Jasphetamine (talk | contribs) |
Jasphetamine (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 118: | Line 118: | ||
::{{ping|Knowledgekid87}} It means a lot to hear a slightly more gentle tone in response to this. When I realized what I did I expected the editor/admin response to be targeted at a severe faux-paux, and was unprepared for seeing a growing consensus that I am a sockpuppet and the severe treatment one editor gave me. |
::{{ping|Knowledgekid87}} It means a lot to hear a slightly more gentle tone in response to this. When I realized what I did I expected the editor/admin response to be targeted at a severe faux-paux, and was unprepared for seeing a growing consensus that I am a sockpuppet and the severe treatment one editor gave me. |
||
I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my little dilemma greatly; thank you very much. [[User:Jasphetamine|Jasphetamine]] ([[User talk:Jasphetamine|talk]]) 14:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC) |
::I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my little dilemma greatly; thank you very much. [[User:Jasphetamine|Jasphetamine]] ([[User talk:Jasphetamine|talk]]) 14:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:27, 21 September 2015
Powerpuff girls original/2016 reboot anxiety
Overnight, I saw the new images of the 2016 Powerpuff Girls reboot and read about the new voice actors. Months ago, I signed a petition by a man named Matthew Coleman on Change.org to bring the Powerpuff Girls' original voices back and at the time it was progressing, it was shared by a former Cartoon Network representative. However although it made progress it didn't get through- but I don't know for sure! Anyway while the new pictures depict the new versions of Blossom Bubbles and Buttercup looking excatly like their original counterparts, but with two mediocre touches, I'm scared that once the new Powerpuff Girls series airs sometime next year it'll be just I'm imagining- Cartoon Network is gonna stop caring about the original Powerpuff Girls series that aired from 1998 to 2005, they and everyone else will take the original for granted, and pretend that it doesn't exist anymore- erase the original PPG series from Cartoon Network's history, as well as the original PPG website on cartoonnetwork.com because of the reboot. Remember the original 2003 Teen Titans series? Cartoon Network took that for granted after Teen Titans Go! premiered at they replaced it with Teen Titans Go!- even its website got replaced on cartoonnetwork.com! That's exactly what's gonna happen to the original Powerpuff Girls series once the new series comes next year. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zboogie604 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- If it happens it happens, there isn't much you or me can do about it sadly. I don't know why the original cast wasn't brought back, I do know though that the answer to almost everything is: Money. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:41, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
I hope the original doesn't disappear when it comes. It's just that what I'm trying to say from this is what if I'm not ready for the revamped PPG series, I'm too scared to let go of the original and everything associated with it. Zboogie604 (talk • contribs) 18:26, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
- Then don't let go of it, nobody is saying you need to or anything. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Tenshinhan
Hello, I started a move discussion at Talk:Tien_Shinhan#Requested_move_14_June_2015 in regards to having the article use Viz Media's official spelling. Since it is the same case as Freeza, I thought you might be interested. Xfansd (talk) 15:22, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
- Okay thanks I will check it out. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
2015 attack on Dallas police has been nominated for Did You Know
Arbitration motion regarding Arbitration enforcement
By motion, the Arbitration Committee authorises the following injunction effective immediately:
- The case is to be opened forthwith and entitled "Arbitration enforcement";
- During the case, no user who has commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page, may take or initiate administrative action involving any of the named parties in this case.
- Reports of alleged breaches of (2) are to be made only by email to the Arbitration Committee, via the main contact page.
