be dicks and oppose for no good reason.

--Cool Cat^Talk|@ 22:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In order:

Okay, I'll try looking it up.
I agree. But edit counts do show you're constructiveness (to a point).

P.S.- Could you ask Mr.Sidaway on IRC why he isn't answering the post I gave him on his userpage...? He seems to be ignoring me.. (-_-) -MegamanZero|Talk 23:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

???, oh, and take this, and wash that mouth out :) -MegamanZero|Talk 00:02, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I never suffered from editcountism apathy on my RfA(s), people (two being admins) only threatened to leave wikipedia etc. :)

Tonys connection apears to be unstable, he hasnt been on arc for too long before disconnecting. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 00:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deaparture[edit]

Hey, Cool Cat. I'm going back to the States with my girlfriend for the rest of the month, and I need you to keep an eye on things for me. You know...vandalism on my user and talkpages, etc. I telling you ahead of time, because I don't know if I will be in possession of a internet connection where I'm going... Finally, could you relay this info to Mr. Sidaway, Oni Okami Alfador, and The Wookiepedian..? They edit the articles I work on, so I need them to keep a vigilant eye too. Thanks, and I'll see you all when I get back! :) -MegamanZero|Talk 06:55, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Merry Christmas!

Ok, I'll pass the word around. Merry Christmas! :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 19:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas[edit]

Hope you have a good time away. Have fun. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 02:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What an edit conflict is[edit]

It seems you have not understood what an edit conflict is. If "user A hits edit, user B saves and user A saves, in that order", user A is presented with an edit conflict: user B is not. You were the user B on the Help Desk. And any period of time can warrant an edit conflict if an editor is slow enough to complete a response. For all you know, I may receive a 25-minute phonecall in the middle of replying (yes, I have a life outside of Wikipedia). It still doesn't mean I've seen more than the question to respond to. jnothman ^talk 15:31, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am fully aware of the meaning behind the term edit conflict, my only point being that redundancy regarding the JPEG classification saving didn't warrent much behind that elaboration, also, that user asked where to locate Barnstars in his query, and not whether he could use them freely or not, respectively. Finally, regarding "life" outside of Wikipedia, I do not know what you are talking about. Wikipedia is your life! : P -MegamanZero|Talk 15:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, I was not trying to mock your responses on the help desk and very much support you giving them. But making counter-claims because of disbelief in edit conflict seems silly. And my final response was jestily responding to your use of "victory". jnothman ^talk 15:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I made no counter claims. Just a short retufution regarding the slight redundancy in the answer, and when I utilized "victory", it was jokingly, please don't take it too seriously. :) -MegamanZero|Talk 15:38, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is hard to tell sometimes in real life, and even more on the internet, but I was joking around too. Ultimately, though, your short answers (and comments here) incline me to note to you something: sometimes it's not clear what people are asking for on the Help Desk, even if you think you know. It's tough, but you have to try and answer as many interpretations of their question as possible, while still being concise. You also have to try and understand where they may be coming from. And thus, "how to you give someoe a award" does not just mean "where to locate Barnstars", it may mean: "how do I nominate someone for an award?"; "Where do I place one?" (which I didn't think to answer). The question "their bitmap images, and they won't get loaded onto Wikipedia" nearly certainly implies that the user does not know how to convert to JPEG, so "simply re-save the image you wish to upload under a JPEG classification" is probably not sufficient. Just try think about what users might be asking, rather than giving a short but incomplete answer. jnothman ^talk 23:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year[edit]

Salutations, Cool Cat. I've returned from my (cough) mediocre (cough) trip with my girlfriend from the states and I've returned to Wikipedia. Happy New Year, and I'll return to work; feel free to ask for any assistance on the articles as always, my friend.

P.S. -Happy New Years! -MegamanZero|Talk 13:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ahoy! Welcome back to the WF S Wikipedia. I am currently working on redoing the Oh My Goddess! character pages. As most being subs, its a rather demanding task, but hey thats ok. I am having difficulty finding good manga images of various characters, including Hijiri etc. Or even Belldandy.

If you are up for the task, please convert images to .png format and use the Image:Character name (Oh My Goddess manga).png format :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:17, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Concerning your recent edits to the OMG articles, may I inquire why you have transmogrified the templates again..? I thought they were fine the way they were; as the different corresponding colors gave each respective character page a distinct personality. I am not complaining, however, the new templates look very nice; I just found the new choice a tad odd. -MegamanZero|Talk 16:19, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh the colours were confusing. And often made the text unreadable (such as on skulds page). New template is more generic. The complete list of avalible commands you can use on the template is avalible at templates own page: Template:Oh My Goddess Infobox-Generic, fields left blank will not appear on the page (this takes care of tens of redudent unkowns and N/As. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:29, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

question[edit]

Thanks for talking to me 1st person to talk to me today

heres 2 questions how old are you?

what country do you live in?

--Madcowpoo 17:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was created by Dr.Wily in 20XX, and I have travelled back to the past; currently I am somewhere around 200 years old, being that I am a reploid, and don't age. Regarding the country I live in, I can't say, since I am constantly on the move, taking missions and fighting mavericks. However, the Maverick base (My place of operations) is located somewhere in Japan, I believe. -MegamanZero|Talk 17:05, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comments on the image.[edit]

Im sorry if my comments about the image were offensive (Kasumi. Truth is I actually like the image. But should we do to the original shot? Because Im noticing how people keep removing images forma articles and just uploading new ones. This isnt good because if images are uploaded and unused this defeats their purpose. -- Psi edit 17:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, its okay. I didn't take any offensive to your comment whatsoever. No need to apologize. Concerning your query, and about the image, I had meant to replace the old DOA2 images with newer ones awhile ago, and I simply did it because they're a bit old, and the new ones are up to date, as well as have a higher quality. I should apologize, I should have talked to you all before replacing images. The reason I removed the DOA2 one is because its redundant and they both depict the same character. I believe when games or events depict articles with person(s) in a different more drastic look, we should update the images; and I agree, replacing images defeats the purpose, however, in this case, I think we should put the old ones up for deletion- what do you think..? -MegamanZero|Talk 17:15, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah of course the image changes you did are fine. Lets delete the older images. -- Psi edit 17:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm going to do the same for Hayate and Ayane, then I'll post them all on IFD. -MegamanZero|Talk 17:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There he goes again[edit]

Looks like davenbell is up to his slanderous habbits once again- he's sniping you: (here) and (here), (see near the bottom of the page)..... -_- -MegamanZero|Talk 19:57, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I am well aware. Dec 6 edit. He will not suceed in provoking me like that tho :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:06, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nevertheless, I gave him a little piece-of-mind about his disregard for other's consideration and wikipedia policy on his talkpage. -MegamanZero|Talk 20:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meh he hasnt made edits since dec 6 :P I doubt he'll ever read. I really dont care about him much ^-^' Thanks for the heads up though. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:23, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mentoring /Minor edits[edit]

I would not volunteer a workload for another user; if someone who considers themselves reasonably experienced, and feels they have enough time, would like to volunteer themselves, then that's good.

BTW, I think you are marking all your edits as "minor" by default, at the moment. You can change this setting in Special:Preferences. Remember to mark your edits as minor only when they genuinely are (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). "The rule of thumb is that an edit of a page that is spelling corrections, formatting, and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'."

pfctdayelise 13:03, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be glad to take on the workload of helping another user. Its certainly okay with me, I just don't think I'm deserving of the coveted title of "mentor". Concerning my edits, most are minor right now (I haven't made any new articles lately) , but as for most of my edits being "minor" on my contribution list in the past, that's misleading, it is indeed, because I have "minor edit" set by my default on my preferences by default (I beleive when I made a few articles I had them as minor :/ ). I have not been giving my self much credit. :) -MegamanZero|Talk 13:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Minor edits are LESS than just non-major edits. Minor edits are ONLY spelling corrections, formatting and minor re-arranging of text. Most edits, indeed, are non-minor. Consider the people who have the page on their watchlist: some people ignore minor edits. If you tick "minor edit", would they be annoyed at missing on seeing what you have contributed? If you have added or removed any text or images, it's not minor.

