User talk:TheFarix/Archive 8

Please
Do not edit the profile of Saint Seiya characters. they are official. Thank you!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.88.232.176 (talk) 02:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Do not revert the cleanup of the infoboxes. Your edits are add an excessive amount of trivial information to the infoboxes and is an abuse of these infobox parameters. Besides, most of these articles need to be merged or redirect to a main list as they all fail the inclusion guidelines for standalone articles. --Farix (Talk) 11:43, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Kidou Senshi Gundam MSV Senki Johnny Ridden
I removed your prod for Johnny Ridden, after taking a few seconds to actually Google that name. He is found in the Gundam series, as well as in at one of the video games, and they gave him his own manga. Quite notable in the Gundam series. Please Google before you prod something for speedy deletion. You reason given ''Non-notable character. Only appears in a technical manual, but never in any of the televisions series, films, OVAs, or novels. Has no affect on the series's plot line.'' is clearly not valid.  D r e a m Focus  02:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I also googled the name, and only found a bunch of links for gunpla of his mecha (not a claim to notability), the "own manga" seems to be a handful of chapters in one book series (debatable claim to notability), appearing in a game means nothing, and he only seems to be a minor character in the series, not "quite notable". Certainly doesn't seem to meet any guidelines or policy for inclusion, and there are no references to show that he is as notable as your insist. You would think that by now you would realise to put up a better arguement for keeping then you are now. It's been sent to afd, I suggest you try and make your point better in the discussion there. The best you can hope to achieve in afd without some proper claims and references to back them up is a merge. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I must also add that this particular character is actually not that notable. I have some reputation in the Chinese Gundam community, and know quite well what this character stands in popularity.  People who watch Gundam anime do not necessarily know this character at all, and only people who frequently discuss about Gundam will know this name.  He indeed got at least 4 MG models released with his name attached to them, out of less than 120 models, this sounds quite notable, yet compared to say, Char Aznable, who got 6 named and 6 unnamed(but featured in anime and famous enough that fans will relate them with him) suits, it is an obvious difference of popularity level, and to be more realistic, most of the ones tagged with his name is mainly because a variant of the suit requires release, and having his name on it would bring 2 less notable item to give greater appeal. MythSearchertalk 07:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Refactoring
That's a good point, it's sort of a bad habit. I'll try to remember to make adding comments separately, I usually do that but sometimes I forget and do it while fixing things. Tyciol (talk) 18:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * In some cases talk pages do need to be refactored, otherwise they become confusing. A lot of people don't properly indent their replies with a colon as they're supposed to when replying to a topic. This makes it difficult to follow the flow of conversation. In other cases, people don't use proper wiki-format for things like bolding, or how to posted shortened internal links. I mainly correct stuff like that (along with excessive spacing, cursing, etc). Oh yeah and about the year things, I find in a lot of cases when pages get very long, it isn't noticed when stuff's posted out of order and year tags sometimes help with archiving. On a second look I can see they weren't needed on the Prince of Tennis list though since it has been kept up to date very well and wasn't large, I think I was just too much in the habit of it so it was right to remove it. Tyciol (talk) 18:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That talk page was out of order, I needed to put it in order (it should follow chronology, people can't put topics at the top, they go at the bottom). It's getting big and could need archiving the the year posts are indicators of that, like if people want to do 06/07 and leave 08/09. The spacing needs to be formatted when people neglect to follow the proper colon indenting system of progressive conversation. I also shorten wiki links and URL links because some people do not know how to format those. If this is about the spacing again: why does it matter? It lessens the memory needed to store or display the page, is easier to navigate. Which part specifically is bad? Tyciol (talk) 00:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you did warn me, however I thought you would only do it in cases where the factoring was unnecessary. It clearly was here. That is a useful archive-bot feature, however prepping pages for archiving is also useful. Needlessly spacing things out shouldn't be done in the first place, and people should properly format in the first place. I fix that, and reverting that work is just being spiteful. There's no purpose served. You could argue my time might be better spent doing something else, but if I choose to do that, what rule is there for adding spam to a page and making it hard to read? Tyciol (talk) 07:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, the whole spacing in the header thing is certainly not necessary or a big deal to change. That's more a matter of aesthetics. I've just gotten in the habbit of doing it. The reason for that is because it's not actually necessary, and sometimes people do more than one space, or sometimes there is a space before the title but not after it, or vice versa. It's just easiest to see at a glance if the equals signs are touching the letters, plus it's kind of like a marker that it's been seen to.
 * Merging of paragraphs isn't something I do when it's big paragraphs, it's generally with smaller ones, like when people do one sentence per line.
 * This is especially annoying with short sentences.
 * In general, you could fit more if the lines were merged.
 * It would not be in error to do so.
 * Do you see the reason someone might want to do this?
 * Such as if it went on and on? It might be considered spam?
 * For example: if you were to merge 2-3 of these, it would completely make sense to me. As for double spacing, are you talking about making two spaces after a period instead of 1?  That is usually done in British conjugation.  Even in Canada where people adopt British spelling, people generally do not do this.  Even if it's a single character per sentence, isn't it still excess?  It especially becomes annoying when it becomes inconsistant with other posts around it which do not use double-spacing.  Even more so when sentences are not very long, and it is a series of consecutive sentences all of which leave huge strange gaps inside a paragraph.  Just as above: feel free to correct these, or leave them as they're demonstrating a point.  The point being: while it might serve a purpose here, it's more like a British Invasion on talk pages.  Standard Wikipedia format for articles has it acceptable to delete added space bar in headers, after periods, or the merging of very small paragraphs.  So long as meaning is lost, why not also do this to people's conversations? Tyciol (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I need something to consult about this, is there a page which addresses this? I tried WP:CLEAN but that just seems focused on articles. Do you think anyone has done a project page in references to talk page management? I could probably put my suggestions and resolvings and stuff there I guess, for the moment. Tyciol (talk) 15:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I gave WP:TPO a read. Some of the circumstances it mentions are: "editing others' comments is sometimes allowed.." "examples of appropriately editing others' comments: When a long comment has formatting errors, rendering it difficult to read. In this case, restrict the edits to formatting changes only and preserve the content as much as possible. Generally, page formatting can be fixed as well. This could include moving a new comment from the top of a page to the bottom, adding a header to a comment not having one, and providing wikilinks if it helps in better navigation." and "In the past, it was standard practice to "summarize" talk page comments, but this practice has fallen into disuse. Minor refactoring edits are still appropriate.". So here, it seems to be that refactoring (well 'formatting', I'm not sure what the difference is, I've probably been using the wrong term) is acceptable when something is too long and hard to read. Moving the comment for example, from the top to the bottom, which I did, and it was put back. Archiving bots can lessen the problem of things being out of order, but it could still result in those which are left behind being out of order. I won't be reverting anymore since the bot archived and I don't want to interfere with that, but I do need to check to make sure the topics are in the proper order. Furthermore: it is hard to read with those spaces. While summarizing has fallen into disuse, I still think the deletion of spaces falls under 'minor' refactoring (stuff not even visible on the page. Merging incredibly short paragraphs (like 1-2 sentences) is also appropriate, paragraphs are supposed to be longer. A lot of people overly separate things so that their words take up more space than others. There's no need for that, especially after their conversations have ended. Tyciol (talk) 01:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't just want to go off trying stuff and having you need to get them, if I could consult the administrative mediation who writes TPO it might be better, I'll make a topic on the talk page there. I think what I'm doing is minor, but it seems major because I'm doing the entire talk page at once. If I were doing a post at a time it wouldn't really seem like much at all, it's just that I don't monitor the whole things on an ongoing basis so it's done in chunks to save cluttering the history.
 * Alright, I brought it up on Wikipedia talk:Talk page guidelines if you could summarize the points of contension. I am not sure where else to do that, but it's probably better because I don't want to clutter your talk page any more with the conversation, especially since you would like to include others in it. If you're talking about adding my thoughts about the various vandals to the lolicon article, I monitor it too and just happened to be checking the history because I was doing it anyway over a point of contension with another editor. That's a coincidence. If you mean the Saint Seya dude below: sure, it kinda caught my interest because I kept staring at it, but you hadn't replied to 201's talkpage so I wouldn't call that stalking. The guy seemed upset and was just trying to calm him down. 'Stalk' is a bit harsh, when I tried I got WP:HOUND. Tyciol (talk) 02:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith
About this, I don't know if I'd call that vandalism. It's not a good contribution and was unsourced so it would be right to question it (though I would have fact-tagged it for a bit first to give them a chance to source it) but it doesn't look like vandalism. Has someone done this in the past or something? Ah, on second glance, I actually tried googling and nothing came up for Shinsen Mibu Nights when I put it in quotes. This looks like some kind of personal attack against this 'Courtney Beggan' person. It's one of those subtle attacks that almost looks well-intentioned at first glance eh? Sneaky. Tyciol (talk) 19:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Next time, check things out more thoroughly before you start spouting off at me again. --Farix (Talk) 20:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey, I caught it! :) If vandalism accusations were more specific it would prevent confusion. I still wonder where they got that title though, Shinsen Mibu Nights sounds like something real. Tyciol (talk) 01:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkheaders
Acknowledged. I've been in fact trying to cleanup the talk pages and added lots of useful stuff (like ratings, etc.) to them. However, since what you're saying makes sense, I will take down all these headers in a minute. They will be retained only in case of long talk pages with lots of flaming. Thank you for the clarification and sorry for the trouble.

