You can sign your name on talk pages and votes by typing ~~~~; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date.
If you have any questions or problems, no matter what they are, leave me a message on my talk page. Or, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
We're so glad you're here!Kukini 03:40, 17 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for fixing up the referencing for Great Barrier Reef. :) What part of WP:CITE told you how to do that properly? I fell back on good old Harvard, I'm afraid. Thanks again! - Malkinann 00:34, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Malkinann. Thanks. It's true that WP:CITE doesn't really tell editors which citation templates are available. I think this is because it's not official Wikipedia policy that you must use them. Harvard style is completely acceptable too. So the way the references were done prior to my changes was fine, but using the {{cite web}} template made the url linkable. That's why I changed them. I guess the other advantage is that the references look consistent with the refs on many other Wikipedia articles too. I'm glad you weren't annoyed that I changed the format from the Harvard one! Cheers — Donama 01:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In light of your recent edits to the mentioned article, I have started started a discussion thread to highlight your suggestions as well some of my own that would organize and clean-up content from the main article. Perhaps we can coordinate our efforts?--Kenn Caesius 21:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your edits to Great Barrier Reef. I would firstly like to clarify that I agree with you that the section now titled "Human use of the Great Barrier Reef" was previously incorrectly titled "Indigenous Australians".
My original revert was attempting to remove several accounts of vandalism, including one that added an extra zero to the number of species of coral found on the reef. The reference following this claim clearly states the number to be in the order of 400, (not 4000). Apologies for the confusion in reverting your edit, and I have now restored the changes you made with the minor exception of the 'fact' tag that you placed after this claim. The claim is referenced at the end of the paragraph. Tug201 12:23, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your work on the Cane Toad article. It is good to see that featured articles can continue to be improved. Have you thought about joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Amphibians and Reptiles? Thanks --liquidGhoul 12:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, "humorous" is not an American spelling but the worldwide spelling. "Humourous" is an error (as well as an archaic form) along the comparison with "humour". Spelling is illogical sometimes. If you read the discussion I referred you to it should all become clear. --Guinnog 13:14, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Malkinann, I think Guinnog is right. Wikitionary, like Wikipedia, can have mistakes, and for some reason this one hasn't been cleared up. I use the Maquarie Dictionary for Australian spelling, but unfortunately can't find it at the moment. I looked in the Oxford Dictionary of Australian English, and it lists humorous as the correct spelling, with no mention of the alternative. Even though humour is spelt with the u, they must have decided it looks too clunky :). Thanks. --liquidGhoul 09:05, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
See also Talk:Humour for a discussion concluding that 'humorous' is correct. If it makes any difference I use UK English myself so I am particularly sensitive to creeping Americanisation of spelling. --Guinnog 09:17, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Malkinann, like LiquidGhoul, I am a fellow Australian and I fully support your desire to use Australian English in Australian articles. However, I support Guinnog's view that "humorous" is the correct spelling. I use Mirriam Webster online and offline, the current Australian Oxford Dictionary. The spelling "humourous" is not even listed as an alternative spelling. It actually isn't listed in any of my < than 10-year-old dictionaries. At work I use the Australian News Limited Style Guide for Journalists and Professional Writers and it specifically states to use "humorous," not "humourous". I have several editions of the guide and they all say to use Australian English and list "humorous" as the correct spelling. I think "humourous" is an old British spelling and it is true that some people in Australia still use it and you can find it in some old dictionaries, but I think it is incorrect to claim it is Australian spelling.
I believe Guinnog is correct to change the spelling to humorous to be consistent with modern Australian spelling conventions. Cheers, Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. I would strongly caution you against using Wiktionary as a reliable dictionary. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 10:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I still think it's humourous... Someone had better tell the Sydney Morning Herald, then. - Malkinann 09:43, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free. No paper dictionary that I know of lists it as being current in the modern era. This is the trouble with relying on the likes of Wiktionary or Dictionary.com for info... --Guinnog 09:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. The Sydney Morning Herald website has 27 hits for "humourous" [2] and 614 hits for "humorous" [3]. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 11:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I would like to request that you not use the 'minor' box so much when you make edits. That's ordinarily reserved for things like typo-fixes and other such; I imagine that probably what you're doing is marking things minor when you know people will agree with them. Which is a reasonable thought, but moving all that text into the PGSM article, no matter how good an edit it is, is still a pretty big change. So maybe leave things like that as normal edits? Anyway, thanks for consistently being so helpful. ^^ --Masamage 00:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thanks for all your help with these. :) I'm glad you're so enthusiastic. However, I'd like to ask that you not proceed any further just yet; I'd like to work alongside you, but I can't catch up that fast. We're still talking about stuff at Talk:Sailor Moon episode 001--once everyone agrees that's all squared away, we can press on. Thanks! --Masamage 06:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Beland, a few days ago you tagged some facts at Great Barrier Reef with {{fact}}. I've had a go at sourcing the ones that you tagged (the others I've got no idea about). Could you please take a look, and see if they meet with your satisfaction? ;) Thankyou. - Malkinann 06:58, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Awesome! I tweaked the article a bit to more accurately summarize the referenced info. Thanks for tracking that down; now that we have more background info our explanation is much better. -- Beland 18:44, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good job on that table! Shayno 19:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya! I'm a beekeeper and a biologist-in-training, and I'm wondering if you could give me some sources on the statement that I think was added by you; "Although the queen lays eggs with a 1:1 sex ratio, the worker bees manipulate the feeding of offspring so that a sex ratio of 3:1 (females to males) is preserved.". I know ant workers commonly do this but can't recall this being applied to honeybees. Also, I wasn't aware drone semen was used sequentially, how does the queen keep the semen from the different drones apart - surely they would mix, being motile? Furiku 17:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was wondering the same thing regarding the 1:1 ratio. Where did you get this from? Please reference!
Shoefly 02:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please consult on format changes like bold to the stats by posting in the talk page first. I believe that Masamage was against bold for the stats... because they have the bullets already. (I tried it she removed it...) So please clarify before doing that, get consensus, once you get consensus then if you do it to one change it for the template for all of them. (Usagi through Hotaru) and then when you do it to one, do it to the rest. Thank you. --Hitsuji Kinno 07:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Thanks for commenting on the Lain FAC. Your comments have been taken in consideration, and, (apart for the kanji namings, for whitch I am looking for help) actionned. I thought you might want to know so you could comment some more :). --SidiLemine 13:47, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The only way I see to get to that paper (Lain and Eva by Napier) would be if someone here at wikipedia happened to have issues of Sci Fi magazine and would like to post scans of it (.....!) Do you know of a place where I can post "Requests for Sources"? Also, do you know any "experienced editors" to copyedit the article? I am way too involved to detect any mistakes. About the episode list, I finally believe it is fine where it is (a link in "see also"), as it make the article looks more ecyclopedic ;).--SidiLemine 10:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I made a few minor edits and agree that the section stub notices can be removed. I will try to take a closer look at the sections you recently edited and the species information you gave me in the next few days. In the geology section, it would be nice if we found a way to tie all of the separate data points into a single line of reasoning, since we have three different dates for the forming of the most recent barrier. As for species, not sure what the best approach is there -- don't know if it helps to list every species, but maybe if we can incorporate it into a summary or create a category "Species of Great Barrier Reef" we can tag all associated articles with that category and point readers there. --MattWright (talk) 01:37, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the "{{prod}}" template to the article List of Serial Experiments Lain episodes, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:List of Serial Experiments Lain episodes. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. - Basically, with the recent improvement of the main Serial Experiments Lain, the episode list is a duplicate of the information. Sorry if this causes you any grief.Malkinann 21:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not prod that page nor try to get it deleted. The duplicate info can be removed from the article can be removed but see List of Planetes episodes. I had been meaning to nominate that for a "featured" status. I will do so soon. Catchi? 23:23, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All of the article is duplicated on the main SEL page, though... I won't prod it further, but you might want to confer with User:$yD! on what exactly is going to happen with regards to the episode list, and the main Serial Experiments Lain article, which is currently in FA nomination. - Malkinann 23:31, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see a reason to further discuss. And please do not get that the wrong way, I just feel this would satisfy all parties involved. I will put a note to the main lain page to explain my actions but I think he would prefer having two featured articles/lists. I'll however wait for that FAC to conclude and nominate the episode list after it for FL. Catchi? 23:39, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The full list has been removed from the main article, so deletion is no more needed. Yes, two FAs are better than one ;). SeizureDog has suggested that even the abbriedged list should be taken off from the main article, and that there should only be a link in the "see also" section. Any thoughts on that?--SidiLemine 09:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the notice. I looked at the template, and I think it is a good idea. I would eliminate the words "Science Fiction" out of the template as much as possible to make it simpler with less clutter and bulk. I wanted to edit it to put Novels and Films ahead of Other Media, but then I thought what about Short Fiction, and couldn't find an appropriate SF link, and I also thought that TV fans would want equal prominence with Films. Speculative fiction and Fantasy links should appear as cross-genre links, but please keep out horror. I may have more to write later. Get User talk:Jim Douglas and some other people involved. Hu 00:25, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So does that mean that I can start editing pages to use the template? I tried to do the media section in alphabetical order, but I think I stuffed up a couple of times. I've asked Jim Douglas, as you suggested, for his comments, and I put a notice on Talk:Science fiction. Thanks :) - Malkinann 01:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest you put it into a couple of novels, a Heinlein juveniles, a couple of films, a couple of TV shows, and a couple of other places and then list them all on the Talk:Science fiction page in your note so we can see how they look. People may also try out some edits. After the feedback settles down, then it's open season. Hu 01:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the template according to the suggestions I made, also to make the format consistent. Hu 01:31, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure how editing out the science fiction would look, but now that you've done it, I can see that it looks quite nice. :) Jim Douglas has said that having a template is a good idea too, especially as Fantasy already has something similar. I'm not sure about sticking it on individual works, though. I feel maybe we should keep it to the 'big topics', like genres, themes and suchlike. - Malkinann 02:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like a good idea, particularly if we already have something similar for Fantasy. -- Jim Douglas(talk)(contribs) 01:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I saw you've been tagging articles with our banner - would you be interested in joining WikiProject LGBT studies? We've been dormant for sometime but are now rapidly developing. We'd love to have you on board! Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 19:05, 9 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Will do good buddy. See nasty grams on the GAR and GAR talk page. I don't care if it pisses people off as this happens far too often on the GAR page. Rlevse 02:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a possible idea, though twice the work! :-) There are templates like {{HP-PA}} and {{GF}} which aren't in widespread use, where doing {{PA|ch=3}} will yield [PoA Ch.3], which, though it doesn't cite the exact page number, will at least get you in the right general area, but I don't think that's good enough. After we get together our act (the project's been dormant for a little while, basically just a place where Harry Potter fans could put their name in a participants list), we'll move on to citing – there are a bunch of really good articles out there that aren't GAs or even FAs because the only source is our heads, right now. Sigh. Thanks for the suggestion though – what do you mean by a "Harry Potter reference guide"? Sounds interesting. --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:34, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's a lot of work. Yeah, I'll bring it up on the WP talk page when we get past our initial bumpy restart… --Fbv65edel / ☑t / ☛c || 04:44, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disputed it. There is no such thing as a head shot of Naoko Takeuchi that was released to the public. Besides, I know from Volume 5, she really doesn't care. ^^;; There are some model shots she took that we could post, but I rather think people are going to think they are improper... O.o;; She did some modeling. --Hitsuji Kinno 05:22, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Just letting you know that Serial Experiments Lain is up at FAC again. As you participated in the last one, I thought you might want to know. Happy holydays!--SidiLemine 12:28, 29 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I note that you are adding assessments to articles in WikiProject Science Fiction. I'm glad this is happening, but I am wondering where the assessments are occuring and being documented? Avt tor 20:54, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the bot is working fine, it's the changes that caught my attention. For example, on January 24, you marked Hugo Award as "Top" importance (I might consider it "High", but whatever) and "B"-class. Where is this discussion happening? Avt tor 21:52, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Is that the usual practice? Somehow I got the impression there was discussion first. I'm a bit new to this. I suppose if I objected to something I'd take it to the talk page. Avt tor 22:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the explanation. Avt tor 22:28, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you would like to help out and participate, please visit the project page for more information. Thanks! <3Clamster 00:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I got the October date from the Lililicious scanlations. For the first few chapters, they used the scans from the magazine. Actually, it might have been September now that I think about it. I'll look at the scans again when I have the chance, and if I did make an mistake, I'll correct it. Right now, because I'm uncertain, I'll take out the month and just leave the year.
MayumiTsuji 15:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)MayumiTsuji[reply]
Even though you haven't read the books, you can still be a great help to the project and that fact that you are only vaguely familiar with the series is actually good. The project is in need of people who are on the "outside" per se, who don't know the story well. Some parts of the articles make sense to people who know the series but probably sounds like gibberish to those who don't. <3Clamster 18:32, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This barnstar is awarded to Malkinann in appreciation of her contributions in the article of Cúcuta. --Ricardocolombia 00:21, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Malkinann! Thanks for the tagging you're doing on articles! If you can, go ahead and rate the article when you do it - a rough estimate is fine at this point, since we'll refine as we go along. Are you interested at joining WP:LGBT? Take a look around, and if you are interested, sign up :) Thanks again!! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:26, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's kewl :) If you ever have any questions, stop on by the WikiProject :) And thanks again for your tagging help! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
[They] (reefs)... cannot grow above sea level.—isn't that obvious to anyone that knows what a reef is?
the current, living reef structure is believed to have begun growing on an older platform about 20,000 years ago.—20,000 years ago, isn't the platform, by definition, older?
