User talk:Darkbane/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place  after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Koveras ☭ 09:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Spelling corrections
I have made a tiny spelling correction to one of Darkbane's articles, changing "posess" to "possess". The article "It's" also had this same error. It's apparent that Darkbane lists "It's" as one of its favourite topics.

Tabletop 00:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it now :) --Darkbane 00:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Please refrain from excessively reverting good-faith edits from your fellow editors. Please see Reverting and more importantly, Assume good faith. Instead of excessively reverting another editor's contributions, especially if they are of good faith and intend to improve the article, one should discuss on the talk page and attempt to discuss this matter instead. Thank you. ··· 巌流 ? · Talk to Gan ryuu 09:52, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I am assuming you are referring to the edits on Romeo_x_Juliet. The creation of those faction sections was discussed on the talk page for that article. Your edit unilaterally removed those sections without discussing it on the talk page. I only reverted your edit because I was going to merge it appropriately with the article, which I subsequently did. --Darkbane 09:55, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As for the Code Geass edits, I already stated that my case for them was unjustified. However, that particular series of reverts was started by you, without seeking consensus. Nevertheless, I apologize for it. --Darkbane 09:59, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Your recent edits to Romeo x Juliet removed a significant portion of the good-faith edits I had made to the article, such as the inclusion of information to Escalus and other similar cleanup (such as the use of Ryōma; as this is a Japanese series which has never been adapted into English, the original Japanese term should be preferred, as a translation of such a term would be non-official and simply a literal translation of the original Japanese text made by an editor; for more information, please kindly see WP:MOS-JA). As you state you are a new editor, please see these policy pages instead of reverting or making such statements. I am also suprised to why you would do such a thing, as I have never reverted a single edit made by you in Romeo x Juliet and other articles such as Darker than Black. Please assume good faith and refrain from false statements. ··· 巌流 ? · Talk to Gan ryuu 10:07, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Oops. Sorry, that was really my honesty mistake. I overlooked those parts of the edit and only focused on the removal of the factions. I sincerely apologize for that. As you say, I am a new editor, so these things do happen unfortunately. It's definitely not because I am assuming bad faith on your part - there's no such thing.
 * Anyway, as far as the factions go, keeping them as your latest version of "allies and relatives" is fine, but that removes your previous "main character" section. Are you fine with that? I only wish for the distinction between the two groups to remain on the character section since it's an important one, everything else is pretty much up for grabs. --Darkbane 10:13, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's great the way it is, since I based my most recent edit (allies, etc.) loosely on the format used in the main Romeo and Juliet article; so I don't think it's necessary for their to be a "main characters" section. Apology accepted (^_^); I think most of the disagreements we have had are extremely minor matters, so I think they can easily be resolved instead of needing a "third opinion" as I believe matters between two editors are best left between themselves, as this dispute really hasn't lasted even a "week". Regarding the Code Geass characters section, it is my opinion, that character articles for some of the major characters be created, while a short summary be used to link to this article, in the main list of characters article, so as to reflect other major character pages. Regarding Romeo x Juliet, I'll also try to add new sections to the article (regarding its adaptations) quite soon to the article, to expand it further. ··· 巌流 ? · Talk to Gan ryuu 10:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
 * As you can probably tell, I am a bit hot-headed - not a good quality for a Wikipedian. Sorry for that ^_^;;;... Let me first say that I do appreciate greatly all the work you do on Anime & Manga related articles. You've created a large number of good articles and did quite a bit of translation work, which I respect.
 * The whole third party thing is in no way any kind of disrespect or doubt in you. I seek third party opinions for two reasons really: because I am not confident in my point of view, especially since I am a new editor, and because I've had good experience with it in the past (there was an argument which made no sense, relating to a disambiguation page, and another person provided a third party opinion with different arguments, which cleared my head). However, now that I've cooled down, we can probably talk about it more, so I've removed those requests from the third party page for now.
 * The broadcast thing doesn't really matter to me - your recent edits already fixed the real major problem I had with it, which was the misleading "open-endedness". I'm not convinced it's really appropriate encyclopedic content, but honestly it doesn't take up all that much screen space, and it does look kind of nice... in the interest of staying sane, we might as well forget that issue and move on.
 * As for the list of characters, maybe we can use my versions for the short summaries if you do indeed plan on making separate character pages for the main characters in the future. I do agree that those extensive entries will not be so extensive/superfluous if they are treated on separate character pages. There are some minor parts that are original research and really need to be deleted in my opinion, but I see that you've deleted just now the one part that I noticed before about Suzaku. I think my approach to the issue may have been heavy-handed. Rather than rewrites, I will try to do extensive copy-editing to the article.
 * --Darkbane 10:54, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Twin Navion
Hello Darkbane. Sorry it's taken me a while to get back to you.

