User talk:Bobby D. DS.

I prefer to keep discussions unfragmented.

If I post on your talk page, I will notice any replies posted there.
Unless you request otherwise, I will reply here to comments made here.
I will usually post a brief note on your talk page to let you know that I have replied, unless your talk page instructs me otherwise.
If you write a reply to me here, I may decide to move your text back to your talk page in an effort to keep the thread in one place.
If you are just pointing out something written to me elsewhere, edit here.
Such pointers are useful if you've written to a comment I made many days ago.
Be civil and assume good faith. Trolling and personal attacks are likely to be removed.

Dragonball Wiki[edit]

Hi there. I noticed you're fan of the Dragon Ball series, and I'm trying to recruit some fans from here to contribute to the Dragon Ball Wiki. It's in terrible shape right now with pretty much no consistency or policies, and only this week have I been able to get Angela and Sannse to create some Forums for us over there. I've got a proposed Manual of Style going over there and would like some people to contribute to that to set up some policies and start making the wiki bigger, better, and more intelligible/consistent. If you're interested, please hop on over or talk to me. Thanks for the time, whether you're interested or not. Wildyoda 08:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FLUDD[edit]

Procedure? Procedure says that if you can't show why a subject is notable for inclusion, it shouldn't remain an article, especially when it's obviously a subject with an EXTREMELY narrow reach - barely out of Super Mario Sunshine. - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:49, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And in regard your evidence of notability, all you said was "he is very notable", and then something about him being a character (which has nothing to do with notability). - A Link to the Past (talk) 06:51, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some one posted the correct procedure on your talk page. You should also keep a discussion to one page so it doesn't get confusing.--Bobby D. DS. 07:00, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your report at Wikiquette alerts[edit]

Hi Bobby... I read your Wikiquette alert report and then looked at the situation you described. While I recognize that it's frustrating to see those things changed that you don't agree about, I don't see any clear examples of incivil behavior from User:A Link to the Past. I do see that he moves very fast and writes only terse edit summaries, so I understand how you might want more discussion with him about some of those things.

I don't think that Wikiquette alerts is the right place for you to get help with this though. I'm not saying you're wrong, just that you need a different aproach.

For one thing, you've only been editing for a half year or so, with under 500 edits. He's been doing this for 3 years and has more than 10,000 edits. So while it's possible he's off track, it's also possible that he's just going fast and you don't yet have the skills to confront him on the items that you don't agree about. I haven't studied your interactions enough to know for sure, but that's my first impression.

If you don't agree with his changes, you don't have to just accept them. You can change them back, and then discuss them. Since he's got a long history and knows what he's doing, your best bet for getting the results you feel are right is do get other editors to agree with you also, the process known as creating consensus. It's true that there is a guideline about being "bold" in edits, but there's also a process of how to respond to bold edits you don't agree about.

So, here are my suggestions:

First, don't take any of it personally - just concentrate on the articles, finding references for the points you want to make, getting to know other editors and having productive discussions on the talk pages. If something makes you feel angry or frustrated, just let the emotional part go and focus on the process.

Second, I'll put some links on this page about ways you can respond when you run into an editor that you feel is being difficult. It's not so much about formal procedures or complaints - those are all really complicated and boring, they take a lot of work, and you never know how it's going to turn out. So it works better to just get good at editing and creating consensus. If you don't get your way sometimes, don't worry about it. The information will still be there, you can always go back to it later after you have more skills or more friendly editors who agree with you about the topics you're working on.

Then finally, if you need more help after reading those articles, you could check out this page: Wikipedia:Editor assistance. That page is not a place to report incidents, it's a place you can find experienced editors who like to help out and can advise you on the challenges you're facing.

Well, that's the best I can offer for this situation, I hope you find it helpful. Here are the links I mentioned:

If you have questions you're welcome to leave me a message. Good luck! --Parzival418 _Hello 08:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Secret rings spin-off?[edit]

It was said by Sega that it was in the main series. It was identified numerous times by Wikipedia as a game in the main series. So why did you put Sonic and the Secret Rings under spin-offs? There was a section on its talk page that asked this but you didn't respond to it so I decided to ask you on your talk page. Unknownlight 04:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There a dicusion about this on the talk page of the Sonic games template. --Bobby D. DS. 19:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But the discussion points to Secret rings being a game in the main series. Unknownlight 21:55, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]