The Australian Institute of Marine Science agrees, which places the beginning of the growth of the current reef at the time of the Last Glacial Maximum.—I don't like "agrees" here. It sounds like journalistic prose.
and corals began to grow around the hills of the coastal plain - by then, continental islands.—"(which had formed coral islands)", perhaps?
The research outcomes funded by the CRC Reef Research Centre—how can an outcome be funded?
In the northern part of the Great Barrier Reef,—doesn't the reader already know "the northern part" alone refers to Great Barrier Reef?
ribbon reefs and deltaic reefs have formed - these reef structures are not found in the rest of the Great Barrier Reef system.—does "these reef structures" have to be set off by a dash? A semicolon would not subordinate the second clause.
Wouldn't "the reef" be less cumbersome than "the Great Barrier reef" everywhere? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rintrah (talk • contribs) 13:13, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]
With reference to your recent edit [4]. Many of the citations you requested were already in the references, though not necessarily linked by the footnotes - perhaps you would like to put a little more effort in? Similarly some of your wikilinks are of poor quality. For example lower house should have been a piped link to Victorian Legislative Assembly if you think a link is appropriate there. The wikilink you added for surface gold is unlikely to develop into an article, perhaps Gold prospecting might have been a meaningful link if you think people don't know what the term means.--Golden Wattle talk 23:08, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please remember to mark your edits as minor when (and only when) they genuinely are minor edits (see Wikipedia:Minor edit). Marking a major change as a minor one (and vice versa) is considered poor etiquette. The rule of thumb is that only an edit that consists solely of spelling corrections, formatting and minor rearranging of text should be flagged as a 'minor edit'. Thanks! --Golden Wattle talk 23:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I did see that you had reviewed it finally (it was up there for a while so I almost forgot about it) and that it needed reception. Thanks for the links you provided, and I'll get right on trying to improve reception.--十八 01:06, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I read all of Erica Friedman's reviews on the drama CDs, manga and anime but after using her as a source so much already, it didn't make sense to continue. Also, the bulk of the review should probably be for the short stories and manga that preceeded the anime since there's a lot of anime reviews out there for this series. Additionally, only the light novels and manga have been licensed and nither have been released yet, so we can't really get any worthwhile or reliable sources for any of the material. What I'm saying is that I've used Friedman as much as I can and any more inclusion from a single source wouldn't be inclusive in terms of different opinions on this series in its many forms.--十八 03:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
All right then, I see your point. I'll put in a few lines from her later entries on the series, but no more than two.--十八 03:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, thanks for doing that with the peer review notices; I really hope I can build up this article to FA status. =) --十八 00:03, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I'll look over Sailor Moon and see what I can do.--十八 00:08, 11 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
When resizing a fair use image, such as Image:Sailor Moon 01.jpg, what's the acceptable maximum that it should be resized to? As in this particular case, the resized image looks very blurry on its intended page, Usagi Tsukino. -Malkinann 21:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If an image is too blurry, it's time to make it smaller. It can only help its WP:FAIRUSE case. Xiner (talk, email) 21:58, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, definitely, I do think the current size is too large for a fair-use claim anyway. Xiner (talk, email) 22:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understand. And you should. I meant that the current size is also likely to be a bit large for a fair-use claim. Xiner (talk, email) 22:43, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm no expert on the subject, so you'll want to confirm this with someone else (the help desk?), but I'd say judging from the pics I've seen, half the height of the image in that article. Xiner (talk, email) 22:50, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am way to swamped to help you in a meaningful fashion on this article, but perhaps I can help you find some references to help you? Let me know. Sabine's Sunbirdtalk 07:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up about the FA nomination and the single source issue. The truth was I had planned to come back to the Wallace ariticle for another round of edits (with a 2nd biography that just shipped from Amazon Friday in hand) before attempting an FA nomination but I guess someone decided to go for it.Rusty Cashman 07:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For taking so much initiative in helping with WikiProject Sailor Moon. You work really hard on keeping everything together, and are a huge help with every kind of edit. Thank you! You're great! Masamage♫ 01:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you ever want to expand the environmental threats section a bit, I've done a good bit of slightly-related work on the Great Barrier Reef article that could be used as a case study. -Malkinann 21:47, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. That looks like a very good article. If/When I get round to it that should provide lots of info. |→ Spaully₪† 21:57, 10 April 2007 (GMT)
I am strongly considering putting Alfred Russel Wallace up for FA again. You have provided a lot of valuable comments and contributions to this article (especially during the GA process). I would appreciate it if you could take a look at the article and make any comments/edits you think it needs before I put it up. Thanks. Rusty Cashman 19:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your input. You might find the following interesting. You were correnct about "favourable" in the quotation on Vestiges. I had unconsiously translated from English into American when I typed in the quotation from the book. However, both the books I had that listed the quotation had "generalization" rather than "generalisation". I was a little worried because both authors (Shermer and Slotten) were American and I was afraid they might have made the same mistake I had so I took a look at American and British English spelling differences and I learned that the use of "ize" forms such as "generalization" was once common in British English. The preference for "ise" forms is a modern phenomenon. Weird huh? Rusty Cashman 19:52, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have gone ahead and nominated it. Your participation in the process would be much appreciated.Rusty Cashman 02:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Citation for Seagull Claim in "Finding Nemo"[edit]
When you edited the Finding Nemo page on November 29, 2006, you added the assertion:
"The seagull calls have been confirmed to be "Mine! Mine!" but many audiences hear them as saying "Mate!" in an exaggerated Australian accent. "
You also deleted an edit made a day earlier by Paulpang22288 that asserted the opposite:
"The calls of the seagulls are deliberately sounded as "Mate! Mate!..." to imitate the Australian colloquial language. E.g. "G'day mate!" "How's it going mate?" with the word "mate" pronounced similarly to "might" due to the Australian accent. "
What is your basis for making this change? If you have a citation that really does confirm the intent of the script and Andrew Stanton, voice of the seagulls, please include it.
Did you look at the rest of the comments? Fandomness has nothing to do with being able to read abbreviations introduced in a well formatted documented. --Belg4mit 14:47, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I just noticed that the GA for this article has been on hold for about two weeks; at this point, it should probably be either passed or failed. Just a reminder. ^^ --Masamage♫ 18:18, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for adding those plot details to But I'm a Cheerleader. I was just about to have a go at adding steps 4 & 5, and there it is done! Good job! --Belovedfreak 18:30, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for tagging King Kong. I totally forgot until a few minutes ago, I went to add it and saw that you had. I really appreciate it.
Regards, LaraLoveT/C 19:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I'm going to have my own run at it next time I can get on a computer. My schedule is busy today, and less so tommorow. I'll get on it. Sbloemeke 21:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hooray! Thanks for finding that citation! :D --Masamage♫ 07:37, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think the citation looks just fine, and the Wikilink really helps. Actually, Makoto's hair is mentioned in her introductory act. The exposition about her old school's uniform comes when she explains it to a cranky female teacher, and the teacher says, "What about that hair!" which again suggests that it's associated with badness. Makoto points at her head and replies, "This is natural, sir." XD (I'm using Alex Glover's translation here; in the English manga, the teacher actually says "We don't allow perms here" or something.) --Masamage♫ 17:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I know you've edited the Edgar Allan Poe page a few times. I was wondering if you have an opinion on a new template / author navigation box. The original is clean and simple, the new version is a bit clunky and possibly larger than it needs to be. Feel free to respond on my talk page or on the EAP talk page.
Template:Edgar Allan Poe vs. User:Midnightdreary/test -Midnightdreary 00:30, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have done quite a mess in the article trying to include the proper reference to the harlow quote so finally I reverted all my edits. I´ve found in an article two pages of the second article of Harlow (1868) as an appendix and the quote is from this second article; but I dont know how to do the thing of the double citation. Can you help me? (if you tell me in my user page how to do it I would be grateful, so I can do it myself the next time). Thanks anyway.--Garrondo 13:54, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just for information; why are you so interested in this article?--Garrondo 13:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks; more than enough. --Garrondo 12:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Ming-Na. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Anthony Rupert 16:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
How could I have deleted information that wasn't there when I looked at it? -Malkinann 22:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I used the wrong tag. But why did you place {{uncategorised}}? Anthony Rupert 23:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The article didn't have any categories when I looked at it. I put that on there so that it'd get categorised.-Malkinann 23:23, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It must have been a vandal that removed the categories then. Sorry for the mix-up. Anthony Rupert 23:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No worries mate. -Malkinann 02:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, when you archived the Arnold Swarzenegger article at WP:GA/R it looks like you never delisted it from the WP:GA list. Don't forget to act on any archives you do. Thanks. Later.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I am not sure exactly what i did to clean up this image; I clean up lots of images and I can't remember what I do for each one. I suspect that I painted over the solid colours and blurred that background. Iain 05:11, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
♥Fighting for charming Love♥ has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
In your peer review of Yotsuba&!, you mentioned that all the images need fair use rationales. Could you tell me if, as an example, what I added to Image:Yotsuba.jpg is sufficient? (Also, is that the proper format? I can't find a guideline for that.) —Quasirandom 23:48, 5 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that does help. But it does bring up a follow-up: What happens to the speedy deletion on the grounds of having no fair use rationale? Does the tag get deleted, now that it has one? and if so, by whom? Is there a review first, and if so by whom? The links off the {no rationale} template don't explain the process, nor do any fair use page that I can find. —Quasirandom 01:47, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Huh. I don't particularly mind for myself, but I can see why you might. Either way, I'm also not sure if it's kosher in terms of GFDL, so I'll keep an eye on the discussion. Thanks for the heads-up! --Masamage♫ 04:00, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm trying to update WikiTaskForce Evangelion's stuff, I wrote up most of the episode guide myself but I'm not sure what the "standards" are (because it's just me describing what's on screen, I don't really use "reference tags" and such, unless I'm referring to something external). At any rate, I'm going to start interlinking WikiQuote with the episode articles (did a bit of that in my Venture Bros. writing lately...). But regardless, I'm not entirely sure what to do with tagging images for "fair use" and such. Generally I just avoided loading my own images. Essentially, what should I do with the images to make them "okay", and for that matter, "how good do we have to be?" as they saying goes...--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 23:26, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The reason I reverted your notices is because you are linking them to a page which they are not listed on. It is like putting an AfD notice on a page and not linking to its correct AfD page. If they were put up for the deletion days ago, the tags should have been placed then to notify the images (I also have the images on watch and I have seen no update on their pages either). I will be honest, I am not familiar with how Image deletion goes, but I was pretty certain, under rules of fairness (which I could totally be wrong about), it follows mostly the same procedure as AfD. --Ozgod 12:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Odd, checked the image pages and tags are there, which means my watchlist is batty or they got removed from there by accident.. However, on the Judy Garland you have the images and deletion page linking to July19notJuly17 where the images are listed for deletion. --Ozgod 12:19, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should start with a peer review before we jump into the GA review? Before we do, though, I'd like your opinion. First, do you think it's sourced enough? I think it could use more in the Burial/Re-burial section. How about the section on Griswold, is that NPOV enough? Oh, and how would you feel about giving some examples at the very end of some of the fictional treatments of Poe's death? Other than that, it's still one of my favorite articles I've worked on, and I think it's a strong one. --Midnightdreary 14:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed you tagged the Relationships section of the article for Misato Katsuragi with the {{confusing}} template. What doesn't work for you? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 12:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying. I'm not comfortable with aspects of the section's wording, and I rewrote most of it! Point by point:
"affinity" - That part could stand some touchup...if you have a better way of phrasing it, edit away.
The fanfic part, I would be fine with removing entirely; I put the {{fact}} templates there to give people a chance :to find some references to this, but I say if no one's done so in about a week or a week and a half, delete the info.
The "carefree attitude..." - eeeeeyeah...I didn't like that when I wrote it, and still don't..I didn't like the original phrase "comes off as a very sexual woman" but at the time I couldn't think of a better way to phrase what I wanted to express. She's not "sexual" per se, she's just not afraid to show off what she's got, plus she enjoys attention from males, whether it's Shinji's classmates or Hyuga. As with the first note, change it if you've got a better idea.
'there is some interpretation in the article that could maybe do with citing' - Can you be more specific?