You are, of course, right that the person is writing about the aircraft rather than themselves, and moving it to user space probably wasn't such a good idea on my part, so I will restore the text to the original. I guess they should have chosen a different user name to avoid such mistakes. I agree that it looks like they have lifted the text from somewhere and I've just been looking on Google to see if I can find anything similar, but nothing has jumped out at me. I think it might have come from a magazine or brochure.

The article looks as though it needs a serious re-write. I would have a go at doing this myself, but sadly I don't know much about aviation - and hadn't actually heard of this aircraft until this evening. I guess the thing to do would be to contact someone in WikiProject Aviation and bring it to their attention.

Hope this helps.

Cheers and good luck Paul20070 21:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I have just checked back at the article and see that he has restored the text himself. Cheers Paul20070 21:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Seems like a delete is the best option. It might also be worth putting a tag on the user page I created, although I don't know if that's allowed.  Cheers Paul20070 22:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Death Note
I didn't change what was presented in the ep. summary based off of what happened in the manga. I simply meant to explain that I might miss some details of the episode because I hadn't seen it yet, but that I was still fit to edit the summary without having any idea of what would actually be going on in the episode. ~byelf2007

So to speak...
Hi Darkbane!

Yeah, it was deleted twice as a copyvio from this PDF, although the user now asserts permission (not verified). The article as it stood was uncritical commentary (a polite way of saying "spam"). The article was also severely lacking in an assertion of notability. Any changes made to it were instantly reverted by the article's creator (images likewise were uploaded with incompatible licences, deleted, uploaded again, deleted, uploaded again, deleted, uploaded again...). So I locked the title. Obviously, it reappeared immediately under a different title; and on the talk page; and posted to my talk page; and on the author's user page; and sent to me by email...

However, if you think you've got any gold from the dross, then the article should stay and I'll unlock To Speak. It's your call as the editor who has put most work into it (the author, having copied and pasted, has put no work into it at all IMHO). If, however, you think that the article after all your work still has no redeeming features, then I'll happily delete it with your agreement.

Let me know what you think and we'll go on from there. ⋐⋑  REDVEЯS  19:23, 11 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Gone. No assertion of notability, no reliable third-party sources, still in effect an advert. But your work should not go unrecognised. I think you did a great job and I'm grateful for the effort you put in. Thank you and well done! ⋐⋑  REDVEЯS  21:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Sources For Wayne Johnson
All the material referenced on the page is from Wayne's official site, which is a reliable and first-hand source and linked in the article. I am also a personal acquaintance of Wayne's, have known of his work for more than 25 years, and discussed this subject with him directly earlier this year. The information presented is factual, his site is a primary source, and would be able to be cited by any journalist (which I am) as such. It should not be necessary, for example, to find an outside list of Grammy winners merely to site a secondary source that is no more reliable in reality. I ask that you please remove the unsourced tag. Thank you. Tvccs 20:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Although the producer accepted the award, each of the 12 guitarists who played on Pink Guitar in fact is credited with receiving a Grammy. Four of 12 guitarists in fact appeared onstage with the producer in accepting the award. See - http://www.accentonmusic.com/grammy/index.asp?qID=7. They are each credited with receiving a Grammy, not just the producer. If the award had been a producer's award, it would have been an award for producing, not music. Tvccs 22:36, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

