User talk:TheFarix/Archive 10

Doukyuusei
Instead of prodding it, shouldn't you just restore the redirect that existed there from 2007 until mid May 2010?

76.66.193.224 (talk) 08:36, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

robotech episodes
Just to let you know, I've completed rewriting the summaries. Eaglestorm (talk) 09:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Trouble at the "List of Maid Sama! episodes" article
There's a problem at the List of Maid Sama! episodes article. User:Kenshinflyer has refuse to listen to me to not put too much information and irrelevant info in the episodes summary and making it short. Instead Kenshinflyer has made the episode summaries very long with trivia info that wasn't needed in the summary and keeps changing the summaries i made that were short and precise. I hope you can help me convince Kenshinflyer to stop doing this, since i busy reediting the Übel Blatt article and don't have time to keep watching the changes at the Maid Sama! episodes article. If this goes on, the List of Maid Sama! episodes might have to be lock.

I hope for your help and reply.

Thank you. --FonFon Alseif (talk) 06:01, 9 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'll look into it since I'm following the series myself. However, I've been having a lot of stability problems with my internet connection. A quick look at the list shows that the summaries are a little long in the tooth than we normally like, 150 to 200 words. —Farix (t &#124; c) 12:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer granted
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 18:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Hey...
I would like to thank you for being civil and reasonable, unlike many other editors. I will discuss this further once I can get off this crappy laptop and access a decent computer.--98.71.195.16 (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, you misinterpret my words. I never claimed that Lemon Angel was not related to Cream Lemon.--76.106.246.229 (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Interwiki
In regards to this edit

How do we interwiki to it, then? There is no exact article corresponding to this on EN. Somewhere on EN needs a link to this JA splinter article. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * By using the standard inter-language links should be done normally at the bottom of the article, just like with every other article. In-line inter-language links in article space have been highly discouraged for a very long time. I presume because there is never any context for the link as there is with a standard wikilink. —Farix (t &#124; c) 03:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The only time I ever do in-line interwiki links is when there is no article that could take a "standard" inter-wiki link. I decided not to do an in-line link with Shishio's faction because no article on EN exists that is the equivalent. There are cases where an individual skyscraper has an article on FR, but on EN it is just a section in an article about the whole complex. I have an in-line interwiki there as there is no place for a "standard" interwiki on EN. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:24, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Yorinuki Gin Tama-san
It'd be nice if you didn't unilaterally redirect the page. The HDTV re-airings have to be notable, have new soundtracks (somewhat), and I felt that they could be incorporated in this way. If you have another idea of how this could be discussed as it is on the Japanese Wikipedia, then I'm willing to work on it.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 23:10, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Whether there is an article for it on the Japanese Wikipedia is irrelevant. But there is no difference form this rebroadcast, other than it being in HD, and the original broadcast of these episode. A best, it should have is a footnote in either Gin Tama or List of Gin Tama episodes with the appropriate references. But it should not have it's own stand-alone article. —Farix (t &#124; c) 23:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Where can the information on the new music be placed then?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 23:29, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would put it on the main article, when the rebroadcasted episodes are mentioned. —Farix (t &#124; c) 23:31, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Would you mind telling User:Tintor2 that the song content is fine on the main Gin Tama page?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 06:54, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Sock Puppet Investigation
There has already been an investigation on the subject of my account and it was proved that I am not a sock puppet of PWeeHurman. J'onnz J'onzz obviously is PWeeHurman though. I would have no reason to make an alternate account to revert that edit, as my current account is not blocked. It is pretty embarrasing to have PWeeHurman doing all these reversions... I suppose he saw that I was accused of being one of his sock puppets and decided to try to set me up for it by making these reversions on names similar to my own.J&#39;onn J&#39;onzz (talk) 02:03, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

not vandalism
This edit may have been many things but it was not vandalism. Gwen Gale (talk) 19:14, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's was an edit by an obvious troll, so it as vandalism. —Farix (t &#124; c) 19:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Wrt pic at Lolicon
BTW my edit there had not in any way been "WP:vandalism": Vandalism is "any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. Vandalism cannot and will not be tolerated. Common types of vandalism are the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, and the insertion of nonsense into articles."--but wd obviously fall under WP:BRD: (in my paraphrases: in good faith, be bold, revert, discuss).--FrancesHodgsonBurnett&#39;sTheSecretGarden (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Because you are a single purpose account who is obviously trolling. —Farix (t &#124; c) 19:29, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
 * You're the second person to believe me to be a single-purpose account with some kind of ax to grind with regard to the Lolicon issue. I genuinely have but an extremely tiny interest in it and henceforth am going to stay completely away from it.--FrancesHodgsonBurnett&#39;sTheSecretGarden (talk) 19:51, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Ichiban Ushiro no Dai Maō
Please refrain from any further reverting at Ichiban Ushiro no Dai Maō. Doing so will result in a block. Instead take issues to the articles talk page. Tiptoety talk 21:58, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have taken the issue up on the talk page, however, doesn't want to get the point that the burden of proof is upon him/her to provide reliable third-party source to include information and has been removing the fact from the article dispute that the information is being challenged. The fact that he/she has reverted two other editors who intervened and some of the talk page comments shows that GrimoireMyst has is a sense of ownership over the article. —Farix (t &#124; c) 22:02, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand that. They have already been warned, and if they keep it up I will issue a block. Tiptoety  talk 22:04, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Piccolo a demon?
Hey, a few weeks ago, you removed the category "Fictional demon" from Piccolo (Dragon Ball), but it was reverted. An anon and I both agree that it should be removed, and I have removed it. Judging by Sesshomaru's attitude toward the anon on the talk page, however, I can easily see him getting hostile about this. So just letting you know that there is a discussion about it at Talk:Piccolo (Dragon Ball) if you want to contribute. Ω pho  is  04:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