You are most certainly welcome to continue helping any user you like. You don't have to call yourself "mentor"; just go ahead and do it. As for User:madcowpoo, I was rather thinking of someone like an admin, who is familiar with a wide range of policy. cheers, pfctdayelise 13:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see. I falsely) believed user talkpage comments, etc. were to be considered "minor". I thank you for clearing that up, and regarding User:madcowpoo, I don't think a admin is a nessesary. You, I, and the "common folk" are sufficent. :) I am well versed in policy and the like to be of help (you even more so). We'll manage. :) -MegamanZero|Talk 13:21, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Megaman, one reason I'd like him to have a mentor is so that he stops flooding the Wikipedia:Help desk with questions. These could easily be resolved if he was just asking one person.

Please look out for context when you reply on the HD. Regarding this, have you read his talk page? Did you notice the comment I left? Did you look at his contribs and notice that he'd left a note on the talk page of an admin asking for the images to be deleted? If you read these things, you will see that IfD would be a waste of time when they can all be speedy deleted by an admin, and since he has already contacted User:Garykirk, he may as well go ahead and do it.

You have the right approach in that policy should be followed, and one should not bite the newbies, and be helpful on the help desk, but sometimes you've got to lift your head a bit higher and see the bigger picture. I am bit concerned that this user is more worried about his user page and signature than making good quality contributions to an encyclopedia. He is quite young, and I think he could do with an experienced hand guiding him towards understanding the wiki philosophies. Simply answering his questions, without considering the context they're coming from, won't really help. Like, he asks how to start a WikiProject. I don't think new editors should be jumping into starting WikiProjects straight away. So rather than telling him how, I would find out why he wants to know and try and guide him towards existing Wikiprojects or users with similar interests.

Do you kind of understand what I'm getting at now?

cheers, pfctdayelise 13:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I perfectly understand, and I thank you for bringing up that point. I hadn't considered motives or alternitive agenda's, in the mist of my willingness to help. Not to say Madcowpoo is going to be a loafer, or say, a troll, we just need to bring him up to standard on what wikipedia is all about. I also did not consider going into detail regarding his new wikiproject and somewhat overzealous behavior (which is just fine with me). In my future dealings, I will desist being so linear in my following of policy and helpfulness and add in some constructive critsisim as well. In closing, I'd like to continue to help him out, and I will take fuller responsibilty of his queries so the Help page can get some breathing room. :) Allow me to assist for awhile and see if I can handle it or not; if not, then I'll let a admin mentor him. What do you think..? -MegamanZero|Talk 14:40, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, great. I'm going to bed. Unhelpful changes to pages can always be reverted, but when you start creating new pages or uploading images, someone else has to get involved to help with the cleanup. I would rather educate him first, so that we have less cleanup to do later. This is what I advise:

Follow his contribs (check the "diffs" to see what he has done)
If they're unhelpful edits, revert them. leave a note on his Talk page to explain why they were not useful, with links to the relevant policy/guideline (but don't explain too much - keep it simple to understand)

Like, right now I see he is at Wikipedia:Changing username. I think he's having problems with his signature - doesn't need to change his username at all. Please guide him in the right direction and encourage him to get on with the job of making a great encyclopedia.

Let me know how you go, if you want. I'm going to bed for now. cheers, pfctdayelise 14:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I've posted a friendly comment on his talkpage, and he seems to have stopped for the momment. Regarding the shadowing, I've made it a long term goal, and I'll keep up on assisting him periodically. Regarding his most recent edits (here, here, and here), I've inquired Longhair to delete these, and I'll continue to update you both on the situations as we progress. Cheers, -MegamanZero|Talk 22:28, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Usernameblock}}[edit]

Ever since the TheOrgy's arrivial, I has noticed that his username means very rude description in regard to the english language, and I find that somewhat offensive. Perhaps a "Usernameblock" template is in order. -MegamanZero|Talk 21:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm... I can try to arrange that. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:30, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok done. You should thank User:Phroziac for her assistance. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 15:07, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: What the..[edit]

Your mom is a wikipedian..?! Geez. -MegamanZero|Talk 23:05, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. Rob Church ^Talk 00:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A joke then...? I'm confused... -MegamanZero|Talk 00:33, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no affiliation between us. Rob Church ^Talk 00:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So, this user is fibbing then..? -MegamanZero|Talk 00:51, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MY son is nineteen and this can not be he! Robsmommy 01:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too right. Rob Church ^Talk 15:11, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. -MegamanZero|Talk 15:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Request for Adminship[edit]

Greetings, MegamanZero! I wanted to sincerely thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with a final result of 55/14/3. While you voted neutral, I still hope you'll be content with the way I use my newly granted WikiPowers. If you have any questions or input regarding my activities, be they adminly or just a "normal" user's, or if you just want to chat about anything at all, feel free to drop me a line. Cheers! —Nightstallion (?) 07:59, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your User page[edit]

Well, you asked me to comment on it. I like its simple design, but I'm not a big fan of the bumper sticker thing that most Wikipedians have going on. But, to each his own (ugh, I hate that phrase). I archived my 2005 talk page, so that's why it's blanked out, in case you were wondering. Danny Lilithborne 11:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Apology[edit]

Hello! I hope you're well and thanks for your note. No problem: apology accepted. Again, please understand that I do appreciate that you or anyone else has a different – even opposing – point of view, but I refuse(d) to allow what I thought was inappropriate rationale (given the record) to go unchallenged in this instance. That being said, I am not a paragon of virtue, either, and gladly entertain feedback. Moreover, I responded for everyone's benefit – including yours: perhaps we can all come away from this with an added appreciation of the RfAdmin process and the rigours involved.

In the spirit of constructive feedback, as well: perhaps you could've issued a request for comment (RfC), as suggested, before or instead of calling for an RfAdmin?

Anyhow, thanks again and I look forward to building Wp with you and other Wikipedians in the time ahead. Take care! E Pluribus Anthony 20:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Right now, I'm setting my sights lower, and I am running for mediator at the momment... I think that'll be right up my lane for the time being. Thanks for the quick response as well. -MegamanZero|Talk 20:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood; good luck! E Pluribus Anthony 21:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks[edit]

You're welcome; glad to help! — Knowledge Seeker দ 05:01, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool it[edit]

I want you to stop lecturing Tony Sidaway about his comments, okay. You don't have to add a second to everyone else that has something negative to say about his actions. Not a month ago, you were asking him for advice and now you're lecturing him. I think he is well aware of your opinion at this point so drop it, you're acting like a troll.--MONGO 18:37, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps I was too harsh, but...I don't understand these actions, it was not like this a month ago, which is why I am a bit aggressive. But maybe you;re right; I'll cool it, and sit back for awhile while this situation plays itself out. -MegamanZero|Talk 18:43, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that would be best. I know you mean well...just give the man a little room to breathe...there is a method to his madness...happy editing!--MONGO 18:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Will do, I am very similar to Tony as far as making arguments anaylticaly in situations, and experience has told me people don't respond well to it. I only wanted to share that with him, as its the reason people are a bit hot-headed afterwards. I mean, sure, when you do it, you'll be factually correct in your thesis, but the way its communicated is not the best.-MegamanZero|Talk 18:52, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're a good editor, so I would just pop in and out of all those entangling things that Tony gets involved in. He is much more experienced in those areas than either of us. You don't need to move my comment back over to my talk page this time...I usually post on the talk page of the person I am communicating with and they post their comment on mine. In most situations, the conversations are of no consequence to other readers that may be looking at it, so it doesn't need a double post. Anyway, what I do is wrestle with the bureacracy every now and then and do my article stuff other times...if you hang around all the red tape areas too long it will stop being fun, real quick. Most of those areas are hotbeds of argument so I wouldn't mess around there unless you really have something important to add. Just my opinion, and I'm not trying to lecture ya! See you around!--MONGO 19:04, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think dealings in policy and the like are quite exilirating, and are just as much fun as making articles. :) I use to be a part of the debate commitiee at school, which explains why Tony and I are similar (and its why I choose him as mentor). -MegamanZero|Talk 19:08, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I can understand that, but you know what...some of those folks just want to argue and after awhile, everyone seems to forget what they're arguing about! Do what makes you comfortable, but don't let peons drag you into a fight... there are a number of editors just looking for trouble, and some of them are admins.--MONGO 19:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but please see my userpage for more info. :) -MegamanZero|Talk 19:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd take that stuff about Kelly off the page...read WP:NOT...try not to use your userspace to crtique other users by name. Even if we grossly disagree with their actions or what actions have come upon them as a result, we need to keep our userspaces NPOV just like our articles...that is the best way for us to build a trusted reference source.--MONGO 19:32, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage[edit]

I added some new sections to my userpage, tell me what you think. -MegamanZero|Talk 15:10, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also have some breaking news: I've discovered more cats that edit wikipedia like you:

