User talk:Goodraise/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Hiro Fujiwara assessment

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi there! I noticed your comments (again) for Hiro Fujiwara so I just want to ask where are the uncited sentences and paragraphs. I really appreciate it if you would tell me so I can improve the article. :)

Amaya Sakura (talk) 10:22, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Here you are. Goodraise 11:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that's perfect! :D (never knew there were so much unreferenced sentences there ^^;). Will give a heads-up at the assessment when everything's finished. Amaya Sakura (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Most lines are already sourced now. Thanks to the site's comprehensive database, but I still can't find the list of winners for LMS. That'll have to do for now. Amaya Sakura (talk) 13:32, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

All done for now, hope it will satisfy the criteria. I will add the |publisher and |language now. Added already. Amaya Sakura (talk) 14:33, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Is there a way to get a copy of the Malay Theory work?

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Goodraise, I didn't get a copy of the Malay Theory work so far. Is there a way to get a copy so I can add the info to the other locations you mention? Reds0xfan (talk) 16:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're talking about. What locations did I mention and where/when did I do it? Maybe you're confusing me with John Carter (talk · contribs), who mentioned another Malay Theory at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Malay Theory. Goodraise 16:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--I'll check with John. I'm not sure who actually deleted it. Reds0xfan (talk) 17:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Mamoru Oshii assessment

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for assessing the requested article. I see it has only failed one of the criteria. Would you mind pointing out which sections need improvement in order for it to be suitably referenced?--Stepusual (talk) 20:21, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course I won't mind. Several statements in the "Career" section are not cited. The "Style" and "Lifework: Kerberos saga" are practically unsourced and only two of his "Awards and Nominations" are cited. Goodraise 20:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm curious as to how/why you ended up taking over the GA review at Free Collars Kingdom?

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, User:CarpetCrawler started the GA review at Free Collars Kingdom, so I'm curious as to how/why you ended up taking it over? Certainly don't mind the feedback, just wondering what happened. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 02:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I had no intention of "taking it over". I just wanted to give a few comments ...and ended up doing a full review. Goodraise 06:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to take over the rest of the review, if you want. CarpetCrawler^{message me} 07:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

LOL, wish more folks would end up doing that! ;-) -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 08:23, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Haha, no, I wouldn't say that. Feel free to do whatever you'd like with both articles, I really don't mind! ;) I'll finish up Earl Cain and you can do Free Collars Kingdom. CarpetCrawler^{message me} 10:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Reliability of Comics Village

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Yo,

I dug more about the website and spend +1.5 hours in it :( That why i asked the WP:RS/N at first to save myself the search :p
While they have no about page some of their editors/columnists are presents around the web

What i found

Phil Hall: His article is self-explanatory.
Craig Johnson (formerly Craig Lemon): worked as senior editor in Comics Bulletin [1][2]
Glenn Carter: also worked for Comics Bulletin Comics International [3] [4] [5]
Mark Bittmann: also worked for Comics Bulletin [6]
Katherine Farmar: wrote for the The Irish Times [7], Forbidden Planet (bookstore) blog [8]

They seems experts in Comics field and Comics Village is probably a prominent resource for UK.
For the rest, i leave it to your judgment as i'm too inside the stuff to make a npov final evaluation. Thanks--KrebMarkt 07:33, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Curious about citation style used in List of One Piece characters

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I saw that you are using a new way to ref manga volumes and anime episodes in List of One Piece characters. It looks pretty cool, but does it help to reduce the weight? It would sure help the FMA character list which is 100 kylobites long. Additionally, why do you use both English and Japanese volumes to source? Since there are already 20 volumes more or less in English, the Japanese ones with the same number could be removed. By the way, good work with the One Piece articles. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 01:21, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

