Archive 40

←

Archive 44

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

→

Archive 50

There will be a new ultra series for Ultraman Zero and there will be an dark version of him self called, Techtor Gear Black (テクターギアブラック, Tecutā Gia Burakku). Ultraman Zero vs. Techtor Gear Black. AlienX2009 (talk) 18:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Doesn't mean anything yet.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:58, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes it does. Zero will have a series during summer according to the scans. AlienX2010 (talk) 19:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

No they do not say that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

According to TV-Magazine, Zero will have a series. AlienX2010 (talk) 01:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

When more information comes out we'll do something about it.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:02, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure. AlienX2010 (talk) 01:03, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Do you know about this? I have been working with this editor (btphelps (talk · contribs)) for the last couple of weeks on the Holt Manufacturing Company and related articles, and find it very surprising that he should be blocked. -- EdJogg (talk) 20:56, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what IP it is. I don't remember when the block occurred, and I certainly can't do any unblocking can I?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:33, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's OK. I was taking the notice at face value, and it mentioned your user name. Someone else has unblocked him, so all's well now. Sorry for bothering you! -- EdJogg (talk) 00:59, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

If I add information to a talk page, will it be reviewed for possible additions/changes to the main page? 76.22.36.95 (talk) 18:44, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

It will be discussed and determined whether or not other editors think it is a good idea.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I noticed that you have removed Tommy's image from the WP:TOKU talk page, however, I would like your opinion on my proposed new Power Rangers character infobox. I have removed the colored title bar, replacing it with a color section where we use {{color box}}es to list all colors, that way we can represent all of a Ranger's colors equally. After all, there have been many edit wars on what color should be used to represent a particular Ranger, particularly Tommy Oliver, Adam Park, and T.J. Johnson. Do you support my idea? ANDROS¹³³⁷ 02:55, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Just do it and fix it across the articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

The off wiki accusation is irrelevant -- however, accusing another editor of stalking on-wiki is not. Suggest you strike the comment and forget about the WQA. Gerardw (talk) 02:34, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

You're right about it not being stalking. He just happens to have an account on both sites and is using it to his advantage.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:35, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

It's being dealt with here [1]. Ridernyc (talk) 00:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

My talk page is apparently protected, and "can be edited or moved only by administrators." As I've since been unblocked, is it possible to unprotect this page and perhaps archive the vandalism mayhem or something similar? Thanks. --S-man (talk) 01:32, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I cannot perform any such unprotections anymore. Please go to WP:RFPP. Also, are you telling me you've been unblocked for two years but you have not bothered to request for your talk page to be unprotected until right now?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:33, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I will take it there. I have been unblocked for two years, but only recently returned to Wikipedia, and have really have not paid much attention to my talk page. --S-man (talk) 01:46, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