I have yet to find sufficent edvidence weather you all are related though. However, User:Kitty shares a close resemblense with you, he might be a distant cousin. :) -MegamanZero|Talk 18:33, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh we the cat cabal are taking over wiki :P --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:12, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CAT CABAL!!! Noooo!!! ...Wait, that's not so bad- free tuna and milk, right..? I'm in. BTW, what do you think of the new "Un-civilty and inconsideration on Wikipedia is a dangerous path" and personality section on my usepoage I just added..? -MegamanZero|Talk 20:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I really cannot comment on your views regarding RfCs. Given I support Kellys actions (just not her speed). I think people are spending too much time on such a minor issue. It's a "show an arbitrator with mud" case... --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was refering to how I set it up like your vandalism section. What's your opinion on that..? Don't you think they're similiar..? Also see this for my view on the subject- I also agree with Ms. Kelly's actions, but she handled them in a very wrong manner. -MegamanZero|Talk 21:25, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

For someone apparently so concerned about civility, you're incredibly rude yourself in personally attacking those who don't conform to your personal world-view. You've got a lot of growing up to do, kid. Good luck. -62.252.152.28

You're refering to the situation last night, correct..? I'm not anyone's daddy, but I'm sure I don't try to do anything naughty. Now you've accused me of slanderous behavior (!) but at least you've now admitted your guilt to me. Why couldn't you have just come clean to us when you were obviously in cahoots with that troll (sockpupetry or affliation, etc.)? I mean, it didn't exactly take a genius IQ to work out that it was probably a sockpuppet or someone affliated with him; like Cool Cat I saw the timing of the edits. The difficulty was in getting you to admit it without actually accusing you, for in fact I never had sufficient evidence to nail you, and nor did Cool Cat and we cannot go around making accusations without very good evidence. But you were acting, to put it mildly, as guilty as fuck. Thank you for playing. -MegamanZero|Talk 07:14, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Counter-Uncivility Unit[edit]

Hi,

I heard about your Wikiproject on Selina Kyle's talk page. I would be very interested in this project as well. --CJ Marsicano 16:43, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. See my userpage for more info. I plan for it to be a sister project to the Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit. -MegamanZero|Talk 16:55, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Err...I'm kind of interested. But I'm not sure if a whole WikiProject is needed for it. Thunderbrand 19:39, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've never really encountered much uncivilities, but I guess I could join up if you need my help. Oh by the way, your talk page really needs some cleaning up. Wolf ODonnell 22:21, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page[edit]

Let's put it this way. Near the top, your portrait partially obscures your contents link and the badges kinda squash your talk page up a bit. Shouldn't those things be in your userpage? Wolf ODonnell 22:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, that's what you mean. I thought you were refering to my posts and how I answered them. Alright, I'll see what I can do. :) -MegamanZero|Talk 23:00, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem RE: Image:X8team.jpg[edit]

This image may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:X8team.jpg. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law. We need you to specify two things on the image description page:

The copyright holder, and
The copyright status

The copyright holder is usually the creator. If the creator was paid to make this image, then their employer may be the copyright holder. If several people collaborated, then there may be more than one copyright holder. If you created this image, then you are the copyright holder.

Because of the large number of images on Wikipedia, we've sorted them using image copyright tags. Just find the right tag corresponding to the copyright status of this image, and paste it onto the image description page like this: {{TAGHERE}}.

There are 3 basic ways to licence an image on Wikipedia:

The copyright holder gets the best protection of their work by licencing it under an open content license such as the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike licence. If you have the express permission of the copyright holder to licence their work under the above licence, use the image copyright tag: {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}. The GNU Free Documentation License is another option. Again, if you have the express permission of the copyright holder, use the tag {{GFDL}}.

The copyright holder can also release their work into the public domain. See here for examples.

Images from certain sources are automatically released into the public domain. This is true for the United States, where the Wikimedia servers are located. (See here for images from the government of the USA and here for other governments.) However, not all governments release their work into the public domain. One exception is the UK (see here for images from the UK government). Non-free licence governments are listed here.

Also, in some cases, an image is copyrighted but allowed on Wikipedia because of fair use. To see a) if this image qualifies, and b) if so, how to tag it, see Wikipedia:Fair use.

For more information, see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Please remember that untagged images are likely to be deleted.

If you have uploaded other images without including copyright tags, please go back and tag them. Also, please tag all images that you upload in the future.

If you have any questions, just leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again.

P.S. Also note that per Wikipedia:Fair use#Fair use policy images used under a claim of "fair use" should not be used on userpages. Image:Zero with saber.jpg fall into this category and should be removed. Thanks. --Sherool (talk) 05:32, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know the owner of the website I recieved it from. I shall contact him and request consent from him, then I'll add his consent to the image information. -MegamanZero|Talk 05:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, just make sure to make sure to explain that the artist does indeed agree to release all rights to the image, and adding his contact information or something so that others can verify this (or forward the mail to "permissions at wikimedia dot org" as explained on Wikipedia:Confirmation of permission). I would however advice against releasing it under PD though, if he does the artist loose all rights to the image forever and can't even have the right to ask people to say that he was the one who made it. Something like {{cc-by-2.0}} or even {{GFDL}} would be better for the artist, it lets others reuse and modify the work while requiering that people atribute him as the original creator of the work. Remember someone saying "sure you can put it on the site" does not nessesarily mean it's been released into the public domain or even under GFDL. --Sherool (talk) 15:13, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The image in question bears a prominent "COPYRIGHT CAPCOM" logo on it. It's quite improbable that it was released by Capcom under Creative Commons. Your friend is infringing Capcom's copyrights by putting that image on his site, and you're doing it as well by uploading it here. (The mere act of putting an image on a website does not grant the owner of the website authority to relicense the content.) I've deleted the image and warned you for uploading images under false copyright license (see below); please don't do this again. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. The copyright to Capcom is on the picture because he is using characters the company created. However, the picture itself is completely fan-made. He did not post anything from Capcom. He is a skilled and professional computer artist and this is high-quality fan-work. Had you made an inquery regarding this, I would have explained before your unneeded speedy deletion. You also neglected to visit the site which was clearly on the source information. Had you visisted the site, this would have been verified. However, you deleted without checking source information, and that is unacceptable. -MegamanZero|Talk 18:28, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- In that case, your friend needs to familiarize himself with copyright law; by putting "Copyright Capcom" on the image he's assigning ownership of the image to Capcom. In any case, get the release BEFORE you upload again. He needs to remove the false attribution from the image and send a release notice to the address below or note that he licenses the image under a free license on his own website before this image can be used on Wikipedia. (I've visited the site, and it does not clarify the copyright issue; there is no copyright notice on his site so we must assume that all content is not licensed for any use. There are also questions as to whether images incorporating third-party creative content can be released without permission from the owner of the original copyrights, in this case, Capcom; this is a difficult area of law and Wikipedia would prefer to steer clear of it.) Kelly Martin (talk) 18:34, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, no. The picture clearly states Mega Man X is copyrighted by Capcom, not the picture. This is to verify that the game he is basing his game off of is clearly refernced and copyrighted from capcom. Furthurmore, the picture states it was illustrated by him, and gives clear refernce to his site (which you supposedly visted). The source information is, indeed plain as black and white in this situation, and you did not discuss with me beforehand which would have eleviated many issus in this matter. Finally, I take offense to your comment of my ignorance. I have deeply immersed myself in wikiepdia policy and I am well aware of the fact that the image carries no violation regarding policy. There is, in fact, no disregard to violation in this matter. It is in-fact a violation WP:NPA due to my text on my userpage. Indeed, you may not like it, but I harbored no ill-will towards (nor do I now) you, and simply cited that it was wrong to not discuss and explain beforehand your actions, which is. in fact, remarkably similar to our situation at the momment. Lest there be anymore confusion, I greatly endorse the reason that you deleted those paticular userboxes (and I hope you continue). Acting before discussion and thinking, however, is not a good idea. -MegamanZero|Talk 18:46, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Counter Un-civility Unit[edit]

