User talk:TheFarix/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Warning vandals

I have undid your warning of User talk:71.243.223.66 as the warning was the "only warning". Do not make warnings like this if you are not an administrator. I suggest you restrict yourself to the first two warning levels, and then stop there. Use common sense when warning users. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:22, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing that restricts any level of warning of vandals, especially from IPs whose only edits have been vandalism, to just administrators. Your revert is completely uncalled for and without merit. --Farix (Talk) 06:25, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It's my common sense. Don't try and mislead users into believing you are an administrator. Instead, take the report to WP:AIV. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

If the editor continues to vandalize then it will be reported to WP:AIV. But an WP:AIV report without a fresh warning would be ignored. And giving an only warning is not pretending to be an admin. --Farix (Talk) 06:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

But the warnings tell the user that they will be blocked if they continue to vandalize. That is why I consider it misleading. Blocking tools are restricted to administrators. Try not to "pretend" to be an admin, okay?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:31, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The warning does not imply that I am and admin nor was pretending to be on. Now will you restore the warning before I take the matter to WP:ANI for legitimizing vandalizm? --Farix (Talk) 06:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

You had no business making that strong of a warning. Post a new warning, but do not imply you can block the editor. Leave level 3, 4 and 4im type of warnings to administrators. I know, many non-administrators use those leveled warnings, but they are not using good common sense. Also, I'm not legitimizing vandalism. I'm trying to get you to use your common sense. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:43, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

These warnings are not restricted to administrators and never have been. Nor do you have a legitimate right to remove the warnings from someone else's talk page. To do so is also a form of vandalism. --Farix (Talk) 06:47, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

How is it a form of vandalism? I'm trying to enforce common sense. Just because something is allowed doesn't mean that common sense doesn't prohibit it. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:48, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Just because you think regular editors should not issuing this level of warning doesn't mean that it is prohibited. Also, warnings should not be removed from talk pages unless it is by the editor receiving the warning or the warning is invalid. To remove valid warnings from someone else's talk page is a vandalism. --Farix (Talk) 06:53, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Show me where Wikipedia says that my removal was vandalism. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 06:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:TALK which specifically prohibits editors from editing or removing comments that are (a) not made by them and (b) not on their talk page. While there are a few exceptions, none of the reasons you stated are covered. Only the IP editor may legitimately remove the warning, and that's taken as a sign that the editor has received the warning. --Farix (Talk) 07:04, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Again, you had absolutely no business making that strong of a warning. In the future, do not make that strong of warnings without being an administrator. I've been saying it time and time again. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 13:10, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I will give any level of warning I feel is appropriate for the situation. And you have no right or authority to telling me which levels of warnings I may or may not give. --Farix (Talk) 13:13, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Use your common sense. Another thing I've been repeating. It is important to use your common sense. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 13:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I am using my common sense. Now why don't you uses your common sense and drop the topic. --Farix (Talk) 13:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

What part of I'm using my common sense do you not understand?. —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 13:18, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Apparently, it's your intent to keep harassing me over nothing. Do you not have something better to do? --Farix (Talk) 13:20, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I have something better to do, such as fight vandalism (which I was recently doing). But I'm not walking away from this discussion. I found your warning through recent changes while I was fighting vandalism today. Do not make users think you can block them. That would be like me saying to another user "if you continue to abuse your talk page, it will be protected". —Mythdon (talk • contribs) 13:24, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Get off your high horse. I didn't not state that I was an admin, nor did I state that I would block the person. The warning was not inappropriate given the history of the IP nor are certain warning levels reserved for admins only. Now drop the topic since we are not getting anywhere or you will be reported for harassment. --Farix (Talk) 13:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

← FWIW, if anyone is interested in hearing a third opinion on this: any editor can of course issue warnings. Admins are no different than any other editor in that respect, and as he points out, properly warning users is typically a prerequisite to an ANI report. Farix also was quite certainly not impersonating an admin. Quite the opposite, he was using the standard user warning template, which is used throughout the project and was carefully designed.
However, I too consider the warning a little over the top in this particular case. I see the history of the (semi-static) IP with this article, he has made the same edit before, and other similar questionable edits too. However, I don't see that this was a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia, so I would have just undone and notified him that he was changing the meaning of the quotation. No need to bite so hard, in particular since he hasn't been editing for three weeks prior to this.
Cheers, Amalthea 14:42, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox music DVD

Hi
Concerning the Infobox music DVD issue, are you going to take care of this? Cause if not then somebody else will have to.
Cheers, Amalthea 14:17, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I simply can't find a pattern to track down and fix the errors. --Farix (Talk) 15:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, I think you already got them all. I just searched and all that google had cached are already fixed, so I guess it's OK.
Thanks, Amalthea 16:11, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

It seems that only the infoboxes that had a comment after the initial template deceleration didn't get WP:SUBST properly. For some reason MediaWiki gets confused by the comment. That's probably a good reason to remove those comments in the future or move them somewhere else. --Farix (Talk) 18:27, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, that's very good to know. I remember that I had something similar happening to me once, but didn't know what caused it. Thanks & Cheers, Amalthea 18:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Answer: Shugo Chara!

I explain: In the "Soul Eater" was so messy that I had to intervene. Already in the other, I made only small changes. Thank you for warning. Anime & Manga thinks about? Bruno Leonard (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Sekirei

Be more accurate. Alex Spade (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Odyssey Con

Hi. I happened to randomly come across another Sci Fi conference that appears to be non-notable and nominated it for deletion. Unlike the deletion discussion for MatsuriCon, this one was contested immediately. I don't know if you have a view on this conference, or if if you find the logic for the keep !vote persuasive, but you may wish to add your views to the AfD. Rgds, Bongomatic 03:40, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

For your hardwork on anime articles

		The Manga and Anime BarnSakura Award
		I award you this barnsakura! Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:02, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Kono Aozora ni Yakusoku wo: Yōkoso Tsugumi Ryō e

A tag has been placed on Kono Aozora ni Yakusoku wo: Yōkoso Tsugumi Ryō e, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it appears to be a redirect to itself.

