Zero Requiem

Code Geass

Though I can appreciate what you're doing, it doesn't help to add information no one can verify, nor does referencing a site which sells a certain book. Please stop. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

as I said, it does not help to add information no one can verify. Adding a reference to a site that sells the book does not inform the reader that your information is accurate, and in the absence of such confirmation the information cannot be taken at face value. Please stop adding it. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:40, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying that there is nothing that can be done about sources that are not in English? If that is so, then more than 90% of all Code Geass R2 information must be stricken, because none of that is in English either.

Just because it's in another language doesn't mean it's a valid source. If it does, then take down all information relating to R2 that is not on the official website, and I will stop putting up my information. Zero Requiem (talk) 05:45, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You have not given a valid source, as I have told you twice now. You've given a link to a page selling a magazine or whatever. You'd be better of just citing the actual publication. I've read excerpts of the interview in question and removed the lines anyway, but there's simply no need to go through such hoops for such a thing. Also, sign your posts after the comment, not before. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:48, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Right. Excuse my ignorance for just having joined Wikipedia yesterday.

Inform me, how would I better cite this magazine in order for you to stop concealing information from it? Zero Requiem (talk) 05:50, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Use {{Cite journal}} to properly cite the thing. Also, please use proper grammar. You don't capitalize "writer," magazine titles are done in italics (''like so''), and there's no need to mention the writer confirms his death just to quash fan theories. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:56, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

(Trivial though it may be, to make it clear, I was not the one that capitalized 'writer.') There is need to mention that the writer confirms his death or else he wouldn't have confirmed it in the first place. Obviously he believes, as well as I do, that it's an important part of the story. It also puts to rest a huge divide among the fanbase. At any rate, I'll go properly cite this. Zero Requiem (talk) 06:04, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you NOT get the entire point of my posting this information in the first place? I didn't have an argument with you about citation just to post what is already known

The fact that his death is cannon now is IMPORTANT.

STOP ERASING IT. Zero Requiem (talk) 15:02, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

You still haven't fixed the errors in the thing you keep reverting for one, and it still isn't necessary. I kept the ref for confirmation. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 20:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are these errors you keep talking about? And yes, it is very necessary. Apparently you aren't aware of how large the debate over skepticism of Lelouch's death was (and consequently, still is). The entire fandom has been divided by this issue. It needs to be made very clear what the final verdict by the directors is or fans will debate meaninglessly over what the directors have stated is a mute point. It is fine for fans to fantasize and create their own endings if they can't accept what the directors have given them, but they at least need to know what has been made cannon. I will fix what ever these 'errors' you are speaking of are, but I absolutely will not stand to have this vital information obscured. Zero Requiem (talk) 23:49, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't give a shit about fans arguing about whether he died or not, nor is Wikipedia the place for you to try to prove those people wrong. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Nope. It's a place that people refer to when they want information about something. By obscuring this information, you're denying it to them. Zero Requiem (talk) 00:18, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

it says he died, and that the writer confirms it. That's all you're getting. You're not mentioning fan arguments or theories or any of that nonsense, just the facts. The facts are there. Deal with it. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 00:19, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I find it funny that there have been many edits in which it said nothing of the fan arguments; just the fact that he died and the writer confirmed it. Yet you still edited it out. At any rate, that's all it needs. Zero Requiem (talk) 00:22, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Just leave it out. It's not that big a deal. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C)

I'm not the one readding it. I was the one who wrote it in the first place. I just don't care. It's called compromise, and it stops the annoying edit warring. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 22:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I can get the people to shut up on the talk page. They won't stop with this, and you're not helping by edit warring with them. It means almost the same thing either way, just with less detail. It doesn't hurt. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 22:42, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I've given you the reason. It's one word, and it's not as big a deal as you are making it. We all know Lelouch is dead, and the one line, even vague, is not enough to suggest otherwise. Just drop it and let it be removed. We'll all be better off without the drama. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 23:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem is we don't all know Lelouch is dead. You and I do because we're well informed, but other people being directed to Wikipedia don't. Word needs to stay. Zero Requiem (talk) 23:32, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Zero_Requiem, no one here is challenging whether Lelouch is dead or not. What the dispute is over is your use of the word "tone" which is not accurate. Taniguichi DID NOT say the "Tone" of the ending was up to the viewer to decide, he simply told the interviewer that the end was up to the viewer to decide (his words). You need to stop putting words in Taniguichi's mouth. As The_Rogue_Penguin has already said, it DOES NOT change Lelouch's stats from being dead. Okouchi has made this clear and his statement is in the article to clarify (as Penguin has eluded too) so you need to stop.

