User talk:Erachima/Archive 02

This archive contains topics 26-50 made on my talk page. Its history on the main talk page ends at this edit.

Kiddy Grade Move
Thank you very very much for your contribution to the Kiddy Grade article. I don't wish to scare from editing, but the articles are going through AfD, and may be up for deletion. While that is occurring, the pages have to stay as they are, the formatting can change, but we can't move them around. I am sorry for this, I agree with this change, just not yet. --Crampy20 11:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't mind

 * Sorry, I didn't notice that you replied on the discussion page, don't mind my revert comment then. This is no original research but general balkan knowledge (the ottomans relocated major amounts of Serbians), let the version be there for the other active users to see, after that we can compromise. Greetings! Bosoni

Bleach arcs
The Ichigo Kurosaki article uses those arc names (Hollow arc and Soul Society arc) and List of Bleach episodes uses names similar to them in its list. I think the Soul Society arc is a valid name for the arc but I agree that "Hollow arc" is not informative enough as an arc name. I'm currently writing Ishida's synopsis for the rest of the Soul Society arc. Can I at least use "Soul Society arc" as its name?--Gdo01 22:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Advance Wars external links
Quoting guide, On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such. The problem is, people always want "their" site to appear. Thus, it is sometimes better not to show any fan site at all, and let the casual user to find them by himself.

When choosing which fan sites to stay, I usually consider forum posts and membership, creation date, updates, Alexa ranking and whether they comply with the extra style guide. Considering this:


 * http://www.awbunker.com/ : 435349 posts, 1860 members, Alexa rank 214,725.
 * http://awbw.amarriner.com/ : 99209 posts, 3432 members, Alexa rank 236,186, launched on December 3, 2004
 * http://www.awrev.com/ : 45,866 posts, 597 members, Alexa rank 1,160,855, launched on August 20, 2005
 * http://www.advancewarsnet.com/ : 410,742 posts, 1,979 members, Alexa rank 756,430, launched on 10/02/01
 * http://www.gamefaqs.com/ : Gamefaqs

We should choose one or two only. Remember, we are editors, so we should not care what someone in any of those forums say about a determined site being in a link here. From this data, I would either leave the Gamefaqs link using GameFAQs, or leave the most active site, awbunker.com. We could add another, awbw.amarriner.com (more members and better Alexa rank) or advancewarsnet.com (more active).

I don't really care which ones we should choose. My goal is to keep the articles with as few external links as possible. We can bend the guidelines, one or two, maybe three, but having four or more is abusing our ability to link. A casual user may want to learn something else from a link. He is not going to click the five links to research, so we should minimize the bother of having to do so -- ReyBrujo 05:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have no problem with either option. We could say that, since GameFAQs has its own template at Wikipedia, it may not "count" as fan site, but instead as an information site that can't be used as reference (as it is mostly fan-made). People will always complain, will always ask why their site isn't around. We are not supposed to determine which sites should be included, instead they should claim notability, give proofs, and suggest. Unluckily, people just add the links no matter the amount of warnings. -- ReyBrujo 05:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * When dealing with fans, they don't read warnings. The main problem is that the Official and Unofficial sections shouldn't be split with ===, but instead with ;. This way, there will be only an Edit link at the beginning of the External links section, and when they click it, they will be forced to read the warning. If there are three Edits sections (one at the External link header, another at the Official and another at the Unofficial links), we would be forced to add the note in all three places at the same time. -- ReyBrujo 06:26, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The Vengeful Vandal
A sequence of personal attacks and wrongful warnings by the banned user InterestedParticipant, since removed. If you want to see them for some reason, you can find them here. --tjstrf 01:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Calling Tagging blatant vandalism
Per the definition of vandalism (see WP:3RR and WP:Vandalism), neither the adding of tags nor the removal of tags is simple vandalism. Take care. SighSighSigh 23:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is. WP:VANDAL lists "Improper use of dispute tags" as a common form of vandalism. --tjstrf 23:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Improper use of tags may be vandalism, (it also may not be and removal of tags may also be vandalism), but neither is simple vandalism that exempts one from the 3RR, even if it's determined to be vandalism. I just saw one of your edit summaries on the Homelessness article making that claim, which I agree that the article is a total mess. SighSighSigh 23:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Improper use of dispute tags
 * Dispute tags are an important way for people to show that there are problems with the article. Do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period. Do not place dispute tags improperly, as in when there is no dispute, and the reason for placing the dispute tag is because a suggested edit has failed to meet consensus. Instead, follow WP:CON and accept that some edits will not meet consensus. Please note that placing or removal of dispute tags does not count as simple vandalism, and therefore the reverting of such edits is not exempt from the three-revert rule.

