This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 5 | ← | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Doukyuusei (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Instead of prodding it, shouldn't you just restore the redirect that existed there from 2007 until mid May 2010?
76.66.193.224 (talk) 08:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Just to let you know, I've completed rewriting the summaries. Eaglestorm (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)
There's a problem at the List of Maid Sama! episodes article. User:Kenshinflyer has refuse to listen to me to not put too much information and irrelevant info in the episodes summary and making it short. Instead Kenshinflyer has made the episode summaries very long with trivia info that wasn't needed in the summary and keeps changing the summaries i made that were short and precise. I hope you can help me convince Kenshinflyer to stop doing this, since i busy reediting the Übel Blatt article and don't have time to keep watching the changes at the Maid Sama! episodes article. If this goes on, the List of Maid Sama! episodes might have to be lock.
I hope for your help and reply.
Thank you. --FonFon Alseif (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 18:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
I would like to thank you for being civil and reasonable, unlike many other editors. I will discuss this further once I can get off this crappy laptop and access a decent computer.--98.71.195.16 (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
In regards to this edit
How do we interwiki to it, then? There is no exact article corresponding to this on EN. Somewhere on EN needs a link to this JA splinter article. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
It'd be nice if you didn't unilaterally redirect the page. The HDTV re-airings have to be notable, have new soundtracks (somewhat), and I felt that they could be incorporated in this way. If you have another idea of how this could be discussed as it is on the Japanese Wikipedia, then I'm willing to work on it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
There has already been an investigation on the subject of my account and it was proved that I am not a sock puppet of PWeeHurman. J'onnz J'onzz obviously is PWeeHurman though. I would have no reason to make an alternate account to revert that edit, as my current account is not blocked. It is pretty embarrasing to have PWeeHurman doing all these reversions... I suppose he saw that I was accused of being one of his sock puppets and decided to try to set me up for it by making these reversions on names similar to my own.J'onn J'onzz (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)
This edit may have been many things but it was not vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
BTW my edit there had not in any way been "WP:vandalism": Vandalism is "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles."--but wd obviously fall under WP:BRD: (in my paraphrases: in good faith, be bold, revert, discuss).--FrancesHodgsonBurnett'sTheSecretGarden (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
Please refrain from any further reverting at Ichiban Ushiro no Dai Maō. Doing so will result in a block. Instead take issues to the articles talk page. Tiptoety talk 21:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Hey, a few weeks ago, you removed the category "Fictional demon" from Piccolo (Dragon Ball), but it was reverted. An anon and I both agree that it should be removed, and I have removed it. Judging by Sesshomaru's attitude toward the anon on the talk page, however, I can easily see him getting hostile about this. So just letting you know that there is a discussion about it at Talk:Piccolo (Dragon Ball) if you want to contribute. Ωphois 04:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I see you have reverted my edit. This information is true and not controversial. In WP, we should have sources. However, there is not a strict requirement. Otherwise, one-third of WP would disappear. Try removing information from articles and see what that would do. Either that or we could wait and see that the planned episode happens. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
I agree. However, if we go on a rampage to correct the rest of WP, we will be called pointy. Bet: let's see if the first few are true and that the schedule is not inaccurate. If false, I will go on a 7 day wikibreak, if true, you do the same. ;p Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
First there is enough coverage to assert the subject notability.
Second the use of the term ecchi is unusual in French review and doesn't appear once in the French coverage of Shina Dark. Instead i have "undressed & compromising situations" (1 reviewer), "fan service" (1 reviewer), "naughty" (2 reviewers), "harem" (1 reviewer). Some volume reviews doesn't mention this aspect at all.
Factually i won't tag it ecchi as unsourced by multiple sources but personally i think it does have ecchi elements but it's not a key point of this series.