If you can fix this redirect to point to an existing Wikipedia page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you also fix the redirect. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Metropolitan90 (talk) 16:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Anime and Manga MoS's Notability Statement

I think you have the project talk page on your watchlist, but just in case not, I thought you might want to know I've started a discussion regarding the claimed 6th notability standard at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#WP:MOS-AM and Notability. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on a response right now. --Farix (Talk) 16:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Again. Shugo Chara!

I guess I should have given more examples than that. See also List of Bleach episodes (season 2), and so on and so forth, List of Fullmetal Alchemist episodes, List of InuYasha episodes (season 1), and so on and so forth. You're completely styling them wrong. moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 03:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The reference used on Shugo Chara! doesn't translate the titles. moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 03:48, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

"Things were just fine the way they were" isn't a valid reason. You should follow the format used by other anime episode lists. moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 03:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

There is no style guideline suggesting that the song translations should come last. How song translations are styled on one article has no barring on others. In fact, there is no "wrong way" of styling these titles. You simply changed it to your preferred style, I've reverted it. Leave it at that. --Farix (Talk) 04:09, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

It's not "my preffered style". It's consistency. moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 04:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

And that's not what the reference says. moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 04:15, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

The reference confirms the titles. That's all that is needed. And the format is consistent between all three articles. If you really want to codify that style, then suggest it to the wikiproject or a MOS. Otherwise, it is simply your preferred style. --Farix (Talk) 04:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

As said by Collectonian, translating of Japanese titles can be confusing, and can cause an unaware reader to think that the title was officially released in an English speaking country, when it wasn't. It's not only for consistency. Why are you only doing this on this article, and not on all the other ones? It just doesn't make sense. Just because there isn't a guideline or policy on it, doesn't mean it should be your way. Just follow the examples of other articles. moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 04:29, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I engaged in an edit war with you, I'll just leave it alone, as it seems like neither of us are going to win. I hope that there aren't any bad feelings between you and me, and goodbye. moocowsrule^{talk to moo} 04:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Another AWB request

I was wondering if you'd like to take a crack at writing an AWB script to convert chapter lists from the older format to {{Graphic novel list}}. Specifically, I'm asking about converting List of JoJo's Bizarre Adventure chapters, but we actually have a surprising number of chapter lists that have yet to be converted. Thanks in advance! 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:00, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Reather then AWB, that looks more like a task for an editor like EditPro. It will probably be safer to do it that way since you can preview the changes and fix them. --Farix (Talk) 20:02, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm... actually, I've gotten that response before. My problem is that I don't know enough about scripting, and don't really have the time to investigate it now (if I had my own computer, on the other hand...). I don't suppose you would be willing to do some work on this for me? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 02:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Anime St. Louis... again

Hey. You've been amazing help in the past, and I was wondering if you might meander over to the page for Anime St. Louis and check it out again. We're having another problem with a user who is a member of the splinter group convention vandalizing our article. Luckily now, we have our information on our official website, including a more detailed history and FAQ.

If you'd be willing to do some work on the article, using information from animestl.net... well... you'd be my hero. xD

And thanks again for the help in the past. Fatebringer (talk) 17:37, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Purple Eyes in the Dark issues

Leaving aside that tagging it this quickly seems a bit premature, since it's manifestly still under construction -- a question about the tags: What, in particular, are you suggesting should be prose instead of list? (The only lists are there by templates designed specifically to present that information in lists.) Also, for publication/release information, what else other than primary sources should be used? Dates are like credits for a movie -- if there's nothing contraversial, at any rate, since all third parties would be using the production info anyway. (Or maybe you wanted additional references? The drama is, so far, significantly underreferenced.) —Quasirandom (talk) 22:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Arina Tanemura

For the bibliography, I added the months because, for a serialized work, it seemed really inaccurate to just list one year of publication instead of the actual months-year span for the title. I can see that it can appeared cluttered, so any ideas on a way to customize the general MoS suggestion to better convey that information? Maybe footnotes? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 17:06, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Many cases, dates can be too specific. And this is one case where dates being too specific is detrimental to the overall list. Also, most list of works only list the first year the work was released, even when the work is a series, in instead of a range of years or including the months as well. Both ANN and IMDB only lists the first year when the give a list of works and I do not see why Wikipedia should be any more specific then then those. --Farix (Talk) 18:08, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Because...we're supposed to be better? :P Particular for lists like those where most of the works do not have any notability and won't have articles of their own. But can also see what you mean...guess it doesn't matter either way, not like that will ever be above a stub anyway. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 20:51, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Akane-chan Overdrive

I don't know why you redirected this without discussion or explanation, I have undone it. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 23:23, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Because just like Lilim Kiss the manga only ran for a short time nor did it generate any reviews that can be found. So it was redirected to the author's article instead of put it up for deletion. But if you are going to dispute the redirect, I'll consider sending it to AfD. --Farix (Talk) 23:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

If you can find two or more reviews of other the work or other significant coverage, then you can restore the article with the reviews. Otherwise, leave it as a redirect. --Farix (Talk) 23:56, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with this

{{tl:articleissues|fansite=January 2009|notability=January 2009|plot=January 2009|primarysources=January 2009}}

Seriously, there is very little chance to non that there will be any other reliable sources except for the show itself. This of course holds true for most anime. As such taging it as having insufficient sources and looking like a "fansite" is kind of pointless. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thronedrei (talk • contribs) 22:31, February 2, 2009 (UTC)

And this is in reference to? --Farix (Talk) 22:34, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The Andrei Smirnov article, but while we are at it I don't agree with this one either:

(cur) (prev) 01:59, 5 February 2009 TheFarix (Talk | contribs) (13,914 bytes) (Reverted to revision 268249463 by TheFarix; problems still exists. (TW)) (undo)

(The Trinity Article)

Please be more specific in your comments. It is very hard to fix problems if you don't go into more detail on exactly what you see as a problem.