I've searched through all the small articles I've added talkheaders to. It appears you took most of them down. I suggest that next time you first notify me about the problem and only then start fixing it as it may save you much trouble. OutOf Timer  Wanna chat?  19:17, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * They should only be used on talk pages with a history of forum-y, flamebait, spam, etc. posts all the way up to present day, although there is room for editorial discretion as necessary. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * copied from User talk:Dinoguy1000
 * Thank you for informing me about the policy regarding talkheaders. I was adding them automatically without giving it too much thought. Sorry for the trouble. OutOf Timer   Wanna chat?  19:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem. =) 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Berserk Genre
If we want to limit it to three genres, than I think Horror should not be on the list. Dark Fantasy covers that up fairly well, as dark makes refrences to the more serious, and often scarier side of Fantasy, so Horror would be a waste to the list of gernes. I think it should be replaced with Drama, noting on the relationship between Guts and Griffith, his troubles with Caska, and various other issues presneted in the Manga. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DrBoondigga (talk • contribs) 22:32, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Discussion about changes to the genre should be discussed on the article's talk page. However, since your edits have previously been reverted, you should discuss the changes you want to make first and gain a consensus before restoring your changes. To do otherwise is considered disruptive and repeated offenses may result in a block or the article locked. --Farix (Talk) 00:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Full Metal Panic? Fumoffu
I removed a 2-year-old discussion that is completely irrelevant to the article's present stage. The article was completely re-written by another user since then and I'm editing the new version. Keeping these comments clutters the page. In addition, I made a number of subtle layout changes. Why do you destroy these improvements? It is us who have to suffer due to the poor layout - not you. Instead of policing pages you have no knowledge of, you should trust experts on the subject and let us do our work. Your rollbacking rights might be used more effectively in the main space. Instead, however, you choose to patrol talk pages. OutOf Timer  Wanna chat?  09:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * None of your comments change anything, talk pages of articles should be archived not wiped of comments. Being an self claimed "expert" on the subject matter or not changes nothing. Dandy Sephy (talk) 11:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Basically you're right. My comments indeed don't change much. I'm mostly ignored and I have to say it came as a huge surprise to me. Let's take you for example, Dandy, you chose not to respond when I asked you for advice but you do now. People here pretend to listen and discuss things but in the end they spit on you. I fail to see the reason as there's absolutely nothing any of us gains from being here. We try to do something good for other people and make knowledge available to everybody. And yet, there is an exceptional amount of hostility around... much more then I've ever seen anywhere else on the internet. The only people who can survive here are those with several sockpuppets, profficient in WP:GAME and with lots of edits. You even got angry because I called myself an expert on Fumoffu. LOL I bet it's because you wish you were an expert on such an awesome thing like Fumoffu. OutOf Timer   Wanna chat?  16:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
 * If it is your experience that Wikipedia culture tends to treat self-proclaimed experts (regardless of the validity of their claim) coldly, then you are quite correct. The entire Wikipedia model in general provides "experts" with very little leeway insofar as controlling articles on the subjects they are (or claim to be) an expert on. Experts are more than welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, and even to point out that they are one on their user page and to use that ability to help improve articles, but the instant one tries to use his credentials to push an unacceptable edit through or otherwise justify it, he should expect to be frozen out. As for sockpuppetting and gaming the system - there are doubtless individual examples of highly prolific and trusted editors who got where they are while - or even because - they were doing such actions (I specifically know of one such sockpuppetteer who ended up with at least three administrator accounts across two projects before he was finally caught), but as soon as someone is unveiled as a sockpuppetteer or GAMEr, they're dealt with very swiftly. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The problem with self-proclaimed experts is that there is no way for Wikipedia to vet their expertise on the subject. That is why Wikipedia relies on verification through published reliable sources. However being an "expert" does not, in any way, justify editing or removing other editor's comments from a talk page. There are only a limited number of reasons which other editor's comments may be edited, which are outlined at WP:TPOC, but that's it. Nor does it allow you to run rough-shot over editorial WP:CONSENSUS. As Dinoguy already stated, when an editor uses their self-proclaim "expertise" to bully other editors around, then they are going to get a very cold reception. --Farix (Talk) 21:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Shugo Chara! and name order
You say "When translated into English, names shoud be in GNSN order. This is in accordance with WP:MOS-AM.", but there is nothing in there that says that this takes precedence over WP:MOS-JA, which states "If the name in question is a title [...] the name order within the title itself should not be changed." This is easily extended to "If the name in question is in a title". It is not Wikipedia's place to change the official titles Crunchyroll gives. 67.175.50.253 (talk) 20:21, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree here. So long as the titles are official English ones (and since Crunchyroll cleaned up its act awhile back, I'm assuming they are), they should be used here without changing word order. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

just a guess

 * Why am I not surprised that as soon as Katsumasahiro is blocked for edit warring, this account picks up the baton? --Farix (Talk) 16:01, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

...'cause you know 2 keyboards are difficult to handle with just 2 hands? Seb az86556 (talk) 16:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Why i can't i be surprised. People are doing their very best to hang themselves. Katsumasahiro has just 24 hours block so maybe more cheap bad quality drama are to come and i'm already feed up --KrebMarkt 18:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would like the drama to be over, but I'm afraid it will pick back up once Katsumasahiro's block expires and I will likely be one of his prime targets for retaliation. Oh well, leave it to the admins to take care of when it happens. --Farix (Talk) 18:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance - I wouldn't have thought to open a sockpuppet case. I was really surprised when Kxings turned on everyone. --Malkinann (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

yesterday's snow...
So User:Katsumasahiro has created a blatantly obvious sock: User:Katsumasahiro2. Is that reason for blocking or do we have to wait for the next attack? Seb az86556 (talk) 00:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would bring it to the attention of WP:ANI along with the original legal threat (WP:NLT) under the first account. While the original block for edit warring has expired, he/she may still get an indefinite block for the legal threat. --Farix (Talk) 00:52, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Hm. Too much red tape for now. We'll see what happens... thanks Seb az86556 (talk) 00:55, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Appears got him with an IP block anyways. But the report wouldn't have been a whole lot of red tape. In fact, I'm sure that the earlier legal threat would be a sure fire block --Farix (Talk) 01:00, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

