User talk:Opencooper/Archive 2

American Film Institute recognition
Hi. I know you tried to educate me about my edits and I somehow did not listen because I am new here. But I am starting to handle this huge system and I need your advise in my next editing. In the Manual of Style for film articles in Accolades section states that you can mix prose and bullets. Can I make my AFI's edits in this way?


 * The film is recognized by American Film Institute in this lists:

(example from the film Some Like It Hot) Dr.saze (talk) 05:37, 06 August 2016 (UTC)
 * 1998: AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies – #14
 * 2000: AFI's 100 Years...100 Laughs – #1
 * 2002: AFI's 100 Years...100 Passions – Nominated
 * 2004: AFI's 100 Years...100 Songs:
 * "Runnin' Wild" – Nominated
 * 2005: AFI's 100 Years...100 Movie Quotes:
 * Osgood Fielding II: "Well, nobody's perfect." – #48
 * Jerry: "Look at that! Look how she moves. That’s just like Jell-O on springs. She must have some sort of built-in motor. I tell you, it's a whole different sex!" – Nominated
 * 2007: AFI's 100 Years...100 Movies (10th Anniversary Edition) – #22
 * 2008: AFI's 10 Top 10:
 * Nominated Gangster Film
 * Hey, thanks for reaching out for clarification. I personally only had issue with the points I mentioned—the colon and wikilink in the section header—but I see from your talk page that other editors have issues with other parts of the Manual of Style. The thing with the MoS is that it is only a recommendation and is often deviated from on individual articles. However, for mass changes it is best to follow it because it was established by consensus over a long time. Regarding the way you've mixed prose and lists here, I think it's fine and I like how it looks on Modern Times (film). The way the awards are lends them to being listed, though if it is only one or two then I would just recommend going completely with prose. You might also wish to ask WT:WikiProject Film for advice, as then you could get a wide consensus of how to approach the lists. Hope that helps. Opencooper (talk) 00:30, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Asking for help
Hello. I am sorry to bother you but I am in big trouble. I have been asking several times for help in WT:WikiProject Film but instead of advices I have experienced lots of threatening I could be blocked. Do you think you can help me with this problem or shall I listen to them? You know it has taken long preparation before my coming into Wikipedia and I do not want to fall from it just because of few ungrateful editors with their noses above. Thank for understanding. Dr.saze (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi. i see from your talk page that some editors have had issues with the inclusion of AFI nominations. I also noticed that you started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film, where the prevailing consensus seems to be against including nominations and where you also received some formatting guidance. I recommend acknowledging the consensus, both from your talk page and the WikiProject page, to not include AFI nominations but only wins, and formatting them appropriately. I understand it can be tough being told you can't help out in the way you wanted to, especially after you already did all that legwork, but you have to understand that Wikipedia is a collaborative project and that is the consensus reached by your fellow editors. You've been very good at using talk pages and it is clear that you are here in good faith, so unless you edit war or edit disruptively (such as by ignoring the advice of the editors), I don't see why you would be blocked. If you find that after adding the AFI wins you don't have other ways to contribute, there are always other awards worth adding to articles (such as the Kinema Junpo awards) or you could contribute to articles in general. Opencooper (talk) 15:46, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright. Thank you very much for help. Dr.saze (talk) 15:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Lawrence Gaughan
I became aware of an issue regarding the talk page of this article due to an email sent to Wikimedia through OTRS.

I appreciate your observation that an item on the talk page can be distinguished from an item on an article due to the fact that talk pages are not indexed. However, I trust you will accept that while this may mean someone won't stumble across it doing a Google search, it is not inconceivable that someone could create a third-party site link to the item on the article talk page, add a statement that you can find this information on Wikipedia, and count on the fact that many people would not appreciate the distinction between an article and an article talk page.

Therefore I think we ought to follow the precepts of BLP. Of course, we do not automatically censor information simply because it is negative. However, we do take special care in the case of negative information, requiring that it not only be sourced but the sources be solid, and that the material is relevant to a neutral discussion of the subject. I haven't investigated this enough to know the answers to those questions but my preference is to remove it until such time as a consensus agrees that it does belong.

