This is an archive of past discussions with User:Malkinann. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
again, the problem is that i got the last word and yet no one will respond. the problem is that people stop and end up archiving it. for now i'm looking for someone who doesn't even know NGE to decide whether the list of references that people have made multiple assumptions is trvial or not.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:58, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
the problem is that we dont have enough, i'm looking for a nuetral person, actually, i just checked an hour go and noticed someoen actually agreeing with me. i also asked other ones not familiar with this. it was simple discussion whith gwern to see whther the points can work on my favor until folken took it as a full fledge discussion to decide whether they should be removed or added. i was offenced and supported my thoughts.
also to me, it's not about "getting the last word". it's about doing what's right. i was a bit sketchy before, but i'm still supporting to remove the comepletely random list of areas where people made there own interpretation.Bread Ninja (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
that is incredibly prejudice. either way, if that was the case then they will just be imature. like i said, i'm loking for arbitration with a mod or some adopter, but everytime i do, folken thinks it's an act against him personally. i really wish you did hear me out that time, e completely harrased me and hopefully it wont happen again.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
your ideas only affect the article discussions. but what happens when it comes to someones page? i told you about this one, and you ignored me completely. didnt even respond onceBread Ninja (talk) 20:51, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
regarding a certain person who was being uncivil, so i asked you to tell him to tone it down considering some tension between us would lead to a fight. you ignored me while the person kept bothering me saying "he was never uncivil". than he accused me of me out to get him and trying to turn other contributors against him. and as much as i tried to explain, he kept bothering.Bread Ninja (talk) 20:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
i know your not anyones keeper. i was merely tryin to find someone who was in good terms to pass the message without him getting angry. either way his method of thinking is always taking to the personal level when it comes to me or he assumes some personal grudge someone has, and really though i do have some personal grudge, I'm trying not to get in the way of discussion. well anyways............. as vague as that section is, I'll drop it. for now I'm concentrating on summarizing the plot and thinking about removing "Honnêamise sequel" within Origin and production. feel free to discuss it since no one is.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
i have found no production on angelic days, All the things found in angelic days volume was related more to character concept than actual production itself. I looked on google, bing, and yahoo, but found no such production. Also, thanks to krebmarkt, discussion is going smoothly. and no, it's not over every single edit.I am being more exopedian, but you think it's as simple as that when it comes to articles relating to NGE. i do edit other articles as well. i have a phobia of editing in NGE articles on my own as you can see. but at least it's not so bad, whenever i edit and is considered bad edit and get's reverted, the other one reverting find something else to fix around the same subject. so in a way I'm contributing. There's not much to Add in NGE anime, i couldn't find much on angelic Days. For now I'm trying to make the List of NGE albums and it's Progressing pretty smoothly. the next step is to make the list of NGE video games.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Unreferenced BLPs
Hello Malkinann! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondarysources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 18 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
I came across my movie program for Beautiful Dreamer and thought the promotional image from the movie would serve a dual purpose of illustrating the anime style as well as a media type (I have the LP of the ost as well). The common promotional image is [1], let me know what you think. It would be either the album version or dvd/vhs cover as the plain image is already used on the movie article. I'll keep looking in the meantime, but the stuff i own is either LP (varies) or movie program (3rd and 4th.) Dandy Sephy (talk) 12:38, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
I think the plain image itself should be fine, the same one as on the films page. It doesn't make sense to me to have near-identical images on the different pages, one with text on it, one not. If you can find a 'better' image, (whatever 'better' means...) feel free to use that. As long as you feel any particular image contributes significantly to a reader's understanding of UY and can have a good stab at justifying this, it should all be good. :) (and please get rid of the LP image - without commentary on the cover, it seems mainly decorative, to fill up that hole under the infobox.) --Malkinann (talk) 18:57, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
sorry for angelic days
just letting you know that i wont be able to enter the information in on the production section of angelic days due to my manga archive is in storage. sorry, though frankly, i don't think there was any notable or important information on the manga series.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:06, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to not be much available lately due to the crazy among of unsourced mangaka and Japanese voice actors. Fix one and find two needing to be fixed :(
...has become a new trend lately enjoy this one (see the last page) from the reliable Japan Foundation.
Note: Creating an article for Iguana girl isn't optimum as this short story will be included in the Matt Thorn's collection of short stories scheduled for September. Nevertheless i leave to you the choice to create an article on Iguana girl or not. --KrebMarkt16:22, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
Most useful part is how he got the other way around to secure Hagio's right for the short stories collection (short stories collection development section) and how having the Hagio name in their future collection can be useful to convince other mangaka.
just wants to says sorry, for being a bit of a jerk. although i changed my views on most things, i still feel a little bit of the same on others. so yeah.