MS Zeta Gundam edit question
I saw this edit and you might want to clarify if it should be chronological to the real world or in the plot world. I might have some time next Sat(15th August) to do the rewrite so I will need to know what you specifically want. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 06:22, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Chronological as in, episode 1 to episode 50 with perhaps a little bit of background. I think that part should be obvious. --Farix (Talk) 11:54, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * While you are at it, why not also work on expanding the summaries at List of Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam episodes? This would be an asset to the overall coverage and prevent excessive details out of other areas. --Farix (Talk) 15:28, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, then you are talking about real life chronological order, that will be a little bit hard for me. I can remember all the plot, but not how the specific episodes are and how they line up, can I presume they are following the movies' and UC chronological order and none of the later episodes are prequel to earlier ones?  Summary of episodes would be out of my ability, the best I can might be looking at mahq.net's list. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  15:43, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Gundam related articles
I see that you are merging the articles, I have no objection to that and thanks for the help. However, Argama and some other ships of the EFSF is not from the Mobile Suit Gundam anime but Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam anime. MythSearchertalk 16:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Huh? Beyond cleaning up the individual articles, I haven't attributed any of the ship classes to a specific series. The article on the Argama class was merged to List of Mobile Suit Gundam military units and hasn't been attributed to any specific series within the MSG franchise. --Farix (Talk) 17:26, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean those ships should be in the appropriate series' list of units, not the one attributed to the original series. If it is not merged by you, I would have to offer my sincere apology. MythSearchertalk 04:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The list itself isn't clear on that and there are no equivalent lists for any of the sequels. This leaves this list as the best target for the merger of the ship classes. And since there is not an overwhelming number of ship classes, they can be contained on one list instead of fractured into multiple lists with less then a dozen entries each. --Farix (Talk) 17:04, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would suggest starting a list on each major series, unless the series main article is very small, and could use a few lines intro of these units. MythSearchertalk 01:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I would also suggest notifying the guy who uploaded the images for each of the individual articles next time around so he doesn't get 3154765731957619846 messages from the durn bots informing him of the impending deletion of fair use images. It would also have been nice to have been invited to some sort of discussion on the merging of the articles (assuming one actually took place). Just something to keep in mind for future overhauls. TomStar81 (Talk &bull; Some say ¥€$, I say NO) 04:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, one dscussion actually took place like 2 years ago in the WP:GUNDAM and consensus is merge. Only that nobody picked up the job and I thank Farix for actually started the work.  If only I know how and what barnstar to give, I will give one. MythSearchertalk 05:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)




 * Dang -- Mythsearcher beat me to it. I was just coming over here to give you one of these for finishing the merges to List of Mobile Suit Gundam military units. Thank you! —Quasirandom (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the merges are finished. What to do with the list afterward I'll leave to others. I'm not sure what to do with Nahel Argama and La Vie en Rose since both articles cover a single ship instead of a class of ships. --Farix (Talk) 14:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Leaving the list to others is fine. Though we should probably TfD the template. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Already ahead of you there. --Farix (Talk) 15:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm behind everywhere! —Quasirandom (talk) 15:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Merge to the same article first, I will try to see if some could go to their own series main article or create a list for each series, after a few months, where I should have more time. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  15:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For those two, I figure to leave them be and let someone else figure out what to do with them. --Farix (Talk) 16:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Why i'm always this late to catch but better late than never. Add my praises to the list. --KrebMarkt 19:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I just wanted to apologize for my rudeness in regards to the merging of the Gundam 00 character articles with the List. You were right, I was wrong. I think the same should be done with all the Gundam Seed character articles and I am currently going about suggesting that for each and every one of them as they suffer the same problem that the others did. They're WAY to plot summary. Shaneymike (talk) 20:45, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Universal Century Character Overhaul
I have begun a complete overhaul of the List of Universal Century characters. Feel free to merge any and all character articles, including the ones that I started, from the Template with the List. Thanks. Shaneymike (talk) 16:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the UC characters should be divided into their own series lists. There are just far too many characters for one whole list. Same goes for the mobile suits/armors. --Farix (Talk) 16:36, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * True. I was wondering if maybe we could keep all the characters from the full length series on that list and then maybe include brief descriptions of all the major characters from Char's Counterattack, Gundam 0080, Gundam 0083, and The 08th MS Team in their respective articles. I suppose the latter could work but yeah I think you're right about the UC characters being divided into their own series list just like Turn A Gundam. After all, a lot of what took place during the Universal Century was discussed during the timeframe Turn A took place. Shaneymike (talk) 19:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I didn't realize there's already a list of characters for Zeta Gundam. Not too shabby. Perhaps the List of Universal Century characters should be renamed List of Mobile Suit Gundam characters and focus stricly on that show. Then we should have separate lists of characters from Gundam ZZ and Victory Gundam. As for Char's Counterattack and the three OVAs - Gundam 0080, Gundam 0083, and The 08th MS Team - maybe we should just include brief descriptions of all the major characters and their voice actors. Shaneymike (talk) 21:07, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * It really depends on how many characters need to be covered, but I believe that separate lists may be needed for all of them. --Farix (Talk) 02:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry to interrupt, I am inclined to having multiple lists, but if anyone thinks there are too many minor characters, would it be simpler to just include major characters? Like the ones that appeared in over half of the series? —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  06:11, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay gentlemen. I've taken the liberty of renaming the List of Universal Century characters to List of Mobile Suit Gundam characters and removing all the characters that were exclusively in Zeta Gundam from it. Soon as we have lists for all the other shows I'll gladly remove all the ones that were not in First Gundam. Shaneymike (talk) 14:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * How does this look? 0080 Characters Shaneymike (talk) 14:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Its short, but hey, it works. No need to include too much when there are no sources other than the official descriptions.(I do have Gundam Officials, but I don't see the point in having long and tedious character intros when there's not much notability)  —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk  16:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * So, shall we go ahead and redirect those character articles to that page? Shaneymike (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I just went ahead and began doing the same thing I did with the 0083 and 08MS characters. Shaneymike (talk) 18:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * While you guys are working on character cleanup, would you care to do some work on a Mobile Suit Gundam navbox, similar to Mobile Suit Gundam 00 and Mobile Suit Gundam SEED? You don't have to worry about exact formatting, I can take care of that. I'm also interested in hearing about the possibility of creating individual navboxes for some of the subseries (0080, Zeta Gundam, ZZ, etc (and while you're looking, what about the possibility of splitting off a SEED Destiny/Astray navbox from the SEED one?)). I'd really appreciate your input on this, as I don't have a deep enough understanding of how all the Gundam series fit together to be very confident in the basic topic setup/listing work. In general, to support a navbox, each series should have at least five different articles. If Farix doesn't mind, you can discuss this matter more here, or you can take discussion to User talk:Dinoguy1000/Gundam (and you can work on sandbox versions on its main page). Thanks in advance! 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 19:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Navbox created. I would recommend moving this discussion to WT:GUNDAM. --Farix (Talk) 20:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I previously asked there (it led to the creation of the sandbox in my userspace), but didn't get any real participation. I asked here since you guys are actively working on these articles now. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 20:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * But that orange bar is starting to annoy me. Especially when have the time, it's not directed towards me. --Farix (Talk) 21:07, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Right, which is why I suggested my sandbox talk page. Unless you're referring to the entire discussion (character article cleanup and everything), in which case sorry to bother you more with my misunderstanding. *sheepish grin* 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would suggest separating those characters along main characters and secondary/supporting. There aren't any clear antagonists or protagonists for MSG80 and dividing them by faction really does a disservice to the three main characters. --Farix (Talk) 19:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Gotcha. Shaneymike (talk) 13:27, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I just went ahead and did the same with 0083 and 08MS Team characters. Shaneymike (talk) 14:00, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Gundam Categories
Hi TheFarix. May I please have your opinion regarding the cleanup of the Gundam categories here? Your comment would be appreciated. G.A.S talk 14:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Brent Benjamin Tag?
Hi. I am confused about the tag you left on Brent Benjamin. Please see my comment on that talk page. Thanks. Cmichael (talk) 02:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Mobile Suit Gundam characters
See changes I made to List of Mobile Suit Gundam characters. Shaneymike (talk) 14:32, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I just finished redirecting all the character articles for 0080 and 0083 to their main articles and adding brief descriptions for all the major characters in 0083. Unfortunately, I've run out of time to do 08MS. Feel free to do the same with those articles. Shaneymike (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Looking at what you did, you didn't create the redirects properly nor did you remove the project banner from the talk pages. Also, I only recommended dividing the 0080 characters into main and supporting as there were no real protagonists or antagonists (technically, Colonel Killing would be the only antagonists, but he plays a very minor role). However, for the other OVAs (0083 and 08th MS Team), there are clear protagonists and antagonists and it would be a better way to the sort the characters. --Farix (Talk) 04:15, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * My bad. Feel free to correct my error if you haven't already done so. Shaneymike (talk) 17:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I just redid the character section for 0083 as you suggested. I'll make the same adjustments for 08thMS when I get a chance and try to do the redirects properly and remove the project banner from the talk pages. That is unless of course you take care of that first. It probably would be better if you did the redirects for the 08thMS characters articles as I'll most likely make the same mistake again. Shaneymike (talk) 20:32, 16 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I think it best to divide the 08thMS characters into main and supporting as well because technically Ginias would be the only antagonist. Norris on the other hand is a father-figure to Aina and he makes the ultimate sacrifice to avoid killing Shiro. Shaneymike (talk) 14:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I just redirect all the 08MS character articles to the main one and gave a brief description of each character. Shaneymike (talk) 15:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Just noticed the changes you made to the List of Mobile Suit Gundam characters. I see you've already started separte lists for Gundam ZZ and Victory Gundam. You the man, Farix. Shaneymike (talk) 14:34, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I just added voice actors to the Gundam ZZ and Victory Gundam character lists. And I added some information about Emma Sheen to the Zeta Gundam character list and put Jamaican Daninghan under Supporting Antagonists. Shaneymike (talk) 20:03, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Mobile Suit Zeta Gundam characters
I just added some details to all the supporting protagonists. I'll do the same for the antagonists when I get a chance. Shaneymike (talk) 14:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I moved Four Murasame under Main Antagonists. Even though she and Kamille were lovers, I think it's a disservice to place her under "Others" and she doesn't necessarily qualify as a protagonist. Her role is very similar to that of Stella Loussier in Destiny and if not mistaken Stella is listed as an antagonist as well. Shaneymike (talk) 14:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Boys Over Flowers
Please come to Talk:Boys Over Flowers to discuss whether MS should be included on the page, or how much information. You reverted once during the edit war that led to the page's protection, so your input toward consensus would be appreciated. Thank you. Whatever404 (talk) 13:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)


