User talk:TheFarix/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Input request.

As someone who has a great interest in conventions and specializes in convention coverage, could you please weigh in on the use of Fansview as a reliable course on the anime and manga project talk page. Collectonian appears to harbor some belief that fansview is not as reliable as similar fan sources, like animeondvd.com or anime news network's convention coverage. Thanks. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 17:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Template protection

An admin has dropped the protection on {{Anime}} for the time being. You can now update it. G.A.S 11:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

User Talk:G.A.S

I replied on my talk page. (Feel free to remove this message.) G.A.S 15:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I see you have been assessing the anime and manga pages' importance. I would like to focus your attention to Wikipedia:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga/Assessment#Priority Scale. Would you mind using AWB and changing them to Mid, as applicable? (The priority is Wikiproject specific according to WP:1.0/Criteria#Importance of topic, and we set up more specific criteria — otherwise just about everything would be low). G.A.S 21:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

That is assuming that AWB can be used for this:) (I have no ideas of its capabilities and limitations, if it cannot, I am willing to help) G.A.S 21:30, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that the majority of articles are low-importance. Unless it is something that has hit the mainstream or is a well recognized VA, then the article shouldn't be rated any higher then Low. --Farix (Talk) 21:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Remember the use of the importance parameter: It is to help the project prioritize the articles. WP1.0 will obviously have another priority. If everything is low, it loses its value. G.A.S 21:40, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it is not. It is to ascertain how important a topic is to a complete encyclopedia. Most of our articles aren't important because they are too specialized. --Farix (Talk) 22:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

But that is what {{WP1.0}} is for. WP:1.0/Criteria#Importance of topic specifically contradicts you: It specifically mentions that all "Top" articles are not considered equal, and that the importance is specific to the project. G.A.S 23:01, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

(←)Thanks for that. I have raised the question of the importance of "lists of" at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment#Importance - Arbitrary break 1, as I am unsure what we decided there. You might want to comment. I have also updated the priority guidelines to list all video game related articles as low, as they do not completely fall in our scope, per your assessments.

You're not going to assess all of the articles for importance, are you? We are actually planning to have a proper assessment drive to reassess all of the articles for quality and importance, so we will get to it soon. We are just hammering out some of the details first:) G.A.S 22:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm only focusing on B-class and above and then some of the articles that I've been maintaining. B-class and above should get priority with importance assessments. --Farix (Talk) 22:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I have made a new proposal regarding importance Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment#Importance - Arbitrary break 2. Would you care to comment, and do you support it? G.A.S 05:13, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you figure that there is use in tagging the appropriate categories in Category:Fictional character redirects to lists with {{anime}}, or alternatively categorising them directly in Category:Anime and Manga Project redirects? G.A.S 17:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

This is what I'm thinking. Create Category:Anime and manga character redirects to lists which will be a subcat of Category:Anime and Manga Project redirects, place the cats into that category, and then tag all of the talk pages with {{WikiProject Anime and manga}}. --Farix (Talk) 17:46, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

As you should be able to see, Category:Anime and Manga Project redirects has been pre populated with categories which include articles not in our scope. This will be quite a task to rebuild the category tree, as we have to reclassify all of the sub-categories under our scope to be members of the new category before we can remove the current three. G.A.S 17:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't take more then an hour, depending on how well you can C&P and navigate tabs. But right now, I'm trying to look through my back issues of Newtype USA for reviews of Shugo Chara! in order to start building a reception section. --Farix (Talk) 17:53, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I will do it (later). I have added it to my cleanup list. Good luck with Shugo Chara!G.A.S 17:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I see you have done it, thanks. Is there any reason to have Category:Anime and manga templates and Category:WikiProject Anime and manga templates separated? The one is populated via the banner, and the other is directly categorised, but would it make more sense if one was a member of the other? G.A.S 05:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) Category:Anime and manga templates is for organizing templates into one of three groups, navigational templates, infoboxes, and other. Category:WikiProject Anime and manga templates is to keep track of talk page comments. I would also note that userboxes aren't included in Category:Anime and manga templates, but the are included in Category:WikiProject Anime and manga templates --Farix (Talk) 14:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

(←) I have followed up the importance question here. G.A.S 06:38, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Importance question

Hallo! Noticed you doing the importance rankings on the Sailor Moon characters. In particular, I saw that you gave the main series article a "low" importance, but didn't give Sailor Moon (character) an importance at all, which leads me to guess that you probably mixed them up during your edits? I'll go ahead and mark the character herself as low importance, but I'll leave the series article to you. It's probably either mid or high, but I lost track of the ranking discussion, so I don't know which. :) Thanks for your work! --Masamage ♫ 00:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I was just getting the articles that were already assessed as B-class or higher. Sailor Moon (character) is currently assessed as C-class while the others are GA-class. --Farix (Talk) 00:37, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, gotcha. So are individual series an automatic 'low'? --Masamage ♫ 00:41, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Depends very much on the significance of the anime series. I've been assessing most of them as low-importance unless the anime series is widely recognized, then I would assess the article as mid-importance. But as you can see above, another editor has taken issues with my assessment. --Farix (Talk) 00:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fair to me, though I can see why it would be useful to have a more nuanced rating with more gradations. Tricky question. Anyway, I think meanwhile I'd place SM as "mid" on the scale you've been using, as it's pretty much synonymous with 'shoujo' at this point. (Just as one example, there was manga-article in Wired within the last year that took an entire page talking about Sailor Moon.) I won't harp on it too much, but I think other people would probably agree (even those who don't like it much). --Masamage ♫ 01:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Sailor Moon would be definitely be mid-importance and the other side articles would be low-importance. --Farix (Talk) 01:10, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

