User talk:TheFarix/Archive 4

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

What the heck!?!

Why do I keep getting in trouble in the Hrry Potter and TDH talk page. You guys arne't explaing me, just keep giving me link to talk page guidelines which doesn't explain wht I'm doing wrong. 71.191.163.133 03:31, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Japanese episode list

On two of the pages that you switched from {{List of Anime Episodes TV}} to {{Japanese episode list}}, the headers there were meant for actual navigation due to the length of the summaries. Is there a reason for the deprecation?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Other then the fact that {{List of Anime Episodes TV}} is a near duplicate of {{Japanese episode list}} and is also up for WP:TfD? That's reason enough. --Farix (Talk) 01:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

One of the Template talk pages mentions the differences between the two... And the former allows for the headers for navigability of the two lists I edit.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 01:59, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

But only two article, List of Kamen Rider Den-O episodes and List of Juken Sentai Gekiranger episodes, ever used section headings to separate episode summaries and even those two probably shouldn't be using them either. But you found a workaround, so there shouldn't be a problem. --Farix (Talk) 02:05, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

True, but the workaround is a little difficult to work with. And why is it that section headers shouldn't be used?—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 02:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Because it's ugly and it creates a TOC that is far too large. --Farix (Talk) 02:12, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

List of High School! Kimengumi episodes

What are you doing on this page? You're totally screwing up the formatting and making the list look bad. I picked the template on purpose as it looks better than the other one. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 16:06, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

The old formating was just too crowded and looks god-awful by combining two different mini-episode titles into one small cell. The format I used separates the mini-episodes into their own fields and summaries can be easily added at a future time. --Farix (Talk) 16:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Anime Detour

Unless you'd care to post on the talk page what sort of POV is being pushed in the article, stop adding a tag that claims it's there. Jtrainor 22:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

User:Tony Sidaway/spoilers

Hi, I noticed that you've been searching and destroying home made spoiler warnings in articles. In case you weren't already aware, I have a bot which I run at least once a day to locate such warnings and list them at the above page. --Tony Sidaway 12:17, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Suzuka

I'm wondering if you would be interested in helping get the Suzuka (manga) article up to GA rating. Most of the major editing is done, but any suggestions or help to improve it further would be appreciated. (Duane543 02:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC))

Thanks for helping out. I'm stuck at the moment in trying to figure out how to expand the plot section because the track and field aspect is only used as a plot device for character development. It is not like some other sports manga that the main character works for the next competition. In the newer chapters the main characters have even decided that keeping the baby is more important then their athletics. (Duane543 03:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC))

Sorry about the spoiler. Now that I'm looking a the lead, I see your point. It should not be that hard to fix. (Duane543 20:25, 28 July 2007 (UTC))

Made a fix. Is this what you what you wanted? (Duane543 03:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC))

Need your advise

Hello! I hope you are feeling great. If you have the time, I would like to have your views with regards to this page. Your comments on this matter would be appreciated. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 15:15, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I hope you are feeling great. I have added more comments to this page Your views about this would be needed here. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 03:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Closed the discussion

Hello! I hope you are feeling great. I have just closed the discussion with regards to this page. I guess consensus was clear here and a common agreement was reached. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 07:25, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Nadira

um, what is the big problem with spoilers on this page? if there, what destruction or demotion does the spoiler provide? ~User: Sophiakorichi

Because a warning is completely unnecessary and because Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a fan forum, blog, or Usenet newsgroup. --Farix (Talk) 21:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Your advise is needed here

Hello! I hope you are feeling great. I would like you to view my comments here. Your views on this matter would be much appreciated as well! --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 03:38, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

I'm not going to add to the size of the already groaningly-huge Wikipedia talk:Spoiler but I have made my opinion on this known here (Click this link to contribute while it's still live). A reasonable archiving period and general agreement that older discussions can be revived would be beneficial. Inflicting huge page sizes on a discussion page, even though the discussions are obviously not ongoing and are never revived after restoration, is unacceptable. --Tony Sidaway 04:46, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Christianity Explored - request for advice.