Sorry, seems my "talk" got all screwed up when I edited it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thronedrei (talk • contribs)

First, sign your posts. Second, the tags should explain themselves. That is why the tags link to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. But if you still have a question as to why a certain tag was applied, then ask about it. But I've already explain the details behind the tags at Talk:List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 characters#Character Article Improvement. If you disagree with the tag, state exactly why you do not think that tag is relevant to the article. --Farix (Talk) 00:09, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

I am asking and I don't agree with you or your interpretations. How do I sign? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thronedrei (talk • contribs) 04:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Importance of anime series

Regarding this, please point me to the section which discusses criteria for assigning importance to the series.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Here. The article is of very limited importance to WP:ANIME as it is not about the anime series, but the book series, of which only one was adapted into an anime. If you would like a third opinion, you can put in a request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment#Requests for assessment. --Farix (Talk) 21:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to barge in, but I have an opinion on the matter. I removed the WP:ANIME banner because the anime and manga adaptations are not covered in Guardian series; which means the article doesn't really fall within the Project's scope. His Dark Materials, for example, is not tagged as a WP:FILM article just because the first book was adapted into a movie. And neither is Northern Lights, for that matter. See Kiki's Delivery Service (novel) for an example closer to home.

But since the article on Moribito: Guardian of the Spirit does cover the anime and manga adaptations, that is where the banner belongs.--Nohansen (talk) 15:48, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

00 Anchors

I noticed you added a lot of anchors to some 00 pages, and after reading the article I still don't quite get what they do. I was hoping you could shed some light on i t for me. Tempest115 (talk) 01:53, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

They are alternative anchor points to which editors can link to that section. Generally, it's a good idea to include all possible variants to the name.

For example, all of the following will go to the same section:

• List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 mobile weapons#GN-001 Gundam Exia
• List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 mobile weapons#Gundam Exia
• List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 mobile weapons#Exia

Reasons an editor may chose a different name then the section title could be to keep things simple, the editor doesn't know the complete name and/or model number, or—like me—think that including the model number is pure fancruft and makes things more confusing in the long run. --Farix (Talk) 02:54, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh

And regaridng TRANS-AM, I looked over both WP:CAPS AND MOS:TM and honestly can't see how either applies. I do know that according to various sources, it is TRANS-AM. Tempest115 (talk) 15:12, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

My bad, one of the links end up being the wrong one, WP:MOSTM is the correct link. But first, it is considered rude to include a reply in the middle of someone else's comments. Replies should always come after the full comments of the person you are responding to.

Back to the subject of capitalization. The WP:MOSTM has this to say. Follow standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official": Instead of REALTOR®, TIME, and KISS, use Realtor, Time, and Kiss respectively. Therefore, Trans-Am and A-Laws should be used instead of TRANS-AM and A-LAWS. Yes, I'll be fixing my own mistakes later on. --Farix (Talk) 18:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about the mid-comment reply, it wasn't intentional. I would agree with using "Trans-Am" if it was a trademark, which I'm not sure it is. !!!!

List of Kemonomimi

If you can find, or ask someone on Commons to make (preferable to do this) various kemonomimi in a group image that would be good. The list does need some kind of image and preferably free ones so we can use a lot of them.じんない 23:12, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Alternative to notability

Hello! I am working on an objective alternate to notability in my userspace. Please read User:A Nobody/Inclusion guidelines and offer any suggestions on its talk page, which I will consider for revision purposes. If you do not do so, no worries, but if you wish to help, it is appreciated. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 01:48, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Anime Pulse

Things turn to personal attack there. As i'm not used to how to handle it, could you lend me some help.
Thanks. --KrebMarkt 17:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll file an WP:ANI report when I get home. I'll also post notices on WP:COI/N and WP:RS/N about various issues related to this article. Things are getting curiouser and curiouser. --Farix (Talk) 19:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to thanks you for jumping in. Just one remark, i hold nothing against WP:INN but i think he wasn't just the right public for the reason i mentioned. Thanks --KrebMarkt 17:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Template:Tfdl2 deprecated by Template:Tfdl

Hey Farix, I can understand why you'd want to deprecate {{tfdl2}} in favor of {{tfdl}}, but currently these two templates work slightly differently, and this difference is enough that they cannot currently be simply merged without updating all transclusions of them (which is why I didn't hijack {{tfdl}}, as I did with {{cfdl}}). I don't think it's a good idea to just use the date opened parameter as the log date, since discussions can be relisted and thus the dates would no longer match up (since, when relisted, discussions are completely removed from the original log page). However, it should be fairly easy to conditionally use that date if no log date is provided... but it would still require that all instances of {{tfdl}} be updated with an additional parameter. BTW, I'd appreciate any insight you might bring to {{xfdl}}, as well. Any thoughts? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 20:07, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

I'll try to work on the logic. I was hoping to fix things to where it will accept a date in either ISO or Day Month Year format. That saves the trouble of having to convert dates from an XfD to the ISO format instead of simply copying and pasting them from the discussions. It's the one part of deletion archiving that annoys me to no end. --Farix (Talk) 22:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

#time limit

For the templates in question (i.e. all with non-variant date formats) simply replace calls to {{date|...}} with {{#time:j F Y|...}}. That's then only one call to #time, and not fourteen. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:35, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Ok, but what if I want to be able to accept both ISO and Day Month Year formats? --Farix (Talk) 22:22, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Nevermind, it seems so long as it is a legal date format, it will work. --Farix (Talk) 22:27, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Right. Whatever {{date|...}} can deal with is actually only a reflection of what #time can deal with. -- Fullstop (talk) 10:28, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

One thing I have found was that it won't except Year Month Day format. That leaves {{date}} for these instances. --Farix (Talk) 12:23, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

{{date}} can't handle Year Month Day (ymd) input either. It causes an error in #time, so {{date}} simply returns it unchanged. Example...

