Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Transformers

Another sock puppet deletion/disruption attack?

Anyone else worried about the "new user" Carolyn Baker III? This person has been posting tons of profanity on my talk page, most of which has been encouraging me to fight over articles. Now after editing for less than a week this person is making badly written nominations for deletion. Is this yet ANOTHER sock puppet targeting the Transformers Wiki Project? Mathewignash (talk) 02:45, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I have been on wikipedia since the Spring of 2009. That's a little longer than one week. Carolyn Baker III (talk) 03:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

With a single edit. Your second edit was less than a week ago. Mathewignash (talk) 10:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Sleeper sock perhaps? --Divebomb (talk) 15:16, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I find it telling that Carolyn Baker III started posting here 3 days after Tedescoboy22's last post. 198.51.174.5 (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, it could be a coincidence.....but I really don't think we have the luxury of dismissing things as coincidence anymore, what with all the sockpuppetry and disruption that has been going on.

SPI anyone? --Divebomb (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The editor has been accused of socking before. Sarujo (talk) 19:38, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Where was that again? I can't seem to find it. (Also, as a side note, I got quite a kick out of the "I'm being hounded and threatened" thread at WQA.) --Divebomb (talk) 19:47, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

The editor was accused of creating the sock Bunkerdiver. It was said to be blocked as seen here. Sarujo (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

And under that account this person was one of those people who kept posting fan nonsense that Grindor is Blackout in the Transformers films. Figures! Mathewignash (talk) 22:01, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing anything beyond the sudden appearance of rude edits that connects Carolyn Baker to Tedescoboy22. It bring the adage, you get rid of one and five more pop up. Maybe this wave of Transformer socks might be a bigger conspiracy. Where a collection of people on a forum are formed with the sole purpose of vandalizing and or destroying articles. Case in point the Dragon Ball Z: Burst Limit article was constantly vandalized by members on the Atari forum to illustrate their argument as to how unreliable Wikipedia is. In this case, it might be members on 4chan or some other forum with little moderation governing it. Sarujo (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

I hadn't wanted to suggest that, but I am aware of people on a Transformers fan wiki who have posted happy responses in forums to Transformers articles being deleted from Wikipedia, under the arguement that their wiki should be the sole source of wiki'd Transformers information on the internet. I don't want to think they are sending vandals here to get articles deleted and scare people away from maintaining the project. 198.111.56.66 (talk) 00:12, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Which wiki? There are two I'm aware of, TFWiki, which is definitely not the one you're talking about, and Teletraan I.

Also, I agree with Sarujo on the conspiracy thing. The Claritas sock farm gets shut down and Torkmann pops up sometime later. The Torkmann sock is banned and Tedescoboy22 appears. He gets banned as a troll, and suddenly CB3 and the VOA below pop up. This is clearly an organized campaign. I wouldn't be surprised if this was 4chan trying to "stick it to the Transformers fans" again. --Divebomb (talk) 08:52, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

4Chan'er have done this before to Transformer articles? Sarujo (talk) 09:18, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

No, but they like to annoy the TF fandom. (And pretty much everyone else.) --Divebomb (talk) 09:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I believe Sarah Palin and Jessi Slaughter can concur. Really unless we can find the nest, the only thing to do is pick off the vandals and uncivil editors and IPs as they make their presence known. Still, this kind of situation troubles me. These editors can turn the tables and resort to deep personal attack. By which they can pull up personal information and start harassing a person from their home. It was the reason why the Collectonian/AnmaFinotera left Wikipedia. Sarujo (talk) 09:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Finding the nest is really quite difficult. The one thing we can be sure of is that it's not WR. --Divebomb (talk) 09:40, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Now this new one showed up: "AntiTransMaster.". Carolyn Baker III (talk) 05:15, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

SPI started Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Carolyn Baker III. Mathewignash (talk) 23:18, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Confirmed: CB3 = Tedescoboy22. [sarcasm] Who would've thought?! [/sarcasm] ----Divebomb is not British 10:02, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

It goes deeper. CB3 = Tedescoboy22 = User:Wiki brah, apparently. ----Divebomb is not British 07:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Frustration grunt. Sarujo (talk) 07:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

There was a joke on TFWiki kinda related to that 4chan conspiracy thing that I never quite understood (Item42 over there is me). NotARealWord (talk) 14:57, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