anyways, another reason why i came to your talk page was because me and Collectonian confirmed that NGE timeline article does not meet notability guideline and I've been wanting to Afd it or pre-Afd it. but in my last attempt, i dont know how anymore. can you do it for me?Bread Ninja (talk) 16:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
I started a List of Neon Genesis Evangelion Video Games article on a special page a while back, but i remember you saying you were going to make one, just wondering if you are or discontinued it.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
WP:COMMONNAME relates to article titles, which don't affect using descriptive phrases withing articles. WP:COMMONNAME also primarily deals with proper names, which likewise has no relevance to class adjectives. Reliable sources in multiple fields use hyphens appropriately in compounds - and so can we in editing Wikipedia. -- HoundsOfSpring (talk) 06:48, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
In summary, the texts have varying approaches to the issue of marking an adjectival phrase and avoiding the potential ambiguities of (say) a magical genre about girls vs a genre involving entities called "magical girls". Most of them distinguish the adjectival phrase from the noun phrase in some way. Using quotes suggests a neologism -- I prefer to follow WP:HYPHEN to clarify the use of compound adjectives: using magical-girl genre in contradistinction to a potential magical girl-genre, but without any suggestion of changing magical girl (un-hyphenated) when used as an article title (per WP:COMMONNAME) or as a noun phrase. -- HoundsOfSpring (talk) 07:44, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
Hi, Malkinann. I see you noticed that I just started to repair the Toshiki Yui entry. It wasn't disastrous, merely very low on the mediocre side. So I've started in on it. If you want to help, that'd be most welcome! Timothy Perper (talk) 12:36, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, Malkinann. I'll look at the TV Tropes website again, but it's what the guy says. There isn't very much "criticism" about Yui in English. Onward! Timothy Perper (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Good stuff you added to the TY article. Thanks. What annoys me about the argument I had on the TY talk page is that the list (which I re-created) ended up with almost exactly the same content as I originally had put in. Oh well. Timothy Perper (talk) 13:42, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks again, Malkinann. I'm just going to pull back from the TY page completely, and if anyone wants to add anything, they can do it. The list of Yui's work in Japanese is far from complete, but it's not worth the hassle for me. On another subject, do you know anything about "Gyokuji"? Who is this character? She's at http://gyokuji.entercrews.com/ -- it's part of the whole Ikki Tosen, Battle Vixens game thing, which I don't know at all. I *think* -- not sure -- that she's from Vol. 8 of the manga, but I can be wrong. Timothy Perper (talk) 23:23, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
I think she (I mean the character) might be Ten'i but I am far from sure! I'm not familiar with Battle Vixens or Ikkitousen at all. I've done some searching for Yui material in French sources, but haven't found much. "It" -- the manga -- can be found easily by searching amazon.fr and also on <http://touteslesbds.com/Pages/5517.htm>. Normally, I'd include the link in the TY article but after all the screaming at me and the removal of all the references I put in, I'm not going near putting anything into the article. Yeah, it's a shame, but I can't win against these people. As you can tell, I'm rather disappointed, but I'll survive. Timothy Perper (talk) 00:37, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
In entry for Hot Tails, "Toshiki Yui has been an adult manga king for a long time and it's clear why: no one else comes close to his mix of sex, humor, and bizarre imagination. He simply lets his id[sic] run wild
Id is not a typo, it is part of Freud's theory here: Id, ego, and super-ego. I can't edit her talkpage because its semi-protected.
Note that this a very big chunk to digest especially the 4 pages sidebar essay by Dirk Deppey. If you wonder which book he criticized it's this one. --KrebMarkt20:54, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
All of the essays in the roundtable are criticizing the same book, Boys' Love Manga: Essays on the Sexual Ambiguity and Cross-Cultural Fandom of the Genre. Mostly they don't like it. (I'm only partway though the book and some of it is, in fact, rather weak, but there are a few interesting points scattered around.) - JRBrown (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
Well, Suzuki didn't come up with the formulation either. There is (what seems to be) a potentially very interesting article by Fujimoto Yukari in Japanese (Onna no Yokubo no katachi: Redezu komikku ni miru onna no sei genso, in Nyu Feminizumu Rebu Vol. 3 Porunogurafuii, ed. Shirafuji Kayako, 1992, pgs 70-90 - I have not been able to lay hands on the original, and couldn't read it anyway, but it's cited in several English sources) looking at rape in "ladies' comics" (which would seem directly applicable to yaoi rape fantasies as well), from a similar viewpoint. And I am definitely keeping an eye out for useful tidbits. :) - JRBrown (talk) 22:23, 13 June 2010 (UTC)
You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
This article has already been prodded before back in 2008, so it can't be prodded again. But since this is a work by Kouji Seo, I would recommend redirecting it to his article as a viable search term. —Farix (t | c) 12:32, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
It's kind of long to merge as is with the Toshiki Yui article, though maybe all the plot and character stuff could be eliminated. But I'm not a deletionist -- although Farix seems to be, or so I assume from his editing -- and think that material like this, especially about untranslated manga, is very useful for non-Japanese readers interested in the work. We have no other sources of information, and given the inclusionist philosophy I tend to hold, I think it's a useful addition to the corpus of Wikipedia entries, particularly because it's about a "hermaphrodite" -- I assume the Japanese term is "futanari," but I don't know that about the manga. I recently wrote an article that discusses manga like this but didn't know about "Boku no Futatsu no Tsubasa." I wish I had known about it. Timothy Perper (talk) 04:17, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
No, the article isn't available on-line... alas. A redirect or merge or something would probably be fine. Maybe that's what it will come to. Timothy Perper (talk) 04:40, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I thought about posting the following "comment only" to the deletion page discussion, but suspect that it will only cause irritation and vexation. Which I do not want. What do you think?
Comment only Maybe some background about this subgenre of hermaphrodite women in manga will help. The background may help evaluate various google searches described above and various claims of non-notability. What follows is NOT “original research” because I have no intention of putting any of this into the article. Instead, it’s background designed to help people make some educated decisions.
I’ve been publishing about sex in manga for some time in the scholarly literature. For example, I mention “hermaphroditism” in a 2003 paper of mine now on the Kinsey Institute website, at http://www.kinseyinstitute.org/ccies/jp.php#8d and included the subject in another published paper
Perper, Timothy and Martha Cornog. 2008. “I Never Said I Was a Boy”: Utena, Arita Forland, and the (Non) Phallic Woman. International Journal of Comic Art, 10(2):328-353.
