User talk:Erachima

Archives

01 Perm. link 01

02 Perm. link 02

03 Perm. link 03

04 Perm. link 04

05 Perm. link 05

06 Perm. link 06

07 Perm. link 07

08 Perm. link 08

09 Perm. link 09

This page is archived every 25 topics, by the removal of the oldest 25 topics.

I see your point, however after the New York Times article I think its safe to say that's his name - they actually never used the phrase claims to be or similar - plus, Wikia must have known his real identity after all. However, better to be safe than sorry perhaps Glen 09:41, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just warned c.m and its only fair I do the same (though from your edit summary you obviously know). Should be fine now :) Glen 09:54, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great minds think alike; I've already commented :) Glen 10:04, 8 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently they do. — Moe 17:51, 10 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I support your deletion of the trivia point because I don't think it's important for the article, but actually Jūshirō does mean fourteenth son, and Japanese people have traditionally been named like this as well (tarō as 'great son' (first), jirō as 2nd, saburō as 3rd, etc.) so it is likely that Jūshirō was the 14th son in his family and thus named. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:22, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well Tōshirō (冬獅郎) is in no way similar to Jūshirō (十四郎) in meaning (although the rō does mean son in both), but phonetics are also a big thing in Japanese and I think the similarity was stated somewhere in the omakes (i.e. the fandom didn't make it up). This may need to be checked though. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 00:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha! Aye, I should've split it. Thanks :) I guess it's gettin late here. Gwen Gale 01:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some changes to the standardization section at Talk:Bleach (manga), attempting to put it inside a template. It's a bit large, but it stands out as we might like. Please let me know what you think. Dekimasuよ! 04:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen your edits here and there, and now we seem to be sharing a talk page over at Essjay controversy. I've always wondered - is there any special meaning behind your user name? Risker 06:30, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for not responding earlier.

Thanks for the cake! :) - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:55, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sandstein does not feel it is an attack on him [1], so please do not delete the information from my userpage again when he replace it later so that I don't violate the 3RR. Billy Ego 20:05, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FYI. - Denny 22:23, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you had voted to keep the category of Fictional Characters by Superpower on the march 7th CFD. Just in case you didn't yet notice, Raidant!'s decision to listify them was put up for review, and another vote started on the 14th. It seems those of us in favor of keeping the categories are losing the debate, and I was hoping you could lend your voice once more so we can keep them --Piemanmoo 20:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I gotta say, after seeing all your self righteous edit's that you deem to be improving unuseful edit's I can safely say that you my friend are a tight fucking bastard. Do not reply to me I really don't give a shit for what you have to say. Have a nice day. -U-Two 22:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was probably 65.184.123.30, who I warned for blanking article content under the guise of "protecting people from evil spoilers" earlier today. Well, whatever, if I'm being randomly insulted by vandals I must be doing something right. --tjstrf talk 01:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When attacked for no apparent reason, do not overlook the possibility that you merely happened to be on the wrong stretch of sidewalk when the nearest bar evicted an overserved and bellicose customer. -- Ben's Guide to Making Sense of Senseless Events in the Big City. -- Ben ^TALK/_HIST 10:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The two statements can't both be true that you don't own a pet rabbit and that your comment at WP:ATT was corrected formulated and understood by me. I like rabbits. We seem to have more wild ones around here than we used to. --Coppertwig 14:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What make you think that's a "joke edit" on WP:FU? It's supposed to clearly and concisely explain the current orthodoxy vis-a-vis our extraordinarily restrictrive interpretation of fair use, and does that succinctly, while also adding, in a place of prominence, the fact that several admins and editors are now deleting any and all fair use photos of living people. Letting editors know that fair use claims are no longer acceptable for photos of living people -- and, in fact that this new policy will be applied retroactively (and, by nature, a little haphazardly) seems not to be a joke at all, but something that could help defuse the continued hostility toward those who seem to have a special enthusiasm for removing copyrighted material, fairly used or not. Jenolen ^{speak it!} 15:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for helping me with the descriptions and personalities. I stink at writing that kind of stuff and yours was excellent. I revised the Ichigo one a tad if you don't mind. Thanks a bunch 71.226.56.79 02:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Do as you see fit. I realized that I forgot about Urahara whacking the fate chain with the large ax in effect "killing" Ichigo. I actually do have a log in, but I forgot my password and I know I have it written down somewhere, and don't think I should create a new account. I guess I can credit it later. thanks 71.226.56.79 03:16, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Taking a look at your most recent contributions to Bleach (manga), I'm really impressed of your work. Pity I didn't give this to you sooner. Your determination inspires me to do better at my own stuff. Keep up the good work! ♣Tohru Honda13♣ 02:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yay! You're another of my random-user-barnstar-giveaway-for-those-who-deserve-them! Too long of a title, don't you think? :P ♣Tohru Honda13♣ 02:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Flippin' funny, dude. I cracked up when I read it. Though I'm not sure whether it's an insult or a compliment... perhaps I should include funny stuff like that for a reason of handing out the barnstar? :D Thanks for showing me that. ♣Tohru Honda13♣ 03:08, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You said at Wikipedia talk:Attribution/Community discussion: "Again, yes. I have not seen any complaints made about the actual policy contained in WP:A that was not simply a reiteration of an older complaint about WP:V or WP:NOR. I also gave all three a thorough readthrough when the merger was announced, and found no complaints to make but a couple swiftly-repaired typos." OK, here is a complaint about the policy in WP:ATT which is not simply a reiteration of an older complaint about WP:V or WP:NOR. This same complaint has been raised by me at Wikipedia talk:Attribution#Role of truth and archived sections of the same thread and the same or very similar complaint was also raised earlier by others during the discussion on the talk page of WP:ATT.