If you disagree I'd like to run this by some of our BLP experts.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:20, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Okay fair enough. I was actually the one who initially removed the link from the article and moved it to the talk page because it was a BLP. The reason I wanted it to stay on the talk page was in case the article ever got expanded it could be another source. But I understand that the subject wouldn't want such a link anywhere on Wikipedia. Thanks for reaching out. I'll remove the link and just note the removal. If anyone wanted to expand the article in the future they'd probably find it anyway so we can make that small concession. Opencooper (talk) 21:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Just to be clear, although there is little question that the subject wouldn't want the link anywhere, we do not automatically do whatever the subject wants. I have, on several occasions, entertained requests from subjects to remove material and politely declined. I think each case has to be examined on its merits and my feeling is that in this particular case it should be removed.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  21:58, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah if the article itself was more substantial I could see such content possibly being included there, but in this case it's a specific incident being covered by a local newspaper so we have to be careful regarding balance and due weight. When it comes to BLPs, it's much better to err on the side of caution than to risk harming them, so I'm in agreement with you to remove it unless consensus finds it worthy of mention. I was just too caught up in the technical aspects before until your message. Opencooper (talk) 22:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)

Formatting
Hi, admittedly it took me forever to figure out how to message you back (still not sure if I'm doing it right). I saw your comment on how to make lists, I just wasn't sure why it's necessary to bullet point things like the cast list but if you insist I will start doing it that way. Thank you for your help, I'm just a newbie trying to make pages and hoping someone else will contribute as well. Suuzaku (talk) 16:29, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah conversations are not that intuitive on Wikipedia, but yeah you are doing it right and even signed your comment, though preferably new conversations should be in their own sections. Let's keep the conversation on my page now or else we'd have to keep going back and forth and it can get confusing. For lists you're meant to use bullet points because not only does it affect how the list actually looks, but it is also an accessibility issue for those with screen readers. I get that you might not personally find the need for it, but it's the house style on Wikipedia and that's how every article does lists, and other editors would have to correct the formatting anyway so it would be best if you could just format it right initially. Thanks for the message and your work is appreciated. Opencooper (talk) 16:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks
To be honest, the impression I get these days is that Wikipedia's established editor base is attenuating, making it far easier for some topics to escape policy — it's far easier than it used to be for an AFD discussion to land no consensus because it gets overrun by non-policy arguments and trivial bursts of WP:BLP1E coverage, it's far harder to control for people trying to misuse Wikipedia as a public relations platform, and trying to hold the line on policy compliance is feeling more and more like King Canute trying to hold back the tide. Truth be told, I'm only still here because as a person who's been on disability and not working full-time I have entirely too much free time to fill with trivial busywork — if I had anything better to do with most of my time I'd drop Wikipedia like a hot potato and never look back again. But it's nice to know that my work is appreciated nonetheless :-) Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah I definitely agree about the overrunning part, so many articles on current events/pop culture can only get deleted after the novelty wears off. And haha, here's to hoping you find a better hobby :p. Opencooper (talk) 18:30, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for informing me about the anti-plagiarism guidelines on Wikipedia! Thanks for providing such great services to the community :D — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jere407407 (talk • contribs) 03:24, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
 * It's actually a template message so I didn't write any of it (personally I think it's a bit long), but I'm glad I could be of help by posting it on your talk page. Let me know if you need any clarification or questions about anything else, and you might wish to check out WP:WikiProject Anime and manga. Happy editing! Opencooper (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

image of Aufrere
Thank you very much for providing this image. I've been researching him for many years and this is the first time I have seen one! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Procureur2014 (talk • contribs) 09:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, though I only uploaded it. Credit for locating the image belongs to an IP editor on the talk page. Glad it was of use. Thanks for your research for the article. Opencooper (talk) 10:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

From my talk page to yours; Reply
You know that you just send the Disambiguation links notifications to my talk page to fix, right? — Yours truly, God's Godzilla 13:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by God's Godzilla (talk • contribs)
 * The thing is, I'm using an external tool called Dab solver to find these links so I can't specifically find those created by you. As you noticed, there's a bot called DPL bot that notifies you, but even that and this tool can't find instances where the wikilink goes to the wrong article. It's best for you to be mindful and take a few seconds before making links rather than having to clean up afterwards each time. Hope that makes sense, let me know if you need any guidance on wikilinks or clarification on the policies I linked you. (Also lets keep the conversation on my page for now or else it'd be confusing to keep up with the back and forth) Opencooper (talk) 19:24, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

garage door opener
Hi,

The link to my page is an article that i wrote about garage door safety sensors that i thing will be helpful to other people to fix small problem with there opener safety sensors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinity Doors (talk • contribs) 05:12, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Let me quote the message that was left on your talk page:

"Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include, but are not limited to, links to personal websites, links to websites with which you are affiliated (whether as a link in article text, or a citation in an article), and links that attract visitors to a website or promote a product."