I am not the only writer who has dealt with the question -- Jennifer Robertson, among others, also deals with hermaphrodite women.
Robertson, Jennifer 1998 Takarazuka: Sexual Politics and Popular Culture in Modern Japan. University of California Press. ISBN-10: 0520211510
The subgenre is manga about women with penises -- hermaphrodites in medical tech-speak, “futanarikko” in Japanese, and “chicks with dicks” in colloquial fan English. I just googled that phrase and got 780,000 hits. It’s a very popular subgenre of ecchi or H manga. Yui and other manga artists, like Hiroyuki Utatane, have done a number of short stories about such characters, but -- I think -- "Boku" ("My Two Wings") is the first full-length manga Yui did in the subgenre. It is well known in the scanlated version and there was a buzz about it in fan circles when it appeared. Various writers about manga, myself included, have published papers about these women, although not about Yui’s manga in particular. So the result is that "Boku" has attained some commercial success certainly in Japan and fan-blogster popularity among US fans (who rely on the scanlations for their knowledge). One example is this article ITSELF -- it was put up about 3 years ago (July 26, 2007, according to the history), so even Wikipedia had an article on this manga as well as an article on futanari, the Japanese word for “hermaphrodite.”
So the issue created by this article is (in part) whether the article should be deleted because it lacks notability (which was Farix’s original criticism) or whether Wikipedia should deal with material of considerable interest to fans. Be careful with this question -- several people have called the google hits “junk,” but that “junk” is exactly what is proving notability. “Boku” is not some high-school kid’s cartoon in his high-school paper which he thinks deserves a Wikipedia article. “Boku” is genuinely very widely known on the web -- as the Google searches indicate, the scanlation indicates (even if the scanlation is of doubtful legality), the number of booksellers who sell it, and putting up this article 3 years ago.
I agree with your comments. I'm not going to do much of anything about this; I've concluded that by and large Wiki's approach to manga and anime are not in touch with the realities of either fan activities or professional and semi-professional writing on the subject. Scanlations are a good example. One can take the "high moral ground," as some of the editors do, but the fact is that scanlation is now the norm in bringing manga to the non-Japanese speaking world. There are a great many scanlation sites, and they're popular. The "My Two Wings" article is an excellent example, since it was put up 3 years ago -- on the basis, I assume, of scanlated translations. So Wiki is behind the times, no matter how "moral" it may seem to be. There's not much anyone can do about it. Oh well. Timothy Perper (talk) 23:15, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
We don't keep articles for the sake that scanlation exists. We don't keep articles to please the fandom.
Why the scanlation exists and is popular will never be a good argument for keeping an article:
Can you prove the existence of illegal scanlation of a given work?
Can you prove that existence with a Reliable Source per Wikipedia standards?
Can this RS not facilitate access of the said illegal scanlation?
For information various manga publishers do keep watch on manga articles and won't hesitate to whack Wikipedia for facilitating access to illegal contents. --KrebMarkt06:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm sorry, KrebMarkt, but I'm not following your argument. This is not a matter of reliability, but of notability. I believe that Wiki exists to cover and discuss subjects of notable interest to readers, and the existence of scanlations, legal or not, indicates that such interest exists. No one and certainly not me suggests that we use the scanlation site in the article -- I think that's out of the question. But one of the scanlation sites gives 23,000 visits all told to their version of this manga -- I won't give the site. That's a lot. And that is what we mean by "notabiity." This manga is NOT a high school kid's cartoon in a high school newspaper. Timothy Perper (talk) 06:27, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
You are wrong. First comes "Verifiability" which is backed by one of the 5 pillars of Wikipedia and is a policy while "Notability" is just a guideline. "Verifiability" can only be asserted by Reliable Sources. Now lets go to AfD and someone says this manga scanlation is very popular. Then prove it with a Reliable Source or this argument has no value at all. There is no room for ambiguous position: I want to prove notability by using a fact that can't be proved & asserted with a Reliable Source. --KrebMarkt06:44, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Strikes me you're being a bit dogmatic about knowing everything about Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a religion based on "Reliable Sources" -- for example, I just got 170,000 hits searching Google for "Boku no Futatsu no Tsubasa." That's a lot of notability. Is it "verifiable"? Sure -- just repeat the Google search and see what you get. But -- and this is much more important -- I do not feel comfortable using Malkinann's talk page to argue with you. We are, I think, intruding into her space. So if you want to continue the discussion, please put it on my talk page instead. Timothy Perper (talk) 07:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Let's conclude it now. I won't convince you nor you will me. The only way to settle will be AfDs and how many times your argumentation will be accepted or rejected there. --KrebMarkt07:35, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for the reference to reliable sources. I think I had seen it -- it seemed familiar. For an encyclopedia that depends on user input, Wiki seems strangely schizy about sources!