It looks cool? I'm actually quite dissatisfied with how it looks ATM. I'm still experimenting with it, partly in offline copies. It actually does cut down on the size. IIRC, at the time I first installed it, it already saved around two kilobyte and that was before I added the bulk of the citations. Though, I'm not sure if it would have the same effect on the FMA list. The One Piece list is a special case in so many ways. Considering that OP has 2.5 times as many volumes as FMA and more than 5 times as many chapters and since OP despite its length has virtually no character developement (as opposed to Naruto and Tokyo Mew Mew). As for why I list both languages, one reason is that, AFAIK, the page numbers differ and I have no way of telling by how much (I'm not a native English speaker BTW). It's all still very half baked and I've so far been in no rush to perfect it. The main advantage it has for me is that it makes adding a citation so quick and easy. While I had originally intended to "write" the list first and referencing it later, with the source material being as large as it is and the list as a whole being so unstable (just this week I removed 50% of the section of a protagonist) I eventually had to start citing things just so I could filter out all the original research. And of course, there are some other advantages. Sadly, I probably will step back from using some style of the sort for the episodes, because most never have and probably never will air in English, leaving me with having to cite a variety of different media types... Anyways, are you planing to go for FLC with the FMA list anytime soon? Goodraise 02:34, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Nope. Im a more or less out of GA and FL due to my problems with grammar. A problem with the FMA list is that its 100 kylobites long due to the fact there are two anime with different stories (new voice actors), the manga seems to be ending, and a few merges seems to be needed.Tintor2 (talk) 14:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

About Myojin Yahiko, I hid the dub review interviews, replaced the ebay ref, and added an image from a redesign that is commented in conception and creation. Is it a B class?Tintor2 (talk) 21:00, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Promised copyedit of List of One Piece episodes (season 9)

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I promised you that I would copy-edit the episode summaries about four months back, except that I got caught up with other things and forgot to return here. Well, here I am now, saying that I can finally resume doing so. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:19, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, thanks. That's great. I had put that list on hold myself, but now I'll focus on quickly resolving the sourcing issues that have come up since then (I think you noticed the Anime News Network drama a few month back...) so that it can be renominated as soon as the c-e is done. Goodraise 01:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that you went through and manually changed the date formats of the references from ISO. There is a handy script that you can use to do the job much faster; just paste importScript('User:Plastikspork/monobook.js/script.js'); into your monobook.js. Dabomb87 (talk) 02:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I had a feeling there was such a script out there, but I did't do the change often enough to merit searching for it. Goodraise 09:36, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah crap... I can't believe I missed that. Apparently, the division between seasons nine and ten was determined by common sense. That means the list won't be nominated again for another three month or so (until the first season 10 DVD is announced). Anyways, thanks for the copy-edit (whether you decide to complete it or not). Goodraise 16:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

References problems on One Piece episode lists

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

{{List of One Piece episodes (season 9)}} includes a group="n"parameter for references. Those also get transcluded to List of One Piece episodes. I added a tag there to show them.

I very much disliked the idea of turning references into text inorder to circumvent a certain limit. Consider other possibilities, please. Debresser (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, for adding the tag. If you have any other possibilities, I'll be happy to consider them. I dislike the idea myself. I just don't see any alternatives. Goodraise 06:55, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Merge proposal for Limited geography model

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

There is a proposed merge that I think would interest you at Talk:Limited geography model#Several merge proposals - my take. I am posting this notice because I saw that you were a recent editor at one of the pages listed below:

• Limited geography model
• Proposed Book of Mormon geographical setting
• Archaeology and the Book of Mormon

--Descartes1979 (talk) 17:58, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Anime and manga and the listas parameter

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Just to let you know, there is no longer a need to set |listas= in {{WikiProject Anime and manga}} if the WPBiography banner already has one set. --Farix (Talk) 01:02, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Good to know. Goodraise 22:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Send Sierra blanca school malaga to AfD?

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

note sierra blanca school malaga? might it be a good idea to do something about it? it looks awful. ... aa:talk 21:55, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that might be a good idea. However, I don't speak Spanish and have no experience with school articles. I would not feel too comfortable sending that article to AfD. I'm not even sure what the correct name for the article is. That makes searching for sources just that much more difficult. Goodraise 22:38, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Citation style of List of One Piece characters (cont.)

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

For some reason I still like the way the One Piece characters list is sourced. I think its for how differentiates third-party sources to primary sources. I think listing the vols is okay, but I dont know if listing the episodes is good. Do you mean to add the other episodes to references? Considering that there are over 400 episodes, and most of them retell the manga's chapters it would be unnecesary weight. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Certainly not. Half of the reason for the style is to reduce the size. Adding 400 episodes would kind of work against that goal. Anyways. I'm still experimenting there. Goodraise 16:16, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Promised copyedit of List of One Piece episodes (season 9) (cont.)