"Verifiability, not truth" is OK because the word "verifiability" contains the meaning of "truth" and therefore largely cancels out one of the two meanings of "not truth". The two meanings of "not truth" by itself are: (1) no to true but unattributable material, and (2) yes to false but attributable material. The word "verifiability" makes it clear that the second of these is not being meant. When "verifiability" is removed or replaced by "attributable", which does not contain "truth" in its meaning, then "not truth" means both those things. I strongly object to the introduction of the second of those things into Wikipedia policy as I see it as an invitation to knowingly insert false material as plain statements without prose attribution. --Coppertwig 21:59, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've left replies for you at both my talk page and the Bleach talk page. Thanks for the work on locating the references in the first place. Dekimasuよ! 01:49, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My bad. CzarNick 18:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What I am trying to do is become a well established Wikipedia User and try to become an administrator. I was trying to correct all of the vandalism i could to work my way to achieving this and when i saw ure comment i immediately thought it was vandalism and tried to correct it. If u dont mind though...could u give me a few tips on being a respected member of the wikipedia community and some tips on anti-vandalsim. Thank you. CzarNick 18:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I no a whole heck of alot about Fullmetal Alchemist, Naruto, and some bands that I like. I'm also big on video games especially Zelda, Oblivion, Mario, Sonic, Resident Evil, and Nintendo itself. Some things I'm interested in though are how to write pretty good using Wiki langauage, how to be a better anti-vandalist, and what other steps should be taken to becoming a better WikiUser.

p.s. on the watchlist i usually see stuff like (+434) or (-456).

¿what does this mean?

CzarNick 18:50, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do u have any hints, tips, or suggestions on using wiki language cuz i really need it. So with FMA and Naruto and Nintendo should I make contributions to it and keep it on my watchlist and correct any mistakes that i may find? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CzarNick (talk • contribs).

Any suggestions on making friends on Wikipedia?

Thanks. I will come to u if i need to know something.CzarNick 19:35, 25 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did notice the little "official" translation footnote; yet I wonder who the "official" refers to. I suppose best to wait on the availability of the Bleach DVD with the Bounto arc. Also, looking through Anime News Network's list, those two names are spelled into direct English. Furthermore, Fansubbing groups have used the English equivalence listed as such. KyuuA4 18:09, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding ratboy's post on my talk page:

Wikipedia Policies, and indeed my own policy for my talk page, can be more restrictive than COPPA. I cited Wikipedia:Youth protection, which does not specifically state an age, it just uses the generic term "child". The Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as "every human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier". ^[1] Since there is no useful purpose beneficial to editing wikipedia for his age to be posted on my talk page, I do not want it there. I believe this is a reasonable decision on my part, as it only pertains to pages in my user space. Jerry 18:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...which side of the meta-editor/troll continuum I would fall under... ;) Have to admit, this talk of feature article review completely caught me off guard! Risker 22:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What use would people who don't read Japanese have for the kanji being spaced versus not spaced, exactly? Also, you'll probably say that the spacing should apply regardless, but it doesn't give anything for fictional characters. And most of the articles I've been changing have half spaced, half not. I was just going for some consistency, and I went with the no-spacing because it is more faithful to the kanji. Nique talk 01:08, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I do understand that the links are relevant, the issue still stands that people were canvassed by MyWikiBiz to add them to the article. I'd say WP:DENY but I'm unsure as to which way that would be applied here.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does not relate to the MfD what-so-ever, rather you complain about an issue you know nothing about. MfD is a discussion on whether an article is to be kept, not what everyone thinks of me / Moe Epsilon. If we wanted your oppinions we would try Editor Review.--Konstable 05:23, 31 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've put the revamped layout up. I think it covers you concerns... please take a look. - J Greb 00:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hee hee. Well, it was vandalism in the technical sense, but I have permission ;)--§hanel 05:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You can be my new hero today - loved the way you wrapped that up with a neat little bow. I had laboriously said more or less the same thing in my planned post, but got an edit conflict because you had done it so much more effectively. Nice work, I won't tarnish it with needless additional commentary. Thanks --Risker 06:27, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See now, I had just settled in for a nice quiet evening of editing Celebrity sex tapes and suddenly I realise that my calendar is wrong. I thought it was April 1 but it seems in this alternate reality that it is indeed February 2.--Risker 06:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the hints simply don't get through to some people: WP:AN —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Risker (talk • contribs) 07:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

