User talk:Lucia Black

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

• Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
  • If I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
• Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
  • Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
• To initiate a new conversation on this page, please click on this link.
• You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

GITS Albums

Hey bread Nija, you still need help on the GITS article? If so post the link here please. --Necrojesta (talk) 18:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

September 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Talk:Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime). When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Farix (Talk) 23:40, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

NGE proposal

I've commented on your proposal at the NGE wikiproject talk page. I would suggest that you avoid saying articles are "worthless". All of Wikipedia's articles are imperfect works-in-progress, the challenge is to leave them better than you found them. Also, the people who have been working on the articles may have their feelings hurt by having their work described this way. Thanks for your consideration. BTW, if you'd like to find more userboxes, have a look at Wikipedia:Userboxes. :-) --Malkinann (talk) 21:46, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries

In the future, it would be great if you could make use of Help:Edit summary. --Gwern (contribs) 16:12 14 September 2009 (GMT)

Wiki-adoption?

Have you considered being Wiki-Adopted? It'd give you a mentor to ask questions to about how to use Wikipedia. --Malkinann (talk) 23:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I can't see where you've asked to be adopted... You need to put an 'adopt me!' userbox on your user page as described in the adoptee's area. Please give it a go, I think you would really benefit from it. --Malkinann (talk) 21:51, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

You have mail....

Hello, Lucia Black. You have new messages at MichaelQSchmidt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

And again at

Hello, Lucia Black. You have new messages at MichaelQSchmidt's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Please be nice

Please don't call people "crazy or something", as you did to Southen at their user talk page. This is not the way to foster a good discussion on the future of these articles, and may be construed as a breach of WP:CIVIL. People who don't agree with you are not necessarily "crazy or something". --Malkinann (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Telling someone "from now on, we should discuss an edit in the discussion section before actually editing" should only be reserved for the most controversial articles, such as abortion. Please don't bite the newbies. --Malkinann (talk) 22:05, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Mergeto

When using the {{mergeto}} template (as you did on Revival of Evangelion), you need to 'start the ball rolling' on the discussion - if people click on the 'discuss' link in the mergeto template and can't find a discussion, they may remove the mergeto template. I've removed the mergeto template from End of Evangelion as the potential merge has been discussed ad nauseam on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Evangelion and has been rejected. --Malkinann (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Please sign your comments, I don't like having to track you down. Because you haven't started the discussion for Revival of Evangelion (by linking to it from the discuss link in the mergeto template) anyone can remove it. Please begin the discussion, linked from the mergeto template on the page about the merge, if you really want to merge the articles. If you need help on making the mergeto template do what you want, there's information on that on {{mergeto}}. --Malkinann (talk) 01:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

So you want to Be bold, but not too bold? It's nice that you want to discuss everything before doing it, but too much discussion can stymie the development of the articles by being fatiguing to the editors. For example, after I repeatedly explained why Angelic Days is notable, to find you saying you still don't think it's worthy of its own article is really discouraging, because your view is not based on the general notability guidelines or on the editing policy. There are some circumstances which require discussion (such as merges and major rearranging) but not everything does. Not everything will be "obvious" to other people - if you avoid using loaded language when you communicate with other editors, discussions may proceed more smoothly. --Malkinann (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Pointing out when articles don't actually have to be merged or deleted is always a good first step, I find, and the GNG is a guideline accepted by the wider Wikipedia community. If an article satisfies the GNGs, then they may have a standalone article, and that's usually good enough for me. It is then up to you to convince why would it be a good idea to merge the two notable topics anyway. --Malkinann (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 15:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Welcome!

Hello, Bread Ninja! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Getting started A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images • create your first article Intuitive guide to Wikipedia • Article Creation Wizard Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons List of policies • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • List of guidelines Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General • Spam • Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

I noticed you'd never received a "proper" welcome, so I'm leaving this here. I strongly urge you to take some time to read through some of these links, as they will really help you understand the basics of editing in Wikipedia and in working in a consensus-based environment. Reviewing some of your recent discussions, I'd also highly urge you to remember that assuming good faith, civility, and going with consensus even when you disagree are non-optional components of being a Wikipedia editor. You started off on a rocky foot and I'm glad to see you are working to be a productive editor now, so I hope you will take this advice to heart. Thanks, -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:24, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Indenting messages

Hello Bread Ninja, I have followed a few discussions that you have been involved in, and I've noticed that you don't indent your messages when you post replies (I'm assuming that this is simply because you don't understand how indenting works). I'd like to ask that you start indenting your replies, as without indentation, the discussion becomes nigh-incomprehensible to anyone who hasn't been following along in diffs - Talk:Sailor Moon#a few questions is an excellent example. You can indent messages by prepending them with a colon (:). For instance:

First message. User:Example (talk • contribs) 00:00, 1 January 2000 (UTC)

Reply. User:Example (talk • contribs) 15:43, 1 January 2000 (UTC)

Another reply. User:Example (talk • contribs) 15:59, 1 January 2000 (UTC)

Continuing the conversation. User:Example (talk • contribs) 03:12, 2 January 2000 (UTC)

Commenting on the first message. User:Example (talk • contribs) 09:17, 2 January 2000 (UTC)

...and so forth. You can practice this as much as you like right here, on your talk page. Don't worry too much about going back and fixing the indenting in the discussions you have been involved in; at least in the case of SM, I'll probably sort it out when I get some time. Thanks! =) 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 18:45, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Please don't refactor other's talk page comments

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Sailor Moon, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. --Malkinann (talk) 19:37, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

November 2009

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to .hack//G.U., without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. A8UDI 16:52, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a battleground?

Hi there Bread Ninja, I'm concerned you may be falling into the trap of finding that some of your suggestions are resisted by others, and treating Wikipedia as a battleground, arguing long after you've 'given up'. When I've done this, I've found it helpful to disengage from the argument, and remember that I'm here to write an encyclopedia. Typically, I've been reading further readings from yaoi and incoroporating it into the article, or creating new (yaoi) articles from WP:ANIME/REQUEST, but there are lots of other things you can do on Wikipedia that don't involve reading about yaoi.  ;) You obviously have tremendous energy, and I don't want to see you get so frustrated that you lash out at others. I'd suggest you might like to find something else you can do here to build the encyclopedia. If you're still up for short discussions, you might be interested in the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion process - discussions there only last for five days usually, and you could help to remove unnecessary articles, by making the case for them not being necessary. You might also be interested in joining the Guild of Copy Editors, as there you could summarise articles. You could also get adopted and ask for more suggestions from your adopter. Please consider it, I make this suggestion because I'm concerned about you. Take care. --Malkinann (talk) 20:17, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear you're feeling unwell. Perhaps taking a wikibreak might help you? (or alternatively, Wikipedia might give you something else to think about other than your real life problems.) Continuing to send your viewpoint even after a discussion has resulted in a consensus can be confusing to other editors, as it was when you expressed your opinion on Angelic Days' notability even after we'd discussed it at the Evangelion Wikiproject and determined it was sufficiently notable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Amazingly, Wikipedia is made out of real people (including fans ;-) ). We all have emotions, we all have slightly different interpretations of the policies and guidelines, and that's why it's important to be civil to promote a harmonious editing atmosphere. I don't think it matters to anyone why we agree, only that we do. It doesn't matter to the Wikipedia article why we agree it contains what it does!  ;-) I'm concerned that as you seem to be spending more energy on discussing rather than being bold and editing the encyclopedia (be it through adding references, rewording Angelic Days#Plot or whatever) that your discussions become unwelcome. It could appear that you are here to send your viewpoint or even to prove a point rather than to build the encyclopedia. Maybe the reason it feels like I just skim through your comments is because I have a very different view of the policies to you. For example, I don't see what the difference is between having a religion section and a list which has religious references, because per WP:PRESERVE sourced information must be preserved, and per WP:IMPERFECT, it doesn't matter what the current format is. Maybe if you were to go and find a quiet corner of Wikipedia where you can edit articles without having to discuss so much with others, you might feel less burned out by Wikipedia. I myself retreat to yaoi because it's usually a quiet place, but if you have an affection for anything you studied in school, that might be worth investigating. --Malkinann (talk) 20:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