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I finally finished the copy-edit. Sorry for taking so long; I kept committing myself to complete it, but various things kept getting in the way. I plan to do a final proofread, and then you can send the list to FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Thanks again. - You probably missed it, but in the summary of episode 314, there was an inline comment that I could not address. I kind of replied with another inline comment. I simply didn't get what was wrong there. Maybe you could take a look at it again before that final proofread. Goodraise 04:05, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Nothing was wrong there; I was just confusing myself. I proofread the first two sections, with inline comments. Is there any reason that the last paragraph of the lead has no inline citations? Dabomb87 (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

At the time this list was at FLC (wonder when that was...), the theme music prose in other FLs wasn't cited (only implicitly to the episodes). It's a trivial matter, I just haven't gotten around to it yet. Goodraise 07:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll finish up this afternoon. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:21, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Great! Thanks again. :) Goodraise 21:38, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit of List of Cross Game chapters

Thanks for doing this. Even especially for doing this without knowing baseball -- your confusions over jargon are useful in untangling it for a general audience. —Quasirandom (talk) 03:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Viz to Publish One Piece #24-53 in January-June 2010 (Update 2)

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Viz to Publish One Piece #24-53 in January-June 2010 (Updated). I'm sure it would help.Tintor2 (talk) 00:49, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice. Not that they'll be selling them where I live, but still. Good to see the English market catching up to the rest of the world. :) Thanks for letting me know. Goodraise 01:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I live in Argentina, and the Naruto manga here goes by vol 2, while One Piece is still by vol 1, and Bleach has not even been published.Tintor2 (talk) 01:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

They may not be selling the volumes in every Spanish speaking country, but the Spanish version is still ahead of the English one. Anyways, it's good news. Goodraise 01:57, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice work with the One Piece character list. By the way, while I was searching for reception for Luffy, I found that Zoro and Nami were featured in various reviews and other stuff (In an SPJA, Nami was nominated to Best Female Character but lost, Zoro's English voice actor was nominated to a category per his work with Zoro. I'll later make a reception section for them in a sandbox, and I guess it would help to the weight from the list. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 00:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. - I don't see why you'd want to do it in a sandbox. Just throw it into their sections. Once they flow over with notability establishing facts, we'll un-redirect the merged articles and move the stuff over there. BTW, there's no need to state that something/someone lost. It's implicit by saying that they were [only] nominated. Goodraise 00:46, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

A cookie for having the bad role in regards to sources

The original title of this section was: "I like it/I don't like it party ;)"

For having the somewhat bad role as it's necessary to keep some critical sense. Smile more often thought. --KrebMarkt 17:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

For the record: The discussion that led to this can be found here. Thanks. :) <- cookie induced smile Goodraise 12:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Plastikspork's Script

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi, I noticed that you are using my script, and I thought I would let you know that I have split the script into two, namely User:Plastikspork/monobook.js/script.js and User:Plastikspork/date.js. If you would like to use both, you can just add

importScript('User:Plastikspork/monobook.js/script.js');

and

importScript('User:Plastikspork/date.js');

to your monobook.js. Alternatively, if you are only using the date formatting buttons, you can just add the date.js script. Let me know if you have any questions, comments, bug reports, suggestions, requests, or really anything. Thanks! Plastikspork (talk) 20:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

No, thank you for the script and the notice. Both are appreciated. :) Goodraise 21:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Bold merging would have caused an edit war

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

The original title of this section was: "Continued discussion..."

Discussion continued from Talk:List of Dragon Ball soundtracks#Merge discussion. Goodraise 23:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It would have caused an edit because DBZfan29 believes the articles should stand on their own. He would likely revert every attempt to merge them, hence the required discussion. –túrian^patois 23:14, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

As WP:EW#WHATIS states: "Edit warring is different from a bold, revert, discuss (BRD) cycle." As for DBZfan29, their main argument seems to be that other Dragon Ball soundtracks have articles. Nice and clean merges into the list, as opposed to plain redirects, may have just satisfied them. Anyways. It is my experience that merge discussions, once started, can become a long, painful, and unproductive exercise. If I see even just a remote possibility of avoiding one by merging boldly, I'll try. Goodraise 23:38, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

First, the discussion technically isn't continued despite my wording, I just didn't want to drag that out. It would turn into a bold, revert, revert, revert, revert, block, block, discuss. Collectonian isn't proving to be that compromising either, which is my second worry. –túrian^patois 23:42, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know. Editing under the assumtion that others will misbehave, just seems wrong to me. Goodraise 07:17, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