'Kay. I'll go ahead and swap it over, then. Thanks again. --Masamage ♫ 01:14, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see. I originally thought that was the character article at the time and assessed it as low-importance instead of mid-importance. It's fix now, so no big deal. --Farix (Talk) 01:22, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Acen attendance data

I restored the Anime Central attendence data for 2008 as it was the correct data from ACEN themselves. I added a reference to the annoucement by the head of ACEN registration as well. Though it is a forum posting, it is from the ACEN owned and controlled forums by the designated head of registration and was confirmed as a valid announcement by other ACEN staff members. You had mentioned AnimeCons.com in one of your reversions, however, they are not technically a reliable source either as they rely on user submissions (see the link at the bottom of every con page) that are then supposedly confirmed with the convention in question, which makes them merely a clearinghouse for convention data. As this is a non-contreversial piece of data, I think ACEN's announcement will suffice.--Finalnight (talk) 06:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason AnimeCons.com doesn't have the attendance number is because the ACen staff wouldn't bother to submit the data to AnimeCons.com. It also doesn't help that ACen has disable the search function on their forums. Since AnimeCons.com excepts information directly from the convention or information sourced to the conventions press releases, announcements, and etc., it meets the basic requirements of a reliable source. It is especially helpful since information on most convention websites are unstable and put up and take down information from year to year. And finally, attendance numbers are controversial pieces of information and must be sourced under Wikipedia:Verifiablity policy. --Farix (Talk) 11:55, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I had not seen that they were controversial as they appear to be similar to a company announcing it's employee count, but I will take your word for it since you have worked in the area more often.--Finalnight (talk) 14:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

People frequently come in and change the attendance counts. These changes are often different from the officially announced numbers given by the convention, and—next to guest lists—it is one of the biggest targets for vandalism and false information. That is why a source is required. --Farix (Talk) 14:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Anime Page

In case you didn't notice I was NOT talking about the gap between the table of contents. I meant that there is a gap between the header "History" and where it actually starts talking about the history, and it looks rather messy. ♥Tory~♥Amulet♥Heart♥ 00:40, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox animanga/Movie

Like I said before, it's a temp fix. I have no intention of leaving it like that. -- Ned Scott 09:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I seem snippy.. it's just a thing on Talk:Digimon Adventure that has me annoyed, so I hope you don't think it's personal. I know I can be a bit confrontational in my comments, though it's usually not my intention. Cheers. -- Ned Scott 09:21, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Random Act of Kindness Award

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		I award you this barnstar for you consistent good on Wikipedia, most recently keeping my talk page free from vandalism. Kopf1988 (talk) 14:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. --Farix (Talk) 23:58, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Correction

Discussion moved to Talk:Lady!!.

Template: Anime Voices Doc

Are you the one who moved the Anime Voices Doc to it's own page? If so, is there a way to make a similar page to the Video game voices template? Rtkat3 (talk) 12;34, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You can do so by add {{Documentation, template}} to the bottom of the template. {{anime voices}} still, however, needs some more work, but the time I can dedicate to Wikipedia is limited. --Farix (Talk) 17:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Shugo Chara! episodes

Thank you for revising about List of Shugo Chara! episodes, but I think ep47 should Am I Utau's Manager!? is better because this case of Japanese is an interrogative. What do you think? --Yakuchang....(talk) 14:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I've thought about this before responding. If it was purely an interrogative statement, then "Am I" would be more appropriate. However, the title has an exclamation point at the end, which makes it an exclamatory statement. It that case, "I'm" or "I am" would be grammatically correct and "Am I" would be incorrect. The question mark that follows the exclamation point emphasizes that the statement was said in shock instead of it being a question. --Farix (Talk) 05:06, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for a kind answer. Please revise my poor English from now on, too. --Yakuchang....(talk) 05:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Shugo Chara - Easter.png)

Thanks for uploading Image:Shugo Chara - Easter.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:21, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

History of anime & manga importance

Those articles should really be top-importance. They being subarticles of anime and manga shouldn't matter much since they are core articles. --Mika1h (talk) 19:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Not only do I disagree with you, but this is also backed by the consensus decision made at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Assessment. --Farix (Talk) 20:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I just can't understand how history of anime/manga can be of less importance than any individual person or company. --Mika1h (talk) 21:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox animanga/Manga

I just wanted to drop a quick note to explain why I reverted your July 29th edit of the Manga infobox[1]. On I Saw It, a one-shot from 1972, I realized the infobox was listing it its release as "1972 – ongoing". Checking back, I realized your edit was causing it, so I reverted it to fix the issue. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

That's because one-shots should be using the published field instead of first. I have fixed the problem on the article and restored the template. --Farix (Talk) 10:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

May also want to update the instructions :P -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Virgin Fleet

The Virgin Fleet article I am making may need more references, and may need expansion. Help me out! Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Who's ever played Eduard Friedrich Mörike's opera "Eduard auf dem Seil" ?

