User talk:Opencooper/Archive 1

Welcome!
Hello, Opencooper, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Seinen manga
I'm hesitant to group seinen manga as a subset of adult comics. Seijin manga are quite clearly 'adult', but seinen manga magazines can include strips that appeal to younger boys. The ability to read kanji is perhaps the main factor dividing shonen from seinen.

I've created a separate category for the publishers, and retagged the entries.

I think it's probably best to include the magazines as comics. I'll clarify that in the first paragraph of the adult comics article.

Thanks for taking the time to look these things over, and respond. Dongord (talk) 03:44, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Now I'm working on relabelling some of the categories and entries, so there'll be less redundancy. Thanks for all the tips. I'll take a look at HotCat.Dongord (talk) 08:26, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Other editors are removing my 'adult comics' tags from Japanese manga, giving the same explanation you did, so it looks like I'm in the minority here. I think I'm just going to leave it for now, but feel free to revert the tags if you like. Dongord (talk) 14:17, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Snap Skill page
Snap Skill is a non profit organisation whose main aim is to provide free services to its members and recreate an atmosphere in the Indian education system in which basic facilities of knowledge and information are provided to all students without any prejudice of caste, creed, financial status and color; which in fact, are the main factors which hold back the under-privileged students of India to come out with flying colours to benefit the society and the nation. Snap Skill consists of only students. These students working in snap skill, are not paid in money or in kind. The students working in snap skill are working in alignment of what the organisation stands for and are trying to be the change they want to see in the world. -- Sir/Madam, this page has been collectively drafted by the students in snap skill. Students of the age group of 18-21yrs who are in a constant process of building up their knowledge and skills. We do accept that we did not deliver a Snap Skill wikipedia page which conforms with all the guidelines. Which is not because we want to market our organisation, but in fact, due to our lack of knowledge in formal business writing. It is our humble request to the wikipedia community to help us in editing the draft from your side and making it more unbiased, and to re-activate the page on the main nameserver so that we are able to reach out to more students like ourselves who want to see a change but lack the opportunity to do so.

Thanking you, Snap Skill — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theprakharsharma (talk • contribs) 11:56, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * I have left a reply to you on the article's talk page. Opencooper (talk) 12:33, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Dear Sir, Snap Skill as an organisation has been active since 2 years. And according to company policy we don't entertain any requests for third party publications and promotion. That is why there has not been any significant independent sources of information. Sir I wanted to consult you, if we make the content more-encyclopedia-friendly then can we still have a mainserver space? And how much time do we have before our article gets deleted? Thanking you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theprakharsharma (talk • contribs) 14:16, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * @: Well unfortunately that's how the notability policy works. You can read more about why Wikipedia has these requirements here. Also just so it's clear, I'm just a regular volunteer editor in the English Wikipedia as you are. I don't have any special deletion rights; those are given to administrators. I merely proposed the article for deletion. As I noted on the talk page your article is likely not suitable for the English Wikipedia, but that will be for an admin to decide. You could save the article to the draft space or your user page and work on it, but you'd have to prove that it is notable using reliable sources or it would likely be nominated for deletion again except this time it would be for non-notability. Lastly speedy deletion means the decision will be made when an admin sees it, but if they decide a "speedy" deletion isn't appropriate, you'll obviously receive more time, but it could still be the subject of a "deletion discussion". Please see the deletion process for an overview. Opencooper (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Dormition of the Theotokos Church, Labovë e Kryqit
Sorry for my delay & thank you for taking time to review the wp:dyk nomination. I've just replied in the nomination page.Alexikoua (talk) 17:56, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Opus (manga)
Hello! Your submission of Opus (manga) at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! David Eppstein (talk) 05:26, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Opus (manga)
Materialscientist (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

DYK for Opus (manga)
Materialscientist (talk) 13:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Allegra Versace
If you want to, you can take a look at the article about Allegra Versace. That article is this weeks TAFI.--BabbaQ (talk) 22:12, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

nbsp/ndash vs snd templates
Just so you know,  and  perform the same rendered result. See the [[Template:Spaced en dash]] documentation on how snd works. Cheers! 00:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * You're correct. The issue with the way they were being used in the article was that the non-breaking space was put after the endash and there was no space before so I decided to fix that and consolidate the templates. It was refactored out anyway. Thanks for the heads up! Opencooper (talk) 00:18, 5 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Oopsie. Sorry about that. My bad. Thanks for fixing it.


 * Hey, this spurred me on to make my first template today that combines a non-breaking-space, an en dash, and another non-breaking-space in to one tiny template. Here's the shortcut for it: . Note: (mnemonic: s= space, nd= ndash, s= space). I created several other mnemonic shorthands to pull it up (spndsp, sndashs, and spndashsp). The full template name is: Spaced en dash space. Helpful if you don't want the word after your endash to cascade to the next line, or if you just want to put an endash between two words and have a space on both sides of the endash.


 * I'm still working on the documentation for it, so some of it does not apply. I cloned it and edited it from the template documentation.


 * I hope you find a use for my brand new template too. Cheers!  02:27, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * That's neat. I've always wanted to make my own template and the code for this one is remarkably simple. You might wanna link to it from the snd template once you have everything looking good. The best use cases I can think of for now is in infoboxes where you want words to stay together or narrow table columns. In normal text it might be a bit too unforgiving to not allow breaking after an endash since the endash indicates a pause anyway, though nowrap is also popular. Opencooper (talk) 06:17, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * It's inappropriate for most uses, but will be handy for conjoining things like numerical dates: i.e.- 1990 – 2005. When you use an en dash for a date range on Wikipedia you're supposed to space before and after it, and this way the numbers won't line wrap. Em dashes are not supposed to have spaces before or after them. Of course there are some style sheets that say otherwise for en dash, but never for em dash. I linked to snd from snds but I'm not quite ready to link from snd to snds. I read the snd Talk page and that little template generated an awful lot of discussion, moves, TfD nominations, etc. Cheers!  06:37, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I see you've thought this out. Points for looking at outside style guides other than Wikipedia's. Good luck with the template! Opencooper (talk) 06:41, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Nobita Nobi
Hello the Article is about an Animanga Character hence falls under WikiProject Anime and manga so I guess it will be a under the notability guidelines.Zombie Blender (talk) 05:58, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Falling under the scope of a WikiProject does not say anything about notability. WikiProjects merely exist to coordinate work on related articles; think of them as broad categories. Please read through the general notability guidelines linked at the top of the article to understand what constitutes notability and what is required to demonstrate it. As it currently stands, Nobita Nobi is comprised of original research and uses unreliable sources like Wikia. What it needs is multiple reliable sources talking specifically about Nobita. Opencooper (talk) 06:39, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Also, kindly use the Wikia content template to properly attribute the Creative Commons licensed text you copied from WIkia. WIkia and WIkipedia's both have a license that requires attribution to the source. Presenting the text as your own is a violation of copyright and a very serious offense on WIkipedia. You should have learned that the first time you copied within Wikipedia for Shizuka Minamoto and it was almost deleted. Opencooper (talk) 07:20, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry I didn't know about the Wikia tag. Thanks for the Information.Zombie Blender (talk) 14:28, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