• {{date|2009 February 19|dmy}} => 2009 February 19

As you see, nothing changed even though we asked it to change to 'dmy'. {{date}} can only output 'ymd'.

Behind the scenes, what {{date}} is effectively doing in this example is:

• {{#iferror: {{#time:j F Y| 2009 February 19 }} | 2009 February 19}}

If your template can expect to see dates that can't be handled, then perhaps it too needs error protection. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:44, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Kemonimimininimininmi or however you spell that

That was an accident on my part. I had accidentally closed the afd because I thought that the nominator had withdrawn, then the servers went down and I forgot to re-add the template. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 02:06, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability

I noticed there actually is no discussion when it comes to the notability of many 00 related articles. Where would be plausible to set up a discussion where the notability of all articles in question can be discussed? --Ninjaclown (Talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:52, 28 February 2009 (UTC).

You will actually find the discussion about the notability of various character articles at Talk:List of Mobile Suit Gundam 00 characters. --Farix (Talk) 21:10, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ningyō Kyūtei Gakudan

I've edited your post on the above, changing WP:ILIKETHEM to WP:ILIKEIT. Having done so I'm not sure whether it's good form so please revert and accept my apologies if it was correct in the first place. pablo_hablo. 14:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

User:Rotational edit warring

Hello. I noticed you've been involved recently with User:Rotational's MOS edits. I've opened another report on his edit warring after the past three days of edit warring. You can find the discussion if you're interested and add to it as you see fit: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#Rotational reported by Rkitko (2) (Result: ). Thanks, Rkitko ^(talk) 14:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes - by all means get on the bandwagon. Rkitko has been frustrated by not being able to get his way before, and now riddled by hyperbole and half-truths, is stirring up as many of his allies and cronies as he can. Thank you for your message about ownership. If protecting articles against arbitrary abuse denotes ownership, then I am guilty as charged. When you look at Debresser's behaviour with regard to Barnard 68 then perhaps you can begin to understand what one is up against. Rkitko doesn't give a damn about MoS - by his own admission he has stretched the provisions to suit himself at times - he simply wants to bring me down. If you look at the arbitration discussion we've had with SilkTork, he admits that one of his reasons for not being able to get on with his own contributions and leave me in peace, is that he doesn't want me to get away with anything. Anyway, I'm not the vandal or renegade that Rkitko would like to see me labelled. My objections to the standard MoS are simple and twofold - I don't like the lines that go with headings and I don't like images facing away from the text. Now if trying to maintain those two things on the articles I have started (and it's only those 2 things that I revert) constitutes rocking WP's boat, then so be it. ciao Rotational (talk) 15:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

(TheFarix, please forgive the intrusion to your talk page, but I thought I should respond to Rotational's statements.) Rotational, please provide diffs where my comments are "riddled by hyperbole and half-truths". If there's anything, in your opinion, that I've not represented accurately, please let me know. Allies and cronies? I assure you that I've had no interaction with TheFarix or any other editor who has recently been reverting your edits. Please substantiate that claim. Please also link to a diff where I state that I just "don't want [you] to get away with anything." I don't believe I've said any such thing. Yes, I do bend the MOS rules sometimes in an effort to improve the encyclopedia. The difference is when someone asks me about it, instead of reverting, I discuss it with them or ask for input on the appropriate talk page. Your edits, to you, improve the encyclopedia, but it's been demonstrated that it will mess up others' user style sheets and that many people disagree with you, yet you continue to edit war. What you've described above is ownership by your own admission ("protecting articles"). It's time to stop and cooperate. Work for change by opening the appropriate discussions within the MOS instead of protecting the aesthetic of your articles. --Rkitko ^(talk) 16:23, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

I frankly don't give a damn if you feel oppressed by Rkitko. I have no dog in your personal dispute with him. If he is stalking you, then the place to go is WP:ANI, not edit warring over how the headers are formated. However, that is not a valid reason to ignore all rules regarding the MoS as your actions does not improve Wikipedia. In fact, removing the headings as you did, especially from lengthy articles, does damage to those article as it makes them harder to navigate and edit. The fact that your reformatting of the headers have been undone by a number of editors should be enough of a sign that your formatting does not have a consensus. That you feel you must protect these articles from other editors reformatting them to conform with the MoS is a clear sign that you feel that you own them. --Farix (Talk) 21:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Regarding this

Please note that sources do attest to its notability, i.e. "the story most familiar with US audiences" and that is verifiable in published books. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 22:58, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

That still doesn't make it a less gross violation of WP:NOT#PLOT and other policies. It has no potential of being salvaged. --Farix (Talk) 23:09, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

It shows that it is at least merge and redirectable. Best, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#History_of_quaternions

A few times in this discussion your civility has been poor and you have not assumed good faith. If there is a place that you want to stick to behavourial guidelines it's at an ANI alert. --neon white talk 04:31, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of SDF-1 Macross

SDF-1 Macross has been nominated for deletion and you were involved in a previous AfD about a different article involving the same cartoon series. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/SDF-1 Macross. Thank you.--Sloane (talk) 00:39, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