This guy seems to like playing with fire on WP:AN. His posting method is bound to irritate an admin or two - smilies on AN? I can't quite rid myself of an image of a younger editor who's been taken under someone's wing, to his detriment. Risker 07:39, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm...I meant you too. If we can find a way to avoid the word "founder" anywhere in the article, that will be good. It also has the benefit of explaining why Wales would still be in position to ask Essjay to resign; by six years down the road, most founders are either gone or officially hold a position. Please watch out for 3RR, some people are very picky on it lately and we may have permanently lost Gwen Gale from Wikipedia (let alone the article) over it. Risker 19:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I eventually figured that out. I have learned more about patience and diplomacy editing this article than I have in a lifetime of working in a very sensitive career field. Sorry to disappear in the midst of it all, had to go rescue my lost wallet. I see Aza Toth has protected the article for a full week. This should be interesting, I half expect someone will take this opportunity to AfD it...Risker 22:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see C.m.jones has reappeared. That reminds me of my last edit on this page [2]. I've never sent anything to MfD, and was sort of biding my time on this to use it when necessary, but perhaps it is time? Risker 01:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I was thinking it probably needed to be done. I have no idea how to do a multiple MfD, so will do separate ones, it will just take me a while to work through the process. --Risker 01:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay..first one is here[3]. --Risker 02:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you tell me...although I'm not entirely sure how I would have linked the boxes on the user subpages to the discussion. Well, if I have badly screwed up, someone will give me a blast but clean it up. Hopefully they will tell me how to do it right next time, although I will do my best not to have a next time. It took me a week to screw up the courage to nominate a single, complete hoax article for AfD the first time. Risker 03:22, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good joke, but now we have a looping sub-category ;) – Chacor 16:43, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am honoured that my talk page has been graced with this blessing ;)--Risker 22:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please take a look at the cool wall section about copyright and my related user talk page please.--Lucy-marie 23:11, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As April Fool's is over, and WP:SIG has been updated to specifically disallow categories in signatures, please stop categorizing pages in to Category:Pages blessed by the input of Wikipedia user tjstrf. This category has been Speedily Deleted. All pages in this category were decategorized as of about 15 mins ago. — xaosflux ^Talk 01:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are in violation of 3RR on Essjay controversy [4] [5] [6] [7] [8].

I have not decided to block you at this point, but if you editing style continues this way I will issue a WP:3RR block. ^High_InBC^{(Need help? Ask me)} 01:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wel were about the same age so i think i can ask you this w/o offending you: Why in the hell does he need to revert my questions! Like this one:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Welcome_to_the_N.H.K.&diff=120261742&oldid=107680217

that was NONE of his...forget it! There was no reason in hell he had to do that! I cant comfirm it but, He likely has never even seen that artical and he shoves his nose in it so im going to re do that question and if he does it again, ill take that as a lack of respect for someone and...report him!--Tatshro Satou 16:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you should report him to an administrator, like Metros232! He be interested to hear about this! ^_^ –Gunslinger47 18:32, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your responce but i really dont get it! How is NHK romance/drama? Its more ecchi,lolicon,black comady not R/D!--Tatshro Satou 17:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

please tell me does this lok like a real question or a smart ass vandal:

• my 10 mg tabs have lost there effect. i bought some insulin syringes, can i crush the pills mix with water and shoot it for better effect?--Tatshro Satou 17:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me how it matters after you read this: Wikipedia:Assume good faith. –Gunslinger47 18:38, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Raul654/Wikipedia the Movie