I'm going to put a link to this discussion in the Misato article...maybe someone else has other ideas. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 14:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you still think that the "in-universe" tag is needed? If so, LMK what you think needs changing and I'll see what I can do about it. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 15:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The "sensual woman" phrasing was all I could come up with at the time of the rewrite...I'll trim that out and try to rewrite it. Thanks a bunch for your help with the article. :-) Willbyr (talk | contribs) 23:33, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Under WP:MERGE, it is generally accepted that one article, if it is "better" should be kept over the other. While Raine Island (Queensland) was created first, it is not referenced, and Raine Island is. Raine Island has also been featured on T:DYK, and merging of it will disrupt the archives. If anything, I argue that Raine Island (Queensland) be merged into my article. I rest my case, hoping that you will reconsider your decision that Raine island be merged into Raine island (Queensland), instead of the reverse. Cheers, -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 12:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
His full name is David Henry Friston, and he was doing work at least as far back as 1854 [5]
Just slap a {{PD-US}} tag on it, if you're worried. It's definitely fine under that: British works from that era famously CANNOT have a U.S. Copyright, as U.S. Copyright was only open to Americans. Adam Cuerdentalk 01:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just noticing that you are putting a lot of ref templates up here. Could I ask you to mention it on the talk page if you have a question about a ref, rather than putting up an unsightly template on the mainspace? So far, all of your ref questions have not been problems at all. I'd rather deal with it on the talk page. I'd be happy to answer any questions, but it is hard to keep track of your hidden comments sometimes. Thanks. Wrad 01:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious...what is a by-election? If it's more than just a simple definition, it may actually make for a good article. I have never heard the term before our involvement in the 2010 Victoria elections article. Erechtheus 01:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the link. I just assumed since there wasn't previously a link in the article that it had not been addressed before. Erechtheus 01:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you mind taking a look at Death of Edgar Allan Poe? I just did some major changes and I'm close to putting it up for good article. First I wanted a different set of eyes to take a look and see how it's going. I'm concerned with NPOV potential challenges and the format for the citations. I still have a couple of citations to plug in, but I didn't get past the re-burial section. If you have time for a copy edit too, that would be great (I never notice them if I'm the one that made the mistake). Feel free to leave comments on the discussion page there or on mine. Okay, thanks, and I hope all is well! --Midnightdreary 19:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In recognition of your tireless willingness to almost instantly correct my terrible attempts at proper citation, I award you The Barnstar of Diligence. Many thanks for helping to keep "The Raven" and Death of Edgar Allan Poe (and others) a strong article and for clearly showing how great collaboration on Wikipedia can be! -Midnightdreary 04:24, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to chop all that back out, but that source was just not reliable. Most of the statements you added were pretty far off the mark. Blogs are generally not considered a good reference, unless they have the credentials required, and being a massive Yuri fan doesn't really qualify her. Glad that poorly researched mess didn't end up in the Manga guide it was written for, since she clearly doesn't have any first hand familiarity with the topic. Doceirias 21:51, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I translate light novels for a living, so some of that was just knowing my subject (like the color coding thing, or the bulk of the light novels I own being more than 300 pages.) Don't really need a source to disprove that, since they were just mistakes on her part. The origins in sci-fi novels is less clear, but based interviews with Kouhei Kadono and Otsu-ichi, they were originally just called Young Adult novels, started out as video game adaptions and fantasy novels like Lodoss and Slayers, began to broaden the genres after Boogiepop, and never really overlapped with the audience for 'real' sci-fi novels, which tended to look down on light novels. Going back through those particular interviews or afterwords and digging up that information to cite has been on my list of things to do for ages. Hopefully I'll get around to it one day. Doceirias 22:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I was wondering if I could ask a favor. You're good with references, and I'm especially bad at citing web sources. During the featured article review for "The Raven," the web citations were quotations and I'm not sure how to fix them. Would you mind taking a look? The comment is here, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/The Raven, comments left by SandyGeorgia. Definitely would appreciate it! --Midnightdreary 00:35, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for giving it a look! I just wish these people would give a couple support votes instead of just nitpicking! lol I'll take a look at the Arthur Gordon Pym article some time this weekend - good idea to put some effort into it; it definitely needed attention. --Midnightdreary 12:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've earned the right to download those images (bought them using marshmallows), whats the most appropriate tag I could use for it? Is it on Wikipedia:Image copyright tags/Non-free?
Yours truly, Superior.
17:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC).[reply]
How about
This is a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit.
The copyright for it is most likely owned by the company who created the promotional item or the artist who produced the item in question; you must provide evidence of such ownership. Lack of such evidence is grounds for deletion.
It is believed that the use of some images of promotional material to illustrate:
the person(s), product, event, or subject in question;
where the image is unrepeatable, i.e. a free image could not be created to replace it;
Additionally, the copyright holder may have granted permission for use in works such as Wikipedia. However, if they have, this permission likely does not fall under a free license.
Warning sign
Please note that our policy usually considers fair use images of living people that merely show what they look like to be replaceable by free-licensed images and unsuitable for the project. If this is not the case for this image, a rationale must be provided proving that the image provides information beyond simple identification or showing that this image is difficult to replace by a free-licensed equivalent. Commercial third-party reusers of this image should consider whether their use is in violation of the subject's publicity rights.
Please add a detailed non-free use rationale for each article the image is used in, which must also declare compliance with the other parts of the non-free content criteria, as well as the source of the work and copyright information.
This tag should only be used for images of a person, product, or event that is known to have come from a press kit or similar source, for the purpose of reuse by the media.
Additionally, if the copyright holder has granted permission, please provide further details as to the terms.
To patrollers and administrators: If this image has an appropriate rationale please append |image has rationale=yes as a parameter to the license template.
{{helpme}}
The images on here need to be checked for legality and deleted when appropriate.-Malkinann 02:20, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm going to give you some guidance on one image and see if you can figure out the rest (they're all very similar). First, they need a proper copyright tag. I think {{non-free character}} should suffice; a lot are marked with {{Free screenshot}}, which just doesn't apply. All the images need to be resized for fair use as you thoughtfully and correctly did here. I can delete the big versions after you upload resized images (see "Upload a new version of this file" at the bottom of the image page). The fair use rationales aren't bad. The guideline should help make them better. I redid Image:Gwen.jpg, and you could probably just use the same as boilerplate for the other images of individual characters. Finally, all fair use images need to be used in at least one article, or they'll get deleted after being appropriately tagged for seven days. Ideally, articles should have a minimum of fair use images, but as long as you don't have a gallery of fair use images, you should be fine. South Park characters is appropriate limited use.--Chaser - T 05:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree on splitting it to a smaller, more definate article. Either we split it to one article, or a different article for each episode; what would you go with?
I tried to add the clarification you asked for. Should be clearer now. I also added a small bit about pyrotechnics...I´m sure there´s a special term for the "flame paper"-effect, but I can´t remember/find it right now. Maybe someone else knows the proper term. FreddyE 07:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
lol Iv been obsesed with youtube/death note I havnt been doing much else for ages :P ♥Fighting for charming Love♥ (talk) 13:48, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For her hard work in tagging fair use images for reduction and otherwise keeping us all in line behind the scenes, I hereby award Malkinann the Invisible Barnstar. Wear it proudly, and keep up the good work! jonny-mt(t)(c)Tell me what you think! 05:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I'm going to get around to adding the references someday, maybe not until January though. I have a map in my office that has the breakouts and a table, but I won't be in my office for the rest of the year. There is a guy at work who can get into my office, but I'm not sure if he's going to be in at all for the rest of the year or not. I've sent him an email asking if he could help with this, but he hasn't responded back yet. In the meantime, since I do have the 'master' table that I compiled from several different maps of physiographic regions, I figured this vacation would be a good way to spend some constructive time getting the basic article and list compiled and wikilinked to appropriate articles. There's a bunch (of the different regions) that don't seem to have any applicable wiki articles though, which really complicates the issue. I figured almost all of them would have had articles of some sort by now. There's also quite a few that have redirects from the appropriate name to a more generalized (or even speciific) subject, so the article (name) is no longer an appropriate 'place' for the information. Quite frustrating I must say, it is going to be a lot tougher getting this subject put together than I thought. There's also an instance where someone insists on having multiple articles (by country) for some mountain ranges in the Andes, instead of just one article per range, which is really stupid. Now I need to spend extra time and effort going through the whole 'merge' process (which will result in the final merging anyway), just because some idiot can't use common sense or is trying to maintain some nationalistic POV in the articles. It's even been a subject for discussion since April, and he hasn't participated in the discussion at all. Oh well. If you'd care to help with the physiographic aspects of the 'Reef', that would be great. Many of the references in the article already refer to the 'geomorphology', which is an older, yet slightly more specialized use of the term 'physiography', so some additional information can probably be found in those already. wbfergusTalk 13:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. The maps I have aren't published by the government. I have copies of some old hand drawn maps from the 1920's - 1960's, with titles like "Physiographic landforms of 'XYZ'", usually one per continent. The were created by A.K. Lobek, Erwin Raisz, and Guy Harold-Smith at various times. I forget which one created the map for Australia, which the accompanying table of physiographic 'regions'. I know the ones by Raisz are probably copyrighted, since his family still sells them, but I'm not sure about the others.
Geomorphology isn't really an outdated term (or concept), but a more specialized term of physiography. I ran across a site the other day that said they were pretty much synonomous, but that geomorphology was one of the specialized branches of physiography. There's some more information at Physiography, though it doesn't say that there (I should have bookmarked that site). Here's a little blurb though that touches on the subject from another wiki article Region#Physiographic regions.
Here's one site I just ran across that very briefly mentions the GBR and physiography, saying it has already been studied [6]. I ran across quite a few others that specifically mention the GBR physiographic province, but none so far that mention its relation to divisions or sections (what it belongs to and what it contains). This article in Enclyclopedia Britannica barely mentions the relationship of the GBR to the Eastern Highlands (at the bottom) [7].
There's a bunch of different 'hits' returned from Google searches, but the hard part is getting the right combination of keywords and then sifting through all of the various results to see which ones actually are on those subjects, or just mention those keywords anywhere through the text (which most seem to do). It's all rather tedious and time-consuming, I just spent around 4 hours just trying to find these links, and I barely scratched the surface of potential hits. wbfergusTalk 15:06, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi again. I just heard back from my friend at the office, and here's what he found out:
That map for Australia is: Physiographic Diagram of Australia, A.K. Lobeck, by The Geological Press, Columbia University, New York, 1951. A further note in the real fine print says "to accompany text description and geological sections which were prepared by Joseph Gentilli and R.W. Fairbridge of the University of Western Australia".
So, at this point in time, that's all I have (which is a little bit better). I suppose if you still have questions, then I'll need to check the library and see if I can find anything by either of those two authors, since Lobeck just drew the map for them. Hope this helps a bit. wbfergusTalk 19:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Doing a little web-surfing, it appears that the title of the publication by Gentilli and Fairbridge is the same as the map, "Physiographic Diagram of Australia" [8] and [9]. My local library doesn't have any of the articles or other publications, but I'll see if maybe our office's library does when I get back in next month. Seems like it may be useful for the Australian 'regions' if I can find a copy anywhere. wbfergusTalk 13:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What part of this guideline are you citing? It says that one-or-two-word numbers may be spelled out if that works best, but it certainly doesn't say they must. In my opinion, it's much easier to compare numbers to one another when they're presented as numerals. (And the whole point of these particular numbers is to compare them.) --Masamage♫ 22:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, that's a long sentence. :P Hmm. I guess I take her to be saying that the editor(s) (Osabu?) met with Naoko at least once in 1991, though not necessarily regularly. But Sailor V was first developed in 1991, so it makes sense that they'd be discussing plot that far in advance. By 'second episode of the written story', she probably means manga act 2, which jives with my understanding of how things were timed. --Masamage♫ 19:29, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The gist of that passage seems to be that, as a franchise, Sailor Moon was brilliantly cross-promoted, which has a lot to do with its incredible success. To me, that seems best-suited to the main franchise article, since it's all about the interaction of the anime, manga, and merchandise. Great thing to have a reference for. :) --Masamage♫ 01:20, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Malkinann! Belated Merry Non-Denomination-Holiday-of-Your-Choice and Happy New Year. ;) There are a couple of "Pretty Soldier Sailor Moon"-related things I'd like to discuss with you and Masamage in private, so drop me a line using my instant messaging contact info sometime. See you in the chat windows! :) 14:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [10]. --Maniwar (talk) 00:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, i'm OgasawaraSachiko, but i'm currently not log in now. You seem to know a lot about Wikipedia gallery, could you help me? As you can see, the galleries of Mireille Bouquet and Kirika Yuumura i added have been removed, and i hate when people do that. I just don't understand why some articles' galleries like the Nautilus (Verne) or Eiffel Tower are still on their pages, but mine are not. Can you tell the differences between those?
In don't know much about WP:NFCC, can you explain it more clearly and how can keep those images before delleting. If the situation is to hard for me to overcome, can you teach how to do that for once? Please, i need to know!
Postscript: Sorry if i cause you any trouble, but to be honest, i like my articles the ways they used to be. OgasawaraSachiko (Contact me here) 11:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so that means i can't make gallery. Well, i guest that how things go on Wikipedia. Anyway, can i keep Image:Mireille and Kirika fight.jpg 'cause i don't think that Kirika page need one since she has her own True Noir pic. Thanks four you help. OgasawaraSachiko (Contact me here) 10:58, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So in the end, it's still going to be deleted, i guess that's how things go here. You asked me before why do i need to keep Image:Mireille and Kirika fight.jpg. Well then, i suppose that i want Mireille to have it since she was intend to free Kirika, but Kirika doesn't need one since she has her own True Noir one and it was more like she wanted to kill Mireille so i think the image fits Mireille than Kirika. OgasawaraSachiko (Contact me here) 18:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that's a bad habit of mine. I just copy the rationales and upload it without concern anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OgasawaraSachiko (talk • contribs) 11:35, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed you created the {{Merge-multiple-to}} template a while ago. I've been having problems with it. :( I'd like to propose the merge of several of the {{Fushigi Yūgi}} character articles (specifically, I'd like to merge the three lower rows of characters into their groups indicated to the side), but I haven't been able to get it to work - it keeps on showing up as redlink has been proposed to merge with X redlink Y redlink and Z redlink to create not-yet-created-article redlink. Can you please investigate this? It could also possibly be that I'm not using the template 'right', too. Thanks.
