| Revision as of 17:17, 7 October 2007 editDoczilla (talk | contribs)Administrators49,049 edits →Kal-L-← Previous edit | Revision as of 18:14, 7 October 2007 edit undoDoczilla (talk | contribs)Administrators49,049 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 97: | Line 97: | ||
| What the heck are you talking about? I removed one POV sentence. ] 17:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC) | What the heck are you talking about? I removed one POV sentence. ] 17:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
| :Did I revert Kal-L back to that? No. Trying to argue about previous edits that are not presently part of the article just makes you come across as having a chip on your shoulder. As for the exemplars: (1) Make one edit at a time so people can evaluate each edit. (2) Too many people have fought too many battles over those exemplars for any one individual to come in and make a bunch of changes to it all at once. See point #1. ] 17:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC) | :Did I revert Kal-L back to that? No. Trying to argue about previous edits that are not presently part of the article just makes you come across as having a chip on your shoulder. As for the exemplars: (1) Make one edit at a time so people can evaluate each edit. (2) Too many people have fought too many battles over those exemplars for any one individual to come in and make a bunch of changes to it all at once. See point #1. ] 17:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC) | ||
| ::Re: ]. Like I pointed out, my change to your thing got reverted, and I didn't revert it back, so it just comes across as trying to bop people upside the head with that chip from your shoulder when you feel the need to bring that up after the fact. | |||
| ::If you make your changes all at once and it turns out that there's either a big problem with something you did or a lot of little problems, yes, you're going to get flatly reverted. People who edit these pages regularly get worn out by one person after another who'll thrust a whole slew of changes at once and then seem to expect other people to clean up after them. There's only so much room in the edit summary. You can't explain every change in a single edit summary. | |||
| ::Kal-L and Kal-El are sometimes identical in powers and sometimes different, depending on who's writing them. ] 18:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 18:14, 7 October 2007
| This is a subpage of Sesshomaru's talk page, where you can send them messages and comments. |
|
 Archives
|
|---|
| How to archive a talk page |
RE:Dr. Slump
Kemono is not a genre of fiction to begin with. It's a genre of character design. If you want to mention there being lots of kemono characters in the article text, that's good, but the only pages that should have kemono as a genre are pages on paintings and the like.
Even if it turns out that the kemono article is wrong and it is used to describe fiction, the only pages I'd think would need it as one of their primary genres would be stuff like +Anima, where man-beastman interactions are the primary theme of the work. --tjstrf talk 07:29, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Hehe, sorry how my answer is always NO. Our genre system is an unholy mess right now though, so adding anything unnecessary to it is not going to help.
- And yes, +Anima is quite good. Very nice art, good concept and characters, but mysteriously canceled just as the plot was starting to pick up. So be warned that it's going to drop you literally midscene at the end. (The last page has the characters being attacked by a bear with "TO BE CONTINUED" at the bottom. It never was continued.) --tjstrf talk 07:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, we're in luck! It was uncancelled and completed at volume 10. No clue on the site, since the scanlation group dropped the title after volume 7. I'll e-mail you if I find one. --tjstrf talk 19:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
666 Satan & Naruto
i have a long response you'll be gettin as soon as i get home (im in class right now and multi tasking just isnt really workin for me at the moment:P), but im curious as to what your question(if there is one) or if its just a comment... Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 17:22, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- ya, well with the whole 666 Satan thing, the reason i edit so much is i brought it from a small unorganized article to what it is today mostly on my own/with the help of a few people...
- and on the topic of similarities, well i never specifically stated that it was only naruto and dbz that influenced 666 Satan, but it has been mentioned in various volumes of naruto (and i also believe 666 Satan, or possibly the other way around, idk) on the back cover where they have writers notes, that dbz influenced a lot of "me and my brothers drawings" and i understand that in the world of art, that influence can come from all over the place (i know this from personal experience as an artist) so i have no doubt that he may have gained influence from various other mangas/artists over the years
- but to answer what i think you were possibly hinting at (the fact that the similarities section only has similarities to dbz and similarities to naruto is that dbz bein the stated one in w/e volumes those comments were found in, and the naruto part because of the fact that its his brother who does the series, and to be completely honest we (founding members) have not removed it is that its important enough to note, yet also not just get a passing mention, but my main reason for removing things like the yu-gi-oh comment is that small passing coincidents like that dont seem to merit a section, and i felt like it was one of those things that was like "this series has a tournament in it just as (insert some random series that a tournament)"... did that answer your question though??? Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 18:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- no problem, drop me a line if ya ever are curious about somethin or just need some help with w/e... im eager to help (either work or advice or just w/e) and... ya, peace... Ancientanubis, talk Editor Review 19:14, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Cruft Conspricy
Lets hope its not a case of mutiple Prince Zarbon sockpuppeting and just a few users making new user mistakes. If not than we might be in some trouble. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- I've already got rid of the Plot summaries on most of the articles, though no one has replaced it with anything suitible. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
- Anyway Vegeta however is doing pretty good right now, all it needs are some references. DBZROCKSIts over 9000!!! 19:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Re: no userfied interwikis
While I agree with your removal of FU images and categories, there's no reason to comment out the interwiki links as well. They are a strictly one-way link (meaning that you couldn't stumble upon User:TimySmidge/Son Goten from ja:孫悟天 just because the former links to the later), and there's no policy or guideline saying that they need to remain off of articles being developed in userspace. EVula // talk // ☯ // 21:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Buu
This disambiguation page is absolutely in line with WP standards - I'm really not sure what you're attempting to do with your formatting changes, but they were unnecessary. Deiz talk 02:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Astro Boy's gender
Are you referring to the fact that Astro's a robot and therefore has no gender? I don't know, to me he's a "boy" robot. He even has a robot "sister", so robots in Tezuka's world may have a gender.