 * Additionally the message said to discuss the link on the talk page if you felt it appropriate, but instead you went and added it to a different article. Maybe your article is helpful, but Wikipedia is not the place for it. Sorry, try your blog or your local car forum instead. Also now that I have looked at the article, it's blatantly advertising and doesn't give any advice past "call our service". Don't use Wikipedia for spam, thanks. Opencooper (talk) 05:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Hi,
 * Im sorry that you think that, my intention was to help not advertise, there is not one word in my article that indicate to "call us for service" just help people to fix small problem. im not writing you now to try to convince you or something i just don't appropriate that you disrespectful like put it in your local car forum and such, especially when people try to add more information (good or bad to your opinion) just say that its not good for Wikipedia, i would have respect that answer more.
 * Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Infinity Doors (talk • contribs) 05:43, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I assume you were acting in good faith, but I wasn't being disingenuous when I suggested a local car forum, some things just aren't appropriate for Wikipedia and this is embodied in our external links guideline. You're right that the addition to my comment was rude, but you would feel the same way if I went on your website and told all your users to check out my lawn mowing service. (or maybe you wouldn't, but I don't think I would be alone on Wikipedia in seeing such links/solicitation as spam) You're more than welcome to contribute in other ways to Wikipedia if you want, have a nice day. Opencooper (talk) 05:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Middle Name
The B stands for Bumpass. It's his real middle name. Please do not vandalize my legitimate entry.

http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/the-doomed-mouse-utopia-that-inspired-the-rats-of-nimh https://twitter.com/atlasobscura/status/776324693167136768https://twitter.com/atlasobscura/status/776324693167136768 https://www.follownews.com/the-doomed-mouse-utopia-that-inspired-the-rats-of-nimh-1uiwx — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.205.104.75 (talk) 02:20, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah I realized, that's why I reinstated the edit. Apologies, I assumed it was vandalism at first because it was unsourced and sounded like a puerile addition. Opencooper (talk) 02:23, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Draft:Rowan Witt
Thanks for your help Opencooper. Still trying to get my brain around Wikipedia... it's a beast of a thing! Maybe you can help me out... How do I get that article out of drafts and submit it to the mainpage? Also, do you have any other categories that you think it would suit? Cheers, SpinachMouse! SpinachMouse (talk) 14:58, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry I should have added better categories. I've done that now. Regarding publishing the article, it's as simple as going to More > Move, and choosing the "(article)" area. However, then it becomes subject to editor scrutiny so a more friendly route might be Articles for creation. Regarding the article itself, it just has to meet our notability guidelines by providing references to independent and reliable sources. (For entertainers, they have to "had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.") That part looks pretty good, but since this is a biography of a living person, unsourced information has to be cited, as well as information cited to user-generated sources like IMDB (anyone can add anything to IMDB, just like WIkipedia, so it isn't reliable) Lastly the only other issue I'd see with the article is its tone. Articles on WIkipedia need to be written from a neutral point of view, which means you have to be impartial and not play up a person. For example it contains a bit of puffery like "showed a talent", "popular series", "keen artist" (according to who, and it's a meaningless superlative anyway), "prestigious" (everyone claims their alma matter is prestigious, and on Wikipedia we don't even say that about Harvard graduates), and "in-demand". Also, playing the spoon boy in The Matrix is not a notable role as that is a supporting actor. Otherwise, the sourcing is quite good on other statements. If you address those issues I'd see no reason not to publish it. Let me know if you need any clarifications or help. Opencooper (talk) 18:38, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

New unreviewed article
Hi Opencooper, I have created 4 new articles(Fairy Girls,Fairy Tail Gaiden: The Twin Dragons of Sabertooth,Fairy Tail Gaiden: Rhodonite,Fairy Tail Gaiden: Flash of Great Lightning). Its been 2 days no one reviewed these articles. So, I will be very thankful if you review these articles. Rudra Protap Chackraborty (talk) 17:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for creating these, and good job. You've actually picked up on the format used for these articles quite well, so most of these are good to go. The only thing you need to start improving on is citing your sources, which is essential for Wikipedia's verifiability and establishing notability. Other than that everything looks pretty good and I'll review each individually ASAP. Btw, if you want to upload a cover of a manga, you need to do it locally on Wikipedia rather than on Commons because the covers are still under copyright. See Non-free content. Lastly check out Help:Templates and the nihongo template for how to use it since it seems you're substituting the template output instead of using the template as is. Happy editing and let me know if you have any questions. :) Opencooper (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
 * There's a proverb goes: One can't learn anything without doing any mistakes. I will keep up my good works. I have uploaded manga covers as you told. And I will add references to those articles soon. Rudra Protap Chackraborty (talk) 15:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yep, what matters is that you're willing to learn and fix them. And great. By the way you might find the links in my comment above helpful, as well as the welcome message on your talk page. Good luck! Opencooper (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Brave Witches episodes
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Brave Witches episodes. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Rozen Maiden character straw vote
Hi. Thank you for your input at the AFD. If possible, could you drop by for a straw vote to determine if the article should be redirected (linked here)? Thanks. DragonZero ( Talk  ·  Contribs ) 08:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Good faith
A self-righteous tone is only justified if one actually gets the edit right. There are any amount of twerps roaming WP making vandalistic changes under a false editorial summary. And in this case calling the change to Ko Un "proper quote formatting" when it is only one of several alternatives, if it was not deviously destructive, is a sign of editorial combativeness. The text comments on the discursive nature of the poem, but its look on the page was lost by being given such an inappropriate narrow format throughout. You should have respected the good faith of the previous editing and seen that the format was chosen with a purpose. The rule that you quote cuts both ways. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 09:33, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Everyone knows only IPs and red usernames vandalize, c'mon ;). (sarcasm) I wasn't being self-righteous, I was merely telling you to not jump to assuming bad intentions, especially on such a mundane article that doesn't have a history of vandalism. It's a random picture of a peasant woman, not really something a vandal would desperately want to hide from the page. And what are you going on about regarding discursiveness? What does the width of a column of text have to do with digressions? It's only the tiniest bit narrower anyway. Regarding the formatting, I'm going to reply on the talk page directly. Opencooper (talk) 09:52, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