The rescue tag

I don't recall you ever having anything to do with the Rescue squadron before, and it certainly isn't your decision to erase that tag. I have reverted your edit. If someone who speaks Japanese can look around for references, or help to improve the article, so be it. We've saved articles like this before. Dream Focus 00:42, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Any editor can audit a cleanup tag. {{rescue}} is not exempt from this. If an editor doesn't think an article is rescueable, then they are within their rights to remove it. --Farix (Talk) 00:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

AWB run

Hey Farix, would you be willing to make an AWB run for me? See User talk:Dinoguy1000#Re:Categorization of anime and manga year categories for details. G.A.S was originally going to do it, but got bogged down in real life. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Seems like a big task. But right now, I have enough already on my plate and the stress at work is getting to me. I'm going to have to consider realigning my job situation if things don't calm down. Fortunately, I can be a little choosing about whom I work for and it's time I start exercising my ability to choose. --Farix (Talk) 21:22, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

All right, I can always just ask at WP:AWB/Tasks, then. If I may ask, what kind of job do you have, that lets you be choosy like that? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:05, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Substitute teaching. ;) --Farix (Talk) 20:48, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Any particular subjects, or just whatever? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 15:23, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Whatever they need be for, but I tend to like the younger kids. Generally because they are more manageable and less defiant. --Farix (Talk) 23:13, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense (I personally know a couple little demons, but I suppose something like that is inevitable now and then...). So, what exactly does "realigning my job situation" mean in regards to subbing, anyways? 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 07:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

sakuracon page

even though your reversion was at the same time as mine, which was an accident, the one I found was more recent, and doesnt have a broken catagory tag, so if it isnt any trouble, could you revert back to it? (if only because I am nearly out of reverts for the day.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alphamone (talk • contribs) 22:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Reversions of vandalism is exempt from WP:3RR, so you don't have to worry about it. I went looking for a version before the vandalism began and was going to fix the category update in a followup edit. --Farix (Talk) 22:17, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and Im sorry for all the trouble that has been happening, I also copied the full Sakura-Con code from the edit age so if it gets too bad I can just replace it with the version that it is currently displaying SeijinDinger (talk) 03:34, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Merging

Hello, I'm thinking of merging Mobile Suit Gundam SEED C.E. 73: Stargazer, Mobile Suit Gundam SEED (novel) and Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny into Mobile Suit Gundam SEED but was told to ask you first. DragonZero (talk) 20:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm only failure with Mobile Suit Gundam SEED, so I can't really say anything one way or the other about Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny. For the time, I would suggest keeping it a separate article and keep as little cross content with Mobile Suit Gundam SEED as possible. Mobile Suit Gundam SEED (novel) looks like it can be merged into Mobile Suit Gundam SEED with no problems, in fact the main article would benefit from it. I'm not exactly sure how Mobile Suit Gundam SEED C.E. 73: Stargazer fits in, but it appears to be an off shoot of Mobile Suit Gundam SEED Destiny and should be merged there. --Farix (Talk) 20:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I think I am able to merge Gundam Seed Destiny like Naruto has done merging Naruto and Naruto Shippuden. It's cotents would not cross as from Gundam Seed Destiny, I could only see it's plot and anime worth keeping. The other parts such as manga could be added to the manga section. DragonZero (talk) 21:08, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Spoiler debate

I'm not sure if you're still following the debate at Wikipedia talk:Spoiler, but if you could look again and give your thoughts on the most recent comments, that would be helpful. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Merging anime conventions navboxes/categories

Would you object to merging {{Anime conventions in California}}, {{Anime conventions in Canada}}, {{Anime conventions in Japan}}, and {{Anime conventions in the United Kingdom}} into a single {{Anime conventions}} navbox (and doing the same with their respective categories)? Reviewing the templates, none of them have so many entries that a merge would result in usability issues. Also, while I've got your attention, might I ask why the templates are automatically categorizing the articles they're transcluded onto in the first place? This is generally a pretty bad idea, for a number of reasons. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 20:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

My preference would be to simply Deep-6 those navboxes. If they are consolidated, it would be impossible to justify why all of the other convention articles are being left out, and if we do list every convention, why we even have a List of anime conventions. --Farix (Talk) 22:08, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

All right, I'll TFD them tomorrow, unless someone beats me to it. If they had been merged, it was my plan to add other conventions as well, divvied up by geographic region. Do you have any opinion on merging the cats, though? --Dinoguy1000 as 66.116.12.126 (talk) 23:56, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Not really. The cats where preexisting when I started working on convention articles. --Farix (Talk) 00:06, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

I've tagged the templates for deletion, and I'll hit the cats for upmerging in a second. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:44, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Categories tagged for upmerging. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 17:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Review

Well, Sōsetsu (総説) means "review article", a book review is Shohyō (書評) (and a column for book reviews is Shohyōran (書評欄). I also see レビュー used a lot now (since it's cool to use English). Oda Mari may have some ideas, too. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 18:59, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi! According to Kenkyūsha's New Japanese-English Dictionary (fourth edition), sōsetsu/総説 is translated as general remarks, an outline, an introduction, and a survey. The translations of a book review and a column for book reviews are correct. Oda Mari (talk) 04:54, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

afd

If those aren't animanga related, why do they show in the related searches? I must admit to not checking the talk pages, but I was under the misunderstanding that Visual Novels overlapped with the project when I added them (clearly they don't unless they spawned a related adaption, but I was tired at the time :p). Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's always good practice to look at the article before adding it to the AM deletion sorting page. Hitomi Akino is a voice actor, and thus in Category:Japanese voice actors, but hasn't had a credited role in an anime series. Princess Bride (visual novel) is included in Category:H games, which is within 4 levels of Category:Anime and Category:Manga. --Farix (Talk) 02:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realise it dropped down so much. In other news, everyone's least favourite afd "contributor" is trying to teach me what WP:OR is. I'll remember that the next time I rewrite an almost entirely OR article to a soon to be nomination for GA :p Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Ugh, but you should note the canvassing in the AFD with the relevant DIFFs. --Farix (Talk) 17:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I did wonder why the box appeared Dandy Sephy (talk) 18:01, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Apparently I'm using guidelines to make my afd case. Despite my main and repeated arguement that I'm using WP:V, which of course is policy. It must be a sock, no one can be that idiotic without doing so intentionally? Dandy Sephy (talk) 19:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