Also, Astro is categorized as a child superhero. Again, to me he's a "boy" so I think it applies.--Nohansen 04:51, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Shapeshifters
A very good point. I've initiated a discussion at Category talk:Fictional shapeshifters to see if we can create a more precise definition than what's there. Good call. --Tenebrae 14:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
re:Shapeshifter category vagueness
I think the Tenebrae is looking for a bit more input on the cat's talk page before anyone unilaterally adds/changes the cat's criteria. It may be best for you to chip in your thoughts there and see if anyone else has something to add. (And yes, I did notice that the discussion was kicked off between you and Tenebrae on you respective talk pages.)
I'd also give the discussion at least a week, or neutrally cross post to the relevant project talk pages to let more editors know that a discussion is happening. - J Greb 06:25, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Portal:Dragon Ball
Looks like you did fine on your own. I would love to help out with DBZ articles, but I have a lot of real-world stuff going on right now so I can't. You can see Portal:Naruto isn't even updated very often; I was really hoping that someone else would take an interest in actively editing the portal but that hasn't happened. Maybe I'll get back to editing it when I have more free time. In the meantime, I can only give you a few suggestions:
- Remember a portal is primarily for readers, not editors, so think off things that you would want to see as a regular user.
- The most vital part of a portal is NEWS so always keep it updated!
- You can encourage users to have casual conversations in the Talk Page of the portal. I think it's OK to have that; we have a regional noticeboard for Philippines-related articles at WT:TAMBAY, and a lot of the conversations there are not necessarily related to improving articles.
- When you're ready to show it off to the world, you may want to add it to Portal:List of portals.
That's it for now. Good Luck — Sandtiger 11:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
Look
I just want you to know that my dad is not User:Peter Vogel. Please look at this. My dad cleary wrote this. P.S. I am not Peter Vogel either. --TimySmidge Jr. 18:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Peter Vogel???
Sorry to disappoint you but I am not Peter Vogel. Never have been and never will be. The evidence you provide of me being him is poor at best. I appologized about the things I said on Project Dragon Ball talk page. This is a very immature way to get back at me.
This edit was made by the one AND ONLY--Lucky Mitch 19:14, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
Is there anything I can do to prove I am not Peter Vogel? The sign calling me a "sockpuppet" on my user page has become very annoying and I feel insulted everytime I see it, but at the same time I don't want to remove it because if I do you will most likely see this as incriminating. Please respond as soon as possible.--Lucky Mitch 03:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
I apologize for the rude "your majesty" comment I made earlier. I have just looked at Peter Vogel's edits and have noticed how serious of a problem this really is. I would just like to add that I was in favor of the shortening of the plots and getting rid of all the "cruft", the thing that I was most trying to defend on this page was mainly the transformations sections of each character as well as the English names. However I have long since gotten over all of that. Peter Vogel's edits are mostly excessive, poorly written, and redundant. I am all for getting rid of this "cruft" as it is called.--Lucky Mitch 05:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
CFD nomination
I've transferred the discussion of Category:Wikipedians who like Inu Yasha to the speedy renaming section of Misplaced Pages:User categories for discussion, since that forum discusses user-related categories and WP:CFD doesn't. You're not the first, don't worry! Regards, Bencherlite 23:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
Google Gulp
Re this edit: can you explain to me why (as your edit summary implies) Misplaced Pages:Categorizing redirects requires this deletion? It seems to me that that guideline only purports to give examples of useful categorizations, not an exhaustive list. This categorization is useful because it enables someone browsing Category:Fictional drinks to find Google Gulp, which is a fictional drink. —Blotwell 05:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
motorola 68000
Hi, you put motorola 68000 in WikiProject Hong Kong. Why? I just took it out. Potatoswatter 03:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Doki
It's all in the name: Doki means angry demons. Not much of a stretch to assume they are what they're named. — Someguy0830 (T | C) 06:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Kal-L-
What the heck are you talking about? I removed one POV sentence. Doczilla 17:07, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Did I revert Kal-L back to that? No. Trying to argue about previous edits that are not presently part of the article just makes you come across as having a chip on your shoulder. As for the exemplars: (1) Make one edit at a time so people can evaluate each edit. (2) Too many people have fought too many battles over those exemplars for any one individual to come in and make a bunch of changes to it all at once. See point #1. Doczilla 17:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
- Re: . Like I pointed out, my change to your thing got reverted, and I didn't revert it back, so it just comes across as trying to bop people upside the head with that chip from your shoulder when you feel the need to bring that up after the fact.
- If you make your changes all at once and it turns out that there's either a big problem with something you did or a lot of little problems, yes, you're going to get flatly reverted. People who edit these pages regularly get worn out by one person after another who'll thrust a whole slew of changes at once and then seem to expect other people to clean up after them. There's only so much room in the edit summary. You can't explain every change in a single edit summary.
- Kal-L and Kal-El are sometimes identical in powers and sometimes different, depending on who's writing them. Doczilla 18:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)