No, there are named editors who have a disruptive side. User:Das Baz is (or used to be) one example. Since your main WP 'subject' is different from mine, I guess you don't have the same feel for the look of poetry on the page. 'Discursiveness' means a good deal more than making digressions and the reference to Reznikoff's Testimony in the quotation supplied is an additional stylistic pointer.

I grudgingly grant you a better grasp of technical expertise so, if you can make sure that the illustration stays, I suggest you make the appropriate format changes so that the text after it spreads across all screens rather than being cramped in a column. God knows what sort of appliance you're working on if you think column width is "only the tiniest bit narrower" - a mobile phone, perhaps? You obviously don't regard the "random" illustration as important to comprehension of the text; when dealing with conditions so distant from most readers as to be nigh inconceivable, I disagree. Obviously your priority in lay-out is with technical aspects; mine is with comprehension. What we need to find if possible is a compromise which delivers both. Mzilikazi1939 (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

In this corner of the world
Thank you for your suggestion. I shortened the plot and take your warning, thank you. Japanese sincerity (talk) 13:01, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for shortening it, looks a lot more streamlined now. Good job! :) Opencooper (talk) 13:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Re: Nanbaka
Don't worry, thank you for patrolling.--Sakretsu (talk) 19:05, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Merry Merry

 * Thanks, season's greetings to you too MarnetteD :). Opencooper (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Bridge list revert
The only reason why I changed the formatting was because it is harder on screenreader users. It reads it aloud weird for them. Bold is better when it comes to that. I think the revert should be reconsidered since it really doesn't change the formatting look too much. --Jennica ✿ / talk 11:39, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Ah, is that so? Sorry I don't have experience with screen readers but do believe accessibility is really important. (in fact I've written a user essay on the abuse of definition lists) My assumption would be that the rendered markup would be more friendly to screenreaders since the way you did it, it would be bolded text, and then an individual definition list for each item. (refer to the aforementioned essay) If it's actually a proper definition list I'd assume screen readers would be better behaved, but again I might be wrong. One way to work with your styling while not overloading the definition syntax would be to just not indent the definitions. Would that work from an accessibility standpoint? Opencooper (talk) 11:54, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm. it looks like it needs the indentation or else it becomes clumped together. Maybe it should just be redone like this: Glossary of botanical terms --Jennica ✿ / talk 12:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The article you linked uses the glossary template, which is mostly just a definition list underneath. Does that article play well with screen readers? Maybe there's something peculiar with this article then. (the wikitext syntax for definition lists is really brittle) The clumping could be avoided by turning each bolded item into a list item, but then you'd probably be better off using the definition list syntax made for that. I'm fine with going with whatever approach you suggest so if you want I could help convert it to the glossary formatting used on that article. Opencooper (talk) 12:07, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm not really sure if the glossary template plays well with it. I tried a screenreader simulator and it read it fine but I think the more advanced ones are obviously different. At the moment I don't really feel up to doing the big convert so I guess I'll leave it be at this moment. --Jennica ✿ / talk 12:24, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Alright, let me know if I can be of help if you change your mind. Sorry for all the trouble and thanks for reaching out, accessibility is really important on Wikipedia so please keep it up. :) (even if in this case we didn't quite agree with the approach taken) Opencooper (talk) 12:30, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Takashi Fukutani Page
Thank you for your editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by James hook (talk • contribs) 22:49, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And the same to you :). Let me know if you need any help getting around. Opencooper (talk) 02:13, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Dead Dead Demon's Dededede Destruction) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Dead Dead Demon's Dededede Destruction, Opencooper!

Wikipedia editor Boleyn just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Thanks for your time and effort in writing this - it's appreciated. It's been reviewed now. Could you look at it and see if you can help address the improvement tags? Thanks again for your hard work."