Highschool of the Dead
I see you have reverted my edit. This information is true and not controversial. In WP, we should have sources. However, there is not a strict requirement. Otherwise, one-third of WP would disappear. Try removing information from articles and see what that would do. Either that or we could wait and see that the planned episode happens. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 16:59, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * How do you know that the information is true? Has there been a complete list of episodes published by a reliable source? Are you absolutely sure that the series will not take any breaks during the course of its run? I must remind you that per Wikipedia's policy is that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. The first five episode titles and airdates have been verified. The rest have not. —Farix (t &#124; c) 17:04, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. However, if we go on a rampage to correct the rest of WP, we will be called pointy. Bet: let's see if the first few are true and that the schedule is not inaccurate. If false, I will go on a 7 day wikibreak, if true, you do the same. ;p Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:10, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * How about this, we wait until the next group of episodes are announced before adding them. The rinse and repeat for the following groups. This is the same thing we do for all other episode lists, this one should not be any different. Just because there is unverifiable information elsewhere does not mean that it should be permitted on this list. —Farix (t &#124; c) 17:18, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Ha ha, I am more confident that you with my wikibreak dare. I'm a nice person.  I will work with you.  Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It's not a matter of whether the "speculative" titles and dates past episode 5 are correct or not, but that the WP:V is not one of the policies that we can ignore at convenience. —Farix (t &#124; c) 17:27, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with you to verify facts. However, I used to say that every sentence in WP should have a reference but there was great resistance to that.  I now think the real WP practice is that most things should have a reference but if you genuinely have plausible information that is true, non-controversial, and that you think there is a source somewhere, that it is ok.  But being a little more firm and having reference is definitely better.   I won't fight with you!  We'll improve articles as we find references. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:Shina Dark
Hi,

First there is enough coverage to assert the subject notability.

Second the use of the term ecchi is unusual in French review and doesn't appear once in the French coverage of Shina Dark. Instead i have "undressed & compromising situations" (1 reviewer), "fan service" (1 reviewer), "naughty" (2 reviewers), "harem" (1 reviewer). Some volume reviews doesn't mention this aspect at all.

Factually i won't tag it ecchi as unsourced by multiple sources but personally i think it does have ecchi elements but it's not a key point of this series.

--KrebMarkt (talk) 20:56, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I guess the next thing to do would be about whether to move it to it's full title. —Farix (t &#124; c) 20:57, 15 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think to leave it as it is now. French official translation settled with just Shina Dark. In a similar case The Qwaser of Stigmata sticks with French & Italian official translation title instead of Seikon no Kweisā while English Tokyopop release is for August. Note that i won't oppose a move to longish title either. --KrebMarkt (talk) 21:28, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Shōji Satō (manga artist)
Am I the only one seeing the irony here? --erachima talk 18:32, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you see as ironic about it. —Farix (t &#124; c) 18:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)


 * That WP:USEENGLISH is encouraging heteroclite titles. Whatever, the move was correct. --erachima talk 19:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry more this wiki is very big,I'm getting lost sorry me if I wrong but,no one is Perfect. Knuckles The Echidna (talk) 18:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Tag removal
Please explain This edit makes no sense to me; why are you untagging these talk pages? Please respond on my talk. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:24, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah Okay, then. Thanks for your response. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:29, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Manga updates
I often disappoint with official review which often bias and unreliable, honestly rather than waste my bandwidth there I rather saw unofficial review before decide to buy anime/manga. I can accept your decision ban mangaupdates link from wikipedia but say it unreliable is other word.(Db84x (talk) 05:40, 15 August 2010 (UTC))


 * First, Manga Updates is an unreliable source simply because it engages in copyright violations. You can never call a website that engages in an illegal activity reliable in any way, shape, or form. The reason that professional reviewers are reliable sources IS because they are professional. User ratings, on the other hand are openly susceptible to script or bot voting. Because of these, they are always considered unreliable no matter who they are form. You may find them useful, but they are still unreliable for an encyclopedia. —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)


 * As for the accusation of bias in official reviews, they are reviews, which means they are inherently biased - this stands true for any review, regardless of the importance, motivations, or viewpoints of the reviewer. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

"Ginga Sengoku Gun'yūden Rai" importance assessment
Hi. You rated Ginga Sengoku Gun'yūden Rai as a low-importance anime. I'm grateful for your help, but I'd like to ask, on what basis did you rate it as a low-importance anime?

To be honest, I was expecting it to get a medium-importance rating. While I'm not sure how popular it was in the US or Europe or in the English-speaking world, but I'm pretty sure it gained enormous popularity in Arabic-speaking countries, and, at least to some extent, in China (since the article does have a Chinese version). Not mentioning its popularity in Japan, as well as its games and all.