As the discussion has been going on for months, and you keep making new discussions, people are getting tired. Something else you could try aside from diversifying the articles you visit is changing your editing style somewhat. There are many different styles of editing Wikipedia - you can read about them in {{Wikipedia fauna}} and in meta:Conflicting Wikipedia philosophies, but I feel I should warn you that it would be uncivil to label someone else as being a member of a Wikifauna, or as an -ist. Some people on Wikipedia take great pride in having an extremely well-referenced article, and thus have trouble taking a person who does not also add references seriously. --Malkinann (talk) 20:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The short answer is that too many references is never enough. ;) By having a more thorough survey of the literature, the information in the articles gets better - if it butts up against WP:SIZE then perhaps a split could be entertained, like that for Themes of Blade Runner. I don't understand what you mean by "I try not having pride at all when on wikipedia, if you messed up, you messed up, and if you can make something better, than why not? still i rather want someone who can be more humility or better words, humble." :( --Malkinann (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The rank of the Themes of Blade Runner page is irrelevant - the important thing is that it's notable. There are only about 8000 GA articles on the entire English Wikipedia - is it any wonder that I can't show you a GA-class article on themes of a work? I feel it would be best if you were to stop arguing about the religion section - the discussion has WP:SNOWBALLed, and continuing to argue creates editor fatigue and distracts from the editing process - being here to build an encyclopedia. Perhaps instead find an article in Evangelion to add references to - such as looking in your Angelic Days books at the author's notes to create a production/development section there, like that in Fullmetal Alchemist. --Malkinann (talk) 22:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I think you have been confusing talking-about-improving-the-encyclopedia with actually improving-the-encyclopedia. I would suggest not proposing anything for a while. Instead, find something so uncontroversial to do that no-one can possibly object, and something a discussion isn't needed for. Me and Tintor have expanded Rei Ayanami#Reception which now talks about Rei's contributions to moe, and I've not needed to discuss anything with him or any other person for that, it's just been the natural editing process. For example, you could crack open your Angelic Days books and start on a Development section there, or have a go at making the plot section more prosey. NPOV means neutral point of view- you don't have to police yourself so hard to be neutral, or you might go through to the other side and act as an anti-fan on Wikipedia. As it is, you're mostly arguing with others when you're on Wikipedia, or deleting stuff from articles. Try adding referenced stuff instead for a change - others might see you differently then. --Malkinann (talk) 20:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Great! I'm looking forward to seeing what you can add to Angelic Days! --Malkinann (talk) 21:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Hm. I don't really know what's happened here in the last few days, but I would strongly urge you to develop your Exopedian side. I feel that would go a long way towards ameliorating matters, as it would give you time to cool down, and others' behaviour on talk pages won't matter so much when you're focussed on the work of building the encyclopedia. --Malkinann (talk) 23:03, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Adoption

Hey there. I've noticed that you want to be adopted by an experienced user. I am here to tell you that I would love to adopt you and help you with all wikipedia-related questions and problems. Please, if you accept my offer, reply here or on my talk page.  Ilyushka88 Talk to me 22:02, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't see that you had been adopted by The Arbiter. If you wish not to be his adoptee anymore, please do tell him about that. I'll put back the {{adoptme}} template to your page as I would like to see why you do not want to be adopted by The Arbiter anymore before adopting you myself. I might deal with some things like The Arbiter does, and you might have to change adopter again - that's why it would be good to know if something went wrong.  Ilyushka88 Talk to me 07:04, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Question?

Just out of curiosity, why is it that you no longer wish to be my adoptee? The Arbiter^★_★^★ 22:55, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

Merry Christmas, Lucia Black! At this time of year, I would like to extend seasons greetings to the Wikipedians I have interacted with in the past year on Wikipedia. I wish you a wonderful holiday season! The Arbiter★★★

Talk pages comments

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at User_talk:The_Arbiter, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Folken de Fanel (talk) 18:25, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

removal of templates

Just to let you know, per bold revert discuss, if a template you placed on an article is reverted, it's not appropriate to reinstate it. The appropriate thing to do is to go to the article's talk page and explain why you feel it's necessary. --Malkinann (talk) 19:15, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

If you feel strongly enough over the template to revert someone else's revert, then you should feel strongly enough to talk about it on the discussion page. Explaining it first before looking for a third party to vindicate your views is the proper process. I can understand that you may not wish to do so, though, given that you're trying to be a bit more exopedian - if that's the case, take your reverts on the chin, don't let it worry you. Let it go, instead. Getting The Last Word is not the best idea - it's possible that you may end up beating a dead horse - ick!  ;) Please take care. :) --Malkinann (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not about 'having the points in your favour', Wikipedia is collaborative, even with people who have widely divergent points of view to your own. That's why I've been urging you to develop your exopedian side - so that we can all collaborate on the articles rather than discuss proposed changes incessantly on the talk pages. That way, people will be more receptive to your ideas when you propose changes in the article, as they've worked alongside with you. Do you get what I mean? --Malkinann (talk) 23:33, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have suggested to you a number of things that you can do to ameliorate the situation, and you seem to be largely ignoring my suggestions, aside from getting adopted. This makes me sad. Instead, you seem to be continuing the behaviour that upsets people - starting up many discussions but not editing the actual articles, labelling people as a 'bunch of biased fans' and ignoring consensus. Everyone is human, everyone has bias. There's no escaping that. If you become more exopedian in your edits, people will see you more as a fellow worker and respond to your discussions better. I hope this helps. --Malkinann (talk) 23:34, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about, you'll have to be more specific. --Malkinann (talk) 20:55, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I was AFK for a few days in the leadup to Christmas - you probably just caught me at a bad time. By the time I found your message, it was already too late. I am not Folken's keeper or your keeper, I have a life of my own. --Malkinann (talk) 21:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that you leave discussing things for a time, and find something to do that's a bit more exopedian - like looking up in your Angelic Days books for development information at the back, or reading something in the further reading sections around the Evangelion articles (or any other article in Wikipedia) and add it into that article as a source. Discussing improvements to the article does not actually entail improving an article, and sometimes gets in the way of improving articles by inducing editor fatigue. Can you imagine if we had to previously discuss every single edit we make? No-one would ever get anything done. --Malkinann (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Character design is part of the development/production of a manga series, as it is the author's interpretations of these characters. It would be really helpful if you added this information to the Angelic Days page. :) I would encourage you to become even more exopedian - branching out to other areas of Wikipedia may help you to regain your confidence, but if you were to simply add sourced information to Evangelion pages, that's something that's uncontroversial and usually considered a good thing by all. Everyone gets reverted on occasion, it's not something to be ashamed of. :) --Malkinann (talk) 22:09, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Re

Hello, Lucia Black. You have new messages at The Arbiter's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Lucia Black. You have new messages at The Arbiter's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Recent User

That's the point.

I'm a recent user and can't edit the page.