 * We're trying to build a consensus about whether/how to include mention of Meteor Shower at Boys Over Flowers. If you have any further input, please join us.  Thanks!  Whatever404 (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

POV Pushing
Have a look at WP:BALANCE. I think you'll enjoy it. Cheers. Cmichael (talk) 21:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you should look at District of Columbia v. Heller and Kelo v. City of New London, both of which were 5/4 decisions and gives as much attention the the dissenting opinions as well as the majority opinions. Even Roe v. Wade extensively documents the dissenting opinion even though that was a 7/2 decision. --Farix (Talk) 21:19, 25 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I would encourage you to improve the articles by adding additional information, as you seem to be more knowledgeable about the subjects than I am. More detail would certainly not harm any of them. Cmichael (talk) 15:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

MS-X
It is a spin-off of the MSV series (model series released after the successful MSV) I would say merging it with the MSV article is not a bad idea. And I would oppose the merge of the MSV and Gundam. I don't really have time these few weeks since I got a new job and is under intensive training, yet I am quite sure that the MSV series is notable enough to have its own article. We can have all the Z-MSV, ZZ-MSV, CCA-MSV, etc. and the MS-X briefs in it. —Preceding signed comment added by MythSearchertalk 14:03, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Rozen Maiden
the article is poorly written in the beginning, and if the manga came first, why is there a DVD cover? there are only one manga that i know which is obviously the adaptations seeing as how the manga seems rushed while the anime having alot more episodes than the manga having chapters.

If the manga truly came first, than we must remove the first the DVD cover and put in the manga cover and we must remove 'anime' in the summary and move it to the 'adaptation and/or spin off' section.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:53, 26 August 2009 (UTC)


 * There was originally a manga cover in the infobox, volume 3 to be precise. I'm not exactly sure what happened to it, but it is no longer there. The manga was first released in September of 2002 while the first episode of the anime adaptation was aired in October 2004, a full two years afterward. So it is incorrect to state that the manga is an adaptation of the anime. I also notice that the infobox is all wonky as the components should be ordered by date instead of by type. --Farix (Talk) 16:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Jyu-Oh-Sei
Please continue the discussion about spoilers on this topic. I believe your retraction of my edit was in error. Adoliver (talk) 11:26, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Gundam ZZ Episode List
Why did you erase the episode descriptions and references on this page? Also, titles are supposed to be the literal translations (not the titles that some people online have given them), and as noted in the talk page, those are the literal translations. Read the notes I made and discuss changes on the talk page instead of just erasing the work I put into it. JoeD80 (talk) 00:01, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * YOU REPLACED THE LIST WHOLESALE! MINE IS THE OLD LIST JoeD80 (talk) 00:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The list was developed independently and I didn't find the other list until much later because it was poorly named and simply redirected it to the new list. If you want to quibble about the episode title translations, that's fine. But you shouldn't copy your list over top of the new list, especially when your list doesn't comply the formatting used by other FL-class episode list and the new list does. --00:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * OKAY, look, you may not have been able to find it (and it was named with the show's name so I hardly see how it's poorly named; Double Zeta *IS* the Japanese Name), but it IS THE ORIGINAL LIST and should be kept. Where does the old list I edited *NOT* comply with formatting?  It's weird that you say I shouldn't copy my list over your list when that's essentially what you did to mine (I realize you found it later, but you didn't even attempt to merge it). JoeD80 (talk) 00:15, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether it is the older list is irrelevant. The fact remains that the lead and summaries needed to be completely rewritten to comply with the standards set by WP:FL. Also, translation of Japanese is not an exact science, so to say that your translations are literal is misleading. Three editors can look at the same sentence written in Kanji and come up with three different translations. However, Bandai uses Mobile Suit Gundam ZZ as the official English title of the series, as seen on their Gundam Offical website. I'll leave the episode translations to and  to haggle over. --Farix (Talk) 01:08, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure, there are eccentricities because Japanese is not a Germanic language, but there are specifics you can count on. e.g. from the article, リィナが消えた is 100% guaranteed past-tense yet it's not treated as such here.  And, yes it says "ZZ" in English on the title card, but in Katakana it says "Daburu Zeta".  Like in Gundam Wing - the title card says "W" in English but the katakana said "Uingu".  I am pretty sure we are calling it Wing for the article, so why not Double Zeta?  At the time I wrote the article I hadn't seen anything on gundamofficial.com.  Anyway, as I've said (or tried to say), the show title and the episode titles weren't the main point (and you'll note I did make some comments in the original talk page about episode translations); it was the episode descriptions and references that should still be in the current article.  I wasn't aware of any new guidelines concerning how summaries of episodes were to be written. JoeD80 (talk) 01:19, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Mobile Suit Gundam ZZ is the official English translation of the title, so that is what we are going with. The episode summaries need to be completely rewritten as they are terrible and wholey incomplete. Other then the airdates reference, I don't see any other references that should be kept. In fact, nothing else in the article is referenced. The lead will take all of the references, with the air dates being the only thing needing referenced on the list. --Farix (Talk) 01:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * What guidelines are these for the episode summaries? If there are guidelines not being followed, I would like to see them because I wasn't aware when I wrote them (and I sometimes do miss these things).  They are incomplete yes.  Terrible?  Well my writing varies.  I note that the summaries I wrote for Zeta still stand in the article, but perhaps they suck too.  On references, the director and writer credits taken from the title cards were there; if we don't need references for that, then fine, but on another TV show I was told we did need to reference that. TV Nagoya was also added as a reference, since that was the main network, but if we don't need it fine. JoeD80 (talk) 01:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Check the recent featured list promotions which are listed at WikiProject Anime and manga/News. One such example is List of Popotan episodes. --Farix (Talk) 02:22, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Lupin III
"tendentious editing will eventually result in you getting blocked" &mdash; is this supposed to be some kind of a threat? I would like to point out that I am the only consistent party in this discourse who has tried to come up with a compromise which will satisfy all parties, but have yet to see any kind of constructive contribution from User:Collectonian or User:Dandy Sephy whose policy appears to be to take information OUT of Wikipedia rather than IN.--Marktreut (talk) 19:39, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Giveit a rest will you. Don't presume to thnking you are making compromises for the benefit of the article, because you aren't. The compromises all support your complete lack of understanding over how sources work. Also don't dare suggest the people who actually fixed the issues with the page are harmng the article by objecting to your ridiculous twisting ofwhat sources actually say and your own personal belief. You've failed to address the concerns of 4 other editors, and ignored every single piece of advice, so dont act like you are acting in the best interest of the article, if youwere you would have dropped the issue or actually addressed the issue. Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:37, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