I think you might have rated it as a low-importance anime based on the fact that it's relatively old, and that, if it were important, someone would have created an article for it long time ago. While this is usually true, I believe it would gained more attention in the past, since it was created, but because the editor who created it the first time (where it went by the name Thunder Jet) apparently copy-pasted a major portion (if not the entirety) of the article from its official site, the article got deleted based on copyright basis. Since then, nobody recreated the article thinking that it would get deleted again (for example, for lacking notability), while not being aware that the real reason behind its deletion was the copyright issue, as mentioned in its deletion log. (At least, that's what I believe has happened. The deletion log of the previously deleted article (which I have recreated as a redirect page) only mentioned copyright as a reason.)

So I think this article deserves importance re-assessment with that in mind, and also with its popularity outside the US in mind.

Thanks again. :) Ridhaintj (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * For an anime series to receive a "mid-importance" rating, it need to show that it achieved wide commercial success or critically acclaimed outside of Japan. Since it, as you claim, was only successful in Arabic-speaking countries, its commercial success was very limited and would not justify a mid-importance rating. There is also no documentation on the article about any critical acclamations, such as awards, outside of Japan either. —Farix (t &#124; c) 00:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, thanks. (Note: corrected broken link to redirect page.) Ridhaintj (talk) 11:33, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Kamen Rider Den-O + Shin-O
The subject is indeed notable, despite the bulk of the article being about the events of the media. The two references may be dead (currently) but this does not mean that the fact that the sources are invalid. One is to a major news outlet in Japan (Sponichi), and the other isn't independent, but it's certainly a notable topic concerning that: I hope this is enough to support notability. I will be searching for live references in the mean time.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 01:10, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
 * It is a special episode in that it is a crossover with another show
 * It is multimedia in that it is a crossover between an anime show and a tokusatsu show
 * It is notable for inclusion over at the Japanese Wikipedia
 * And there were unique toys made specifically for the episode

You should also probably notify the person who removed the prod rather than the original author of the page when notifying for AFD.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 01:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Template update
I believe that some of them are genres, according to the portal to which I synched. You removed Bara, which is clearly a genre, for one. :| TelCo NaSp  Ve :|  19:52, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The genres on the nav template are the only genres that have been identified as anime and manga genres by reliable third party sources. The genres listed at the portal have not received any such scrutiny, in large part because the portal is unmaintained. —Farix (t &#124; c) 20:02, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * You're right about the portal. But would you reconsider adding Bara as a genre? I've also updated the portal just now, and I think that the ones I've listed at least are considered genres. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  20:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I honestly haven't seen any reliable source classify it as an anime or manga genre, so it would be appropriate to list. On top of that, there are two homosexual based anime and manga genres (Yaoi and Yuri) listed in the template so a third "sudo-genre" would be undue weight when compared to the four non-sexual genres. —Farix (t &#124; c) 20:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Then would you say these two were genres, and that this is not? :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  20:59, 17 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've quite successfully challenged ecchi as a genre and there have been several past discussions that resulted in it not begin a genre. Hentai is just another term for pornography and is far too general. —Farix (t &#124; c) 21:17, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I see you've also nominated Portal:Evangelion for deletion. Hasn't the better solution have been to keep the page, or just merge it with its parent portal? :| TelCo NaSp  Ve :|  15:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Why? That's like trying to stitch together two corpses in hopes of creating a living being. Besides, the Evangelion portal is so underdeveloped that is not worth "merging" into anything. —Farix (t &#124; c) 15:26, 18 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I still don't understand how they can be considered "corpses" when I see lots of people viewing the portals. Even one of our featured portals, Portal:Peru, hasn't been edited in over two years and still maintains featured status. :| TelCo  NaSp  Ve :|  04:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Pokémon input
Could you please give some input at Talk:Pokémon: Best Wishes! lest the edit war with this IP begin anew?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 03:41, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment
As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:00, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

History mergers
Plastikspork ―Œ (talk) 22:35, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Manga
This is rather basic Japanese/Chinese. Rather than reverting my edit as vandalism, just look it up in a dictionary. 12ab3 (talk) 03:36, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It's quite clearly vandalism. —Farix (t &#124; c) 03:37, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you always call edits you disagree with vandalism? It's not particularly constructive. 12ab3 (talk) 03:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The etymology of the term is sourced. It is also a frequent target of vandalism. That is all needs to be said. —Farix (t &#124; c) 03:41, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't. This is very basic Japanese... and a content dispute is not vandalism, no matter how strongly you feel that your version of the page is better. 12ab3 (talk) 03:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Gold Ring
Hi! I wouldn't have put it into the Anime and manga project if it wasn't for the fact that Akira Himekawa is doing the illustrations. That means that it is a manga.

If Qais Sedki had also done the illustrations and had only gotten some advisory info from Himekawa, then it wouldn't be a part of the Anime and manga project.