Because it, i ask you to do this, sorry =( --Ekans La Cobra (talk) 17:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

AFD

I've fixed up your AFD on the Eureka 7 game - please read WP:AFDHOWTO for advice as to how to list an AFD properly. (I messed up my first AFD too, so don't feel alone in this.) If you don't follow the procedure on the AFD page, people won't know the article is up for discussion, and so the article probably won't be deleted. Hope this helps. :) --Malkinann (talk) 21:54, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You have been warned!

You've got a warning. Do it again and you'll be reported. - Zhang He (talk) 16:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Terra (group)

I am working with admin Lar on the BLPs that are within the scope of Bemani music video games and already knew about the AfD for Terra (group). Thanks for letting me know though.  æronphonehome  17:34, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

They're going down so fast very few are even noticing. I understand the situation and believe the intent of these deletions is noble but the actual execution is anywhere from sloppy to surreptitious.  æronphonehome  17:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Non Free Images in your User Space

Hey there Bread Ninja, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User:Bread Ninja/Music of Ghost in the Shell. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed today here, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 05:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Re: L'Arc-en-Ciel

Don't make threats to start edit wars on articles. The matter was discussed and opposed during the Request for Move. Get over it, the article won't be moved against consensus. oncamera^(t) 00:30, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Angelic Days

Ok, fair enough. Thanks for looking for your books. :) --Malkinann (talk) 19:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You realise it takes two to edit war, right?

I don't know or care who's right here; talk it out. You're both in the wrong. HalfShadow 19:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

What part of 'don't know or care' did you fail to understand? Hash it out on the talk page or I'll report you both to AN/I. HalfShadow 19:16, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The two of you together are causing a disruption. You'll find I do care about that. HalfShadow 19:21, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Ghost in the Shell Stand Alone Complex: 2nd GiG

Hi Bread Ninja

As far as the work required on 2nd GIG goes, what it needs above all else is a summary. As it stands, there is a discussion of the setting of the story but no actual word of what the story is. A plot summary would redress this imbalance. GitS:SAC is essentially about the Laughing Man case: what is 2nd GIG about?

Thanks BlackMarlin (talk) 17:23, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

List of Oh My Goddess! soundtracks

hi, i was just wondering if you could help out make the article into tracklist format. the format it is in now, is odd and hard to understand. also additional reference of where you found these tracklist is good too.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello there, I used the sources pointed out in the references section as well as the cds themselves (for timings mostly). List is probably incomplete as there had been so many cd releases. -- Cat ^chi? 12:02, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Re: .hack//Roots references

Hello, Lucia Black. You have new messages at Allen4names's talk page.
Message added allen四names 15:50, 24 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

References in plot summaries

Hello, Bread Ninja. (Great username, by the way!) Thank you for your comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/The Open Boat/archive1, but I wanted to correct your misconception regarding refs in plot summaries; citations are not necessary unless the summary includes critical opinion, interpretation, direct quotes, or anything similarly questionable. Per WP:PLOTSUM—and as can be seen in various Featured Articles dedicated to works of fiction (To Kill a Mockingbird, Mary: A Fiction, etc.)—if a plot summary is solely a plot summary, the reference is obviously the work itself, and no other citation is needed. I hope this helps, María (habla conmigo) 19:20, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to, . WP:CITE states that material "challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations" must be cited. The only citation currently in the plot summary refers to a direct quote; because the rest of the section is a basic overview of the action in the short story, per guidelines there is no need for additional outside sources. The source is the work itself. Is there something in the summary you find to be contentious? María (habla conmigo) 19:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, then you and I/the citation guidelines/the GA and FA-criteria will just have to agree to disagree. ;) María (habla conmigo) 22:09, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No sarcasm intended, although it was intended to convey a sense of finality. On a similar note, I'm not sure you quite understand the purpose of a peer review, or what exactly it is I'm looking for in way of constructive criticism -- especially in regards to the FA-criteria. Perhaps you just aren't as familiar with academic articles; I see on your talk page that you're into video games, which is great, but they're not exactly on the same page as, say, "The Open Boat". I appreciate your interest, but I don't see how the comments you've made (both in-actionable and incorrect) can possibly improve the article. María (habla conmigo) 16:24, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for confirming my doubts about your peer review experience; I wrote the article in its entirety, submitted it for PR, and tend to take it to FAC -- therefore I am "in charge", as you say. I suggest you become familiar with the process before you make further suggestions. Goodbye. María (habla conmigo) 17:57, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm being perfectly civil, thank you. Although I obviously don't have control of what comments are submitted to the PR, or FAC for that matter, I have the right as the major contributor of the article to point out when someone's suggestions are not actionable, or when their comments go against widely accepted style guidelines, just as I have in regards to your input. Any other editor in the know would have done exactly the same. If you would rather editors ignore your suggestions, for fear that they in some way point out when you are mistaken, perhaps you should simply not comment. María (habla conmigo) 19:05, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought they were your "brother"'s comments? Either way, I didn't remove them, I moved them to the PR's talk page. Let it rest. María (habla conmigo) 16:35, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

RE:Roxas (Kingdom Hearts)

You're right, the article deserves more than Start-class. Typically, you can request a reassessment at Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment/Requests. A Good Article rating would have to go through the WP:GAN process.

I'm not sure if Tintor plans to go for GA or not. If so, then he may not care about a reassessment right now. I know I don't when I prep C-class or lower articles for GA. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 19:33, 24 March 2010 (UTC))

AFD

WP:AFDHOWTO will tell you everything you need to know about starting an AFD. Please read it and have a go - Collectonian or an administrator can help you fix up the AFD listing if there's any problems. --Malkinann (talk) 21:28, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

NGE Games

Sorry, I'm not interested in anything until July. Until then, I would suggest you try to improve the articles as they are and ask the video games project for help. --Malkinann (talk) 20:11, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

RE: MOS-AM

The part of WP:MOS-AM that I was talking about is in the section "Article names and disambiguation". It says:

"In general, do not create separate articles for a different medium belonging to the same franchise, unless:

1. They differ sharply in plot, characters, or in other major characteristics; or
2. The article becomes too large." Calathan (talk) 18:04, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

My issue with this guideline is that I think in some cases multiple works are left merged together when there are actually enough sources to write separate, non-redundant articles on the different works. Though it says the articles can be split when the one article becomes too large, in my opinion the articles don't ever become too large becaue people are discouraged from writing more about one part of a franchise when it is merged into a small section on another part of a franchise. While the guideline should still encourage only having one article when there isn't enough to write about to support multiple articles, I think it should also encourage having multiple articles when there is enough information to support them. The current version only allows for multiple articles once two articles worth of content are present in the current article, but I think it should instead allow for two articles once it is clear that the sources support two articles worth of content, even if all that content hasn't been written into Wikipedia yet. The reason for this is that I think splitting articles will encourage people to expand them, while leaving them together will encourage people never to do the work that should be done on them. Calathan (talk) 18:27, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think what you are suggesting is not the way Wikipedia normally works or is intended to work. Normally, someone will create a new article as a stub, perhaps just one or two sentances. If the subject is notable, then the article will be kept. Over time, many people will see the article and add to it, until eventually it grows to a large size. Articles aren't created full formed, with all sections completed and well sourced. Instead they are allowed to exist if sources can be found (even if those sources aren't cited in the article yet), and gradually improved upon until they become full-length, well cited article. However, I think that the overmerging of articles by Wikiproject Anime and Manga interferes with this process, and results in some articles never being written. For the example I was using of Dragon Ball GT, if you look at the Dragon Ball article, you will see that it has just one sentance of production information, one sentance of plot summary (though there are individual episodes summaries in the episode list), and half a paragraph of reception for Dragon Ball GT. I think the sources could easily support two paragraphs for each of production, plot summary, and reception, yet they never get written because it would seem out of place to write that much about Dragon Ball GT in an article that mainly focuses on the rest of the Dragon Ball franchise. I'm sure there are other examples of this happening, but Dragon Ball GT is just the one I'm most aware of. However, I'm not suggesting that this happens in all cases or even in most cases, and there are certainly cases where it would probably be better to have a single article even if enough could be written on multiple versions of a work. For example, the article on Fullmetal alchemist seems to cover both the manga and anime sufficenently, and having the different versions together in a single artilce allows for better coverage of how they differ from each other. I'm not suggesting that articles just be spilt because there are enough reviews of the manga and the anime that each could pass the notability guidelines separately. Instead I'm saying that it seems to me that adaptations and spinoffs get neglected because of being merged into an article on another part of the franchise. Perhaps an alternative to amending WP:MOS-AM to suggest articles be split more often would be to instead have it make clear that adaptations and spinoffs should be covered to the full degree that sources allow, rather than just being briefly mentioned because they are not the original work. Calathan (talk) 19:37, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you are just wrong about articles needing to be long to be kept. Articles are kept based on the sources found that could allow the article to exist, not on what is currently in the article. Calathan (talk) 20:18, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