Hi, I'm looking for Eduard Friedrich Mörike's opera "Eduard auf dem Seil" (according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silpelit), but I can find any information, who ever has played it. If do you know any link to the information about performance this opera please drop me an e-mail at fazoo@o2.pl, because it seems till now, that nobody's played it ever. It's really important for me so I'd be thankful for any information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.9.92.72 (talk) 06:20, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Feature requests for template

We have discussed a few requirements for {{WikiProject Anime and manga}} at its talk page, would you mind having a look please? Regards, G.A.S 06:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Template:Anime voices more

I'm a little confused as to why you redirected {{Anime voices more}} to {{Anime voices}}. I realize it probably hadn't seen much use and I never got around to writing the docs, but you could have at least told me you were going to redirect it. Its purpose was for when multiple voice actors play the same part (like for when a character is sometimes shown as a child). Without it one has to use two (or more) Anime voices templates which ends up adding an extra "Voiced by:" in the middle of the line. I was going to use it on List of characters in The Twelve Kingdoms#Kouya and List of characters in The Twelve Kingdoms#Taiki when I discovered it had been redirected. Would it be alright to unredirect it or add a way to turn off the "Voiced by:" part in Anime voices? Thank you. --Eruhildo (talk) 04:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Since the automatic wikilink is disabled if the fields are not a valid article name, there is no point in having the other template any more. You can now put more then one VA into a language field. --Farix (Talk) 22:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I completely forgot about that. ^_^;; Sorry for the trouble. --Eruhildo (talk) 04:58, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Just tried it out and realized that's not what I'm trying to do. I want it to appear in the format:

''Voiced by:'' [[Seiyū 1]] (Japanese), [[VA 1]] (English) (role 1), [[Seiyū 2]] (Japanese), [[VA 2]] (English) (role 2)

This could easily be implemented in the current template without adding much extra code. I think I'll write up some stuff tomorrow and post it on the template's talk page to see what other people think. --Eruhildo (talk) 05:10, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I think it is best not to flip back and forth between Japanese VAs and English VAs. That format is also a bit confusing. I would also suggest that it may be an instance where sentences are better and less ambiguous. --Farix (Talk) 11:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Anime St. Louis

Hello, you helped us out a lot a while back with maintaining and repealing the vandalism to our page. Unfortunately a large amount of our business is still tied up in legal matters, but we're working to resolve them with the utmost haste. In the meantime, it would seem that some people have taken it upon themselves to repeatedly vandalize our article, linking the previous, and no longer used website. It is my personal opinion that this is in a direct attempt to misuse our good name and harm our organization.

I myself am a novice Wikipedia editor at best, and the rest of our convention staff know little next to me. I was curious if you could help us out with this matter, by either taking whatever action necessary to block the vandal, or get a Protected status on our page. I attempted to myself, but was utterly confused at the process.

Either way, your aforementioned help has already been greatly appreciated, and it would be doing us a great service if you would endeavor this task as well.

My thanks, --Fatebringer (talk) 04:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have placed a warning on the IP's talk page and directed him or her to discuss the matter either on the article's talk page or on the Anime Conventions Mailing List. If the editor persists, I can add the article to my watch list. --Farix (Talk) 12:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Hopefully this will be enough to discourage further acts of vandalism. --Fatebringer (talk) 16:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Guilt by association?

A Pastor says nice things about a congregant, ant is "guilt by association"? You have very strange ideation.Elan26 (talk) 21:58, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26

Because Larry Kroon praise of Sarah Palin has nothing to do with Kroon himself and didn't belong in the article in the first place. The only reason to include that text is to associate Palin with Kroon, then the rest of the article attempts to paint Kroon as a anti-Semite. This creates the impression that Palin is an anti-Semite by association. Also, judging by your edit history, it is clear that you are attempting to push a particular POV in articles related to Sarah Palin. --Farix (Talk) 22:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasilla Assembly of God

I was in the process of adding a comment to the talk page of Wasilla Assembly of God when it was deleted. Based on your comment to me about them being different, I left a request for review on the deleted admin's page, User talk:AuburnPilot. If I was wrong, sorry in advance. justinfr (talk/contribs) 01:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

auburnpilot went back to check. They were basically the same only under different names. * Whew * :) justinfr (talk/contribs) 01:54, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, sorry about the mixup. I've just read the extended conversation on his talk page. I can't keep all of these Palin articles straight.......! justinfr (talk/contribs) 02:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

It was a real mess. Though I think that the article on Wasilla Bible Church could have been salvaged by removing all of the coatracks and stubifing it. I though that there were enough reliable sources to pass the notability criteria. --Farix (Talk) 02:08, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

wasilla assembly of god

I am a retired mathematician formerly at Stanford unfamiliar with Wikipedia publication standards.