WhisperToMe (talk) 04:30, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Ōkami Kakushi
All the evidence within the show points to the kamibito being werewolves. The citizens of old Joga are referred to as "wolves", it is repeatedly stated that their true forms are sentient wolves, and they are referred to as being werewolves by Kaname. They qualify as werewolves, so I don't see why not Okami Kakushi can't be included in the Werewolf video games and/or Werewolves in film and television categories. 173.180.64.146 (talk) 09:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Nothing in the series states or even suggests that they are werewolves, though the wolf motif is used as a metaphor for their condition and that it may have originated form the now extinct wolf population. —Farix (t &#124; c) 00:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Both of us are mistaken. What is never stated is that the wolf motif is a metaphor for their condition.  However, I will coincide that what Kaname says to Hiroshi is that they are "like werewolves", which I may have misinterperated.  While it is indeed initially hypothesized that the Joga wolves were extinct, the Counting Rhyme states that their true form is that of the Joga wolf, and Nemuru explicitly tells Kaname "We are the Joga wolves".  However, since it seems that neither of us is willing to budge in our opinions, we should agree to disagree on this and let it drop rather than waste time arguing.  207.216.208.68 (talk) 23:49, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Just letting you know that I responded on my talk page. Tim 1357  talk  22:39, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: September 2010
I think you have the wrong person. The episode 18 preview for Bakugan Battle Brawlers: Gundalian Invaders calls it "Curtain Call" instead of "Divide and Conquer". Also, there was no mention anywhere about the next couple of episodes's titles. Many of them are Anon-made episodes. -- DQ13 | Talk  Contribs  21:54, 16 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I discovered that several days ago. No one linked a reference, and one episode title was actually incorrect. The episode creators seem to enjoy changing title names on us ... -- DQ13 | Talk  Contribs  19:09, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: A&G Ohio Entry
Can you please explain your reasons for questioning the notability of this article when it is from a primary source? Relentlesson3 (talk) 04:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
 * The fact that the infomration is entirely form primary soruces it he reason the convention doesn't meet Wikipedia's standards for notability. All subjects of articles must have received significant coverage by reliable third-party sources before they can establish their notability. —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * alright, I am citing AnimeCons.org and removing your tags :> Relentlesson3 (talk) 11:41, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * While AnimeCons.org does establish basic fact, it is not enough to establish notability per Wikipedia's inclusion guidelines for stand-alone articles. Even Patric D., who runs AnimeCons.org, admits that his website doesn't establish the notability of a convention because it is a directory. —Farix (t &#124; c) 12:20, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Understandable, I will be flaging the other pages the include link only to animecons.org. I figured if it is good for one, it is good for all. (i.e. Ohayocon) Relentlesson3 (talk) 11:22, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

BLP PROD of Mana Ogawa
Hi,

I undid the restoration of the BLP PROD on Mana Ogawa. The creator of the article added four links as "external links". While none of those are independant from the subject, and thus couldn't be used to show notability, I think that the official pages linked to would be considered reliable, and would verify information in the article (such as that she is a singer). There is no requirement for a BLP PROD that a source sufficient to show notability be added to the article, merely that a reliable source that verifies some of the information in the article is added. Also, I don't think there is any requirement that in-line citations be used, so sources listed as external links would be sufficient to remove a BLP PROD. Calathan (talk) 14:10, 30 September 2010 (UTC)


 * My understand has been that a source must be provided to remove a BLP Prod, not merely a set of external links. If there are not sources referenced by the article, then the BLP Prod must stay. —Farix (t &#124; c) 14:23, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
 * While an external link that doesn't verify the information in the article would not be sufficient to remove a BLP PROD, an external link that does verify information in the article is simply a mislabeled source. Note that the BLP PROD page suggests that the article shouldn't be deleted if sources are provided on the talk page, so there certainly isn't a requirement for the sources to be properly worked into the article. Calathan (talk) 15:28, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

'tv series' in anime infobox
Exactly what is the point of this edit? This is an infobox switch that affects how the infobox appears and which fields are accepted. Fortunately, the switch isn't case sensitive. But if it was, then it would have broken the infobox. —Farix (t &#124; c) 20:23, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
 * There was none in this case. My apologies. I've updated the bot to ignore lower case 'tv' in infobox animanga/video infoboxes. Cheers, CmdrObot (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Flagicon
What is exactly is the policy about flagicons? I saw this edit to ergo proxy and it looked wrong, but I'm not sure. It comes up a lot. -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 04:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * According to the Manual of Style, we should not be emphasizing nationality without a good reason. That means in most cases, we should not be using the Japanese national flag in Infobox animanga because the subject is about a Japanese topic.


 * Other countries, however, have been a bit of a problem. While there is nothing strictly prohibiting their use in the infobox, MOS:FLAG does state that flags should be accompanied with the country's name. However, compiling with MOS:FLAG will just clutter up the infobox.


 * This, along with the systemic bias of emphasizing English release information over other languages, is one of the reasons I like to see the English fields removed from the infobox altogether. There is no simple solution. —Farix (t &#124; c) 10:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I guess I'll default to not using them in the infobox and emphasizing that it clutters the box rather than citing any specific decision or policy. I really don't like seeing them there anyway. Dubs typically cover multiple countries; kind of stupid to slap an american flag on all english dubs when they might be seen in Canada, the UK, etc.  -- Kraftlos  (Talk | Contrib) 20:34, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Listing what country something was published in is important, since the culture is different in different places. The infoboxes now don't list that, but still list the nationality of all the distribution companies.  Gantz now shows flags for America, Canada, and Australia in the infobox, but not Japan.  Was this something you discussed somewhere, or just decided on your own to go around and automatically do it to countless articles?   D r e a m Focus  04:49, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Since you didn't read what I've already said above, including the Manual of Style page I linked to, then nothing else is going to convince you. —Farix (t &#124; c) 02:18, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