I invite you to add the stub tag, modify the lead as you think would be clearer, or add outside sources as you like. I am going to add a link to his page at Taylor. Tvccs 22:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Done and done. :-) --Darkbane 01:19, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Recent deletion of csc page
A page I recently created was deleted after you placed a rapid deletion request on the page, I entered my resons for creating the page and recieved no reply, the page was later deleted. Could you tell me the reason why my post to keep the page was seemingly ignored so that I may avoid having pages I create deleted in the future? C3pkeogh 19:46, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

csc page deletion
Thanks for you input Darkbane. Best wishes C3pkeogh 20:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Kaze no Stigma
Actually 橘 means Tachibana. The 霧 means Kiri and the 香 is ka. So 橘 霧香 is the correct order in rōmaji since it would be Tachibana Kirika (last name, first name). DarkAngel 007 22:23, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheers for clearing that up. My search was wrong, too, I've just found the right one -_- --Darkbane 22:27, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(no section header)
Would you stop our page? Aidanq
 * Please clarify what you mean. Also, please stop defacing my user page and vandalizing articles I've created. --Darkbane 23:15, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding NACER.org
My comments are posted on the talk page for NACER. I am uninitiated as to the academic nuances of Wikipedia - perhaps, constructively, if you feel the page is lacking, you might assist in modifying the composition? NACER.org is a wonderful entity, doing very good work. Do you have animals? Do you understand much about contemporary Mayan culture? Are you aware of animal welfare issues in Mexico? Perhaps in visiting the website, you might then see for yourself that the organization is not commercial in any way - has a mission of mercy and compassion, and is not using Wikipedia to solicit anything, but to contribute to the knowledge base of the public.

This page is NOT blatant advertizing - nacer.org is NOT a business as such - it is a legitimate charitable organization doing groundbreaking work in it's target region. The facts of the article are verifiable. The conditions in Mexico for animal welfare are very similar to those from the turn of the last century in the US - many animals are subjected to the harshest forms of cruelty, and there is little recognition for the suffering they endure. The efforts of the government there have been half-hearted at best. Poverty and cultural limitations are at the root of this problem, as throughout the third world. NACER is among a small handful of groups that are trying to effect change in the conditions, much as there was a movement in England and the US that brought into being the ASPCA, and other such groups. This article is intended as *EDUCATIONAL* and informative - not SPAM! There are many references to many charitable organizations, ie: Red Cross, etc. While NACER is not as prominent, it still has a legitimate place in the public consciousness, and should remain on Wikipedia for this and many other valid reasons. Thanks Zoundman 18:14, 13 May 2007 (UTC)zoundman


 * Whether it's commercial or not is not relevant. The problem is with the article being both an unreferenced, uncritical commentary as well as a random semi-related link dump. Both of these are categorized, in my understanding of the issue, under the somewhat harsh term "spam", hence the tag. I encourage you to read Wikipedia policy, especially WP:NPOV and WP:Verifiability. See WP:EL to get an idea of which external links are appropriate.


 * Please note that the tag is not related to notability, but if the article was not qualified for that tag, notability would still be a question. You have not specifically cited any references to establish the charity's notability. For organizations, you generally will need to cite secondary sources, such as notable magazines featuring articles on your charity. --Darkbane 18:41, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry Darkbane, but you appear not to have followed many of the links, nor to have attempted a simple google search under our name, which brings up a first ranking, and many unrelated (outside) pages with discussion pointing to the organization as a source of expertise and experience in the field of animal welfare in our target region. If I cite articles such as The Sun Sentinal, or feature stories on KDVR & KUSA Television, would you feel these lend 'notability'?

Why would you not delete the Red Cross's article for also containing a direct link to their organization?

The registered name of the organization with the US IRS, and the State of incorporation is 'NACER.org' - not simply 'NACER'.

While it may be intellectually satisfying to you and others to rigourously apply arcane standards and delete accordingly, if you were to have followed the links and discovered for yourself the commpassionate nature of the work, then I would suggest you'd find the article more than worthy of existing for public purview, and assist rather than impede. Of course if you think that the rampant starvation and wholesale electrocution and drowning of millions of innocent animals are unworthy of people's time and attention, then impede away, And I'll continue to repost. Thanks, Zoundman 00:47, 14 May 2007 (UTC)zoundman


 * I am not the one who deleted your article, I merely placed the speedy deletion tag. An admin made the final decision. Therefore the correct place to raise your concerns is with the admin who deleted your article.