About fifteen people, including yourself, made conributions to the Wasilla Assembly of God article. Similarly, a number corrected and sourced Larry Kroon and Ed Kalnins, including articles with them prior to Palin being nominated.

The revisions were made per the suggestions.

How was it and related articles completely deleted without warning?EricDiesel (talk) 01:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who nominated Wasilla Assembly of God for deletion because it was essentially the same content as other Wasilla church articles, only with a different name. There have been repeated messages left on your talk page with links to WP policies, which you would do well to read. The most important one is WP:NOTABILITY. The consensus among other editors is that these church articles do not meet the notability criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. The problem isn't with the articles; it's that the subject isn't well-known enough--outside of its association with Sarah Palin--to be included in an encyclopedia. justinfr (talk/contribs) 02:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Another one to read is WP:COAT. The church articles are basically cover for discussing Sarah Palin, and so such content would better be covered on her own page. justinfr (talk/contribs) 02:01, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasilla Bible Church now links to Wasilla. I think there should be consistency constancy with Wasilla Assembly of God, but only if information about the churches, which is NOT about Palin, is allowed to go there. Therefore, IF that could be assured, I would not object to deleting this page and directing Wasilla Assembly of God to Wasilla. Alternatively, recreating the pages for Kroon and Kalnins would do it. A number of national news stories are about sermons referring to events of 2003, 2004, and 2005, AFTER Palin left the church. Therefore, they do not belong on a Palin site. There should be some place for this information to go. If you speak Hebrew, check out the mass of stuff on Wasilla Bible Church. They are going nuts over the “Terrorist attacks on Israelis being justified as God’s Punishment on the Jews”. This would be true even if Palin had not been there to hear it. If it turned out that Palin was not there, the news stories would sill grow and grow. In addition, the Iranian and Iraqi press is starting to weigh in on Wasilla Assembly of God because of its “God is backing the US in invading and occupying Iraq” (their words). None of this concerns Palin, as she had nothing to do with it. I think putting all this stuff about the actions of the two churches on Wasilla will lead to objections that it should be on the churches articles, as it has to do with the churches and not Wasilla. I still think each should have their own article, so Wasilla does not become a coat rack (am I getting the concept?) for information about the churches. Thanks for the time. EricDiesel (talk) 04:31, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Changed Edit per your Suggestion

Thanks. You were right on point, and if I left it without your edit it likely would have created problems. I changed the edit per your comment. If you have time, I would appreciate it if you could check my change. I summarixed ove 600 news articles, and gleamed all of the ones that were about Wasilla Assembly of God, and not ONLY about that Palin was a member.

(Interestingly, if Palin was a member in 2002, why do the churches sermons that are from after 2003, 2004 and 2005 the only ones in the news stories. Seems like news is trying to tar Palin with stuff about the church, when she was not even there.)

I don't think there will be much more on Palin popping up hereon this page, as I was pretty complete. But there are over 15,000 web pages on the church, so the article will likely grow as the church becomes one of the most studied churches in history. I am looking forward to the speaking and singing in toungues videotaoes, sure to come. I loved the videotapes of Obama's church, but lets wait until the church music comes up on video, another near sure thing. Thats theh best part of any church.

Thanks. EricDiesel (talk) 04:11, 6 September 2008 (UTC)EricDiesel (talk) 04:04, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

RE - This is still a coathanger and it is not about the church

1. How are the Iranian and Iraqui news media articles about the church's God and killing Iraq policy not about the church?

2. How is an ABC news story about a church website shutting down not about the church?

3. How are reports of remarks made after Palin left the church not about the church?

4. Where should this information boiled down from the over 600 news articles go, if not here? It is not about Palin. And the Kalnin article was closed. An ABC News story on the shutdown of a church webpage does not even belong on a Kalnins article even if it were put back up. Thnx EricDiesel (talk) 04:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

First off, don't remove my replies FROM MY OWN TALKPAGE. That is extremely uncivil. Second, all of your edits have been been about attaching some form of controversy to Sarah Palin visa the churches she has attended. Not only is that WP:COATRACKing, but it also indicates that you are pushing a particular point of view. I advice that you step away from this issue and edit other articles that are completely unrelated to Palin and not make any edits on politics or controversy. If you continue your current course, you will eventually be blocked for POV pushing. --Farix (Talk) 12:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know what replies I removed, but if I did, it was in error and I apologize.
• 1. The information on WBChurch is not a coathanger. Palin is not even mentioned. The international buzz on the church predates Palin's nomination. The church became notable because of the television images of the bulldozer, and Jewish antidefamation groups reacting to the assertion, by a decades old internationally controversial group, blaming Jews for being victims of terror attacks only because they would not convert to Christianity. Palin is completely unrelated to this controversy, and there is no mention of her in the short addition. The person who made the last edit to include is a pro Palin partisan and evengelical Christian, I am not, and we are in complete agreement on this. Palin having been present is NOT mentioned, and the international controversay I cite predates her nomination. Please indicate WHY you think something is a coathanger. Thanks.EricDiesel (talk) 15:46, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
• 2. My last edits do not push a POV. In fact, I am the ONLY editor on WAoG who has included that due to her having left in 2002, and the references of the WAoG sermons were from 2003 and beyond, so she could not have been there and so the content of the controversial sermons should NOT be on her page, since this is pure guilt by associatioin. You have no idea what my politics are. WHAT is the POV I am pushing? EricDiesel (talk) 15:55, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Template:Infobox Christian denomination‎