• Comment. This is the latest round in an ongoing argument over the page between User:Konstable and User:Moe Epsilon, both of whom have been extraordinarily lame about the whole issue. --tjstrf talk 17:23, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would personally like to thank you for dragging me into a MFD I wasn't involved in, an MFD I never edited, and when I wasn't even active on Wikipedia at the time. And thank you so very much with the personal attack. — Moe 06:37, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/QuackGuru, just started. Any help in setting this up would be appreciated. -- Ned Scott 02:50, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Bleach is now an official task force. If you would like to become a member, just add you name to the appropriate place on the page. Thank you for your support, and happy editing. // DecaimientoPoético 21:30, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I'm sorry why I didn't think of it before. This [what I'm doing now] is too painstaking. I'm reverting myself (the category placements at least) and putting the supershuman cats. in the characters category section. Perhaps, can I ask for your assistance? ~I'm anonymous

So, should we just remove them entirely? That's what I've been doing up until now. Let me do this: for the time being, they'll be put into Category:Naruto characters and Category:Bleach characters. Is that understandable? ~I'm anonymous

I had a second thought on that one on Ichigo's article. That's why I had the category stay in the Shinigami category. Is he the fastest in the series? ~I'm anonymous

Oh, it was an accident on my part (on Chad's article). I was distracted about it, sorry. Still, the super speed cat. on Ichigo shouldn't be there. Hmm... ~I'm anonymous

I won't argue. I trust you know what you're doing though. ~I'm anonymous

Hi there. I have a few more things to say, if you don't mind:

1. Is there anyone in BLEACH that can fly? The Shinigami's perhaps? Or anyone you know of other characters in other manga and/or anime series?
2. Looking back at Ichigo Kurosaki's article, instead of leaving him in the fictional character with superspeed cat., he should be in Category:Anime and manga characters who can move at superhuman speeds instead because his origin was in a manga, not another type of written fiction, far as I know. ~I'm anonymous

I shall add Toshiro to the category then. Oh, by the way, I sent a message to User:Someguy0830 (a user who sometimes edits the BLEACH articles) on his opinion regarding whether Ichigo should individually be in the super-speed category or not; as far as I'm concerned, he is a Shinigami and I believe he obtained that power after he became one. If he had it when he was a "normal human", I'd understand. It just still bothers me, no offense — I just want a third person's opinion on this. Peace. ~I'm anonymous

I see where you're coming from, however, it was an ability he attained after he wielded the zanpakutō and/or became a Shinigami. Understandable? I've seen some of BLEACH on Cartoon Network to know some things; its not a bad show, it just isn't interesting in my eyes. But likewise, he "used to" be a human, ergo, once Rukia (I'm sure it was her) introduced him to that stuff, he then later developed that signature super-speed ability, right? Is there anything I've said wrong here? ~I'm anonymous

My whole point here is that if it weren't for that girl, he wouldn't have attained such powers, period. He would never (I believe) had notably been as fast as said to be. Let's use Son Goku of Dragon Ball for example: his speed was so astounding since his childhood years that he eventually became the fastest character in the entire series (in his Super Saiyan 3 and 4 forms, that is) yet, he is not individually in the category. He is in the Z Fighters cat. which leads to the DB superhuman cat. Is my point clear? I don't know how to explain it further, but maybe you can reconsider Ichigo being in the category? Peace ~I'm anonymous

That bankai is sort of like what Goku's Kaio ken is, or an "Eight Gates" ability I read that Rock Lee and Might Guy (from Naruto) can perform. Regardless — Goku is the fastest in his own universe; Might Guy may be the fastest in his own universe, and Ichigo may be the fastest in his: evidently, they all share a "super speed ability" in their own respective categories — Category:Dragon Ball superhuman characters, Category:Naruto characters, Category:Shinigami in Bleach. Convinced? If things were like this then Goku, Guy, and anyone else who has the signature move of super-speed would individually be put into the category. This is why I'm bothered by it, it makes it sound like Ichigo is the only one who deserves to be put in there, whilst there are probably others out that actually need to be in the cat. because they don't share a characters only cat. with superhuman abilities. If this doesn't cling to you and make you reconsider, then I give. ~I'm anonymous

No thanks. I've repeated myself enough. Sometimes I wish people would think the same. Sounds like we're very different in ideals. ~I'm anonymous

If you want, could you get someone else to share their thought in light of the subject? Also, about that Flash guy, he should be placed in Category:DC Comics characters who can move at superhuman speeds (which is nominated for deletion for some reason). ~I'm anonymous