 * Recreating the article verbatim ad-infinitum is bad practice and will probably eventually get you banned. I highly recommend you rewrite the article from scratch, keeping in mind the links to policy I mentioned above. A neutral, well-referenced article that does not list fifty links to unrelated subjects will probably not get a speedy tag from anyone.


 * --Darkbane 01:00, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * With regard to secondary sources, that's exactly what you should do. Place references in appropriate places in the article, and add a reference section at the bottom. That will establish some sort of notability and prevent anyone from placing a CSD A7 speedy tag. Also, once again, please do read WP:EL. If you really do need to include every one of those links, there should be a reason for every one of them, maybe as a citation within the article itself. --Darkbane 01:10, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I checked the deletion log right now, and your article was deleted five times, by three different administrators. Four of them for notability criteria. Therefore, it would be prudent to rewrite it with citing secondary sources (established print and online media would be good in my understanding) and keeping the other policies in mind. They're not that arcane, really. As for the links, another option is placing that link collection on the Nacer.org site and only providing the link to the official homepage on the article. --Darkbane 01:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Re NACER.org
Thanks for those suggestions - I'll try to apply them constructively. 67.177.224.127 01:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)zoundman

Princess Resurrection
I have an idea. I'll make an image consisting of those pictures, store it on imageshack then reference to it. I saw articles with those kind of references before so it should be ok I think. - Iron2000 04:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not so sure if that'll be okay. I know I added those fact tags originally, but I won't add them anymore. As I am not completely convinced of my own argument either, let's just leave it like it is for now, I guess. I'll try to think about how to formulate that section a bit more assertively so that it doesn't look like OR, since there are some such comparisons out there, to some degree. --Darkbane 11:23, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

NACER (again)
Have read and re-read the text, and am a bit stuck on the concept of language 'neutrality'... while the text does seem 'friendly' toward the subject, on reading, it is entirely factual, and the org's website has extensive supporting material to document the statements. Any suggestions (?) as I seem to either have limited objectivity here, or have somehow neglected to substantiate things strongly enough... Sorry for being such a neophyte, but we all have our beginnings :) Thanks again, and regrets for my presumptions in earlier comments, Zoundman 14:58, 14 May 2007 (UTC)zoundman


 * No problem, I am an inexperienced editor myself but I will try my best to help. I've cleaned up the article a bit already with regards to neutrality, but more can be done. As you say, the text seems "friendly" toward the subject. Even if everything in the article is true, if you write it in a tone of voice that is biased towards the subject (as you inevitably will at first, since you care a lot about the mission of NACER.org), and at the same time do not provide reliable, independent, secondary sources, it's no longer encyclopedic.


 * For instance, one of your previous iterations had the line "tremendous suffering of the animals in Mexico". I'm sure it's true, but you need to bring out published facts and figures to back it up, otherwise it's an opinion.


 * Someone coming from the outside to your article cannot trace your "long-standing advocacy of education". That's why we rely on secondary sources (independent meaning not affiliated with you) to back up such claims.


 * The places I marked with citation needed are some of the places where I think neutrality could be asserted by inserting citations. The first two of those could probably be verified from articles in local newspapers.


 * I added one citation, albeit not a very good one because it's an article written by your organization and hence not independent, but the only citation I could find. I was hoping that would give you some ideas for citations.


 * There is still the notability tag, which someone else has placed, and which needs to be addressed by providing those secondary sources. Newspaper articles are good for this, especially if the newspaper is noteworthy and/or the coverage extensive (as in, more than one line or a small box in the corner of the help wanted page). You did mention some other sources available before, so you should add those as citations to specific statements within the article. --Darkbane 15:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Capitalization
Generally, most nouns and verbs in titles are capitalized. For example: Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. -Juansidious 17:18, 14 May 2007 (UTC)


 * In that case, my apologies to you. -Juansidious 17:22, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

NACER edit...
Thanks so much for the help to this point - am gaining clarity from your edits - also a growing sense of incompetence as I attempt my own. I.E.: Trying to insert the following into the body of the page, beneath the discription of the bulldozed shelter incident:

Gives a pretty botched-looking result.