• pats on back* Join the club. ----Divebomb is not British 15:30, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, if anybody's wondering on that Wiki Brah thing, please see here.NotARealWord (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Would it be out of line to ask for an SPI of the former Transformers Wiki Project members who have posted anti-Wikipedia rants on message boards against the recent disruption attacks? It's probably one of them. Mathewignash (talk) 22:20, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Which ones? Specify. ----Divebomb is not British 17:05, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Should I be worried? A new user started editing wikipedia on the 15th, 3 days after the last sockpuppet was banned, and already nominated 3 Transformers articles for deletion and has been disrupting Wikipedia in general. User talk:SwinginFromaStar I started an SPI right away. Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/SwinginFromaStar Mathewignash (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

• Update - Yep, it's him AGAIN. Mathewignash (talk) 03:47, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Feedback requested

I'm currently working on an improved version of Energon (power source), and I was wondering if I could get someone else to take a look at it and perhaps offer some suggestions as to what could be added/removed.

Thank you for your time, ----Divebomb is not British 13:19, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I'll take a look at it if you insist. Where would I do some background reading on Energon so I can intelligently improve the piece? Are there any scholarly, peer-reviewed journals that comment upon the subject? Or governmental studies? Surely, such a signficant topic must have been studied by some body of experts at some point. Just point me in the right direction, please. Help me help you, as it were. Carolyn Baker III (talk) 13:55, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

y sarcasm detector is going back and forth.....result.....inconclusive. ----Divebomb is not British 13:56, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I take the above back. CB3, you are trolling. ----Divebomb is not British 14:42, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Isn't that the pot calling the kettle black? Who are you, anyway? Carolyn Baker III (talk) 23:48, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Right, can I get some actual feedback that isn't trolling? ----Divebomb is not British 17:12, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

That is a much better written Engergon article non trivial mentions of Engergon and best all the information was gathered without resorting to fansites. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

There is the article on the energon cube, which has some sources, many of which you already have. If I can ask, I know Hasbro capitolizes "Energon" (probably because they own a trademark on it or something), but is it really a proper noun? Mathewignash (talk) 22:44, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

I know about the Energon cube article, I used some sources from there.

Also, the capitalization is inconsistent, so it's hard to be sure. The upper-case "E" is more prominent these days, though. ----Divebomb is not British 09:43, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I know Hasbro and fans usually use upper case, but what is encyclopedic? Mathewignash (talk) 17:48, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Encyclopedias are descriptive, so it seems that we should use whatever the source uses. --Khajidha (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Instead of citing episode summaries, if you've seen the episode, cite the episode. {{cite episode}} can be used. --Malkinann (talk) 19:57, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Summaries are secondary sources while episodes themselves are primary. Shouldn't the summaries be cited instead since secondary sources are generally recommended over primary ones? NotARealWord (talk) 06:39, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

In the case of plot summary in fiction, I believe that primary sources have always been acceptable. If you write an article on a movie, you need only watch the movie and write the plot summary based on what you saw. This is the same thing. Mathewignash (talk) 10:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I prefer summaries myself. ----Divebomb is not British 12:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

(At Mathew) Primary sources are acceptable, not recommended. If reliable, accurate secondary sources for a topic have been located, they should be used. NotARealWord (talk) 14:48, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

That's not actually the case when talking about fiction plot summaries, primary sources are recomended according to this: Wikipedia:How_to_write_a_plot_summary#Citations "Plot summaries written purely from other summaries risk excessive loss of context and detail. While consulting other summaries may be helpful in narrowing down on what the major plot elements are, be sure to consult the primary source material to make sure you get it right.". Mathewignash (talk) 00:01, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

Using others' plot summaries risks dilution and inaccuracies, and the summary site itself may not be considered a reliable source. If the characters talk about 'energon' and it is shown in the episode, then a plain description of what happens with the energon in the episode should be ok, cited to the episode. Also, in some of the subsections, the prose presents energon as if it is real. For example, in the Beast Wars section, "In its raw form, Energon is unstable and extremely harmful to most Transformers.". A more out of universe presentation would be "In Beast Wars, the raw form of Energon is portrayed as unstable... etc." The citations need to be more complete to improve verifiability. (page numbers, etc.) --Malkinann (talk) 23:59, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

