Please make sure to use the preview button to avoid making a large number of edits in a row. Also, please remember to mark all minor edits by checking the box above the "Save page" button. Thanks. --Pie 01:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Unless the entirety of the article you are copying from Wikipedia was written by yourself, do not post material from Wikipedia. You have 24 hours to identify the edits containing material written solely by yourself and those that are not, or risk losing all of them. - 振霖T 07:34, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- The only articles containing information not entirely by me from Wikipedia are the 3 main Wikipedia articles that were redirected: Missingno, 'M, and Glitch City. The reason I copied them to Bulbapedia was because on Wikipedia a majority of users decided to redirect the glitches into a single article and it was agreed that all other information be moved to a different Wiki. The infomration on those three articles on Wikipedia was much more detailed than the 3 articles on Bulbapedia and the original articles on Bulbapedia contained the same basic information as the Wikipedia articles, but less of it. So because of that, there is no reason to get rid of them -- just to improve them.
- See
Latitude0116 22:35, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oh, but I'm afraid there is a very good reason to get rid of it: copyright infringement. This place not a GFDL-compatible site. - 振霖T 00:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- So in order for it to not be copyright infringement, each original editor of each piece of information from each of the three articles in question would have to individually come over from Wikipedia to Bulbapedia and write what they wrote on Wikipedia? If that's true, it's not practical and maybe instead the three articles here on Bulbapedia (Missingno, 'M, Glitch City) should be reverted back to the way they were, but each with a link to the following pages: [1] [2] [3]
- Oh, but I'm afraid there is a very good reason to get rid of it: copyright infringement. This place not a GFDL-compatible site. - 振霖T 00:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
- What confuses me though is how in the copyrights it says Most Bulbapedia articles are licensed under the above-mentioned terms, except the articles originally taken from Wikipedia, which are licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. Does that mean that there are articles on Bulbapedia that have been taken from Wikipedia that are permitted to be on Bulbapedia? Latitude0116 06:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Please, please, use the preview button. Extra revisions clutter the database. - 振霖T 01:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I have deleted the article 'M and Glitch City, and reverted Missingno. to the last uncontaminated revision. If you want to re-import the Wikipedia articles for the former two, please feel free to do so and remember to add the {{WikipediaBased}} tag with the appropriate parameters; as for the latter, you will have to incorporate the information in a way that does not involve copying-and-pasting. - 振霖T 00:56, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
- Was there a consensus to delete those articles? Warn me before abruptly deleting articles because all that needed to be done for Glitch City and 'M was to simply add a tag, not delete them altogether. For Missingno., I recreated the deleted article with information that is 100% from Wikipedia or rewritten by me, except for the part about TMs and HMs which I'm trying to rewrite.Latitude0116 02:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand. For those two articles, you can either copy articles as identically as possible from Wikipedia - or you can write a completely new article. The two cannot be mixed, tag or no tag. Choose and fix the articles appropriately. Otherwise, the articles will be deleted again. It's not a matter of consensus- it's a matter of what needs to be done to Bulbapedia as a whole out of trouble. Sorry. --Pie 02:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- The problem is, there isn't any page left on Wikipedia for Missingno. and 'M (except in the form of re-directs) because about a dozen users didn't think they were important enough to keep as individual articles. Because of this, would those articles still count as being on Wikipedia?Latitude0116 03:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- The issue is less that they were from Wikipedia and more that you were not the sole author of them. So, I'm afraid that the issue remains. Sorry. --Pie 03:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Why not restore the Wikipedia versions and add [4] [5] [6] to the articles to show who originally worked on them on Wikipedia Latitude0116 03:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Zhen would know better than I, but no, I'm fairly sure that's not enough to make things fine and dandy, or we would not make as much a fuss about this as we do now. I'm sorry, but you must use the Wikipedia content and not touch it at all, or you must not use the Wikipedia content - the preferable option, since that makes it possible for ANYONE to edit