I'd thought (always a red-flag indicator when I start a phrase that way) that this might lend support on two fronts - first giving veracity by showing the actual newspaper accounts, and second adding graphical interest. I'm sure the error of my ways are manifold. I am perplexed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zoundman (talk • contribs) 00:13, 15 May 2007 (UTC).


 * I'll take a look. Don't get discouraged. The fastest way is to learn by example - I usually look at a whole bunch of other pages when I want to try a new feature. --Darkbane 00:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, first of all, the reason your images are not working is because they are not uploaded to Wikipedia. To get them formated correctly into the gallery, they need to be uploaded here. Hold off on uploading for the moment though. On a side note, when you start a paragraph by indenting a space or two, the whole paragraph gets displayed on one line, which really screws with anyone trying to read it :-)


 * Actually I think only http://nacer.org/paperpic5.jpg is useful, the others are a bit too small to make anything out. But the problem is, they are newspaper images, so they are copyrighted. That means if you want to use them, you have to upload them and use them in accordance with Fair_use as well as Image_use_policy or they will be deleted. Incidentally enough, simply using images to provide graphical interest seems to be unacceptable - there was a long debate about this recently: we had large lists of episodes for many, many TV shows, with an image for each episode, and it was decided that the images were all going to be deleted since they are only there to make things pretty.


 * You can, in my understanding, claim fair use easily for the left part of http://nacer.org/paperpic5.jpg, as it shows the bulldozer and you are talking about that bulldozer in the article. The right part might be a bit trickier, as I don't see how and where you'd talk about a bunch of animals sitting on a table. Is there some other significance to that image?


 * If you want, I can crop, upload and format that bulldozer image for you. I just need to know the exact copyright holder and year, which should be the photographer or, if none mentioned, the newspaper itself, as well as the source (namely the publication date, name, and issue of the newspaper in question) Actually, I can just use the information that you already provided. Doh. --Darkbane 00:36, 15 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. You may want to look over the data I provided in the fair use rationale and copyright tag on Image:Cancun bulldozer.jpg to make sure everything is correct, although people get away with a lot less for fair use these days so the chance of the image getting deleted is minimal.


 * If you guys are the ones who actually shot the photos, then you may want to dig out the original photograph and upload that instead, since then you can release the photo into public domain or GFDL. With the actual newspaper reprint, you'd likely need to ask a lawyer for advice in this case. --Darkbane 01:34, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

NACER...
The dogs on the table were survivors of the incident, that had no viable place to live following the destruction of the shelter. I don't know if it's useful, but I did upload a page from another newspaper account (El Estado QRoo, Cancun, 2/18/2005 edition) With a (spanish) caption that describes the side by side images as such.

As for 'international outcry' I thought that a reference to an online petition started by a completely unrelated group, using the text of our web pages as the body of the petition (with our permission) showing more than 2300 signatures might suffice? This was one of a number of actions generated through NACER's campaign on behalf of the shelter. 

Other citations might be the Colorado Secretary of State, which posts our online financial reports, etc.(?):. As for citations to support the clinics themselves, I'm a little stuck here - given that we're doing our work in something of a third-world environment, there aren't many independent sources to document what we do. On our website, we post photo journals and videos to document the work, and most of the journals for each clinical site are very extensive. Beyond this, it's going to be tough to come up with anything from outside sources.

Thanks again - **seriously** - your help has been really appreciated! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zoundman (talk • contribs) 03:04, 15 May 2007 (UTC).


 * I would avoid the table image then, because one image already illustrates the subject well enough. The animals and bulldozer on the same photo is more effective in getting the point across anyway, and using too many fair use images on one single activity of the organization might not be a good idea.


 * You should cite that newspaper but there shouldn't be a need to provide this scan to verify it. If you provide a proper citation for it, that'll be enough. I'd keep the image on your computer though, in case you ever do need to prove the source for whatever reason.