konpeki no kantai
thanks for tweaking the original version in my userspace. Don't forget to apply them in the live version.--Eaglestorm (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Crayon Shin-chan
Good day. Thank you for the descriptive undo on this article. I would, however, like to clarify what grounds you feel the material I removed should remain in the article? Checking several other similar shows/series articles (some GA status), I find no similar material in any of them. I could see dramatically condensing it to, say, one paragraph, but the amount that's there currently seems quite excessive. Any more detailed suggestions on how to handle the section? DP 76764 (Talk) 23:45, 3 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The grounds is WP:BIAS. The topic is about a Japanese manga series and its anime adaptation, therefore international information should be treated with equal weight and not favor one non-Japanese language over the others. For the most part, the article is a total mess and focuses too much on the English language adaptation, which is why I failed it on nearly all but one of the B-class criteria. The addition helped some with the balance, but every thing about the international releases, especially the English language releases, needs to be trimmed down substantially. —Farix (t &#124; c) 00:40, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. I'll look at trimming some more stuff down tomorrow; there's definitely some trivial material in the English section that could be cut.  Would you support a substantial reduction of the international material as well?  I think it could be condensed to a single decent-sized paragraph; basically each section is the same 'popular with kids, parents complain, censorship, stations restrict broadcasts', etc.  DP 76764  (Talk) 01:37, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Did some work this morning (in a sandbox): major reorganization and trimming. If you have a moment, please take a look and let me know what you think.  I still need to trim the International section.  If everything is kosher eventually, I'll push it out to the real article. Thanks!  DP 76764  (Talk) 16:14, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Irony at its Finest
Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. Looks like you failed to read that part when you changed everything without even reading the reasons for changing it in the first place. Gune (talk) 22:18, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I've followed Wikipedia's naming policies, which is to use the English title that the subject is most commonly known as. Since the anime series has been released in the English language under the title "Fighting Spirit", it will be the title under which the subject will be most commonly refereed to by English-language sources. YOU have to demonstrate that the subject (which is the entire franchise) IS NOT COMMONLY KNOWN by that title in English-language sources instead of the other way around. —Farix (t &#124; c) 22:27, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

help on an AfD with no comments ?
Hello ! I nominated for deletion Utsuro no Hako to Zero no Maria 10 days ago and there are still no comments about it. Since you're a major contributor to the Anime project, I wonder if you could give your opinion there ? Thanks !Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:33, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Category:WikiProject Anime and manga
oops! I didn't know that the category of the page would also be transcended into the talk pages of the users who have received it.--Anirudh Emani (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Template:Auto archiving notice
Could you explain why you are removing Auto archiving notice from Talk:Original English-language manga? Doing so will not stop the page from being automatically archived. --Bsherr (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I read your edit summary, and the documentation for Auto archiving notice does not say "This template should be used only when needed. There is no need to add this template to every talk page." It says "It should be used on pages that are automatically archived." --Bsherr (talk) 04:07, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Because you are unnecessarily adding Talk header and removing archive box from the talk page. There is no justification for that type of edit. As for Auto archiving notice, it's just clutter and is redundent to archive box if you set the correct parameters. —Farix (t &#124; c) 04:10, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * But you're not adding it to the archive box, which would be a fine solution. Instead, you're completely removing it. Why? --Bsherr (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it's not needed and is just clutter. —Farix (t &#124; c) 04:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The documentation says "It should be used on pages that are automatically archived." So are we following documentation or not? --Bsherr (talk) 04:26, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparently something new then as it was never required before. I wonder if there was actually a consensus behind that. But why not incorporate it into the archive box? But since the talk page doesn't get any a lot of activity any more, it's probably better to remove the auto archive altogether. —Farix (t &#124; c) 04:29, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Either's fine. --Bsherr (talk) 04:32, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Japanese authors and notability
What kind of bar do you set for Japanese authors/mangaka/etc in terms of reliable third party sources? If you look at, say, the entry for Kiyohiko Azuma, who's far from unknown, you'll find very little in the way of sources. I'd say that this is probably due to the facts that a) there's simply not very much in English about mangaka, and b) very little that _is_ about the authors is online, save for things like publisher's information or sellers of said material. Also, what about interwiki links? --moof (talk) 17:56, 3 December 2010 (UTC)


 * The bar is set by WP:BIO, which is either significant coverage by reliable third-party sources or pass one of the other criteria listed at WP:CREATIVE. —Farix (t &#124; c) 18:06, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Linking to ja.wiki articles
Hi I noticed that in this edit you removed a link to a Japanese article on a related topic. I had earlier linked this due to the fact that it is closely related and due to my belief that an english article on that topic was unlikely to be forthcoming any time soon. I don't necessarily dispute your edit, but I was wondering what your rationale was behind it. Is there policy or a guideline or something that precludes editors from making links like this? I may have done it in other articles I've edited and I'd like to know if this was improper. Cheers. -Thibbs (talk) 15:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Because the link doesn't add anything of value to an English reader. The links looks like any other wikilink and there is nothing to suggest to the reader that the link is to a foreign language page. Also the majority of users who follow such links will not speak the language of the page to which they have been sent. It also conceal the fact that there is no article on the subject on the English Wikipedia, something that should generally be avoided. —Farix (t &#124; c) 15:38, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... I'd disagree that it adds nothing of value considering that many internet users are savvy enough to know how to use online translation tools properly. The link also does appear different from other English-language links depending on which browser you're using. But you do have a point that it might disguise the fact that there is no article on the subject at en.wikipedia. I'll leave it out for now but what would you think of including it in a "See also" section? -Thibbs (talk) 15:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, it doesn't appear any different from other wikilinks. As for whether it adds anything, if it is not to an English article, it doesn't. Most internet users actually don't know how to use translation tools unless you had the link to them nor do most translation tools handle Japanese to English translation very well either. —Farix (t &#124; c) 15:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