where is your sourece? AlienX2010 (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Terebikun, April 2010, Page 31.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:15, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't pay attention much, so that's how jump to conclusions all the time. AlienX2010 (talk) 23:50, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Sorry i dont know how long you been on wikipedia but simply reverting edits when a discussion is open is not an acceptable form of editing. You can see from my edit and from the talk page that the issue is being discussed. Therefore editing the page in the way which you did is likely to inflame the situation. In future please engage in the discussion and wait until resolved before implementing change. I suggest you add your opinion to the page/responses. Lil-unique1 (talk) 01:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Four years. And read WP:BRD.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:07, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually if you look at the message i left i simply asked impartially if people would comment/vote on a NON-CONSENSUS binding survey. That does not constitute WP:Canvas. Canvassing would have been if i asked people to agree with me or if i led them into answering in a certain why. I only contacted people who had been involved in the discussion or any other single cover discussion. Lil-unique1 (talk) 19:10, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You contacted people who had never been involved with the article in the first place, though.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 22:03, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I am not discussing this with you anymore Heavydata. Consensus will determine it otherwise.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 12:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
They're without colons on the official sites, so they should also be without colons on Wikipedia. I'm thinking of making a move request for Star Wars now too, thanks. I only got 53 out of the 54 articles sadly. Heavydata (talk) 10:41, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Both are extremely useless, extremely unfeasible, and asinine. There are probably hundreds of Star Wars pages. RangerBoard isn't right about everything.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC) I don't understand why you're so worried. If the move is approved you won't have to do any of the work, someone else will. Also, I just found this [2], so I won't bother asking for a move because it seems they are all have a clear consensus. Heavydata (talk) 10:51, 19 March 2010 (UTC) So because there is no manual of style that dictates this for Power Rangers articles, you're still going to disrupt Wikipedia to appease the RangerBoard masses?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 10:53, 19 March 2010 (UTC) No, I'm requesting a move to the CORRECT titles. It has nothing to do with what Rangerboard believes. It's what provided on the official sites, and that alone. If the official sites had colons and Rangerboard said there were no colons? Guess what I'd do, nothing because then the colons would be the correct titles! Do you have AIM or MSN or something so we can discuss this further? Heavydata (talk) 10:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC) And how would you have found out about this issue? Rangerboard. They are the only place that actually rages that Wikipedia uses colons because it's grammatically correct and not just because of the laziness of the Bandai and Disney webmasters.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC) It seems like you're the one raging here because there's the possibility that the colons will go away. Yeah I found out from Rangerboard, so what? I thought the pages would be better off without colons because they are the OFFICIAL NAMES of the show. Lets see your proof that the names have colons in them. Heavydata (talk) 11:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Stating that a punctuation mark makes what Wikipedia has not the official title of a television show is ridiculous. It's standard English grammar and the film industry's normal practice that the title and subtitle are separated by a colon and "Zeo", "Turbo", "Mystic Force", and "RPM" are all subtitles to "Power Rangers".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:12, 19 March 2010 (UTC) So? It's still Power Rangers RPM, not Power Rangers: RPM according to Bandai's site. And what proof do you have that Bandai was lazy to not put the colon in? I guess we should move MMPR to Mighty Morphin: Power Rangers according to your logic. Heavydata (talk) 11:16, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Power Rangers is not the subtitle to Mighty Morphin. "Mighty Morphin Power Rangers" is the proper grammar. "Power Rangers RPM" is not. I've made my statement at the talk page. I find the move disruptive and pointless just because every subtitle for TV and film is treated the way Wikipedia has the pages already. Bandai and Disney's websites omitting them is an error on their part and frankly, it's just two dots.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:20, 19 March 2010 (UTC) And what examples of other films/tv shows with subtitles with a colon do you have? What proof do you have that it was an error on Disney and Bandai's part? I think they would know the names of their own shows! If it's just two dots, then why are you so defensive? Seriously You came to the talk page in less than three minutes and have been arguing with me non stop over colons. If it's not a big deal like you claim, then just let it go and move on with your life. Heavydata (talk) 11:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC) Star Wars, Star Trek, Pokémon (anime), etc. It's how things are done.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:27, 19 March 2010 (UTC) I'm not seeing any colon on the Pokemon Page, I googled "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope", and it equally came out with as many "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope" as it did "Star Wars: Episode IV A New Hope", and they reached a consensus between the two. Power Rangers has not. Also, look here http://www.startrek.com/startrek/view/series/TNG/]. Colon on the official Star Trek site, so it makes sense that the wikipedia article has a colon before "The Next Generation". The move request can help us get a clean consensus between the two anyway. Heavydata (talk) 11:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC) The various anime seasons are designated with subtitles. You just didn't look hard enough. And Google does not acknowledge punctuation marks. You'll get identical results for "Power Rangers RPM" as you would "Power Rangers: RPM" or even "Power Rangers. RPM". The colon is just a general practice and that's what Wikipedia is doing. Stop complaining that Wikipedia uses a colon for the Power Rangers articles when the Bandai and Disney pages don't because it does not matter.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:38, 19 March 2010 (UTC) I see the anime seasons now, but would you look at this? [3]. The official Pokemon site uses colons for the seasons as well! It makes sense that the page would be called Pokemon: Galactic Battles! If it doesn't matter, then let it go. Heavydata (talk) 11:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC) It's how cinema works. I'm done arguing with you. The colon should be there but Bandai and Disney have omitted it for whatever reason, just like how the Star Wars movies have different placements.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC) You've given me no proof that that's how it's done with Cinema. Pokemon, Star Wars, and Star Trek all make sense with Colons, Power Rangers does NOT. You have 100% no proof that they omitted it. I have no idea why you could be so picky about colons. If you can come up with a single rational example stating that the colons belong, then I might consider changing my mind. So far, you've given me nothing but crap, and for what reason? For two little dots? Just give me a good example of why you're right and I'm wrong... Heavydata (talk) 11:52, 19 March 2010 (UTC) I am done discussing this with you. The community will decide whether or not your argument or mine is what is best for the encyclopedia and not what is best for the hivemind fandumb.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 11:54, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I thought you were done talking to me about this matter. I guess if you do it while logged out it doesn't count huh? Heavydata (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