As far as I can tell, all this stuff comes from the early days of Wikipedia when the founders were trying to prevent a variety of uses they didn't want. One was having people put up long strange articles on "My Theory of the Universe" or "Why God Exists" or "A New View of the Civil War in America" -- which they collectively called "original research" and banned. The "verifiability" criterion was created to prevent loonies from telling us all about the aliens who live on the Moon and they know they're there because they dreamed about them. "Reliability" was designed to prevent other loonies from using crackpot sources like Nostradamus or "The Protocols of Zion" as sources. And "notability" was put in to prevent people from writing wonderful little essays about their pet cat (or parakeet) and all the cute things it does. But all these got changed over the years as various mutually hostile editors discovered they could assault each other using all these terms. It's a shame, because the original idea behind Wikipedia -- that people could create an encyclopedia of reliable knowledge -- sounded like a good idea at the time. But it has proved utopian, a pipe dream, and IMO never came true. That list of "reliable" writers on manga and anime is laughable (and offensive) -- it leaves out so many people. But I'm not going to argue with them about it. Timothy Perper (talk) 11:05, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Most of the academics I know who write on manga and anime. I'm including both because all the major writers in the area move back and forth, like Gilles Poitras, who came to my mind first. But I am very reluctant to get into an argument concerning these people and their credentials. I know many of them (including Gilles), and am NOT neutral. Concerning the little cockle shell thingie: KAWAIIII! Timothy Perper (talk) 11:58, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I do not feel comfortable suggesting names because I do not feel comfortable suggesting that Wikipedia editors have the general or specific competence to evaluate the work of these people. Forgive me if that sounds high-handed, but writers and experts like Susan J. Napier, Thomas Lamarre, Kinko Ito, or Jaqueline Berndt, among many others, so far outrank the people here who might "evaluate" them here that it is not appropriate for me to suggest it. It's like asking college students if they think that Professor Napier is "competent" to teach a course in manga and anime. That is not their decision. In contrast, if they take her course, then Napier gets to grade them, not the other way round.
This is, as I think you can see, a very touchy, ticklish area. Many -- not all, but many -- Wikipedia editors treat themselves as world-class experts, setting themselves up over other people as judges of other people's competence, knowledge, and expertise. I assure you that some of the academic experts I'm thinking about would be amused by the very idea that Wiki editors are judging them, but others will be seriously offended. Please understand, Malkinann, if I choose not to involve myself in such things.
The answer for most of these academic experts is that of course they are incontrovertibly authoritative in what they write. They may also, from time to time, be wrong, but if you suggest that, believe me, you'd better have your ducks lined up, meaning you'd better have all your data, facts, and references absolutely right before you even suggest it. I am, as I think you know, an editor on Mechademia and something of an authority in my own right in certain areas of manga. But not even I will willingly tell any of these folks that they're wrong -- and I have had that opportunity not infrequently when editing their work (as I have done). Matt Thorn could do it also, and he would be just as cautious as I am.
The care and feeding of senior academic experts is a real skill, and I will not lightly enter into that arena in the context of Wikipedia. I hope you understand. Thanks for asking, but I have to demur. Timothy Perper (talk) 14:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
RE:Nausicaä
Ok after 30 mins on it, i think that would do.
If you are going to include the rest of the French article Good luck as it's going to be complex. --KrebMarkt21:40, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I did not read the manga so i can't effectively answer from the context. However i feel the meaning conveyed in the line of "put in contrast with his incapable father". Does it help? --KrebMarkt22:10, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I am concerned that you have reverted edits at Magog (Andromeda) and Des Blood 2, each with the rather terse "per WP:EP". Both edits insert several kb of completely unsourced material. Do you vouch for the verifiability of that material? Or are you just following my contributions around reverting some of the bolder edits? Please follow the third part of bold, revert, discuss and explain at the talk page of the respective articles just why you think the material you have added is appropriate for Wikipedia. I'm not going to edit-war over the issue but in the absence of any sensible explanation your edits might be seen as disruptive. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 06:34, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
I added some discussion to the Magog (Andromeda) talk page plus some examples. There's an unspoken custom on Wiki that the "source" for plot summaries is the TV show itself. See the talk page. Timothy Perper (talk) 17:55, 13 July 2010 (UTC)
It was deleted as Maiden Rose in June 2009 and then recreated as Hyakujitsu no Bara in December 2009. DMP released it in English in May 2010.
I did a review search today and found nothing save for a comicattack review which is a disputed source for reviews. Even if that one counted it won't be enough to pass the GNG or WP:BK.
I asking you to see what you can find on your side. At the worst i will take the responsibility to take this one to AfD as pointers suggest that it's a miss in the North America market. Thanks. --KrebMarkt (talk) 09:24, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
Last minute thought, i will wait for volume 2 release (end of July) and see if to have both volumes available will stir some interest from reviewers. --KrebMarkt (talk) 04:55, 21 July 2010 (UTC)
Long shot
Hey, you added this ref to the Media Blasters article in 2008[2] but didn't include any details and the link is now dead. Don't suppose you have any memory of what the article title was that I might try to locate the new URL? -- AnmaFinotera (talk ~ contribs) 06:28, 27 July 2010 (UTC)
Many thanks, Malkinann. I agree with you. There doesn't seem to be a natural home for "Arabic Manga" in any of the articles I've seen. And there isn't enough to start a new article -- it'd just get deleted. Timothy Perper (talk) 07:16, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Would you like some references to manga done in Brazil? I haven't the time to work them up for inclusion in the Manga outside Japan article, but perhaps you do. If so, let me know and I'll put them here. Timothy Perper (talk) 13:48, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Thanks... no hurry. I gathered these a while ago, hoping I'd be able to use them, but not enough time...
Many salutations!!! I am pleased that you have taken an interest in my newly-emancipated brainchild; still, I do have to wonder the rationale behind its newly-created talk page. I am at a loss for what there is to further discuss about the »Yume Tsukai« episode synopsis page; I would be extremely grateful for any insight you can provide in this regard.