--KrebMarkt (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
Am I the only one seeing the irony here?[1] --erachima talk 18:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Sorry more this wiki is very big,I'm getting lost sorry me if I wrong but,no one is Perfect. Knuckles The Echidna (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
Please explain This edit makes no sense to me; why are you untagging these talk pages? Please respond on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
I often disappoint with official review which often bias and unreliable, honestly rather than waste my bandwidth there I rather saw unofficial review before decide to buy anime/manga. I can accept your decision ban mangaupdates link from wikipedia but say it unreliable is other word.(Db84x (talk) 05:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC))
Hi. You rated Ginga Sengoku Gun'yūden Rai as a low-importance anime. I'm grateful for your help, but I'd like to ask, on what basis did you rate it as a low-importance anime?
To be honest, I was expecting it to get a medium-importance rating. While I'm not sure how popular it was in the US or Europe or in the English-speaking world, but I'm pretty sure it gained enormous popularity in Arabic-speaking countries, and, at least to some extent, in China (since the article does have a Chinese version). Not mentioning its popularity in Japan, as well as its games and all.
I think you might have rated it as a low-importance anime based on the fact that it's relatively old, and that, if it were important, someone would have created an article for it long time ago. While this is usually true, I believe it would gained more attention in the past, since it was created, but because the editor who created it the first time (where it went by the name Thunder Jet) apparently copy-pasted a major portion (if not the entirety) of the article from its official site, the article got deleted based on copyright basis. Since then, nobody recreated the article thinking that it would get deleted again (for example, for lacking notability), while not being aware that the real reason behind its deletion was the copyright issue, as mentioned in its deletion log. (At least, that's what I believe has happened. The deletion log of the previously deleted article (which I have recreated as a redirect page) only mentioned copyright as a reason.)
So I think this article deserves importance re-assessment with that in mind, and also with its popularity outside the US in mind.
Thanks again. :) Ridhaintj (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The subject is indeed notable, despite the bulk of the article being about the events of the media. The two references may be dead (currently) but this does not mean that the fact that the sources are invalid. One is to a major news outlet in Japan (Sponichi), and the other isn't independent, but it's certainly a notable topic concerning that:
I hope this is enough to support notability. I will be searching for live references in the mean time.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
You should also probably notify the person who removed the prod rather than the original author of the page when notifying for AFD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I believe that some of them are genres, according to the portal to which I synched. You removed Bara, which is clearly a genre, for one. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
I see you've also nominated Portal:Evangelion for deletion. Hasn't the better solution have been to keep the page, or just merge it with its parent portal? :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 15:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
Could you please give some input at Talk:Pokémon: Best Wishes!#"Iris" lest the edit war with this IP begin anew?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
Plastikspork ―Œ(talk) 22:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
This is rather basic Japanese/Chinese. Rather than reverting my edit as vandalism, just look it up in a dictionary. 12ab3 (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi! I wouldn't have put it into the Anime and manga project if it wasn't for the fact that Akira Himekawa is doing the illustrations. That means that it is a manga.
If Qais Sedki had also done the illustrations and had only gotten some advisory info from Himekawa, then it wouldn't be a part of the Anime and manga project.