International publishers and broadcasters of One Piece

Shouldn't the most countries from the manga section be removed? They are already shown in the infobox and it would imply that the anime should also have every country in which it is broadcast mentioned.Tintor2 (talk) 13:20, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Nothing should be only in the infobox. If a piece of information is not worth including in the article's prose, then it's not worth including at all. Actually, I wouldn't mind if we got rid of the stuff. It's a pain to find sources and I don't see much merrit in listing them all to begin with. I darkly remember this issue being discussed on the talk page of the MOS some time ago. Perhaps it's time to revisit it. Goodraise 13:35, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Since this is the English wikipedia, maybe it would be enough to list the English-speaking countries, but better to discuss that in the wikiproject.Tintor2 (talk) 17:36, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:MOS-AM problem with character articles

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems you are a bit busy right now but there is discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (anime- and manga-related articles)#Problem with character articles regarding characters articles and more opinions are needed. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 17:38, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

That link leads to a lot of very confusing text. Mind answering a few questions? What is the discussion about ("Problem with character articles" doesn't tell me much.) and what is being disagreed upon? Goodraise 19:19, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

It's about if sections like personality and abilities can be merged in the plot overview.Tintor2 (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Well. Thanks for the friendly notice, but in my opinion, that discussion doesn't need more opinions at this point. It needs focus (not to mention a helpful section title and an introduction that actually introduced the uninvolved editor). -- What I'd do in your place, instead of advertising the discussion all over the place, is to try WP:BRD. Cheers, Goodraise 23:14, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

I thought I would let you know that I now have an account

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I thought I would let you know that I now have an account. I may still edit from time to time without logging in. (aka 97.115.129.240) allen四names 12:50, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

I see. Well then, welcome to the circle of en.wikipedia account owners. Goodraise 15:25, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for Bamboo Blade cover

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

For Bamboo Blade cover.

Square-Enix made dubious chance by putting sandy brown font on red background resulting a lot of noise in the scan. --KrebMarkt 06:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

FL red link criterion discussion

See here. Cheeers, Dabomb87 (talk) 01:54, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. BTW, congrats on winning the election. Goodraise 02:30, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Dabomb87 (talk) 04:26, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Web.archive.org official links

At WP:EL we are continuing to discuss the usage of official websites on web.archive.org here: Wikipedia_talk:External_links#ELs_of_official_websites_archived_on_web.archive.org WhisperToMe (talk) 20:50, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Bleach (manga) assessment

Thanks for the reassessing, but I wish to know how I can work on the first criteria to push it to B status, I've read the pages on citations and reliable sources, but to be frank, it all just went over my head. So I was hoping you could help push me in the right direction, would you please help me and tell me what was wrong? --Lightlowemon (talk) 08:06, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure. The last sentence in the anime section's first paragraph needs to be cited. Whether there is more to be done depends on the outcome of this discussion. Goodraise 09:36, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll wait for the discussions outcome, but I sourced the one you mentioned.--Lightlowemon (talk) 10:27, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Apology for deleting your comment

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

I tried to add to the reply on the help desk using my mobile phone but it went wrong for some reason! And now i find i don't have a way to press enter, hence why this is all on one line -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 10:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. :) Goodraise 10:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/30 Rock (season 3)/archive1

Thank you so much for that lengthy review! I'd been getting worried with the nomination getting stale. I've fixed most of your issues, but there are a couple things I could use further comments on. Stop by when you get a chance. Thanks! Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:04, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

		The Reviewers Award
		For a detailed and quick-replying review of 30 Rock (season 3). Staxringold talkcontribs 21:05, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. :) Goodraise 00:44, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for the Comeback Player comments. Also, I've asked Ottava Rima to give you the proper copyedit review you asked for on 30 Rock. Staxringold _talk^contribs 13:13, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
• I've replied to your comments, and Ottava said he'd look at 30 Rock later today. Staxringold _talk^contribs 14:31, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• Ah, and there we go, Ottava has thrown his support in, particularly on the prose. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

VA-chart in One Piece Movie: The Desert Princess and the Pirates: Adventures in Alabasta