Hi,

I noticed that Christianity Explored has been created and deleted twice - I think with two entirely separate articles - and I gather that the last to be deleted was a no-contest deletion as a spammy article with no assertion of notability. I haven't seen it of course, since it was deleted.

IMO Christianity Explored is notable and Wiki should have a good article about it ... but rather than leap in where Angels fear to tread (or fly?) I have created a personal sandbox page to draft something.

I would be grateful for your views - I am contacting all those who commented in the last deletion debate, as you will have seen the previous article.

The article is at [[1]]

Regards

Simon —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Springnuts (talk • contribs) 21:07:28, August 19, 2007 (UTC).

On lolicon

My thinking was that the phrase "opponents of illustrated lolicon pornography" suggests that lolicon is pornography. The people in question aren't just opponents of a subset of lolicon - they claim that it's all pornography and they oppose it all. Why should Wikipedia promote their view by associating lolicon with pornography in that sentence? I will leave it to you (or other editors) to make the decision, but I was surprised by your edit summary suggesting my removal of the word "pornography" equated to saying lolicon is pornography; I removed it in order to remove such a claim. 129.97.79.144 16:18, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

New Anime Infoboxes

Nice work on updating the character infoboxes on Tenchi Muyo!. However, a issue I would like to discuss with you is the slight modifications of the Voice actor info on certain characters. Not counting the removal of the Spanish voice actors, a problem is the removal of detail pertaining to Barbara Goodson as Yosho's younger self in Daughter of Darkness, and Wendee Lee as Kagato's female self from OVA 3 although her info is on Kagato's page. Although this information should be restored, could you care to comment on it so I don't make an unintentional mistake. -Adv193 03:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That was actually a results of an early form of the transition template I was used to replace the old template. I have fixed the VA section to re-add Wendee Lee to the list and clean things up a bit. The actual format of the names in that section is completely up to the individual editors, but I suggest keeping things simple and keeping the Japanese VAs first. --Farix (Talk) 11:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed and I also discovered the Spanish actors were still attached to Ryo-Ohki's page which I removed and I also know about the new debate of removing all non Japanese and English actors from the anime articles of Wikipedia which I added a comment to. One thing that you do need to know is that I also found your comment on Zatch Bell about the merging of the minor Mamado page which I commented on my support and since there are no other comments towards support or objections then you might as well merge that page. -Adv193 16:51, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for changing the Evangelion character infoboxes. :-) Willbyr (talk | contribs) 15:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem. It was actually one of the easier infoboxes to replace since it required no special fields and was used by less then a dozen articles. --Farix (Talk) 16:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Creator

Is it accurate to fill the creator field with "Hideaki Anno"? He was the director, true, but Yoshiyuki Sadamoto was the character designer. --Gwern (contribs) 22:02 1 September 2007 (GMT)

I take this is in reference to Evangelion. Perhaps credit them both? --Farix (Talk) 22:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I experimented with changing Asuka's infobox earlier, and credited Anno as the series creator and Sadamoto as the character designer. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 22:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Credit Hideaki Anno as the main creator and Yoshiyuki Sadamoto as the character design. While we do know that Anno was the one who created the storyline and the characters, Sadamoto should receive some credit for his work on what the characters look like. --Farix (Talk) 23:06, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Grammar

It's spelled "grammar". Reinis^talk 21:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, mi spell'n sux two. :P --Farix (Talk) 21:43, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm tellin you so you can lern! Reinis^talk 21:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Then your fit'n a loos'n batal. :D --Farix (Talk) 22:36, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

What? You're not making any scent… Reinis^talk 22:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I when! --Farix (Talk) 22:50, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

DRV

I have initiated a deletion review of an AFD which you were involved in. You may wish to contribute to the discussion. Balancer 04:54, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

List of Akatsuki members

The List of Akatsuki members AfD you participated in has been brought to deletion review here. Please take a look if you're interested. — xDanielx ^T/_C 19:50, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