To reply, leave a comment on Boleyn's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Boleyn (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for reviewing it and being so patient as to message the creator first. This was an accidental creation on my part and was meant to be a draft in my userspace. (if you look at my draft list, each page is supposed to have a "/"  so it'd be a subpage) I've moved it from the mainspace. Sorry about that. Opencooper (talk) 03:09, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Clarifying Harems (Awkward Right?)
Yeah... I know that by this point, what I'm doing is wrong, but I don't understand what you mean by 'original Research.' I wasn't trying to start an edit war, I was simply adding information that was gathered by the community but felt that they may have not been reliable enough to be added to the world's biggest online encyclopedia. So what I'm trying to say is... help? Please? Rook Bishop (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi. Wikipedia aims to be verifiable, meaning that you can read a piece of information, and confirm its validity with a citation. Wikipedia isn't for your own original thoughts, but rather is meant to summarize what reliable sources say about the matter. (examples of reliable sources are published books, scholars, and news sites like Anime News Network) If anyone was allowed to write anything without needing sources, I could invent my own definition of Harem—say, it's just one boy and one girl—and you'd have no way of saying your definition is more valid. That's why we instead rely on published and reliable sources and discuss what they say. I hope that clears things up. For more information, just click on the link for original research. Opencooper (talk) 11:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok, I get what you're trying to say, but like I said, I don't know if my "sources" are reliable enough, as they themselves are Wiki-like Communities. One is a Wikia-based Wiki for anime and manga terminology, one is ReelRundown and the other is TVTropes. Like Wikipedia, anyone can change those pages and I highly doubt that those kinds of sites are considered reliable. But as a whole, that last one happens to be the most reliable out of all of them. Just... please let me know your thoughts about those three sites. Thanks. Rook Bishop (talk) 04:28, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Your hunch is correct: since these sources are user generated (just like Wikipedia), they are not considered reliable sources. Opencooper (talk) 12:25, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Soooooooo... That's a big no-no for sources? Anime and Manga Terminology is a really complex issue and I highly doubt that there is or ever will be any "official" sources that can describe such terms. Know any other places that I could use? I just wanted to add to the "Insufficient Protagonist" part like in previous edits, because there are more perverts than Issei, the protagonist can be mildly to extremely dense to love and there's also the fact that these characters are teenage embodiments of the everyman. Never thought I'd be having this talk. But like I said, these sources I use are user-generated, thus unreliable, but out of all the sites I could possibly Google, they have the most detail. Heh, I did NOT choose an easy subject to look at did I? Rook Bishop (talk) 21:58, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Anime and manga maintains a non-comprehensive list of reliable sources. A good place to look for this topic in particular would be scholarly sources—which while few, do exist—such as Mechademia, and also book sources using Google's book search. I agree that it can be more difficult finding such sources for anime and manga (though harem isn't exactly a niche genre), but we just have to do the best we can with the given sources and have to accept that not all definitions can be inclusive of all aspects without resorting to original research. Good luck. Opencooper (talk) 22:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your great contributions!
Hi,

Thanks for your great contributions. I am hoping that experts in the field of motion pictures will start writing definitions for the Glossary of motion picture terms. There was no existing glossary for that field of study so I thought I would start one. Glossaries are one of the best things about Wikipedia!

I hope that this is the best way to respond to your comment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LearnMore (talk • contribs)
 * Sure thing, sorry for removing the formatting at first, I was confused. As for experts, there might be some at WikiProject Film, but I wouldn't rely on it. Wikipedia doesn't place special emphasis on personal knowledge or credentials, but rather prefers citations to reliable sources. That would be the best place to start. It's great that you took the initiative though even if you can't immediately define everything. (By the way, it's fine to reply on user talk pages, though in general it's best to keep conversation in one place) Opencooper (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Re: Infobox
Ok. :)--Cattus talk 04:53, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Domestic Girlfriend
Hello Opencooper! I have a request for you. Apparently a web movie has been made for the manga series Domestic Girlfriend and it's not been edited on its wikipedia page. The URL of the official website from which i get this information is following - (http://www.shonenmagazine.com/smaga/domekano/diagram/) Since i am not very good at Japanese, I want you to edit its details on the page OR refer this to someone else who can do this. Thank you! -- Phoenix God (talk) 19:21, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for reaching out. Unfortunately my experience with Japanese is only through Google Translate. I have reached out to WikiProject Anime and manga on your behalf. If there are no takers there, I suggest trying someone listed at Translators available. Opencooper (talk) 08:40, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello Opencooper! I'm sorry for making that mistake earlier on Domestic Girlfriend page. Can you please make a different page for chapter list. I think the chapter list is big enough to have a separate page on wikipedia. -- Phoenix God (talk) 08:42, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey, no problem. I've taken care of it for you. In the future, all you have to do is create a new page, with the content you want and delete it from the old page, with an edit summary providing attribution to the old article. See WP:PROPERSPLIT. Happy editing. Opencooper (talk) 23:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, and can you please ask someone listed at Translators available to add details for the Domestic Girlfriend web movie. -- Phoenix God (talk) 11:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay I'll check this out in a bit. Opencooper (talk) 17:56, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Scum's Wish