Wikipedia:Counter Un-civility Unit is a new wiki-project I have thought up. I was wondering if you thought it was a good idea and if you wanted to join up. I need some users backing me before I construct a wikiproject, and you seem to share my views on subjects such as concensus, civilty, etc. Reply on my talkpage if you're interested. Thanks, -MegamanZero|Talk 16:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are really getting carried away with this. Uncivility is treated with apathy wehenever an issue. No need to form an organisation against it. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 16:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I am running for mediator right now, and I believe this project is a good way to introduce working together in wikipedia, mediating issues, discussing how to go about concensus, etc. I do not plan to hunt down anyone or anything such as that, no. :) -MegamanZero|Talk 17:04, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too much of a good thing is bad, dont forget that :). Take it a bit slow as people tend to get wrong ideas otherwise. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 17:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm taking it slow indeed- I'm going to be setting this up all weekend, and support from you would be very appreiated as I plan to make it a sister project to your Wikipedia:Counter Vandalism Unit. I would really like your help and support in this. -MegamanZero|Talk 17:18, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speaking of vandalism, take a look at the slew of new "odd edits" I've added to my userpage. -MegamanZero|Talk 05:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice ones, though VfDs and RfAs are full of odd edits. Real chalenge is to find them in article namespace :D --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 05:30, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shall I add them to your odd edits section..? -MegamanZero|Talk 05:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, lets compete. In one month thime who will have the oddest edits. Its not the quantity, its the oddness that counts. Its a first come first serve one so as t evade dupes. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 05:41, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Competetion, you say..? Seems you are serious about this... Okay, I'll accept. Let's get it done! :) One condition, however: the winner recieves a barnstar of some sort. -MegamanZero|Talk 06:22, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be honest, I dont know if this is a good idea. Uncivility and users being inconsiderate of others is usually taken care of on its own. (On a side note, I think you word you're looking for is actually incivility) The CVU is effective because many pages do not get visits often enough to effectively counter vandals. Incivility usually occurs in a current discussion, so there is plenty of attention, and there are already plenty of steps around to combat it. That being said, I will join in it if it comes to light. The best way to react to Incivility is with Civility, keep that in mind. If you treat others nicely and politely point out their errors and negative behaviors, they will usually calm down or give up.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 07:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I'm curious but cautious about the idea. I'm not sure that we wouldn't do better joining an existing initative. How do you see the unit working? Would it be proactive like the CVU, or would it be responsive, like Wikipedia:Mediation or the Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal? Regards, Ben Aveling 11:11, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image removals[edit]

I've removed the images from your user and user talk pages. The one on your user page was removed for violating the fair use policy (WP:FUC). The one on your user talk page has been deleted for false copyright. While I am permitted to block you for uploading an image with a false copyright notice (the image in question is clearly copyrighted to Capcom, who I very much doubt released it under a Creative Commons license), I have elected to only warn you that uploading images under false copyright is a blockable offense and that repeatedly doing so is grounds for being banned.

Please comply with Wikipedia's policies regarding the use of unlicensed media in the future. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. Kelly, please see my response above. -MegamanZero|Talk 18:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response noted. I will assume that your actions were taken in ignorance of copyright law and Wikipedia's policies, instead of in flagrant disregard of them. Before uploading this image again, please have CapCom (the legal owner of the image) contact the Wikimedia Foundation at [2] stating that they have released the image under either the GFDL or some other license which Wikipedia considers "free". Until then, you may not use this image on Wikipedia except consistent with Wikipedia's fair use policies, which do not permit the use of such content on user or user talk pages. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See response above yet again. -MegamanZero|Talk 18:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I note that you have reinserted the image I removed from your user page. Since I apply a 0RR rule with respect to admin actions, I'm going to report your intentional violation of WP:FU to WP:AN/I. You may be blocked as a result. Kelly Martin (talk) 18:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you may misunderstand Kelly's complaint - she's not disputing the source on the image - merely noting that fair use images are not allowed in the user namespace - only images that are public domain or released under the GFDL. Please do not reinsert the image - doing so would constitute deliberate copyright violation, and be blockable. Phil Sandifer 18:44, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked for one month for changing the license on Image:Zero with saber.jpg from "fair use" to "free for any use" without any basis for doing so. Wikipedia takes copyrights seriously; if you want to continue editing here, you will too. Kelly Martin (talk) 19:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reduced this block to a week. However, know that few will have the same amount of leniency should you do the same again. [[Sam Korn]] 19:08, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There should be no block at all. Ms. Kelly stated: You have been blocked for one month for changing the license on Image:Zero with saber.jpg from "fair use" to "free for any use" without any basis for doing so. which is nonsense. My basis, had she asked and not made an assumption, was clearly a good-faith edit. I even utilized a edit summary in the image, and thought that the image, being clearly spread across numerous websites, used in numerous galleries, and edited by internet users must be "free for any use". However, I was, instead blamed for maliciousness, and unfairly blocked. please see my contributions- I have never vandalised, commited trolling, etc. and I have been an active contributer for over a year. Pray tell, why would I start now...? Also note, I answered to Ms. Martins comment in the column above, and I see she has neglected to answer. Instead, she pusehed the unfair assumption of her perception and didn't even inquire an explanation, which in that case, gives her even less grounds to claim I was being vindictive. Finally, regarding her assumption that I changed the copyright thesis to fit my own motives, that's ridiculous. Seeing my history, I had ample enough time to re-insert the image back into my userpage, but I did not, clearly I hadn't even thought of changing copyright to bypass policy. I don't disagree I may be incorrect in the knowlegde of sourcing that image, but to say I was changing it to be vindictive is pure fallacy. -MegamanZero|Talk 19:21, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that an image is widely used does not itself demonstrate that it is actually free for any use - other uses may be in error. More detailed copyright information is necessary to make that claim - specifically a claim from the copyright holder that it is free for any use. If you express that you understand this fact, I will lift the block. Phil Sandifer 19:24, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand, and aplogize, I did not intend to be vindictive, however, Ms. kelly blocked without garnering a thesis from me, which would have explained my actions. Making blind assumptions, acting by perception, and not checking her sources regarding the X8 image is unacceptable. I talked and explained myself to her in good faith, even attempting to be nice after her insult to my integretity and my intelligence. -MegamanZero|Talk 19:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're reading this[edit]

Submit a full apology to Kelly Martin (email) and promise you will not use fair use images in your userspace again. I also strongly recommend that you get that diatribe against her off your userpage! I am only looking after your best interests.--MONGO 22:38, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the proceeding discussion. I tried to excercise civilty, I throughy explained my actions, yet, for some odd reason, I'm being blamed for dis-regard for rules, vandalism, slanderous behavior, and insolense. I am always ready to apologize when I am in the wrong, and indeed, remedy issues that are completely my fault, but this is ridiculous. I discussed in a fair manner and was as nice as possible. As for the "diatribe" on my userpage, I shall not take it off. Because when I talked to her about it, she turned a blind eye and deaf ear. If it offends her, then tell her to discuss it with me and I'll do so. But, she mentioned nothing of it, so I can only assume it must not bother her too much. Ethier that, or she's avoiding discussion again, and decided to take it up on herself to bully me because she didn't like it. Talking civily instead of jumping in headfirst would have done a world of difference. However, she decides its above her, I'm not the wrong in the wrong here, and I excersised good faith. There's nothing to apologize for. -MegamanZero|Talk 22:53, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't really read the comments on his user page. Anyway, people are entitled to say what they want about me on the wiki as long as they keep it out of article space. I'm not going to get into the above discussion in any other way, except to say that MegamanZero has some serious misunderstandings about both copyright law and Wikipedia copyright policy, and that I am more than willing to educate him with regard to either matter at his convenience. An apology is not required, although a promise not to violate policy in the future might be in order. I will be monitoring his user pages for a time, to make sure he complies with policy once his block expires. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No apology indeed. What do you mean "Update: User:MegamanZero altered the license on the image in dispute from "fair use" [91] to "free for any use" [92] in order to get around the fair use policy. This alteration of the license was based on no legitimate claim and was clearly done with total disregard for our copyright policies and the copyright law. I am therefore blocking MegamanZero for one month.?" You leave a comment on my talk page threatning my good faith and it only takes you a few minutes to start insulting me and blocking because I haven't had a chance to answer yet? -MegamanZero 23:07, 7 january 2005 (UTC)

When you restored the image to your user page, I requested administrative assistance. After having done so, I went back to check the exact license on the image in question (which I had recalled as being "fair use" but I wasn't certain) and noticed at that time that it had been changed to "free for any use". No reasonable person would believe that Capcom would release one of their major characters with a "free for any use" license (such a contention is patently ridiculous and does not pass the "laugh test"), which led me to conclude that you had changed the license for the purpose of permitting yourself to continue using it on your user page after being told that you could not. (As it happens, you're just sadly misinformed as to copyright law. I tend to forget how ignorant the general public about such matters.) At that point, I concluded that you were engaged in copyright fraud, for which we are permitted to block first and ask questions later. It might have been better for me to let some other administrator block you -- you certainly deserved it -- but one of my roles on Wikipedia for the last several months has been to shape fair use policy and I take a very hardline attitude toward it, in large part because we have so many editors who disregard copyright law and policy at every turn. In addition, Jimbo has encouraged us to be very strict on enforcement of copyright issues. I don't back down on this particular issue, and I am very ready to block people, if for no other reason than to get their attention.