That was not me and suggesting it was is an assumption of bad faith. That IP geolocates to Oklahoma. I'm in New York and a checkuser will prove that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 13:11, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Then why would an IP out of nowhere who made no edits except one in October suddenly oppose me? If not a sock puppet, it must be a meat puppet instead. Heavydata (talk) 21:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I was discussing this with some friends and one of them decided on his own accord to say something on the frivolity of the request.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

1) I'm not a meat puppet. So drop it. 2) Iff it pisses you off that much then just email Bandai themselves on the matter and then post a screencap of their response email. Until then just drop it. 70.177.84.41 (talk) 02:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Review of indefinite rangeblocks. –xeno^talk 17:21, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you point me to the reason for your moving of this page as I have not found a discussion or a guideline to support it. AndrewTJ31 (talk) 23:08, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Japanese song titles should not be translated. It is a general part of WP:MOS-JA. The song is not known as "A Cruel Angel's Thesis" anywhere but the anglophone world, and it is a Japanese song, so it should use the Japanese title: "Zankoku na Tenshi no These (Tēze)".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:30, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

After doing some more reserch Wikipedia:WikiProject Songs#Naming states "Song article titles should be named after the song, without quotation marks, for example, Paranoid Android. If there is another article with that name use the format '<song name> (song)', for example, "Wonderwall (song)". If there is more than one song article with a title then disambiguate by putting the artist name in the title to make '<song name> (<artist name> song)', for example "Because (The Beatles song)". If the song is in a foreign language and titled using the Latin alphabet, then, unless the song is commonly known by a translated name in the English-speaking world, the original foreign title should be used. This may require using accented letters which are not used in English. Examples: "Ein bißchen Frieden", "Je n'ai que mon âme", "Fångad av en stormvind"." Thus, since the song is known as "A Cruel Angel's Thesis" in the English-speaking world, it should be used. AndrewTJ31 (talk) 01:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not how WP:MOS-JA treats song titles. Japanese songs have romanized Japanese titles. Unless you can provide an official source that shows that the song is referred to as "A Cruel Angel's Thesis" in the English release of Evangelion, then the title of the page should remain at the Japanese romanicized title.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

And if the song has been released under the title "Cruel Angel's Thesis" by Piano Squall. Also, a simple google search provides 69,500 hits for A Cruel Angel's Thesis and 12,200 for Zankoku na Tenshi no These AndrewTJ31 (talk) 03:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Piano Squall isn't the original performer. Also, most people would use "Zankoku na Tenshi no Thesis". About 68,700 people. However, the word is not the English/Greek "Thesis" but the German "These". Effectively, what I have put the page at now is the most correct title, even though most people will not use the German word "These" but the English/Greek word "Thesis".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:35, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The opening credits say "A Thesis of The Cruel Angel" YouTube Clip.Three of the first four links that shows up don't even contain the phrase "Zankoku na Tenshi no Thesis" with the other being a Rapidshare search site. Also, when removing the quotation marks the it drops to 16,600 hits which is odd that a less restricted search has less results than a more restricted search. This still doesn't even compaire to "Zankoku na Tenshi no Te-Ze" which gets 485,000 hits with quotes but still drops to 13,800 hits without quotes, so no the half translation is not the most common. AndrewTJ31 (talk) 01:33, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The Japanese version of the name should be the one the article uses per WP:MOS-JA. For further discussion, I will start a thread there.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:34, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

There is already a full confirmation on the toei website. AlienX2010 (talk) 00:24, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

What "Toei Website"? It's not this one or this one so what fucking website is it?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:25, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

There is only one Toei Website. So it's obvious it is this one. AlienX2010 (talk) 00:27, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

There is no mention of G Den-O on that page. All there is is a single sentence stating "member of a time-space police force Reiji Kurosaki" which is what the article now says without any sort of separate section just so you can put it in the nav template.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 00:31, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