 * is tricky. It effectively falls under WP:SPS. It certainly is not a reliable published source. The connection from 2300 signatures to "international outcry" is quite a stretch. That's roughly 0.00003% of the world population, so it's more like a small whisper in some foreign land :) It might be sad, but a random local politician probably gets more signatures for his campaign nomination (rough statement, I am not familiar with nomination procedures at your locale). You can cite it - if someone thinks its rubbish, they'll remove it or raise the concern - but I'd tone down on the outcry rhetoric since it doesn't seem to match the figures.


 * On that note, you are not being very specific about what you guys did to help the animal home. Obviously you didn't save the original structure, since you say it was bulldozed into oblivion anyway. Since you have a newspaper citation for it, you can add a couple of verifiable details.


 * seems to contain your articles of incorporation and such, but doesn't hold any information immediately pertinent to the article. It doesn't cost much to get incorporated, so it wouldn't add to notability claims either.


 * "To date NACER.org has raised thousands of dollars, and sterilized thousands of animals in the region" - disclosing financial reports might verify the first part, but I don't know if that's wise and/or common practice, and it won't help with the second part. I would axe this sentence, it's a bit on the "promotional language" side. This is the kind of statement that you want to back up with a newspaper citation or not include at all.


 * It's not a problem to cite primary sources (like accounts on your website) per se, it's just that you'll have to be even more extra careful about NPOV. Much of the material I contribute to Wikipedia relies on primary sources. This page states:


 * Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). An article or section of an article that relies on a primary source should (1) only make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and (2) make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims. Contributors drawing on entirely primary sources should be careful to comply with both conditions.


 * On another note, I won't be around for the next six to twelve hours. --Darkbane 04:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

BIG Thanks!
Seems that all's well - your help was invaluable! I'll do my best to acquaint myself better with all the nuances of wikiworld, and take this as a great learning opportunity! Thanks again, 67.177.224.127 22:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)zoundman
 * No problem. Article still needs work (well, most articles do), but I think it's over the "delete on sight" barrier now ^_^. You didn't really address those fact tags or NPOV, but I might be too biased on this issue also so I won't add them back - someone else might see it as a problem some day though. Still, we've come pretty far from the initial link dump... Good luck. -- Darkbane  talk 22:24, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Sisters of Wellber thanks
Not a problem! I was just checking up on it when its torrents went up in animesuki.--Janarius 23:27, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

May 2007
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. However, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Policies/Wikipedia:Spoiler warning. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. G1 gg  y  !  00:04, 21 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Someone who states that "anyone blathering on some principle...should see their family die in a hotel fire" is past any reasonable good faith license. However, pointing out that contributing constructively will help more is not the same as assuming bad faith, so I cannot trace the rationale behind your comment. If you are merely testing out warning templates, there's always the WP:Sandbox -- Darkbane  talk 00:22, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Characters in Berserk (or was that List of Berserkers?)
Boring indeed, though my "excitement" factor was boosted by having to rewrite the paragraphs occasionally due to really weird wording where the subject was never mentioned. --tjstrf talk 03:33, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 20:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Rubel / Louvre in Claymore
I agree. I'm trying to find another source as well. But it sounds extremly fitting, the japanese wiki lists a museum for each of the 5 characters from the organization that have appeared so far (only 1, now 2, are in the english list), it can't really be a coincidence (especially since Claymore doesn't seem to have any completely invented names). But I'm still going through the history of the japanese page, trying to find when the information has been added and if the person mentioned a source. But it might even be obvious for japanese people since the spellings in Katakana and the prononciation are so much alike.

I can say for sure though, that Louvre makes much more sense than Rubel, since even in Katakana there is no "b". It happens a lot that in Katakana "v" turns into "b" (f.ex Eva is spelled "Eba" or Eve "Ibu"), but it makes no sense at all to spell the name with a "v" if there should be a "b" in it. (Since "v" doesn't exist in the normal japanese alphabet, they won't use it if it wasn't for the foreign spelling of a word). Anyway, as I said, I'm checking the japanese history right now, I'll tell you when I find something. Minikui 12:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I was talking about his name spelled in Katakana. His name is spelled ルヴル Ruvuru and not ルブル Ruburu (or even ルベル Ruberu), eventhough "b" is a lot more natural in japanese and they even tend to put a "b" into words that are spelled with a "v" (violin becomes "baiorin"). So it really doesn't make any sense to spell it as "Rubel", only if one doesn't know where that weird name came from (which is understandable, names in Katakana are a pain to "decode"). Minikui 12:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't own the English version either (I usually buy the japanese versions), but I'm sure they didn't spell it with a "b" ;)