With respect to the other image, the fanart done by your friend, I would encourage you not to use it on Wikipedia. Even if your friend does release the image under a Creative Commons license and makes the required notifications (remember, either on his website or by mail from an address we can tell is his to the address I gave above), there is still the issue that the image contains content derived from Capcom intellectual property. His legal right to distribute those works is, at best, shaky; his legal right to release them under a Creative Commons license even more so. Wikipedia prefers to stay well away from gray areas in copyright law, especially in situations where the proposed "gray area" use serves no encyclopedic purpose. Decorating your user talk page is not an encyclopedic purpose, and so you should avoid using any media on your user talk except when you have a clear and unencumbered license permitting unlimited free redistribution.

You've gotten about as much consideration from me on this topic as you can reasonably expect. Your conduct here has been similar to a guy who gets stopped by a cop for speeding and gets a verbal warning, then paints over the speed limit sign (because everyone else speeds anyway) and then tries to argue with the cop that because there's no more sign, it's not against the rules to speed. Painting over the sign (even if done in good faith) doesn't change the speed limit. Your misunderstanding of copyright law and Wikipedia copyright policy, even if founded in good-faith ignorance, doesn't excuse your violations of the law and the risk you put the Wikimedia Foundation into when you continue to disregard the law after being told to stop. Kelly Martin (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you have something very specific to ask regarding my commitment to policy at Wikipedia, I hope that you will treat me with a little bit of consideration. I've been doing this for little over a year with a dedicated sprit. I have written extensively about various articles, made various contributions and so on, and I think it's really a little bit shocking that you, without even asking me or talking to me fairly, resort to accusing me of nefarious conflict of interest. Please don't do that, I'm actually a very nice person and it is wrong to make grave accusations like that when they are not true, ok? -MegamanZero|Talk 23:43, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Megaman...I like you my friend, but you could possibly be banned for good...I urge you to do as I say this one time...if you want to come over to my talk page and cuss me out, please do so as I will understand. The copyvio issues are serious concerns and I know you did not mean to be obstinate...just bow to the force this time...I have had to do so in the past as I uploaded a lot of images in commons that were copywrited and didn't relaize I had to show the email which offered permission to use. I had to get rid of them...as a matter of fact, I think I need to head over there soon and properly nominate a few of them for deletion.--MONGO 01:46, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

....Fine. I'll abide by this, and I'll promise to look more closely into copyrighting images more carefully. I apologize for any and all disruption I've caused, it wasn't intended, and it won't happen again. -MegamanZero|Talk 02:31, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. Kelly, once again, your comment and thesis regarding my actions is absurd: "Your conduct here has been similar to a guy who gets stopped by a cop for speeding and gets a verbal warning, then paints over the speed limit sign (because everyone else speeds anyway) and then tries to argue with the cop that because there's no more sign, it's not against the rules to speed. Painting over the sign (even if done in good faith) doesn't change the speed limit. Your misunderstanding of copyright law and Wikipedia copyright policy, even if founded in good-faith ignorance, doesn't excuse your violations of the law and the risk you put the Wikimedia Foundation into when you continue to disregard the law after being told to stop."

Thesis[edit]

If anyone reproduces the opinion of Ms. Kelly, in a manner that suggests that this is a fact rather than an opinion, I think it's appropriate to observe that, While Ms.Martin is a lovely chap, my ventures into the area of her "policy" haven't been very successful, and her observations are rarely accurate. For more detail, see my line-by-line response to one of her extended personal attacks on me, on my talkpage (above). You falsely accuse me of "(..such a contention is patently ridiculous and does not pass the "laugh test"), which led me to conclude that you had changed the license for the purpose of permitting yourself to continue using it on your user page after being told that you could not.", as well as malicious actions. Lest you continue to be in any doubt about this serious failing of yours, given your decision to involve yourself in discussions, I'll elaborate here:

Your misunderstanding of copyright law and Wikipedia copyright policy, even if founded in good-faith ignorance, doesn't excuse your violations of the law and the risk you put the Wikimedia Foundation into when you continue to disregard the law after being told to stop."

This is where it gets surreal. That comment simply says that you asked me to do something; and yet you insult my intelligence (clear violation of WP:NPA by citing me ignorant (twice), after I cleary requested that you stop because I took offense the first time. But hey, regarding the removal and non-reinsertion into my userpage. You did not say that I couldn't change the copyright vio in good faith. You also neglected to say anything regarding you would percieve it as so. Maybe you meant to cite another comment on the page in which I did say that an image could be unilaterally deleted for the reason you give? Rather, it seems from your answers that you wish to be able to ignore discussion, which your earlier actions also seem to indicate.

"I will be monitoring his user pages for a time, to make sure he complies with policy once his block expires."

No thanks, I have two mentors, and you stalking me doesn't sound too great an idea. However, feel free to fill out an rfar.

" User:MegamanZero altered the license on the image in dispute from "fair use" [65] to "free for any use" [66] in order to get around the fair use policy."

Um.. Nope. Absolutely not. Look at the history. My edit summary cleary depicts I was trying to make a good faith edit, ara, ara, intent to put the correct copyvio on. You gave me too much credit- I hadn't even thought of doing that to replace the image on my userpage, and I was willing to leave it off.

"This alteration of the license was based on no legitimate claim and was clearly done with total disregard for our copyright policies and the copyright law. I am therefore blocking MegamanZero for one month."

Not true. It's based on your failure to construct a logical argument, supported by correct factual observations, to support your thesis.

"Since I follow 0RR with respect to admin actions, I've merely notified the user that I will report his disregard of policy here. And so I have. I request that some other administrator remove the image again and take such appropriate measures as to ensure that this user returns to compliance with policy in this regard."

This is also very hard to believe. Are you claiming that you adhere to policy when you feel it rectifies your POV.? Sure it does, because after the userbox fiasco, you clearly stated "screw process" and you cited you Ignore All rules when you feel its right. So citing I disregard policy is extremley hipocritical.

Your conduct here has been similar to a guy who gets stopped by a cop for speeding and gets a verbal warning, then paints over the speed limit sign (because everyone else speeds anyway) and then tries to argue with the cop that because there's no more sign, it's not against the rules to speed.

You're welcome to your (incorrect) opinion, but I observe that you don't seem to be able to support it with verifiable facts.

Indeed, there you go again. I was trying to reconcile the stuff on the copyright you put up with Wikipedia policy. I've been telling you constantly that this deletion review thing and your ridiculous block in its current wording is a blind assumption on your part.

You say "I concluded that you were engaged in copyright fraud" and "I tend to forget how ignorant the general public about such matters" . No, the conclusion of your personal POV and blind assumption of the general public, as clearly shown in your rfc's. And I mean all the people, not just your little clique on your POV that's decided to ignore the civilty policy and the good faith policy.

That's why I felt I had to go into that mess and haul out a potential survivor, its heart still beating, while you did your best to squeeze the breath of life out of me by misrepresenting my good faith and actions.