In this edit an anonymous user has made some major changes in Plot, Characters, Manga, and Anime sections. And i agree with most of them. But in the Episode list section he/she deleted the summary of all the episodes without any reason. So i wants to restore those summaries and fix their errors. Is it possible? Phoenix God (talk) 18:15, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Good catch. It should be a no-brainer unless they were deleted for being copyright violations, which doesn't seem to be the case here, and the editor didn't give a reason. It's also common in the project for users to delete summaries because they contain "spoilers". I've restored them in this case, but in the future I encourage you to be bold. :) Opencooper (talk) 21:09, 27 August 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the help. Phoenix God (talk) 17:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

An Award or Poll
I found an online poll or Award related to manga. But it was in Japanese. It looks official to me but i want to confirm first. Its name is Tsugini Kuru Manga Taishō (次にくるマンガ大賞). Its official website is this. And the Award/poll that i am talking about is this. I am interested in these two series (Love and Lies and Otaku ni Koi wa Muzukashii) ranked on the website in Hon Nishite Hoshī u~ebu Manga Bumon (本にして欲しいWebマンガ部門) category. I want to add its detail on related manga's article if it is reliable. Phoenix God (talk) 17:59, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * According to ANN, the award is part of Kadowkawa's Media Factory's news magazine Da Vinci in partnership with Niconico. Those companies are notable so I think the award would be notable too. (of course not huge enough on its own to warrant notability like winning the Manga Taishō or other such awards) Though you should make sure to mention it is a fan poll (meaning popularity contest according to the magazine's demographics rather than being selected by a panel of critics). See for guidance on a similar situation: Manual of Style/Film. You could also ask at the Anime and manga WikiProject for more guidance. Opencooper (talk) 19:47, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you give me an example (like a sentence) about how i write about this in article. Because i don't know its English name, and the English name of the category in which the Award was given.
 * Also, Do you think this Award is equivalent to Kono Manga ga Sugoi! (This Manga Is Amazing!) ? Phoenix God (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If you don't know the English translation of a category, you can just give the romanized title instead. I would just say "the manga was third place in the Hon ni Shite Hoshii Web Manga Bumon category for Ichijinsha and Niconico's Tsugini Kuru Manga Taishō fan poll award." Also, I wouldn't say its equivalent since it's by a specific publisher and hasn't been around long enough. (although they are similar in both being fan polls) Opencooper (talk) 20:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay! I understand how to add this article. Phoenix God (talk) 08:27, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Does the page of this light novel exist on English Wikipedia? I search using Google and in the Wikipedia app but couldn't find it. If there's no page available then i want to create one. It looks notable to me. Phoenix God (talk) 17:33, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Nope, doesn't seem so. I tried searching using the English translation, romaji, and kanji. The author's article also only exists on jawiki. I don't know much about light novels so if you think so, go for it. Opencooper (talk) 19:16, 8 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks for telling me. I just want to confirm whether or not that light novel has a page on wikipedia. Phoenix God (talk) 19:43, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Trinity Seven
Hello! Opencooper. I found an image of Trinity Seven manga's characters. So i am wandering if i can add this image in the article or not. This image belongs to volume 5 of the series. Please take a look. Phoenix God (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Well You'd have to use it as fair use so it becomes a question of whether it falls under that. Since the characters are discussed in the article, that could probably qualify. Though personally I prefer some sourced info on the visual aspect of what is being shown but as long as it's not gratuitous and helps readers understand a major aspect of the article I think it'd be fine. See Non-free content, specifically the section on minimal usage. Opencooper (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * According to WP:MOS-AM, if the character list of a series is getting too long than we can make a separate page for that, so i moved the list to a different page and placed the image on it. Phoenix God (talk) 17:40, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Cool, that works just fine. Opencooper (talk) 23:32, 12 September 2017 (UTC)

Comment
There are over 60 articles about that article. It is very tedious work. Unless someone else is willing to place of those in that article, it is unhelpful to nag other editors while they are in the process of improving it. That section was clearly unfinished. Misplacing it to other pages would only increase an already difficult job. Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 07:54, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * That's exactly my point though: there's no way you'll be getting through all 60 in a timely manner, not to mention not all them are likely needed or say unique things. All you're doing is cluttering up the page with links that violate our external links policy which requires links to provide information that a featured article couldn't. It might be nagging for you, but the however many days it'll take you to keep editing the article in a state of incompleteness, it's less useful to readers. That's why I pointed out the sandbox space to you, where you can take your sweet time and not have me or anyone else mess with your work. Opencooper (talk) 08:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It's going to be done in six hours if everything goes smoothly. The references just need to be in a single page before that process can begin but after formatting the references, everything will be fine. That's about seventy percent of the process. Writing prose will come quicker. It is just difficult when someone else has not yet seen this vision. A bit of patience is needed.Shhhhwwww!! (talk) 08:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, good luck. Opencooper (talk) 08:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted
Hi Opencooper, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3AOpencooper added] the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the autopatrolled right, see Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! Alex ShihTalk 06:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Ron Randall
Thanks again for adding the photo to this article!