TAFI
If you want to, take a look at the article about Marie Serneholt which is this weeks TAFI article. Regards.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Pelham One Two Three Changes
Hi there,

Thanks for your recent message regarding recent changes to the Taking Of Pelham One Two Three page. It's good to see that people are indeed keeping an eye on these pages!

I just wanted to quickly offer a counterargument to the reversal of these edits and you can decide for yourself what's best.

I can understand most of the reversals in hindsight but the ones I maintain are the description of the change to the ransom delivery location and the explanation as to why Garber's bluff actually works. The plot summary currently does not mention the location change at all nor explain that the hijackers have no means of monitoring anything outside the tunnel. As a result, Garber's bluff comes across as making no sense. LiamScot96 (talk) 15:03, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi, thank you for bringing it up; sometimes I can be a bit trigger-happy about reverts and what's important or not to a plot summary is often subjective. Now that I think about it, the location change is an important part of the plot and certainly belongs in the section. However, I don't feel the same about the details of the bluff because they're just that, details. The section establishes that he was bluffing, the excuse he used, and the fact that the hijackers believed him. I've added back the location change information. Note that I'm only a single editor and that things on Wikipedia are done by consensus, so if you feel the bluff information should stay, please bring it up on the talk page of the article to solicit input from other editors. I hope having been reverted won't dissuade you from editing further, I can tell you from personal experience that improving the articles of topics I enjoy has been quite fun. Opencooper (talk) 15:41, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

china's great cannon and github
any particular reason you didn't want to fill Talk:Censorship_of_GitHub out yourself? just curious. it could even warrant its own page, potentially, don't you think? Happy  monsoon  day   02:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I got tired after writing about the other incidents and just wanted to publish the article so I just left an empty section and dropped the sources on the talk page. It's funny because the DDOS attack is what spurred me to create the article in the first place. I always meant to get back to it but these days I've been mostly involved in anime and manga articles. As for why no one else picked it up, the article isn't that popular unfortunately. An article for Great Cannon actually does exist, which is good. If you meant an individual article for the attack, it would depend on how much material there is. I haven't looked, but If only a few paragraphs can be said about it, it's better off in the overall article. If you're interested in adding that content, please feel free to and let me know if I can be of any assistance. Opencooper (talk) 05:58, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Bypassing citations
Hi, I noticed this edit, and wanted to direct your attention towards WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk) 22:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * thank you for bringing that up and remedying the situation; my edit definitely is against that policy and I apologize. My reasoning was that the blogspot website was self-published source and its sole content was the quote and the citation, so instead of reverting the edit wholesale I could still make use of it. Opencooper (talk) 05:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * No need to apologize, being WP:BOLD is part of what we do. As far as keeping the good stuff rather than just clicking "undo" goes, we're on the same wavelength. We avoid self-published sources in general, but WP:SPS allows sources that can be identified as reliable. So, if you think an attribution made by a source is correct, you should mention both the attributor and attributee. And don't worry about making mistakes, you can't avoid them anyway. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 11:55, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind advice; I'll take heed of it. Happy editing to you too. Opencooper (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Osaka Elegy
I would accept your comments on my edit were the original plot outline not WILDLY INACCURATE. If you actually watch the film you will see at no point is the heroine "arrested for soliciting"... the prior plot summary seemed to be wildly distorted as if a translation of a translation. Although my edit is longer it is more ACCURATE. You have REINSTATED THE INACCURACIES IN THE SUMMARY !!! Unless you have watched this film it would seem unproductive to edit one way or another. My edit was constructive. Yours is negative and ultimately misleading as it retreats to the erroneous plot summary. It also wastes my time>>>discuss BEFORE re-editing--Stephencdickson (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC) I would also point on (on re-reading the previous plot summary) that as the father's crime cannot be categorised as a "debt" as he is trying to replace stolen money, plus the plot as a whole is considerably more complex than suggested. BOTH Ayako and her fiancee are interviewed by the police but NEITHER are arrested... this is fairly important to the plot!!!! --Stephencdickson (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2015 (UTC) Can you also explain where in the film she borrows money to marry her boyfriend. THIS SUMMARY IS TOTAL NONSENSE, please abridge if you wish BUT DO NOT CHANGE THE MEANING... the summary is total nonsense.--Stephencdickson (talk) 20:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi. I'd just like to preface the discussion by saying that I think reverting and then discussing afterwards follows the spirit of the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle just fine. Though I can understand that having your whole edit reverted can be frustrating when you put in the work to expand the article and fixed some inaccuracies. I'll admit that my main gripe with your edits was that it introduced a ton of unnecessary detail, including a play-by-play of every scene. That is not what plot summaries are about and I hope you can agree with me on that point, as well as with the manual of style I linked.