Thanks for your edits to Template:Infobox Christian denomination‎. It's now quite comprehensive. Blarneytherinosaur ^gabby? 01:37, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

The problem on List of anime conventions

The problem on handling List of anime conventions:

• Hong Kong: ACGHK, Asian Game Show(zh:亞洲遊戲展) and Rainbow Gala(zh:Rainbow Gala)
• Macau: Macau Comic Festival (澳門同人節) and Illusion Feather......(refer to zh:同人誌即賣會#各地的同人誌即賣會)

Events mentioned above which you deleted are real anime events. You may search the words on Wikipedia (links mentioned above) or on search engine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SoHome (talk • contribs) 16:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Real events or not, there are no articles on them. That is a requirement defined by the list's introduction. And ACGHK doesn't qualify since it is a multi-genre event. --Farix (Talk) 20:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Anime Expo

What same size are you talking about?? 206.170.104.63 (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

BarnLoli for infobox cleanup/updates

I present this Anime and Manga BarnLoli to you for your excellent edits this last June updating all transclusions of our infobox, a task I'm sure was formidable, even with the assistance of WP:AWB. —Dinoguy1000 20:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

This is the first Barnstar I've ever given, and you're certainly overdue to receive it. Enjoy! ^_^ —Dinoguy1000 20:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Spelling of anime on my userpage

Hey, I notice you changed the spelling of anime on my userpage a few times. I like the spelling I have, so could I just keep it? Thanks --Banime (talk) 22:53, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you really want your userpage to be grammatically incorrect? I sweep for this and another related grammar errors on Wikipedia from time to time, so if you continue to use the grammatically incorrect plural form, it will come up in my sweeps and I can't make any guarantees that I won't corrected again. --Farix (Talk) 23:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

If its automated then no problem, as long as it doesn't come up as an edit war I don't mind reverting it multiple times when I see it. I just always say animes. --Banime (talk) 00:21, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

MatsuriCon

Hi TheFarix, the reason I went to the AfD now instead of waiting longer is that the editor removed the {{refimprove}} and {{notability}} four times without improving the references or even asserting notability. Bongomatic (talk) 02:46, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Notability Tag Spamming

Why are you spamming so many h-anime articles with the notability tag? Many of which, it seems, are perfectly as notable as any movie or TV series (Lyon Flare, Angel of Darkness, Beat Angel Escalayer). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sevds (talk • contribs) 14:27, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

I am tagging articles that appear to fail the notability guideline because of a lack of third-party coverage. In fact, many of them do not have a single source. It is part of the standard cleanup procedures to tag articles with notability issues. Such tagging it to encourage other editors to provide the sources that demonstrates notability, thus improving the article. Just because it is an anime doesn't mean that it automatically receives notability. TV and movies become notable because they are reviewed by reputable reviewers for newspapers or magazines. The same can't be said for hentai anime series. --Farix (Talk) 21:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Gundam

Re: TTN: you're a better man than I if you truly think the prospect of the wikiproject being overworked and thus too many delete decisions being made is anything but a pleasant dream for TTN. --Gwern (contribs) 03:57 27 October 2008 (GMT)

When merging

Hi, I noticed that when you merged Witches 5 into Death Busters, you didn't put a link from Witches 5 into your edit summary. If you read WP:MERGE it says it's needed to put a wikilink in your merging edit summary to keep the terms of the GFDL, as it helps track the history of the words. Please remember this in future when you merge. -Malkinann (talk) 06:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Garma Strikes

Please provide extra reasoning and support for your revision so that Spitfire19 15:06, 28 October 2008 (UTC) can properly understand why you did so.