My Gundam Character Articles
You have my blessing to go ahead and merge any and all Gundam character articles I've started - Miguel Aiman, Katz Kobayashi, Rosamia Badam, Fa Yuiry, Paptimus Scirocco, Mouar Pharaoh, etc. - to their respective lists. I am in complete agreement that having character lists for each Gundam show is the best way to go. Shaneymike (talk) 14:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Delsort scripts
Hey Farix, I noticed that you tried my delsort script for awhile before switching back to the one you'd been using previously. I'm just curious what you thought of my script, why you switched back, and any suggestions you might have for improving it, if you don't mind. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:15, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It just simply didn't work. When I licked on the delsort tab, it would simply open an edit screen as if I had hit the edit tab instead. That's why I switch back. —Farix (t &#124; c) 21:17, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yep, that's a known bug - if you hit it again on the edit screen, it will work. In the meantime, I could probably hack a fix in by passing a parameter in the URL... Or I could just look at how Auto Ed does things (there's some other stuff I could steal from Auto Ed as well, I think). If I have a few minutes, I'll look at it before long. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 21:53, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've made some enhancements and bugfixes to the script (still haven't addressed the view --> edit problem; the code relating to that in AutoEd/core.js is seriously scaring me ;P ); would you care to give it another shot and provide some feedback (don't actually have to save anything; I find it's useful to open a random discussion and test with junk sortlists (asdfg and the like))? 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:40, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My ideal of a delsort script is clicking on at tab on an AfD discussion, either in edit or view mode, and it will pop up a screen giving me several preconfig groups to choose from. Then I can selected which groups I want and then click finish and the discussion is then sorted by the script. Something similar to how Friendly handles article tagging. —Farix (t &#124; c) 00:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, that's something of my own vision for an ideal delsort script; however, lack of skill in programming stifles my efforts at any "real" development. =( 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 18:16, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Shōnen to Inu
Please, don't undo my revisions on the article Shōnen to Inu. The book's right name is Shōnen to Inu. It was called "Ginga no Inutachi [Shōnen to Inu] Remix" when it was re-issued two years later. Thank you. - Nawulf (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you wish to have the page moved, then request a page move. However, the article's edit history must be preserved. —Farix (t &#124; c) 21:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * So in this wiki I can't move pages on my own? That's weird. Now I have to do it ALL OVER AGAIN, geez. Thanks alot... - Nawulf (talk) 11:22, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Since there is already a redirect at the location, you will have to make a request. Copy and pasting an article is not permitted as it breaks the article's edit history, and we need to preserve that history under GPL. —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:27, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And why are the images gone? - Nawulf (talk) 11:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Because they are not being used? BTW, only one image in appropriate to illustrate the article and identify the work. The second image would violate WP:NFCC. —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This really doesn't make me feel I'm welcomed to edit Wikipedia - all my edits are reverted and undone. I'm pretty upset right now. :( - Nawulf (talk) 11:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that, but we have very specific procedures about how pages are moved when can't be done through the normal move method. We also have rules relating to bold edits and editorial disputes. Since the article has been moved several times, then a discussion need to be held before another move takes place. —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:42, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Digimon articles
Hi TheFarix,

I am currently planning to do major cleanup of the Digimon character articles. Unfortunately, I am not completely familiar with the series and would like your input regarding the cleanup suggestions here (esp. #3). Thank you, G.A.S talk 05:43, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

EToP
What you're trying to add is a violation of WP:SYNTH, since you combine two pieces of information, which are, admittedly, reliably sourced, to reach a conclusion which isn't explicitly stated in the sources given. --75.50.52.103 (talk)


 * It is not synthesis to state that a manga that is ran in a magazine targeted to children is likewise targeted to children. Removing such verifiable information is vandalism and will result in your lose of editing privileges. —Farix (t &#124; c) 00:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Does CoroCoro ever specifically say "Pokémon is kodomo"? No, it doesn't, so using that as a source is a violation of WP:SYNTH since you have failed to provide a source which specifically states "Pokémon is kodomo". --75.50.52.103 (talk) 00:44, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't have to. It's stating the obvious. But your removing is vandalism. —Farix (t &#124; c) 00:46, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not vandalism since you've failed to provide a reliable source which specifically says "Pokémon is kodomo". "Stating the obvious" isn't a valid argument on Wikipedia, everything must be sourced. --75.50.52.103 (talk) 00:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The reliable source is the fact that it was serialized in a magazine targeted to children. What else would it a manga serialized in a childrens magazine be targeted to? —Farix (t &#124; c) 00:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's still WP:SYNTH, since, although one could assume that Pokémon is kodomo from that information, it isn't specifically stated, so it violates WP:SYNTH, WP:RS, and WP:V. --75.50.52.103 (talk) 00:51, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Stating the obvious is in not synthesis. Synthesis is when you "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." Only one source is used, the serialization in magazine itself, to back up the fact. —Farix (t &#124; c) 00:56, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I have read EToP. It is, most definitely, kodomo. -- as 72.251.164.58 (talk) 04:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

If I understand the argument correctly Farix is saying that because a cartoon is in a magazine targeted towards children then the cartoon itself is also targeted towards children. I would agree with that and do not think it needs to be sourced. RaseaC (talk) 20:47, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * This editor is, frankly, a vandal and has repeatedly attempted to vandalize these articles over a period of months, even nominating the magazine for deletion when he/she couldn't get his way. He/she was eventually indefinitely blocked under one account,, for vandalism. But I also see that they have renominated the magazine for deletion again. —Farix (t &#124; c) 21:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If that's true then open a sockpuppet investigation and request a checkuser, then report them to the admin noticeboard. There's no point in keeping up a revert war. RaseaC (talk) 21:22, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm just a head of you there. —Farix (t &#124; c) 21:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

@TheFarix Were you aware of that? --KrebMarkt 21:25, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Just a few minutes ago, but I'm not sure it is necessary to defend my actions, since I was clearly reverting vandalism and other editors have done the same. I have no idea why I'm the one being singled out. —Farix (t &#124; c) 21:27, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * You don't need to defend your actions, your edits talk for you and that user is doing its very best to get banned. --KrebMarkt 21:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

xxxHolic cover image

 * Off-topic comment: I replied for the xxxHolic cover. Feel free to upload a shinier version. Suspect the dark tone of the current cover due to the matte paper of the cover. I hope Del Rey covers are glossy. --KrebMarkt 21:41, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It's not glossy, but I don't think that will be a problem since the Rozen Maiden cover is the same way and it scanned in fine. Though I rather look for a better image of the Japanese cover first so minimize updates. —Farix (t &#124; c) 21:49, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I will try tp find another Japanese one first then i will return to you if i don't manage it. --KrebMarkt 21:59, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok. —Farix (t &#124; c) 22:07, 17 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Done a bit a delay due to a wikimedia bug but everything is fine now. --KrebMarkt 17:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Semi-Protection
I can semi-protect your user space for any length of time but note that this will block all ips and users who are not autoconfirmed from editing, which is fine for your user page but not ideal for your user talk page. Just say the word.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:40, 18 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems to be fixed. It was Ranma Saotome page that was brought to the attention of WT:ANIME. —Farix (t &#124; c) 22:42, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Mergefrom
Can you point to an problem page? Rgds, Rich Farmbrough, 22:37, 18 September 2009 (UTC).