 * Now let's discuss the plot points. I have watched the film and the previous summary seemed accurate to me but we can certainly work together and fix the errors without reintroducing the verboseness.
 * The father's debt: That's just really arguing semantics. He obviously owes someone money. Going into the intricacies isn't necessary since all we need to realize is why the daughter would need to earn money for him. A plot summary isn't a substitute for watching a film and should stick to the main plot points.
 * The arrest: They were arrested because they were taken to the police station and held. It doesn't say she was sent to jail or prosecuted.
 * Money borrowing:The summary says "she attempts to fool Mr Fujino into giving her extra money, so she can marry her boyfriend Nishimura". Are you saying that Is incorrect?
 * Lastly I'd like to say that I reverted your edit while assuming good faith and I'll trust you to do the same for me; I just want WIkipedia to be the best it can be, especially for lesser known Japanese cinema. I hope we can resolve this amicably without resorting to yelling and edit warring. Opencooper (talk) 21:08, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

You need to rewatch the film, or perhaps you misunderstand the term "arrested". Both parties are interviewed, neither is arrested... if you have watched the film you should now that the prior plot summary was way off the mark and read as if the author had not seen the film (I am not saying you were that author but if you watched it you should spot how wrong it is). I am going through cutting it down but it is NOT correct Wikipedia protocol to simply delete a large amount of editing without some intellectual debate. DEBATE FIRST then delete if needed. I am trying to correct what I see as a messy and incorrect article. You should at least respect that. Verbosity is less of an issue on Wikipedia than actual mistakes, so correcting mistakes should be the priority--Stephencdickson (talk) 21:31, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your edits reducing the details, it is appreciated. It could still use some further culling and removal of personal interpretation and editorializing, and I will try to help. As I said earlier my main issues were with the length and detail of the summary and if that's fixed then I don't see why your more accurate summary can't stay. I did not write the original, though I do stand by it, but since we'll probably never agree on the correctness I'll just cede to your version. And there's not much difference if the debate comes first or after since the original content is preserved in the edit history (as you saw with how easily it was restored with the "undo" button). Opencooper (talk) 21:48, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

The original summary was pretty odd and an overly-interprative version. "Arrest" is not mentioned in the film. Whilst the sums may be said to be irrelevant I think it is important and the film strangely focusses upon the 4500 yen cheque to Asai's business associate which I think is to put the smaller sums into perspective. At the end although it is implied that Ayako has been bought clothes it is only the 200 yen which is discussed and despite watching it 3 times it definitely never accuses her of soliciting. I am still culling it down further--Stephencdickson (talk) 21:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay I probably was misunderstanding the arrest part. And I think its obvious that Asai lives in a world with more money right from the start where his servant is tending to him. The soliciting comes into play when she is called into the police station, Fujino wants his money. And okay I made an attempt also, and while I don't think I removed anything essential, please add back anything you feel is. I removed the setting because its not really part of the plot and it's original research. Opencooper (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

Rules of the Game
The text you are attempting to remove the bolding from is not article test, it is a pull quote, which is entirely different.

Please note that MOS is not a policy, it is a guideline, and that ArbCom has specifically stated that edit-warring to enforce it is not an exception to WP:EW.

Also, please review WP:BRD. When your Bold edit has been Reverted by another editor, the next step, if you continue to think the edit is necessary, is to Discuss it on the article talk page, not to re-revert it, which is the first step to edit warring. During the discussion, the article remains in the status quo ante. Thanks, BMK (talk) 16:36, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * That's just arguing semantics, it's still going to be seen by readers; the point of the section is that bolding is only necessary in a few select cases. Please tell me why the bolding is warranted in this case. All it does is lie to the user that the information is very important and when overused for multiple lines as it is there, it becomes distracting. The quote wasn't bolded in the source cited and quotes are almost never traditionally bolded and you would be hard-pressed finding a style guide that agrees. (Also, if we're going to be pedantic, BRD isn't a policy either and how can you expect me to follow etiquette when you didn't even explain the reason for your revert which shows just as much of a penchant for edit warring) Opencooper (talk) 18:43, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No, it is not at all a matter of "semantics", it's matter of  visual effectiveness . A pull quote is designed to pull the eye of the reader, so they will read it before they read the article text, because it has a nugget of information which is valuable or interesting or summational. That's the purpose of the box around the quote, that's the purpose of the blue background, and that's the purpose of the bold text, to attract the reader's eye. BMK (talk) 23:32, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
 * The fact that the quote is pulled is enough of a visual cue, as is the background color. Judiciously bolding text is actually a readability and accessibility issue similar to typing in all-caps, and will easily lead to fatigue if continued for more than a few words as is done in the article. Also, overriding the user's default font size to 101% is actually user-hostile, making the text too large for some and too small for others while ignoring their preferences. What makes things even worse is that everything is squished together in a small column, with the translation all on one line separated by slashes. Also I strongly disagree that a quotation is "valuable or interesting or summational"; a majority of readers will have already seen the quote in the film itself and those who haven't seen the film will usually avoid plot sections because of spoilers; not to mention the quote just serves as narrative fancy rather than imparting real-world information as an encyclopedia should. You wouldn't type in all-caps would you? So why would you do the same for bold text? Opencooper (talk) 04:04, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Considering that you haven't replied but are still editing, may I presume that you don't object to my change? If not we can always bring it to the article's talk page to get some outside opinions on the matter. Opencooper (talk) 23:26, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

For honesty, I'll have to point out that you have three and four reverts on this page, two of them counted twice. 95.233.223.16 (talk) 21:38, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Now that I look at the revision history, it is pretty ridiculous that this is all about bolding a quote. Also it would be preferred if you could keep the discussion on the article's talk page so everyone can see it. Opencooper (talk) 21:44, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You're right on this - I should have kept it there. I'm not, however, completely uninvolved: I have been subjected to BMK's full disagreement once, and have not yet recovered. I should therefore have kept out of this debate, but I am only human and couldn't resist the jab. I am sorry. 95.233.223.16 (talk) 21:50, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
 * No worries. Opencooper (talk) 21:54, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Grammar issue
It's not an uncommon mistake but yes, absolutely, there are commas after a state's name as well as before it. The state is functioning in apposition to clarify the intended city. It's fine to keep on the way you were taught in your own work—more hands make light work and someone will get around to correcting it later—but don't go out of your way to introduce the error into others' work. See also.