I don't expect that the situation will be made much worse by this latest fiasco, but I did think it worthwhile to try to represent to you just how far you have diverged from Wikipedia policy and (consequently) how powerless your insatible lust for justification had become. I mean, if someone can just step in and undelete something right under your nose, and not engage in discussion, pretend to follow policy (when you blatently quoted that you frequently endorse your POV), what's the point, eh? If you can still claim to be representing the will of Wikipedia, after an experience like that, you're even better at lying to yourself than our mutual friend, Mr. IgnoreAllRules. -MegamanZero|Talk 22:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Block[edit]

What the hell? I look at the block log and it keeps incresing... It should've ended over two hours ago! -MegamanZero|Talk 01:28, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's decreasing:

18:58, 7 January 2006 Kelly_Martin (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked "User:MegamanZero" with an expiry time of 1 month (flagrant and intentional copyright abuse)
19:06, 7 January 2006 Sam_Korn (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) blocked "User:MegamanZero" with an expiry time of 1 week (reducing block)
22:37, 7 January 2006 Karmafist (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) unblocked User:MegamanZero (User acted in Good Faith, block not justified.)
22:55, 7 January 2006 Karmafist blocked "User:MegamanZero" with an expiry time of 48 hours (per http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Image%3AZero_with_saber.jpg&diff=34262512&oldid=32038859)

--Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:11, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I put this notice on the discussion of these blocks on WP:AN/I:

Megaman Zero appointed me voluntarily as his mentor a couple of weeks ago. As there are enough eyes on this case and he should know not to do anything like this again, I propose that the block remain as forty-eight hours. If he doesn't take copyright very seriously thereafter , then a one-month block would be deserved. I know that an indefinite block may be considered in such circumstances where someone has knowingly tried to fiddle the copyright policy, but this is a user who genuinely wants to help Wikipedia. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 09:25, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw that. I pretty much agree with everything except "knowingly tried to fiddle the copyright policy". I did not. I changed the images copyright because I thought it was correct. I did not do it to bypass policy or "fiddle". -MegamanZero|Talk 09:27, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I take that back. If you were to do so again, I'm sure you realise that then it would be difficult to interpret such actions in good faith. We have to be able to trust our editors never knowingly to expose Wikipedia to a lawsuit on intellectual property. They're very expensive and Wikipedia, having absolutely no revenue stream, really cannot spare the money. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't feel this block was justified... Ms. Martin made an assumption on my integrity and actions, describing them as malicious, and I wasn't given a chance to defend myself... In regard to the block, however, when will it be nullified..? I'm ready to get back to making and improving articles; as I just finishing writing my usual rough drafts and thesis. -MegamanZero|Talk 19:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MobyGames link[edit]

Actually MobyGames links are OK. Check computer and video games discussion. Talk:Computer_and_video_games-—Preceding unsigned comment added by Flipkin (talk • contribs)

Fine by me. My apologies for deleting it, spam has been alarmingly incresing as of late. -MegamanZero|Talk 19:21, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medcom nom[edit]

Yeah, we're a bit slow with those. I'll mention it on the mailing list. Redwolf24 (talk) 05:29, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Deletion[edit]

Hi, I nuked the vandal image. About the KOF images, yeah I found a tonne of inproperly tagged when I checked the uploads a while back, though in hindsight I should probably have listed many of them on WP:CP rather than as "no license". Anyway I keep a little list of images I've tagged to remind myself to check up on them later, if you go to User:Sherool/No source and check the ones dated December 31 I think you'll find that most of them are KOF or other fighting game related. --Sherool (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for the reply. Yeah, I was wondering about the sourcing because every time I looked on my watchlist, you had deleted more images :) Indeed, I'll see about retagging the images properly and getting correct and concise source information. Also, I left a comment on the vandal's talkpage ([3]) and it seems that vandalization was his only contribution(s). You may want to consider blocking, but he's stopped at the momment (and I left a warning), so I'll just leave it at that. Cheers, -MegamanZero|Talk 20:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediaholic score[edit]

Sorry I din't include you into the users I spammed about the situation on the tests talk page. If you like, after the decision about the false score is settled, I can add you to the top 20. — Moe ε 22:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'd like that. -MegamanZero|Talk 22:38, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

White Rose Society[edit]

Hello. This is in response to the message you left on my talk page. If you'll look at the edit history of the deletion request, you'll see I followed instructions. It was people who posted later who just came in and posted above my entry. Thanks, and welcome to Wikipedia! Holdek ^(talk) 23:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Thanks for the clarification. -MegamanZero|Talk 23:36, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HI, Bro![edit]

I finally made it. How did you make this nice talkpage? -Tenshouzan 00:08, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What's this? I dunno you! Who are you?! Unless..... its you..! I knew there was foul play aloof when you editted those KOF articles! Welcome to wikipedia. -MegamanZero|Talk 06:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipediaholic score (2)[edit]

Hi again. I added your score to the Top 20. Cheers! — Moe ε 03:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! BTW, I am not addicted to Wikipedia. Not at all! Honest! (He's lying through his teeth) -MegamanZero|Talk 12:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template Colour Change[edit]

Hi, I just noticed you've been changing template colours on some Megaman Zero Character bios. Would you mind telling me why, because I can't for the life of me figure out the reason behind it? Wolf ODonnell 11:31, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? It gives them more personality, makes them more attractive, and that constant yellow color was just boring. -MegamanZero|Talk 11:49, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why I withdrew from the elections[edit]

I withdrew from the elections because it was evident that I would not obtain a level of percentage support sufficient to have a reasonable expectation of appointment. I saw no point in prolonging the affair, especially since I know that I still enjoy Jimbo's support, nontheless. Kelly Martin (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Despite my vote, and our previous encounter, I hold no ill will towards you and I think you a rather determined individual. I was surprised to see you withdraw. -MegamanZero|Talk 04:33, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virturoids[edit]

It's fine but it needs a category. But could you at least get my name right? I'm not Jacoplane, nor is K1Bond007. Thunderbrand 20:28, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess Category:Fictional elements from computer and video games would do for now. Although I guess it could go under Category:Computer and video game characters, but they are mechs and arent "living". Thunderbrand 20:37, 12 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The White Rose Society (website)[edit]

Please don't tell new users that "discussion" should not obstruct the "voting area". That's exactly the converse of what AFD is about. Uncle G 01:13, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, but I not know what you are talking about. I never said anything remotely like that. -MegamanZero|Talk 04:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks from rogerd[edit]

File:Baseball (ball) closeup.jpg

Hi MegamanZero- Thanks for your support on my RfA. I appreciate the kind words that you used in your comments. If I can be of any service please leave me a message --rogerd 01:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mega Man Zero[edit]

I'm planning on readding and possibly expanding this since the current MMZ articles only describe the parts of the setting relevant to them; none give an overview of the setting. For obvious reasons I'd like to ask if you think we should have an overview, and what could be done to improve this one. Also, do you have a clear idea of why Neo Arcadia genocided Reploids? It's clear that the Maverick Virus is destroyed, but there are references to both paranoia about Mavericks and the Reploids' consumption of energy in a time of dire scarcity. Perhaps both.

On the offchance that you haven't thought of this: The Four Generals seem to be a body of special Reploids entrusted with hunting down and destroying Mavericks, and that sounds awfully familiar... --Kizor 01:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article already seems to be more than efficent in explaining the game's premise, so I think an overview is unessary. About the four generals, I don't understand your query, because we made full articles on each of them awhile ago. Also the game has not stated that Zero's virus is gone, so we can't make assumptions. Thanks for your input, though. -MegamanZero|Talk 03:52, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Premise, yes: Zero's been sleeping, Neo Arcadia is evil and the Resistance is not, zap slash boom bang. There's little about the blasted state of the world, the defeat of the Maverick Virus (you're right that we don't know it's no more, but it's clearly history, over with, not a factor (until further notice)), or the like. The mention of the Four Generals wasn't a query, just a piece of unfounded speculation that I found cool: Could they be the remnant or corruption of the Maverick Hunters? --Kizor 12:38, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think the article is fine the way it is. It explains quite enough on its own, and the various articles across the games even furthur the information capacity. About your speculation regarding the Four Generals, They can't be considered remnants of the Maverick hunters in the strictest sense (since they were made from X's design and weren't around in the time of the Maverick hunters), but they are remanents of the Maverick hunters in the spritual sense, as they act, carry out and perform their duties in the same way the Maverick Hunters did. I also speculate that Neo Arcadia evoloved from the Maverick Hunters , as the Repliforce war and Neo Arcadia's regime both are very similar situations. Depends on how you look at it, I suppose (I tend to overanalyze things)....-MegamanZero|Talk 12:48, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

about VR images[edit]

Real reason is that I like anime-ish image more. ^_^ Just kidding, it just that you use '''{{PD}}''' for licensing. Since the template said it was obsoleted, I'm decide to replace them. (And I indeed like anime-ish images :D )

By the way http://vo-force.sega.jp also has image of Kagekiyo, which not feature in VO: MARZ. So you might want to check. L-Zwei 17:17, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh! The license, eh..? Just change it to {{{fairuse}}} in the space where it has licensing. No need to change out the picture! :) I like the concept art too, but it strips away their weaponry, and I really would like the pictures to include that. In the future, could you find art that includes the weaponry..? Thanks, and I'm glad you're working on the Virtual On articles with me and Tenshozohan, we really need the help. :) Nice to meet you by the way.-MegamanZero|Talk 17:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, only image I plan to replace is the Vox Dan. It's concept art also show the weapons as well. L-Zwei 12:15, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. BTW, which VR(s) do you prefer to play as..? And what's your favorite Virtual On game..? -MegamanZero|Talk 12:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't laugh at me. I only play the Operation Moongate and not even be a good pilot (not a VO+ :p). I'm more of a mecha mania than a gamer. L-Zwei 12:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Concerning: Iris Thorne[edit]

I'm afraid I am not an expert of any information concerning Iris from Megaman X4 nor an expert of information from the X Series. All I know is the bare bones of the story, having never owned nor played any of the games (except for Command Mission). In the meantime, I have tagged the article as factually inaccurate and have removed as much Megaman Zero misinformation as possible. Wolf ODonnell 21:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have the entire thing deleted. There can't be that much info on Iris that she deserves an entire article all to herself. She is, after all, a secondary character, right? Wolf ODonnell 23:59, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

in reguards to your statement about my Iris article, I appreciate criticism, although please allow me to explain. Yes, there are many fan altercations to the Rockman X universe, although not everything you see is fiction.