WhisperToMe (talk) 04:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
All the evidence within the show points to the kamibito being werewolves. The citizens of old Joga are referred to as "wolves", it is repeatedly stated that their true forms are sentient wolves, and they are referred to as being werewolves by Kaname. They qualify as werewolves, so I don't see why not Okami Kakushi can't be included in the Werewolf video games and/or Werewolves in film and television categories. 173.180.64.146 (talk) 09:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
Just letting you know that I responded on my talk page. Tim1357 talk 22:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
I think you have the wrong person. The episode 18 preview for Bakugan Battle Brawlers: Gundalian Invaders calls it "Curtain Call" instead of "Divide and Conquer". Also, there was no mention anywhere about the next couple of episodes's titles. Many of them are Anon-made episodes. --DQ13|Talk Contribs 21:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Can you please explain your reasons for questioning the notability of this article when it is from a primary source? Relentlesson3 (talk) 04:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
I undid the restoration of the BLP PROD on Mana Ogawa. The creator of the article added four links as "external links". While none of those are independant from the subject, and thus couldn't be used to show notability, I think that the official pages linked to would be considered reliable, and would verify information in the article (such as that she is a singer). There is no requirement for a BLP PROD that a source sufficient to show notability be added to the article, merely that a reliable source that verifies some of the information in the article is added. Also, I don't think there is any requirement that in-line citations be used, so sources listed as external links would be sufficient to remove a BLP PROD. Calathan (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Exactly what is the point of this edit?[2] This is an infobox switch that affects how the infobox appears and which fields are accepted. Fortunately, the switch isn't case sensitive. But if it was, then it would have broken the infobox. —Farix (t | c) 20:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
What is exactly is the policy about flagicons? I saw this edit to ergo proxy and it looked wrong, but I'm not sure. It comes up a lot. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 04:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
thanks for tweaking the original version in my userspace. Don't forget to apply them in the live version.--Eaglestorm (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Good day. Thank you for the descriptive undo on this article. I would, however, like to clarify what grounds you feel the material I removed should remain in the article? Checking several other similar shows/series articles (some GA status), I find no similar material in any of them. I could see dramatically condensing it to, say, one paragraph, but the amount that's there currently seems quite excessive. Any more detailed suggestions on how to handle the section? DP76764 (Talk) 23:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. Looks like you failed to read that part when you changed everything without even reading the reasons for changing it in the first place. Gune (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Hello ! I nominated for deletion Utsuro no Hako to Zero no Maria 10 days ago and there are still no comments about it. Since you're a major contributor to the Anime project, I wonder if you could give your opinion there ? Thanks !Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)
oops! I didn't know that the category of the page would also be transcended into the talk pages of the users who have received it.--Anirudh Emani (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
Could you explain why you are removing ((Auto archiving notice)) from Talk:Original English-language manga? Doing so will not stop the page from being automatically archived. --Bsherr (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
What kind of bar do you set for Japanese authors/mangaka/etc in terms of reliable third party sources? If you look at, say, the entry for Kiyohiko Azuma, who's far from unknown, you'll find very little in the way of sources. I'd say that this is probably due to the facts that a) there's simply not very much in English about mangaka, and b) very little that _is_ about the authors is online, save for things like publisher's information or sellers of said material. Also, what about interwiki links? --moof (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi I noticed that in this edit you removed a link to a Japanese article on a related topic. I had earlier linked this due to the fact that it is closely related and due to my belief that an english article on that topic was unlikely to be forthcoming any time soon. I don't necessarily dispute your edit, but I was wondering what your rationale was behind it. Is there policy or a guideline or something that precludes editors from making links like this? I may have done it in other articles I've edited and I'd like to know if this was improper. Cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Hmm... I'd disagree that it adds nothing of value considering that many internet users are savvy enough to know how to use online translation tools properly. The link also does appear different from other English-language links depending on which browser you're using. But you do have a point that it might disguise the fact that there is no article on the subject at en.wikipedia. I'll leave it out for now but what would you think of including it in a "See also" section? -Thibbs (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
You are incorrect that it adds nothing simply because it is in another language. Why do you think interlanguage links are allowed at Wikipedia? A quick review of H:ILL reveals that "If a red link is not appropriate locally for whatever reason, such as because the subject does not appear to be notable, then linking to the other language page may be useful." I am a native English speaker and I found the information listed at the Japanese page to be helpful to an understanding of the topic. It is true that I had to translate the Japanese article to understand it but after translating it I found that it added a great deal to my understanding of the original topic. Linking to a page of another language certainly doesn't detract from the article. I have seen your edits to anime-related articles numerous times and I think that they are on the whole extremely helpful to Wikipedia. If you are making it a personal policy to remove inline interlanguage links simply because you don't find them personally useful, however, then I think you are harming the project in this respect. According to H:ILL you should be replacing inline interlanguage links with redlinks to encourage article creation if you think that an English article on the topic is a good target for a future article. Otherwise you should not be removing them unless there is a secondary reason such as non-relatedness or erroneous association or something.