My editing of Maburaho

I edited the page of Maburaho simply cause it's only based on two things:The anime series(and not light novel which is has been popluar enough for the series to get a anime based on it) and second, the american outlook on the series is obviously different because the series is aimed towards the japanese and not american hence the obvious reasons some people(notably americans) wouldn't get it. I feel til the "Critical Reception" has ALL information AND reviews based on the novel its wrong to put the section up like that without all knowledge of the entire series. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vegahunter (talk • contribs) 21:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Then you should add content based on reliable sources instead of removing reliably sourced content form the article. The problem with the American centric view has already been noted on the article's To-do list located on the talk page for some time. --Farix (Talk) 21:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Animecon (Finland)

Hey. Since you only have a beef with the article's content and not its subject, you might be happy to see that a few decisive changes have taken place. You should state how this affects your opinion in the AfD, and I'd be happy to hear any suggestions for improvement. --Kizor 00:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

And we're done. The new version should have no problems with either the rules or editors' sense of aesthetics. It was nice to have an AfD that has an actual productive result (which is nevertheless pretty rare), and isn't a clash of opposing principles. Let's still not do that again too soon... --Kizor 17:39, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox changes

Thanks for updating the infobox template on Sora Takenouchi. However, in doing so, you lost one important field in particular -- the characters Japanese name. I have re-arranged and added this as an auxiliary field, as allowed by the animanga character infobox, and would encourage you to do so with any other Digimon characters who's infoboxes you have updated. Thanks! JPG-GR 01:45, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Sora's Japanese name is the same as her English. When that is the case, there is no need to put it in a separate field. --Farix (Talk) 01:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the {{tfd}} on Template:TalibanBounty.

I would really appreciate it if you could explain why you are skeptical that the image is appropriate on every article it is transcluded onto? You did read my personal assurance that I was careful to only place the image on articles which referenced a verifiable, authoritative source which supported they had been sold for a bounty?

I would like to make sure I understand your position. If I understand your position:

You have no objection to placing the image on appropriate articles? You don't agree with the nominator that the image, and its caption, violate WP:NPOV?
While you have no objection to placing the image on appropriate article, you object to using a template to do so, is that correct?
Can I ask you to whether you think the image belongs on the Sada Jan article? I used his article as an example in the {{tfd}}, because I know that the nominator reviewed the Sada Jan article. They placed an {{npov}} tag on it about eight months ago. They made an additional edit to the Sada Jan article about about eight hours before they initiated the {{tfd}}. Sada Jan explicitly testified that he was sold for a bounty.

Cheers! Geo Swan 23:02, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Need an outside opinion

What do you think of the Douga and Genga (anime) stub articles? To me they look like they go against WP:NOT#DICT policy and in its current state could be put up for deletion or merged (don't know where because I have not looked). The editor Caltrop does not seem to think so and believes them to be "important elements of anime creation". Your opinion would be appreciated. (Duane543 04:21, 13 September 2007 (UTC))

In their current forms, they are clearly dicdefs. They may have the potential of become thing something more, but that's not entirely clear at this point. They also appear to be the wrong definitions. --Farix (Talk) 11:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and send them to AFD. One definition is clearly wrong and the other would be better named as key animation per WP:USEENGLISH if it is expanded. --Farix (Talk) 12:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Comments req

I made a request for page protection here, and filed a AIV report as well. This has gone on long enough. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 23:55, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps it is the best move for now. Are these IPs proxies as they keep shifting at every edit? But frankly, I despise specialized tags such as {{gamecleanup}}. If an article doesn't conform to a WikiProject's MOS, then it should be flagged through their talkpage banner instead of a project template that masquerades as a cleanup tag, which reeks of WP:OWNership. --Farix (Talk) 00:03, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

