User talk:Lucia Black/Archive 3

FFVII

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

Cloud is obviously the main character, he should be listed first no matter what. questioning whether the order of vincent and zack may be listed is a unecessary example. the two are nearly the same but Zack has been seen in more media outside of ff7, whether you want to consider that relevant or not, it's up to the discussion. And, we'll cross that bridge when we get there. for this situation, it doesn't seem like there will be any disputes any time soon, and lets say coincidentally there is within this year, the problem would be too trivial to fix even if it arises. Also the current list is according to how it's listed in the character section, so no, there wouldn't be a problem unless someone took the argument to the next stage and question the Characters of the Final Fantasy VII series article's order.Bread Ninja (talk) 06:46, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why wait? Are you arguing that it could never happen? Having a list based on alphabetical order has absolutely no flaws, while listing by importance demands editors' POV. The point is that instead of sticking with something that could very well become a problem, it is better to go with something that is inherently NOT flawed. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 06:56, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
bevause the argument itself is trivial, no one is going to do it period. Also none of the other navboxes with fictional characters ever have this problem. it's a hypothetical problem that has yet to be seen and not to mention very trivial. and what makes it so flawed? just because you think there will be a problem? Like i said, it's based off the article already given, so it's not going to be an issue. unless you make it an issue. So i'll be keeping an eye out if random IP start changing it just to prove your point.Bread Ninja (talk) 06:59, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I suppose I will bring up the issue with WP:VG, with whom I assume is mostly comprised of people who don't make bad faith accusations. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 09:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

FFXIII

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

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

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

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

New WikiProject Novels initiative

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

GNGs

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

I find your discussion with Jinnai about me upsetting. Please leave me be. --Malkinann (talk) 07:53, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For your notification, I've posted a message at the main anime wikiproject - "Sorry to bug you again guys, but I feel the merge discussion needs more eyes, especially as it's spilling over into Jinnai's user talk page, my user talk page and Bread Ninja's talk page, and I'm beginning to feel like perhaps I'm giving a damn." --Malkinann (talk) 08:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content

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

WikiProject Novels Collaboration for February

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

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

Formal mediation has been requested

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

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

Request for mediation rejected

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

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

Re:Roll Call

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

Final Fantasy IV: The Complete Collection

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

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

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

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

Help

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

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

Tachikoma

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

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

Think of Wikipe-tan!

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

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

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

Talkback

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

And afterward....

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well i wrote this to you because it's a sort of reminiscence of Talk:Sailor_Moon#a_few_questions... Unless i'm wrong which happens too often --KrebMarkt (talk) 08:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
then by then, you should still talk to everyone else. things get this hasty for a reasn, and it's easier to point out the minority right? well point out everyone who was invovled too.Bread Ninja (talk) 08:56, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
i still don't agree with it, but at the moment, things are going smoother. And if things start to get rough, then someone has to take control of the situation. i'm tired of people sliding these remarks these people have just because they agree what they have to say. Agree, or disagree, i still say things needs to be civil and not read things half-way. or sly remarks just for the sake of asking rather than getting the point across.Bread Ninja (talk) 09:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Pandora Hearts naming again

As usual the naming issue in Pandora Hearts...

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

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

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

Thanks

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

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

DJ Max articles

Hey. I'm sorry for the lack of responses. Free time is not my friend right now and I don't have the time to properly juggle everything. Of the two DJ Max discussions (Talk:DJMax Portable Black Square and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of DJMax track listings) you asked me about, which is the most pressing? I'll try to chime in on it hopefully this week. (Guyinblack25 talk 16:19, 19 April 2011 (UTC))[reply]

The problem i find is just the editor not seeing things in the right perspective. Adding vague reasons and such for keeping. Such as having purpose it should be kept or so. I gave up on the DJMax Black Square image because I'm tired of the rants and not enough consensus. All i ask is just put your input on the matter. Both or one of them you choose. I'm sure the nominated article will clear up. but if you'd like to attempt putting input on adding an image of the special edition. then be my guest.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:44, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

English translations of foreign words

I noticed that you removed English translations of Chinese song titles. Please refer to MOS:CHINESE which says:

This edition of Wikipedia is in English, so do not use characters or romanized forms excessively, such as for common words, making this a kind of English–Chinese bilingual edition. However, if the term does not have an established translation (that is, has multiple translations or none), feel free to provide the Chinese characters, which will be useful to the content of the article.