Friends for Sale

Hello, Lucia Black. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Alexius08 (talk) 02:58, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Talk page etiquette

Hi BN, there's been a complaint from Donald Duck that you're posting on his talk page after he asked you not to. While there's no ownership of user talk pages, there's nevertheless a presumption in favour of the user being allowed to determine who is welcome there (within reason). If he removes your post, it means he has seen it, so there's no need to post it again. And if he asks you to stop, it's best to do it. If problems continue, perhaps you could ask others for input, rather than dealing with it yourself. I'm writing this with no knowledge of the background, by the way, so this request shouldn't be interpreted as an opinion of who's right or wrong about the specific issue. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^{talk contribs} 16:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello, Lucia Black. You have new messages at Bento00's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

GITS album page

I appreciate you letting me know. Are all the albums being consolidated into a list article for notability reasons? --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 19:44, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

If Megatech Body doesn't fit the notability guidelines as a standalone article, I don't mind a merge. --BrokenSphere^{Msg me} 00:46, 5 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello. I just felt that it should of been better discussed before making drastic changes. The merged new article is missing a lot of information such as track listings, cd staffs, and album art. I feel that perhaps we can work to expand the existing album pages and make them better suit the notability guidelines. I've been doing what I can to contribute. NewYorkStyledCheesecakes! (talk) 01:33, 12 May 2010 (UTC) Okay, I understand. It was just that the last time I viewed the page it was as it was and then the next time I viewed it, they were all merged and I didn't know what was going on. The pages have been really helpful to me and I used them to find out information when I was listening to the music. The main reason I would go back to the page would be to obtain the album art too. It was probably my favorite thing about the article. NewYorkStyledCheesecakes! (talk) 00:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Reply

Hello, Lucia Black. You have new messages at Talk:Super Street Fighter IV.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--uKER (talk) 02:31, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Major Kusangi

I'm upset to see that you've axed what I feel to be an important part of the article, and also that you could not find a place to put File:Major Kusangi.jpg. Since I have no desire to argue with the people who insist on eliminating our fiction-based articles one section at a time, I will merely note that in the future I would like to be informed of the removal of any fair use images like the one cited above that were uploaded by me. I would rather delete said images before the bots on site leave that message about such images being nominated for deletion, as such automated messages depress me immensely. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I beg to differ, but I do want to argue with you. All I am saying here is that notifying the uploader of your decision to remove a fair use image would be nice. TomStar81 (Talk) 19:43, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

I know about the guidelines (both the old ones and the new ones), but my request is not covered by them. That is why I left you this message in the first place. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:25, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Lucia Black. You have new messages at Joe Chill's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Talkback from Allen4names

Hello, Lucia Black. You have new messages at Allen4names's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Music of Neon Genesis Evangelion

Re: Collapsed track listing now implemented. Is this what you after? Memphisto (talk) 13:21, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Neon genesis character image discussion

I already gave my opinion about it. Better comment it in the project.Tintor2 (talk) 21:34, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Japan Expo

Hi,

Just to drop you this link. The French version of Pandara Hearts was launched during the French Japan Expo and its French published did it great. Unfortunately i'm not among the very very lucky few who got the chance to meet the mangaka during the event. --KrebMarkt 19:14, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Kingdom Hearts: Birth by Sleep.

I know we've had our ups and downs, but I wanted to thank you for agreeing with me about the colon. - Donald Duck (talk) 18:14, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes 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. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Tiptoety ^talk 06:06, 14 July 2010 (UTC)

DJ Max

Fixing double redirects, which is what I believe you were talking about, is necessary. Even though there are bots that will find them eventually and fix them it's just good form to make sure you forwards any existing redirects to the new page name once you've moved a page.  æronphonehome  17:07, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Re:Media

I'm going to be completely honest with you. Whenever you say anything, I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't understand your logic or thought processes at all. Saying "related media" means exactly what it says: media that is related. It should specifically disallow "other media that isn't directly related" implicitly. Axem Titanium (talk) 23:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

I think the difference is minute and not worth debating at length. "Related media" is what most video game featured articles have so that's what we'll go with. The scope of the section is ultimately decided by its actual contents, not the title of the section. Axem Titanium (talk) 11:15, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Long delayed hi

Hello Bread Ninja. My editing had almost ceased over the last few weeks/months and I apologize for the long time it has taken me to get back to you. I read the discussion you related on my talk page and was wondering how everything was going. Not just with that, but how you are generally doing with other editing and such. Your talk page looks pretty active, so it appears obvious you've been in the trenches :) Calmer Waters 08:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime)

I think the article still belongs to Portal:Anime and Manga. :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 01:06, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Welcome

Thank You, Bread Ninja, for caring about me and welcoming me to Wikipedia. Unfortunately I've been here for quite a while now, perhaps even longer than yourself, and I am already well aware of the rules of Wikipedia. I wasn't, however, aware that deleting large portions of text and images from articles without discussing it first was part of the "rules." If anything, I think it is best to edit information so it better suits Wikipedia's standards instead of deleting information that could be considered valuable to others. I can see that obviously our editing styles differ and I don't want there to be any misunderstanding or hostility between us. As with everybody, I always try to assume good faith and see the best in every one. WP:Faith
I hope that his clears or settles anything between us and that we can remain friendly and positive towards each other. I wish to be nothing but your friend. NewYorkStyledCheesecakes! (talk) 16:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Well I understand regarding the Tachikoma page, that doesn't really bother me.
But with main articles and the soundtrack page, if we can't have duplicate information, why do we even have a soundtrack page? Wouldn't it be easier for the reader if the information was right there on each page. And there are people such as myself that think images are an important addition to Wikipedia and find them in articles to be helpful. And also, when you deleted the soundtrack sections from the main articles, you didn't provide a link to the soundtrack page, which was your reason for deleting them in the first place. And regarding deleting images, I feel that it should be discussed first before permanently deleting them from Wikipedia when other people went through the trouble of uploading them. If anything, I feel that they should be removed from the page, and not the actual file deleted. The image files could be useful to others or be used on other pages. NewYorkStyledCheesecakes! (talk) 01:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