You are receiving this message because you have commented about this matter on the AN page, the AE page or the Case Requests page
and are therefore restricted as specified in (2). For the Arbitration Committee, L235 (t / c / ping in reply) via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
A word of advice
I personally don't see this comment as overly serious, and I value civility as well, but it's a two way street. You can't expect civility but be uncivil, directly or indirectly (and as someone who is active in dispute resolution, I won't tolerate incivility of any description.). My advice is to really lay low. My experience with editors that have been previously sanctioned, or are under sanctions, is that some people may be waiting for them to slip up. Take my advice - just focus on your article work for a while. And, assume you don't have any (and we will not be having that conversation), but before you write a comment somewhere, try look at it from the point of view of your worst enemy - if they could find fault with it, ask me, or rethink it altogether. Just focus on your article work for a while, OK? (and please, don't archive this that soon). Steven Zhang Help resolve disputes! 14:35, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I will lay low as I really want to try to find another article to may a GA out of. What is civility though to you, and if you saw something that you thought was wrong would you just ignore it? As an admin you have to enforce civility as it is a core Wikipedia pillar so I would be interested in hearing your take. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- I see you using the word insight repeatedly. Can you tell a bit more precisely what insight you received from looking at my talk archives as recommended? Just one comment - one insight perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- I would be happy to at the end of July, I took a quick look though and saw that you do a great job at DYKs - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, repeating: the task was to look for the (not many) entries by Eric Corbett, formerly known as Malleus Fatuorum. Helping with quotations (all excerpts):
- (first entry) ... Have to warn you though that ... I scare away women, children and new editors. Allegedly. But I'll try and be gentle. 1 Nov 2012
- Ironically, now that the lead's been expanded, I much prefer the uncollapsed infobox. 17 Mar 2013
- ... if I were a betting man I'd say it's quite likely that you'll be admonished ... I know from personal experience how difficult it is to see yourself being discussed for weeks on end, often unfairly, without any effective redress, so keep your chin up. 2 Sep 2013
- To be perfectly honest Gerda I'm not sure I'd encourage anyone to remain here. (same)
- (in reply to WIKI OUTCAST) It's a big club, and one I'm proud to be a member of too. 11 Sep 2013
- Admirable civility and precise language and evaluation of politics, imho. Your turn. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- ...and have a group of editors pounce on me if I speak my mind no matter how civil I am? No thank you, not now anyways. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:40, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
- Well, repeating: the task was to look for the (not many) entries by Eric Corbett, formerly known as Malleus Fatuorum. Helping with quotations (all excerpts):
Change from announced time table for the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case
You are receiving this message either because you are a party to the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case, because you have commented in the case request, or the AN or AE discussions leading to this arbitration case, or because you have specifically opted in to receiving these messages. Unless you are a party to this arbitration case, you may opt out of receiving further messages at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Arbitration enforcement/Notification list. The drafters of the Arbitration enforcement arbitration case have published a revised timetable for the case, which changes what you may have been told when the case was opened. The dates have been revised as follows: the Evidence phase will close 5 July 2015, one week earlier than originally scheduled; the Workshop phase will close 26 July 2015, one week later than originally scheduled; the Proposed decision is scheduled to be posted 9 August 2015, two weeks later than originally scheduled. Thank you. On behalf of the arbitration clerks, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:58, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- @L235: Could you please remove me from the list? I cant comment on the case even if I wanted to. Thanks - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
- Done. Thanks. L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 18:27, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
dead links
I don't have a clue why you restored dead links at List of The Qwaser of Stigmata manga volumes and List of Samurai Harem: Asu no Yoichi chapters. Every link that goes to Akita Shoten is dead and has been for atleast 4 years. Bgwhite (talk) 06:52, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- @Bgwhite: The website received an update is all, rather than retype the template for each instance I undid your edits and updated the links. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:00, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