In other words, it is fine to keep the Chinese characters and romanisation; but an English translation is essential. - Fayenatic (talk) 20:45, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Let's continue this at Wikipedia talk:No original research#Translations into English of album and song titles. - Fayenatic (talk) 14:07, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Total Drama

I'm not so sure about that. But its best to have those in their respected seasons than in the main series article.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:21, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
yes they did, but not to the main franchise article. They could've been left in their respected seasons.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:28, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You are not listening. I'm saying the episodes should be merged into the seasons, not merged into the main article.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:39, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Talk:Total Drama - Rated Class A Hijotee (talk) 23:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What's peer review, cuz that article hasn't been rated since it was first created, no wonder it has Start class Hijotee (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay so I guess we gotta tell everyone to rate it again, since it hasn't been rated since it was created 24.199.22.34 (talk) 00:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What do we gotta do to get it up to B? Cuz right now it looks like the article needs major improvement and reconfiguration if you say it's at Start class> And I'm guessing that's for all the Total Drama articles right? Hijotee (talk) 00:18, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:53, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Total Drama Articles

I don't know if we should do this with bringing up the class on all the articles. It seems like a lot of work and no one else seems to mind that the articles have a low class. They have been like that for years now and they weren't even meant to be on project televison. I say we just leave them how it is. The Total Drama articles are not designed to have a high rating. They are just designed to show as much information about the show, and that is why fans read the articles. Giggett (talk) 16:41, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not the point. Its not about how people like them, its how wikipedia wants them. And they want them to higher quality. look at WP:IDONTLIKEIT.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To me this is too much work, and if you really want to do this I say you do it yourself. Giggett (talk) 16:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I will, as long as no one gets in the way.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:52, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun removing the detail from all the elimination tables to just include IN, OUT and WIN

Place Name Final Team Episodes
1In 2 3 4 5Re 7 8Re 9 10Re 11 13 14Re 15 16 17Re 19M 20DE 21 22Re 23 25Re 26
Egypt Egypt Japan Canada United States Germany Peru France Canada Jamaica United Kingdom Greece United States Australia Sweden Canada China Tanzania Chile Canada Mexico United States
1 Alejandro Chris IN IN IN WIN IN IN IN IN WIN WIN IN IN IN WIN WIN IN IN WINL IN IN IN Winner
2 Heather Amazon IN WIN WIN IN WIN WIN IN WIN IN IN WIN WIN WIN IN IN IN IN IN WIN IN WIN Runner-Up
3 Cody Amazon IN WIN WIN IN WIN WIN IN WIN IN IN WIN WIN WIN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN IN OUT
4 Sierra Amazon IN WIN WIN IN WIN WIN IN WIN IN IN WIN WIN WIN IN IN IN WINL IN IN OUTW
5 Duncan Chris OUT Returns in Episode 13. INSI IN IN WIN WIN WIN IN OUT
6 / 7 Courtney Amazon IN WIN WIN IN WIN WIN IN WIN IN IN WIN WIN WIN IN IN WIN OUT
Blaineley None Debuts in Episode 19. IN OUT
8 Owen Chris IN IN IN WIN IN IN IN IN WIN WIN IN IN IN WIN WIN OUT
9 Gwen Amazon IN WIN WIN IN WIN WIN IN WIN IN IN WIN WIN WIN OUT
10 Tyler Chris IN IN IN WIN IN IN IN IN WIN WIN IN IN OUT
11 Noah Chris IN IN IN WIN IN IN IN IN WIN WIN OUT
12 DJ Victory WIN IN IN IN IN IN WIN IN WIN OUT
13 Izzy Chris IN IN IN WIN IN IN IN IN WIN OUT
14 Lindsay Victory IN IN IN IN IN IN WIN OUT
15 LeShawna Victory WIN IN IN IN IN OUT
16 Bridgette Victory IN IN IN OUT
17 Harold Victory WIN IN OUT
18 Ezekiel Victory IN OUT

Is this simple enough to still be qualified as a high class standard? Giggett (talk) 18:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TD Template