This may be a bug related to the new parser. I'll investigate. HidingT 16:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, wait no it isn't. You can't have the carriage returns in the template, so you need to do it as follows:
(Some of those are redlinks because we are in userspace. In article space it will work fine.) Note that you then have to make the appropriate discuss link valid, so in this example you would go to WP:FRN and add a section titled Byakko Seishi Merging, and outline your reasons for merging. If there is a better place to host the discussion, I'd suggest linking there instead. I hope that helps. HidingT 16:39, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Show me in a sandbox, I'll see if I can correct it. HidingT 15:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You had a carriage return in there. See this link, [11]. Hope that helps. I hadn't realised carriage returns would be an issue when I made it, I based it on the other merge templates and they didn't mention anything. Sorry to have been the partial caise of so much grief and I hope it is all sorted now. HidingT 21:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea how to make it more robust. Which version did you copy, the actual template embedded in the page or the bit in the pre code? You should always copy the part that is embedded, because that's the part that works. The pre coding is pretty much to format and appear nice on the page. HidingT 21:08, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Strange, that's what I copied. I dodn't get any carraige returns when I copy it, for example:
Dunno what's going on. Sorry. HidingT 21:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be more inclined to say it's a browser snag. I'm using firefox and copying as plain text. I can't think what else it would be. I doubt the large text would do anything. To be honest, I'm somewhat out of my depth here. I'm good at hacking, I'm not good at originating. That's probably why I'm on Wikipedia. :) HidingT 21:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how Safari handles copying text, that's the only thing I can think of which is causing an issue. Sorry for the tardy delay. HidingT 13:35, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good day, it's me again. About the Noir characters, how come their articles have those recetion and develoment sections, why did you add them anyway? OgasawaraSachiko (Contact me here) 15:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Can you explain why does Image:Mireilleshopping.png have to be deleted.OgasawaraSachiko (Contact me here) 21:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So now how can i keep it? Does it have to be delete like the one you did on Madlax before?OgasawaraSachiko (Contact me here) 22:45, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. In general, when someone has added the {{inuse}} template to an article, such as I did with List of Fushigi Yūgi episodes, it is considered courtesy to not edit the article until the notice is removed or replaced with an under construction. I have reverted your edits as the music will be added in a more appropriate fashion, and the summaries will not be coming from or be based on the existing FYE article at all, so it isn't a merge. :) I will be working it more throughout the day to get it into at least partial form for featured list status. Collectonian (talk) 21:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The template says that if it hasn't been edited in a while, you're okay to go - over two hours had elapsed since you last edited. I don't like it when information (about the music) is removed from the main article and then not placed into the daughter article. The music section can always be reworked - I've seen them as part of the lead. I'd worked really hard on that summary, getting it down to what I did. To have it reverted just because you reckon you're going to work on the article, not even replacing it with your own summaries... it kind of bites. :( -Malkinann (talk) 21:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The music will not be lost, I can promise you that. It is an important part of the information. The summary was not complete. A proper episode summary must include the ending and the major plot point. The summary I read did not seem to include that. I'm fine with someone else rewriting the summaries, and I'm sorry if it seems like I'm being heavy handed. It kind of bites to see someone ignore the in use just because I needed a break. I'd just like time to finish the work I was doing. Collectonian (talk) 21:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Did you see the original I was working off in the FY Eikoden article? I feel my summary included all the really salient plot points, including the ending, in a short paragraph, and I was really pleased with it. The in use template also says that once you've finished a particular leg of your editing spree, when you take a break, you should take it off and let other people edit the article, with a pointed link to WP:OWN. I look forward to seeing your own take on that summary.-Malkinann (talk) 22:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The summary doesn't explain who Mayo is, which should be done for a new character's first appearance, who her crush is, the relation to the original, Taka being hurt in the battle with Genbu, Taiitsukun's appearance, and it says they have gone to find the seven warriors, but its only the five reborn ones who need to be found (and it doesn't mention they were reborn). Collectonian (talk) 22:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The argument could also be made that any summary whatsoever is better than no summary at all. I see you've put up another in use template - do you plan to use these throughout your FL drive for this article? Please remember to replace inuse with the other one when you're busy with other matters, and to save your work often. -Malkinann (talk) 02:11, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, if the list were in final form, but as it was only recently created, no summary isn't a huge deal since it is plainly marked as being under construction. I do plan to use the {{inuse}} template while I'm actively editing since you seem to be editing as well. This way I'm not spending length amounts of time on something, then saving to have to deal with edit conflicts. Collectonian (talk) 02:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
II know you are trying to help, but from your earlier remarks, it seems like you have never seen or read Fushigi Yūgi? If that is the case, I'd like to ask you to please leave the episode summaries to someone who has seen the series. Inaccurate summaries are not better than no summary at all. There is no rushing, pressing need to finish the episode list tonight, you know. :) Collectonian (talk) 03:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't finished the series yet, but I have seen episode one that I summarised there, and I have read the first volume of the manga (borrowed from the library.. ominous, huh?). Unfortunately, my library hasn't seen fit to buy the entire series. How was my episode summary inaccurate? Any inaccuracies might have come from me unconciously melding some of the manga points in with the anime. -Malkinann (talk) 03:32, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Miaka doesn't want to go to Jonan, her mother is making her. The first men who come after Miaka and Yui are slave traders, the second group primarily want to rape Miaka. I've seen the whole series (far more times that I should probably admit to considering its length LOL), and read the whole manga. Hope your library picks up the rest...while I love the anime, some parts of the manga are way better. :) Unless you've already been spoiled to the series events, you might want to limit editing on these articles. I know I hated being spoiled to what should have been shocking events because I started working on the Blood+ articles. While I still enjoyed the series, some things didn't have the same impact because I was already expecting them. :( While I think Fruits Basket needs some clean up as well, I'm refusing to work on the articles until I've read the final manga chapter because I'm tired of being spoiled ;-) Just a thought that came to mind while I was writing up the ending theme switch for episode 33, and totally up to you of course. :) Collectonian (talk) 03:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I thought Miaka kind of wanted to go to Jonan to please her mother, too? I seem to recall the mother wanting a better education for her children. "Education is the way out of poverty" and all that kind of thing. I really doubt my library is planning to pick up the rest of the manga - the copy that I found of the first volume was somewhat tatty, so it wasn't a recent aquisition. If they were going to get the whole series, they would have done so already. Spose it wouldn't hurt to try. -Malkinann (talk) 04:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Its not so much wanting to go as wanting to please her mother. :) Maybe if you ask they will. Our library really started stocking manga after people started asking for specific stuff. Though small, its still a pretty decent collection :) If not, the 2nd edition releases are all still available, so maybe wait for the next time Right Stuf has a Viz sale and pick it up? Collectonian (talk) 04:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guess I'll have to plan ahead when I want to go shopping, then. -Malkinann (talk) 04:47, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm really glad you approve the rewrite. Thanks a lot. And of course, if you think that some of the work there would be useful for the Class S article, you're more than welcome to use it. Kazu-kun (talk) 18:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, and that's the reason I didn't directly state Marimite as Class S in the article. The book Yorinuki Dokusho Sōdanshitsu just briefly comments on the themes Marimite shares with S, but they classify Marimite as yuri (well, as GL, but it's the same). IMO no scholar would classify Marimite as S because this is an early twentieth century genre. Today, any S-like work is generally identified as yuri. This doesn't mean Marimite is not S; it certainly is. But sourcing that as a direct statement would prove to be difficult. Even the Maria-sama ga Miteru article uses an "interview with a fan" to source that. While this may work there, we need something more reliable for a genre article. Although I think there are scholar works commenting about the influence of that early shōjo literature on Marimite. How to get a hold of that, I wouldn't know.
On a related note, this reminded me that I need to find a replacement for the reference you mentioned. It's a well referenced essay, but it's still a blog post. I think I can find something better. Will work on it in my sandbox when I have some time. Kazu-kun (talk) 17:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: I think I found what you wanted. This is a reliable article about Marimite. It's not scholar, of course, but it's an article such as those from ANN or AnimeonDVD, so it counts as reliable. Anyway, this is the code:
<ref name=esu-ex>{{cite web |url=http://media.excite.co.jp/book/news/topics/012/p02.html |title=Esu toiu kankei |accessdate=2008-03-05 |work=Bishōjo gaippai! Wakamono ga hamaru Marimite world no himitsu |publisher=[[Excite]] |language=Japanese}}</ref>
With this reference you can appropriately state Marimite as Class S. Furthermore, they also say that "Maria-sama ga Miteru is considered a present-day version of Nobuko Yoshiya's Hana Monogatari ("Flower Tales", 1916-1924), which is a prominent work of the Class S genre." I think this statement could be added to the Class S article too. Kazu-kun (talk) 21:00, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for working so hard! I hereby award you this barnstar in recognition of your hard work on research and the enormously helpful information you've been finding. Your work to improve the encyclopedia has consistently been broad, high-quality, and high-density, and you're always polite and helpful in any discussions. I am very glad we have you around. :D --Masamage♫ 22:34, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but i just review the anime and now i'm in a confusion about the timeline, since you know a lot about the series more than me, could you explain some for me?
Episode 7 and 8, Yumi gives Sachiko the chocolate and asks her out for a date but after episode 9 and 10, the timeline is Christmarts, did she have to wait more than 10 months before going out with Sachiko, and in the second season, she attended the second year in spring, did she attended Lilian in spring last year, became Sachiko's seour and the event of episode 7, 8 happened in such a short time. And the most confused part that did Sei took her exam at the beginning of the year, i mean before 14 February. OgasawaraSachiko (Contact me here) 21:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are MangaStyle translations equivalent to the real books?[edit]
She took them (at least the majority) from Alex Glover. I've double checked his translations before by hand. His translations can be on the literal side of the translation spectrum, but they are good. I checked his translation word by word for the 18th volume The Cosmos part, and also spot checking before... they conform to Jeffrey's Dictionary.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 14:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops! Sorry, It totally forgot >_< I use copy paste so I don't have to write it from scrach and mess something upLego3400: The Sage of Time (talk) 16:31, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When you have time, could you add that information about Doi being cited in academic papers to his article? I think that would improve it a lot. :) --Masamage♫ 17:57, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this page was split from a section per WP:MERGE in the Rosario + Vampire article. Edit history can be found on that page. -Malkinann (talk) 01:52, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
And i don't understand what you were trying to say, are you planing on merging them back or are you telling me that i should have asked for a split before i split the section or are you telling me that i broke some rule, i am new and i don't understand what you were trying to tell me.
--IngerAlHaosului (talk) 07:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Valenti, Kristy L. says that female-created yuri isn't as popular amongst females as yaoi is, because of male-targetted yuri-as-fanservice. Either that male-targetted yuri puts them off, or they can't find the female-created stuff out there.-Malkinann (talk) 09:51, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's a flawed thinking. I mean, BL's been a publishing genre since almost its creation, with specialized publications and so on. But yuri is so many different things: male-oriented hentai doujinshi, lesbian-themed shoujo manga, lesbian-themed shounen manga, lesbian-oriented manga, and Esu-like works (such as Marimite). Now, before Marimite, the term yuri was used mostly to refer either to male-oriented hentai doujinshi and yuri-as-fanservice in male-oriented (non-yuri) works. I'd say Valenti has a point about yuri around this point (2002-3), before Marimite got really popular and the concept of yuri got reconstructed around it. It's throughout this process of reconstructed that yuri takes Esu as its root (with Marimite as a bridge). This new concept of yuri encompassed everything, from Esu-like works, to more explicit romances, and even including works focusing solely on sexual content; some of these works were regarded as something else before this point. But because the root of this reconstruction is shoujo, and because the first yuri magazine wasn't targeted towards males, girls got really interested in yuri: Comic Yuri Hime's readership is 70% female, for example. However, this is a recent phenomenon (2005 to today), and there's no research on it yet; articles such as Valenti's are dated, and don't even seem to really put too much thoughts about it. Kazu-kun (talk) 17:42, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Friedman says that in the interviews she's gotten, the assumption is becoming that yuri is by-women-for-women, (as can be seen most tellingly in the introduction to the Hinamatsuri interview)."
I remember she said something like this in her interview with About.com, but I don't think I've seen this Hinamatsuri interview you mentioned. Can you point me to it?
"She also notes that paradoxically, while the first yuri magazine was for females, it went bust (I think she says its successor is going badly too??) and that male-oriented moe yuri is becoming more and more popular (as in the 'sister magazine' which is male-oriented)."
I don't think I've read this one either. Where did it come from?