Of course, if you're one of the rare people who learn and fix their mistakes on the internet, well, y'know, awesome. =) — Llywelyn II   06:16, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the correction, I was not aware that state names were used appositionally. I also apologize for not bringing up the modification on the nomination page. I'll make sure not to make the error in the future. However, your attitude is uncalled for: I was merely trying to fix what I thought was an error in good faith; there's no need to imply that I am deliberately introducing errors into Wikipedia (I was not taught either way but based it off how the sentence read with an awkward pause) or that I am incompetent. (MOS:COMMA notes that commas "can be the most difficult to use well.") I can see that you pride yourself on grammar and typography, what with the emdashes and small caps, but there's no need to be a snob about it. I wish you the best of luck in your future didactic endeavors against those oh so rare people. :) Opencooper (talk) 07:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Your reply is the only thing with attitude, but incivility nearly always goes along with being corrected on the internet. The rare part is actually acknowledging that you learned something and avoiding the mistake going forward. So good show and you're welcome. In other news, this is awesome, if your day needed any. — Llywelyn II   12:22, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Robert De Niro Edit
Hello, thanks for your message. I simply wanted to add content to this legendary actor, this section looked small. All of my info can be cited if you want. I don't know how to do that yet. You may look up the info though and see it. Thanks. RCARTER98 (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, see Help:Referencing for beginners for a good introduction. And of course, I know you were acting in good faith, but Wikipedia's policies are quite strict regarding biographies of living people. Particularly, everything must be verifiable and that is why citations are required for important information such as someone's net worth. Opencooper (talk) 19:15, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Trash Market
— HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?  12:03, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Article 'Sushank Mainali" edited
The authority's name has been updated. Kpaudel969 (talk) 06:32, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for clarifying that information. Note that the article still needs a reference to a reliable source or it will be deleted in seven days. Additionally, the tone is very promotional without imparting actual information. Everything noted needs to be verifiable and help establish his notability. Opencooper (talk) 06:39, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * 'Sushank Mainali' article will be rewritten with at least one reference and non promotional tone within seven days before deletion. Thank you very much for making us aware about it. Kpaudel969 (talk) 06:43, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. I've tried addressing the issues with the tone and inappropriate links so now the referencing is the main issue. Opencooper (talk) 06:56, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit
Thank you for the edits. Tacoma2003 (talk) 18:28, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
 * I've replied on your talk page. Opencooper (talk) 18:47, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion for Jagat Singh (Actor)
Dear sir or madam,

I have just receieved a tag for speedy deletion of Jagat Singh (Actor). I was just wondering if it is possible to please not do that and I will re-write everything. Could you tell me where it is to be fixed? Som nb (talk) 08:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

FirstEngAirDate
I'm sorry, but reverting the edit I made to List of Dragon Ball Z Kai episodes while leaving all the other "uncut" dates that other editors have put in over the past year is immensely hypocritical. I've reverted your reversion. Gibshamari (talk) 07:25, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * WP:SOFIXIT. I only looked at the diff. You should only be reverting if the edit is wrong, unless you want to be consistently wrong.Opencooper (talk) 07:29, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Photos and acceptable use
Hi. A month ago, you reverted a change I made to 5 Centimeters Per Second. I thought I should let you know that I’ve just posted to that article’s Talk page about the images used on that article and WIkipedia’s Image Use Policy. Please have a look. Thanks! —67.14.236.50 (talk) 23:54, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Hi again. In that discussion, you offered to try and address any other concerns regarding those photos, but you haven’t responded. Please consider it. Thanks. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 16:00, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies, sometimes discussions just slip by. I'll look at it right now. Opencooper (talk) 16:06, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

If you would, please continue our conversation. In particular, please explain how the chosen locations (or some depicted aspect of them) are relevant and not incidental to the film’s plot, so that we may then have the article explain this. Without that tying the plot to the locations, the pictures can’t tie it to the real world; rather, it’s just jarring photographic trivia, and it’s not something we do in other articles. Awaiting your reply, thanks. —67.14.236.50 (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

HyperCard Edit
Hi! I'm very new to editing Wikipedia, but I noticed that the stable release date of HyperCard was listed as 1998, and I thought that was a mistake. Wasn't it the late 80's? I figured someone with better knowledge of the subject would notice if they cared, and I see you did notice. Was "1998" a typo...was it supposed to be 1988? Thom PS: Is this the way to have a conversation on Wikipedia? Or is there a more appropriate way? Thom W Blair III (talk) 02:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh no, I reversed your change because it removed information without saying why in the edit summary. Not because of factual reasons, but because unexplained removal of content is kinda indistinguishable from vandalism, sorry. And yes you can speak to editors on their talk pages, or on the talk page of the article itself. About the field itself, according to this ars technica article, the initial release date was 1987. This is also corroborated here. However, although it isn't clear from the infobox, the infobox parameter is actually "latest_release_date", which refers to version 2.4.1. I think that's 1998 is a reasonable date for that considering that it was phased out in 2004. I hope that clears things up and I am not misunderstanding you. Opencooper (talk) 13:44, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh ok, that makes sense. Thanks! Thom W Blair III (talk) 04:27, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks, I always forget about those! 2015 in manga was a bit of work, but it was fun to do. I'm going back in time with these, so the next one is 2014 in manga :)--Cattus talk 21:30, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah there's always so much integration stuff you have to do after all the effort to just write the article so I don't blame you. You've got your work cut out for you, best of luck towards an equivalent to years in anime! Opencooper (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks!--Cattus talk 21:39, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Abandon the Old in Tokyo
Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Undue Weight
" sure do hope my half of my Wikipedia page would present my career would be filled with one individual occurrence" So you are basing this on your own personal desires ,not on facts. Storify is not twitter, it was an issue she chose to explore  publically and fits  perfectly under controversy. If you have any other issues of significance please feel free to post them but I believe that your personal feelings are irrelevant as it is sourced and factual. While I will repost under talk so you and others may debate I will ask you to stop using your personal wants and desires to run wiki. 24.24.142.155 (talk) 05:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I removed that sentence, so there's no need to focus on it, though I was trying to appeal to common human empathy. I also did refer you to our policy on biographies of living people, which is very strict regarding potentially defamatory content and is very much a fact. Opencooper (talk) 05:35, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You are assuming it is defamatory yet she posted it herself publically. If someone does that themselves how am I being defamatory ? THis was properly sourced from her own site. Im'm not mad at you at all by the way but I made sure this was in the guidelines. These are her public published views. I will try to keep the messages to your talk. 24.24.142.155 (talk) 05:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry the distinction I forgot is "potentially" defamatory. And it fits that definition because even though it is a direct quote, it is trying to portray her in a specific way by only including that information, and selectively picking quotes from a complete story does not convey the complete picture. Opencooper (talk) 05:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * It has been up for 2 years, If she considered it defamatory she would have removed it. If she felt it was portraying her in a bad way she would have removed it. It is a controversial statement that has to do with her being traumatized by men. She has MASS written about the subject throughout so this is not cherry picking anything. It is a perfect summation of her views. You just don't know the subject.