Iris carried an automatic pistol in the Rockman X manga by Yoshiro Iwamoto, and she only used it at the time when she threatened to commit suicide if Zero and Colonel did not stop fighting. Iris was also kidnapped and forced to fight inside of the huge mecha in the end of the manga, instead of going insane and trying to kill Zero. I own the manga, and I stand by what I saw. The name "Thorne" comes from the Rockman X4 information book by Capcom that I own and translated, and the information of a father figure in the scientist team involved in the "ultimate reploid project" came from the same book. I said "bio-Robot" because I felt it was another example of a Reploid's construction, although looking at it now, it was probably a poor decision. I specifically said it was a dispute as to wether or not Iris was or was not the Dark Elf, as I have noticed many people believe she is while many also believe she is not.

All the same, feel free to delete the article if you feel you must, all I can say is, I tried. -—Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexxu (talk • contribs)

The article is very well written. I like it, and I appreciate your hard work, but the information is incorrect (the manga is not canon), and you inserted that incorrect speculation into the Dark elf article. Also note that we already had a Iris article pior to the creation of your own. I'm sure no ones angry or anything, just worried about introducing wrong information to wikipedia. That said, I'm glad you have a liking for the Mega Man series, and I hope you continue editting with us, as your article quality is surperb. Welcome to wikipedia BTW, and don't hesitate to leave a comment on my talkpage if you want to talk about anything. Regards, MegamanZero|Talk 16:57, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC/KM[edit]

You commented on Kelly Martin's second RfC. it is up for archival. you may vote at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kelly_Martin#Archiving_this_RfC. CastAStone|^(talk) 03:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual On[edit]

Hi MMZ, you might want to add any articles you want feedback on to Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Peer review. I haven't forgotten to look at the article, I've just been kind of busy. I'll try and take a look at it and provide you some feedback soon. Cheers! Jacoplane 16:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Cat RFA[edit]

I've removed it from the main RFA page - nominations don't get listed there unless/until the candidate accepts. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/nominate. FreplySpang (talk) 22:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could've sworn I had already removed it myself. -Zero^Talk 22:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you, me and Aranda56 all pressed save at the same time? FreplySpang (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect so. -Zero^Talk 22:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Z-Saber and Lightsaber[edit]

Yes! I read the section on the Z-Saber. The level at which are allowed to use each is around the same age. They seem to have similar amounts of power (both being able to cut through nearly anything), they both rely on an internal reactor that doesn't run out of power, and they both can have the different uses, such as the blocking of blasts, etc. And of course, they also have a similar appearance and seem to be handled in similar ways. Hope that helps! The Wookieepedian 22:54, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL! Now the God of MegaMan knowledge can proceed about his work! :P The Wookieepedian 23:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised he hasn't returned to his reverts on the Star Wars pages. When he did that, it was several times daily... every day... for months! The Wookieepedian 23:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What, does he think people are just going to stop watching his page and stop reverting? The Wookieepedian 23:30, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AOF, FF, KOF Images[edit]

If you'd looked at the info before erasing all my KOF images you'd have learned I got them from: http://www.kawaiidream.net

Dstorres

Thanks for the link. Also, I haven't been deleting your images, if you would check, you;d see its Sherool; don't blame me when my involvement is nil. -Zero^Talk 07:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was initially referring to you replacing the images with the KOF Neowave pics (as opposed to the newer KOF XI) but I can see how you would not realize that (since I wasn't very clear). My bad and I appologize. I knew it was the other guy going through and erasing them.Dstorres

You'd rather me use the repulsive 2000, 2001, and 2002 art..? You sir, I shall take to court for your bad taste! :) -Zero^Talk 21:17, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MMZ continuation[edit]

This is kind of old butI think they should make a MMZ5 LIKE Zero is tring to come back to life like in the cyber world -—Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.24.251 (talk • contribs)

Ahhh! My eyes!! All this bad grammer and punctuation! The googles do nothing! -Zero^Talk 00:21, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Surnames in your sig[edit]

Could I ask you to please stop putting other people's surnames in your sig? it's very confusing. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 19:55, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assure you, the screw up isn't at my end. My variable weapons system has gone out of control since the days of maverick hunting, and now it assimilates the data of my fellow wikipedians. I'm sorry, I have to get it repaired. :) --~~Zero Sidaway|Talk~~ Zero^Talk 19:58, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The MegaManpedian has done this on my page as well. ;) The Wookieepedian 20:07, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem is, the 'fun' you're having leaves permanently substituted records in the database. These will be confusing to others for years to come, unless you plan on going back and cleaning them all up. -- nae'blis _(talk) 21:51, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just stop doing it, please, Zero. It is both confusing and intensely irritating. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:09, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not intend for this to be irritating or harmful. I'll return and replace the sigs. My deepest apologies. -Zero^Talk 06:52, 12 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Things for later[edit]

Article counting tool

End of competetion[edit]

Cool Cat, we need to end this competetion...Its obvious you can't match odd edits like this, so can we please start judging now..? :) -Zero^Talk 21:24, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very well, you win. Was a nice game. :) --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 21:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar! --Zero Cat^Talk|@ 22:42, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No not a barnstar. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 09:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

F-22 Raptor[edit]

I here by award you this FA-22 Raptor for winning the competition. It is an odd award indeed but what kind of an award is more approporate for the competition between us finding odd edits. --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 09:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh look, its changed into a barnstar. I dislike images as designs, so I always mutate them into something prettier.:) -Zero^Talk 13:17, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our competition did not involve writing articles thats why I didnt give away barnstars :P --Cool Cat^Talk|@ 20:38, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, but barnstars aren't strictly confined to awards for article writing - for the oddball barnstar,it states: or is otherwise something that one wouldn't expect to find in more traditional encyclopedias., which fits our situation perfectly. Also, its name id perfect- oddball barnstar for our odd edit competetion. :) -Zero^Talk 02:19, 19 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MMZ 5[edit]

DOOD ZERO,

DOOD! WHEN R MEGAMANZERO 5 COMIN OUT DOOD? I MEAN DOOD! UR TE KING DOOD BUT I WANT IT OUT MAN DOOD! EVERY OTHER DOOD SAYS SOMETHING ELSE LIKE DOOD ITS COMIN OUT IN JUNE DOOD OR NO DOOD ITS COMIN IN APRIL! WHAT A BUNCHA IDIOT DOODS! SO U SHOULD KNOW SINCE U R THE SMART GUY DOOD! SO TELL ME DOOD WHEN IS THE GAME COMIN OUT DOOD?

P.S. : DOOOOOOOOOOD

P.S.P.S :PUT ME TRU TO DA PENTAGON DOOD!

P.S.P.S.P.S. : HY U SAY THAT ABOUT A GURL? HIBANA! I MEAN DOOD U A NERD OR SOMETIN OR U JUST AN IDIOT DOOD! TELL COOL CAT THAT DOOD! DONT JOIN THE EVIL MEGAMANZERO DOODS DARK FORCES DOOOOOD! DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD! I WILL NOT BE SILENCED DOOD! ~Megamanfan

This is exactly the sort of commment I dread receiving. The very kind of message I receive in my fevered nightmares, as I toss and turn, hunted by packs of my fans, through stygian corridors hewn from cyclopean masonry, as the voices in my head tell me to kill.

The truth is, Mega Man Zero 5 is never coming out. Never. You were also bad, and gave MegamanZero nightmares, so Capcom canceled the game. After all, what's a few million dollars compared to me getting a good nights sleep?