We're obviously not getting anywhere with this.
"i don't find images helpful when it comes to soundtracks. its really not necessary to have an image of a album cover" That is your personal opinion. Just because you don't think it's helpful doesn't mean others don't as well. I assume that other people find it helpful because almost every soundtrack page I visit has a picture of the album cover on it.
What I was trying to say was, if we didn't have a main soundtrack page, there would be no reason to delete the smaller sections on the original articles. I don't think anyone was complaining about them being on the original articles. But if you insist on keeping the main soundtrack page, perhaps we could have a small summary on the original page and then have a link to the main article which will feature more information. For example:Ghost_in_the_Shell_SAC#Music NewYorkStyledCheesecakes! (talk) 06:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Please don't remove it. I think it's fine the way it is. We don't need to have all the mini albums and singles. Just one image of the main album. NewYorkStyledCheesecakes! (talk) 06:55, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I believe that would be best.
NewYorkStyledCheesecakes! (talk) 03:30, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Rurouni Kenshin

Nope. It appears it was released only like the one from List of Rurouni Kenshin chapters. Even the Argentinian release had the cover in such format.Tintor2 (talk) 22:02, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

I highly doubt it since we are supposed to show the first and original covers.Tintor2 (talk) 22:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Black Rock Shooter

Thanks for the help! Much appreciated! :) Fox816 (talk) 03:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

"ultimatum" vs "proposal"

Here is what the dictionary says;

Proposal:

proposal |prəˈpōzəl| noun 1 a plan or suggestion, esp. a formal or written one, put forward for consideration or discussion by others : a set of proposals for a major new high-speed rail link.

Ultimatum:

ultimatum |ˌəltəˈmātəm; -ˈmät-| noun ( pl. -matums or -mata |-ˈmātə; -ˈmätə|) a final demand or statement of terms, the rejection of which will result in retaliation or a breakdown in relations : the UN Security Council ultimatum demanding Iraq's withdrawal from Kuwait | a “Marry me or else” ultimatum.

Since there was no room for discussion or argument or negotiation in what Vicious said to Julia, that makes it an ultimatum. That was the best word to begin with, it should stay that way.

Someone who is not a native speaker of English won't have much trouble with translating the meaning, and pretty much all native English speakers understand the difference. If they don't, there are dictionaries. :) Thanks! --MrsSpooky 21:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrsSpooky (talk • contribs)

Hi there. the article you referenced was Don't create articles on common words or phrases. that's not what's happening here. We're not creating an article, we're discussing the use of a word WITHIN an article. :) "Ultimatum" is almost as common a word as proposal - at least everyone knows the difference. There are just more proposals going around than ultimatums unless you are talking about world politics. :D

MrsSpooky 22:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrsSpooky (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, I thought wikipedia was striving for accuracy. "Ultimatum" is MUCH more accurate than "proposal." I don't think they're even in the same ballpark, but if you think too much precision of meaning is going to be a problem for readers, then by all means change it back. I'll leave it for someone else to correct it. And I'm clicking the "signature and timestamp" icon. Don't know what wikipedia is doing with it. --MrsSpooky 02:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrsSpooky (talk • contribs)

One final thought. Vicious and Julia are talking:

"Are you going to kill him?" "No you are. Either he dies or you both die." <--does that sound like a proposal to you? --MrsSpooky 02:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrsSpooky (talk • contribs)

'Proposal' is completely wrong (and anyone who has seen the session in question will know that). Anyone who hasn't seen it will think it was like "I think you should kill Spike or I'll kill you both, what do you think, any ideas?" It's completely wrong. It was an ultimatum. But, he made the demand, maybe that sentence can be rewritten so that it's correct and not have to have edit wars over it.--MrsSpooky 02:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrsSpooky (talk • contribs)

LOOK

It's not in the damned template. How many times do I have to repeat myself? Are you blind? Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 23:33, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Bakuman

Good day, Bread Ninja, in response to your notice on my talk page, I believe the details of the first chapter itself wthin Bakuman can and would preferably be summarized within a paragraph as opposed to its two. The overall plot (as in how the story makes development and why) should be covered within the next few sentences, or if need be another paragraph. But the Bakuman story in particular can truly be explained in just one, and that is why I called the Plot summary "too lengthy," which I still support. Would you agree with these points? Spindori (talk) 22:09, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I admit I have not read many similar articles, but those are to be addressed separately. As for Bakuman。, I have read only the first seven chapters and cannot say for myself how the plot goes. Moving passed that, I have read the first chapter and I know it can be summarized in one paragraph. I'll focus my attention on only that much for now. Spindori (talk) 19:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you sure that reading just one chapter means I do not know whether or not that chapter can be further summarized? It would be more like saying, "This much happens in the first 10 minutes," and that I leave writing the rest of the movie to those who have seen it. I think you misunderstand me. Spindori (talk) 22:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

Vincent Valentine

Please see the ongoing discussion in Talk:Cloud Strife and read the actual article. It is not a comparison, it is a fantasy casting for a movie which is not even taking place, which violates the WP:CRYSTAL policy. And as other users point out in the talk above, it violates neutrality, WP:UNDUE and trivia. 68.55.153.254 (talk) 23:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Re:Reason

I only agreed with PresN about going for the first (and thus with all). Also, it's kind of obvious that I did not mean that, considering I put it next PresN's comment. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 22:50, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The thing I put in the talk page about the column.Tintor2 (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the first, but just added my reason.Tintor2 (talk) 22:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

NGE

I think that the quotes in the Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime) article are in general, a good thing, as long as it doesn't fall into copyright violation of the original source. The 'so sick' comment, in particular, could not be made any more succinct than it is. Perhaps it would be useful to have a peer review on the article, as the last peer review was in 2007, IIRC? Or even getting the article to B-class would be an achievement - there are 750 C-class anime articles, but less than 200 B-class. WP:AFDHOWTO should explain everything you need to know about AFDing an article, but it would be a very good idea if WP:BEFORE were followed first, or if you were to contact your adopter and ask for their advice. --Malkinann (talk) 00:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel that quotes are the same as images - having a read through the non-free content policy might help you here. The quotes do not copy the whole of the sources, only the portion that is needed to back up the claim in the article, and the majority of the quotes are in the references section - outside of the 'flow' of the article. I've started up a merge discussion for the timeline article and asked Gwern, who originally proposed it in WP:EVA, to comment. --Malkinann (talk) 05:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your input on the merge discussion. :) I'm not too fussed on the article, either - Evangelion is not Doctor Who! Perhaps you could start a discussion on an Evangelion talk page and list the quotes that you find problematic and why? Quoting the relevant point is especially important for long sources or questionable claims, as it helps people find what was originally said. You could always start a peer review to find out what other people think of the article in general. --Malkinann (talk) 05:36, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

It's a tricky one. I've left Gwern a message on his talk page, and since then Gwern has edited, but has not replied. :( Perhaps seeking a wider consensus is called for. --Malkinann (talk) 10:56, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm drafting a plea for more eyeballs to the wider wikiproject now. :) --Malkinann (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Done. I hope this is fair to all involved. --Malkinann (talk) 11:10, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel it's a good idea to start up another discussion before the first one has been resolved. Please get in contact with your adopter about this. --Malkinann (talk) 00:46, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Cheers. You could also do stuff that doesn't require discussion, such as copyediting, or adding new information from sources. :) --Malkinann (talk) 22:42, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Simple copyediting or adding information from a reliable source should not require prior discussion. Wikipedia is not a forum - stick close to the editing policy, be bold, and you should do just fine.  :) --Malkinann (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I would point out that if Bread Ninja really cared about improving articles, and not scoring quick edits by cutting down stuff, I have already pointed to RSs (online even!) which reference tons of material in our Eva articles, and much we have omitted besides. (I haven't used them yet precisely because there's so much in them.) And she has not evinced the slightest shred of interest in using them. --Gwern (contribs) 01:19 21 November 2010 (GMT)

That's not the problem, either way i'm looking for third party sources. Most of what you bring up is directly from the main source. Either way, back to the main topic of this section. I say no to block quotes. they are disruptive and don't get directly to the point. The flow of it is unencclopedic and much difficult to read. So yes i do care about the articles, but adding in comes after trimming.Bread Ninja (talk) 13:23, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

It's rich to hear you talk about flow or difficult to read. Very droll.