If you like I could email you a translation of a recent comment written here in French. Its appropriateness in the context of English Wikipedia policy is debatable (perhaps that is why the commenter chose not to use English). In particular, the tone of the comment suggests to me that it is unlikely to constitute an honest attempt to improve Wikipedia. Tasty monster (=TS ) 18:49, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm aware of its general message. He's pissed that his romanization scheme of a dialect of Chinese got deleted here, and not at the three other projects where it remains.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:08, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Excuse let me point out that a consensus can take many forms. I indicated that the survey alone is not the only method of reaching the conclusion of the discussion. Enough quality points were made in the discussion to warrant the removal of an additional cover. Furthermore i did not threaten you with an ANI. I merely pointed out that if you feel like you cannot comply then we will have no choice but to take out an ANI as your behavior was unconstructive (mass reverting etc.). Also might i add that you commented against virtually all of the opposing comments in the discussion this does not mean that the over-riding majority of opinion sways in your favour. The survey indicated overwhelming support for the opinion which you did not hold. The discussion has numerous users who agree that the use of more than one cover breaches copyright because in this ACTUAL instance it is not justified. To suggest i'm talking down to you is rather childish. I am trying to help you by showing you that your actions though mostly in WP:good faith (it was a valid argument) caused disruption and brought the article into disripute. The community spoke and the opinion was to remove a second cover. I'm sorry if you feel its infair but that's how things work on wikipedia. We discuss and look at the merits of each person's comments. Finally the use of the black and white cover was reverted because the consensus clearly states that there is more support for the colour version. If your are unhappy with this please open a new discussion about which cover should be used. But in spirit of other Gaga articles the finalised Single cover (colour version) is being used until consensus decides otherwise. There is a difference between a digital single download and a digital single. Remember "He who shouts loudest is not the most correct". I am in now way suggesting i am superior to you, we're equals on editing but take it from my own experience (mainly music articles) arguing for multiple single covers is a losing battle 99% of the time especially when its a digital single download cover verse digital/physical cd cover. Lil-unique1 (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

You decided that the consensus determined that the colored cover should only be on the article. The vote only decided that it violated WP:NFCC. Consensus has not yet been decided yet.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 20:23, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Again you fail to understand. Consensus is not based on the number of votes/opinions in favour of a motion alone. Consensus is the quality and number of opinions presented. There is not a consensus to use the black and white cover. For you to add it once again based on one user saying the colour one isn't the single cover is totally against the purpose of a consensus. I've explained several times now that i have put the colour cover in because this is what was allowed in other gaga articles and there is supporting evidence for it. Until a consensus agrees with your opinion that the black and white cover is the correct single cover it will not be used in the article. end of. if you cannot conform to wikipedia rules then you should re-consider exactly why you are editing on here. finally it is evasive and disruptive for you to leave the article alone for a while and then seemingly when you feel its quite you feel its ok to go ahead and carry on editing the article in a manner which is causing re-edits and reversions. next time you edit the article for own personal preference (which is exactly what your doing at the moment) i will have no option but to take this matter to the administrators. i really hope that you see what i'm saying as advice. I'm trying to help you here. Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The discussion is on-going. There are so far two new opinion saying that black and white cover should be used against three that say it shouldn't be used over the colour one. That is not a majority consensus because the users supporting the black and white cover have failed to explain/justify their reasoning. Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not what you decided should be the case for two covers vs. one cover. There was only a consensus to decide that. As of right now, multiple people on the talk page, before your survey and after your decided consensus, have suggested that the greyscale cover is the one that should be used on the article. You should clearly look at the opinons of users such as this IP, Morgan3136, Jackex56, RainBell, and Sdoo493.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Actually none of the first three examples you've given explicitly say that the black and white cover is of greater importance. The first user is asking a question about the use of two covers. The second is explaining where each of the covers is used. the third is simply agreeing with the first two. Please stop trying to manipulate the situation and allow the discussion to develop. Secondly i did not decide the consensus the community did. Opinion did. The survey contributed. I simply implemented the outcome of the consensus after Legolas contact me on my talk page and told me that the discussion should be substantial enough to make a decision. Lil-unique1 (talk) 02:52, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not manipulating anything. And there was no discussion. It was a vote. And votes are not allowed to determine consensus. The fact that people agree with other's points should be enough to show that they believe that the monochrome cover should be used and not the colored one.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:54, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Once again you're more bothered about who gave their opinion rather than what's right. I said quite clearly that the vote represents general opinion. However the points made in the discussion more than justify the consensus outcome. The vote did not decide the consensus. You just can't accept that the community disagreed with you that's all. Legolas provided length reasoning why you were wrong. I pointed out how in my experience there is a copyright breach. Chase demonstrated these points too. Plus it was pointed out that no other gaga single article contains the promo cover over the digital one. Only recently IKnow23 has pointed out that the physical cover prevails over the digital one as did several other users previously. And then there's you who's argued the same thing over and over that its not a breach of copyright wp:NFCC. In the discussion the main issue was that "having a non-free image has to be justified by explaining why it contributes and expands reader understanding" since this could not be resolved the consensus was to use just one cover. does this now make sense? From past experience i too have been informed via consensus that the physical cover prevails over the digital. do you know understand where the consensus has come from that your are so against? Lil-unique1 (talk) 05:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with anything that I have been doing save for a bit of reverting. Two album covers should be allowable, but you all decided against it. Now, the original cover which just happens to only be used for the digital and promotional releases should be allowable, but you're deciding it isn't and doing another fucking vote. That's all I understand from this situation other than there is a small group of users who collectively control the content of these articles.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:33, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok i accept your frustration and to prove that there is no bias or collective vote fixing etc. going on i've removed the survey from the discussion. it will not be part of the new consensus. would you prefer that? also i would like to request that you please now accept the decision of the consensus whatever it turns out to be. We're grownups so lets deal with this politely and maturely. I admit that i might have been a bit harsh in enforcing the consensus. But i genuinly believe that there was enough evidence and support in the last consensus to support my actions. I'm sorry if you felt outnumbered. that really wasn't my intention. Lets see how the discussion develops. agreed? and please don't use profanity. Lil-unique1 (talk) 05:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I accepted the decision of the consensus last time even when it was a vote: one image. No specific image was stated.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 05:59, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Not that I'm complaining (that much) since I believe the article should be titled "Sk8er Boi" as well, but what consensus shows that the article should be titled "Sk8er Boi" and not the wikipedia standard "Skater Boi"? I saw no discussion regarding this major change which will likely only re-ignite an editwar... If there is a consensus, I'd like to see between whom. It appears none of the major contributors to the Avril Lavigne articles have recently given opinion on this subject anywhere...~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 03:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