He is being deliberately disruptive when he does that. --Farix (Talk) 20:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It'd be great if he would get the hint that the whole "inclusionist v. deletionist" war has been over for years, but I stopped holding my breath for that quite a while ago. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 21:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

It's not that he doesn't get the hint, he doesn't want to get the hint. Which is why I say he is being deliberately disruptive. --Farix (Talk) 21:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I put the box in because I knew the canvassing would be forthcoming. Not that I know what you're talking about or anything, just passing through. pablo_hablo. 21:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, every time I do see the {{rescue}} tag added to a fiction related article, its generally a blatant attempt to canvas for keep votes, especially when it is added by one of three specific editors. Not that I know what box you added to which page. --Farix (Talk) 21:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Amazing isn't it. What? Who are you? Where am I? Are those my feet? pablo_hablo. 21:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

In the immortal words of Glenn Reynolds, heh! --Farix (Talk) 21:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

List of Naruto: Shippuden episodes

In regard to the filler discussion that is going on, I had a few doubts. Is it against WP:NPOV to say that certain episodes are not based on the manga. I don't see how, since some episodes are surely not based on the manga. It is not a biased opinion, but a fact. The problem seems to be that it's not being considered a fact because it isn't sourced. I'm not trying understand(not being rude)but is it the case on Wikipedia, that you can't say that the sky is blue unless some Nobel Prize winner says so? We all know that the sky is blue. Isn't that enough? Do you get what I'm trying to say? eZio (talk) 05:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Plural forms of tankobon?

Care to add plural forms of tankobon to your sweeps? --Dinoguy1000 (talk · contribs) as 66.116.12.126 (talk) 02:20, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Added to my cleanup list. I'll also be correcting instances of tankobon with tankōbon as well. --Farix (Talk) 03:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Cool. I note that you've also started (finished?) another AWB cleanup run through many of WP:ANIME's articles; good work. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{(Dinoguy1000)} 18:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Farix

Thank you for the editing. Tell me, is this how you delete an article? Or will a mod/admin now find the dead redirected article and delete it? Thronedrei (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

It's better to add an anchor to a specific point on the list, such as I did here. Also remember to remove any project banners from the talkpage as well since the article has now been merged. --Farix (Talk) 19:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Southern Conference

the info came from the southern conference website. WillC (talk) 11:44, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Question on citations in Anime and manga fandom

Wouldn't it be better to use WP:CITESHORT than to combine all the citations from Annie Manion into one so that people can find what page the information comes from? AngelFire3423 (talk) 14:25, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Your recent customization -- spot on!!!

Many salutations!!! I wish to rely my gratitude for your addition of the kanji titles for Episodes 15 through 23 here. You are the kind of Wikipedia editor that I absolutely love to work alongside. I also see that you have added several additional references as well . . . while I am not complaining about that, I do have to wonder why you annotated a reference to the original air dates for Episodes 19 through 23. The general rule of thumb is that anime series usually wait a calendar week between airing episodes; that is why the dates you found on that table are exactly seven days apart. It is good that you confirmed that, but I am not so sure that annotating every original air date is the way to acknowledge that.

Dairi no Kenkyo (talk) 21:30, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Airdates should be referenced in some fashion, but the Anime Newtype Channel reference does more then simply reference the airdates, it also gives the episode title, the director, and the writer. This is information that should be incorporated into the table at some point. As for directly citing each airdate, there are different points of view on that and one way is no more correct then than the other. --Farix (Talk) 23:45, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Bakugan DVD Volume 13 (Japanese).jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:Bakugan DVD Volume 13 (Japanese).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I fixed this on the Bakugan page, someone removed half the article somehow... Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Reverting of List of Gundam 00 characters

There is no need of consensus to change formatting that is widely used on nearly every other anime character list. Your opinion that your revision "looks better" is simply an option. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 20:27, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, there is need to gain a consensus per the WP:BRD cycle. This article has been viewed by several individuals from WP:ANIME and no one else saw a problem with the list's formatting. The original formatting conforms to WP:MOS-AM and there are several other character lists that are similarly formatted. In an arbitration case related to a date formatting dispute, the Arbitration Committee ruled that when two styles are accepted by consensus, editors should not arbitrarily switch one from another without gaining a consensus. Your changes were completely arbitrary and there was some lose of organization when you removed the headers for the first and second season antagonist organizations. --Farix (Talk) 21:07, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

I explained the second and first season merge due to the fact that there is no reason to split the two antagonist sections. While the point that other people saw the page and didn't change it is irrevant, if the style is accepted by policey, i'll leave it, however, the second and first series merge should be kept, as there really is no organizational reason to split them, especially when none of the other sections are split in this way. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 21:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The fact that other editors from the WikiProject saw the list's format and didn't see a reason to change it is very much relevant. It shows that there was already a consensus on the format. As for the division between first and second seasons, the protagonists stayed the same except for the addition of two new supporting characters. The same can be said for the "other" characters. Only the antagonists had a large influx of new characters in the second season, requiring the need to further divide into season. That was already discussed on the list's talk page and had gained a consensus. --Farix (Talk) 21:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