http://genderidentitywatch.com/2014/02/13/gia-milinovich-%E2%80%8Fgiagia-uk/

http://poddelusion.co.uk/blog/2013/09/25/soho-skeptics-the-battle-over-gender/

https://giaqualia.wordpress.com/2014/06/13/dear-laurie-penny/

https://giaqualia.wordpress.com/2015/04/09/doctor-christian

http://freethoughtblogs.com/godlessness/2014/06/20/gia-milinovich-is-still-ignoring-her-critics/

This was very well researched. It is not pulling a cherry picked line. 24.24.142.155 (talk) 06:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry but none of these meet the definition of a reliable source. They're all self-published sources. Reliable sources would be mention of the incident or her views in major news, in a book, or by established experts. Opencooper (talk) 06:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * THEY WERE NOT SOURCES! You made the fallacious statement that this was "a randomly grabbed " quote pulled from the air when she has established herself as an activist. Two were from her own public blog . The  quotes merely show she is an activist. Why would you need an "expert" WHEN SHE IS STATING IT HERSELF!
 * http://sohoskeptics.com/the-battle-over-gender/
 * SHE IS ACTUALLY HOSTING EVENTS ON GENDER! "Gia Milinovich talks to one of the panelists Adrian Dalton a trans man about the subject of gender. Soho Skeptics is an event that takes place at ::the George pub in the Strand, London."
 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Q-rr12k3Wo
 * What part do you not get?! It was not randomly pulled this is her entire focus. 24.24.142.155 (talk) 14:22, 5 March 2016 (UTC)


 * You're moving the goalpost. Is your aim to state that she is an activist, or to include that specific quote? Because, again, for that specific quote, you have to show that it was remarkable in the context of a biography of her. Do you just want to say that she is an activist? Even for that it has to be worded in a neutral manner which accurately conveys her views. Opencooper (talk) 05:23, 6 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I established it was not random. I established that it is not only an important part of her biography but now her life's work. The quote was directly from her and her site. You can't be more neutral than that. My sense is that your intention is to hide it because you see it as less than favorable. You are altering the biography because you are bias. Write a neutral version. 24.24.142.155 (talk) 22:14, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to assume these edits were just coincidentally made after your message and unrelated. (Though do note that personal attacks are a bannable offense) And I like how you call me biased: I've never even heard of the lady before while you yourself seem to be an advocacy editor for trans issues trying to push a specific viewpoint. Anyway it is clear we will not see eye-to-eye on this issue. The article is already neutral. I recommend you pursue a form of dispute resolution by requesting community input for the article's talk page discussion. Though considering you've already been reverted by three separate editors, the outcome will likely be the same. Happy editing and don't feel obliged to reply to this comment. Opencooper (talk) 04:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

External Links from maaboret.com
Hello,

I'm from The Short Story Project. We're an independent nonprofit publishing/org and our project deals mainly in making previously unpublished or undiscovered texts (short stories) accessible by translation (Hebrew, English, Spanish and the source language) and audio version. All of our content is free and we offer full texts of short stories from authors around the world. It was not my intention to spam or fill Wikipedia with unnecessary links, so i apologize and am more than happy to comply with Wikipedia's rules and guidelines. I do think adding a link to a full text accessible online and available for comparison in 3 other languages (in addition the original) is a valuable and legitimate resource to anyone looking to delve deeper into the works of an author.

In addition, some authors we publish do not have wikipedia articles in either Hebrew, English or both, and since we write biographies for them ourselves i was hoping to add those to Wikipedia.

I would appreciate it if you could remove our domain from the spam blacklist. Please let me know if there are further problems. I will offer all further edits in the discussion page as you mentioned.Thank you. Oddty (talk) 14:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Hello I understand you were acting in good faith and writing missing articles is indeed a helpful action. However there are two problems which led to your site to be blacklisted: 1) The manner in which you added your links. Please note that you possess a conflict thof interest with your website. This makes it hard for you to be objective about whether the links meets our guidelines and instead of mass-adding it to many articles, if it really was a valuable resource eventually other independent editors would add it. Secondly, many of the stories you linked to are still under copyright! We can never link to sites that violate the copyright of others. (Note that you will find exceptions to this rule in many articles, but those are against the policy) The proper place to ask for removal of your site from the blacklist is MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, however it states in bold "Requests from site owners or anyone with a conflict of interest will be declined" and because you have been so forthcoming I would otherwise ask on your behalf, but I cannot because of the copyright issues. (Even if the original work entered the public domain, the translation might not have) Please let me know if I need to elaborate on any of these points and do understand that other edits by you and your cohorts are still welcome at Wikipedia :). Opencooper (talk) 00:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Hey, We are a completely legitimate source for all of the texts we publish! We hold copyrights for all them. Each one of the ones under copyright was purchased legitimately from the publishing or agency of the author and we have rights for publishing and translating them (online only). Is there some procedure to authenticate this? Thanks in advance Oddty (talk) 05:31, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies, I didn't know that. That does change things. I've made a removal request. If the domain does get removed from the blacklist, you and the other involved editors must make sure to follow our policies on editing with a conflict of interest and each language Wikipedia's external links policy. That means as you mentioned before, mentioning a possible addition of a link on the talk page first, and definitely no mass-additions; each link has to be appropriate for it's own article. Opencooper (talk) 06:30, 7 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot! We'll follow the instructions much more carefully from now on :). Oddty (talk) 10:00, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The domain has been removed from the blacklist. Please note that the removing editor said " If there are issues again we can re-add the domain to the blacklist." So I urge you and your fellow editors to read the external links and conflict of interest policies at each Wikipedia and to not hesitate to ask for clarifications beforehand. Please do let me know if you have any questions and you can also utilize the Teahouse here, which is especially friendly. Happy editing. Opencooper (talk) 04:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Demographics
Please see the various light novel titles, male and female are used for demographic... It's defined somewhere in some wiki page, look for it... — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChuChu (talk • contribs)
 * "Defined somewhere" and "look for it" are not phrases that engender confidence. However I didn't realize that the parameters were being used for light novels which are a different case, so I'll take your word for it. Opencooper (talk) 18:12, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Johnny Frank Garrett' Last Word
Hi! I read this edit. Garrett is not just a character in a movie; he was a real person executed in 1992. The movie is loosely based on his case. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:27, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Whoops, you're totally right, and the article even notes that it's based on a documentary. My apologies for not looking at it more carefully, I just based it off the paragraph it was in inside the diff. Thanks for the correction and the message! Opencooper (talk) 02:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome :) WhisperToMe (talk) 02:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

A kitten for you!
Nice work on the Black Blizzard (manga) article!

AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 17:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC) 
 * Thanks! Production sections are always my favorite to do, especially when there a lot of good sources to draw on. Opencooper (talk) 18:35, 8 April 2016 (UTC)


 * It's got a good chance of making GA or B as well. I just placed it at C so that it can get some attention beyond the unassessed and hopefully someone can then put in the individual assessment. AngusWOOF ( bark  •  sniff ) 19:24, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah it could easily get to B and there's enough material in the reviews for a "Themes/Style" section. The problem with the whole legacy section though is that it'd be better to have more scholarly sources to attest to its long-term importance. Many reviewers note how radical it was, but the only scholar cited, Holmberg, notes that the manga wasn't even mentioned in a kashihon retrospective and that most sources attesting to its importance trace back to Tatsumi's own Gekiga College manifesto; so I didn't want to overstate its importance. I'll probably return to it in the future, but for now there is still a huge gap in articles on Tatsumi's bibliography that I have to help address :). Opencooper (talk) 08:42, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Panorama of Hell
I removed the references to Panorama of Hell being an example of "guro," I'm not sure if you've read the book or are familiar with the term, but it essentially means gore porn, and Panorama of Hell is a straight-forward horror story, not an example of erotica. I'd like to remove it again if possible, it's defamatory to an important work in the history of comics in general. 142.55.48.18 (talk) 10:37, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have read Hell Baby from Hino so I didn't think it was too far-fetched for a horror/guro label but you're right that it likely isn't ero-guro. I've taken a look at the source and it seems to only be giving a background of the genre in relation to HIno's fellow artists. Looking at some English-language sources, the majority just describe it as horror, with only Japanator using the same label. Therefore I'm removing it unless more compelling sources refer to it as ero-guro. In the future please try to use edit summaries so other editors understand your intent better since for me it just looked like removal of sourced content. Thanks for your contribution and thanks for clarifying. Opencooper (talk) 11:01, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Dewey Defeats Truman
If the news writer did not have election results, even from the East Coast, but nonetheless wrote an article describing a Dewey victory, and a Republican sweep of the House and Senate, none of which occurred, what else should we call the article, other than fabricated? I think it is important to point out that not only was the headline false, but that the article underneath it was too. An erroneous headline is one thing, but to write an article with that content is a serious act of commission and breach of journalistic ethics. It is on a par with the actions of Walter Duranty, who wrote false stories about the Holodomor in Soviet controlled Ukraine, yet received a Pulitzer Prize.75.171.24.61 (talk) 14:43, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, I reverted your edit because it violates our neutrality and original research policies, both of which are forbidden. The article already states "before even the East Coast states had reported many results", so repeating that to say that it "did not prevent" Henning from writing a "fabricated" story just reeks of having some sort of agenda to push. The readers already know the whole thing is speculation, that the Trubune didn't like Truman, and that the process "required the paper to go to press several hours earlier than usual", so we shouldn't go around attacking Henning or inserting our personal opinions into the article. Wikipedia is written from a neutral point-of-view; any opinions or analysis have to be cited to reliable sources. Opencooper (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

EC Comics Italics Edit
I don't want to have an "edit war", but my italic edit is absolutely appropriate and aesthetically suitable/seemly for other users reading the article. I really don't understand how my edit shouldn't be accepted. Is it because you've created the majority of this article and don't want to have others change anything you've made?

Either way, look at this edit I've done in the past for Edgewood Arsenal human experiments. All I've done here is italicize the quotations. I hope you see the advantage in this formatting. It's linguistically well-formed and proper, perfect for readers who have yet to master the English language, young users new to this site, or to, in general, readily differentiate between a quote and a normal paragraph.

I don't mean to be rude here or change anything drastically, and I'm sorry about our back-and-forth, but I wrote my reasoning within the talk page of the article to no reply.

I just don't understand how you can't see the benefits of my edit. Anyways, if it really means this much to you, I'll leave it be. Although, I seriously would like to stress the advantages and purpose behind italicizing a quotation.

AychAych (talk) 05:52, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi thank you for your message. I've only made minor changes to the article actually, though that isn't really a factor since no one owns an article. Also I did reply on the article as well as my edit summary when I reverted you; you can see these changes either in your watchlist or the history tab. It's pretty clear that we're clashing on subjective opinions here, but in my edit summary I linked you to Wikipedia's Manual of Style (MOS:NOITALQUOTE and WP:MOS). While the MoS isn't a be-all-end-all and there are exceptions, it is generally accepted and was formed through years of consensus between the community as a means to establish a general style. Of course you're entitled to your opinions and are encouraged to be bold and ignore all rules, but when your edits are challenged, it is best to discuss them as we are doing since edit warring is just a battle of attrition. Still, I respect your reasons and you should be aware that I am only a singular editor; Wikipedia has various means of dispute resolution to solicit more opinions when editors are at an impasse that you might wish to pursue. If not, please don't be discouraged from editing further, but do try to read through the Manual of Style; it does rationalize itself and you might even find yourself liking it. Happy editing. :) Opencooper (talk) 07:26, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Deleteing False pro
I worked hard on it and you bots keep trying to delete it. Please help and delete the speedy deletion crap and read my talk part on the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan398 (talk • contribs) 20:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * What part of the bold text "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself" do you not understand? As well as the text I left on your talk page? Please tell me so I can explain it to you. Opencooper (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * well the part of this goes with community guild lines and People don't even look at the talk section before deleting a page worked on for hours. Maybe that would help.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nathan398 (talk • contribs) 20:19, 4 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Before deleting an article, administrators will always look at the talk page first. In fact, the template even says "Note to administrators: this article has content on its talk page which should be checked before deletion." Hope that helps. Opencooper (talk) 20:21, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

one punch man
Can u add the details of manga volumes too Blessing66 (talk) 02:22, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Which details exactly? The volume information is in another article, List of One-Punch Man chapters. If you mean specifically volume summaries, I could do that for the first few volumes, but I haven't read all of them nor is the manga fresh in my head. 08:12, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