Mtminchi08 (talk) 01:13, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
 * sure thing. :) Though of course most of the credit goes towards the flickr user who has covered all of the Stumptown Fests and licensed their images. I also uploaded more at Commons:Category:Ron Randall since there were a bunch of good ones. I especially like this one. haha Opencooper (talk) 02:40, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Stochastic terrorism for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stochastic terrorism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Stochastic terrorism until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.  &Alpha; Guy into Books &trade; &sect; (Message ) -  13:53, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Insane clown posse joke photo
I'm curious why you changed a photo of ICP to that of fans wearing ICP make up. As I look a little closer, I see that you're continually posting this picture. May I ask why? Thanks for your time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamonto98 (talk • contribs) 20:36, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh crap, that's not them? I'm actually not a fan of the band, just saw that they had a very small thumbnail so I searched flickr and that's what showed up. FWIW i actually did try to verify that's them by searching for other images but hard to tell with all the makeup and it said their names so I assumed it was legit. I'll remove the image. By the way, another editor cropped individual images from that one before me at File:Violent J.jpg and File:Shaggy 2 Dope (5349172401).jpg so I think those should be removed as well if that's not them. Opencooper (talk) 21:46, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how to request edits to the other page, but thank you for fixing it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamonto98 (talk • contribs) 06:05, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Welcome Message
Thanks for the welcome and the resources! Lin Zexu (talk) 21:44, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Let me know if you have any questions, I'm kind of active in Japanese/Animanga topics so I can give provide pointers there. Opencooper (talk) 22:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Unreviewed Article
Can you review this article?Draft:Govt. P.N Girls' High School Rajshahi? The template box says it might take upto two months. But I'm in hurry because of Wikipedia Asian Month. Rudra Protap Chackraborty (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC) Rudra Protap Chackraborty (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi, the reference you added after the last review doesn't work. Also, I don't really edit school articles at all, so I'm not sure I'd be the best to review it. I think you should just ask the user who reviewed it both times as they'd also be familiar with what the article needs. Note also that notability requires significant coverage in independent reliable sources, as the decline message stated. A government website is not independent from that subject nor does a list of schools constitute significant coverage of that specific school. Please click the links in the original message and read them through. Opencooper (talk) 07:02, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

File:Kobayashi ga Kawai Sugite Tsurai v1 cover.jpg listed for discussion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Kobayashi ga Kawai Sugite Tsurai v1 cover.jpg, has been listed at Files for discussion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. Ron h jones (Talk) 00:27, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Bot exclusion
I see you recently added nobots to 99 files with no explanation provided in the edit summaries. Note that nobots should generally be used as a stopgap measure for a bot that is not functioning properly, not as a blunt instrument, but it seems that many of these files have never been edited by a bot. What's going on there? Anomie⚔ 14:57, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It's to stop an editor who constantly mass-tags images for reduction without consensus to do so and without even understanding the relevant guideline. (discussion here, as well as their talk page) They're doing this using AWB which I feel is an improper use of a mass-editing tool, and they can always manually tag the image if they feel it warrants reduction. This also stops the annoying reduction bot, which clogs up the file history as I revert the reduction and requires an admin to delete older revisions, as the bot works indiscriminately and immediately before I can contest it. This way the user can take the time to actually examine the files while manually resizing them to an appropriate size. Note I don't care about other people's files which is why I haven't taken them to a noticeboard for their contravening mass-editing (not that you could touch an admin anyway) and have only tagged my own uploads. There's absolutely nothing on Wikipedia that a bot does that a human editor could not also do, and as the relevant pages are in the File namespace, I feel the fallout is minimal. All of my uploads have an appropriate fair use rationale and I feel I have an adequate understanding of the relevant policies such that any issues would have to be pointed out or remedied by human editors regardless. Thanks for reaching out and sorry for not using an edit summary. Opencooper (talk) 21:03, 16 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be better to discuss the issue, on the appropriate notice boards if necessary, rather than just to try to disable bots. Anomie⚔ 00:20, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Seasons' Greetings
...to you and yours, from the Great White North! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 16:59, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you! And the same to you. Opencooper (talk) 22:33, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

 * I don't see a tag ;). Funny passage nonetheless. Thanks, best wishes to you as well. Opencooper (talk) 00:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