it, which is why we would rewrite the Wikipedia articles we do have from stratch if we were a little more motivated to do such rather than work on the parts of Bulbapedia which need to have content added. But that is the situation, and you cannot change it. All Wikipedia or all Bulbapedia. No ifs. No ands. No buts. I apologize, but we do not want to get in trouble over any such licensing issues, and there is no special secret loophole which would allow us to mix the two types of content and not get in trouble. Capisce? --Pie 04:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Why not restore the Wikipedia versions and add [4] [5] [6] to the articles to show who originally worked on them on Wikipedia Latitude0116 03:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- The issue is less that they were from Wikipedia and more that you were not the sole author of them. So, I'm afraid that the issue remains. Sorry. --Pie 03:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- The problem is, there isn't any page left on Wikipedia for Missingno. and 'M (except in the form of re-directs) because about a dozen users didn't think they were important enough to keep as individual articles. Because of this, would those articles still count as being on Wikipedia?Latitude0116 03:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't think you understand. For those two articles, you can either copy articles as identically as possible from Wikipedia - or you can write a completely new article. The two cannot be mixed, tag or no tag. Choose and fix the articles appropriately. Otherwise, the articles will be deleted again. It's not a matter of consensus- it's a matter of what needs to be done to Bulbapedia as a whole out of trouble. Sorry. --Pie 02:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
- Was there a consensus to delete those articles? Warn me before abruptly deleting articles because all that needed to be done for Glitch City and 'M was to simply add a tag, not delete them altogether. For Missingno., I recreated the deleted article with information that is 100% from Wikipedia or rewritten by me, except for the part about TMs and HMs which I'm trying to rewrite.Latitude0116 02:37, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Look, the issue is plain and simple: Wikipedia content is licensed under the GFDL. That is not compatible with the licence for Bulbapedia content. Therefore: the two cannot be mixed. Wikipedia articles can be imported here and used as an initial revision, but, any edits to the Bulbapedia copy of the article would have to also be licenced under the GFDL. Wikipedia deletes Bulbapedia content under their copyright violation policy, partly because of the licence incompatibility, it's only fair that we respect their copyright and licensing as well. The policy on Bulbapedia is that the entirety of an article history (not including deleted revisions) must be under the same licence - either GFDL or CC by-nc-sa. - 振霖T 06:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Preview Button
Please make sure to use the preview button to avoid making a large number of edits in a row. Thank you. --PsychicRider☮ 04:28, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Link Templates
Please use link templates when linking to stuff such as Pokémon names, attacks, and the like. For example, {{p|Ditto}} instead of just [[Ditto]]. This is so you don't unintentionally link to a disambiguation page.
For a full crash course on link templates, look at the list of link templates. ----freezingCOLD (page, talk) 20:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Glitch Pokémon templates
I see you've split the Glitch Pokémon template into two templates, one for non-obtainables. Now, this is only my opinion, but wouldn't it be better to just have all of it on one template, and have it divided into sections or something? Oh, and by the way, you've got ? down as unobtainable. It can actually be found in the wild in RSE, with an extremely low encounter rate. I ought to know, I have one. I'm Missingno. Master. See my new and improved user page, and comment on it! 02:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
- I thought it seemed strange to have obscure, non-catchable Pokémon like 94 (glitch Pokémon) right alongside Pokémon like Missingno. which are well-known and easy to catch. Most of the glitch Pokémon were on a single table, but it was getting bulky, and some weren't even on it. Also, I put the ? Pokémon in the non-obtainable table for now because there is no information on ?'s article specifying how to catch it.Latitude0116 00:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Moving
Please provide reason for us to know why you moved the page. Thank you. ×Kevzo8 13:39, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
- The title was incorrect -- if you look carefully, it's more than just six periodsLatitude0116 13:41, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
The Preview Button
Instead of editing a page several times in a row, try using the preview button to make sure your edit looks the way you want it to. It's right next to the Save Changes button... Please try it out, so as not to clog up the Recent Changes. Thanks! --SnorlaxMonster 07:00, 31 July 2011 (UTC)