Pokémon Pocket Monsters
The content you inserted to the page Pokémon Pocket Monsters was clearly meant as a personal attack against the members of such forums as [] and []. --70.245.189.21 (talk) 22:45, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
Ost (talk) 20:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)
 * —Ost (talk) 21:03, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Infobox
Can you update the documentation to reflect your changes to the template? Thanks BOVINEBOY 2008 ) 13:13, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing the new SJ titles
Do you know if these two sources would count as reliable sources?
 * http://natalie.mu/comic/news/show/id/21144
 * http://gigazine.net/index.php?/news/comments/20090917_sket_dance/
 * They were the only hits on Google News for Rilienthal - both are very recent
 * http://natalie.mu/comic/news/show/id/20840 - This was the only hit for Hokenshitsu no Shinigami - this is recent too
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 23:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can confirm that Rilienthal title, "SUPER DOG RILIENTHAL" appeared in the week 43's Shonen Jump, on page 115. Akata (talk) 00:49, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * http://natalie.mu appears to be a blog, but I would recommend someone who can read Japanese be consoled. http://gigazine.net also seems to follow a blog pattern as well. Right now, I wouldn't label them as reliable based on appearances, but another editor needs to check out the content and status of the authors as experts. —Farix (t &#124; c) 01:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Hounding
Administrators'_noticeboard - I started this. WhisperToMe (talk) 01:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Semiprotection
I've semiprotected your user and talk page for two months, per your request on ANI. Here's hoping you don't mind my wikistalking =D 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 17:08, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

you make no sense
inone article you prefer WP:BOOK, and on the other you choose to ignore it>Bread Ninja (talk) 23:59, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Kaitō OR and personal opinion claims
I'm a bit confused with your claims made in the AFD for the former article Kaitō. The OR and personal opinion claims you cite as the main reasons for deletion was IMHO never substantiated and easily and totally refuted by noting the fact that characters are labeled in the stories themselves as kaitō characters. In other words, the authors of these works are specifically using this term in their fictional works. Where is there room for OR or personal opinion when this is defined within these works by the authors?

Also, your last comment in the AFD seems to claim that a definition is not provided for kaitō when earlier in the discussion I provided URLs to Yahoo! Dictionary definitions. Maybe you missed this. Otherwise, I don't see why this was rebuffed in your last comment without any explanation whatsoever. —Tokek (talk) 09:16, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yahoo! Dictionary isn't a reliable source because its contents comes from Wikipeda in the first place. But also, Wikipedia articles should not be mere definitions, but provide information about the topic as well. You didn't provide a reliable source for a definition, but only a translation of the term. Also, none of the examples were even sited by reliable third-party sources. That means their use as example can be challenged and removed if no sources are provided. Simply saying "sources exists" doesn't cut it on Wikipedia. —Farix (t &#124; c) 20:00, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yahoo! Dictionary cites that the Japanese dict. entry for kaitō comes from Daijisen while the Japanese-to-English dict. entry for kaitō comes from Shogakukan Progressive Japanese-English Dictionary. Wikipedia was not referenced. However, I agree that just because it is a dictionary entry doesn't mean it is Wikipedia worthy. —Tokek (talk) 00:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Love Hina album prods
I was actually planning to merge these to a album list at some point, and adding the other music releases too. Would removng the prod and adding a mergeto tag so I can sandbox such an article first be acceptable to you? I could probably move it to mainspace at the weekend in a fairly developed state. I'd rather not make a sloppy page In a hurry just to get it done - that would just make it more work to fix later. I'm surprised you didn't mention it to me. Dandy Sephy (talk) 11:47, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I would actually advice against a disography articles. It's my opinion that the main article sufficiently covers the sound tracks already and the track list isn't really worth keeping. —Farix (t &#124; c) 16:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can't really agree with that, all it covers is names and release dates. Minimal coverage at best. I believe I can expand coverage enough to warrant a separate article - 13 soundtracks is quite a bit. I think the question of the track list being worth keeping is a matter of debate, I'm not seeing a reason to not to do so in a larger article covering multiple works. There are a few well done discographys in the project (including one at FLC that should pass based on the current status), I don't see how this will be any different once the work has been put into it. I value your opinion, but I don't agree with it on this particular matter. That said, you haven't said if you would object to deprodding based on them being merged inside a short period of time (unless your advice was a hint at your response). But then, I would have redirected them if I wasn't looking at a discog. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

US English templates
"(Reverted 1 edit by WhisperToMe; Don't randomly add this template"

I am not "randomly" adding the template. I am asserting the choice that the article should use US English; Since many anime and manga series have been generally published out of the United States, in my opinion generally these articles should lean towards US English. Ideally a subject should pick one kind of English, declare it, and stick with it. In most cases where there is no previously declared "standard" of English, the first established language choice is the choice taken by the article. WhisperToMe (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * It is completely unnecessary and arbitrary. We already have guidelines to prevent editors from switching from one style to another. We shouldn't be further cluttering up talk pages with this useless and ugly template. —Farix (t &#124; c) 23:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you feel the template is inherently unhelpful, your should nominate all of them for deletion. I doubt it will be successful, but until/unless that happens it would be best to keep those templates. In the meantime it is common for new articles about sudden current events to almost immediately get a language template. If you feel the templates are useless, go to Template talk:Varieties of English templates and add a deletion nomination template asking for the deletion of all of the templates. If your deletion nomination succeeds, then the templates will disappear. If your deletion nomination does not succeed, I will restore the templates to the articles. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:50, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding the template simply because they were published in the US is a rather questionable reason for adding the template. The articles don't appear to have any strong leanings towards either style, so why does it need the template? Theres no need to suggest deleting the template completely, it just isn't needed on these pages. The point about new articles on current events has no bearing here, on articles about series this old. I don't understand the insistence on using this template when there is no clear issue about the writing style on the pages that needs addressing (and if any issue exists, it's better to fix it). Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:22, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Dandy Sephy, the way ENGVAR works is that one style of English is chosen, and the article follows that style consistently. It is a matter of picking one style and sticking with it. At some point every article on Wikipedia will need one of the templates. The issue is that inherently there needs to be one style of English chosen for those articles. It is not possible to say "these articles need the tags, but these one's don't" - Either every article needs a template, or no article has the template. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thats a pretty rubbish reasoning if you ask me. "At one point every article will need it", is a baseless claim. You are trying to highlight an issue that does not exist. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:37, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * My reasoning is clearly based in Wikipedia's Manual of Style. ENGVAR says: "Each article should consistently use the same conventions of spelling, grammar, and punctuation. For example, these should not be used in the same article: center and centre; insofar and in so far; em dash and spaced en dash (see above). The exceptions are:" The issue does exist because the manual of style requires articles to have internal consistency. ENGVAR also says that articles need to be consistent. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say spam talk pages with a really pointless template that has no purpose. It would be like sticking language=English on references. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 03:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the template removals. I noticed it on another article and removed it. I see no validity in even having American English since most of the guidelines regarding grammar and the like make it pretty clear, IMHO, that American English is the default for all articles. The others I can see being useful on specific articles where another variety is used but there are issues with people changing it. This is not a problem on any anime/manga article that I am aware of, and really on any article that I've seen. I've yet to see anyone running through an article and switching it from American English unless it shouldn't be using it in the first place. I started to TfD that particular one, but got distracted. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 03:43, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that US English should be used as the standard for most of these articles. I encourage you to start a TFD involving the entire series of templates. Either they are helpful everywhere, or nowhere. I think a TFD will help resolve the dispute. WhisperToMe (talk) 03:50, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually, templates can be useful only in some places, its not necessary to remove the template just because it's not a "catch all" template. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * So, are you are saying is these templates are only useful in some scenarios? If so, which scenarios and why? WhisperToMe (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think the entire series needs deleted, only the American one. There are appropriate times for some of the others, particularly the British one where a series has aired in both countries and American fans want to change the spellings. The American one, though, is seems really pointless as it should be the default and therefore should not need declaring. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 03:56, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * In that case nominate the American template only. WhisperToMe (talk) 04:03, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * If you really feel this template should be added to every Wikipedia article talk page, why don't you start an RfC at the village pump? —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:12, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * First I want to see how Collectonian's proposed TFD works. Then if her TFD fails, I suppose I could do an RFC for the general templates. If her TFD succeeds, I would do an RFC for the remaining templates. I also have to see what any previous discussions say about the templates. However I do want to add a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style in the meantime. WhisperToMe (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * This is a template searching for a problem, which does not exist. No one is going around changing the style of English from American to British or vice versa on anime and manga articles. In fact, you do not even see this on most Wikipedia articles. Moreover, those rare editors who are likely to switch and article from one style to another are not going to give a damn about this template. As others and I have said, this template is unnecessary and should not be added to article talk pages just for the heck of it.


 * In many ways, it screams ownership for a particular language. Second, it clutters up the talk page with no benefit to the article or its talk page. Third, it may actually stifle contributions by editors who are not familiar with a particular style of English and discussions about which style of English is most appropriate for the article.