OK, all is cool. I just saw your summary and I was bit confused :). SighSighSigh 23:38, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, I said as much on your talk page. My original statement was based on a misunderstanding of your meaning. I thought you meant that spamming dispute tags was not vandalism, which it most definitely is. After reviewing my edit summary, I realized my mistake. I would also argue that, given the circumstances, this particular instance was blatant vandalism, but that's beside the point. Thanks for the correction. --tjstrf 23:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The Stormtrooper Effect
Hi. I was wondering what the reason is you deleted my addition the article about the Stormtrooper Effect. In my opinion it was a perfectly reasonable addition. You deleted my addition, but I didn't find why. Could you please explain, or otherwise just put it back? (RagingR2 14:40, 27 August 2006 (UTC))
 * Hi, I read your reply on my talk page. Thanks for replying. As for the Matrix: well, my point wasn't so much about that film, it merely used it as an example to illustrate the manifestation i was describing. But maybe if there's so much discussion about that particular series of films, then maybe it's a bad example indeed and it should not be used as an example in the article. On a sidenote, I read the discussion about the Matrix having or not having the Stormtrooper Effect, and frankly I think what I described was a different issue. I wasn't talking about Neo being able to fight agents so easily, because here I agree that's part of the story and in that sense doesn't really qualify as the stormtrooper effect. My point was specifically about the issue of agents being seen waiting their turn to fight proponents in some scenes in the film, which I think *does* qualify as the Stormtrooper Effect, even when the story of the film provides a general explanation for Neo's strength. But as I said, I merely used the Matrix as an example of the bad-guys-waiting-their-turns-issue, and I suppose other examples might do just as well, such as the scene in Kill Bill Vol. 1 I was talking about. Personally, I'm more in favour of using examples that everyone can agree with, than going through the whole process of finding outside sources to prove your point. I think the examples are not that important, after all they're just examples. It's the manifestation that counts. I didn't think the bad-guys-waiting-their-turns issues was already covered in the article, that's why I added it, and I hope it won't be necessary to provide outside sources to justify adding this manifestation to the list, I'm sure everyone who's seen a few films has seen it a few times. Let me know what you think. Greetings, (RagingR2 20:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC))

Re: RfA
Thanks for thinking about it. I'd like to talk about it privately, please contact me on MSN at ynhockey at hotmail dot com, or tell me that you only have ICQ/AIM/YIM (in which case I'll install a client...), or e-mail at ynhockey at gmail dot com. Thanks, Ynhockey (Talk) 06:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I grow tired of protecting articles from bully users.
AMIB and this other guy, the one word I can associate with them is "bully". They think that they can get away with telling people that their opinions hold no weight in this matter and delete an article. Both of the users are trying to make up reasons for the article to be deleted. The first was that it was of low quality and beyond repair, the second was (and this is the worst) is that a result of keep can result in a redirect, on the basis that redirect votes add to keep, not delete and the third one is that it is unsourcable and should be deleted - unlike the majority of articles which have no sources. There is no logic to this. They didn't create for fun. I'm not in the mood to be polite with people who aren't interested in acknowledging any other view but their own. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

rv GUS page
I was as careful as possible to add more information, not delete any as well as maintaining as strict NPOV as possible. If you want to discuss specifics, that would be helpful, but mass rv isn't helpful in this case. --NThurston 22:52, 29 August 2006 (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 12:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Mistranslations in scanlations
Hi, I'm compiling a list of all known mistranslations in Bleach scanlations which somehow affect the storyline or distort facts. So far I've got the following:

Common Jūni Manga Rain
 * Soi Fong, Fong Shaolin -> Soifon, Fon Shaolin
 * Chapter 205, page 18: The dye slowly dissipates -> The dye slowly fills in
 * Chapter 51, page 11: boss's only relative -> boss's close friend
 * Chapter 118, page 8: few hundred years -> over a hundred years
 * Chapter 122, page 1: 11th Division 10th Seat (about Aramaki) -> 10 years spent in 11th Division

Basically if you know any others, please let me know. This list probably won't be good for any articles on Wikipedia but could serve as a reference for editors.

-- Ynhockey (Talk) 22:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

List of Bleach manga chapters
Also don't forget to vote here - some newbie nominated the article for deletion. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 22:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Concise refs
I guess it may have been changed, but a while ago refs also had popup bubbles with the Name field in them, so it was important to have a name. I guess this no longer applies.