You are incorrect that it adds nothing simply because it is in another language. Why do you think interlanguage links are allowed at Wikipedia? A quick review of H:ILL reveals that "If a red link is not appropriate locally for whatever reason, such as because the subject does not appear to be notable, then linking to the other language page may be useful." I am a native English speaker and I found the information listed at the Japanese page to be helpful to an understanding of the topic. It is true that I had to translate the Japanese article to understand it but after translating it I found that it added a great deal to my understanding of the original topic. Linking to a page of another language certainly doesn't detract from the article. I have seen your edits to anime-related articles numerous times and I think that they are on the whole extremely helpful to Wikipedia. If you are making it a personal policy to remove inline interlanguage links simply because you don't find them personally useful, however, then I think you are harming the project in this respect. According to H:ILL you should be replacing inline interlanguage links with redlinks to encourage article creation if you think that an English article on the topic is a good target for a future article. Otherwise you should not be removing them unless there is a secondary reason such as non-relatedness or erroneous association or something. I can understand your argument that the link conceals the fact that no English language version exists despite the fact that the link mysteriously does appear differently from other links on my screen. So I think an appropriate solution would be to redlink the term inline and to shift the interlanguage link to a "See also" section until such time as the English language article is written. Do you think that this is a workable solution? -Thibbs (talk) 16:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a heads-up: I've take your silence as consent and I've implemented the solution that was twice suggested previously (i.e. redlinking and employing a "See also" section). I've also solved the mystery I spoke of last time. I was just reading idly through H:ILL again when the following caught my eye: "Links to pages on another wiki (including other Wikimedia Foundation sites) are coloured differently from links within the English Wikipedia." So if they appear identical to you then I think it must just be a browser issue on your end. Anyway, thanks for all the hard work you continue to put into Wikipedia and happy editing! -Thibbs (talk) 13:47, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I quite because the discussion was going nowhere. I don't agree to the "see also" link at all. But I've looked at interwiki links on several different computers using different browsers and they still look the same as normal Wikilinks. If they look different, then it must be your settings browser as mine are on default settings. —Farix (t &#124; c) 14:57, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, look: I'm seeking to work collaboratively with you on this issue and your silence in response to my suggestions leads us nowhere. If you are opposed to my suggested compromise then I suggest that we either go to a third party opinion or request an uninvolved comment. Since our two viewpoints seem to be directly opposite on the issue of the usefulness of inline interlanguage links, and as you seem to be unwilling to proceed further with our discussion, I think this is the best course of action. Please let me know your opinion on this because I would like to work together with you to solve this disagreement. -Thibbs (talk) 15:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)
 * PS - As for the differing appearance of interlanguage links from wikilinks, I'm glad you see my point that it is a browser setting issue that makes them look either the same or different and so when "the links looks like any other wikilink," it is only due to the browser's setting and not an innate property of the link itself. -Thibbs (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

The way things stand currently, my preferred version is in place and you have stated that you don't agree with it "at all." Since this version is disputed, I think we must achieve a degree of consensus before walking away from the issue. Wikipedia is not my own encyclopedia, after all, so why should my "consensus of 1" version stand in the face of a direct good-faith challenge? So I think 3O sounds like our best bet here since 3O is the least formal of the two suggestions I made on the 6th and really this is just a simple, good-faith deadlock. If you'll agree to abide by the decision of an uninvolved 3O volunteer concerning this matter then I think that's the route I'd prefer to go. Otherwise we can go the RfC route. Generally RfC is reserved for more complex issues than this but I imagine they'd take the case if 3O was off the table. If you have any preferences or other suggestions you'd like to make, please do so. I'd really like to see this problem solved before the end of the week. Thanks, -Thibbs (talk) 16:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've filed a RfC here. You might wish to make additional comments if you think I've misworded anything. -Thibbs (talk) 19:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Cinderalla
This is the before, and this is the after my two "Non-constructive edits".

If there was something specific in my edits that you disagreed - sections, info box move, remove ugly reds etc then you should have just removed that part instead of restoring the several spelling errors that I fixed. Slightsmile (talk) 17:33, 6 December 2010 (UTC)


 * First, the hatnote always goes at the very top, even above any cleanup templates. Read WP:HNP for the relevant style guide.


 * Second, you moved part of the lead paragraph into the infobox. An infobox is a whole unit that should not be divided up as it creates rendering problems. The rendering created by moving the lead paragraph into the infobox was to make the infobox appear lower in the article than it belonged. Infoboxes in the lead should begin immediately to the right of the lead paragraph and not below.


 * Third, you sub-sectioned the plot summary. The summary does need to be shortened given that the manga is just one volume long, however, we do not divided the plot summaries into subsections. This puts too much emphases on the plot summary in the table of contents instead of what makes the manga notable and relevent. In fact, I can't find any significant coverage by third-party sources except for release/licensing announcements. —Farix (t &#124; c) 14:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining, rendering problems - I never knew that! That would explain why words were merging like this : mangaseries. My thinking was to line the info box with the TOC to fill in white space but I see now that can't happen.