Now, as far as 'third party sources' - complete red herring. Who better than Gainax to confirm that an allusion is an allusion and not an illusion? They are the ultimate reference for that sort of material. Anyone else is merely guessing, regardless of who publishes their speculation. --Gwern (contribs) 01:19 21 November 2010 (GMT)

Winners

Okay thanks for starting a discussion and not just delete the winners, cuz the winners have been posted up there for almost 2 years already and no one seemed to remove them, so I thought that you can't just remove them like that without letting people know, and if they still agree with you 24.205.28.18 (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Re: Template

Seems to be working for me; I put in {{Mobile Suit Gundam|MS=MSZG}} and I get the template with the first group as Zeta Gundam-specific. Same thing for {{Universal Century|MS=MSZG}}. --PresN 16:49, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

RE:Android Kikaider series

Sorry, but I didn't make much progress with those articles so I don't what resources are good. If your Japanese is up to par, you can try doing google searches of some of the reliable Japanese websites like newspapers and media sites. Sorry that doesn't help much, but I'm not sure where else to check. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 21:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC))

GAR?

Have you ever considered participating at WP:GAR? It's a good way to learn what makes an article GA-quality, and there's always a variety of articles to review. I found that having some experience there helped my confidence when I went to submit my first GA. --Malkinann (talk) 00:34, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Good Article reassessment is the other side of GA, where older articles that possibly don't meet the criteria are reviewed by some people to see if they need delisting. With WP:GAN, more GAs are listed, and with WP:GAR, unsatisfactory GAs are delisted. GAR is always crying out for help, and it's less involved than nominating an article or reviewing someone else's nomination. GAR is a group environment that can show you what a lot of people think is GA-worthy/GA-unworthy. At GAR, you would be pointing out the problems in the article according to the GA criteria, and possibly helping to fix them if you want. I've always tried to make an article "GAR-proof" before nominating it - it makes for an easy initial review.  :) --Malkinann (talk) 05:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Seiyū v. voice actor

Anime and manga are fairly common terms in North America, seiyū is not. Anime, while originally meaning Japanese animation, has taken on its own meaning of Japanese-style animation, though this isn't entirely accurate either. Similarly with manga. There even exist western anime and manga. Not so with seiyū. Seiyū simply means Japanese voice actor, that's all. There are some quirks to voice acting in Japan not found elsewhere, but the terms are essentially synonymous. There is no relevant information lost by referring to Japanese voice actors as such, especially with such phrases as "… performed by various seiyū - or voice actors - from the anime series …". How is the use of a Japanese word at all clarifying? There was still the link to voice acting in Japan for anyone interested.

I was also taking a lead from the discussion here. I think the key point is that anime articles on Wikipedia are still intended for all Wikipedia readers, not just the anime subculture. – mpdimitroff (talk · contribs) 06:39, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

As much as I don't agree, this is probably a fight too big for me to win, so I'll leave it as is. – mpdimitroff (talk · contribs) 06:57, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Monster (manga)

Hey Bread Ninja. I see you've removed a lot of content from the article. Don't you feel some of it should have been kept for future reference in the "Talk" page? While there is trivia among these, someone might find it useful at some point. If you're adamant about simply getting rid of it, could you please point towards a Help page that recommend this line of conduct? That would help me understand certain editing policies I'm unfamiliar with (because there are just too many of them!). Thanks.
• H☼ωdΘesI†fl∉∈ ^{KLAT} • 23:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Dissidia 012

What happened to the page? There used to be a character chart like the one on the Dissidia: Final Fantasy page, but now it's gone. Worse, there's unsourced material, like Vaan's inclusion, that has yet to be officially - if at all - confirmed. The page difinitely needs reworking, and I'd do it, but I don't know where to start. 142.26.194.190 (talk) 16:07, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Edit - Vaan has been confirmed for the game in a Japanese gaming magazine. I found a link to it of the Final Fantasy Wiki. 142.26.194.190 (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Utsuro no Hako to...

Hello ! I left a message on the ‎AfD page, but my request for help in finding sources at Wp:Anime failed, there doesn't seem to be any reliable source even in japanese, and no one seems to know the books.

I agree with you that the article would be acceptable with enough sources, but that could be said of all articles. The real question is whether there is any source, and thus whether the subject is notable or not. It seems obvious now that the subject isn't notable.Folken de Fanel (talk) 08:57, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You are correct. If it can't be helped, then there is no choice. But for something like this article it just appears to be more difficult to do considering it's a novel relating to anime and manga but not exactly within the criteria. SO finding a regular reliable source is nearly impossible to find unless we start hunting for these specific sources to see if they have any coverage on this topic. but at the moment it has no sources. it has to be deleted then so be it. I saved the information on a special page, in case i find an sources after it gets deleted.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:08, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, maybe you could modify your comment on the AfD, it still says "keep", and since it's the only comment for now, the user who will close the AfD might think that's still your opinion and will keep it ^^
You did well to save the text. Maybe someday, a US publisher will pick it up ! After all, it's a very recent work. But, you now, reliable sources like ANN often review things that are not yet published outside of Japan, but are popular enough there, that it's not yet the case for Uturo seems like another nail in its coffin, unfortunately.Folken de Fanel (talk) 09:38, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but you changed your comment to "keep" ? I don't really understand, i thought you agreed with me...?Folken de Fanel (talk) 10:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm half asleep. and amking big edits on cyborg 009. Sorry. I"ll go fix it.Bread Ninja (talk) 10:47, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Cyborg 009

I'll try to do my best to help out with the article. There's been a recent revival of interest in the series, so I'm more than happy to help with editing. When I have some time later, I'll update the article a bit more. Bokan

"be Human" / Music of Ghost in the Shell

Concerning the TYPE in the infobox for the be Human release at Music of Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex, there is an issue with using "mini album" because that is not a TYPE, but something within "Other" which is a type. See this: Category:Album articles with non-standard infoboxes. For that field in the infobox, there should be one of the categories listed in that page, which could be Other, or maybe Soundtrack or EP or even Compilation as I thought at first. But in any case, there is a problem with "mini album" because it's not a TYPE value in itself, but something that falls within Other and can therefore be discussed in the text (outside of the infobox). --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:45, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

it is a type, it falls under "other". any new type, would automatically go under "other" but it allows you to input the given name of the new type. a compliation wouldn't wokr if it never releasedb before, and this is almost a soundtrack but not exactly.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:48, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Well then you tell me why the article shows up in Category:Album articles with non-standard infoboxes when you use "mini-album". With the article in that report, people will be removing "mini album" again and again. I was just the first to notice. --DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

I changed it to EP for now. i'm currently working on adding a Mini-album as a new type. But the discussion is going lazily.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:49, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

.hack (video game series)