While I think DBZ was wrong when he just went in and changed it, I have to say that I agree with him on this one. The 2nd and 1st season sections should be merged. As it is now we have two "other" sections and one of them only has two characters in it. To further complicate matters the other sections aren't even affected by the 2nd and 1st season so it is very confusing. The problem with Gundam00 however is that far top many characters fall both under the "Antagonist" as well as the "Other" section. My advice would be that all the "season sections grouping" as well as "antagonist/protagonist/other sections" are removed and the characters are grouped by their affiliations instead. Granted, while this itself might create another problem with a few characters that change side midseason, it would still be easier to navigate. Maybe such characters that change sides can be placed in a "floating" category instead?Thronedrei (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it would violate WP:WAF if the characters were organized based purely by their in-universe affiliations. It is better to drop the in-universe affiliations entirely then it is to drop the real-world organization of the list. --Farix (Talk) 13:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Shonen Jump in AWB cleanup

Hey Farix, just so you know, some of your AWB cleanup seems to be "correcting" Shonen Jump (Viz's magazine) to Shōnen Jump. Not sure how hard it would be to fix your scripts to reduce the false positives, but you might want to keep an eye on it (while cursing Viz for their unfortunate name choice =D ). 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 22:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Other then just keeping an eye out for it, there is no other way to reduce false positives. --Farix (Talk) 22:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, just thought I'd give you a heads-up. =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 22:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

If you ever spot them, just fix them. --Farix (Talk) 22:19, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Will-do (if I have time). =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 01:26, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

、 and ,

Hi, I noticed your AWB has been editing 、 to , in several articles. However, the character used in the episode names being edited is actually the symbol 、. Should this really be changed to ,? I know with ! and ！, ? and ？, ~ and ～ and and 　 the differences could be differences of interpretation (although sometimes, like for Code Geass, it is obviously fullwidth), but 、 and , look visually different. Akata (talk) 17:46, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

、 is an ideographic comma and serves the same function as a normal comma. I'm just being bold and replacing one with the other. --Farix (Talk) 18:00, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Anime voices

Why are you against autolinking? I don't see any reason why it's a bad idea; if it is, please explain why. --58.173.104.186 (talk) 22:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

{{#ifexist}} is a rather expensive ParserFunction and the number of times it can be called is limited. That is why its usage is generally discouraged if possible. It wouldn't be much of a problem if {{anime voices}} was transcluded once or twice per page, but it is transcluded several dozen times. Besides, it's rather trivial to add in the [[]] needed to create the wikilinks. --Farix (Talk) 22:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you're getting at.

Then again, if that's the only problem we could just have it so the links always appear, whether the article exists or not. I mean is it the end of the world if you see a lot of red links in an article? --58.173.104.186 (talk) 22:35, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

In hindsight, I think that automatic wikilinking is a bad idea. It doesn't take much to create the wikilinks in the article and prevents template/code voodoo when it comes to disambiguation, example Laura Bailey (voice actress).

Anime News Network

Tokyo Mew mew uses ANN and is a featured Article on wikipedia. Please give your arguement to the Portal and not towards me on the issue. Knowledgekid87 19:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Tokyo Mew Mew doesn't use the ANN encyclopedia as a source. Only the ANN's news and review sections are used as sources. --Farix (Talk) 23:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Template whatsit

Your template fixing script is replacing the katakana middle dot (・) with the interpunct (·). Just want you to know.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:41, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Replacing fullwith characters with ASCII equivalents is what it is suppose to do. See User:Dinoguy1000/scripts/fullwidth2ascii.js --Farix (Talk) 13:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

But the katakana middle dot isn't a full width character.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Or it is at least a character that is common in Japanese text and shouldn't be wholesale replaced.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:47, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is not a kanji character, but a fullwidth interpunct which denotes a space between character. It is being replaced with a normal interpunct. --Farix (Talk) 13:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

So it is. But I merely have issues with it because several full width characters on the usual pages that I edit were removed completely when they were taken directly from the code of official websites. Is there a basic standard not to use full width characters in the nihongo templates? If so, I've never seen it before.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It came to a head over an edit war over some anime/manga lists. That was when it was decided to replace fullwidth character with their ASCII equivalents and Dinoguy1000 created this script. The script has since been incorporated into other cleanup tools, namely CodeFixer and AutoEd. However, they are still dealing with an issue of the scripts are affecting interwiki links that hasn't been fixed to my knowledge. BTW, I've left him a note about this discussion. --Farix (Talk) 14:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Why bother using a script for this when you can just replace "JapaneseTitle" with "RomajiTitle"? I did it to replace the full width characters.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 14:45, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Because it is easier, faster, and I can catch other errors on an article. --Farix (Talk) 14:46, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

But then your edit summaries are not truthful. It's just saying you're updating the template formatting. Not copy-editing the page in other ways.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:53, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Updating the template was the main purpose of the run, so the edit summaries were truthful in that respect. But why are you still complaining? --Farix (Talk) 23:31, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

It also appears to be changing 『』 to 「」, neither set of which are halfwidth, and I believe have a difference similar to ' and " in English. Akata (talk) 22:09, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Quotation mark, non-English usage#Chinese, Japanese and Korean quotation marks suggests that Japanese usage doesn't distinguish between the two forms. If this is the case, replacing the double corner bracket with the single is perfectly acceptable. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

(reply to Ryulong's 14:45, 13 June 2009 comment) You're talking about two separate fixes here. Changing "JapaneseTitle" to "RomajiTitle" is an update of template parameter usage that has nothing to do with fullwidth character replacement. All together, though, I'm still a bit dissatisfied with the (lack of) attention this whole thing got when I posted it on WT:ANIME; I'm thinking about posting on WT:JAPAN at some point as well, now. 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 17:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

ja:括弧 gives two usages that 『』 are used in; when quoting inside 「」, and when quoting a name of a published work, giving the examples "Please listen to 「Beta」 from the Album 『Alpha』." (アルバム『アルファ』から、「ベータ」をお聞きください。), and "The acclaimed 「Delta」 is being serialised in the magazine 『Epsilon』! This summer, the tankōbon 『Delta』 is scheduled to be released." (「デルタ」は、雑誌『イプシロン』にて絶賛連載中!今夏には単行本『デルタ』の発売が予定されています). Akata (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2009 (UTC) (edit: corrected interwiki link - Akata (talk) 23:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC) )