Sunrise's statement is not so clear. They have mudddied the waters on this, but they did not say Lelouch was alive.

BTW, you need to consult Hodges' Harbrace Handbook about the use of the (?) in punctuation.

As we all know here Japanese did not have punctuation until they borrowed it from English; punctuation in Japanese has roughly the same meaning in Japanese as it does in English.

In Habrace, 15th edition, page 251, section 17b, it states that the (?) is used when;

A question mark in side a paranthesis shows what the writer is not sure whether the preceeding word, figure, or date is correct.

EXAMPLE: Chaucer was born in 1340 (?) and died in 1400.

It is an unknown.

Therefore when Sunrise makes a statement of Lelouch may have died (?) it means the same thing; it is an unknown as far as Sunrise is concerned.

But Sunrise's statement will not be added to the article because Penguin asked me not to add it thus I will not.

You on the other hand seem to have a real problem with letting this go and leaving out the "tone" comment.

If you really are the "Guardian of the Lelouch Lamperouge wikipedia entry" then act like it and accept what Taniguichi said instead of adding to his words.Tetragrammaton (talk) 23:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Please do not redo/edit the page until we've worked on it

What are you doing? I just started working on it and you reverted it again?Tetragrammaton (talk) 00:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have not reverted anything since two of my comments ago. Zero Requiem (talk) 00:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

This simple line should do nicely, it gets the point of the article across and maintains the status of Lelouch without any room for (logical) misinterpretation.

With regard to the death of Lelouch Director Goro Taniguchi simply stated that the ending is left for the audience to interpret but clearly did not imply that Lelouch was alive.Tetragrammaton (talk) 01:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

How's this one look;

With regard to the death of Lelouch, Director Goro Taniguchi simply stated that the ending [its tone/nature] is left for the audience to interpret but clearly confirmed Lelouch was not alive.

We have to put the [its tone/nature] in brackets because it indicates WE are adding it and Taniguichi did not say it in the article. That's technically not a Neutral Point of View but maybe we can get away with it since its in brackets.Tetragrammaton (talk) 01:42, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I think we can get away with using the brackets. Wikipedia does respect proper literary useage of the English language and since we're not saying anything that isn't true here they shouldn't care I would think.

Habrace states (on page 258 of the 15th addition) that Square brackets set off additions or alterations to quoted matter and replace parentheses within parentheses

We're simply making a slight addition to what Taniguichi actually said thus we should be okay, I think. The example in Harbrace is "If he [Leonard Aaron] ever disapproved of any of his children's friends, he never let them know about it."

Therefore I see nothing wrong with adding [its Tone/nature] after ending in the article.Tetragrammaton (talk) 01:51, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Seriously, stop reverting, start discussing. There's a talk page for that reason. I'm not even participating anymore and it's driving me nuts. — Trust not the Penguin (T | C) 05:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

If someone wishes to discuss why they reverted something with me on the discussion page, I'll gladly discuss it with them. However, if they simply revert it without a discussion, I'm reverting it as well. Zero Requiem (talk) 06:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:3RR. You should not revert cases that are not obvious vandalism but content disputes. If you do, 3RR can and will be applied. Please consider dispute resolution instead. Regards SoWhy 07:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I've read it. Many times. If the facts are there and the information that has been edited blatantly goes against the facts, that is vandalism, and I will edit it. I've discussed it with users plenty on the discussion page. If they have a new discussion to bring to the table, I'll be happy to engage them. However, if the argument is old and has already been discussed on the discussion page, it is redundant and pointless to bring it up again. I'll just refer them to said discussion and revise their edit. Zero Requiem (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)