Age as nothing to do with it. The individual Gundam episode articles do not have individual notability and they all violate WP:PLOT. It's better to merge or redirect them to a list of episodes where the whole series can assert notability together. If you like to expand the episode summaries on the episode list to about 150 words, that's fine. It will help the list move up to WP:FL status. --Farix (Talk) 15:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

So only if the article contained additional encyclopediac information that highlighted important information that justified a more in-depth look at the subject would a redirect not be justified?Spitfire19 (Talk) 16:32, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Not just that, but it also has to demonstrate individual notability that is separate from the rest of the series. For an example, "Dennō Senshi Porygon" is one such example of a notable episode with an article. If you notice, the article mostly covers the "seizures incident" that resulted from the episode's original broadcast and its aftermath. --Farix (Talk) 16:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy ANI notification

An edit war you were involved in has been mentioned at this ANI thread. Carcharoth (talk) 11:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Infobox template

Have you updated the sandbox page? Or should I just revert to an older version of the template? --Elonka 03:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Restructuring List of licensed manga in English

Hey G.A.S, I was wondering if you would be willing to set up a script (or AWB) to restructure List of licensed manga in English according to the discussion on its talk page. Basically, we want the current columns collapsed into a {{nihongo}} format, with the new table structure containing columns for the series title, the author, Japanese publisher, and English licensor/publisher. If you need further clarification, feel free to ask at the discussion, and note that I'm also asking G.A.S, in case you're unable or unwilling to do this for some reason. Thanks in advance! —Dinoguy1000 21:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the speedy response! ^_^ —Dinoguy1000 19:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Manga article

Hi. I received your comments and your reversal of the article references (their external hyperlinks were really quite unimportantly incidental) in the Manga article. Well, I think they're quite reasonable external magazine and newspaper articles on the topic but I guess the article is a bit overloaded. But, remember, these are really not simply links but article references. Actually, one of the Wired magazine articles was already a footnote in the article, but I had missed it's being there already. So, I'll take your point. Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk: Kodocha

Fair enough. My reasoning was that it seemed fair in the spirit of the rules, which are to make sure the editor knows s/he's doing something wrong. Since s/he's an anon IP and has made no response on his talk page to multiple warnings, I thought it possible that s/he hadn't seen them. arimareiji (talk) 22:36, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

AnimeFest

Dear The Farix,

?????????? QUESTION...why do you keep removing that info in AnimeFest about the 2005 Convention in which Spaceman 42 keeps putting on about AnimeFest people giving free membsership to FEMA personnel for their work at Rita & Katrina hurricanes????

I was THERE IN 2005...This did ACTUALLY happened...I SAW IT FIRST HAND. I even commented at AnimeFest two months ago in Dallas this year about this little nice thing they did back in 2005...

IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE ME....ASK ANIMEFEST THEMSELVES.... They have a website you know.

I mean Spaceman42 puts out a true and interesting item. I SHOULD KNOW....I WAS THERE when it happened!!!

---

Sharon25------- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sharon25 (talk • contribs) 02:45, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Because the verifiability of the information was challenged and no published reliable source to back up the information was given. Eye witness accounts does not cut it for Wikipedia's verifiability policy. --Farix (Talk) 03:11, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Charleston Civic Center

I gave a few very minor edits. Timber98 (talk) 18:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

You seemed a little trigger happy about passing my edit off as vandalism. I made a clear point that did not constitute as vandalism. Before you automatically pass an edit off as vandalism, you should read the edit summary which clearly explained by edit. You should read the Wikipedia page on what constitutes vandalism before over using the tool to report them.75.82.135.187 (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

The image is a free-use image created specifically for the article and hosted on Commons. It also has consensus support on the article's talk page. The article also has a long history of IP editors vandalizing the article by removing the image or chancing it's caption. So any removal of the image by an IP editor will be viewed as vandalism. --Farix (Talk) 02:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

He is a little trigger happy and does it all the time. 71.140.64.73 (talk) 00:02, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Your example

I am not sure I understand... I also do not see where I ignored consensus. I haven't recreated the template in question or anything. I am not asking you to support me or anything, I just want the rationale to make sense. -- Cat ^chi? 16:21, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It's an example of where you became combative over a simple notification. --Farix (Talk) 21:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't combative at all. I was not ignoring consensus. When you see the same thing get nominated for deletion a third time it gets to you. Thats all there is to it. -- Cat ^chi? 21:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Spoiler warnings are slowly coming back

I took a notion to do a search on "plot spoiler" and ran across several articles with spoiler warnings. For example this article on a 1944 comedy film. I'm not sure how long it's been there, but another sweep should probably be conducted. --Farix (Talk) 04:29, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I've not really decided whether to interrupt my holiday at this stage, but if you are willing to do some work I'll restart the sweeps (which are automated). Let me know if this would be useful to you. --TS 17:44, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Found a spare hour or two and ran the scan. I didn't find a single spoiler warning, for what it's worth. All the occurrences of the word "spoiler" were legitimate. I've set the scan to run daily with output on User:Tony Sidaway/searches/spoiler. --TS 08:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm, spoke too soon. My scan nudged Wikipedia's search engine and in the next scan it returned quite a lot more candidates. If you look at the result page yourself it's probably best to work through from the end as I've already looked at those from the beginning and got as far as Final Crisis: Legion of 3 Worlds. Note that there are many false positives in this list because of the word's use in wrestling, football, political, automotive and aviation contexts, and so on. --TS 10:15, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