I would include page numbers if Google Books wasn't being so goddamn pesky. (You showed this bit to me before! Why can't you do it now? ----Divebomb is not British 17:41, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Ouch, yeah. That's happened to me before. XD Authors, years, and ISBNs are also helpful. The Anime Encyclopedia: A Guide to Japanese Animation Since 1917 has two editions, so it could be important to specify which one you cited it from there. --Malkinann (talk) 22:52, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. I have fixed the sourcing issues you helpfully highlighted with [X needed] tags. I'd appreciate it if someone who has the "Transformers: the fantasy, the fun, the future" book could check the page I cited, Google Books refuses to show the page properly. ----Divebomb is not British 09:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Do you want to list toy mentions of Energon, for instance on the ROTF Rollbar toy, which turns into a Delivery truck, it says "ENERGON EXPRESS" on the side of the truck? Or is that too trivial? Mathewignash (talk) 21:31, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Mere mentions are too trivial. Maybe toys of energon can be explained like the energon weapons from the Energon toyline. NotARealWord (talk) 15:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The ehobby Insecticon repaints from Japan came with energon cubes toys (just pink blocks), and the McDonalds Happy meal toys from Transformers: Energon came with energon cubes that light up. Mathewignash (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm okay if you go ahead and list the kinds of toys Energon had. Don't list every single figure that came with energon, just mention the forms of toys for Energon. Although, I'm also okay if your edit gets reverted once you do write that up, if the reverter had a good reason. NotARealWord (talk) 15:48, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

There is no reason to be snippy NARW. Divebomb requested feedback for the page HE is writing, and I offered it. Mathewignash (talk) 15:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Not being snippy (i think). If anybody has a good reason for reverting, they should go ahead. Of course, you haven't yet made such an edit, but if somebody has a good reason to revert when you do, they can revert said edit. NotARealWord (talk) 16:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The mentions are too trivial, but including the toys could work. ----Divebomb is not British 09:46, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

About Plot summaries

While there is always a risk at losing details, this is a substance that appears regularly throughout the decades-long history of the franchise. An article about it should not go into too much detail, plot summary-wise. NotARealWord (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Transformers#In the real world

* A British television series about the Eddie Stobart trucking firm said that one of the firm's trucks "is a Transformer" because it and another have trailers that unfold and transform into a two-storey site office.

That's a rather obscure thing to include, isn't it? JIP | Talk 17:53, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I deleted that section. ----Divebomb is not British 14:02, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Unmerged and inadequate Transfomers articles

Tailgate (Transformers),R.E.V. (Transformers) and Doctor Arkeville are still unmerged just so everyone knows.

I feel Blaze Master,Impactor (Transformers),Smallest Transformers and Pepsi Convoy could do with an AFD poor notabiliy and unreliable third person sources. Dwanyewest (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Please feel free to be bold when merging and follow WP:BEFORE. --Malkinann (talk) 22:50, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Impactor. He has starred in a recent notable comic series, so RS might be out there somewhere.

The rest, though, should be redirected and/or merged. ----Divebomb is not British 09:15, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I just added two third party sources to Impactor to get started. It was citationless, so that should help. Mathewignash (talk) 13:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

SOMEONE ELSE has nominated my ideas but it looks like they may be sockpuppet. If it turns out to sock a AFD has been wasted for nothing. Dwanyewest (talk) 03:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily. If a good number of intelligent arguments are made, the AFD will remain unaffected. It's happen before. Sarujo (talk) 03:24, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Those AFDs have been closed, but there is no bias against opening legitimate AFDs to replace them. I think some of them can be merged or given better citations, so check for those options first, but if you need to, they can be AFD'ed again. Mathewignash (talk) 03:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh bloody hell, it's another sock?

When will this end? ----Divebomb is not British 10:12, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you watch your language here. Sarujo (talk) 17:31, 21 November 2010 (UTC) Hmmm, they got reverted. Sarujo (talk) 17:33, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

In case anyone's wondering, Sarujo seems to be referring to an uncivil comment by somebody else (not Divebomb) that has just been reverted. NotARealWord (talk) 17:50, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Unofficial toys

Is there any reason why the toy sections for the TF articles are infested with unofficial stuff some fans made? Who is adding this crap? ----Divebomb is not British 13:09, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Or to take a more neutral point of view, if some character is popular enough to raise immitation by non-Hasbro toy companies, isn't it proper to mention that they inspired toys from those companies? This might cover "knockoffs" or third party addons. Wikipedia isn't a mouthpiece for the Hasbro corp, it's a neutral group which holds no bias against one company or another. If a fictional character inspired immitation, it may be notable. Mathewignash (talk) 13:37, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is. But is it necessary to have listings for them in the toy sections? Surely the few notable ones can be mentioned in some other way. ----Divebomb is not British 13:44, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