- You didn't redo the links. They are still are dead. Everyone I just tried were dead. Bgwhite (talk) 04:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- I only did List of Samurai Harem: Asu no Yoichi chapters, the other I left the link in the form of a cleanup tag as it will take longer. The new links work for me on the former. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- Next time, revert one article to your sandbox and work on it there. If I had a dollar for everytime somebody said they will work on it and never did, I'd be a millionaire. Bgwhite (talk) 06:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I jumped in and fixed the Japanese links. ;) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- @AngusWOOF: Thanks! ^-^ - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Okay, I jumped in and fixed the Japanese links. ;) AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- Next time, revert one article to your sandbox and work on it there. If I had a dollar for everytime somebody said they will work on it and never did, I'd be a millionaire. Bgwhite (talk) 06:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
- I only did List of Samurai Harem: Asu no Yoichi chapters, the other I left the link in the form of a cleanup tag as it will take longer. The new links work for me on the former. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:16, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
- You didn't redo the links. They are still are dead. Everyone I just tried were dead. Bgwhite (talk) 04:46, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Airdates again: It's time to standardize them once and for all
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Airdates again: It's time to standardize them once and for all. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:28, 15 July 2015 (UTC)Template:Z48
- @Narutolovehinata5: Thanks for the heads up! I don't really have a strong opinion on the matter but will go along with whatever consensus comes out of it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Note
Wikiprojects are not entities which own pages or topics, they are not arms to exert peer pressure or power. If project members weren't so annoying every time I add a few hundred sources and fix dozens of problems the Wikiproject wouldn't have such an extensive list of "this need fixings now". Some of the problem comes from the fact that people who can't read or write the language feel compelled to insert their opinion on notability and such. I don't like people who find pleasure or take pride in dismantling good pages or sweeping problems under the rug by deleting/redirecting them. Problem is that is the natural tendency of too many people on the Wikiproject. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- @ChrisGualtieri: In my view redirects aren't deletions, there are a whole lot of other articles that need the attention much more. I have also added a lot of sources as well as fixed my fair share, the list of articles that need attention has been dwindling to all time lows. [1] If you want to help out, notability is a major issue (400+ articles tagged) I am currently working on sourcing and dead links. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- To readers - blank and redirects are the same as deletions because the content is not visible or seen unless a person specifically finds the page, goes back to the unredirected page, clicks on the view history and finds the last version which had meaningful content. None of these actions are commonly known or employed by non-editors. Any anime series by a top-50 studio meets the GNG requirement - most top-500 idols/voice actors and such meet that as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
- Im wondering if there is a way there could be a category for redirects then so they aren't swept under and forgot about then. You are right when you say there is a breakdown to those who don't understand Japanese but if someone is passionate enough about a series I could see a GA article or two. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Look - I'd love to help this project and I had basically dozens of content pushes ready to go - I have more than 40 books on hand, but having someone who cannot read or write follow me around and revert changes to something as simple as removing a spurrious N tag from Tezuka's works is beyond irritating. Editors like TheFarix do not understand what Wikipedia is supposed to be and that's the same issue Ryulong had. TheFarix called me a racist for no reason and won't apologize, instead doubling down like Donald Trump on a field day. You know why I don't have good relationships with members of this Wikiproject - its all the nasty emails from members of this Wikiproject and the hounding. As long as this place continues to be self-run by people who cannot read or write, then I won't be a part of this project because avoiding the main area doesn't help when you are being stalked and harassed. That's why.
- And you are not one of the problems, but you are sometimes careless - as you removed valid well-sourced content in that cited posting from before. Just cause someone didn't cite inline doesn't mean its vandalism. I'm not angry, but I do get annoyed when very basic and sourced info gets removed. The biggest issue is that this project is on the defensive and its expectations and demands go far beyond reason. It is not a positive atmosphere if you desire to improve content and create pages. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:40, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Further note, Farix's actions like this which is the problem. It is in the official credit list on the English version. Is 30 seconds before you go warning a well-meaning IP editor too much to ask? Ryulong did this a lot and its why so much good work went to waste and so many people dislike Wikipedia. There is nothing fostering a friendly atmosphere or goodwill - its WARNING DON'T DO THIS OR YOU GET BLOCKED. Shameful? I think so. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- @ChrisGualtieri: I have been staying out of the whole airdates debate and apologize for putting you on the spot. I don't like to be talked about behind my back though, yes at one time I did remove good content, I am aware of that but really I focus on where I am at now. If I see a series I like or that interests me that is what I put all of my heart and effort into. I haven't really had any problems with people from the anime/manga wikiproject as it is a big place with lots to do. I ask that you try to keep cool, and don't criticize editors if they make mistakes you feel are plainly visible, everyone has their moments and a gentle reminder is always better than chewing their head off. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:32, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- If editors from this project weren't threatening others and violating WP:BITE then perhaps I'd be more pleasant. Also, what irritates me is that someone who cannot read or write carrying themselves with authority on an encyclopedia - don't you see the problem with that? The fact that such persons are really unable to search, identify and carryout WP:BEFORE because they don't possess such skills is the largest problem of WP:ANIME. Members of this Wikiproject actually have held the belief that "English-language" notability is required to meet WP:N and that Japanese Wikipedia should cover everything that doesn't. Such statements are beyond foolish and shows not just ignorance, but outright incompetence. I'd like to show some of these said members the proverbial door because these members were behind the original blank and redirecting series like Dragon Ball Z. Ryulong in particular fought for months to prevent the recreation of a stand-alone page. Stuff like that made me so disgusted with this project that I decided to go to WP:NRHP. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 16:09, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- Im wondering if there is a way there could be a category for redirects then so they aren't swept under and forgot about then. You are right when you say there is a breakdown to those who don't understand Japanese but if someone is passionate enough about a series I could see a GA article or two. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
- To readers - blank and redirects are the same as deletions because the content is not visible or seen unless a person specifically finds the page, goes back to the unredirected page, clicks on the view history and finds the last version which had meaningful content. None of these actions are commonly known or employed by non-editors. Any anime series by a top-50 studio meets the GNG requirement - most top-500 idols/voice actors and such meet that as well. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:01, 19 July 2015 (UTC)
Potential edit warring in When Marnie Was There
Hello, you're invited and express your views on Talk:When Marnie Was There#Edits reverted without adding summary. Jotamide (talk) 18:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
DYK for 2015 attack on Dallas police
Gatoclass (talk) 16:51, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
Otakon, Guidebook, and primary sourcing (again...)
Since you spearheaded the Event history cleanup in Otakon, wanted to get your opinion on the latest set of edits that were added. Seems a large amount of history expansion was done using Otakon's Guidebook, a primary source that while not in dispute (most edits were location based), it still raises some issues similar to Event history. Esw01407 (talk) 13:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
- @Esw01407: I will take a closer look at it later today. The main question we should ask is do we want the event history presented in table or prose format? You are right when you say the information duplicates the event history, but I wish there was some kind of GA article related to a convention to compare Otakon to. I could see Otakon rising up the ranks if it were a bit more organized. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:45, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
List of Digimon Fusion characters
Need your thoughts on List of Digimon Fusion characters. The current editor does not like my bold changes, but not sure what else can be done to structure the article better. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:49, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
- @AngusWOOF: The edits you made that are policy based (MOS) should definitely stay. As for the editor you placed your concerns on the talk-page but he/she may be in another time zone. I am semi busy myself, I will be more free about 5 hours from now or so, for now I would wait for a reply. If there is no reply in that time, I will revert the changes as I feel it is a case of WP:JDLI. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:56, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
I started another RM. Make your decision. --George Ho (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Motivation of a hopeless new guy on an RfA page
In my mind, while making that edit I was voicing over a potential Administrator preferring to dodge adversarial editorial challenges over addressing them. I feel strongly about Administrators having the capacity to formulate and present arguments under duress; it is not an objection with any roots in personal or political qualities.
Obviously in reality I was making a real mess of things for more than a few people, looking like a clown, and it seems like I might not even get to help out with copyedit due to all this. So it goes.Jasphetamine (talk) 14:14, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Jasphetamine: Innocent until proven guilty is what I am leaning towards here. I do apologize if editors find you suspicious, sock accounts (People who abuse multiple accounts) are a real problem here on Wikipedia. Even if someone is socking and gets caught and blocked it doesn't mean forever. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
- @Knowledgekid87: It means a lot to hear a slightly more gentle tone in response to this. When I realized what I did I expected the editor/admin response to be targeted at a severe faux-paux, and was unprepared for seeing a growing consensus that I am a sockpuppet and the severe treatment one editor gave me.
- I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my little dilemma greatly; thank you very much. Jasphetamine (talk) 14:26, 21 September 2015 (UTC)