I have switched the boxart back to the logo. Your argument about the cast is not a solid one- there would not be justification for a non-free cast image, and so we can't use that as a justification for a non-free image in the lead instead of a free one. As far as I can see, the logo has three major advantages. First and formost, it is freely licensed, and free media should always be preferred. Secondly, unlike the single box art, it represents the entire series. Thirdly, it is consistent with other series articles. To draw a comparison, using that non-free box art in the lead instead of the free logo is like using a non-free publicity photo of a member of a band in the article about the band as a whole, instead of using a free logo used by the band; that idea is ludicrous, and there's no real difference between the two. J Milburn (talk) 13:18, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Look, whether you like it or not, our non-free content criteria do have consensus, and they are quite clear that if we have a free image that serves the same purpose, it should be used. The lead image is meant to represent the series as a whole- the series's logo and the box art of one of the games in the series both serve to do that; when one of them is free, that should be favoured by default. Again, I ask you how the cover of one of the games in the series can accurately represent the entire series, and, again, I point you to the example of Age of Empires, which is an excellent article (and is already featured). Would you propose replacing the lead image there? If not, what is the difference? J Milburn (talk) 01:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The FAC is not the appropriate place for this discussion, the article talk page is. I have opened a discussion there. In any case, while there is a dispute about whether non-free content should be used, it remains out of the article. Please at least have some respect for that... J Milburn (talk) 13:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Don't patronise me. If there is a dispute over non-free content, it stays out. NFC issues are explicitly exempt from various edit warring rules, while the NFCC are quite clear that "it is the duty of users seeking to include or retain content to provide a valid rationale; those seeking to remove or delete it are not required to show that one cannot be created—see burden of proof". You're now editing warring to keep "disputed" (and that's a generous description) non-free content in an article, while I note that you have not participated in the talk page discussion. You're playing with fire. Remember the three revert rule, and, for God's sake, remember that we have non-free content criteria that are deliberately restrictive. J Milburn (talk) 13:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

In what way am I being uncivil? Please don't try to palm off article issues onto me being "uncivil". I told you not to patronise me, which is perfectly reasonable. Look, if you feel that the NFC should be used, please, join the discussion on the talk page. J Milburn (talk) 13:23, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

So you're accusing me of being incivil because I was insensitive? If you can't see the irony, I don't think there's much I can do to show you it. J Milburn (talk) 13:27, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No it isn't. If incivility is not discussing the issue, then you're being incivil in only talking about civility. Can we please stop playing this game? It's pointless. J Milburn (talk) 13:30, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

You were hypersensitive as you percieved some kind of incivility, which you claimed was present because I assumed you were paronising me, which was me being hypersensitive. Like I said, can we please stop playing this game? It will get us nowhere and only serves to make situations worse... J Milburn (talk) 13:32, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm doing what? I started this? What? How old are we? Alright, I started it, you win, I started, now I'm finishing, whatever, can we please stop playing this game and get back to the point? J Milburn (talk) 13:39, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

The fact you don't see NFC as the main issue is perhaps the crux of the disagreement. The NFC policies are very strict and important, and have to be taken seriously. J Milburn (talk) 14:00, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The debate is about whether the cover does meet the NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 14:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

What are you talking about? If the use of an image does not meet the NFCC, then we cannot "replace it with same image but one that does meet the NFCC". That's like saying if a subject is non-notable, we can delete the article then replace it with the same article, "but one that does meet" the notability guidelines. J Milburn (talk) 14:25, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, OK, it is conceivable that this image may have some use within the NFCC in the future- perhaps, for instance, an article on that game in particular. That doesn't really have anything to do with the current situation, and certainly doesn't mean that we could "replace it with same image but one that does meet the NFCC". J Milburn (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

So, let me make sure I understand this. You think that, if we remove an image as it does not meet the NFCC, you would then be able to upload the same image, only this time, it would meet the NFCC? J Milburn (talk) 14:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

And no, none of the NFCC apply to the logo, as it is not non-free. The NFCC do not apply to free content. J Milburn (talk) 14:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

We replace non-free content with free content because we're a free encyclopedia, and it is our goal to be, as far as possible, entirely free. There are cases when NFC is unavoidable, and that's why we have the NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 15:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, it's been heading this way for a little while, but I really don't know what you're talking about any more. I fear you just don't "get" the NFCC, and the purpose they serve. You don't seem to be clear about what is and is not NFC, and you don't seem to understand the inherent assumption in favour of free content. I'm really struggling to follow this conversation. J Milburn (talk) 15:16, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes, NFC sometimes has to be used. That's why we have the NFCC. J Milburn (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

End of year awards

	The Anime and Manga BarnSakura Award
	I award you this BarnSakura in recondition of your contributions to anime and manga articles during 2010 and because everyone deserves a little recondition every once in a while. ;) —Farix (t | c) 01:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

oh wow thank you! i never thought i'd win one of these. i'm very grateful.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

FFVII

What is the point of reverting? This is decidedly not worse than the original version, and it indisputably provides an unbiased listing. In doing it in a seemingly random way such as this, it is done through nothing but POV. Your argument that it hasn't happened does not demonstrate that someone could not make such an argument. Instead of planning based on what has happened, you are supposed to plan on what could happen within reason. Unless any harm can be demonstrated by ordering the characters alphabetically, it should be changed; especially because I identified a flaw in the current system. Can you explain to me why every character is arranged as they are? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:31, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Cloud is obviously the main character, he should be listed first no matter what. questioning whether the order of vincent and zack may be listed is a unecessary example. the two are nearly the same but Zack has been seen in more media outside of ff7, whether you want to consider that relevant or not, it's up to the discussion. And, we'll cross that bridge when we get there. for this situation, it doesn't seem like there will be any disputes any time soon, and lets say coincidentally there is within this year, the problem would be too trivial to fix even if it arises. Also the current list is according to how it's listed in the character section, so no, there wouldn't be a problem unless someone took the argument to the next stage and question the Characters of the Final Fantasy VII series article's order.Bread Ninja (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Why wait? Are you arguing that it could never happen? Having a list based on alphabetical order has absolutely no flaws, while listing by importance demands editors' POV. The point is that instead of sticking with something that could very well become a problem, it is better to go with something that is inherently NOT flawed. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

bevause the argument itself is trivial, no one is going to do it period. Also none of the other navboxes with fictional characters ever have this problem. it's a hypothetical problem that has yet to be seen and not to mention very trivial. and what makes it so flawed? just because you think there will be a problem? Like i said, it's based off the article already given, so it's not going to be an issue. unless you make it an issue. So i'll be keeping an eye out if random IP start changing it just to prove your point.Bread Ninja (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, I suppose I will bring up the issue with WP:VG, with whom I assume is mostly comprised of people who don't make bad faith accusations. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

It was reassurance in case if it did happen. But really there is no point to it. the list of characters is lined up to appear like the one in the article. You act as if everyone including the anonymous IP will be ok with it, because of a different POV. both are in the same situation. if one were to edit it due to a misunderstanding, then you'll revert it for your reasoning. It works both ways. Either way, you didn't even try to defend your reasoning this time. And this is all hypothetical at the very least considering no other navbox does this with characters. Unless all equally important to the series.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I didn't defend my reasoning because you are not worth discussing this with. Your only arguments have been that you have never seen it (going so far as to imply that the only way it would happen is if I were to do something that results in an indefinite ban) and that "you didn't defend your reason in every post." And great to know that your reality of Wikipedia is different from the actual one. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

There are three. 1)we've never seen this situation ever happen before. 2) if it were to occur, for such a short list of main and supporting characters, it could be reverted and i highly doubt the person si going to troll so long just to change a small order. 3) the list is based on the main characters article, it's not as if the order was decided by a random editor.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:29, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