Anime Pulse need a third opinion

Hi,

Can you check the links that User:SallyFord removed twice article history saying that the media related to those links are broken. I tested the media of both link one works and the other need a plugin but download option works so the media is still accessible. I don't want closet warfare with him/her so i'm asking your opinion. Thanks --KrebMarkt 21:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I verified that the links work. But I also noticed that she tagged an article I created and have listed on my userpage as being non-notable, despite the three newspaper articles listed in the reference section. I wonder if this is retribution for removing her speedy deletion tag from Geeknights. --Farix (Talk) 21:27, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Why i'm not surprised. That editor has strong convictions on what is notable or not in podcast matter. So strong that someday we may have to request him/her to not edit podcast articles anymore. --KrebMarkt 21:55, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

If she honestly thinks they are not notable, she should nominate them at WP:AfD. --Farix (Talk) 22:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Yea i would have preferred that she bring those articles to Afd rather than undermining them. That person has a partisan behavior great piece of poetry so i have difficulties to believe in her good faith & neutrality in anime/manga podcast articles. --KrebMarkt 05:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

She is charging again :( This time using the Spam argument. I'm getting tired on all that gaming and guerrilla style disruptive editing --KrebMarkt 14:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

*sigh* She is skirting close to the line of being disruptive. While I don't think the podcase could pass our notability guidelines, there are better ways to deal with that issue other then undermining the article. And she definitely has a vendetta against this podcast. She also inserted some unsourced and unrelated information about an improve group's skit twice now into Honey in the Rock. *double sigh* --Farix (Talk) 14:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I added my few lines to what you & Collectionian wrote about that user in WP:ANI. Not a shiny piece of writing but as long as more people are aware of the problem that user represents that would do. Concerning the Anime pulse notability issue, i am rather weak delete as it's too soon to tell which prizes can assert notability in that field. Anyone willing to spend $100 can create a prize but what makes it relevant in its field of attribution ? What's bothering me is sending Anime Pulse to Afd may result people answering the wrong question. People voting not on whatever Anime Pulse is notable but on whatever its prizes are enough to establish its notability. In a such case enter considerations not related to Anime pulse, like potential domino effect of a delete result on others podcast and podcast prizes articles. --KrebMarkt 14:57, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure how successful an AfD nomination of Anime Pulse will be. I normally don't nominate articles unless I reasonably confident that the nomination will succeed. Though I do believe about whether winning the Podcast Awards is enough to pass WP:WEB needs to be debated in such a forum. --Farix (Talk) 15:16, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox fix

Thanks for fixing my episode template, which I use for starting out lists. I should have thought to do that myself, once I saw you doing this in articles. —Quasirandom (talk) 23:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Ahoy Matey!

You may want to check your spelling at this AfD.    pablo_hablo. 09:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Yak-28MST

I have no objection to deletion of this article on the grounds specified - I merely created the article in order to remove this content from the article about the real Yak-28. Letdorf (talk) 12:51, 22 June 2009 (UTC).

Transclusion of episode lists

I've noticed you've been transcluding a lot of episode lists. Transclusion is now no longer recommended per this FLC. Therefore I'd request you stop transcluding episode lists from their season pages and undo any that you have recently re-transcluded. Best wishes, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 02:48, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Uh-oh, I don't like the sound of this. Dandy Sephy (talk) 05:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with transclusions as it makes these lists easier to maintain. There is no need to keep two copies of the same list in different places just because of one editor's complaints. --Farix (Talk) 11:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually it I discussed it with the FL director, Scorpion0422‎, who also agreed it should go and FLs since have followed this idea. Basically, as you can see from the FL, I opposed this idea at the time. However, not transcluding has its merits. Basically if an IP found a typo and wanted to fix it they would click edit. Then they would be faced with one line of template, not the prose/list they were hoping to fix. Unlike navboxes, this "template" does not have view/edit/discuss options, and an editor could easily have no idea how to find what they are looking for. Also many of these lists won't be highly watched. Vandalism on a season page would be transcluded onto the episode page, and to the uninformed editor there would see no "history" (on the episode list) of it being introduced. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 11:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I think it is entirely pointless to maintain the exact same list twice, one with summaries and one without. If transclusions are going to be discouraged, then one list must go. --Farix (Talk) 11:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Respectfully, I disagree. For example List of The Simpsons episodes keeps track of all the episodes in one place (not transcluded) and maybe what a reader is looking for, but it also has season pages that go into a lot more detail. Now if the matter was plot summaries being copied in two places then I disagree with that, but I think a complete and simple episode list is a useful parent article for season pages, and it also gives a place to document "special episodes" etc. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 12:19, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Bakugan Battle Brawlers

The same language was in Bakugan Battle Brawlers: New Vestroia. Should that be restored? The URL is a press release, by the way, apparently written by somebody with an association with the product. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 03:39, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

No, it's not a press release. It's clearly a mirror of the Wikipedia page. It contains the original lead that I largely rewrote for the article as well as much of the stricutre. It even uses the exact same image I choose for the article. If it is a press release, it is a very poorly formatted one and contains lots of copyvio itself. It also doesn't follow the format of the previous press release relating to this anime seires as seen here and here. As for Bakugan Battle Brawlers: New Vestroia, I re-redirected it to the main list because it is a duplicate of what is on the main page and character list, which was recently split. apparently and IP undid the redirect. --Farix (Talk) 11:45, 27 June 2009 (UTC)