Anyway, I personally don't think it's as simple as that. I mean, male-oriented yuri may be becoming more popular, but if that's the case then why is Ichijinsha launching their new yuri light novel line as female-oriented? Seitaro Nakamura, editor in chief of Comic Yuri Hime, even said that the success of yuri depends on how well it can attract male readers. Yet, they chose to release the yuri novels as shoujo. Is the moe yuri so popular then? It doesn't seem so. But we need more information to really know what is currently happening with yuri in Japan. Kazu-kun (talk) 08:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disposable income? lol I don't think so. Currently their best selling yuri mag is Yuri Hime (not its male-oriented sister), and while sales are stable, they're actually not better than its defunct predecessor Yuri Shimai. In other words, they don't have money to spare. No, IMO the reason for them to release the novels as female-oriented is just the fact that their yuri sells better among females (as proved by Yuri Hime's readership statistics). While the editor whould like to pursue the male demographic, because otaku spend more money in manga and related media than girls, he can't overlook the fact that their yuri is currently selling better among girls. But of course, who knows what these publishers are really thinking? oO? Kazu-kun (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there! I saw your recent edits on Marimite and I was hoping you could get me a copy of this article, please. Kazu-kun (talk) 04:26, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You told me, really? Geez, I'm such an airhead lol. Anyway, you could zip the pages, upload the file on rapidshare and post the link on my talkpage. That should work. Kazu-kun (talk) 05:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Got it! Thanks a lot! Kazu-kun (talk) 06:01, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As you seem not to have your email activated, I have moved it to your user space as the subpage User:Malkinann/Monstrous adolescent. It was deleted only via PROD, and there is no objection to moving it back into article space if you can meet some of the objections raised about the article. If, however, you do not plan on doing so, and you've gotten the material you need, place a {{userreq}} on the top of the subpage, and it will be deleted. DGG (talk) 22:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, just wanted to let you know I went ahead and ordered a copy of Anime explosion!, the other book I told you about. When I get it (should be within a few days), I can scan in the pages on Sailor Moon for you if you haven't been able to get a hold of it yet. Collectonian (talk) 03:22, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I've posted a note to ask about that source on the RS noticeboard (Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Paper That Uses Non-RS?). My gut says it isn't an RS if the source he uses for the claim is not, since he cites an anime fansub distributer and the first source you found (which doesn't actually say that). Feel free to join the discussion or keep an eye on it to see what they say. If it does get cleared, I think the statement should probably go in the anime section, since it only relates to that and no the reception per se. Something along the lines of "Geneon chose to license the series based on its popularity among the fansub community." Will that be okay?
No worries. :) My feeling is that the paper and Sequential Tart are both RS, (one's peer reviewed, the other's a news source) but we'll see how it goes. I just thought it was cool that a source was saying that and that it would be interesting for the article. I'd be keen to find out whether ST is really a RS, as I've been using it a fair bit in yaoi. -Malkinann (talk) 04:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi--sorry it's taken me so long to reply to this. I've had lots of school stuff happening, and the overt weirdness of that quote you showed me made me uncertain about replying until I had thought about it for a while. But I've come to the conclusion that I have absolutely no idea what whoever wrote that is talking about. :P If they didn't provide any further clarification, we can only speculate on what 'failure' means to them. --Masamage♫ 17:17, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you are right. Sorry about that. In relation to R&J and the recent character list changes, I've reverted back to the full list until we can build a consensus as to what kind of list is actually warranted, and if a reduced list is ultimately decided on, then I anticipate many an argument over what is a major, what is supporting and what is "not important". I am sure there are many a Shakespeare editor/director/actor who feels that every character is important. This whole premise could cause quite the never-ending storm, I would suspect. Smatprt (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey~. I took a whack at doing some cleanup of the Critical Attention section. Fun stuff you found there! ^_^ And it means no one can rattle their swords at that article anymore with regard to the Senshi's notability. That's a good feeling.
There are two refs I was confused about--one is the Kazuko Minomiya stuff. Was she being quoted by Allison? The other thing is the mysterious "Schodt" being cited in the now-first paragraph, which is puzzling enough that I've commented it out for now. Any insight? --Masamage♫ 20:49, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to need some help finding out anything more about the Royal Commissions on oil and the GBR. As they were from 1970-1975, there's not much on the web, and it looks like it'd be in the National Archives... Are there any things that have analysis of Royal Commissions? The thought of going to the National Archives is a bit scary... It seems like after the commissions, the governments got their skates on and turned the GBR into a park. But there's nothing really available on the GBRMPA site, or anywhere else in detail, for that matter. It just seems to be that 'There was one', and that's it. Thanks. :) - Malkinann 02:48, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
Ten years ago now, I wrote a commissioned history of AIMS: Bell, Peter, AIMS: The First Twenty-five Years, Australian Institute of Marine Science, Townsville,1998. Chapter 2 of the book, "Stormclouds Over the Reef", briefly describes the environmental issues of the 1960s and 70s, the Royal Commissions and other enquiries that led to setting up AIMS and GBRMPA. If you're still interested in pursuing the topic, you might find it useful. Peter Bell (talk) 03:08, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Again Malkinann,
You're welcome to use the reference to the book in any way that's helpful, that's why I passed it on. James Bowen's book on the reef also talks about that period. Yes, I contribute snippets now and again, mostly just adding information or correcting facts. I've added longer text to a couple of articles where I had information at my fingertips, but you're right, I'm not strong on citing sources. No time! However, I regard those articles as work in progress, and I have a dream of coming back to complete them. One day when I've got lots of spare time. Siiiggghhh... Peter Bell (talk) 08:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the late reply I was in East Asia in May... so I was kind of busy running around. I did find some interesting facts. Anyhow, yes it is.--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 16:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Nice job on the cleanup - it reads quite a bit better now. Thanks. :) - Bilby (talk) 13:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool script. :) I debated adding more to the lede, too - I left it at that length as it seemed to say everything it needed to, but that's one area I'm still a tad concerned about. I also have Napier's book here, so I'll see about the temple reference: I'm a bit iffy on Napier's work, but it's an excellent source, and she makes some excellent points. The temple reference is definitely worth following up. As to Skuld, I only added a couple of things to her article, as I think it was prodded, so I wanted to add enough to establish notability. I have a little bit more on Urd than on Skuld, so I'll add that in. Most of the references are for Belldandy and Keiichi (naturally enough), and for Peorth, although her article is just a redirect now. - Bilby (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. :) A buncha stuff has been up, most of which can be figured out by looking at the SM navigation box (which has been reformatted). The anime and manga articles have indeed been merged with the main article, and the arc articles changed into five episode lists branching out from the main one. That's it so far, unless I'm forgetting something...
Now I'm working on a master list for the characters, and once that's done, there will probably be some big character article merging. A lot of things pretty well disappear when you take out the plot summaries--ie. both Kakyuu and Galaxia--so a buncha people will end up part of lists. But that won't happen until the character page is done, and as far as I know the five major villain lists will remain intact. Possibly also the Shitennou, since they are simply way more complex than, say, the Ayakashi Sisters.
Glad to have you back! :D Good work already! --Masamage♫ 05:56, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if I'm writing this reply in the right place. I'm still on my second day of Wikipedia editing. (ha ha) Hope you see it.
Yes, shounen-ai and yaoi should definitely be merged. The only argument against it I can think of is that shounen-ai tend to be thought of as original works, whereas yaoi tend to be thought of (at least by Japanese) as parodies of existing works. But the term "yaoi" is practically dead in Japan. Everyone here calls it "BL" ("Boys' Love") now. Shounen-ai, yaoi, boys' love--parody or original, it is all the same basic phenomenon, no? Just my two cents! Take care. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Thorn (talk • contribs) 08:56, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
HEY! BEFORE YOU MERGE SHONEN-AI AND YAOI, CAN YOU PLEASE INCLUDE 'SHONEN-AI AS ADDTIONAL ELEMENT'? PLEASE!!!!!!!!!! BUT I DON'T LIKE THE IDEA OF MERGING THE TWO SECTIONS. THEY ARE DIFFERENT. BUT PLEASE CLEAN THE SHONEN-AI SECTION, ESPECIALLY THE CATEGORY PART. I PROMISE I'LL HELP YOU. PLEASE REPLY!!!
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonica c (talk • contribs) 05:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad my message got your attention... hehe..by the way, who are the users who work on Yaoi/Shonen-ai section? The shonen-ai category is dead and someone needs to clean that up. I'm not a new user but I'm not much experience to this things, thats why I need your help. I'm afraid that if I go to the Yaoi talk page, no one will answer me. I even made a suggestion, yet no one replied. Oh, PLEASE REPLY!! hehe..
I really appreciate the advice you've given and clean-up you've done on my contributions. I was shocked to see you are listed as an "Intermediate Editor". I guess that means I'm somewhere around "Pond Scum Editor" or "Lowly Worm Editor". Hopefully, with all the help I'm getting, I'll at least work my way up to "Not Entirely Worthless Editor" before the year is out. Cheers. Matt Thorn (talk) 06:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please, Malkinann, there's no need to be so formal -- it's Tim and Martha! I'm really appreciating your comments and just added a reply to you and Matt. Timothy Perper (talk) 08:41, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Malkinann. Did you notice the same renaming debate is going on in the Josei article? There seems to be more resistance there, though. I started a survey and fired the first volley. Care to chime in? Matt Thorn (talk) 15:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As I understand wikipedia mandates we used reliable sources when I try to remove sources such as this [12] under the reasoning WP:SPS it gets put back up am I wrong someone please confirm or correct this stance.
Those characters I just edited I dare to look I just edited to remove the links minutes before I type this will have the links put back up again I can guarantee it. Dwanyewest (talk) 02:59, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hee hee. Actually, that was a just-in-case message, because I thought I was about to be sufficiently overwhelmed that I couldn't announce a Wikibreak unless I did it early. Turns out I was wrong and that I then forgot to remove the note. X) Whups. --Masamage♫ 16:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for adding the new material to the Yaoi article. It reads really well. More on the Sandbox page. Timothy Perper (talk) 15:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Malkinann -- the quote from us is fine. Glad you found it useful. Just out of curiosity -- how did you find that reference? Timothy Perper (talk) 15:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Malkinann...I am writing today to ask for your participation in WikiProject Media franchises. You seem to have some interest in it, since you took the time to stop by and discuss the naming convention. It is just Emperor and me at the moment, and we could really use some additional editors to help us get articles identified as ones for the projects attention and assessed as such or written from scratch. Even if your only involvement is to keep an eye on what we are doing as a liaison from another project, that would be extremely helpful. I do not know everything there is to know about all the naming conventions, infoboxes, etc from the other projects, so I would love to have a core group of editors to help me coordinate this better. So, if you are willing to spend a little time with this project and help me figure out just how far and wide this project could, should, or would be; I would be extremely grateful.
Thank you. LA(If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 07:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Malkinann, If you're so inclined, come and visit the Death Note talk page where I just inserted a comment about DN being banned in China. I'm questioning the deletion of a reference and adding a good many more -- or, actually, asking for comments about adding them. Your opinion is most welcome! Timothy Perper (talk) 19:18, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking over the article it looks like it should meet the checklist if you address the two citation needed tags and make sure the inline citations go directly after the punctuation (a few are right before it). You may also have to remove Image:Kiki's Delivery Service Screenshot 01 Kiki and Jiji flying by clocktower.jpg since it doesn't seem to have any critical commentary as required for non-free images. Unless you can find something on, say, a critic commenting on how the character was designed or production mentioned how the animation was done, then the image can't remain in the article. Otherwise, once you have addressed those issues, you can reassess it yourself or let me know and I'll take another look. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 07:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please return to WikProject Media franchises[edit]
Dear Malkinann...You are invited to come back to discuss WikiProject Media franchises. Since you participated in one or more discussions of the project, possibly when it was known as WikiProject Fictional series, I hope to see you return to it. The project needs your participation. Currently there is no activity on the project's talk page about the reorganization which is discouraging. I had great expectations for this project as it touches so many topics but am becoming discouraged. I hope to see you return. LA @ 19:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Malkinann...Please let me know where I have failed to be clear on the purpose of WikiProject Media franchises. I would have thought by now that everything that I have posted on the talk page would have cleared everything up as to the purpose. If you would put together a list of questions, I would willingly answer them. I am truly sorry that I didn't answer you the last time you sent me a message. How can I make this up to you? LA @ 23:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Malkinann...You caught me at a really bad time. Again, I am sorry for that initial outburst, however, "voting is evil" does look like an attack and was taken as such. Had you just used the word "neutral," things might have gone a bit differently. Also, there was to be no neutral option, since it was deciding between 4 article name options, none of which was neutral. Had I been in a more humorous mood, I would have started renaming articles such as Alien (franchise) to Alien Voting is evil, rename Harry Potter to Harry Potter Voting is evil. (joke)
As to what Media franchises is all about, well, it is about gathering together articles on subjects which have been released in multiple media formats. I had thought that the need for a naming convention was clear by the initial sentence. There are articles named X franchise and others named X (franchise). So, which one is preferred? And once it was decided which was preferred, all of the ones not following the convention will be renamed, meaning a sweep though as many as can be found and changed over.
I hope I did not miss anything, but I probably did. Please let me know. LA @ 05:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I have put the naming convention aside for the moment. If you scroll down to the conversation under the subject The point, you will see a very good conversation happening where the focus may be coming clearer with the help of others. So, if we can put my impatience for a naming convention into the past and the bad temper I showed; I would like to know how you feel about what is being discussed in "The point." I am being shown a lot and reassessing my vision of the project. LAIf you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 07:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't sound good. Let me look at it and comment then. Is there Wiki policy about this? There must be... Timothy Perper (talk) 22:44, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Malkinann -- Left some cmts that might interest you on Matt's talk page. In the meantime, kobolds are mischievous, sometimes malicious little gnome thingies originally from Germany where they infested copper mines and made the copper ore unusable to hard working miners and other workers. You'll see what I mean when you look at my twin comments on Matt's page.