DaishoCon

I think you should check the daishocon website. It is clearly an existant Anime Convention in Wisconsin that so far surpassed the Numbers that NoBrand Con, the con that its basically a spawn of, in its first year and is going to be around for a while. it had great attendance, it was a well run convention, doesnt have any cons in its time period like the spring summer and even early fall have, and there's really nothing thats gonna stop this con from running. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HarleyLocal605 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Daishocon has the validity it needs now. you can quit trying to get it deleted. thanks for forcing me to figure out how to what the webmasters were going to take care of later, since i didnt understand all the headings, borders, etc. seriously what reason was there to mark it for speedy deletion 2 seconds after the page was made? tell me what reasoning you had. I didnt even get to editing things i even knew how to do before you marked it. and seriously running to the admin right away because i did that, that isnt harrassment, thats me just trying to get the message through your head that there was no reason to mark that. you need to give people more time when they are slowly piecing a page together and not going all trigger happy on deleting every little thing you havent heard about personally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HarleyLocal605 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

The article still does not assert any form of notability, which makes the article a candidate for speedy deletion, and there is no evidence that the article satisfies Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. And disruption is disruption, especially when it is to make a point and is very much a blockable offense. The administrates won't take any excuse for point disruptions. --Farix (Talk) 01:32, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Note: I would just like to point out that the 3rd party media coverage of Daisho Con, specifically found here: [2] does indeed satisfy Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. The same story is linked to by several other indipendent/reliable news sources as well i.e. Green Bay Press Gazette: [3]

Wikipedia's inclusion criteria does not have a minimum number of coverage stories, only that they present "Significant coverage" (address the subject directly in detail, etc.) Something to keep in mind is that this is a first year convention. It's not going to have CNN knocking at the door, or a ton of other coverage for that matter. This shouldn't be held against Daisho Con's entry when it comes to notability/inclusion. VicFlik (talk) 07:50, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Another question: Entries such as No Brand Con: [4] are referenced entirely from animecons.com information...which no one has taken an issue with, including you who has done some work on that entry yourself? I'm confused as to why this is becoming such an issue. Feedback/help appreciated VicFlik (talk) 08:21, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

What's the Deal? you say i'm harrassing, but your doing everything u can do to get rid of to page AFTER theres proof. and then you undid my change from redirecting Daishocon to Daisho Con. they had me switch it around because they prefer it to have the spaces. so WHY do you want to get rid of this page so bad. apparently you really dont like anime if your trying to get rid of an anime convention page. your trying to bully around someone who you have no reason to because ur a little net moderator. wow. seriously. tell me, what is your problem with me, and what is your problem with Daisho Con? tell me like a man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HarleyLocal605 (talk • contribs) 02:57, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

A copy and paste move is highly inappropriate on Wikipedia. Wikipedia has a method of moving pages that preserves the edit history. You also removed the AFD notice on the article, which is anther form of vandalism. Usually, when a page is moved like that, it can be assumed that the editor is attempting to hide the article form the AFD, which never works. Also the language you are using is very uncivil and inappropriate. Personal attacks on other editors are not permitted on Wikipeida and is a blockable offense. I advice that you take a break and cool off before you get yourself into further trouble. --Farix (Talk) 03:04, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI

sniff. Cough. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 03:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Want a mop?

Just curious. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 09:42, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I always think that having the tools is a net plus, even if you think you're only going to use them once in a blue moon, but it's your decision whether to go through the hellfire. Thanks, — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:51, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

*Frowns*

Okay! Happy?! I changed the template:upcoming sries to to the other one! ARE YOU HAPPY NOW?! NOW SHUT THE **** UP!

Negabandit86 (talk) 00:40, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I'M in a bad mood now! So don't piss me off... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Negabandit86 (talk • contribs) 00:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Shugo Chara?

Could you please explain why you undid my edit?

Those song titles were (as far as I know) never translated by an official English publisher, therefore they should be left in Romaji.

I accidentally clicked the Enter button while entering my edit summary, which is why it's so bare. I meant to say it shouldn't be translated (for the reasons above), and that the typographic symbols (the little heart) should be left out, per WP:MOS-JP. moocowsrule 02:41, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

It's my believe that titles should always be translated or that a translation should be forthcoming instead of left as Kanji and Romaji. As for the heart character, I don't see anything in WP:MOS-JP that strictly forbids it except for article names. --Farix (Talk) 03:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOS-JP#Titles of books, CDs, movies, etc.. If the song titles were never officially translated then they shouldn't be translated on Wikipedia. Leave it in Romaji, as that's it's semi-original state. moocowsrule 03:13, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You should read that section yourself as it says no such thing. --Farix (Talk) 03:46, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

For the typographical symbols (i.e. the heart). moocowsrule 04:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

On Anime St. Louis

First off, in the future, I ask for a more civil response than what you provided on my talk page. Contrary to your assertions, I did not attempt vandalism on the article, and simply made the revision due to the retitling of the animestl.com website as "Kawa Kon". Even if I provided wrong or dubious information in the article regarding the name change (in light of the naming dispute going on between the owner of the animestl.com domain and the other leaders of the convention), it was based on my prior perception that animestl.com was the legitimate website of the convention and was, in all honesty, the source that would justify the revision that I made to the article. Instead, I will make a revision regarding the website dispute and surrounding confusion; I will also dispute any challenges to the revisions as the events surrounding the rift between convention leaders is an important fact to include within the context of the article. I appreciate your rollback of my changes, but the accompanying accusations of "vandalism" and "adding deliberately false information" were and are unnecessary, unhelpful and unappreciated. --Toussaint (talk) 09:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Headers on episode lists