Ok, I found when the information was added and of course it doesn't cite any source. But it has been there for almost a year now, it has been edited a lot, but never removed, so it can't be complete nonsense :) I'm trying google now and will a post a message on the japanese discussion side. But for the moment, even if the information is labeled as "original research", I think it's worth including, maybe rephrase it to "it seems that...". It is just too much of a coincidence for all of their names to correspond to the name of an art museum. I was thinking of adding the other 3 as well, but since for the moment there is almost nothing known about any of them, I dunno if it's useful ... Minikui 13:27, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I've been looking at many different sites now and a statement I found several times was that in fact many of the names in Claymore are somehow related to "art", f.ex. the names of popular artists or paintings etc, just as in the last series of the same author Angel Densetsu. So I'll try to find a bit more about that, it's a first hint and "backup" at least. :) Minikui 17:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Hi there. So, I've read all kind of weird Otaku forums these last days (gah!) and I found different "lists" made by fans about the origins or their associations with the character names. It seems that there hasn't really been an official statement, but there were a lot of common points in all those lists, especially the fact about names being derived from "art". I also tried to find an official forum or something, but no luck so far. I'm still searching though.


 * Eventhough this information is still considered original research, the fact that it corresponds for many of the names is too much of a coincidence (for me at least) and the fact that the author in Angel Densetsu already derived all of the character's names from famous painters/mangakas/poets etc. makes it seem much more convincing as well (the english article only lists one origin, but the japanese one has one for about every name). It's at least a proof, that the author doesn't simply invent names.


 * As the majority of names in Claymore "coincidently" correspond to real non-japanese names, I can't believe that the few that aren't as obvious, have been simply invented :) Therefore I've been also searching for those weird names like Riful (which is always spelt "Riffle" in the japanese forums), "Easley/Isley", Deneve and so on, but these have been more difficult so far XD I suppose for Angel Densetsu it was much easier since the names were all derived from japanese painters...


 * So, yes, what I wanted to say, to my mind the information while being original research seems well based enough and therefore I think it should be fine to include it as "apparently". But that's only my opinion, so I'll leave the final decision to the "higher ups" :) Argh, sorry for that long babbling oO; Minikui 19:48, 27 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Haha, Katakana is such a pain. Sometimes if you're lucky an official spelling exists and if you're unlucky the official spelling is wrong or changes all the time. Even official translators have their problems with it. Take a look at this page which I found while searching, I'm quite sure that Claymore and Sisters of Wellber will soon be listed there as well (Miria/Milia/Milliah etc. is already in there). Ok then, I will sort out the most complete lists and add them as sources, as well as the Katakana spellings, which are the same or extremly close most of the time. Minikui 21:17, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Kaze no Stigma (Spirits)
Hey. So, I don't know about singular/plural in Japanese, but it's obvious that Kazuma et al. are drawing upon more than one wind/fire spirit when casting their spells. How can we best reflect this in the terminology section? -- Darkbane  talk 12:00, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 *  Actually I think that regular jutsu users are only able to draw upon one spirit, while contractors (or advanced jutsu users) can draw upon many spirits, but I'm not certain about that . All I know is that a Honō/Kaze no Seirei is only one flame/wind spirit. DarkAngel 007  19:56, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That's pretty random. I haven't seen any basis for this assumption in the anime. How about the novel? -- Darkbane  talk 20:05, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Oops, I retract what I wrote before; just looked back on a few episodes. Anyways, the plural form for Honō no Seirei would most likely be Honō no Seirei-tachi. As for the article: In the anime, the first Kannagi head made a contract with the Honō no Seirei-Ou, which, according to Ren, allowed his descendants to use a minute power of the flame spirits around them (ep 2). If they're a contractor, they can call upon the power of the Seirei-Ou, in order to use the full power of all the spirits in the atmosphere. (Oh yeah, you could've responded in my talk section, it just wouldn't have stayed there >.< ). DarkAngel 007  21:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd rather preserve it here and then move it to my archives than dig through your talk page's history :P The Seirei-Ou is different though, since it's the king. It would make sense for there to be only one king ^_^. Anyway, I think this part might be getting too specific for the terminology section anyways. I'll do some changes, take a look at them later. -- Darkbane  talk 22:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Episode pages for GitS:SAC
Hi there, I've noticed that you have started to create separate pages for the episodes of GitS:SAC, but I am concerned about these pages being against WP:EPISODE. Namely, I believe there is not enough verifiable information on the separate episodes. Because it seems likely that all of those pages will end up being deleted, I'd like to raise this issue now before you spend too much time on those articles. A plot summary is not enough to justify the creation of those pages - do you have reliable secondary sources to write a critical commentary on each episode? -- Darkbane  talk 19:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * WP:EPISODE are guidelines ,not rules."not enough verifiable information on the separate episodes"????Whell it is verifiable,you just watch the show,the articles are stubs,so not surprisingly they are short.The point is to seed the input of content,if their's not a dedicated place where people can put their stuff,where are they going to put them?--Bip beep 19:56, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, a guideline is something you should follow unless you have good reason not to. You say it's to "seed input of content," but there's no indication that any content except plot summary is ever going to be possible, as for such content there must exist verifiable secondary sources. ie: not the episode itself.