They are attempting to build consensus through various zombie / proxy IPs, as what 207.210.230.210 (talk · contribs) once tried but was indef. blocked for. I suspect the same here and commented about that just now at WP:AIV. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'll support it. I've got to leave for a short bit, but feel free to copy anything I've posted for use. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 00:29, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for praising me and my significant improvement to the article for the television series Lost. Sinceindex 02:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Or rather, thank you for helping clean up the vandalism the above editor has performed. —C.Fred (talk) 02:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Template canonicalistion

Hi Farix, the reason is that the redirects to cleanup templates are in such a mess, and need sorting out. There are/were for example about 69 redirects to the three templates {{refimprove}}, {{unreferenced}} and {{fact}}, and {{nosources}} was completely different in nature than {{no source}} for example. I have deleted and changed a few unused redirects, but I hope we an reduce the numbner to a mangeable level, by discussion on the talk pages of the main templates over the next few days. Rich Farmbrough, 14:07 25 September 2007 (GMT).

Missed one...

I found another... Regards, G.A.S 11:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

In any case; If you ever deem it necessary to clean up Category:Fictional_character_infobox_templates; just let me know, I could try give a hand in updating them to {{Infobox character}}. Regards, G.A.S 13:36, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Two Infoboxes on Gen Con

First, thanks for taking the time to update all of the pages using Template:Infobox Convention. However, a question, in this edit, while updating the template, you also removed Template:Infobox Company. What is your reasoning for removing it? The two boxes serve different purposes and organize different information. I'm planning on re-adding it, but I wanted to check your reasoning before doing so. — Alan De Smet | Talk 02:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see the point of having two infoboxes on an article and it should generally be avoided, especially when one doesn't directly apply to the subject of the article. --Farix (Talk) 03:31, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

As Gen Con is both a corporation and a convention, it seems appropriate to have both infoboxes. Each infobox organizes different information. Ideally they would be two different articles, each with its own infobox, but right now there isn't really enough information to give Gen Con LLC its own article. — Alan De Smet | Talk 03:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Gen Con LLC can have it's infobox when it has its own article. If you really want to include the other infobox, go ahead and create a stub for Gen Con LLC. But including two infoboxes not only makes the article look ugly, but also makes the article very confusing. --Farix (Talk) 10:51, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

SugoiCon

Hi, and thanks for your comments and support of our convention in the current debate. I am not the original author of the Sugoi article, but I am on convention staff, and I wanted to get your advice on how to clean up the article and prevent trolls from arbitrarily campaigning for our deletion in the future.

I agree that there are some writing style issues with the page in its current form...what kind of information can we provide to substantiate what we do?Rajah d 04:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)rajah_d

Dutch conventions removed

Hi, can you please specify why you removed the information regarding Dutch anime conventions off the page where the external links we're pointing directly to the official websites itself ? The link you put about external links does state that external links are no problems unless they show not proper information, but the external links DO give correct and up to date information regarding all 3 the conventions. Please fix this back or give me a solution. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.213.33.26 (talk) 17:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

As I've already stated on your talk page and is reiterated in the list's discription, List of anime conventions is a list of Wikipedia articles on anime convention. If the list contained external links to the convention websites, then it would have been deleted under WP:NOT#REPOSITORY when it was nominated for deletion less then a year ago. --Farix (Talk) 21:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for clearing it up, since I know I'm quiet stuborn. I've created a page of AbunaiCon with some basic information and in there a direct link to the website. I hope this is correct, otherwise if you could edit it to a correct state. I'll be doing the same for AnimeCon and ChibiCon.

Hello

I notice that you've experienced the joys of trying to trying to deal with Milomedes serial incivility too. I've been dealing with it for most of 2007. Feel free to email me if you'd like to discuss things offline. --Gene_poole 10:26, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Newtype USA April 2007

Hi Farix! I noticed that you're one of the few people who have a copy of Newtype USA's April 2007 issue. Could you help me flesh out the Le Chevalier D'Eon article by letting me know what information was included about the series in that particular issue? It would help a lot, seeing as the the article only has one source. :) Thanks in advance! --SilentAria ^talk 16:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Please don't remove redlinks