FFXIII

Hey, thanks for trying to update the articlehistory template on FFXIII's talk page after it achieved GA status. As a note, though, you over-rid the first GA nomination of two/three years ago, and even so didn't update the oldid parameter, meaning that the articlehistory template linked to the new GA nomination and the old page value. In the future, fortunately, you don't have to update the template- there's a bot that runs through and does that whenever a GA nomination ends. It usually takes a couple of days, but there's no rush. In the meantime, I fixed the template, so there shouldn't be any problems. --PresN 08:58, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

oh my mistake. i usually don't look into what bots do. but glad it worked out in the end.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Discussion at User_talk:Allen4names#Bread ninja and the anime wikiproject

You are invited to join the discussion at User_talk:Allen4names#Bread ninja and the anime wikiproject. Allen4names 06:55, 12 January 2011 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})

New WikiProject Novels initiative

We have begun a new initiative at the WikiProject Novels: an improvement drive. As a member listed here, you are being notified. Please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels#5-5-5 Improvement Drive and Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Collaboration for more details. Also I would like to remind you to keep an eye on the project talk page at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels. Thanks, Sadads (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

GNGs

I've explained to you multiple times, with Angelic Days as well as New Angel, why the addition of a reliably-sourced reception section justifies an entire article, as it makes the article as a whole meet the GNGs. Frankly, I find your continued insistence that these articles are not notable baffling and frustrating. I would suggest that you seek further clarification or further opinions from your adopter or from the anime wikiproject as a whole as to how the notability guidelines are practically applied. I feel that would be of greater use than denigrating my editing efforts. Thank you. --Malkinann (talk) 07:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I find your discussion with Jinnai about me upsetting. Please leave me be. --Malkinann (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

For your notification, I've posted a message at the main anime wikiproject - "Sorry to bug you again guys, but I feel the merge discussion needs more eyes, especially as it's spilling over into Jinnai's user talk page, my user talk page and Bread Ninja's talk page, and I'm beginning to feel like perhaps I'm giving a damn." --Malkinann (talk) 08:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Removal of content

Please remember to leave an edit summary when you remove content such as this edit of Red Garden. I did not revert it but someone else may. – Allen4names 07:32, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels Collaboration for February

Thank you everyone who participated in the January Collaboration, it was quite a success with 5 new C class articles, 3 stub kills and several articles were removed from our backlogs. In support of the Great Backlog Drive, the WikiProject Novels Collaboration for February is going to help remove backlog candidates in the backlogs related to WikiProject Novels. Please join us, and help us wikify, reference, clean up plot sections and generally improve Novels content, Sadads (talk) 22:26, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

You are recieving this message because you are a member of WikiProject Novels according to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Members

Formal mediation has been requested

Formal mediation of the dispute relating to Role-playing video game has been requested. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. For an explanation of what formal mediation is, see Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy. Please now review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then, in the "party agreement" section, indicate whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page.

Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:43, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for mediation concerning Role-playing video game, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible for this dispute to proceed to formal mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Questions relating to the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list. For more information on other available steps in the dispute resolution process, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 14:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Re:Roll Call

Sorry about that. It used to be, like two or three years ago, that the WP does a roll call once a month. I'm not sure I understand how time consuming it is to sign yourself up, an average of ten seconds is all it takes usually. But hey, time is precious, yeah?
You do seem to be the best WPSE member there is to know the WP's do's and don'ts. Nice to meet you. I use to work in the former WPFF before I had to go to inactivity. So, pardon me if I overstep any boundaries made since the last couple of years. Keep up the good work. — Blue。 17:05, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Final Fantasy IV: The Complete Collection

Official website: http://www.ff4completecollection.com/

The official English title is shown clearly as FINAL FANTASY IV: The Complete Collection.

(Japanese title is FINAL FANTASY IV Complete Collection -FINAL FANTASY IV & THE AFTER YEARS-.)

Is the official website "reliable" enough for you? WtW-Suzaku (talk) 00:00, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Help

Well my IP has been blocked for legal threats by User:OverlordQ which is odd because no one uses this other than me. Anyways...if they could make my user an exception or revise maybe a mistype has caused my IP to be blocked, that would be great.Bread Ninja (talk) 06:15, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Please give more details so other editors can investigate. If the issue has been resolved, please say so. Thanks! Guy Macon 01:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Tachikoma

Good work on your recent improvements to Tachikoma. Guy Macon 01:41, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

ah thanks, i was a lil worried i might have removed a lil too much info.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Think of Wikipe-tan!

Hey I just want an article that is funny and user friendly and involves wikipe-tan. If this article is kept do you think you would want to help with this? I have already trimmed out the trash that most users were complaining about and I see potential in a funny wikipe-tan related article =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:06, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I dont want one...i think it's distracting and makes the wikiproject look that much less of a wikiproject. Stop asking for things you can have anywhere else. if you want fun and wikipe-tan. than go make your own page outside of wikipedia.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:25, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

• Ninja, please refrain the urge to comment on every editor's comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Think of Wikipe-tan!--I don't think it's helping the cause, especially not since grammar and punctuation in your edits sometimes leave something to be desired. Let the MfD run its course. You spoke your mind already. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't exaggerate. knowledge came to me. the other was a discussion over a personal attack comment that i removed. I can comment on there how many times i like.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Lucia Black. You have new messages at Lovetinkle's talk page.
Message added 07:11, 25 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

And afterward....

Just to remember you that there is always an afterward in Wikipedia editing life (unless you quit editing).

Yes, defend your opinion but do not forget that you will still have to edit with editors who opposed you afterward.

You may find the "I don't like it you" argument also work between editors and it's obvious that editors won't help others editors they don't like. Thus when you will expect support, you may find none or little.

I'm not telling you whatever your opinion is right or wrong, just to advise you to think one step forward beyond the current discussion.

--KrebMarkt (talk) 08:18, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I do hope i'm not the only one getting this message.Bread Ninja (talk) 08:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Well i wrote this to you because it's a sort of reminiscence of Talk:Sailor_Moon#a_few_questions... Unless i'm wrong which happens too often --KrebMarkt (talk) 08:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

then by then, you should still talk to everyone else. things get this hasty for a reasn, and it's easier to point out the minority right? well point out everyone who was invovled too.Bread Ninja (talk) 08:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

i still don't agree with it, but at the moment, things are going smoother. And if things start to get rough, then someone has to take control of the situation. i'm tired of people sliding these remarks these people have just because they agree what they have to say. Agree, or disagree, i still say things needs to be civil and not read things half-way. or sly remarks just for the sake of asking rather than getting the point across.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

I will do it in the whole project talk page, the way i see feat. I should point that i had Zero obligation to drop my remark in your talk page save i do care even a little for an editor named Bread Ninja. --KrebMarkt (talk) 10:32, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

then please do so. this isn't helping everyone else. this is only trying to get me to cave into their argument regardless of how i'm treated.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Pandora Hearts naming again

As usual the naming issue in Pandora Hearts...

I live in France so i can't easily get a copy of the Yen Press English edition.

If you have it, would you fix stuff like the Reo or Leo issue.

Thanks. --KrebMarkt (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

		Civility Award
		In spite of many of the members of the Anime Wikiproject accusing me of bad faith, you have courageously stood up for the principles of civility and stopping personal attacks. For this, you are to be commended. You are a shining example for your compatriots. IvoryMeerkat (talk) 21:14, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I probably don't' deserve this one all too much considering that i almost caved into the incivility countless of times, even in my on discussion. But thank you.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:20, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Well Done!

A very womanly woman, just like you!

You have been awarded the Womanliness Award for helping to construct a great encyclopedia.

Keep up the great work!

A Very Manly Man (talk) 08:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)