Stop moving the TD templates, you are not doing it right and you are messing with the article format. There is a way to do it and I will do it myself. Patience. Hijotee (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I am putting it in the bottom, it was just that you didn't put it back right so I did it the right way. All you have to do is undo Giggett's edit where it says (move infobox). By the way wikipedia is really slow right now so that is why I asked for patience. I will move all the infoboxes back to the bottom soon Hijotee (talk) 18:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, there is a Giggett edit where it says (move infobox). As long as you undo her edit the infobox will go back to its proper location. Do not do it yourself, just undo her edit Hijotee (talk) 18:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just leave it, I'll do the last 3 pages Hijotee (talk) 18:33, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm done already :) Hijotee (talk) 18:35, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that you modified the Total Drama navbox. It looks great, just needed some minor adjustments Giggett (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By years do you mean the Teletoon template or the Total Drama template? Cuz the years always been in the Total Drama template? Giggett (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you change the Teletoon template? It used to contain the exact years when the series aired, but now it confuses the airdates and completely splits the airdates and the years do not match. I say leave it how it was, it contained more detail before, the timeline template is a much better and more organized format, rather than the list template. Giggett (talk) 20:43, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I have seen navigational boxes that use the timeline as the format, fox emaple this:

Although you may be right that is is much better to organize them by the year premiered, but we should at least add a note about that Giggett (talk) 21:09, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That one can definitely be better, but unlike that one, this one doesn't have a verticle one. so it complicates things more.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:12, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But you can see that some navboxes can be wikitables, so both tables are okay Giggett (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
They're not suppose to. the point is to simply navigate. This one can be simplified alot more by adding the years next to them instead. THey did it this for some reason. But that doesn't mean they're right. Look up WP:OTHERCRAP. Bread Ninja (talk) 21:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List cruft

Thanks for pointing to Wikipedia:LISTCRUFT to clarify your argument; but I already knew that essay and I don't think any of the eleven points listed there apply. That's why I proposed the listcategories in the first place. The topic of the list/category I'm proposing has established notability and many editors have expressed interest in it, (damn, the equivalent category has already survived deletion!) so it's not true that it would have value for a limited audience. You'd have to elaborate on the points listed there to convince me that the list shouldn't exist.

You're right that for now the topic is a little weak in available references, so I'll try to expand on the sources to gather support for its creation and against a possible deletion proposal, because I'm sure there are lots of valid references for it. Diego Moya (talk) 21:38, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

HUGE difference between category and list

Maybe that's the reason I proposed a category from the beginning? So, would you accept a category then? Diego Moya (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion for user page

Hi, may I recommend you to add {{Babel}} boxes to your user page? My user page has an example. I think you'll see that it can be useful.

BTW, when you are joining discussions on policy talk pages, please explain how you think specific WP policies apply, rather than just stating your position. Kind regards, - Fayenatic (talk) 17:41, 31 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT VG characters

Not sure if you're still interested in this, but I'm asking for your opinion on LGBT VG characters and its list. Hopefully contacting you will quicken the process of getting a consensus. Anyway, remember to state why you have a certain opinion, expand on points like why listcruft applies, and yadda yadda. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 22:12, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion's here, btw. – Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 22:13, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Boderline edit warring on The End of Evangelion

Hello Bread Ninja,

You appear to be engaged in what could be interpreted as an edit war with Gwern (talk · contribs) on The End of Evangelion. As it seems unlikely for the two of you to resolve this issue through editing, I urge you to take the matter to the article's talk page instead. Regards, Goodraise 16:49, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There ya go!

I have done what I can with the Total Drama articles. I know they are still not good articles yet, but at least that's a start. For now I removed the elimination tables, reconstructed the episode tables, and converted all the infoboxes to a season infobox. As for the character, aftermath and episode articles, those are still filled with trivia and large summaries, but I don't know what to do with those yet. But as for the 4 main articles, those are starting to look better already. I believe that the official process of bringing up the quality rating on these articles can finally begin. Giggett (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by the episode numbers, cuz if you mean by the "27 - 1" numbers then the first number is the total count of all the episodes in the series and the second number is the episode in that season. So for TDA, the first episode will be "27 - 1", where it's the 27th episode in the series and the 1st in the season. It seems that the production crew uses this method, which is shown on this video if you skip to 2:50. On the script it says "1/79" where TDROTI ep. 1 is the 79th episode in the series, and 1st in season. So I added that method on the episode tables. Giggett (talk) 10:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like the Simpsons and other animtaed tv shows use this format on their episode lists, so what I did was that I started counting all the episodes from 1 to 91, to get the overall episodes count. Take a look at List of The Simpsons episodes this article, they are doing the same thing. The overall episode count is a standard on episode lists, and also the product codes don't really say anything different rather than the regular season episode count, only that they only have a number on front of the ep. number, but if you insist that the overall series episode count must be removed, then I will remove them, but I really think they are supposed to be there as in episode list standards. Giggett (talk) 10:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then, I've already removed the second overall series episode numbers, only the in-season numbers are left. As for a reliable source, that I can't find, so guess it's gonna stay this way for a while. Giggett (talk) 01:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re:

Go ahead then. I only changed it back mainly cause the page was a complete mess. I did point out that it didn't say we couldn't post them cause user who posted them had removed tons of information and some of them were reoccurring cast members. JamesAlan1986 (talk-Contributes) 01:35, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also I feel we'll have a difficulty weeding through them cause a lot of them do constantly return but they also do other voices, eg. Kimberly Brooks who does the voice of Luna whenever the Hex Girls are involved does the voice of Young Cassidy Williams and that was a reoccurring role so we can't just credit her for one and not the other right? It seem like a HUGE mess to clean up and I had no hand in it all I did was put them into columns that's it. I didn't add over half of them. JamesAlan1986 (talk-Contributes) 01:47, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I agree with it all and it's been settled. Also if you look at the Cast section I posted a message to keep people from adding too many on there. I hope that's okay. If you click on the edit button next to Cast, you'll see it. JamesAlan1986 (talk-Contributes) 05:40, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Got your talk page added to my watch list. JamesAlan1986 (talk-Contributes) 06:26, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback

Hello, Lucia Black. You have new messages at JamesAlan1986's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

In regards to the Halo NavBox...

If you're stating the lack of articles prevents the application of the titles on said navbox, you should remove The Cole Protocol and Evolutions from that list as those are redirects that have no actual articles. If it's fine that way, all of the subsequently added novels and comics that you undid now have a redirect as well. Asian Inferno (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

SpartansOnFire

I've tried to explain to this user that we shouldn't have articles on books that haven't received much in the way of meaningful development coverage or critical reception, but he seems determined to create articles for every piece of Halo fiction out there. You have any ideas on what to do? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs(talk) 14:23, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First off I'm not here to start problems, I saw the Wikipedia article was lacking in updates as well as "information", Books are considered canon (for the most part) to the games themselves plus or minus elements that don't gel with the games, with comics a close secondary. I've lost the drive to do comics even though certain ones IE: Helljumper ties into the game Halo 3: ODST. I come to you offering to do articles you don't have, you may think you don't need them but think about this, if someone were to refer the book to a friend who had no intention of reading them, but only to look up what the plot was, a page now exists for that.

I've looked to other game franchises on this and most of them have this element to them. Notable ones include Gears of War and Mass Effect. Some of which those have not "notability" to them at all, yet they exist only a information. These articles I created aren't anal in detail, but overviews of the books. Since Wikipedia does not encourage the linking to Wikia pages, it seems this is the best thing to do. If they are interested by the description they'll either A.) Seek out information elsewhere (IE: Halopedian) or B.) Pick up the book themselves. Just my two cents... Asian Inferno (talk) 16:18, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Total Drama World Tour

Please do not remove the song and location info from the article. Giggett (talk) 21:59, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you are talking about the tables, then that I do agree. But I do still believe that we should still have a music and a location section, even if it doesn't have a big trivia table. Perhaps a short summary about the locations and songs would be better rather than just removing the whole sections itself. Giggett (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okay then, fine with me. I'll get rid of them then :P Giggett (talk) 22:11, 17 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Teletoon

Great job improving that with different lines for each year, much more detailed and I think it was worth the work and will be very informative to people. The old mega-year multi-line groupings looked awful before. Bonechamber (talk) 15:51, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Color template

It looks more like personal preference. If a color is used, it should make the words distinguishing and be consistent through all the article from the same type.Tintor2 (talk) 11:18, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Outlaw Star

I was going to nominate it for GA, but was still a little lacking on the production. Hopefully there is some accessible Takehiko Itō interviews out there, as I've read tidbits that it was inspired by Star Wars and Treasure Island. I know there is a video interview on the first issue of the "digiElement magazine" DVD, but haven't had any luck finding it either. If you can find or have access to any of these resources, please let me know. Thanks. ~ Hibana (talk) 14:20, 10 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Total Drama Changes

Are there any more attempts to bring up the quality of the Total Drama articles up to "B" class? I haven't seen any activity to bring up the quality since I started removing the elimination tables back in July. I was expecting that the quality of those articles were to be raised before the new season aired next month, but just so you know that if you want to fix something on those articles, then feel free to do so. Also, if you think that there is something to be done, then fell free to tell me or another editor to discuss the changes. Giggett (talk) 18:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed what you wanted to do with the List of Total Drama characters article, and I have cleaned up the article to how you wanted it since you never did do anything. So here is the clean-up edit. Tell me if the article is fine. All characters have been rearranged according to season introduced in, and ordered alphabetically. Giggett (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Survey of female Wikipedians

I got a message from another Wikipedian about a survey for female Wikipedians to "explore, in greater detail, women's experiences and roles within the Wikimedia movement.", and I thought you might be interested in participating.