Please put these at the top of pages per standard practice. Article tags, which is what these are meant to be, are always placed there.陣内Jinnai17:06, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi Malkinann; I came across a copy of the Japanese magazine Queer Japan that has Akiko Mizoguchi's 2000 article Homophobic Homos, Rapes of Love, and Queer Lesbians: An Analysis of Recent Yaoi Texts, which seems to be quite interesting (and also an interview with Akimi Yoshida), but it's in Japanese. If you know of anyone fluent in Japanese who is interested in the article for the betterment of Wikipedia, could you point me to them? Thanks, JRBrown (talk) 17:01, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
Changes to Cite Hansard
You've made a fairly significant amendment to this template by adding the jusrisdiction field to it. However, have you added it correctly? I'm no expert in amending templates but I would have thought that the desirible outcome was for the jusrisdiction element to be ignored if blank which doesn't appear to be the case. Looking at an article where the template is used it now has {{{jurisdiction}}}, Parliamentary Debates, House of Commons, 13 July 1888 , columns 1279–1281 which I suspect was not your intention. can you investigate and amend if necessary, thanks. NtheP (talk) 11:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
In Australia perhaps but it's not needed in the UK for example. Can we agree to remove it from the template or get soemone else to fix it to make it optional? NtheP (talk) 20:51, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
help me
{{Help me}}
I need some help making the |jurisdiction field in {{cite hansard}} optional, for some reason it doesn't want to work when I try. It goes
I see quotes the same as images, it's not always a matter of meeting the rationale, it's whether we should use so many. Just like how there can be too many images, there can be too many quotes. Plus the usage of quotes in NGE is different then the usual. It quotes the entire thing instead of the key points and it uses them in the body rather than an example. I have yet to see this in an anime/manga article that is at least B rank. Too many quotes also disrupts the flow of the article.
As for WP:BEFORE, and i've already checked on it. It seems it is defintely worth getting AfD and I have had others supported it but not actually putting the AfD tag themselves. THe problem with the timeline is that it's not really notable, or even a notable aspect in NGE. One of the main issues is the NGE gloasary. it's a dumping ground of everything that isn't notable enough to merit it's own article and filled with various trivial aspects of NGE.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I already added my view on it. I still suggest deletion. there just isn't enough coverage or enough reception on the timeline.
AS for the quotes, i think they should have a limited use too, just like images and other templates. A portion may be used, but it's still a large ammount from what we see in the NGE articles. Reception sections usually quote specific key points and not separated from the paragraph, i just don't know why we can't summarize them and more easier to understand. Plus this is leaning to more of "why not" situation.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:28, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
i have read it several times, but i have a phobia of proposing, but i'll try and see if i could do it again. Problem is, i can't fix the problems in the GAR as fast as most.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:13, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
Cool, thanks! I went to YaoiCon and caught the last half of a panel by Mizoguchi, although it was mostly chit-chat by the time I got there. I've also managed to get ahold of a her article in the US-Japan Women's Journal, “Male-Male Romance by and for Women in Japan: A History and the Sub-Genres of Yaoi Fictions” (along with a couple of others); it looks juicy but haven't had time to really read it yet. - JRBrown (talk) 23:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
i made a section about the over usage of quotes and which ones i think should be booted out or not in quote format in the main Neon Genesis Evangelion talk page. I wasn't too specfic because the quotes would take a while to read.Bread Ninja (talk) 08:27, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
I bought this. There are some interesting essays and interviews. The one on Josei/Shojo caught my attention as it demonstrates how fluid is the frontier between those two categories in Japan. However i need to read more stuff about Josei before making any edit in the eponymous article and i confess a lack of knowledge on what else has been written about Josei. Any idea where i could find more writing about Josei? --KrebMarkt (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
Google the work of Professor Kinko Ito. She teaches at the University of Arkansa, Little Rock, and has published a number of articles in English about josei manga, aka redikomi and redisu. Timothy Perper (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
Marks
Thanks for the good wishes.
Yeah my results are pretty good. I can get into any course apart from medicine. Now my problem is choosing what to do next year =) Extremepro (talk) 01:05, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
GNG
I've recently realized why we've had our differences with the GNG view. You tend to justify GNG alone for alot of things, but not with WP:CFORK, and the GNG you just use for a section, not the entire article itself. i think you should consider that too. i can't reply to you in New Angel talk page. i have some odd setup at my internet manager, and the talk page is restricted. Regardless, reception alone won't be much help and copying and pasting the release won't either. Instead i think a list of episodes article and list of chapters should be more concern to clean up the main article.Bread Ninja (talk) 07:30, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I really don't think so. and that's probably got to do with alot more articles that i was involved with that were much more being merged and reception always being in question of whether it should be the sole reason. If it was reception compared to the manga, and how different it was. maybe, but independently. i can't say. this was already stated before in WP:ANIME, but regardless, i still see it as mere unnecessary content forking. Again, i can't see what you wrote. the talk page is restricted because of my internet settings and i can't change them at the moment.Bread Ninja (talk) 07:51, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
I only asked him to get a consensus, i didn't say to join my side. he said there was only 1 who approved split. i assumed that 1 was you, while the other is Dream Focus (an editor doesn't really intend to follow the rules thoroughly, and wishes to keep articles no matter what regardless of anything, but sometimess/he does make a point or two). But the conversation between me and Jinnai, wasn't meant to attack anyone (i for one didn't se any attacks).I could say at least for me, that i didn't say anything insulting. But still i think you should consider content forking. the idea is to not make any unnecessary splits. despite being notable in general, it may not be independent enough to stand on it's own.Bread Ninja (talk) 08:01, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
ANN and English manga blogsphere will eventually catch up. At the Internet time, it's just underwhelming to see how long it will take them to connect the dots.
