User talk:TheUltimate3

Cumbersome articles
Tabs and drop downs? Do you mean like the Zetsu article? And can you please provide me some examples of "troublesome articles" as you mentioned? As for long articles: While I do understand that popular characters such as Naruto, Sasuke, and the like are demanded to have the most detail, pages such as these have rather slow loading times as compared to other articles. You are correct that unfortunately, users do feel the need to further stuff already long articles with pictures and such. --WindStar7125 (talk | contribs) 00:38, January 13, 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm optimistic that Kakashi and Sasuke can get under 100k. Which is still long, I guess, but a dramatic improvement. Sasuke's is currently 155K, yet about 45k of that is just the summary of events of chapters 580-700. Just the summary. As in, not counting whatever Personality and Abilities also happens in that time frame. Hell, his second-to-last quote is about 1.5k on its own. You take a generous axe to these two things and Sasuke's article becomes about the same size as Sakura's currently is.
 * Naruto's is a problem, though. Always will be. But I disagree with tabs or whatever else on principle. ~SnapperTo 01:00, January 13, 2015 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see. Even if the scrolling function were implemented, users could still edit it out, whether intentionally or unintentionally, just to place further additions to the long pages. An issue indeed. I do feel that edits like this, while in good-faith, further add more to the problem. It may be a minor edit, but let us say a thousand more users do those "minor edits" and that's part of what makes articles so long. A solution for this may indeed be... difficult to find, whether it be tabs, scrolling, taking out pictures, etc. An attempt to shorten Naruto's article was to take out the anime only arcs altogether as well, though that has not been too effective over the long-term...
 * --WindStar7125 (talk | contribs) 01:04, January 13, 2015 (UTC)
 * First things first the content needs to be compressed, if I had my way. Naruto vs Sasuke's last fight was 4 paragraphs, and goes on to detail just about every move the two of them did. The rest of the article is just as stupid and this is repeated on just about every character's articles. None of that is needed. If we can do that, and make sure that actually sticks however would be a great benefit.--TheUltimate3 Eye of Rikudō.svg (talk) 01:17, January 13, 2015 (UTC)
 * I wholeheartedly agree. Naruto and Sasuke's second battle at the Valley of the End is the reason why I brought up this issue. For instance, in both of Naruto and Sasuke's articles, and I say this due to lack of better phraseology, they have been stuffed with every move they made in that fight and users are adding way too much stuff on top of that. Those "summaries" essentially cover every muscular movement Naruto and Sasuke seem to make towards each other. Also, users tend to have a fixation for the colored manga images and proceed to insert too many of them within articles describing Naruto and Sasuke's final fight. It is all quite unnecessary from my standpoint, and has to be shortened in some manner as a first step. Though, as SnapperTwo notified me on my talkpage, removing such images will only cause users to insert them back into the article. Another step taken was shortening introductions in various articles due to them having too much content to fulfill the purpose of them being simple summaries, though we have had to deal with users wanting to unnecessarily revise our contributions i.e., users adding more descriptions (and possibly spoiler content), links in the introductions, and so on. --WindStar7125 (talk | contribs) 01:38, January 13, 2015 (UTC)

Continuing this conversation, I have noticed that in Naruto and Sasuke's articles, summaries that potentially lead to anime-only arcs have been removed. For instance, this in Naruto's article and this in Sasuke's (which is understandable). To further thin articles like these (such as Kakashi's, Sakura's, etc), would it not be valid to remove any paragraphs that sequentially start out with "In the anime, this happened" and attempt to leave links to them (if possible) to keep the consistency and further thin these articles? -- WindStar7125 (talk | contribs) 16:46, January 16, 2015 (UTC)
 * ^Never mind that, TheUltimateThree. We will find other ways to shorten long pages. -- WindStar7125 (talk | contribs) 00:12, January 17, 2015 (UTC)

Well then...
Those big bold letters on your user pages has me like... ಠ_ಠ Gotten quite tired of chat, have you not? And is there a User Banhammer template, or you just created that red link to annoy you-know-who? -- WindStar7125 (talk | contribs) 21:32, January 19, 2015 (UTC)

Star Wars
Hey, I saw you like Star Wars' version of canon, and I gotta ask you - what do you think about what happened to the EU on April 25, 2014? Do you hate it or like it (please say you hate it)? Gemnist (talk) 00:26, January 20, 2015 (UTC)Gemnist


 * THANK YOU!!! My optimistic guess is though: this is just a scam meant to avoid any plot details on the sequel trilogy, and soon everything that happened pre-Episode VI will be considered - by 2019 - and then the "Legends" covers will become collectible-level. All in a day's work to maintain a brand name. I was really hoping, though, that they're all one single universe. Gemnist (talk) 04:26, January 20, 2015 (UTC)Gemnist


 * Not sure if I explained myself well. I meant everything BEFORE Return of the Jedi, not after. After, we'll have to wait and see - unfortunately. Gemnist (talk) 16:39, January 20, 2015 (UTC)Gemnist

Re: scuffle
Not to be rude, but I don't think you've really read it in context. And no, as a forum operator, it is my duty to moderate the forums, I am not going to just ignore Seelentau or I will be accused of "not doing my job". If he wants me to stop getting on my case, he does not need to resort to flames and abusive behaviour. If you hadn't noticed, I have not flamed him, swore at him, nor even used "Ad Hominem" towards him, yet somehow I'm in the wrong for being friendly and polite?

I would advise you contact other sysops and ask them to assess the situation, it feels incredibly biased in favour of letting Tau use his sysop flag as a way to get whatever he wants or be abusive to users for no reason. So Tau saying things like "I'm a failure of a moderator" and "I'm bitter for him being sysop" is not trolling behaviour? Good to know, I'll just be forwarding all of this to Wikia Staff as it seems like it's painfully obvious Dantman is too busy to care or notice his sysops going around contravening TOU: unlike what you claim, the TOU gets to override the wiki's local policies at any time, so they'll be agreeing with me as well on this matter. --Sajuuk talk 14:33, January 21, 2015 (UTC)


 * I have spoken to users on Central Wiki, including VSTF, who agree fully with me that Tau's behaviour is abusive. Telling Tau he can continue this not only damages the wiki's reputation, but is 100% contravening Wikia TOU, which you seem to not care for. Do you want to lose your rights as well for encouraging inappropriate and abusive behaviour? Your messages to me and Tau are being included in evidence which I am sending to Wikia for their involvement in this situation, as it seems you cannot keep yourself from encouraging everyone else to be as crass and as abusive as they want to me. --Sajuuk talk 15:20, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * The email hasn't been sent yet, I'm working on gathering evidence. I'll be including evidence of other sysops encouraging the behaviour in said email, so your message to Tau will be included. Even when I send it, I won't be making any screen captures of private conversations with Wikia Staff to the public. --Sajuuk talk 15:27, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * And no, you won't start removing my posts either. So you can desist that behaviour as well. --Sajuuk talk 15:30, January 21, 2015 (UTC)
 * You do not need to blank the replies. You can copy/paste from the source to a Notepad document and leave the replies as they should be. --Sajuuk talk 15:33, January 21, 2015 (UTC)