OK, I looked at the UCLA yaoi page. Yes, I certainly see similarities, enough for you to email them and ask about it. You know the yaoi page here a lot better than I do, so if you feel that material was borrowed, then tell them that at the UCLA page, not confrontationally, but in a pleasantly affiliative sort of way -- "Hi, I wrote a lot of the of Yaoi article on Wikipedia, and I was just fascinated by your article. It seemed very similar to what's on Wiki -- did you borrow some of it from Wiki? You're supposed to cite it if you did, but, if you did, I'm so glad that my work as been helpful to you!" -- you know, the kind of thing that makes them feel pleased and slightly uneasy. If it works, then you'll get a burbly apology. I can't see them getting all snotty about it, to put no finer word on it, the way certain kobolds do here on Wiki, if you know who I mean.
BTW, I left a note on Nihonjoe's talk page asking him to help set up a real dab page for the shojo entry. Someone named Caspian Blue, who is an argumentative kind of fellow, posted a disgruntled criticism of the page and I tried to answer him. Maybe something from you will help calm him down.
I'm quite fond of the label kobold for a variety of people. Think you might agree. Anyway, hope it helps.
Hi Malkinann. I am wondering why you removed, without explaination, these two key images from coral reefs. Unfortunately, your deletions weren't picked up. I thought I'd just check with you, in case there is some compelling reason why these images shouldn't be there. But I suspect it was just a slip of the mouse :) --Geronimo20 (talk) 04:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Arr, I see. Still, I do think they should also be in coral reefs, which in some ways pulls together all the articles related to coral. I think those images are the best we have to give a clear example of how a coral reef can be structured. --Geronimo20 (talk) 05:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re this edit summary--weirdly enough, he's actually only Shields in the manga. I think he's Chiba in the anime, but it's more likely never mentioned. --Masamage♫ 06:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On 21 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Shōjō, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Hi, Malkinann -- congrats on DYK. I just told Oda Mari and Caspian Blue that I'm not going to work on the article any more, basically because I'm fed up with their arguing with me about it. It is not OR to use multiple sources to pin down the identification of something; in fact, we often must use more than one source, if only because no one, single source provides all the information we need. So we assemble our sources, all nicely referenced and properly lined up. It's called "scholarship." Hmmm... sorry, I don't mean to sound like I'm lecturing you. I'm just blowing off steam in frustration at the discussion on the shouhou talk page.
But if you'd like to see some additional thoughts about the issue of research and sources, look at my User Page, at the item at the very bottom. It gives an example of how this sort of assembling can be done.
Over on Matt Thorn's talk page, at the bottom and titled something like Needing Assistance, Matt. a friend and colleague Bill Benzon, and I have been discussing issues that I think would interest you. Come by and join in. Timothy Perper (talk) 07:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Check out joining us on Citizendium. Bill Benzon, Matt Thorn, and I successfully signed on with them, and although I have no idea how it will work out, it would certainly be nice if your calm and helpful self were with us. Please consider it seriously. Timothy Perper (talk) 09:49, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fully respect your reasons and I won't ask about them, either. Please be assured of that! We'll miss working with you, but I won't press you to explain. I'll pop up here from time to time, and check in with things. Best, Tim
(This edit refers) While I can see why you made the change, the whole idea of this particular section is to provide more complete guidelines for each specific type of article as to when it complies with the specific WP1.0 criteria. (Idea borrowed from Wikipedia:WikiProject Tropical cyclones/Assessment#Assessment guidelines.) The idea is that there will be separate guidelines for series, characters, etc etc. The information you have rewritten is already provided in the assessment scale (expand the criteria). The other items are those that are specifically checked for at FA reviews.
I felt like the previous version contradicted the wider A-class criteria, by focussing on fixing stylistic issues in order for A-class to be granted (and mandating citation templates, bleah. :P ). If we were looking to focus on giving expanded criteria, I'd suggest "really trying hard to look for academic criticism, recommend using the project reference library." I think that would fit in with the A-class criterion of the article being well-referenced to a variety of RS. Most things I've been finding on A-class, like Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment/A-Class criteria focus on the article's information being "complete" firstly and foremostly, and this may be a barrier to WP:ANIME's articles achieving A-class - we are mainly fans of individual series, and usually the people who know a series best have been working on it already. I think an A-class review should focus on making sure the content is all there, and merely identifying stylistic issues to be fixed either during or after the review that are currently a barrier to the article being a FA. Minor stylistic issues should not be a barrier to A-class. -Malkinann (talk) 21:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I presumed as much. While I do not necessarily agree, it is not important enough to revert, as we really do not have any A-class articles. Some of the items previously mentioned, are important though, i.e. having fixed all dead links. We should reword the section though, as it is merely repeating the content of the assessment scale at the moment. (The question is really: How can we provide clear guidelines to clarify if an article is "complete"?) G.A.Stalk 04:37, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you disagree with my rewrite, why not have another go at it, or take it to the wider WT:ANIME for some kind of a consensus?2 (rather than seemingly ignoring me when I try to answer your concerns...)1 I'm not sure that A-class is a viable option any more - even peer review doesn't get adequate responses any more, why add another form of it?7 Part of the problem is that GA also focusses on formatting rather than on content - at GA level there is no need to be "complete". Does an article have any business going for A-class if it's not already GA?3 There's also the issue of whether an article on a currentish series (like Marimite) can be complete if it's still ongoing. I disagree with your characterisation of my rewrite as being "merely repeating" - I viewed it as synchronising the criteria with other A-class criteria wiki-wide, rather than allowing instruction creep by focussing on cleanup issues to grant A-class status.4 Cleanup and prose issues should be identified at A-class level for potential FAC, for sure. That might be one of the key functions of an A-class review, perhaps.5 I don't think we really can give clear guidelines to help assess completeness, except saying that all notable adaptations should be covered6 (IIRC, in the FAC for But I'm a Cheerleader a musical theatre production was identified...) and really trying to steer people towards more academic sources where they exist - such as the magazines, reference library and google scholar. -Malkinann (talk) 06:03, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
1Though I disagree (sort of, not completely), I rathered that your edits might be better than the original version for said reasons.
2Unfortunately previous attempts at clarifying the use of A-class at WP:ANIME did not bear fruit.
3No, unless it is at a level where it could easily pass GA, but has not been nominated for GA yet.
4That was not really the intent. The original intent was to set the bar for A class higher than GA class, in terms of both content and formatting. This was done to avoid the confusion regarding GA and A class, and to make it something to strive for. Note also that WP:WPTC has more A class articles (as a % of the total articles within their scope) than the larger projects. This does indicate that they are doing something right with it.
5These more general issues were added as these are some of the more important items that WP:FAC looks at; it was added to ensure that the quality of A class articles are near FA class (Though, at FAC, they go into the most minute issues), and higher than GA class.
6IMO, A class should be a precursor to FA class, as we are in a better position to identify potential issues, esp. regarding completeness, than the editors at WP:FAC.
7Unfortunately, I am not to sure either. (I have in the past actually recommended "officially" deprecating it. The current B-class checklist does seem to provide better results anyway.
In short, unless someone actually requests an A-class assessment...
Hum... Being complete is a stricter guide than being broad, isn't it?8 As far as I can tell, the cyclones project just takes the quality of their articles seriously - they link to many online sources about cyclones for people to use, have a couple of FAs set up as examples and are really active.9 What about hijacking the peer review system for A-class?10 Set up a normal peer review (both on the main peer review page and internally) and just ask reviewers to keep A-class in mind? I believe that Strawberry Panic should be considered for A-class and FAC-ing,11 but I'm unsure of Juhachi's wishes on this. -Malkinann (talk) 01:34, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
8 Yes, I believe so.
9 They do, yes. But in the process, they also provide very good guidelines as to the recommended content (as we do, though from the Tag and Assess, I can tell you most articles does not comply with the manual of style), as well as clear guidelines as to when an article falls within a certain class (as I have attempted.)
10 That is possible, but history has shown that most peer review requests are at C-class, with B/GA in mind. Unfortunately, very few people ever comment on them; a few times, I were the only one:(.
11 Oh yeah! If only a few more of our articles could look like this;)
Some people find it's easier to work from a model or group of models than it is to work within guidelines. For example, even though Sailor Uranus12 has all the sections that one could expect from a character article, the article has somehow failed the structure criterion. *shrug* Recent history has shown that peer review is being more commonly used for GA class - this has not always been the case, and may not apply in the future, either. Another gem that should at least get reviewed for A-class is Belldandy.13 It's more limited in scope than SP!, but has solid sources. -Malkinann (talk) 05:41, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
12 The lead was too short.
13 We should actually go through all of our GA articles to identify the potential A class candidates, those will also be the most likely future FA candidates too—a mass listing and review might just be enough to get A class going again. G.A.Stalk 06:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That was it? *sigh* Combing through the GAs would probably be worthwhile. I believe that community reassessments would be preferred over individual reassessments. -Malkinann (talk) 06:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I will be going through the C-class articles to identify potential B-class candidates for cleanup after the Tag and Assess (As it is quite easy to test for, amongst other, B3=N/No/n/...).
A review of our GA class articles would also identify those in need of attention, which is needed from time to time. Some of them are also much closer to FA class than others, and the A class rating would be of value in this case.
By "community reassessments would be preferred over individual reassessments", do you mean A-class needing multiple reviewers vs GA class only needing one? (Or vs B?)
I'm also interested in clarifying what bits of Maria-sama ga Miteru strike you as particularly challenge-able, as that seems to only require more sourcing before B. If a good article reassessment seems necessary, starting a community reassessment (where it is listed at WP:GAR and is reassessed by everyone who's interested - this includes WP:ANIME folk too) would be preferred to an individual reassessment, as the individual reassessment is much more open to dramaz. -Malkinann (talk) 07:36, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article seems a bit better now... Still needs a copy edit before GA is attempted, though. I am also a bit concerned about the amount of Fair use images used.
Ah yes, I misread that part originally. Unfortunately, that is how the GAR process is written at the moment, though I also prefer community assessments. (During the T&A, I do not change GA class articles' assessment, but set |attention=yes). G.A.Stalk 08:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers for that. A community reassessment used to be just for when you were unsure, or for when your sole involvement would be likely to cause dramaz. -Malkinann (talk) 08:52, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Shall we continue this discussion (Re. reviewing the current GA candidates for A class potential) after the Tag and Assess is done? G.A.Stalk 16:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Malkinann. Can you access http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Timothy_Perper/SandboxHistManga on the internet? I'm not sure that you can see user pages if you're not registered on CZ, but I hope you can -- this page contains a ca. 80kb draft of my article on manga for CZ. If you like, you can leave comments about it here, on Wiki, on my regular Wiki talk page. The YAOI section of the draft contains new material that might interest you. You should not cite the CZ sandbox page for anything but your comments are, as always, most welcome. As I said, just leave them here on my talk page and I'll find them (I'm not accessing Wiki with any regularity nowadays). Best, Tim. Timothy Perper (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Granted, Strawberry Panic! has come a long way since it was first proposed for GA back in June 2006. In all, it's been through four GANs, two GARs, one PR, and one FAC, making it the one article on my watchlist with such a lengthy article history, and at the same time being the one article I have edited the most (over 700 times last I checked). Nothing would make me happier than for SP! to become an FA, making it the first article I am a major contributor on to make it there. First things first, though, it'd have to go through another PR, and another major copyedit. I'm also concerned about the level on in-universe detail, thinking that it may have to be trimmed down for FA, even though right now I think the level is at the bare-minimum and removing a substantial piece of it would make comprehending the series difficult in my opinion. Not to mention that the use of the many primary-sources from the Dengeki G's Magazine issues might be a problem, especially considering that the entire Production section is sourced with these primary sources. Granted, the recently FAed Tokyo Mew Mew also only had primary sources of the manga and one encyclopedia for its production section, but then again the manga has been released in English, so cross-checking that is much easier than, say, pages in a Japanese magazine (despite the fact that I have all the magazine scans of when SP! appeared in G's, which was the main reason I was finally able to get SP! up to GA back in March 2007). So yes, I'm interested. Let's give it our best shot, and see what happens.--十八 06:00, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Valentine's? Now that's a thought! However, we'd have to find a free-use image, and of now, there are none. --十八 07:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Who puts titles in the Yaoi Category (Category:Yaoi) and Shonen-ai (Category:Shōnen-ai) anyway ???
The Yaoi category look mess and the shonen-ai is not updated. There are so many Shoen-ai article in here but is not there. Please be responsible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonica c (talk • contribs) 16:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just wanted to drop you a note and say welcome to WP:BARD! I don't think there's a one of us that don't feel out of our depth to some degree or other; so I don't think you should worry about that. Just contribute where you're interested and feel you can; and just having more people to join in the discussions is helpful. Glad to have you on board! --Xover (talk) 17:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's my own user page. It is the only way I can express my opinions. I mean, where do you think I can vent my anger?I mean, you write stuff on your own page, I can write whatever I want to. hahahaha!!—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonica c (talk • contribs) 22:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll edit it the less violent way possible. But I will write a warning to those homophobes. So I'll edit my page okay?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonica c (talk • contribs) 22:18, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited my user page. Is it okay if I write "What comes around goes around" and "You'll never know what is in store for you" ?? I think it's a little appropiate (???) It's just a warning. An innocent(maybe) warning. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonica c (talk • contribs) 22:51, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You should go read the nom. You're getting some excellent comments there (well, one excellent comment, anyway). ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 04:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I recommend setting up some sort of archiving for your talk page. It's getting way too long. :) ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 19:27, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It might have been more helpful to all concerned if you'd discussed your concerns on the talk page instead of dumping templates in the article. For example, I'd bet that Hfarmer would be happy to explain what 'classically homosexual' means (although I wouldn't want to guess), and you could have seen some of the existing long discussions about the "Controversy" section.