In the article with a list of Anime Conventions I have seen you remove the redlinks twice. Redlinks, though not leading to anything are there to invite users to create an article on the topic. Also removing such links from a list makes the list "incomplete" Just because a specific con doesn't have a Wikipedia article does not mean that it's not an actual con. —Preceding unsigned comment added by TVR Enthusiast (talk • contribs) 04:49, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

List of anime conventions is a list of Wikipedia articles. So having redlinks is completely inappropriate for the list and should be removed. --Farix (Talk) 12:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, creating bad articles on non-notable cons, such as OtakuOmaha, isn't a way to "correct" redlinks. --Farix (Talk) 12:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Tetsuji Takechi‎/ "Animes"

Hi, TheFarix. Thanks for taking a look at the Tetsuji Takechi‎-- I've been trying to improve it up to GA status, and appreciate any help anyone offers. I realize this is a very minor point, but the correction you made-- "animes" to "anime"-- was in a direct quote. We don't correct the spelling or grammar in direct quotes do we? At most, I'd put a [sic] after the word, but I'm not sure it even warrants that. I'll hold off changing it until I get your input though. Regards. Dekkappai (talk) 16:58, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Better yet put [anime] witch denotes an editorial correction or clarification. Otherwise someone else may come through and correct it again. But [sic] will work just as well. --Farix (Talk) 19:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Good idea! I'll do that. Cheers! Dekkappai (talk) 19:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Whew! Easier said than done. "Anime" was linked, so I had to use "nowiki" code to add the extra brackets... Probably the best way to go about it though. Thanks again. Dekkappai (talk) 19:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Plot

I've contacted Pixelface directly, and I'll see if the situation can't be clarified more amicably. I'd like to advise you, though, to be more polite with the other editor even if you are in disagreement. Your comments on my talk page and the talk page of the film article do not treat Pixelface with respect, and this should not be the case despite any misgivings you may have regarding the film article or any other aspect of Wikipedia. When Pixelface responds either on my talk page or the film article's talk page, I doubt that your comments will be welcomed. I'm just suggesting to be a little more considerate even in disagreement with other editors. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 23:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to apologize

Sorry about losing my temper on the Manga talk page the other day. I'm not disparaging your opinions. It's just that the discussion of Fred Schodt touched a sore point with me -- it was nothing personal with you. Timothy Perper (talk) 18:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well

I'll keep an eye out - but I'm not particularly offended at being called "non-neutral", so that's really ok for now. >Radiant< 16:18, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: Allegations of wrongdoing

Agreed, and thanks for doing what I was not bold enough to do. I support Farix. --Kevin Murray (talk) 15:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Good work. Gives the metadiscussion an appropriate venue without further diluting the policy discussion here. --Tony Sidaway 01:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Just a note that I read your notice on my talk page and agree with the removal. --Tony Sidaway 02:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you have my further support. --Kevin Murray (talk) 03:35, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

NOR Request for arbitration

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 00:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A-kon

I ask that you please leave the A-kon article alone, I am currently working on a full rewrite of the page which will include citations for everything (including most of what is tagged right now, me keeping the speculation of the con being named afer Project A-ko (100% not true and Meri the con chair will explode whenever she hears anyone saying this)) However as a point of reference I would like the article to stay as it is currently so others can add on and be included in my process for a rewrite. Thank you for your understanding Hentai Jeff 06:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I really would like to avoid a edit war here, but if need be I will go full into it. These paragraphs are fully agreed on by the members helping me with the rewrite and as such we ask that despite your bloated since of what you think you bring to Wiki, you leave it alone Hentai Jeff 15:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Verify

Can you verify the information placed here by an anon. I am not familiar with the anime so I do not know the names of the episodes. Rgoodermote 21:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know whether or not to tag the edit vandalism or not. But know that I know it is ok I can take it off my to-do list. Thanks and happy editing Rgoodermote 21:54, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It may depend on the interpretation of the user, I guess I will leave as is until some one else changes it because it does not seem to matter as it is still technically speaking the actual title of the episode. Rgoodermote 22:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)