User talk:Lucia Black/Archive 1

September 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Farix (Talk) 23:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

NGE proposal
I've commented on your proposal at the NGE wikiproject talk page. I would suggest that you avoid saying articles are "worthless". All of Wikipedia's articles are imperfect works-in-progress, the challenge is to leave them better than you found them. Also, the people who have been working on the articles may have their feelings hurt by having their work described this way. Thanks for your consideration. BTW, if you'd like to find more userboxes, have a look at Userboxes. :-) --Malkinann (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries
In the future, it would be great if you could make use of Help:Edit summary. --Gwern (contribs) 16:12 14 September 2009 (GMT)

Wiki-adoption?
Have you considered being Wiki-Adopted? It'd give you a mentor to ask questions to about how to use Wikipedia. --Malkinann (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I can't see where you've asked to be adopted... You need to put an 'adopt me!' userbox on your user page as described in the adoptee's area.  Please give it a go, I think you would really benefit from it.  --Malkinann (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You have mail....
And again at

Please be nice
Please don't call people "crazy or something", as you did to Southen at their user talk page. This is not the way to foster a good discussion on the future of these articles, and may be construed as a breach of WP:CIVIL. People who don't agree with you are not necessarily "crazy or something". --Malkinann (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Telling someone "from now on, we should discuss an edit in the discussion section before actually editing" should only be reserved for the most controversial articles, such as abortion. Please don't bite the newbies. --Malkinann (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Mergeto
When using the mergeto template (as you did on Revival of Evangelion), you need to 'start the ball rolling' on the discussion - if people click on the 'discuss' link in the mergeto template and can't find a discussion, they may remove the mergeto template. I've removed the mergeto template from End of Evangelion as the potential merge has been discussed ad nauseam on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Evangelion and has been rejected. --Malkinann (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Please sign your comments, I don't like having to track you down. Because you haven't started the discussion for Revival of Evangelion (by linking to it from the discuss link in the mergeto template) anyone can remove it. Please begin the discussion, linked from the mergeto template on the page about the merge, if you really want to merge the articles.  If you need help on making the mergeto template do what you want, there's information on that on mergeto.  --Malkinann (talk) 01:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * So you want to Be bold, but not too bold? It's nice that you want to discuss everything before doing it, but too much discussion can stymie the development of the articles by being fatiguing to the editors.  For example, after I repeatedly explained why Angelic Days is notable, to find you saying you still don't think it's worthy of its own article is really discouraging, because your view is not based on the general notability guidelines or on the editing policy. There are some circumstances which require discussion (such as merges and major rearranging) but not everything does.  Not everything will be "obvious" to other people - if you avoid using loaded language when you communicate with other editors, discussions may proceed more smoothly. --Malkinann (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Pointing out when articles don't actually have to be merged or deleted is always a good first step, I find, and the GNG is a guideline accepted by the wider Wikipedia community. If an article satisfies the GNGs, then they may have a standalone article, and that's usually good enough for me.  It is then up to you to convince why would it be a good idea to merge the two notable topics anyway.  --Malkinann (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome!

 * I noticed you'd never received a "proper" welcome, so I'm leaving this here. I strongly urge you to take some time to read through some of these links, as they will really help you understand the basics of editing in Wikipedia and in working in a consensus-based environment. Reviewing some of your recent discussions, I'd also highly urge you to remember that assuming good faith, civility, and going with consensus even when you disagree are non-optional components of being a Wikipedia editor. You started off on a rocky foot and I'm glad to see you are working to be a productive editor now, so I hope you will take this advice to heart. Thanks, -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 22:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Indenting messages
Hello Bread Ninja, I have followed a few discussions that you have been involved in, and I've noticed that you don't indent your messages when you post replies (I'm assuming that this is simply because you don't understand how indenting works). I'd like to ask that you start indenting your replies, as without indentation, the discussion becomes nigh-incomprehensible to anyone who hasn't been following along in diffs - Talk:Sailor Moon is an excellent example. You can indent messages by prepending them with a colon. For instance:

First message. User:Example (talk &bull; contribs) 00:00, 1 January 2000 (UTC)
 * Reply. User:Example (talk &bull; contribs) 15:43, 1 January 2000 (UTC)
 * Another reply. User:Example (talk &bull; contribs) 15:59, 1 January 2000 (UTC)
 * Continuing the conversation. User:Example (talk &bull; contribs) 03:12, 2 January 2000 (UTC)
 * Commenting on the first message. User:Example (talk &bull; contribs) 09:17, 2 January 2000 (UTC)