I don't know if you're familiar with any of this, so I'm going to assume that you're not. Most of the noisy parts of the controversy are just "people behaving badly" situations. To name one egregious example, the transgender activist Andrea James attacked a sex researcher by publishing school pictures of his children with derogatory sexualized captions.[13] Of course the idea of humiliating anyone's innocent children for the views of their parents makes all decent people cringe -- children are people, not things -- but this sort of nasty behavior tells the reader exactly nothing about HT as either a concept or as a term, so it's not really relevant.
The long-term parts of the controversy are pretty straightforward: Male-to-female transsexuals who are attracted to men are angry that the term calls them homosexual (a man attracted to a man) instead of heterosexual (a woman attracted to a man) because the label completely denies their claims to 'true' womanhood. They're also angry at its use in promoting the idea that there are "two types" of MtF transsexuals, specifically because both of the so-called "two types" have a significant erotic/sexual aspect. (Presumably if the "two types" were both for clearly positive and clearly feminine qualities, then the mere fact of classification into two types [instead of either one identical group or three or more types] would be uncontroversial.) In our sex-negative culture, the idea of a sexual side to transsexuality is perceived as (extremely) politically damaging. Most MtF transsexuals strongly prefer the politically sympathetic view that gender is entirely an issue of brain function that can be determined through their own intuition (in public, at least).
And that's really about it for the controversy over the term: it has an unfortunate name and it represents a politically undesirable issue of sexuality-driven gender variance. (There's no real controversy over the concept: everyone agrees that MtF transsexuals who are attracted to men certainly do exist.) There are researchers and transgendered people that support both sides, and some that support other ideas or neither idea, and it will probably be fifty years before any real progress is made on improving the science behind the opposing positions. Anyway, while each side's positions are firmly held (more firmly than most people adhere to religious dogma, as far as I can tell), there really aren't that many separate issues, and they are easily explained in a few sentences. Therefore explaining them doesn't take much space in the article.
Again, let me invite you to consider asking questions on the article's talk page. I'd love to have your input there, and since it's largely written by people with fairly direct connections (including Andrea James, who is User:Jokestress), the article could use another "outsider" perspective. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware that you were involved in the GAR. I'm sure it's entirely my fault: the article is not a place for any but the most determined and thick-skinned editors, so I tend to pay the least attention possible. Thanks for starting the conversation. Usually, if we can get people talking about a specific problem (this seems to be a sort of "in-universe" language issue), then there will be some improvements. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:02, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I reverted your good faith edit. Why did you remove the redirect? I think it's needed. Please see the third paragraph of this section. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 16:04, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see. I reverted my edit. I didn't know the dab page. I should have been careful and checked related pages. Please forgive me. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thankyou for your help with the HSTS article. In a sense there was already consensus, but 2:1 isn't really that impressive. Your tags and comments have been helpful. I had totally missed the "classically homosexual" thing plus being on the inside of this thing... It can become hard to know just how confusing all this jargon really is to the uninitiated. --Hfarmer (talk) 03:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Canvasing? Well the Good article review started, it raised the issue of term Vs. Phenomena, For which I wanted to get a third editor involved. Jokestress would not have taken it if we just forged ahead based on myself and whatamidoing. It would have became a revert war. Now I see mediation so that someone would talk some calm sense to all parties. I mean heck jokestress was at one point (which she now deleted but it's in the archives anyway) insinuate that I broke into someone's house. Come on that's not right.--Hfarmer (talk) 15:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. Can you tidy up 'Fiore' as it's been vandalised, and then block user cummins1 from editing stuff as I've already cleared up some vandalism elsewhere from him today but I'm too new to this to be able to do anything constructive about it. Ta
As you were a contributor in the last TFD, I am letting you know that {{Maintained}} is again up for deletion. Please review the current version of the template and discuss it at the TFD. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-30 17:47Z
As you were a contributor in the last TFD, I am letting you know that {{Maintained}} is again up for deletion. Please review the current version of the template and discuss it at the TFD. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-30 17:48Z
Hello, i noticed that my articles' discussion pages were all created by you. It is selfish of me to ask, but could you continue doing that and sometimes chech my userpage and create some new articles' talk pages.
PS:Sorry if cause you any trouble again, i know this request is really absurb, but i really need to know what others think about this.OgasawaraSachiko (Talk), 19 March 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so maybe it was a stupid request, but could you please at least reply me after reading it.OgasawaraSachiko (Talk), 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, i would rather like the old times, but thanks anyway. OgasawaraSachiko (Talk), 09:50 27 March 2008 (UTC)
Did you got your other account suspended? For me, having one example of a bishonen girl is enough. You don't have to advertise yuri animes in it. You have made so many readers confuse for having so many examples. I know your bisexual, but please respect us heterosexuals. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.55.139.197 (talk) 07:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
FINE. I'm not gonna touch your sexuality. But about your account, I bet you deleted all the "talk" in your page? Because I remember that you have so many "talk". Okay, Rose of Versalies is enough as an example. I know that some females characters that are bishounen, but Rose of Versalies is enough as an example. You don't have to put many animes, since makes other readers confuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.55.139.197 (talk) 08:33, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hahaha. Very funny. Really. But if you don't mind, can I put an image of a bishounen? New anime fans might not understand the whole article if they don't know what does a bishounen looks like. Dont worry, I'll capture it from my Canon digital camera and upload it really soon. And since we are the editors of the page, will you approve of this?
Oh, that's sad. How about if we put both classical and modern bishounens? I think thats better!
In relation to your help on the article Homosexual transsexual and it's good article review. Your input there and on the talk page have been most helpful. I will seek to address each and every one of your concerns. I especially like that you cited three totally objective WP Policies that need to be addressed. I hope you will stick around on the talk page. --Hfarmer (talk) 05:44, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, have you considered taking Yaoi to GAN? I think it would pass, once the tag is removed. It may not be comprehensive enough for FA, but surely looks to have the "broad coverage" for GA. If you plan to do it, i'll leave it to you, otherwise i'll give it a copyedit and submit it soon :-). I'll be taking the Homosexuality in SF that you peer reviewed (thanks!) to FAC soon, then will start working all the sub articles to GA (3 featured lists already done).
I made a section on talk there.Yobmod (talk) 12:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you overestimate the quality of GAs :-). Some pass with only 10 sources! I've done some reviewing at GAN and GAR, and Yaoi is certainly at a good enough level. While it may need siginificant work to be FA, that is "profesional quality", which is maybe what the expert editors here are aiming for. But passing GA sooner makes the article far more visible, and that way is much more likely to attract the experts it needs for the improvment. But i'll wait and see what people say on the talk page - maybe they know the article is missing something major that i'm not seeing.Yobmod (talk) 20:25, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Malkinann, sorry I haven't responded to your message. Real life has gotten in the way, and frankly I have succumbed to "Wiki burn-out." It's been so long since I've looked at the Yaoi article that I don't even remember what I thought was problematic, and those problems may have been resolved already. I'm actually afraid to look at it again. (^^;) I trust your judgment on the subject, though, so please don't worry about my opinion. Matt Thorn (talk) 05:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll THANK YOU for editing my profile and getting my page deleted.
Okay, here's star
by the way, I found out that you're one of the users who can edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Yaoi (Category:Yaoi), wow, I hope I can edit it too. There are shonen-ai mangas that is in there and has to be move in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Sh%C5%8Dnen-ai (Category:Shōnen-ai) . You said that there are still "mess" in the section, but maybe if you'll make me edit the two pages, maybe I can help. Please,please,please, I really wanna edit the categories and I have other articles to add in it. PLEASE!!! I REALLY WANNA IMPROVE THE YAOI SECTION!! I LOVE YAOI AND I WANNA CONTRIBUTE SOMETHING FOR IT, EVEN BY JUST EDITING AND IMPROVING THE SECTION. --Jonica c (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah. Thanks for the help!! I just move Princess Princess to the Shonen-ai category. Urmm.. how many minutes would it show up? Cause I'm still not seeing my changes. By the way, I really really wanna thank you, cause I learned something new.
About the merge, I'll contradict, somehow. Last time, you mention something about 'innocent BL' and 'porn BL'. Hmm.. since we should make Wikipedia an informative site, I think we shouldn't merge the sections. Most Shonen-ai are mostly like to be an anime series, unlike Yaoi. I mean, I have only seen 2 yaoi anime series and it is Junjou Romantica and Sukisho. Most Yaoi anime goes straight to OVAs. But for me, to save up space, we can merge Shonen-ai and Yaoi categories, BUT there should be something to make it known if it's shonen-ai or Yaoi. I know, my idea is really confusing, but we can work it. Well, we should check the pros and cons and some other editors if they are okay with the idea. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonica c (talk • contribs) 06:40, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RS Notice board:Commentaries on a Peer reviewed Article.....Again[edit]
Hello,
You are being informed of this topic on the reliable sources notice board because you, commented on the question the last time, or are editor of the article The Man Who Would Be Queen, or you edited a related article. This was originally raised in October 2008. This is a complex topic and hopefully you will remember what this was all about and be able to comment insightfully and help us reach a consensus. I have asked that the comments found in the archive of the original discussion be taken into account this time since I am sure those other editors will return at some point. It is my hope that these can be comprehensively settled this time. To see why This is being asked again check out Talk:The Man Who Would Be Queen.
Please please don't confuse up this discussion with things about other tangentially related discussions. Please please focus on just the question of sources. (Don't take anything in this message personally as it is being sent to everyone involved.)
Thankyou for your help. --Hfarmer (talk) 13:10, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I think something is wonky in the first part of this edit, but I'm not exactly sure how to fix it. :) Thanks for finding those stats, by the way! --Masamage♫ 08:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wonky like it talks about Tuxy in the Nephrite section, and I'm not sure what "joint" means. Maybe they tied? --Masamage♫ 19:31, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Malkinann...You were at one time helping WikiProject Media franchises figure out where it was going to go and what it would cover. About five months ago, I left suddenly and without explanation; and in my absence the WikiProject came to a complete standstill. I am now wondering if the project is sustainable and worthwhile to try to revive and continue with the work started there. If you would be interested in coming back to the table to discuss it, that would be great. We were just getting to a point where things were coming together when I had to leave to cool off from a particularly heated discussion that was upsetting me. I had hoped that the project would have moved forward without me, but it did not; but I am hoping to bring it back.
Please stop by if you are still interested. I look forward to seeing you there and seeing if we can pick up where we left off. LAIf you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 04:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, glad to see you are back. Did you notice the lead image of slash fiction has been nominated for deletion? Althoug it would be nice to keep, i don't think the legal arguement can be surmounted. But there are very few contributors, so it can easily be swayed.YobMod 12:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Their news section is the only thing reliable. Reviews are not a part of their section unless they are under the news section itself.じんない 23:28, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just had a thought - Woledge's Kirk/Spock paper discusses some "slashy moments" in the canon with screencaps included. Would it be a good idea to include such a screencap (taken from Woledge's paper) and say "this scene from X has been interpreted by slash fans as a "slashy moment" between Kirk and Spock"?? --Malkinann (talk) 22:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it is discussed in a paper, then i think the claim for fair use is strong enough, so it would be a great addition. Images from less reputable sources would not be good enough imo, so a paper is ideal. Good find!YobMod 15:34, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, hello! It seems like it's been forever since we corresponded. Well, I put in some massive work over at The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket, especially on publication history, analysis, and critical response. I didn't really touch the plot summary. Anyway, if you get a chance, take a look and let me know what you think. I'm hoping this article can get to GA status and then maybe on to FA. --Midnightdreary (talk) 19:14, 17 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good suggestions on illustrations - so far I haven't found any, but I'm sure there are some out there. By the way, since you mentioned web references, there was one on there that I didn't add that quoted Jorge Luis Borges. The footnote takes you to the back cover of a recent edition of the novel. I'm not sure it counts as a reliable source, which is why I didn't bother formatting it. I'm hoping to find the actual quote in context somewhere. Thanks for taking a look! --Midnightdreary (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Malkinann. You have new messages at Nihonjoe's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Thanks so much for helping bring The Narrative of Arthur Gordon Pym of Nantucket up to Good Article status. I'd like to see it Featured some day, but I'm going to step away from it for now to work on other things. I may call on you when it's FAC time! --Midnightdreary (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thought you might like to add/copy the edit the plot of Flower of Life (manga) as it is another Fumi Yoshinaga work. Extremepro (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but you should really also ask whoever put the banner tags on the article in March to be more specific as well - they know what they were thinking when they put them on there, and theoretically banner tags are meant to be explained on the talk page too. --Malkinann (talk) 23:58, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Peer review of Flower of Life (manga) showed that it was too short. Can you expand the plot because I haven't read the series.Extremepro (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On 27 April, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mumyōzōshi, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
Please expand this edit summary note from the article about Schodt:
"rm ANN, copyvio phrase, add more from Electric Ant"
My guess is that I'm responsible for the adding some of what you've now modified. If so, I'm the one who most needs to understand what you did and why -- especially "why"? Without your feedback, I'm likely to repeat similar mis-steps in future. I'm quite curious about the "copyvio" phrase ...? I haven't construed phrases as falling within the ambit of what may be considered a copyright violation? --Tenmei (talk) 17:08, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From what i read here and there the author au Guin Saga passed away May 26, 2009. So that left the series unfinished :( KrebMarkt 10:43, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Edit: Got the ANN confirmation [14] --KrebMarkt 10:45, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As you are not watching Guin saga article. I left a ref about posthumous books releases in Talk:Guin Saga. --KrebMarkt 16:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Malkinann/Archive 1, and thank you for your contribution with articles related to the works of Lemony Snicket. I'd like to invite you to become a member of the Lemony Snicket task force, a task force aiming to improve coverage of Lemony Snicket and related articles on Wikipedia.