 * We don't slap a talkheader to every talk page unless there is a clear problem. The same should go for these templates. This template should not be added "just because". —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:02, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I looked at Talk page templates and some other pages to see whether the community encourages templates only to be used when there is a problem - It doesn't say anything about the matter
 * The "English variety" templates say "According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus." - Editors who want to switch from one style to another are obligated to pay attention to the template, and the template instructs them to try to gain consensus
 * Regarding WP:OWN, WP:ENGVAR instructs "This guideline should not be used to claim national ownership of certain articles; see WP:OWN." - ENGVAR does not mention "language ownership," but it warns against "national ownership"
 * While you and some other editors felt that the templates were not necessary, the exact details differ, so I think a discussion at manual of style may be the best way to deal with it.
 * I am going to start a discussion first at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style - EDIT: Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style
 * WhisperToMe (talk) 17:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion is underway at the talk page. Two editors have responded. One editor who responded said that there wouldn't be a reason to object to the adding of the template unless someone wants to switch to a different version of English anyway. The other respondent is neutral. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

dePRODing of articles
Hello TheFarix, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD templates you added to a number of articles were removed:
 * PROD removed from Love Hina - Hinata Girls Song Best, by User:159.182.1.4, with summary '(no edit summary)'
 * PROD removed from Love Hina - Hinata Girls Song Best 2, by User:159.182.1.4, with summary '(no edit summary)'

Please consider discussing your concerns with the relevant users before pursuing deletion further. If you still think the articles should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may send them to WP:AfD for community discussion. Thank you - SDPatrolBot (talk) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 20:15, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

AFD
It's only fair to alert you that I have made what might be take as strong exceptions to some of your earlier actions with the Kemonomimi article at Articles for deletion/List of Kemonomimi. I understand they were done in good faith to do what you think was improving Wikipedia, and I urge you not to think I intended to say otherwise.  DGG ( talk ) 19:58, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

An article whose AFD you participated in before is up at AFD again
The article Kemonomimi has been nominated for AFD a second time. I'm contacting every editor who participated in the first one, since if they were interested in it that time, they'd probably want to know the same exact article is being targeted once again.  D r e a m Focus  03:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Template:Ann
Hi Farix, I just got done tweaking and adding to your work on Template:Ann/sandbox and deployed it after testing on the testcases page - any thoughts? I also left a couple of thoughts on the talk page. Cheers! 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 22:03, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Added my comments. —Farix (t &#124; c) 13:15, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Responded. 「 ダイノ ガイ 千？！ 」? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000 16:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Help with Vivek Kundra
A very persistent COI editor who insists on the removal of negative information under the premise that it is "malicious". Assistance would be appreciated. -Reconsider the static (talk) 13:09, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Contact WP:COIN about the issue. I'm not sure why you specifically contacted me for this as that article isn't in my general field of interest and I've never edited that article before. —Farix (t &#124; c) 13:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Women at Work, misc Anime stubs
Hello--

I saw that you'd completely overhauled the Women at Work page and that you agree the PROD should be off. I'm the one that originally tagged it... this might have gotten a little confusing so I wanted to make sure there was no misunderstanding. When the article was created I caught it on new pages log in its original and extremely... odd state. It was entirely about formatting and 100% lack of anything, and even though the content itself was an unconventional format and not at all Wikified I know that's not grounds to PROD. Actually, it was the sort of time when I had absolutely no idea how to fully describe what I wanted to put in as comments, so I spat out the first generically-reasonable thing I thought of. It was the sort of article I imagine being on tests and in training for new admins just to see what they do with it. Anyway, the tag had nothing to do with its category, subject matter, project, impressions, etc., and I was actually really glad to see it got proper attention by someone who turned it into the stub it probably should have already been. Only reason I want to be sure is because you left as an edit summary that the article should be taken to AfD in the future, so I'm concerned you were thinking it was likely. ...If it ever is, it certainly won't be me, and I'll gladly stumble over and ask someone why they're marking a perfectly-normal stub with proper format to be deleted or discussed. The impression I kind of got was that you might get at least some editors that come in and go over Hental policy or discussion merely for the sake of it and you wanted to make sure everything was completely clear in case of later confusion. On the contrary-- if you point out places cruel vandals and pranksters come in the Anime and Manga Portal, I'll gladly help watch pages and storm over in a huff over if someone is trying to misbehave. Cheers~ Datheisen (talk) 06:40, 26 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The Dutch review needs a closer examination to determine its reliability. That will require more investigation then what prod process will offer. That is why I removed the original tag. I rewrote the article because it appeared to have been a translation of the Dutch review, and thus violated copyright. It's still not clear if the subject passes WP:NOTE, so it is still likely to be deleted. However, it must now go to AfD where the sources can be better evaluated. Also, WP:ANIME rarely has problems with "cruel vandals and pranksters" interfering in the AfD process. —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:24, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

·
What was that thing that you suggested I do such that the katakana middle dot is not replaced wholesale on Wikipedia with the interpunct?— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 06:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Notification of message
A message to you was posted at New contributors' help page with a request to pass it on to you. A request was also made to post it to another talk page; I will leave it to you to decide if this is necessary. --A Knight Who Says Ni (talk) 02:48, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

List of Toradora! episodes FLC
Can you revisit Featured list candidates/List of Toradora! episodes/archive1? Thanks Extremepro (talk) 09:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Deprecated
Since the publisher_other/network_other params have been deprecated, shouldn't you update your AWB task to not add it? Also, its adding in blank params that really shouldn't be there, like published where there are first/last dates. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm simply subset the existing template. There is no way I can tell if those fields are used or not. —Farix (t &#124; c) 02:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That's leaving a lot of clean up behind to do to remove all those unnecessary ones, especially title -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:34, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It can't be helped. But it's not a big deal either. —Farix (t &#124; c) 02:35, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Its quite aggravating for those doing the clean up, and seems pretty unnecessary. It is entirely possible to just do the changes needed without substituting the template, so that only the appropriate bits are changed. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 02:39, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the easiest way to do it while fixes ordering and formatting issues at the same time. —Farix (t &#124; c) 02:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * It may be the easiest for you, but its extremely annoying for those of us having to go remove all the extraneous stuff it dumps in. Doing some simple find/replaces would be a much better way of doing this with AWB, without causing so much aggrevation. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 17:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Bakugan Battle Brawlers GAN
Please do not remove GAN templates from talk pages simply because they have not been reviewed. Some GANs aren't reviewed for well over 100 days. ɳ OCTURNE ɳ OIR talk //  contribs 00:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"Live action film is not within Anime/Manga projects scope."
What about the Death Note movie article? --DrBat (talk) 00:27, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * It's far too much of a stretch. Death Note is an anime and manga franchise, with a manga series, an anime TV series, two anime films, and several games. Live action works are only part of WP:ANIME's scope if they are part of a larger anime and manga franchise. MW, on the other hand, isn't part of a franchise. —Farix (t &#124; c) 00:40, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Kiss All the Boys
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Kiss All the Boys. Because you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedily deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. --Malkinann (talk) 21:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Naruto shippuuden episode
Thanks for the clarification. I've deleted it. Ged UK  08:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Revert of Decodet's comment
I notice you [ reverted a comment made by Decodet at Talk:New Cutie Honey]. This is partially my fault: I had started to add a link there after my name in my signature, in the hopes that someone would help the article further. Since it's confused at least one person (Decodet probably wanted my talk page), I've removed it now. --an odd name 03:05, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Infobox check?
Hi, could you please check Junior Escort's infobox for me? I've had a bit of a mental block on creating the article because of the infobox (I think it's like the Twilight series - the first book names the series and the others each have their own names). I'm not sure if I've got it right. :/ I've been listing notable yaoi series at WP:ANIME/REQUEST to counter systemic bias against female-oriented manga series and I realised that if I didn't create the article because I was leery of the infobox, then I'd be creating a systemic bias all on my own against series that are more complex in their media structure than a oneshot. If you could double-check the infobox for me, that would be really helpful. :) Thanks!  --Malkinann (talk) 22:35, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/RGM-89 Jegan (2nd nomination)
An AFD you participated, is again up for deletion for the second time. Ikip (talk) 03:28, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009
Reverting my recent edits to DearS was blatantly inane. Not only did you further orphan List of DearS episodes and List of DearS characters, the previous article has no cited sources (tagged since August 2008) and the characters section has tags from December 2008 for Neutral point of view and Accuracy dispute which I cleaned up. As for your "Please see WP:RM" comment, the first sentence in section three states '"If the move you are suggesting is uncontroversial (e.g. spelling and capitalization), please feel free to move the page yourself." and even then in Help: Moving a page it again, reiterates "Pages may be moved to a new title if the previous name is inaccurate, incomplete, or misleading." There was absolutely nothing controversial about moving the article from Dears to DearS in order to correct the name. Next time you go around policing innocent changes, read over your own material. Valce (talk) 05:40, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You do not use copy and past an article to move an article. It breaks the article's edit history and violates the MOS:TM which states, "Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting 'official'", so it's not an uncontroversial move. The uppercase S at the end is purely a stylistic choice by the publisher. —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:14, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Anime Expo
Thought you'd find it interesting that the editor trying to add that RS is claiming we both reverted him because we have a COI as we "attended" it (which I never have myself, likely never would as its not my thing) Help desk -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 23:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Where did the COI claim come from? I've never been to AX, never even stated being to AX, and probably never attend AX will do to the expense and distance. Even Otakon is a bit of a stretch for me, and that is much, much closer. —Farix (t &#124; c) 23:33, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No idea. He seems to just be making up excuses for why his non-reliable source was rejected. -- Collectonian  (talk · contribs) 23:38, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