I dropped a comment on ANN and MangaBlog. MangaBlog is glitched as it acknowledged my comment but did not show it. I guess it hates my ".fr" email address :(
Some people meet her at Angoulême but not me and 2nd chance at Paris but i won't be there again :( I pity there is no reliable summary. I guess i will have to wait a future issue of the French Animeland for an interview. --KrebMarkt (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article following its nomination for reassessment. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Lolicon/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 03:09, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Malkinann. I added a couple more serious references to the Lolicon talk page. I haven't read the Kimio Ito paper from 1992, and I ordered the book with the Zank paper, but it hasn't arrived yet. I seem to have upset Nihonjoe, which I regret -- although he tried to fix up some of the writing, it wasn't enough to make Lolicon a GA. My overall impression, now that I posted the question on a professional anime/manga discussion group, is that there is very litte good material on the subject. The other people -- also all professionals in the manga/anime field, like me, too -- seemed to share that opinion. But, litle by little... Timothy Perper (talk) 19:44, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
I really like what you're doing on the Lolicon article. But I'm going to have to pull back -- time and energy are limited, and I can't devote more time to this. Good luck with it! Timothy Perper (talk) 10:39, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Concerning the query about why Lolicon was delisted. I don't pay much attention to those sorts of thing, because they can be an endless cycle of wiki-arguments and getting-nowhere-in-a-big-hurry. Sure, they're a lot of fun, addictive, and stuff like that -- but they won't get us anywhere. There is always room for improvement in an article, and that won't change, whether or not the article makes it to GA. Frankly, I think moving on is the best strategy. And, more personally, that means I can check in from time to time and suggest references as I find them. But I won't participate in another round of GA reviewing -- it isn't worth the time for me. Timothy Perper (talk) 07:53, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Like this one! I read the Dinah Zank article. It's a solid, thoughtful piece of work trying to link rorikon and Japanese Lolita fashions and group activities to pre-war notions of the "shojo" -- it isn't definitive, and not always convincing, but it certainly deserves a place in the Lolicon bibliography. Timothy Perper (talk) 08:59, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
Another brief comment. Please don't forget that there's a very bad backdrop for this article -- Lawrence Sanger's public and reasonably widely disseminated accusations against Wikipedia that it hosts child pornography. There's a good deal of stuff on the web from various blogsters and fans that he meant THIS article -- Lolicon. Like here: http://forums.xkcd.com/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=58987. Which means that various US law enforcement agencies, including the FBI, are following the article we're trying to fix up. If I'm right, and I admit I'm doing a little bit of mind-reading here, then there may well be a sense that this article is going to have to be very very good before it gets promoted to GA, lest it still looks like Wiki hosts and/or supports child pornography. In this context, it might well be problematic that the illustration used at the start is Kasuga's own work (see the copyright data), and is not an actual piece of published lolicon manga or anime. In other words, this is a broad uphill battle all the way here, not to be fixed by a few rewrites or a few new references. Of course I could be completely wrong, but with Sanger and the FBI as part of the (unspoken but real) background, we have to be very precise in what we say. For example, refer to the Diamond and Uchiyama citation (the 1998-1999 one in the article, not the newer one, from 2009) -- it is famous in the field of sexology as showing that rape/violence rates go DOWN in societies that do not criminalize pornograohy. That article does NOT refer to lolicon (as I've said before), but using it in this article makes it may make it appear that Wikipedia is claiming that lolicon and child pornography are both harmless. You can answer that none of this should matter, but I suspect that it does matter a good deal. So I'm not going to do more on the article not merely for reasons of time -- which are quite real -- but also because I'm concerned that the US social and legal backdrops for this article have not been given the importance that they may well have. We don't have to agree one way or the other, but I think we need to understand that the concern about Wikipedia supporting child pornography, here in the guise of lolicon manga and anime, is very strong. Timothy Perper (talk) 00:21, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
Ito paper
Got the Ito paper and scanned it to PDF; I haven't had a chance to read it yet but it looks like the main focus is more general theoretical analysis of Japanese culture rather than lolicon specifically. I can pass on the PDF if you like; I don't know if Wikipedia supports private messages, but if not I can give you my email address. - JRBrown (talk) 18:02, 8 March 2011 (UTC)
That's great. Would it be too much trouble to send me a copy as well? I'm one of the people who has been working on the Lolicon article. My many thanks! Timothy Perper (talk) 15:18, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
This edit did not necessarily show good judgment. Especially since it was added in as part of a string of other edits, and without even an edit summary. You shouldn't add problematic material like this. If you do want to add problematic material like this, you need to have a full and extensive discussion first, at the very least. If you don't see why this material is problematic, you probably should consider whether you should be adding images to Wikipedia articles generally. Herostratus (talk) 16:01, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
Very good, and thank you for considerable efforts to improve the article, and I also appreciate you working on material where you may not care much for or about the material, for the good of the project. It was just that one edit I was concerned about, and sorry if I came off harshly. Herostratus (talk) 00:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
New material for Lolicon
I hope you're still with this article -- did I say anything to offend you? I certainly hope not. I put in some new material to reflect your reorganization. I hope it's OK with you. Timothy Perper (talk) 23:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
McCarthy reference
I seem to have misplaced/can't find a question you asked me about McCarthy & Clements' book on erotic anime and lolicon. Can you tell me again? It has a whole chapter on lolicon anime, starting in the 1980s. I can look up stuff for you too. Timothy Perper (talk) 13:06, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
Aha. I found it! It was on my talk page! Yeah, there's a whole chapter on YAOI in the book. Lemme look at it and get back to you. Timothy Perper (talk) 13:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)
"In principle, yes, but in practice, I'm tired, I don't like Evangelion enough to overcome it, and I feel I have done enough for now to demonstrate the notability of these articles."