I can understand your argument that the link conceals the fact that no English language version exists despite the fact that the link mysteriously does appear differently from other links on my screen. So I think an appropriate solution would be to redlink the term inline and to shift the interlanguage link to a "See also" section until such time as the English language article is written. Do you think that this is a workable solution? -Thibbs (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, look: I'm seeking to work collaboratively with you on this issue and your silence in response to my suggestions leads us nowhere. If you are opposed to my suggested compromise then I suggest that we either go to a third party opinion or request an uninvolved comment. Since our two viewpoints seem to be directly opposite on the issue of the usefulness of inline interlanguage links, and as you seem to be unwilling to proceed further with our discussion, I think this is the best course of action. Please let me know your opinion on this because I would like to work together with you to solve this disagreement. -Thibbs (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
The way things stand currently, my preferred version is in place and you have stated that you don't agree with it "at all." Since this version is disputed, I think we must achieve a degree of consensus before walking away from the issue. Wikipedia is not my own encyclopedia, after all, so why should my "consensus of 1" version stand in the face of a direct good-faith challenge?
So I think 3O sounds like our best bet here since 3O is the least formal of the two suggestions I made on the 6th and really this is just a simple, good-faith deadlock. If you'll agree to abide by the decision of an uninvolved 3O volunteer concerning this matter then I think that's the route I'd prefer to go. Otherwise we can go the RfC route. Generally RfC is reserved for more complex issues than this but I imagine they'd take the case if 3O was off the table.
If you have any preferences or other suggestions you'd like to make, please do so. I'd really like to see this problem solved before the end of the week. Thanks, -Thibbs (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
This is the before, and this is the after my two "Non-constructive edits".
If there was something specific in my edits that you disagreed - sections, info box move, remove ugly reds etc then you should have just removed that part instead of restoring the several spelling errors that I fixed. Slightsmile (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
I left a warning at Godisme2's talk page about his refactoring of your comments on a talk page. Sorry about the harassment that you have been experiencing. Logan Talk Contributions 03:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
And next time, can you report it before you go quite that far over 3RR? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
I have removed the ((prod)) tag from Neko Navi, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the ((prod)) template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. Thanks! BTW, I don't think the subject is notable. Please take that into consideration next time you find what you think is a hoax article. – Allen4names 18:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi I need help deleting something, can you see my talk article for more details. Can you put something up for deletion for me? I am so confused -BabyFace — Preceding unsigned comment added by BabyFace98 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm coming here in response to your own last response at the above AFD,[3] and your suggestion toward re-arranging his filmology include the characters. As WP:LOW#Filmographies states filmologies are "ordered from oldest to newest. Vital information is title, year and, for actors, role"... the named roles can and will be included. Easy enough to do, thank you. It also states that "when the person has different types of film-related jobs (e.g. acting and directing), the filmography can be split into separate subsections for each...", for which clarity is the reason I broke the filmology into sub-sections for type of job. I much appreciate your input on the matter. Thank you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
However... I have trouble creating tables, so have patience. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I see no reason why List of manga artists should be deleted, as numerous similar lists exist and seem to be maintained (for example List of American comics creators or List of science fiction authors). There are many articles tagged as being in the scope of Wikipedia:WikiProject Index that are equally broad or broader. While I don't know if those articles generally have support on Wikipedia or not, if you think articles of that sort do not belong on Wikipedia, then it would probably be best to start a discussion on that sort of article in general. For the List of manga artists article, I do however think it should be limited to manga creators with Wikipedia articles (which seems to be what is done for other similar lists). Calathan (talk) 05:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
I understand your point, but if one was to remove the sentence you did from the Cowboy Bebop page, then the sentence immediately before it would have to be removed. "It's regarded as the best anime..." - the sentence you removed bears that out, unreliable as you say it is. If the sentence you removed needs to go, then so should the sentence preceeding it.--MrsSpooky 06:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
A while ago, you were part of the checking of all Aurora Publishing titles and nominated The Manzai Comics for deletion and it was deleted. I have been collating references for The Manzai Comics at WP:ANIME/REQUEST, and I and others found enough for me to believe it is notable. I received a userified copy of The Manzai Comics and I believe my draft now demonstrates sufficient notability to be moved back into the mainspace, where the history revisions that contain copyvio (only the first two or three) can be more easily deleted using ((Copyvio-revdel)). The admin who userified the page for me suggested that if you agree on its notability that he would be willing to move it back for me and I would not have to clog up DRV.