It's an independent survey, done by SarahStierch, as a fellow volunteer Wikimedian. It is not being done on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. If you've got further questions about the survey, please ask Sarah.

Just click this link to participate in this survey, via Google!

Thanks! :) --Malkinann (talk) 22:30, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Survey

Hi Bread Ninja!

I have put together a survey for female editors of Wikipedia (and related projects) in order to explore, in greater detail, women's experiences and roles within the Wikimedia movement. It'd be wonderful if you could participate!

It's an independent survey, done by me, as a fellow volunteer Wikimedian. It is not being done on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation. I hope you'll participate!

Just click this link to participate in this survey, via Google!

Any questions or concerns, feel free to email me or stop by my user talk page. Also, feel free to share this any other female Wikimedians you may know. It is in English, but any language Wikimedia participants are encouraged to participate. I appreciate your contributions - to the survey and to Wikipedia! Thank you! SarahStierch (talk) 01:51, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category

If you mean the Category:2010s 3-D films it's because it's a category for all 3-d films released in the decade of the 2010s, from 2010 to 2019. Happy editing, --Cattus talk 10:21, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Parameter discussion

I have copied our parallel discussion from WT:ANIME to the template talk page. Also, I still believe you are misreading something, because RTitle does not bold anything and the template documentation does not say that it can only be used for alternate dub titles. It just says that another English title (of no definition) can go there.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:38, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please respond on the template talk page and not WT:ANIME. I have moved your comment there.—Ryulong (竜龙) 05:47, 22 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

The Special Barnstar
Thanks for contributing and you seem really into it :) I am inspired :) Eyenstyn (talk) 14:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow. Thank you so much.Lucia Black (talk) 14:45, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

OR template on Sailor Moon (English adaptations)

Please read the essay on Wikipedia:Responsible tagging - as it is your first edit to the (English adaptations) article, and as it is currently under discussion, it would be helpful to be more specific about tagging, as otherwise it could be seen as an attempt to affix a badge of shame onto the article. Using the tag in a section, or using the {{Or}} inline template would be more helpful, as would leaving an explanation on the talk page. I can work on fixing the problems if I know what they are - I find banner tags are too vague to be helpful most of the time. Thanks!--Malkinann (talk) 11:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Sailor Moon (English adaptation)". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 5 December 2011.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 17:03, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not alter my statements

Please do not alter my statements on the mediation page - I used the wording of "other" from the initial issues there beforehand. Your rewording is biased towards your reorganisation, mine simply lists it as other. --Malkinann (talk) 19:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

i didn't reorganize your statement, and it's meant to be considered an issue for everyone. In which you are using it more personal as it shows bias. First person view.Lucia Black (talk) 19:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You changed my statement. I specifically used the wording of "other" because Jinnai used "other", so I felt it was acceptably neutral. Saying that the other way is "appropriate" is clearly biased towards the reorganisation, and is unacceptably biased. --Malkinann (talk) 19:46, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
you just repeated Bias twice. However, the statements are Wether or not. yours isn't, and shows strong bias. and adding appropriate does not add any bias because i adeded "or".Lucia Black (talk) 19:50, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Appropriate" is a value-laden word, and is unacceptably biased towards the reorganisation in a general statement which is made for everyone. The addition of "or" does not change the sentence so much that the bias is gone. --Malkinann (talk) 19:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
then valid. or at least change your statement yourself as yours isn't any more nuetral. your statement suggests, it either fails NPOV despite there being multiple forms of organization.Lucia Black (talk) 19:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I don't understand you. "Other" does not imply that the other ways are better, as "appropriate" does, therefore it is more neutral. Please request a rewording on the mediation page's talk page, with an explanation of why you think "appropriate" is more appropriate - participants to mediation are encouraged to contest the issues there. " other parties to the dispute can list other issues under "Additional issues", and can contest the primary issues on the case talk page." --Malkinann (talk) 20:00, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

how about you reread my comment as it seems you missed the point. you argue apropriate was the key part of the statement's change, which to me only makes it clearer to understand the disagreement however i changed something else you seem to ignore.Lucia Black (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I still cannot understand you. Your use of the word "appropriate" on the mediation page makes the statement biased. Please do not change the statements on the mediation page. Instead of doing so, please talk about them on the case talk page, and how you would like to change them. Thank you. --Malkinann (talk) 20:13, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