FWIW, I appreciate your recent editing on the Eva pages; I've been busy and remiss and have let the burden fall on others. --Gwern (contribs) 17:14 14 September2009 (GMT)
Hey. I didn't get a chance to reply to this until it was archived on WT:ANIME, so I figured you'd be more likely to see a response here :) Unfortunately, I've looked through the collections of the National Library of Australia and the state libraries, as well as a couple of university libraries, and no holdings :( However, I have found some other books by the same author that look like they could be good references for some articles, if I ever get the chance to have a look at them. Sorry I couldn't help, but I figured I'd pass on the results of my search anyway. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 02:01, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
Actually, scratch that. There are 15 holdings in Australian libraries (including at least one that didn't show up when I searched that university's own library catalogue), but none anywhere near me. In fact, it looks like they have them in universities in most of the capital cities, so you might be able to find someone who can help - try looking for some user categories of people who go to those unis. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 02:12, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of minor Winx Club characters until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Marasmusine (talk) 11:29, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
Sakura Wars TV series episode list
Malkinann,
I've noticed you have readded the Sakura Wars TV series episode list to the main Sakura Wars article. I still think the episode list does not belong in that article. The article is almost entirely about the video games, and having an episode list for the TV series in that article seems totally out of place. I think that if the list needs to be anywhere, having it in the List of Sakura Wars episodes article is fine (though someone needs to add an explanation that these are the TV series episodes, not the OVA episodes). Note that someone else has already undone the redirect from List of Sakura Wars episodes, so the list is back to being in two places. If you still feel that the list shouldn't be in a stand alone article, another option that I think would be alight is to add the episode list to the Sakura Wars TV series section in the List of Sakura Wars media article. That is the article that currently has the most information about the Sakura Wars TV series, so if you think the list can't be in its own article that would probably be the best place for it. To reiterate, I think the main Sakura Wars article is the worst place to put the list among the various options, and if you think the list should be kept somewhere then please either allow it to remain at List of Sakura Wars episodes or merge it to List of Sakura Wars media. Calathan (talk) 03:52, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
As I also said to Jinnai on his talk page, I don't think WP:PRESERVE means that information should be kept in articles where it doesn't belong, and I don't think this episode list belongs in the main Sakura Wars article. In any case, I don't think the episode list should be in two places like it is now. Since the prod has been removed and the episode list is back in its own article, would you mind if I remove it from the main Sakura Wars article again? If you are worried about the list being AFDed, then I would be willing to merge it to to List of Sakura Wars media (though since the anime is notable, I think it could pass an AFD). Calathan (talk) 13:05, 27 May 2011 (UTC)
Since the episode list was still in two places and I think having a stand alone episode list is better than having an epsiode list in the main franchise article, I've moved the content you had added to the epsiode list from the Sakura Wars article to the List of Sakura Wars episodes article. As I said above, I think an episode list for a notable series would pass an AFD (or at worst, an AFD would just result in the content being merged somewhere). If you want to continue adding the more detailed episode information like what you added for episode 1, please do so at List of Sakura Wars episodes. Even if it is later decided to put the episode list somewhere else, we don't want alternate versions in two places, which is what we had before. Calathan (talk) 16:22, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
I just noticed that you asked Niabot for a yaoi-picture. I got this picture a while ago to illustrate Boys’ Love, respectivly the term Shōnen Ai wich is more used in German. Maybe it can be of use in the English Wikipedia too. I'm sorry they are not shirtless ;) --Don-kun (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi Malkinann. Thanks very much for the barnstar, which I really appreciated, and for your quick replies to the things I raised on the talk page. Tasmanian Devil is a great article, very interesting and well pitched at encyclopedia readers. It was a pleasure to work on it. Best regards, Simon. --Stfg (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you...
... for your little "Fledgling award." I appreciate the gesture in a time when things aren't exactly rosy over here... but yes, things are starting to look a little up. Thanks for asking. :) Bobnorwal (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Torikaebaya Monogatari
I am copy editing Torikaebaya Monogatari, but I have the initial question about which English is expected for this article. For example, "scandalised" or "scandalized" as the proper spelling. As an American English speaker, I may not be the best person to copy edit. --DThomsen8 (talk) 18:39, 21 July 2011 (UTC)
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan/Anime and Manga. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Please remember to leave an edit summary when you remove a request from this list. I could have reverted you unnecessarily as the requested article exists and I may not have taken the time to confirm it.Allen4names14:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
Survey
Hi Malkinann!
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!
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) 19:33, 28 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:DarkAmi.PNG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions. If you have a question, place a {{helpme}} template, along with your question, beneath this message.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
Article is filled with areas big areas without sources. And there are areas. Providing proof of or to specific areas? There are too many for you not to see them. So if its to vague for you, its probably because it asks for further analysis.Lucia Black (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
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.
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.
Just FYI, there's still a link to the deleted page in the "Parties' agreement to mediation" section of the mediation page. I have no idea what all the #IF code is for (and I am not involved in the mediation) so haven't touched it. Shiroi Hane (talk) 14:31, 30 November 2011 (UTC)
Be sure to notify
You seem to have been making actions to defend the articles or somewhat change tags that are on the verge of WP:OWN. Anyways....the revert over the name was over clarity when the current isn't anymore clear and made you no attempt to add any assurance of the article's creation for the disambiguation. Overall seems lack of knowledge of naming conventions occurs. (USA) isn't an appropriate form of disambiguation considering the notes say one was originally from canada.Lucia Black (talk) 12:37, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
Its very simple...also I been reviewing the article even more carefully and some of the claims don't fit with what the article is saying and some I question their reliability.Lucia Black (talk) 22:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
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.