List of Martian Successor Nadesico characters
FWIW, as far as I'm concerned, you can merge them all right away (although I do hope you won't trim too much). I'm not sure there are any active Nadesico editors who haven't seen the notices over the 2 or 3 weeks they've been up now. --Gwern (contribs) 13:41 14 September 2009 (GMT)

Your edit to 1/2 Prince
If that was not the correct infobox for it then why didn't you put the correct infobox in there? Since that article is in need of some more experienced users to add in proper information like infoboxes. I find it kind of rude for you to just go, oh, that's not the right infobox, and delete it and then just leave it at that. At least I was trying to complete the article to the best of my abilities. But, I am not going to be angry with you since it will get me nowhere. All I ask is that since you seem to know infoboxes, that you put in the correct infobox with all the data entered since you had deleted what I worked on. The Sapphire Dragon (talk) 20:22, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The animanga infobox that you added to the article is specifically meant for anime and manga articles and automatic categorizes articles based on some of the parameters and components. It is not to be placed non-manga articles as this will result in the article being mis-categorize and mis-labeled. I'm not sure which the correct infobox for Taiwanese's comics is, but you may want to look at the Comics Wikiproject for pointers. —Farix (t &#124; c) 20:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I did find the correct infobox, well at least I hope it is the correct one and I guess I'll just go in and fill out everything again. And of course I see other things have been deleted too. Can't you people help? Not just delete? Obviously the page needs work not just someone to come along and delete what is wrong.The Sapphire Dragon (talk) 20:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Ack,, my skeleton is showing!!!!
Salutations, Farix!!! I am glad to see that you are doing very well for yourself considering your recent handiwork on [Gokinjo_Monogatari_Exposition_Table|this article}; while there was no significant damage done, there is the necessity of explaining that the reason that I hid away Episode 22+ is because I have not seen past Episode 21 and thus cannot add synopses past that point. It is not for any other reason. I just came across Episodes 22 through 26 tonight when I got home; as soon as I watch them, I will add in the synopses.

If you have any questions, please contact me on my talk page.

Dairi no Kenkyo (talk) 03:29, 4 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I've undone the hiding of episodes past 22. There is no reason to hid this information from an episode list. If we already know the episode titles and airdates, then then should be viable. This encourages other editors to expand and fill in the gaps if they have seen the episodes. The current episode summaries do look a little long. I would suggest keeping them between 100 to 200 words, depending on the complexity of the episode. —Farix (t &#124; c) 11:48, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks
Hi, I just want to say thank you for the very kind things you have said on my behalf. Your thoughtful involvement has been one of the few highlights of this flawed situation. --Tryptofish (talk) 14:34, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * And I just want to say that I truly don't mean anything negative towards you by what I just said at ANI. I hope you don't mind, truly. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, again, for the new thread at ANI, which you articulated much better than I have been doing. It's unfortunate that this mess has now become so much a part of your talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my oversights
without making a fuss about it here and here. &mdash; Sebastian 20:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Re:Deletion of the RX-93 Nu Gundam image
Thank your for the notification, it means a lot to me. I see that the image is no longer needed, so you may delete it whenever you get the chance. TomStar81 (Talk) 15:50, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Harvard style references
I'm trying your suggestion about formatting the references at Crucifixion in art, but I'm stumped by one part of it. What do I put into the first cite, so that the subsequent cites anchor back to it? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)


 * The templates should automatically create the anchor. Just include last and date or year in the citation template. The harvard style reference will anchor to those LASTNAME YEAR combinations. You can review Manga to see how it all fits together. There are also a few examples where the author's name is missing and you have to manually create anchors. —Farix (t &#124; c) 23:43, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Heads up
Your diff on Clannad (visual novel) also served to kill all the headers.--  十  八  08:13, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Cavities from Brain Food
Farix:

I am glad that you are taking an interest in my handiwork. However, I am perplexed at a revision you have recently made here at 0:41 on December 14, 2009. The edit summary »(rm blacklisted website that somehow got past the filters, also remove link to ANN episode page which fails WP:EL)« leaves me with more questions than answers.


 * 1) Why is this website blacklisted?  There is also the mention of filters that I need explained more fully . . . at any rate, what is it about the anidb.net website that elicits Wikipedia's scorn?  Believe it or not, that website is where I found the maiden air dates.


 * 1) What aspects of WP:EL does this website run afoul of?

I do not know if this has been explained to you, but this article has been tagged for lack of references by Ninja neko at 05:30 on September 21, 2007. I began contributing to that article back on July 20, 2009 and found it with that »lack of references« tag on there. I made my first attempt at providing the needed reference on August 4, 2009 @ 07:33 even though I was a bit clumsy with the syntax. I humbly and openly acknowledge that fact and my human fallibility when you deleted my reference attempt on October 22, 2009 @ 21:00. I gave it another attempt on November 11, 2009 @ 19:27 and thought that I did rather well; it seems like I am the only one with that perspective. If I made a mistake with the syntax that I used for the references, it would have been far more productive if you explained that to me on my talk page instead of simply deleting it out of hand with no explanation at all. Even a blistering reproof cursing me out of my given and family names six ways from Sunday up one side the mountain and down the next would have done the trick. . . Juhachi does that to me with such frequency and ferocity that I find myself wondering why I am his vendetta at times and if the injunction against biting the newcomers has any meaning at all.

I wonder if Juhachi will ever acknowledge my growing proficiency in writing »bang for the buck« episode summaries; still, I am not going to put my life on hold waiting for this to come about. Part of my contributions include improving on my own handiwork; this can be sped up with constructive criticism detailing how best to improve. I am overjoyed at your acknowledgment of my good faith, Farix; I really do want to help Wikipedia and I look forward to your reply on my talk page.

Dairi no Kenkyo (talk) 02:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Generation X and Generation Y pages - Manga deleted from Pop Culture
Hello. I was wondering if you could get in on the discussion for the Pop Culture references on the Generation X and Generation Y pages. Someone added manga to the Generation Y page with a source that mentioned the boom of Manga/anime with the Generation X and Generation Y members. On the Generation Y page, Generation X wasn't mentioned, so I added that since it is referenced in the source given. I also added a mention of Manga/anime to the Generation X page. I plan on expanding on that in the Pop Culture section, and welcome others to as well, since it is a sparse section. However, today a non-registered user just deleted the information for no reason. I re-added it to both article pages, but Arthur Rubin keeps reverting my edits. I have asked him to removing the manga reference on the pages, but he won't stop. I would like to ask you and others to perhaps join in a real discussion on this topic, because there was none, despite what Arthur Rubin says. You can see my contributions and see the Manga - This is dumb section of the Generation X page, Arthur Rubin's talk page, as well as the Generation Y page for my comments.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 02:08, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I added another comment to the page, after changing the section to Manga - this is dumb, for easier reference. I thank you for your contribution and advice. Please check out my other references, especially the book. Would this book be a good one to add as a reference, as it reflects the dates for Generation X and Generation Y.--CreativeSoul7981 (talk) 02:42, 26 December 2009 (UTC)