FYI
Hello Opencooper. We haven't bumped into each other for years and now it is twice in a couple days :-) I hope that you are well. I wanted to let you know that I filed a salting request here Requests for page protection for the articles that keep being restarted by the (almost) SPA editor. If you think that any info should be added please feel free to do so. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 14:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah unfortunately these days I find myself spending more time reverting others than writing content :(. (though I'm more active in manga topics than film) About the Shining twins, I left a warning on the creator's talk page but salting the pages would be a good idea since this is the third time. I'll chime in, thanks for the notice. Opencooper (talk) 14:21, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * You are welcome and cheers! MarnetteD&#124;Talk 14:23, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Oops when I said years I had forgotten about this Talk:Yukio Mishima :-) The old memory banks have accumulated way too much dust. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 15:47, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah I think you might've mixed me up with someone else. I've only been editing for mainly two years. Didn't have the heart to correct you :). Though once I start seeing familiar names in my watchlist, I do feel like I've editing alongside them for a long time haha. Opencooper (talk) 15:58, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Two years - then I must have been thinking of another editor. In that case it is a pleasure to meet you and thank you for your work here at WikiP. Best regards. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 16:32, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * A further thanks for getting the AFD going. It shouldn't have been necessary but your taking the time to get it going is much appreciated. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 16:48, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Four previous deletions (under the various spellings) for both articles more than backs up your justification for the speedy tags and the AFD. It is Kubrick that had the effect on popular culture not the girls who were cast in the role. Sorry, just venting on your talk page. Feel free to remove it. You did do the BEFORE work and are to be lauded for it. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 17:07, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
 * It's okay, thanks, glad to do it. I was a bit harsh on the editor's talk page but that's because I watch Category:Film and the Shining article and saw each recreation before you took care of it. Only doing my part. Opencooper (talk) 03:25, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Cello Scrotum
Thank you for reverting the reversion to my deletion of vandalism (if that makes any sense) --gejyspa (talk) 17:47, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sure thing! It set off my BS meter right away, especially since it contradicted the article. The hoaxers have started putting hoaxes in hoaxes :). Opencooper (talk) 02:15, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

K: Secret Eye
Hi, you have nominated the article K: Secret Eye to be deleted. But it is a credible and authentic film which has been referenced with 2 newspaper articles. Please do not delete the page. (Abhirup8 (talk) 18:35, 19 May 2016 (UTC))
 * Hi, the best place to make the case for why the article shouldn't be deleted is on the deletion discussion itself. You have to show how the film meets our notability guidelines. No one is disputing that the film doesn't exist, but rather that it is notable, which requires significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Do share your thoughts on the discussion. Opencooper (talk) 19:17, 19 May 2016 (UTC)

Programming idiom
I could use second opinion on the talk page/4th revert on the article. —Ruud 14:17, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry I saw this a bit too late. Looks like discussion has shifted towards addressing the issues now. The reason I originally thanked you for removing the tags was because they were very vague and unconstructive without a talk page message clarifying the editor's concerns. For example why put "citation needed" and "clarification needed" on the article's title which isn't even a statement. If the editor wants to discuss a different topic that should be at a different article or if the whole article is on a wrong topic that's a different matter altogether. Opencooper (talk) 02:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

The ip address you reverted
Hey i saw you revert the IP's edits on List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes (season 3). That is good. I also went through the person's edit history. he was making really poor edits on other pages as well. Virtually all of the edits were uneeded, since they made the sentences even more "elementary". I reverted him all. I wanted to drop you a line. TheDwellerCamp (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree that that the edits weren't constructive. Trimming fat from long summaries is one thing, but removing all detail and spoilers from a sufficient summary is another. If they keep edit warring, they can be reported for breaking the three-revert rule, but ideally before that the reporting editor should try to start a conversation. I just didn't feel like it because it's clear from their edit summaries ("No") that they don't want to engage in discussion, but if they persist I'll try to do that. Happy editing. Opencooper (talk) 14:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
 * There he goes again. Im not sure if i want to revert him again. TheDwellerCamp (talk) 02:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * An admin noticed and they've been blocked for 72 hours. If they continue edit warring, the best thing to do is to report them to the edit warring noticeboard since it really isn't feasible to protect all of those pages. I already attempted to start a conversation on their talk page, but if they still continue after being blocked it's will be apparant that they don't want to work collaboratively. Opencooper (talk) 02:47, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * , sigh im back again. The ip is maming unconstructive edits again. From the blanking you reverted, he is showing the fact that he is not exactly a constructive editor. Also, his ENglish editing makes it seem his grasp of English is poor, or either a middle/high schooler. TheDwellerCamp (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I gave the user in question an only warning after going through his recent contributions. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Their talk page has tons of warnings so I doubt it will dissuade them, but thanks anyway. I've already tried talking to them on their talk page with no response, and their edit summaries consist of "no" and "stop it", not to mention they've already been blocked once. The only thing to do if they continue is to report them for edit warring since this is getting really disruptive over multiple articles. Opencooper (talk) 16:13, 12 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Now he's back as . Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 18:36, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Apologies for not looking at this before. At least this time they seem willing to discuss, so that's good. (If we ignore that username) Looks like you've got it under control for now, though they seem to be causing trouble elsewhere as well. Opencooper (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

One
01:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)01:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)01:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)~ from HUBERT PHAN -Please learn the language of each artist that you try to fix articles for. I have actually contacted madhouse studio and bones studio to confirm these details. Of course I wouldn't put an audio file on wikipedia to verify when a simpleton who understands japanese grammar can see that there are three people working under the pseudonym ONE (From Hubert Phan, the ONE-SENSEI that MURATA is referring to during his interview)
 * Hi Hubert. Before I can talk with you though, you have to stop edit warring. Can you do that? Maybe this is a misunderstanding on my part, but personal attacks between us and constant back and forths isn't going to get us anywhere. Opencooper (talk) 01:39, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