And about Mr. Sidaway and Hibana, sorry, they've already joined the Dark Side. They are a bonafide member of my Harem, as well as dedicated wikiepdians. They also like to bite people. So with that, Mr. Megamanfan, I bid your adieu, and move on to the next waste of my time. ...I mean, talkpage message. -Zero^Talk 19:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Philwelch[edit]

With regards to your edit summary here--did you even see who reverted you? :) — Phil Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 18:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opps. I thought someone else had reverted when I looked at my watchlist. My apologies. Sorry you don't like the new design. — Zero Welch Are you a fan of the band Rush? 18:46, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Xiangfei.jpg[edit]

Hi again, please fix the source for this image. www.KOFzero.com is long gone, acording to the wayback machine it's not existed in any usefull form since 2003 and I can't find the image or any info about it from the wayback archives. Preferably name the artist (preferably also some contact info) who made it and such instead if possible. Also please don't use the {{CopyrightedFreeUse}} template lightly, it's practicaly the same as public domain and you need some explanation to prove that the copyright holder does indeed allow it to be used for any purpose (wich include derivative work and commercial usage in this context). --Sherool (talk) 23:19, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Posted reply on your talkpage. -Zero^Talk

Hey, what's up?[edit]

Don't forget to make sure this is a collaborative effort. I was informed of the issues you may be having with User:S&T Kawaii Love, and though I have no idea what the disputes are all about, do all you can to be nice to one another. This suggestion is not me implying that you haven't been nice, just a friendly reminder, so please don't take offense. See ya around!--MONGO 23:15, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly, I know you always do your best. As I mentioned before, I am not well versed in the articles you tend to edit, but am always happy to help if you find yourself in an argument. Keep up the good work.--MONGO 08:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates and subst[edit]

I noticed you created a template for Tekken characters (Template:Tekken characters), but it looks like you've subst'd it into articles you used it with. Unfortunately by using subst, any changes made to the template won't be reflected in the articles it was used in. It's not a big deal, and I'll try and help with getting them squared away. I also made some minor cosmetic changes to Template:Tekken characters as well; feel free to revert or modify as you see fit. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 12:32, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NoSeptember's RfA[edit]

Thank you, Zero, for your support of my RfA. If you ever need for anything, please contact me. I will do my best in my new role and welcome your feedback. NoSeptember ^talk 13:49, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images[edit]

Hello. I noticed you have a talent for finding KOF and SF images. Could you direct me to a URL where I could find images for the KOF 2003 and 2004 characters..? Thanks. -MegamanZero|Talk 11:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link. Also, I haven't been deleting your images, if you would check, you'd see its Sherool; don't blame me when my involvement is nil. -Zero^Talk 07:31, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I wanted to keep the KOF III and IX images. I had inserted them into articles, but like I said, she deleted them. Could you do me a favor..? I've been really busy overhalling the KOF characters, and you are quite good at imaging work -could you upload new images..? In paticular I need:

Tizoc
Adeheild Bernstein
Elizabeth
Shen Woo
Orochi
Rock Howard
Li Xiangfei
Oswald

I'd do it myself, but its been a long time since I read spanish and I can't navigate the website :( When/If you get them, please leave a note on my talkpage so I can insert them in the templates. Also when you upload them, put {{character-artwork}} and sources as the licesning info so they won't get deleted again. Thanks. -Zero^Talk 15:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have decided to give up on doing videogame entries since all the artwork I provided was taken down event though I provided the info that was required. I can e-mail you the pics you asked for and you can do the updates at your leasure if you so wish. I'm sticking to comic book entries for the time being.

Noticed something you might be interested in[edit]

Someone has proposed the creation of a Megaman Wikiproject. Thought you'd like to know. Cheers! Jaco plane 04:11, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look here as well. Jaco plane 05:42, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I'm afraid Cool Cat may be cruising for trouble. -Zero^Talk 21:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD Thanks[edit]

Please accept my embarrassingly belated thank you for supporting my RfA, which much to my surprise passed 102/1/1, earning me minor notoriety. I am grateful for all the supportive comments, and have already started doing the things people wanted me to be able to do. And hopefully nothing else... Just zis Guy, you know? ^[T]/_[C]

AfD? 12:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese swordsmanship/kenjutsu[edit]

Some base consensus has been reached regarding classification on Talk:Japanese swordsmanship if you'd care to throw in a yay/nay. The basic consensus is to treat kenjutsu as the parent class of the various styles (iaido, etc.), redirect Japanese swordsmanship to it, and cover the specific styles in their own articles. --Kyle Davis 17:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images again.[edit]

Ive categorized all (I hope) of the DOA images. Im leaving it up to you to decide which ones should be deleted. link here are all the DOA images Psi edit 21:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it. -Zero^Talk 06:03, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a listing of the images I think should be deleted:

Deletion[edit]

Ayane DOA.jpg

Christie DOA.JPG

Deadoralive janlee.jpg

Helena cg1large.jpg

Kasumi DOA4.jpg

Tina Armstrong DOA.jpg

Kasumi.JPG

-Zero^Talk 09:44, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Computer and video games/Peer review/List of Mega Man weapons[edit]

-Hi, I tried to write this at the peer review but was blocked, so here's a copy/paste:

The table of contents is too long, especially considering some entries are only 1-2 lines long. Format the individual weapon headers as bold and big, and only have the "Mega Man (Classic) series weaponry" (and so on) as section headers - trimming the toc. Also, consider moving the images "Image:Zero(Shield boomerang).jpg" and "Image:Axlbullet.jpg" to the left side of the page. Finally, remove the links in the headers, instead using {{main}}. About the intro, what about:

The Mega Man weapons are the fictional armory used by the characters in the Mega Man series of video games to overcome their enemies in battle. The main character of the series, Mega Man, has no right arm, but in its place he uses several different weapons; many of them revolve around beam and/or energy manipulation and they tend to be quite distinguishable between each iteration of the game series. In the start of the series he holds the Mega Buster in place of his right arm, and different augmentations to his original weapon are directly applied to the Mega Buster, while later in the series he receives several different weaponarms and gadgets which replaces the Mega Buster as a whole.

Other characters of note are Zero and Axl. Zero wields energy charged mêlée weapons with high velocity, as well as the odd beam pistol, while Axl exclusively uses firearms.

I've never played a Mega Man game, so mind the errors. Poulsen 09:26, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your helpful comments are noted. Thanks for your input. -Zero^Talk 09:39, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tekken images[edit]

I agree, some of the images don't work with the flow/layout of the article (at least at 1024x768). Even having them right aligned didn't work well (and actually made it worse in one of the cases I tried). Having said that, a lot of Street Fighter character pages (like Chun-Li) have sprites on them, but their placement is better and the images are smaller.

There may also be licensing issues with the images themselves since they were taken from a copyrighted website (I'm not sure if fair-use applies here or not; it would definitely apply if the author himself had created the image, but it looks like they were just found on some website). Anyways, let me know how it goes or if I can help clear anything up. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 15:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. I'll remove them and put them up on afd. -Zero^Talk 15:58, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a pointer: WP:IFD is what you meant I think (AFD is strictly for articles). Anyways, good luck! =) —Locke Cole • t • c 16:54, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That was a typo on my part. I meant IFD. -Zero^Talk 16:59, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:P king01.jpg[edit]

You tagged this image as "CopyrightFreeUse". You need to provide more evidence that this is the case. I looked at the website you gave as the source. I saw the copyright notice, but I did not see anything indicating that the image was available to be used freely. If you can't show that the image is licensed for free use, you might be able to justify it as "fair use," but I think it's dubious. Complying with copyright is very important to Wikipedia. Please review our Image use policy - most images found on websites are not free to be used by Wikipedia. FreplySpang (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taken care of. -Zero^Talk 16:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adon[edit]

I noticed this edit where you removed the "Appearance" section. I just wanted to note that not everyone can see the image (blindness, poor eyesight, etc), which is why it might be a good idea to keep a physical description around (though I don't know that it deserves a whole section, but I'll leave that up to you). And about the images you nominated for deletion, I'll be sure and place a comment there as well. =) —Locke Cole • t • c 20:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was redundant to rehash an appearence section when the article already pocesssed a image, but I see your point and it is indeed noted. To compenstate, I moved most of the info into the trivia section, and thanks for seeing about the images; I believe last time I nominated images for deletion, they didn't get any discussion or votes regarding them, so they stayed. Hopefully they get deleted this time around. -Zero^Talk 20:08, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]