 * As to where people might place other content if not here, some suggestions would be Wikia or a fansite -- Darkbane  talk 20:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

A guideline:it recommends, or recommends against, an action to be taken by editors.Or else what the difference between a guideline and a rule.A rule is something you should follow unless you have good reason not to.--Bip beep 20:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * The page even starts with "This page is considered a guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow." Rather than trying to redefine the term guideline in such a way that you can ignore it (you don't have to, anyway - see WP:IAR), I recommend you read the page itself to see why I think making episode articles is a bad idea. -- Darkbane  talk 21:43, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It's just common sense.If you have an episode article,you can keep your screenshot,if you just have a list,you have jack.You have a link to wikiquotes,i nice template with all the important info easily visible.Probably the plot of tachicomatic days will go there too(a short attached to the main episode).A bunch of trivia that now is scattered here and there will find it's way in the relevant articles.The list article is 90kb already and proposed for splitting.An example of series that is "out of guidelines" for over a year is Invader Zim.Any way this discussion is very abstract,unless you are planing to propose them for deletion your self.--Bip beep 19:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Some of those Invader Zim episodes actually are referenced, like The Nightmare Begins. So there's at least some basis for keeping some of them - many of the others look like good AfD candidates ^_^;


 * Here's the thing though. Random trivia doesn't belong on Wikipedia to begin with. Screenshots as decorative use violates fair use in the first place, which is why they were axed from lists. So it's okay to have a screenshot in the episode article if it's to illustrate something that is part of the plot, but creating an article because you want a screenshot is bad practice in my humble opinion.


 * The summaries in the main article are way too verbose, too - this is what they should look like, ideally. The Wikiquotes for the episodes are mostly empty, so one link for the whole season is more than enough. Tachikoma Days is nice, but can also be in a simple list in the main article - but the way I see it, so far this is the only interesting point in favor of separate articles. The other relevant data is just the original air date, which is normally present next to the title in episode lists anyway.


 * The reason we're having this discussion is because I'm not sure if I should be proposing these articles for deletion or not, and because I wanted to raise my concerns with you (and because I felt you are wasting your time by creating them). I'm leaning towards doing so, and probably will open an AfD for them in a month or two - if I still remember and nothing changes with them, and perhaps after asking someone more experienced than me for another opinion. -- Darkbane  talk 20:12, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Claymore manga names
Need help on editing issues

Hello. I was wondering if I could ask for your help in settling an editing matter. One editor proposes character name changes since he/she don't seem to agree with the official english version and prefers what he/she deducts as the right translation. For instance: english publication says Rubel, Japanese phonetics say Ruvuru. Said Editor prefers to spell it as Louvr. Debate is on going at: Claymore Discussion. Thank you. -Mickey

In consideration of your time, I appreciate putting in your thoughts on the matter. Keep up the good work!!! -Mickey