By the way, what about the mistranslations? Do you know any? -- Ynhockey (Talk) 08:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

sence of humor?
I like the way you worded your comment on my user page. I have now removed the fictitious boxes and have left the genuine ones. As you can see I really am deaf but I cannot pilot a plane that was just me experimenting.--Lucy-marie 21:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Amy MacDougall-Barone
On the user talk page for the user Samuel Blanning, I left a comment about the Amy Macdougall-Barone page not being linked to by typing in Amy Barone. I guess thanks for doing it. But I am actually fairly new to Wikipedia. Well, at least I'm fairly new with editing content, and do not completely have it down. I would have much more appreciated it if you had just told me how to do it instead of actually doing it yourself. Because now, I still don't exactly understand how do redirect.

If possible, could you respond to this on my talk page. I'll be looking at my page, and not this one.Free-encyclopedia 02:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Everybody wants me to stop about these puns relating to Raymond
No problem. Thanks a lot for telling me how to do it, but it also wasn't that bad that you did it yourself, as long as you still had room available for me to practice myself. Actually, this could be looked at almost as a metaphor for Wikipedia itself. You did the changes to make the article better, but I will now make the changes based on something you suggested ... and we were communicating via somebody else's talk page! This website, where you can change any article, is also a great source for communication and information, and I think this is a great example of how three users got together to help make one page better.Free-encyclopedia 17:56, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Able Sisters
I believe they should be referred to as porcupines. While the guide calls them hedgehogs, guides can be wrong. I mean, we have a porcupine reference in the English version (which would logically be there for a reason), and them being referred to as porcupines in the European version, which is not only as important, but is actually more so, considering Animal Crossing WW in EU has either outsold or is going to outsell the NA version. - A Link to the Past (talk) 09:15, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for fixing Counter-Vandalism Unit, I'm tired right now and kept messing up the syntax! — xaosflux  Talk  02:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Everybody ... oh, I'm too tired to make some sort of 'Raymond' related pun. I mean, it's 8:26 at night.
You told me how to redirect the Amy Macdougall-Barone page, to make it so that if you typed it without capital letters it would redirect, or something like that. Anyway, it appears somebody has already done that. So I did it with a different page ... which I created, I might add! (Both pages, I created; the new page, and the redirect.) Anyway, check it out. Tech Buzz Game Somebody on the discussion page had suggested changing the title to 'Tech Buzz Game,' because that is what it is 'officially' called. So I did this. Thanks, tjs ... well, whatever your username is. Free-encyclopedia 00:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Dr Philip Attiya (user)
Don't bite. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 20:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
 * User:Dr Philip Attiya. Ya ya ya ya ya ya 21:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Human rights and social justice
Can I copy your words onto the user's talk page or you could? I personally stopped responding since it is not all that important to me though it might be more important to others.Gdo01 03:07, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll do that then. --tjstrf 03:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

subheaders
is there a policy on the usage of sub-headers within talk? why people do not use them? I do not know if it is good, or bad practice/why it would be bad practice. User:Yy-bo 16:03, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

"We don't need instructions?"
I'm sorry, what do you mean? Does my suggestion in some way smell like an instruction? Your suggestion makes sense to me, I'm simply trying to make the text so understandable that editors who use English as a second language can not fail to understand the idea of WP:NPOV Terryeo 17:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I have read your comment to my discussion page and responded to it there. In general though, may I let you know? A number of editors follow me around and almost any edit or discussion page comment I make, immediately and brashly state what they think my statement (or edit) means. So I understand, yeah, you are real sure that any word I put on the page has one and only one purpose. And for sure, any of those persons whom you talk with with take every opportunity to tell you that again and again. However, just to let you know, it is just barely possible, isn't it, that I like to steak and potatoes just like the next guy, you know what I mean? Terryeo 17:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with, ''Clarity is best achieved through simplicity. Full expoundment of an idea for clarity is only necessary if people are not understanding the simple form.'' Which is why I introduced the idea of two sentences instead of a sentence with a tag end which introduces a slightly different, but ajoining idea. Your separating the two into two sentences, seems like a solid idea to me. Terryeo 18:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Vote canvassing?
I guess so. At any rate that announcement has absolutely nothing to do with CVU, but the reasoning seems to be that the "VIE" page was the cause of deletion of the CVU (even though the CVU appears to have been undeleted, so I'm not sure what he's worried about). I don't know how CVU treats such things, but it's basically an overreaction based upon a misunderstanding. HAND!  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  22:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm about to log off for the night, but if you don't mind, could you keep an eye on the CVU page for a while so it doesn't get overly panicky? We're having a decent discussion on VIE's talk page and comments are welcome, but panic simply doesn't help anyone. I wish I had a WikiBloodpressureMonitor invokable on other users. Thanks!  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  23:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)