The issues have recently been updated here. I believe this reflects the issue you wished to add. If you agree, please sign as agreeing. I note that the other participants have all done so. Sunray (talk) 01:26, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
Are you back from the holidays? If so, would you now be able to signify your agreement (or lack thereof) with the issues? Sunray (talk) 08:33, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I have nominated Katie Holmes for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Brad (talk) 17:19, 20 January 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to add the following to the discussion on the featured article review, or even if I'm supposed to, but I'd like to. I know next to nothing about Katie Holmes and am reading this article to find out more about her and her work. And now I still know next to nothing about Katie Holmes.
The article reads like an imitation of People magazine or a film fanzine, filled with genuinely trivial details, for example about her wedding in Italy, or maybe it was a non-wedding, if the Mayor is right (what Mayor and who cares?). I read the article with increasing amazement: nothing about her acting except gossipy quotes and more than a few non-quotes; no critical discussion of her place (if any) in US or world film; nothing about the people who directed her work and how they obtained different performances from her (if they did); nothing about the kinds of scripts she has played and with what skills (or lack thereof); and so on for a long list of other stuff that isn't there. In brief, trivia spun into paragraphs.
If that's a featured article, we're all in trouble. The fact that no one, or hardly no one (present company excepted), has done anything on the article since ca. 2006 is an index of just how unimportant this article is. If I were teaching a film course, I'd give this article a D- and tell the student who wrote it to learn something about film.
Sorry for being a curmudgeon, but we need some kind of critical standard lest we grant or maintain FA status for every piece of trivial gossip that comes up on the screen.
Thanks for uploading File:Phage Sailor Guts.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Trix until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Sparthorse (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
Announcing the debut of the »Alps Monogatari -- Watashi no Annette« episode synopsis page
Malkinann:
Many salutations! I was looking over your 17 @ July 2011 edit of the »Ai Shoujo Pollyanna Monogatari« episode synopsis page and I was impressed at how you were familiar with the Japanese kanji titles to the final twenty-four episodes even before I added the English titles. You really helped me out by doing that. Unfortunately, I seem to have drawn the attentive ire of Oda Mari whose editing has a rather punitive ambiance about it that I find rather disturbing because it turns the article that I worked so hard to write into a battlefield; as you can imagine, nobody really wins in this situation. I have taken to burying romanji/kanji episode titles and also only listing the kanji names of the lyricists, composers, arrangers, and singers of the anime soundtrack in a bid to keep the peace and avoid the accusation of committing an act of war against Wikipedia.
It is on this note that I entreat your assistance. I am about to release one of my brainchildren into the ether -- this one an episode synopsis page for »Alps Monogatari -- Watashi no Annette«. If you look carefully at the code, you will see that I have hidden away the romanji that I believe could rock the boat; I would like for you to proofread it for me.
Brace yourself for a crapload of work. (Distinguishing between series is gonna be hell) Oh and there is a third manga re-release announced.
--Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 04:37, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
WikiWomen's Collaborative
WikiWomen Unite!
Hi Malkinann! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative.
As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by:
Thanks for uploading File:DarkAmi.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 'file' 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 "File" 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. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:06, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
WikiWomen's Collaborative: Come join us (and check out our new website)!
WikiWomen - We need you!
Hi Malkinann! The WikiWomen's Collaborative is a group of women from around the world who edit Wikipedia, contribute to its sister projects, and support the mission of free knowledge. We recently updated our website, created new volunteer positions, and more!
Get involved by:
Visiting our website for resources, events, and more
Meet other women and share your story in our profile space
While this is a topic that does exist, the article is full of original research and the only references in use are to show the charting information for the K-On! songs.
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.
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Image song until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Narutolovehinata5tccsdnew11:22, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Phineas Gage "Good Article" review
Having make ten or more edits to the article on Phineas Gage, or commented on its Talk in the last two years, perhaps you will be interested in the Good Article Review currently underway. I am particularly interested in gathering broader opinion on the following comment by the reviewer: "Many sentences are much too long for easy reading and to my mind overuse complicated constructions ... I will very strongly recommend a copy edit with ease of reading in mind, breaking up complex sentences and disentwining some of the flowery language."
EEng (talk) 22:35, 12 June 2013 (UTC)
SailorMoon: Chibiusa's article
The article was moved without permission. Someone wants to change it from Chibiusa to Sailor Chibi-Moon, and did so without discussion, breaking Wikipedia rules... Ummm... I think moving it back and then discussing it would be the wiser move. There have to be more criteria for a move than were listed. =P Spread the word, too. 'cause it should be fairly discussed. --Hitsuji Kinno (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wiitis. Since you had some involvement with the Wiitis redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. sst✈15:34, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:Black Lady Sailor Moon.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:Black Lady Sailor Moon.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
I wanted to let you know that I just tagged The Kimberlys for deletion, because it seems to be inappropriate for a variety of reasons. For more details please see the notice on the article.
If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.
You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Thanks!
(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Hello Malkinann! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. Please note that all biographies of living persons must be sourced. If you were to add reliable, secondary sources to this article, it would greatly help us with the current 18 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:
![[1]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/13/Lum-Beautiful-Dreamer.png){kind=link}
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Before saving your changes to an article, please provide an edit summary, which you forgot to do before saving your recent edit to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Japan/Anime and Manga. Doing so helps everyone understand the intention of your edit (and prevents legitimate edits from being mistaken for vandalism). It is also helpful to users reading the edit history of the page. Thank you. Please remember to leave an edit summary when you remove a request from this list. I could have reverted you unnecessarily as the requested article exists and I may not have taken the time to confirm it. Allen4names 14:31, 10 September 2011 (UTC)
){kind=link}