That is probably true. I'll try to find sources for some of them, and I'll agree the KNOCKOFF ones can be removed, while the "third party" items can maybe be worked in. Mathewignash (talk) 13:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Those "unofficial toys" usually aren't claimed in any way by their manufacturers to be TF characters. Since there was a debate on whether or not to say "Power Rangers Samurai is based on Samurai Sentai Shinkenger" due to how no news sources,publicity material, etc. explicitly mention Shinkenger, I'm sure saying that "Fansproject Warbot is a toy of Springer" is an even bigger no-no, since it's far less obvious than the Power Rangers Samurai/Samurai Sentai Shinkenger issue. So, please remove secions on unofficial toys for lack of verifiability. If they can be verified, they'd look better in a section like "Reception" or whatever since it's what fans did instead of anything actually within the TF brand. NotARealWord (talk) 17:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Wait, I just remembered, work projects aren't really suppose to cover such things that are fan produced. Such as toys and dōjinshi.

— Sarujo, This project's talk page, less than two months ago.

Also, since these fan-toys were neither distributed through general retail stores nor advertised in television the way official TFs are, they'd be certainly obscure, and thus, fancruft or somesuch. No more important to the characters than say, popular pieces of fanfiction. NotARealWord (talk) 17:59, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you have the right to label something "fan toys" or fan cruft if it was made by a company. It may not be made by a company as big as Hasbro, but they are made by a legitimate company, not some fan in his garage. Also, I could see the point that it might be considered "original research" to say that "Warbot Defender" is a "Springer", I'm sure citing a review of him could prove that fans liken him to Springer. Also, add one for existing toys to admit they are for certain Hasbro products. The Cliffjumper head and gun set is of Classics Cliffjumper, the City Commander is for Classic Ultra Magnus. Mathewignash (talk) 14:51, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Fan-made toys or third-party creations seem to be the toy-world equivalent of third-party mods for video games. I think the same general rule for inclusion applies: if any third-party press agency or company cares enough about the product to *comment* [distinct from merely listing or acknowledging], then it's appropriate to mirror that commentary here. Otherwise, it's just vanity fan homage and not encyclopedic. --EEMIV (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Legitimate companies don't make direct copies of other people's intellectual property. These companies are small groups of fans making what they claim are better versions of Hasbro's characters than Hasbro makes. They ARE fan-cruft and probably an infringement on Hasbro's rights. Mention the fact that some people engage in the manufacture of such things, mention any outside coverage they may get, but there is no reason to go into detail about them and even less reason to mix them in with legitimate Hasbro products. --Khajidha (talk) 15:35, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it can be proved that IP is violated by characters like Warbot Defender or by add-ons like City Commander. They are toys made by companies other than Hasbro, and yes, they target fans of Transformers with their designs, but their are neither amature nor a violation of IP. Besdies, I'm not aware of any limitation on Wikipedia on reporting on things that violate US copyright law. 198.51.174.5 (talk) 17:58, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

City Commander was designed to look just like Ultra Magnus, that is the definition of IP infringement. This company is a small group of fans, not professional toy designers. They are BY DEFINITION amateurs, no matter how skilled they are. Finally, I didn't say that they should be excluded for those reasons, but did say that they should be included only if they are notable in and of themselves and should not be mixed in with Hasbro toys. --Khajidha (talk) 19:14, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

City Commander is an original design, with no copyright infringement. It's designers make toys that are sold in online stores, and they make money, so they are BY DEFINITION professional toy makers. Mathewignash (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

An original design that just happens to look just like Ultra Magnus's armor and was made to fit on the Hasbro Ultra Magnus toy, yeah, keep deluding yourself buddy. --Khajidha (talk) 12:15, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

An original design, in that it's not copied from an existing mold. Yet, it's clearly INSPIRED by G1 Ultra Magnus, but it's not any copywritten mold or trademarked name. It's an original toy. There is no LEGAL problem with them making it. No more than making some sailor cartoon duck with a speech impediment infinges on Donald Duck from Disney. Mathewignash (talk) 21:28, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

I haven'y found mentions of Yu-Gi-Oh The Abridged series on this wiki's aricles on YGO characters, and that's buttloads more well-known than the fan-made action figures. So, those fan-toys have gotta be not worth mentioning in even the slightest bit. NotARealWord (talk) 15:09, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'm still against listing unofficial toys and knockoffs, they're not actually important. Don't see how they would be important enough, legal or otherwise. NotARealWord (talk) 14:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Picture limit on pages