you focused on something that didn't make your statement bias, instead you focused on what was subjectiveely bias. The statement has "when there are" which shows strong bias because it suggest other ways is what is being applied. I changed it "or an appropriate" suggesting, it either fails NPOV or being an appropriate form of organization.Lucia Black (talk) 20:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions for the mediation state that these issues should be discussed on the case talk page. "Other" does not imply a value judgement on how good or bad those other ways are, as "appropriate" does. Please do not change the statements on the mediation page which were written by other people. --Malkinann (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it can be solved here, it can be solved here. You just intentionally dodged my point. And this was incredibly straightforward. I suggest waiting a minute before responding. The bias is "when there are" the main point being "or".Lucia Black (talk) 20:26, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not "intentionally dodge" your point - I do not understand your point. If things could be solved here, they would have been already, before they got to the point of mediation. It is inappropriate to change someone else's writing on the mediation page. Please do not do so. If you have a problem with how a statement in the mediation request is written, please discuss it on the case talk page, rather than changing it. Thank you.--Malkinann (talk) 20:32, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for posting to the case talk page. --Malkinann (talk) 20:54, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation accepted

The request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Sailor Moon (English adaptation), in which you were listed as a party, has been accepted by the Mediation Committee. The case will be assigned to an active mediator within two weeks, and mediation proceedings should begin shortly thereafter. Proceedings will begin at the case information page, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Sailor Moon (English adaptation), so please add this to your watchlist. Formal mediation is governed by the Mediation Committee and its Policy. The Policy, and especially the first two sections of the "Mediation" section, should be read if you have never participated in formal mediation. For a short guide to accepted cases, see the "Accepted requests" section of the Guide to formal mediation. You may also want to familiarise yourself with the internal Procedures of the Committee.

As mediation proceedings begin, be aware that formal mediation can only be successful if every participant approaches discussion in a professional and civil way, and is completely prepared to compromise. Please contact the Committee if anything is unclear.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Halo navbox

I would like to ask you to provide a more detailed explanation for your reverts, as the edit summaries are, unfortunately, vague and do not exactly describe your thoughts on the edits I had made. Thank you. Hula Hup (talk) 14:21, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging

I simply dislike tags that are placed when they are not clearly applicable - the English-language SM soundtracks page had a references section at the time you placed {{unreferenced}} on it, and your explanation of the issues at the talk page for the English adaptations article lead me to believe that the refimprove template would be more helpful. Please feel free to elaborate on where the OR is on the talk page for the English adaptations article. I can work on fixing the issues if I know exactly what they are - changing tags to more appropriate ones is part of that process. --Malkinann (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain your findings in specific, clear detail on the talk page for Sailor Moon (English adaptations)? I can't work on fixing the issues if I don't know exactly which claims don't fit with what the article is saying, or which sources you question the reliability of. --Malkinann (talk) 22:19, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Sailor Moon formal mediation

Hello—Sunray and I will be your mediators. We will be sharing the job of mediation, so anything shared with one of us should be expected to be shared with the other, unless specifically requested otherwise. As you may or may not also know, discussions during formal mediation are privileged, meaning that they cannot be used against you later; for example, if the case is referred to arbitration. This allows participants to speak freely and candidly about the issues.

To start off the case, we've decided to invite participants to share, privately, their perspectives with the mediators, Feezo and Sunray. We'd like to hear your thoughts on what the major issues are, what the ideal result of mediation would be, and what alternatives might be acceptable. Other relevant thoughts are of course welcome. Send these by email with the form at Special:EmailUser/Feezo.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Feezo (send a signal | watch the sky) 00:37, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mobile Suit Gundam MS IGLOO

The article Mobile Suit Gundam MS IGLOO has been proposed for deletion. The proposed-deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Crusoe8181 (talk) 11:18, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Mobile Suit Gundam MS IGLOO

Hello, Lucia Black, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia!

I wanted to let you know that I’m proposing an article that you worked on, Mobile Suit Gundam MS IGLOO, for deletion because I don't think it meets our criteria for inclusion. If you don't want the article deleted:

  1. edit the page
  2. remove the text that looks like this: {{proposed deletion/dated...}}
  3. save the page

It helps to explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page. If you have any questions, feel free to ask on the Help Desk. Thanks again for contributing! Crusoe8181 (talk) 10:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

ANI-notice

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Gwern and Lucia Black. Thank you. Goodraise 20:49, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]