...and so forth. You can practice this as much as you like right here, on your talk page. Don't worry too much about going back and fixing the indenting in the discussions you have been involved in; at least in the case of SM, I'll probably sort it out when I get some time. Thanks! =) 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't refactor other's talk page comments
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Sailor Moon, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Malkinann (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to .hack//G.U., without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. A8 UDI  16:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a battleground?
Hi there Bread Ninja, I'm concerned you may be falling into the trap of finding that some of your suggestions are resisted by others, and treating Wikipedia as a battleground, arguing long after you've 'given up'. When I've done this, I've found it helpful to disengage from the argument, and remember that I'm here to write an encyclopedia. Typically, I've been reading further readings from yaoi and incoroporating it into the article, or creating new (yaoi) articles from WP:ANIME/REQUEST, but there are lots of other things you can do on Wikipedia that don't involve reading about yaoi. ;) You obviously have tremendous energy, and I don't want to see you get so frustrated that you lash out at others.  I'd suggest you might like to find something else you can do here to build the encyclopedia.  If you're still up for short discussions, you might be interested in the Articles for deletion process - discussions there only last for five days usually, and you could help to remove unnecessary articles, by making the case for them not being necessary.    You might also be interested in joining the Guild of Copy Editors, as there you could summarise articles.  You could also get adopted and ask for more suggestions from your adopter.  Please consider it, I make this suggestion because I'm concerned about you.  Take care. --Malkinann (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to hear you're feeling unwell. Perhaps taking a wikibreak might help you?  (or alternatively, Wikipedia might give you something else to think about other than your real life problems.)  Continuing to send your viewpoint even after a discussion has resulted in a consensus can be confusing to other editors, as it was when you expressed your opinion on Angelic Days' notability even after we'd discussed it at the Evangelion Wikiproject and determined it was sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia.  Amazingly, Wikipedia is made out of real people (including fans ;-) ).  We all have emotions, we all have slightly different interpretations of the policies and guidelines, and that's why it's important to be civil to promote a harmonious editing atmosphere.  I don't think it matters to anyone why we agree, only that we do.  It doesn't matter to the Wikipedia article why we agree it contains what it does!  ;-) I'm concerned that as you seem to be spending more energy on discussing rather than being bold and editing the encyclopedia (be it through adding references, rewording Angelic Days or whatever) that your discussions become unwelcome. It could appear that you are here to send your viewpoint or even to prove a point rather than to build the encyclopedia.  Maybe the reason it feels like I just skim through your comments is because I have a very different view of the policies to you.  For example, I don't see what the difference is between having a religion section and a list which has religious references, because per WP:PRESERVE sourced information must be preserved, and per WP:IMPERFECT, it doesn't matter what the current format is.  Maybe if you were to go and find a quiet corner of Wikipedia where you can edit articles without having to discuss so much with others, you might feel less burned out by Wikipedia.  I myself retreat to yaoi because it's usually a quiet place, but if you have an affection for anything you studied in school, that might be worth investigating.  --Malkinann (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * As the discussion has been going on for months, and you keep making new discussions, people are getting tired. Something else you could try aside from diversifying the articles you visit is changing your editing style somewhat.  There are many different styles of editing Wikipedia - you can read about them in Wikipedia fauna and in Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies, but I feel I should warn you that it would be uncivil to label someone else as being a member of a Wikifauna, or as an -ist. Some people on Wikipedia take great pride in having an extremely well-referenced article, and thus have trouble taking a person who does not also add references seriously.  --Malkinann (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The short answer is that too many references is never enough. ;) By having a more thorough survey of the literature, the information in the articles gets better - if it butts up against WP:SIZE then perhaps a split could be entertained, like that for Themes of Blade Runner.  I don't understand what you mean by "I try not having pride at all when on wikipedia, if you messed up, you messed up, and if you can make something better, than why not? still i rather want someone who can be more humility or better words, humble." :(  --Malkinann (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The rank of the Themes of Blade Runner page is irrelevant - the important thing is that it's notable. There are only about 8000 GA articles on the entire English Wikipedia - is it any wonder that I can't show you a GA-class article on themes of a work?  I feel it would be best if you were to stop arguing about the religion section - the discussion has WP:SNOWBALLed, and continuing to argue creates editor fatigue and distracts from the editing process - being here to build an encyclopedia.  Perhaps instead find an article in Evangelion to add references to  - such as looking in your Angelic Days books at the author's notes to create a production/development section there, like that in Fullmetal Alchemist.  --Malkinann (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you have been confusing talking-about-improving-the-encyclopedia with actually improving-the-encyclopedia. I would suggest not proposing anything for a while. Instead, find something so uncontroversial to do that no-one can possibly object, and something a discussion isn't needed for.  Me and Tintor have expanded Rei Ayanami which now talks about Rei's contributions to moe, and I've not needed to discuss anything with him or any other person for that, it's just been the natural editing process.  For example, you could crack open your Angelic Days books and start on a Development section there, or have a go at making the plot section more prosey. NPOV means neutral point of view- you don't have to police yourself so hard to be neutral, or you might go through to the other side and act as an anti-fan on Wikipedia.  As it is, you're mostly arguing with others when you're on Wikipedia, or deleting stuff from articles.  Try adding referenced stuff instead for a change - others might see you differently then.  --Malkinann (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Great! I'm looking forward to seeing what you can add to Angelic Days!  --Malkinann (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I don't really know what's happened here in the last few days, but I would strongly urge you to develop your Exopedian side. I feel that would go a long way towards ameliorating matters, as it would give you time to cool down, and others' behaviour on talk pages won't matter so much when you're focussed on the work of building the encyclopedia. --Malkinann (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Adoption
Hey there. I've noticed that you want to be adopted by an experienced user. I am here to tell you that I would love to adopt you and help you with all wikipedia-related questions and problems. Please, if you accept my offer, reply here or on my talk page.  Ilyushka88 Talk to me 22:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, I didn't see that you had been adopted by The Arbiter. If you wish not to be his adoptee anymore, please do tell him about that. I'll put back the template to your page as I would like to see why you do not want to be adopted by The Arbiter anymore before adopting you myself. I might deal with some things like The Arbiter does, and you might have to change adopter again - that's why it would be good to know if something went wrong.  Ilyushka88  Talk to me 07:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Question?
Just out of curiosity, why is it that you no longer wish to be my adoptee? The Arbiter  ★★★  22:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Talk pages comments
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User_talk:The_Arbiter, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)