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hello! I'm just wondering that me adding a chart to One Piece Movie: The Desert Princess and the Pirates: Adventures in Alabasta meets you approval (I'm a little worried!)--Geoffman13 (talk) 02:21, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi! You don't need anyone's approval. Wikipedia articles don't belong to anyone. :) Goodraise 17:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Okay! Thanks! Based on the history, you seemed to be the one running it! I was just worried that you would disapprove for whatever reason!--Geoffman13 (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

FLC reviews

Hi Goodraise. Thanks for all of your recent FLC reviews. Several FLCs are close to being eligible for closure. Could you please revisit the following FLCs so that the consensus for that FLC is more apparent:

• List of French Open Men's Singles champions (FLC)
• Family Guy (season 5) (FLC) (if possible, a declaration of "support", "oppose", or "neutral" would be helpful)
• List of 1928 Winter Olympics medal winners (FLC)

Thanks again, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try to make the time later today. I've been very busy these past two weeks (accumulated only 50 edits or so). Goodraise 18:38, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Man, I'd love to put more time into FLC and WP in general, but I simply don't have it right now. Goodraise 04:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, and don't worry about being busy (aren't we all?); every review and edit you make helps. Regards, Dabomb87 (talk) 04:53, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

One quick thing; could you cap your comments at the 1928 Winter Olympics medal winners FLC? It's a bit hard to follow the discussion when the page is long. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 01:27, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Goodraise 01:54, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Master of the Rolls/archive1 needs a revisit, when you get the chance. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Done. Goodraise 01:58, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Antagonist section in List of One Piece characters

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

This might have been explained a while back, but I was wondering why there isn't an antagonist section in the character list, just protagonist and other characters. I wanted to ask here because I know how much drama that article can have, I don't want to stir it up. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 07:41, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

It hasn't been explained. Lots of editors complained about the protagonist/antagonist/allies/others scheme that was previously in place, while I was perhaps the strongest proponent of keeping that less in-universe categorization over the overly sub-divided schemes its opponents proposed. Discussion on that subject eventually died, while I kept on working offline on a scheme that would make all sides happy. When I did, I simply implemented it and nobody reverted. As for the reasons why, well, that's a complex question to answer. Where to begin? The main reason is perhaps that categorizing the non-protagonists into antagonists and yet others is rather tricky, if not impossible. This has become more and more so during the last third of the currently published chapters. Another problem are complications with summary style. Take for example the Seven Warlords. One third of them is more or less clearly antagonistic (Blackbeard, Moria, Crocodile), some are more or less clearly allies (Jimbei, Hancock), and the rest is somewhere in between (Mihawk, Doflamingo, Kuma). Even if they could be clearly divided into antagonists and non-antagonists, we'd have to split up the Warlords section. Previously, most of the information that is now in that super-section was part of the now merged article World of One Piece. (Finding a way to get rid of that abomination may have had something to do with it as well...) Goodraise 17:06, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The list has had some big changes. You may want to check it.Tintor2 (talk) 22:02, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I've been trying to keep my hands off that article as much as possible (in addition to my reduced editing volume). Perhaps that wasn't such a good idea. Sadly, I don't have the time to clean that mess up right now... Goodraise 09:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Problem with episode list template

I have a problem in List of Gin Tama episodes (season 4); For the episode 185, which is going to be one containing two titles, is not shown in the list. Could you take a look? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 23:24, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Problem solved. Goodraise 23:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 14:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

By the way, List of One Piece episodes has almost 700 references (transcripted though). It could be some type of wikirecord.Tintor2 (talk) 18:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, perhaps. Actually, I don't really care... I just wish I was done. It seems like a neverending task to reference that article. Goodraise 19:38, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Family Guy (season 5)/archive1 follow-up

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

On the family Guy season 5 where your concerns addressed.--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 03:15, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, as I've stated on the nomination page, the issues I found were resolved. Regards, Goodraise 03:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Can you review it agian please here--Pedro J. ^{the rookie} 01:34, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Will do, if I find the time. Regards, Goodraise 22:38, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing chapter lists

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

I wanted to thanks you for fixing so many chapters lists while i'm simply overburdened by fixing unsourced BLP, i felt bad watching you fixing those lists and not helping. --KrebMarkt 07:47, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Heh, there's no need to feel bad, especially since I've done nothing to help fix unsourced BLPs. :) Goodraise 11:13, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Essay on reliability of sources

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi,

If someday you decide to write your essay on reliable sources and weight allow me to join in. --KrebMarkt 22:27, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Sure thing. Will drop you a line if I ever start it. Goodraise 22:47, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

See User:Goodraise/Reviews. Goodraise 13:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Wow very nice. Sorry to catching up just now. I will add my 2 cents. --KrebMarkt 16:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Commons:File:Idea Ribbon.png

Hi Goodraise,

Can you please check that I added the correct information when I uploaded the above file to Commons? (Specifically, is the image a derivative work, and the license details?)