 * Even though sub-sectioning the plot summary might break rules of layout, I found that the sub-sections I added made the article more reader friendly. Slightsmile (talk) 23:00, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Left a warning
I left a warning at Godisme2's talk page about his refactoring of your comments on a talk page. Sorry about the harassment that you have been experiencing. Logan Talk Contributions 03:44, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I'm already working on an ANI report about the legal threat. —Farix (t &#124; c) 03:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Hold off on that ANI report. I am trying to mediate the situation without it getting too far. Logan Talk Contributions 03:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I've already posted the report. —Farix (t &#124; c) 03:52, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. Just trying to help. Logan Talk Contributions 03:53, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

And next time, can you report it before you go quite that far over 3RR? --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 04:14, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not actually a 3RR as I was trying to find different ways to provided clear context of what I was replying to. But it would be a good candidate for WP:LAME. —Farix (t &#124; c) 04:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Deprod of Neko Navi
I have removed the prod tag from Neko Navi, which you proposed for deletion. I'm leaving this message here to notify you about it. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to the article. Instead, feel free to list it at Articles for deletion. Thanks! BTW, I don't think the subject is notable. Please take that into consideration next time you find what you think is a hoax article. – Allen4names 18:30, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi I need help deleting something, can you see my talk article for more details. Can you put something up for deletion for me? I am so confused -BabyFace — Preceding unsigned comment added by BabyFace98 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

inre Articles for deletion/Daran Norris
I'm coming here in response to your own last response at the above AFD, and your suggestion toward re-arranging his filmology include the characters. As WP:LOW states filmologies are "ordered from oldest to newest. Vital information is title, year and, for actors, role"... the named roles can and will be included. Easy enough to do, thank you. It also states that "when the person has different types of film-related jobs (e.g. acting and directing), the filmography can be split into separate subsections for each...", for which clarity is the reason I broke the filmology into sub-sections for type of job. I much appreciate your input on the matter. Thank you.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:05, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

However... I have trouble creating tables, so have patience.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't wouldn't worry about creating tables. In fact, I personally dislike tables in filmographies. Just add the information about the roles into the existing entries. You already have half the information there, you just need to follow through with the rest. —Farix (t &#124; c) 01:13, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Just copied my current columns into a sandbox. Will be working on it and hit the highlights for characters.  Can you point at another article where columns include characters so I can emulate? Thanks.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Opps. An earlier version of the Norris Article did just that..  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is an example of how I do it. (Yasuhiko Kawazu) In fact, that is an article that survived AfD after I cleaned up the filmography. —Farix (t &#124; c) 01:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice. On it now in my sandbox. I will also be able to bluelink many of the named characters. :)  Thanks.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 01:30, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Closed as a keep while I was working on it, but I will continue adding the more significant charater names. Thanks much for the sugestion.

List of manga artists
I see no reason why List of manga artists should be deleted, as numerous similar lists exist and seem to be maintained (for example List of American comics creators or List of science fiction authors). There are many articles tagged as being in the scope of WikiProject Index that are equally broad or broader. While I don't know if those articles generally have support on Wikipedia or not, if you think articles of that sort do not belong on Wikipedia, then it would probably be best to start a discussion on that sort of article in general. For the List of manga artists article, I do however think it should be limited to manga creators with Wikipedia articles (which seems to be what is done for other similar lists). Calathan (talk) 05:46, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Pointing to other overly broad lists doesn't make the manga artist list less overly broad. —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:02, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Popularity Polls
I understand your point, but if one was to remove the sentence you did from the Cowboy Bebop page, then the sentence immediately before it would have to be removed. "It's regarded as the best anime..." - the sentence you removed bears that out, unreliable as you say it is. If the sentence you removed needs to go, then so should the sentence preceeding it.--MrsSpooky 06:20, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * FYI - I edited the article to remove the sentence that needs to go once the IMDB poll was removed. It should be good now.--MrsSpooky 06:25, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

The Manzai Comics - ready for mainspace?
A while ago, you were part of the checking of all Aurora Publishing titles and nominated The Manzai Comics for deletion and it was deleted. I have been collating references for The Manzai Comics at WP:ANIME/REQUEST, and I and others found enough for me to believe it is notable. I received a userified copy of The Manzai Comics and I believe my draft now demonstrates sufficient notability to be moved back into the mainspace, where the history revisions that contain copyvio (only the first two or three) can be more easily deleted using Copyvio-revdel. The admin who userified the page for me suggested that if you agree on its notability that he would be willing to move it back for me and I would not have to clog up DRV.