Moved to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Tokusatsu

"Merge" tag removal

Yesterday you removed for the second time the merger tag I placed on the page List of Lupin III Part II episodes because "this is a featured list and is far too big to merge into the main article". I don't know of any rule against tagging featured content, but it's also true that I'm relatively new here, so if there actually is one, you could provide me with a link to this policy/guideline/whatever. For the second part, that is your opinion, no more or less important than anyone else's, so you should let other people discuss the proposal on the talk page and, needless to say, do the same yourself.--Piccolo Modificatore Laborioso (talk) 07:30, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

It was discussed thoroughly at WT:ANIME with the conclusion that Featured Lists should not be merged into a weaker article in order to boost the content of the other article. --Farix (Talk) 12:48, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Russian federal subjects

Hi there! Just wanted to point out that the {{Infobox Russian federal subject}} template is being phased out in favor of {{Infobox Russian federal subject2}}, which fixes some layout problems of the former and has a slightly expanded set of parameters. If you are planning on adding the infobox to other articles, please use the newer one. Thanks!—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); 16:15, December 26, 2008 (UTC)

Lupin Episode List

Hello,

I noticed that you did some major changes to the Lupin III Part II main episode list. Don't you think the original way was more clean and simple? You lost many of the features of the old list this way, including notes on which episodes were produced by Studio Telecom, which episodes were broadcast in stereo, etc. When I first made the list I had it the way you did, and it failed FL. --AutoGyro (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't think {{List of Anime Ep TV}} is either cleaner or simpler, and many others from WP:ANIME are in agreement as well. Beside, the lists are now been imported from the season articles to prevent having to maintain and sync multiple copies of the same list. This can only be done through {{Japanese episode list}}. --Farix (Talk) 19:51, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Infobox animanga update

Hey Farix, I see you're doing another AWB run to update transclusions of {{Infobox animanga}}. It's looking pretty good, but I was wondering if you could split publishers, broadcasters, etc. out using the _en and _other parameters as appropriate, and if you could also alphasort these parameters by country name. (In addition, I've been mulling over starting a discussion for a massive overhaul of the infobox... I guess I should wait awhile before starting it now ;) ). —Dinoguy1000 21:13, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

I won't be able to deal with the _en and _other parameters as there is too much involved then a simple search and replace. And frankly, I would prefer to see the _en parameters phased out altogether. As for your proposed changes, it's still early in the update and I can pause it while your make your proposed overhaul. I only finished the numbers and As, approximately the first 200 of over 3,000 transclustions. --Farix (Talk) 21:31, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, the problem with having you pause it for the conversation is that the discussion could end up being quite lengthy (or it could end up with almost no discussion), since I'm looking at reassessing the entire system and rebuilding the various components based on current need... it's rather difficult to explain without just writing out the whole proposal, and I don't actually have the whole thing figured out yet, either. =P I can tell you that the usage of the _en parameters would be reassessed as part of the proposal, though (although you know my own opinion on their use). —Dinoguy1000 21:47, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

BTW, your run is deleting some content that shouldn't be deleted; see for example this diff on Bōken Shōnen, which, among other things, changed the name of the image being called from the infobox, resulting in a redlink on the article and an orphaned image. I'll undo the inappropriate content removals here, but I'm not sure where else it may have happened. —Dinoguy1000 17:56, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Template:Multilicense replacing placeholder‎

Hi

You recently updated Image:Ari-Up.jpg‎ with the Template:Multilicense replacing placeholder‎ - replacing Template:Multilicensefromownerviewed. I presume using AWB.

Thanks for the attention. There is a problem, however, with that template. It seems to have been interfered with to ascribe ownership to, rather than I, the Author to one 5-7 Media GbR.

No expert, I went and had a shot at editing the template but it didn't seem to make any difference. I've thus reverted your edit on that article. I notice that the problem exists on many others.

Comment? Wwwhatsup (talk) 23:52, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Did you not refresh the cache before reverting the substitution? Given the high use of Template:Multilicense replacing placeholder‎, it could take a few hours before all the transcluded pages were updated. Also Template:Multilicensefromownerviewed was simply a pass thorough for Template:Multilicense replacing placeholder‎ and was affected by the same vandalism. --Farix (Talk) 00:03, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

OK. Everything seems good now. Thanks. Wwwhatsup (talk) 01:53, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Infobox music DVD

Hi
I'm not quite sure what happened with this edit. Did you really want to subst the old versison of {{Infobox music DVD}} into the article?
In any case, it left the "subst:" in the article, which broke the infobox. You might want to review those edits, from a random sample I found at least one other broken box: Big City Tour Live. :)
Cheers, Amalthea 18:33, 30 December 2008 (UTC)