Noah Berlatsky
Hello again, I just wanted to ask for your opinion on one of my suggestions on the deletion nomination for the Noah Berlatsky article, I'll paste it here just for ease of reading:

"Perhaps it would make more sense to create an article on the website he founded The Hooded Utilitarian which is what makes him most notable out of his achievements and then merge his article into it under a subsection about the website's founder? ChieftanTartarus (talk) 11:58, 19 January 2018 (UTC)" - Noah Berlatsky (2nd Nomination)

Additionally, I would like to apologise for my rather rough approach to your comment on that deletion discussion, I could have chosen my words better. Good Day. ChieftanTartarus (talk) 10:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
 * It's alright, AfD can get pretty heated. And it's not a bad suggestion, but would hinge on Hooded Utilitarian being notable too. For now probably best to see how this discussion goes since it could still go towards delete. Opencooper (talk) 18:11, 22 January 2018 (UTC)

DYK nomination of My Favorite Thing Is Monsters
Hello! Your submission of My Favorite Thing Is Monsters 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!

Please let us know if you do not plan to add at least a synopsis of it to the article, which is the minimum needed for DYK. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:43, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

script
Hey, just a friendly note, if edits like this one were mead with a script, maybe you should say that in some way in the edit summary. Best, L293D (☎ • ✎) 02:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Only the edit summary is automated (all the way at the bottom). I used to just type it in each time but I make this kind of edit often enough that it was more convenient. As for the edit itself, I always do it manually because what actually needs to be done differs on a case-by-case basis (the essay linked in the edit summary has a bunch of examples). For example it might need a tag or a  tag for consistency.
 * I do make some other edits with a script (you can see them on the linked page), such as replacing curly quotes with straight ones or collapsing lists . But again, these are not bot edits and in each case I examine the diff (  in the code) and they are minor edits (the quote formatting itself has  ), so I personally don't feel it necessary. Thanks for the note. Opencooper (talk) 08:57, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Fist of the Blue Sky - new pages
Hi, did I do something wrong creating the new pages to split the long Fist of the Blue Sky article? Ozflashman (talk) 06:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Not that I'm aware of; seems like reasonable splits based on page size. The changes I made were mainly italicizing the title and changing the capitalization of "Character". Opencooper (talk) 06:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks - first split I've done so I wanted to make sure I'd done it right. Ozflashman (talk) 09:46, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Sparta
I can’t figure out what this bit in Sparta is meant to say;

[being the equivalent of the written in the Greek alphabet, ...]

Maybe some Greek lettering has been elided?

120.16.28.112 (talk) 07:49, 23 June 2018 (UTC)MBG
 * Hello, I haven't really contributed to that article and don't know much about Sparta nor the Greek alphabet, so I've shared your question on Talk:Sparta. Hope that helps. Opencooper (talk) 08:12, 23 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Yep. Thanks. I had (and have) no idea how to see who added what. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.16.28.112 (talk) 08:29, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Let's resolve this
what is this bro???, I am not so old at wiki edits but as I belong to the area (India), I am editing the article to make it more informative and nothing is incorrect in this. Why are you undoing my edit??? Whats your problem?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mks20121983 (talk • contribs) 21:38, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Again, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policy on writing from a neutral point of view (you can click this link and it will lead to a page explaining more). Thank you. Opencooper (talk) 21:40, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Help
Can you help me to fix Draft:SacrificialPrincess and the King of Beasts? I can't do it alone. --YamiYugi (talk)
 * Yeah sure, I'll take a look at it when I get a chance tonight. Opencooper (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
 * Done. With three reviews now, it should meet WP:GNG for notability. Everything else that needed sources is now also sourced. Personally, I'd say it's ready for mainspace and wouldn't hesitate to publish it. Opencooper (talk) 03:22, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Did you click "Resubmit" before on Sacrificial Princess and the King of Beasts? I want to make sure of it.^^ --YamiYugi (talk)
 * Hi, no I didn't. I presumed you would once you looked it over. If you want me to do it, I can instead just move the article myself instead of bothering anyone else (AfC is kinda notorious for being backlogged), since I'm reasonably confident that it's ready to be published. Opencooper (talk) 05:01, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes you can do that for me^^ --YamiYugi (talk)

Nomination of Stochastic terrorism for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Stochastic terrorism is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Stochastic terrorism& until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. w umbolo  ^^^  23:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Rashōmon
Thanks for the new English translation link!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FCC8:6E85:4900:556E:A3B:99EA:DBF6 (talk) 23:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. For future purposes, check out WP:DEADLINK on how to deal with dead links. Opencooper (talk) 02:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Suggestions for Japanese movie title
Thanks for those suggestions, nifty. I'll go back over htem and do some repairs... thanks! Deathlibrarian (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Opencooper (talk) 23:30, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Merry Merry

 * Thanks! Opencooper (talk) 02:12, 20 December 2018 (UTC)