There's no sign of an autoblock either. As this account has been used three times – twice on its own user page, and once to leave me an unsigned and uncivil message, I suspect that it's either simply a troll account or a sock-puppet of someone that I did block. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think a lot of us (judging by the block logs I see when I'm following up on vandalism) are taking advantage of the fact that we can block anons while leaving accounts (and account creation) unaffected. But that's also why it's very unlikely to be an autoblock — I almost always make blocks "anon only", and always when it's more than twenty-four hours. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:16, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Those few who still explain in edit summaries what they're doing seem to me to deserve recognition. Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)Mel Etitis (Talk) 11:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even then it's better than most people manage. --Mel Etitis (Talk) 08:45, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding. GA reached. LordHarris 11:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know im going to wish i never even talk to but i want you to know i am not a problem anymore! Ihave done GREAT edits on 2 different wiki's and i have studyed the rules so dont worry ok! Just calm down! --Lolcon-R-US 17:40, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit summary on Wikipedia talk:Signatures ("Why must this page double as Wikipedia talk:Questions from the clueless and semi-deranged rants?") made me laugh, thanks :) ~MDD4696 05:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Thanks for the welcome!

I just like putting what I did on the discussion to make sure that people know where I'm coming from and whatnot. And to make sure people actually check up on my facts in the case that I'm not 100% up to date (Like in the case of +anima, where I'd not gotten to volume 4 yet. I'm remedying that right now, though).

I'm also not entirely sane. I just try to look like it whilst writing, 'cause it makes it look cool. And, y'know, so that people can actually read it and understand it/not feel compelled to gourge out their eyes with rusty sporks (if such a thing exists). DaniDaniDanica 02:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I must've read it wrong. Mwsilvabreen 12:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you telling me to stop edit warring while engaging in said edit warring yourself? Who are you to decide what the article is about? Looks like you are making an rfc inevitable, which is a shame but a pro paedophile article is worse, SqueakBox 23:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am geting support too. I am far too experienced to think edit warring achieves anything though in this case perhaps it is a staement. Anyway thanks for acknowledging that you are edit warring too, SqueakBox 01:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, tjstrf. I don't remember if we've actually "met" on here before, but yes, I do seem to be the Chosen One of the moment. He seems to have shifted attention from Szyslak to me in the past week or so. I expect him to find someone more interesting by and by. If you wouldn't mind, could you watchlist my talk, user, and subpages for a while? It'd be better to have a few pairs of eyes watching rather than just one. We've just gotta completely stonewall the dumb bastard until he gives up or discovers online pornography or heroin or something else that engages his fragile, easily-amused mind more than Wikipedia. --Dynaflow babble 08:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's currently obsessed with UC Riverside-related pages (which is where I first got into a tussle with him), pages related to Harvard, talk and discussion pages of his old socks, and the userpages of his "enemies," starting his most recent antagonist and going backwards, it seems. He also recreates the UCR mascot (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) articles, but he'll be disappointed to discover, whenever he makes his next attack, than an admin finally got around to salting all variations of the title. We've managed to stop him really quickly as of late (10-15 mins.), so I'm not sure how a full-scale attack would pan out were it left to run its twisted course. Oh, I also have a possible, partial ID on who he might be (see User:Dynaflow/Wikihilarity#The_continuing_saga_of_SummerThunder.2C_the_sock-puppet_edit_warrior). I've also updated the Wikipedia:Long term abuse/SummerThunder page with the latest details. --Dynaflow babble 09:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The FSN article has currently 18 categories, including Category:Type-Moon. That category specifically is meant to categorize articles related to Type-Moon, so I don't see how it's in any way redundant. I would agree if say there was also a category on Type-Moon games, then I wouldn't agree that the Type-Moon category should be used, but as of now, you cannot remove that category on the basis of it being redundant as I do not see how that is possible.--十八 22:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The third guideline listed says itself that there are exceptions, and this is one of them. The example used is that Golden Gate Bridge should be in Category:Suspension bridges and not Category:Bridges and this of course is obvious to reduce redundancy. But if we use that as an analogy, let's say Category:Type-Moon is to Category:Bridges as Category:Type-Moon games is to Category:Suspension bridges. There is no (current) subcategory to list the Type-Moon games in, so thus the Category:Type-Moon itself must be used to show how this game is connected to all of Type-Moon's products since it is one of the companies most popular works to date. See Wikipedia:Categorization and subcategories#When to duplicate for more.--十八 22:49, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine then, do as you wish. Though I believe the reason why we have Category:Fate/stay night and Category:Tsukihime is because there are a bunch of articles related to each and a category aids in navigation. And IMO 18 is not too many as it takes up merely 2 lines at the bottom of the article.--十八 23:34, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]