If you would like to help out and participate, please visit the task force page for more information. Thanks! — The Man in Question(gesprec) · (forðung) 07:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Along the way i found things on Comics Journal about Shojo manga and Moto Hagio from Dirk Deppey [15][16] a good complement to what wrote Matt Thorn. --KrebMarkt 14:13, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Check this User:KrebMarkt/Big Chunk. It's the awful preparatory work to dig deeper in the content. You can already use some as references for some biography & reviews. I will work in depth progressively.
I set it on my user space because its content go beyond just the yaoi genre. So everyone can pick what's is relevant its articles. --KrebMarkt 10:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry to be so slow :( Others edits & things happened. --KrebMarkt 21:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that, but I completely missed the Sailor Moon angle - thanks! :-D --Malkinann (talk) 00:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How Matt Thorn ended doing Seduce Me After the Show translation should also be added to it as development information + we can also update est em & Matt Thorn as they are friends yet both bio fail to mention it. I'm just crazy to count how many articles could be edited using that interview as reference. --KrebMarkt 05:36, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
LOL! XD I'd rather that I not add that to the biographies as I can't quite figure out how to say it and I don't want to embarrass anyone - could you please have a go? --Malkinann (talk) 06:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitively time for a cookie break. I have coffee too if you prefer it. More seriously, i wanted to cheer you up after the Kira Takenouchi's disaster. --KrebMarkt 07:16, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you know, I know of Kira Takenouchi, She is actually fairly well known among yaoi lovers, mostly for Taming Riki but also some other works. You should contact Ms. Abraham of Yaoi Press, she will have heard of Taming Riki. Probably won't save the article as its been cut down quite a bit from what is posted on the web. She's notable for creating the yaoi novel (as distinguished from manga). You will be seeing her again. She is not known in anime or manga circles, only yaoi. Hope that helps. I only joined wiki to tell you this. Not interested in voting. --Dexxine (talk) 11:45, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I see you're familiar with WP:DYKS, want to make sure you submit the article there. -- Banjeboi 22:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested an alternate hook that might resolve the issue raised at [17] by the anonymous editor who objected to the word "famous." LiteraryMaven (talk • contrib) 15:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I award you this barnstar for almost single-handedly restoring Sailor Moon to Good Article status. Real life has prevented me from being very active on Wikipedia in the past few months, and I was worried that the article would languish. Thanks so much for your tireless efforts and great work!! Masamage♫ 18:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Add my praises too. Guts & editing skills display in a very disadvantageous situation. Cheers. --KrebMarkt 06:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
On September 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article George Quaintance, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.
I agree with the merging you had in your group's discussion section. however i believe it's more than just the main pages. Every single NGE article out there needs work. Why? because most of them do not deserve nobility and are very small. Human Instrumentality Project and Timeline should be deleted along with Ayanami Raising Project • Shinji Ikari Raising Project • Iron Maiden (2nd)• Neon Genesis Evangelion •Shinji and Good Friends • Evangelion 2 • Battle Orchestra • Angelic Days • Petit Eva: Evangelion@School • Rebuild of Evangelion but not delete them completely, just delete the articles and mention the info in the main article. There is also three separate articles talking about the Evangelion: Death and Rebirth, the articles the end of Evangelion and Revival of Evangelion should merge along with the main article Evangelion: Death and Rebirth. . Oh and i also believe we should merge the manga with the anime since it was the first piece of promotional work of NGE.
of course this should be done after the main article is cleaned up. tell me what parts you dont agree on so we can discuss them. i already have a discussion going on the anime article, you should look at it and say what you think about the idea.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:03, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
please stop assuming that i have been editing before the discussion. if i gave a proposal, than that means that i havent done anything yet.174.18.141.245 (talk) 02:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can give a try for Alone in My King's Harem. As much i searched, i only managed to find a sole mania.com review and more is required to fend off any notability issue. Thanks. --KrebMarkt 15:34, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! So, as part of the Sailor Venus GAR, a few statements were tagged that say she has to be in her Senshi form to use her powers. I was going to contest that that was just part of how it works, but then I realized that it's markedly different from how Western superheroes work--such as, say, Spider-Man, whose disguise is only a disguise.
So, do you know of a secondary source that talks about this, how the Senshi's elemental powers come about only when they're in their specialized forms? The Anne Allison thing you cited over at Sailor Senshi looks promising, but I haven't read it myself, so I thought I'd better ask. --Masamage♫ 02:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not everything has been discussed, that's why the template is there, for others can discuss, no final decision has been made for revival, only The end of Evangelion and Death and Rebirth.15:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I do sign my post, usually forget but i always put my signature in just a few minutes afterwards. anyways, i don't like doing what i want in Wikipedia all the time, though i would like convince some of you with the obvious, i want to have people understanding my view point.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:37, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
the problem with you and the general notability guideline is, that it does not Inforce articles to be separate. You cant always say "it meets general notability guideline so it has to be seperate no matter what". And again, wiki highly discourages further information on spin offs and doujinshi. SO it might not even matter if it has notability, it may not appear in proper encyclopedia form to have those. it would resemble fansite.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:24, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sailor Venus GAR & Manga: The Complete Guide[edit]
Do you happen to know the copyright holders for the images? Is it Kodansha? At the very least Takeuchi should be listed as the artist. Also, you should have someone go through the prose with it. Right now there's just too many issues with prose I couldn't honestly pass it.
As for the book, I have noted everything of importance that is easily found in the book. Sorry there wasn't for on Sailor Venus陣内Jinnai 03:49, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it was great that you remained civil the through that entire interaction at Talk:Neon Genesis Evangelion (anime)here (almost 2 weeks!). That kind of patience and calm disposition is something to be commended, thanks for contributing to the collaborative spirit of Wikipedia. Please accept this Barnstar! Kraftlos(Talk | Contrib) 11:26, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Add my praises too. I wish to have your coolness during Kira Takenouchi's incident. --KrebMarkt 11:55, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
regarding your edits: "There is also another organization known as Evageeks - a group of bastardly people who have no sense of reasoning whatsoever, and spend their time making dry-humored, idiotic internet jokes; and treating their users like shit. In other words, their assanine, crazed gestures know no bounds."......watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LMNAMIzGm_w ("who elected these people?"...) But please, nothing is gained by adding complaints about them to wiki articles; if anything, if you think about it, it only gives them unwarranted publicity. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 00:15, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They're used as a source because all of the other fansites went dead 5 years ago. No, they're not like Save Our Sailors or Theonering.net; I can't name a single book or academic article or "guide to Eva" book they've ever written...just a lot of broken promises. They haven't DONE anything since Christmas 2005: there was a giant messageboard fight then, culminating in the forums having to be shut down for FOUR months from February-to-June 2006. They were never the same after that, it sapped their will to try to analyze Eva: I think it would be accurate to say that what they do now is "sit around playing Halo and making porn fanart" -- it's not that they "don't have the time", its that the admins spend more time working on Halo Machinama than Eva. They got bored with the series and are incapable of "producing" much of anything. I can't believe I used to trust them as authority figures. We need a new ReVolution; Newtype USA folded, I think you mean Otaku USA: no it does not mention them, because it was written by idiot Sean McCoy (if even the EvaGeeks think you're an idiot...you have problems). --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 17:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think evageeks is that bad; why does it matter if they've never written a book? Collaborative bookwriting is hard, and it'd be more valuable just assembling the material we already have on Eva. (The trouble I went through to find out that Kaworu was originally a cat! It was sitting in the Eva ML archives the entire time, but no one seemed to know even where to look for the email.) --Gwern (contribs) 20:30 5 November2009 (GMT)
Thanks for the good luck. But I don't think Bored of Studies can help with any vocational courses (like Accounting). Extremepro (talk) 06:38, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was editing Lee Jun Ki and replace your recent edits by accident! Sorry, I'm not trying to revert you... I just had the whole article open so I could rename references etc. and saved over those edits! ^^; oncamera(t) 19:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I restored that article per your request. The grammar is pretty mangled, but I hope that there's some good content you can use for the English-titled version. Regards, PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I sure do wish you luck...darn thing was nearly incomprehensible. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 23:26, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Malkinann. I am alerting you to this discussion, since it is partly about a former article you have worked on and your changes to it. Flyer22 (talk) 17:03, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just created Jason Thompson's article here: Jason Thompson (writer). I've got capped/really slow internet atm. Wonder if you could expand the stub using the links I piled at the bottom of the page. Thanks. Extremepro (talk) 09:24, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Sections might be needed but otherwise very well expanded. See if we can push this to DYK in < 4 days ^^. Extremepro (talk) 11:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the concern. But my HSC tasks start after the Christmas break, pretty far away from now. Extremepro (talk) 11:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Malkinann. You have new messages at Extremepro's talk page. Message added 04:44, 28 November 2009 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
Hi,Malkinann. This is kind of fun -- check the article on Ubel Blatt and a none-too-tightly wrapped discussion about what "Ubel" means on the talk page. Doesn't mean much, as it turns out, and I suggested on the talk page that it's Japanese for "uber" so that "uber Blatt" means something like "Super Blade." I found a couple of websites where people use "uber" instead of "ubel," although of course I can't use them as Wiki-evidence. But maybe someone will dig up something we can use. Timothy Perper (talk) 22:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Malkinann -- Yeah, if you feel inclined to include some kind of redirect from Uber Blatt to Ubel Blatt, that'd be good. I have no idea how to do such a thing! Thanks! Timothy Perper (talk) 01:14, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When reverting tests edits it's normally a good idea to double check so that you avoid reverting too much or too little. You apparently reverted some of the stylistic changes including date formatting at the same time. 75.182.72.194 (talk) 23:15, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really am tired of being a focus here. i wasn't treating it as a battleground, just sending my viewpoint for your better understanding. though i have given up on the placing an image there, i still tried to convince other contributors within argument rang,e but alas, i am very tired. mentally unstable due to recent news.
Still what hurts me the most is almost every Contributor within range of NGE are just cold. instead of being robot-like, they act like people with full of emotion. The problem that bothers me the most is when i suggest 1 most of you go against it, but then your reasoning contradicts one another, so i h ave to focus on one or the other, or both at the same time. And i dont think none of the other contributors want to see other contradictions that they have made with one another, they just focus on mine.
also most people skimm through my comments, like what you did religion/section/list.
So i rather no one be concern at this point. because right now it feels like a biased bunch.
no uncivility, just how i feel about all of thisBread Ninja (talk) 19:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Like i said before, just because the topic is important, doesn't mean every single specific aspect of it is. the list is far too specific, religion section in general is important but the specific areas are not. one example is good and further explanation is good.
a list of specific areas in religion is not really important. that's why i believe it's fancruft. fans just believe every single area IS important simply because the topic itself is.
and i have gone to other articles, it's just the NGE article that trully are a biased bunch.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
References in General do have importance. the problem is adding every single one or adding a specific one that some have deemed important. to be honest, NGE anime article already has enough as it is, why owuld i add references to something that's overflowing with info?
ALL references are important, but each specific one would be trivial to post. All the references would have to be in the list if you really do deem it important. so why list few? or why list any at all? thats the question that comes to mind when reading it. too much hidden meaning that most of you fail to see, probably for all of you guys it's fine because
like i said using one reference as an example is good enough and explaining it. i already use WP:trivia, but again it's rather up to the contributors, but i dont like the answer they've given me. 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.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we can possibly split anymore. the example you showed had low importance and B rank article. give me one with GA status. Anyways, there is when there are too much references, like i said before, the main idea of Religion section is what counts, nothing too specific should be mentioned, especially since hardly any "controversy" at all (took me a while to notice). Napier simply naming what the religious references mean but have no impact in the story (for Example, the word "advent" constantly appears in final fantasy VII: Advent Children, but the article does not give explanation to the word "advent" to further explain, not a very good example since it lost GA status, but still it counts for something.)
anyways i finally found the write WP: to use. It's WP:NPS, but of course it relates a little closer to quotes. but some of the stuff does relate to copyright.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
i have hundreds of proposals, but i have so much hate with the contributors for being uncivil and of course all have the similar style of editing, so since my style is different, it will be difficult for me to propose anything. i am also a fan of NGE, but i am trying my very hardest to not let that POV to affect wiki's.
I'll see what i can do with Angelic days...but for NGE anime, i don't think more information could possibly be addedBread Ninja (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good job on that table! Shayno 19:36, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from Ming-Na. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Anthony Rupert 16:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
How could I have deleted information that wasn't there when I looked at it? -Malkinann 22:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
Done - thanks. -- Anonymous DissidentTalk 07:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