Could you please look at my draft of The Manzai Comics and let me know if you feel the draft demonstrates notability for the subject? --Malkinann (talk) 07:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * It seems to pass WP:NOTE and WP:BK now, if just barely. —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:09, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Characters
from what i've seen, characters can either be in level 2 section, or level 3 along with plot.Bread Ninja (talk) 13:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)


 * They are always level 2 (top level) headers. If they are a subsection of a plot section, then it is wrong. It is the equivalent of a "Cast" section and that wouldn't be under "Plot". —Farix (t &#124; c) 13:16, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Update on the RfC
Hi again. In reference to this earlier conversation, we've finally got an answer of some sort. It didn't seem as though you were very interested in coming to a consensus on the issue earlier, but just so you know, through a non-involved third party editor I think we've found the closest to a good answer on the underlying question. This mainly comes from WP:LAY and WP:Wikimedia sister projects. Although WP:LINKS makes it clear that interlanguage links are not truly "external links," WP:Wikimedia sister projects suggests that they should be placed in the "External links" section regardless. Hope you can find this info to be useful. If you have nothing further to add then I think we can close the RfC now. Keep up the good work, -Thibbs (talk) 13:36, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Q - Is it acceptable to include interlanguage links to ja.wikipedia articles on closely related topics in a "See also" section of an en.wikipedia article?
 * A - No. Interlanguage links belong in the "External links" section.

Great Mazinger
Is it wrong for the statistics and weapons of the titular character of a series to be displayed on Wikipedia? I understand that Wikipedia is not a fansite, but several other mecha, anime, video game and superhero characters (ranging from Toho's King Ghidorah and other Japanese creations to numerous Marvel comic book characters) have their respective statistics and abilities displayed on Wikipedia. Even the other Mazinger series mecha have their own statistics displayed. I hope you respond to this message. -Kaijukurt (talk) 10:18, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Is it wrong for the statistics and weapons of the titular character of a series to be displayed on Wikipedia?
 * Per WP:WAF, it is because it is treating the titular character in an "in-universe" perspective instead of treating it from a real word perspective. And even if fictional statistics were allowed under WP:WAF, they don't belong in the series article.
 * but several other mecha, anime, video game and superhero characters (ranging from Toho's King Ghidorah and other Japanese creations to numerous Marvel comic book characters) have their respective statistics and abilities displayed on Wikipedia.
 * Just because similar problem exist elsewhere doesn't mean that it isn't a problem at Great Mazinger. Also, there is a huge difference between an article about a series and an article about a character.
 * Even the other Mazinger series mecha have their own statistics displayed.
 * Then the statistics need to be removed. —Farix (t &#124; c) 19:52, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Japanese Flag Icons
Out of purest curiosity, why remove the flag icons associated with Japanese publishers? Some pages have them, I added some to Takemiya Yuyuko's book pages, and you removed them. Is there some Japanese law involved? It would seem odd, since they weren't the Japanese war flag, but rather just the normal hinomaru. Some countries (Perú for example) object to their war flag being used for anything other than their military. --Rpapo (talk) 23:12, 25 December 2010 (UTC)


 * In accordance with MOS:FLAG, articles should not emphasize nationality without good reason, and their use in the infobox does just that. In fact, there is no reason to identify the nationality of the original publisher. Other flagicons are being left for now until WP:ANIME figures out how best to replace them. —Farix (t &#124; c) 23:44, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

No problem. The Russian version of the page had the flag, so I put it on the English page for consistency. --Rpapo (talk) 00:07, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography
Hi. Concerning this edit of your I would like to inform you that 1 is needed. Moreover, WikiProject Biography always needs living. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:38, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Be careful with the AWB cleanups
In this one, you removed three of the four links to entries at ANN in the External links section. I have replaced them, but you may want to make sure you aren't doing this on others. ··· 日本穣 ? · 投稿  · Talk to Nihonjoe ·  Join WikiProject Japan ! 19:12, 26 December 2010 (UTC)

Calimero
About ''Please stop adding trivia that has nothing to do with the subject of the article. Calimero is about an animated, however, the trivia you keep adding has nothing to do with the series.'': Your concept of "having something to do with a series" is really strange. Of course the information that I have recovered (not added) has a lot to do with the series. A part of it is even sourced.

About ''On top of that, you also keep adding unverifiable information against Wikipeida's polices after it has already been challenged and removed. Do not add this information back into the article until you can source its relevance to the article's subject.'': Sir, you are completely lost. Relevance cannot be sourced, it can only arise from consensus. And more than half of the new section is easily verifiable! I'm afraid your actions and your argumentations do not match, please be sincere about your intentions. --Jotamar (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)


 * You might have missed this fact: Calimero is not a name or word of any other kind in Italian, or in any language that I know of for that matter. --Jotamar (talk) 12:43, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * What are you trying to do? To bully me with Wikipedia jargon like verifiability and OR? I'm just un-deleting material that is relevant, and some of it is even very well sourced. In the present state of this discussion, I see no alternative but to keep reverting your deletions for as many years as it takes. --Jotamar (talk) 16:53, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Sir, I cannot prove the relevance of anything unless you tell me what exact statement you find irrelevant and for which reason. I've just perused this guideline and I can't find anything in it related to the contentious section. And of course it's very obvious that many other Wikipedia pages have similar sections. --Jotamar (talk) 10:26, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

About If you can't prove that information is connection to the article's subject, then ultimately the section will be deleted: That connection is already proven, check the References. --Jotamar (talk) 14:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * AboutNone of the references prove such connections with the animated series: Then what kind of evidence is needed? A signed certificate or something? --Jotamar (talk) 14:17, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I consider the online weekly Flanders Today a perfectly reliable source. As for the songs, you tell me which lyrics server you consider reliable. --Jotamar (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
I know we traditionally bark at each other, but thanks for your careful cleanup of Girls with guns, it's much appreciated.--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 01:27, 30 December 2010 (UTC)