173.164.192.105 (talk)That's fine, all i care is that people realize that there are three of us working under the one pen name. - Hubert —Preceding undated comment added 01:43, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay now here is the issue. Information on Wikipedia has to be verifiable. That means I have to be able to see information and look at a source to confirm that it is true. This is not negotiable, this is a policy on Wikipedia, and it is even more strict for biographies of living people who can be harmed by false information. So far, neither of the sources you used corroborate what you wrote. Now you say I don't understand the term sensei, I think it is you who doesn't. While the term is used for teachers, it is also used for respected professionals like doctors and manga-ka, as is the case here. The sensei each is referring to is Murata and One. There is no magical third person and the source never mentions them. Even if we assume that is true, it is a huge leap from their to the information you added about Menkyo Kaiden and that is not verified at all by your source. Do you see the problem now? Also please avoid personal attacks and threats, my user profiles is completely boring and useless, and I would not benefit at all from traffic to it. Opencooper (talk) 01:50, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Regarding: Pritam Singh (Actor)
Why my page is automatically coming under deletion policy although i provided the links of person from the well known and he is well known face in India. OR please help me out that in what way it should be created and what are the links should i provide for Pritam Singh (actor) that it don't be deleted. Waiting for ASAP response — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunsingh2728 (talk • contribs) 08:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been deleted yet, that's why there's a deletion discussion I've repeatedly told you to participate in, in which you'll find the rationale and where you can provide a defense for his notability. As for why the information in the article was removed, it was because it is unsourced which is not acceptable for a biography of a living person. Opencooper (talk) 11:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hello
I like your user name. It has an optimistic, positive, happy, open-minded tone to it. [I'm not being facetious or sarcastic or insincere.] Regards, Ijon Tichy (talk) 22:55, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks haha. I actually chose the "open" portion of it to represent open-source which does embody that spirit, as well as Wikipedia's. (Though after only a short time of reverting countless vandals and adverts, I can't say the same for myself :) ) The "cooper" part is just an inside joke from the past. As far as usernames go, it's pretty arbitrary, but much better than something like hunter5xxx'87. Your username, which seems like a name, reminds me of the word triptych. Opencooper (talk) 00:15, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I chose my name after Ijon Tichy (see also Ijon Tichy: Space Pilot). I enjoy very much reading (and periodically re-reading) all the books by Stanisław Lem. In at least two different stories by Lem, Ijon Tichy sees a replica of himself (with interesting, amusing and thought-provoking results), that's why I chose to double the name. Thanks for the link to triptych, it's interesting and enjoyable to read. Ijon Tichy (talk) 00:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Ahh that explains the doubling. I actually erased it the first time I pinged you because I thought I pasted it twice accidently. And sure thing, his work sounds really interesting, I can't believe I never head of space satire before. Opencooper (talk) 02:59, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Brazil (film)
I posted a response to your revision of my added content in the "critical response" portion of the Brazil film on its talk page. Apologies if this message is redundant, I have to plead some ignorance to general Wikipedia etiquette here. I'm in unfamiliar territory here as a quite infrequent Wikipedia contributor and have never encountered this kind of revision. I hope it's understood that I'm making a good faith effort to present factual, objective information from a neutral point of view; but I do remain confused as to the objection to my contribution.

76.119.167.214 (talk) 06:35, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh thanks for the notification. I'd eventually see it on my watchlist but that helps as well. And yes editors are generally expected to assume good faith of other editors who edit boldly and you did much better than most new editors by citing your sources. (I also found the information you added personally interesting as a viewer of the film) I'm sorry if my tone came off as a little brash, but I tried to give a response grounded in policy and am more than willing to discuss it and work towards a resolution. I'll read your response shortly but it will take me a while to reply since the post is so long. (Also you might find creating an account to help you participate easier since you can watch pages and get your edits associated with a username instead of an IP, but that's your choice) Opencooper (talk) 06:51, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Her’s average score on Rotten Tomatoes
What is it about the "individual merit" of Her that separates it from the examples I gave on the talk page, and thus warrants using words rather than a slash? All I'm asking for is a little consistency on this encyclopedia. 73.109.106.183 (talk)
 * I've replied on the talk page. Sorry for the delay. Opencooper (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I mentioned our conflict on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Film in hopes of bringing together a consensus. Hope you're alright with that! 73.109.106.183 (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah that's fine, thanks for doing that. More opinions would certainly help. I'm not sure how well-watched that page is so if there aren't replies later we could put a notice on the main WIkiproject discussion page. Opencooper (talk) 19:36, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
 * It looks like we've gotten people talking! 73.109.106.183 (talk) 00:02, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

My apologies
I edit a lot so it's sort of a force of habit is edit without a short summary. I'll be aware of that in the future.GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 03:20, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks. One thing that helped me always write edit summaries is to enable "Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary" at Preferences > Editing > Editor. I know it can be an extra step and can be a pain but it's a huge help for other editors watching the page and to actually document the history of the page. Even short summaries like "ce", "wl", or "cat" would be helpful. Opencooper (talk) 13:12, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Alternative link suggestion
Hello O. I hope that you are well. I saw your edit summary here. I wanted to let you know that I use WP:FILMPLOT when dealing with these. The main difference is that "PLOTSUM" mentions keeping them brief while "FILMPLOT" mentions keeping them between 400 to 700 words. Don't get me wrong the one you use is absolutely fine. I just wanted to give you an alternative when you are working with film articles. Everyone has their favorite scene that they want to make sure gets a mention don't they :-) Cheers. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 05:08, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Hey, sorry for the delayed response. I usually link to the latter but in this case I just used the first shortcut that came to mind; though it doesn't seem to be the optimal one here. FILMPLOT is part of WikiProject Film's Manual of Style while the one I linked was a user essay too... Thanks for the advice MarnetteD, I'll be more discriminant about checking what I link in the future. (I've even linked WP:N in the past when I meant to link WP:NPOV) Opencooper (talk) 03:13, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You are welcome O. Glad I could help. The N - NPOV booboo is a hoot. I've done similar things over the years. Once we hit save the "edit summary" is etched in stone - er I mean in the servers memory :-) Cheers and have a pleasant week. MarnetteD&#124;Talk 04:00, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, and dummy edits never work for me haha. Same to you :). Opencooper (talk) 04:09, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Where do I add source again?
I was talking to some wiki people and they are the ones who added the sources. I only provided the links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariannepimentel (talk • .contribs) 05:22, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You put them like this: . See Citing sources. Each statement should have its own citation.. However, keep in mind that sources are preferred that are independent of the article subject, and since Wikipedia is written from a natural point of view, promotional mater is not allowed. Opencooper (talk) 08:18, 3 August 2016 (UTC)