If so, I can then delete the local copy.

G.A.S^talk 09:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

All seems in order. Goodraise 16:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Chartstats opposes

Hey Goodraise, hope you're well. I did the easy review of Taylor Swift tonight, and your quick and incisive comment blew my comments out pretty much as you don't see Chartstats as meeting WP:RS. Fair enough. This appears to be a reasonably common theme and I was wondering if you could knock up some boilerplate advice (since this crops up quite a bit) so that when you oppose, you could mitigate for all the fallout the oppose generally produces? It'd be awesome if you'd be prepared to just point folks to alternatives or whatever, nothing spectacular, I know it's not your job to do it, but when you just oppose a list based on a single reference source, I imagine for our newcomers it's pretty daunting. Hopefully you see where I'm coming from, if not, no worries, just ignore this and we'll keep on keeping on. All the best, thanks for your efforts here, in particular at FLC. The Rambling Man (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Better? Goodraise 03:03, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Indeed. With thanks, The Rambling Man (talk) 10:27, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

There may be a more reliable source available; you may want to take a look here. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:40, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for informing me. It doesn't change anything though. I already knew about those sources and most of the editors arguing in favor of Chart Stats are aware of them as well. Goodraise 05:21, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there a plan to make User:Goodraise/Notability (fiction) an active proposal?

Note: Title changed. Goodraise 17:18, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

You were working on User:Goodraise/Notability (fiction) a year ago. Is there a plan to make this an active proposal, or can it be removed from that cstegory? Fences&Windows 15:59, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

No, there is no such plan (at least not on my part). I've removed it from the category. My apologies for inconveniencing you. Goodraise 17:55, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Not a problem, I'm just tidying things up so we can see which proposals are active. Fences&Windows 21:29, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer

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

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

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

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:05, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Romanization for words of English origin

On the MOS:JP talk page, a discussion has been started about including or not including romanizations for words of English origin, such as Fainaru Fantajī in Final Fantasy (ファイナルファンタジー, Fainaru Fantajī) (for the sake of simplicity, I called this case "words of English origin", more information on semantics here).

Over the course of a month, it has become apparent that both the parties proposing to include or not include those romanizations cannot be convinced by the arguments or guidelines brought up by the other side. Therefore, a compromise is trying to be found that will satisfy both parties. One suggestion on a compromise has been given already, but it has not found unanimous agreement, so additional compromises are encouraged to be suggested.

One universally accepted point was to bring more users from the affected projects in to help achieve consensus, and you were one of those selected in the process.

What this invitation is:

• You should give feedback on the first suggested compromise and are highly encouraged to provide other solutions.

What this invitation is not:

• This is not a vote on including or excluding such romanizations.
• This is not a vote on compromises either.

It would be highly appreciated if you came over to the MOS:JP talk page and helped find a solution. Thank you in advance. Prime Blue (talk) 11:28, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Signpost "Features and admins" column

Hi Goodraise,

The Signpost's "Features and admins" page now includes a "Choice of the week" for featured articles, featured lists and featured pictures. Each week, The Signpost invites a different delegate, reviewer or nominator from each process to select what they think is the best, or their favourite, item, and to give their reasons. These reasons can be technical (e.g., related to the Criteria) or subjective, or both.

Would you be willing to do this with featured lists for next week's edition? If you agree, promotions from Saturday 21 August to Friday 27 August will be eligible. They will be listed here by Saturday UTC, and we would need your text by Sunday UTC. Examples from previous weeks are accessible by clicking on "← PREVIOUS Features and admins" at the bottom. Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 23:49, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure. Goodraise 07:23, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

By the way, congrats on your new burden. Goodraise 06:48, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks (2×). The page is ready for you know (paste your text where it says "We asked FL nominator and reviewer Goodraise for his favorite:"). Cheers, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)