Kuwabaratheman

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Wikipedia has a Manual of Style and a set of Naming Conventions that should be followed to maintain a consistent, encyclopedic appearance. Not following these conventions, as you did to Hunter x Hunter makes it harder to read. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. --`/aksha 10:07, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

The changes you have been making have not been a matter of using what the series stats as official romanji. The "official romanji" clause refers to official romanji from the manga's author, not "official" namings from companies that have licensed it (in this case being ViZ). The discussion page for our Anime/manga project is where you need to take this. Please refrain from edit warring in the article mainspace. --`/aksha 10:10, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

"The "official romaji" I'm using is Togashi's, not Viz's, so basically, you are wrong. I would kindly ask you to stop vandalizing the Hunter x Hunter page with blantantly incorrect information that has been contradicted by every official source.Kuwabaratheman 16:39, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

No, it's not. Togashi never provided any official romanizations. If you claim he has, then the burden of proof is on you. Please provide some evidence or a reliable source.

Also, naming is not "information". Naming on wikipedia is covered by our Naming Conventions, which say to use the most popular and most commonly-used names when alternative namings exist. --`/aksha 08:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Alright, you seem to be contradicting your self. That states that names most likely to be used by the average person should be used for convenience. In this case, the scanlations reach a couple hundred thousand people at most, while Viz's version would reach millions of readers. The Google test is a very poor indication of things because its only based on pre-existing fansites, which aren't necessarily right.

Anyways, for proof. [1] clearly shows that Gon and Ging's family name is to be written in English as 'Freecss'. That's official art from Togashi, so that doesn't leave anything up to debate. As far as Kite or Kalluto, they aren't official, but it seems rather silly to use them. Anyone with knowledge of the Japanese language can clearly tell "Kaito" should be "Kite". And it seems silly to say "Karuto" when all the other members of the family have the double l. Consistency should exist here. Kuwabaratheman 00:51, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. Thank you.

HxH names

I suggest you take a look at this before you start reverting on the hxh articles again. And this also.

So please, stop reverting and re-reverting. The Hunter x Hunter main article is already been protected till March 11, i don't think anyone wants all the other HxH articles locked as well. Locking articles is never a good thing and locking them because someone feels like edit warring when they don't like the naming conventions is nothing but a waste of time for other wikipedians. --`/aksha 05:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Ichigo page

Whoa, whoa, my bad. I thought people were changing the voice actor for Ichigo, not for Zangetsu. Sorry for the mistake. King Zeal (talk) 21:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

List of The Prince of Tennis characters

It's fine if you want to expand on details on the actual characters, but specific plot details are not necessary. Stating something that is very important to the character's development is fine, but specific matches and the like are unnecessary. There were relevant details added, so I'll run through and add them back later. TTN (talk) 15:08, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Specific plot details are not necessary? I was only providing plot details to give context. I gave descriptions for the individual schools because they were important to their roles in the series, and the only plot information I added to characters were about events that were vital to them or involved their development. If you feel that it's excessive and want to trim down on it, that's your own decision, but don't simply revert the entire edit.Kuwabaratheman (talk) 16:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Some of the details are fine, but the grand majority is completely unnecessary. Providing context is one thing, but specific matches that are found on the episode or chapter lists do not need to be covered. If I'm going to "trim" the content, the majority is going to be removed, as if I were to just continue adding back information like I was planning. Are you going to revert again if I do so? TTN (talk) 17:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Except many of those matches can't be found on the episode or chapter lists. The chapter list provides no summary for anything following Volume 2, for example. If you feel that the information should be there, maybe you should be trying to add it to that list, rather than taking it away from here. Looking over the added information, I don't see 'the majority' as being 'specific matches', as you claim. I simply attempted to give an overview of the character, and provide reception information, as well as information on the actors who played them. If you think I was too wordy in those descriptions and want to cut down the plot overview of schools/characters, go right ahead, as long as the resulting version still provides context as to who they are in the series. But don't just blindly revert and remove tons of valuable information.Kuwabaratheman (talk) 18:39, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care about the episode or chapter lists. I'm just stating where the information belongs. All I'm trying to do is organize a non-crufty character list instead of having twenty character articles for a single series. As I said, I was going to be adding back relevant information, but whatever. TTN (talk) 18:50, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

CCS Edit

Re this edit - maintenance templates like this should not be substituted nor just copy/pasted into articles. Just call them using the template format, i.e. {{expand-section}}. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:36, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the info. I'll do it that way in the future. I thought I had been told to do it the other way in the past, but I may be mistaken.kuwabaratheman (talk) 06:39, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Kodocha

Thank you for pulling the ramble off the page just now - I simply missed it the first time around; I didn't mean to rescue it. I saw it after finishing, but I'd started another edit (on Talk) and was going to wait until finishing there to go back and delete it. arimareiji (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

August 1, 2003

I was stunned to see the discussion on this closed as "no consensus, default to keep", since very few people suggested an outright keep, and most would have been satisfied with a merge. I honestly don't think the closing administrator paid attention to any of the comments. Regardless of how you felt on this issue-- delete, merge, keep -- I think that everyone's comments showed that a lot of people care about this issue, and "no consensus" was similar to a snub. I've asked for a review, and invite everyone to give their two cents worth at [2]. Best wishes. Mandsford (talk) 23:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Kuwabaratheman. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)