Could you please look at my draft of The Manzai Comics and let me know if you feel the draft demonstrates notability for the subject? --Malkinann (talk) 07:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
from what i've seen, characters can either be in level 2 section, or level 3 along with plot.Bread Ninja (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi again. In reference to this earlier conversation, we've finally got an answer of some sort. It didn't seem as though you were very interested in coming to a consensus on the issue earlier, but just so you know, through a non-involved third party editor I think we've found the closest to a good answer on the underlying question.
This mainly comes from WP:LAY#External links and WP:Wikimedia sister projects. Although WP:LINKS makes it clear that interlanguage links are not truly "external links," WP:Wikimedia sister projects suggests that they should be placed in the "External links" section regardless. Hope you can find this info to be useful. If you have nothing further to add then I think we can close the RfC now. Keep up the good work, -Thibbs (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
Is it wrong for the statistics and weapons of the titular character of a series to be displayed on Wikipedia? I understand that Wikipedia is not a fansite, but several other mecha, anime, video game and superhero characters (ranging from Toho's King Ghidorah and other Japanese creations to numerous Marvel comic book characters) have their respective statistics and abilities displayed on Wikipedia. Even the other Mazinger series mecha have their own statistics displayed. I hope you respond to this message. -Kaijukurt (talk) 10:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
Out of purest curiosity, why remove the flag icons associated with Japanese publishers? Some pages have them, I added some to Takemiya Yuyuko's book pages, and you removed them. Is there some Japanese law involved? It would seem odd, since they weren't the Japanese war flag, but rather just the normal hinomaru. Some countries (Perú for example) object to their war flag being used for anything other than their military. --Rpapo (talk) 23:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
No problem. The Russian version of the page had the flag, so I put it on the English page for consistency. --Rpapo (talk) 00:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
Hi. Concerning this edit of your I would like to inform you that |1=
is needed. Moreover, WikiProject Biography always needs |living=
. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
In this one, you removed three of the four links to entries at ANN in the External links section. I have replaced them, but you may want to make sure you aren't doing this on others. ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 19:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)
About Please stop adding trivia that has nothing to do with the subject of the article. Calimero is about an animated, however, the trivia you keep adding has nothing to do with the series.: Your concept of "having something to do with a series" is really strange. Of course the information that I have recovered (not added) has a lot to do with the series. A part of it is even sourced.
About On top of that, you also keep adding unverifiable information against Wikipeida's polices after it has already been challenged and removed. Do not add this information back into the article until you can source its relevance to the article's subject.: Sir, you are completely lost. Relevance cannot be sourced, it can only arise from consensus. And more than half of the new section is easily verifiable! I'm afraid your actions and your argumentations do not match, please be sincere about your intentions. --Jotamar (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
About If you can't prove that information is connection to the article's subject, then ultimately the section will be deleted: That connection is already proven, check the References. --Jotamar (talk) 14:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
The Anime and Manga BarnSakura Award | |
Thank you so much for all your work on cleaning up infoboxes, categories, and so on (there's just so much I've seen you doing lately). You are making Wikipedia a little bit better each day, and it's generally a thankless job. I just wanted you to know your efforts are greatly appreciated. どうもありがとうございました! m(_ _)m ···日本穣? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WikiProject Japan! 08:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC) |
I know we traditionally bark at each other, but thanks for your careful cleanup of Girls with guns, it's much appreciated.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)