There was one on the subsequent discussion at WT:MOSTM.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Roger that. Found the discussion (and just now realized you posted a link on my talk page). Completely agree with the points. Is there a way we can request a page move protection to avoid warring? ~ [ Scott M. Howard ]:[ Talk ] ~ 03:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

WP:RFPP should do that.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The anime version of Heroman follows a slightly different story from the manga. The anime was announced at TAF 2010 and interviews with Director Namba and other staff members during the HEROMAN press conference mention explained all of the points I've added. I included the reference links and also attended so I saw the episodes myself. Please do not remove information about the anime version if you have not seen it yourself. Thank you. Secondtuesday (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2010 (UTC) Tuesday

The anime is not out yet. Your original research is therefore forbidden. Also, you have not provided any sort of source for this information. All you are saying is that it's the press conference, but the info you are adding merely says something about a coming of age story, which is not important at the moment.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Your work describing the manga is very appreciated but you are not informed about the anime version differences because the coming of age story was discussed at the HEROMAN Panel during Tokyo Anime Fair 2010-- Simply because you could not attend does not mean that the hundreds of other people who were there are "original research".

I am a translator for the production company and they asked me to make the change, so I will continue to revise it. After the episodes begin airing, you will see that you are being persistent for no good reason. Have a good day. Secondtuesday (talk) 19:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Then I am afraid you have to read our conflict of interest policies.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:20, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

You have stated here that you work for Studio BONES (or another production company) and were asked by your superiors to add the "coming of age" statement and the quote describing the story of the anime version. Now, for starters, you are currently violating our conflict of interest guidelines. The fact that you work for or have a financial stake in the subject of an article means that you should generally never edit that article. Now that I've described that, and you can continue reading our guidelines at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

For the second issue with the content you are adding, other than the mention of "coming of age" and the quote that you are not attributing to anywhere except for the internal press releases that you are probably reading from to add it, the content is not dramatically different from the section you deem as only being the "manga story". You are merely stating that it was announced at "Tokyo Anime Fair 2010", that it is a "coming of age story", that it is directed at a "slightly older audience", and you are adding the quote that you claim comes from fliers given out at some booths at TAF2010. This is not essential to the understanding of the subject of the article. From what anyone who was not at TAF2010 knows, the only thing we do not know is the "coming of age" part. There is no need to differentiate the story as known from the manga and news leading up to the anime release and the story as known from a few fliers given out at TAF.

You can tell your superiors that they can stop screwing around with the English Wikipedia page on Heroman and the editors of this website who are not hired by an animation studio will deal with any errors.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 21:32, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Secondtuesday, while we appreciate your input, we're going to need something more than mere "word of mouth" or "he said/she said" to verify this information. Secondly, please do not intend to engage in edit warring as that is not allowed and will get you barred from editing altogether. We just need something more concrete such as a video or a transcript or something like that. That's all we need. Hope that helps, –MuZemike 21:53, 31 March 2010 (UTC)