I know some people are trying to limit the number of non-free pictures on wikipedia pages, but I do think is some cases, where the pictures do add something to the article, they are justified. For instance Witwicky family, showing only pictures of 2 family members doesn't tell you what the other characters looked like, or for characters like Shattered Glass Thundercracker, he's NOT colored like all the other Thundercrackers in blue, so he's exceptional. I was wondering what others thought. Are there any articles that justify more than one or two pictures? Mathewignash (talk) 14:54, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Superficial details like a color scheme or "what a character looks like" are on their face not encyclopedic details. NFCC is pretty clear: the inclusion of non-free art must substantially lead to one's understanding of the subject. Does knowing what a Witwicky *looks* like help us understand the *character*? Does a different paint job influence the role that character played in the series? If those superficial details are themselves the subject of commentary -- e.g., if someone asserts that giving someone a different color scheme was intended to make him stand out as a leader or outsider -- then an image is justifiable. However, merely "illustrating" a subject does NOT meet the bar set by NFCC. --EEMIV (talk) 15:04, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

If the appearance of a character isn't important to an article, then why do we have ANY non-free pictures at all? 198.51.174.5 (talk) 18:00, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

In fact, given the coverage of their subjects, most Transformers articles, and most articles on fiction-related subjects, would be 100% fine without non-free images. --EEMIV (talk) 18:13, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

New AfDs

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prima (Transformers) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Transformers: Timelines. NotARealWord (talk) 15:17, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rail Racer and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Skyburst.NotARealWord (talk) 18:15, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

(not a project member but a talk page-stalker) You know, you folks could set up your own XFD subpage to consolidate such deletion discussions, like we do over at WP:VG; see Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Deletion and how that is constructed. It's not bot-operated or anything; it's all done manually. Just thought I would bring that up if that would make life easier for you folks here. –MuZemike 18:40, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

We already have one: Wikipedia:WikiProject Transformers/Deletion sorting. It's even linked to in one of the boxes at the top of this page. NotARealWord (talk) 18:48, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Problems with articles under this project

I started a page at User:NotARealWord/Transformers articles to address the issues and problems with articles under this project. Hopefully, it will be useful in improving large quantities of Transformers articles. Said page really needs help expanding. NotARealWord (talk) 15:33, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Latest AFD

Transformers: Timelines,Skyburst, Rail Racer, Sky Garry,Scrounge,Heavytread,Transformers: Dinobots,Heroes of Cybertron,Road Rocket, Rotorstorm, Skram. Dwanyewest (talk) 13:11, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Question

Why is there a long plot summary and a small toy list on the List of Transformers: Victory characters page? This should only be about the character in that show with brief summaries on each character on who and what they are. Sarujo (talk) 20:16, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Do we have a page for the episode summaries like has been started for the Transformers: Prime page? Perhaps it needs seperate pages. Mathewignash (talk) 00:01, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think a character list is a place for long plot summaries either. JIP | Talk 10:35, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I reckon that was probably a side-effect of a merge. ----Divebomb is not British 11:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Another sock?

This one took me by half surprise. It seems that Divebomb was a sock as well. When it rains, it pours. Here it was, they were all in the fight against socking, yet they were neck deep in the activity. Now it's getting kinda hard trust anybody in this work group. Sarujo (talk) 05:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I suspected this for a while. compare the comments made by "-Blackout-" here, here and here. Didn't really report since I didn't know who to compare them to. Plus, they seemed to have been doing nothing wrong. Helped with making mergers. Oh well. By the way, when was Divebomb investigated? No information on that at here at the sockpuppeteer's investigation page. Also, what's gonna happen to this page? NotARealWord (talk) 08:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure, I notice this when I was looking at my watch list, as I always do. Maybe Amalthea knows as they were the ones to make the additions to Divebomb's user and talk pages. Sarujo (talk) 09:07, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, User:Divebomb/Energon (power source) will have to be transferred under somebody else or put in main namespace. NotARealWord (talk) 18:57, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, to me it was obvious that User:Divebomb was a sock. If you read on some noticeboards of "tfwiki.net," there was some plot hatched to attack the transformers wikiproject in waves. There were three "teams" that were using code names named after South American countries. I believe Divebomb/Blackout was the leader of team "Argentina." Just watch out for more attacks. These people seem pretty hardcore and have a chip on their shoulder for some reason. Batphone boy (talk) 21:26, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Final resoultion

A few months ago I proposed there should be mergers on Talk:Optimus Prime (Transformers), Talk:Bumblebee (Transformers),Talk:Cliffjumper,Talk:Megatron (Transformers) and Talk:Starscream (Transformers) article obviously editors have been dealing with other wikipedia articles beside Transformers. I would like a conclusive decision whether they be inclusionist or deletionists. Dwanyewest (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2010 (UTC)