This archive contains topics 376-400 made on my talk page. Its history on the main talk page ends at this edit.

I see you closed the GA review on Eglinton Tournament of 1839. It was appropriate for the review to close, since it had been on hold for a week, and it was still some way off. However, I feel that, as the initial reviewer, it was my place to close the review and offer explanations (which I intended to do after the weekend). I invested time in the review, and built up some rapport with the lead editors, through discussion and user talk pages, and feel it only fair that I should be the one to conclude matters. For the editors involved, such an approach would offer less discouragement, especially if they felt they had reached some understanding with me. I understand your concerns about the backlog of "on holds", but wish you had approached me first. That said, I don't hold a grudge, and am not greatly offended! I will, however, bring the matter up at the GAN talk page, to see what consensus is: it might be I've over-reacted to what is standard practice! Gwinva (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. No toes broken... I've commented at the review page and user talk pages as I intended, so all sorted. Sorry if I sounded snotty. Gwinva (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi Erachima.

Thanks for your GA review of Brain Gym. I've made a couple of changes and replied on the talk page - I'd appreciate your input as the reviewer before I nominate it again - if you wouldn't mind taking a look, I'd appreciate it. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 03:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw your plea on the GA talk page. I would be happy to review the article so that you don't have to wait in the queue again, but I don't know anything about manga. Let me know if you would still like me to review it. Awadewit (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

You've been mentioned in ANI initiated here by Ncmvocalist (talk) in connection to Carnatic Music article. If you wish you may provide your input. Thanks for your earlier constructive comments on the article. Naadapriya (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

I was trying to resolve the dispute between A Link to the Past and MickMacNee and get closure on the AfD (both users are have now been reported to ANI on this situation). I didn't quite understand what you meant by WP:NOTNEWS, as I didn't mention the policy at all while trying to argue that the article be kept. I stopped trying to argue with MickMacNee when it was evident I wasn't going to do any more good by arguing further. However, the user persisted with others, and I felt that dispute resolution steps (in this case, via WP:3O) would be necessary to stop the ongoing dispute. MuZemike (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to get anybody blocked, I'm trying to get help to explain to a newbie how articles should be written. Corvus cornix_talk 19:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so you may be right that I could have went about it in a different way. However, due to past experiences on Wikipedia, I've found that most of the time trying to avoid a conflict or an edit war is out of the question. Case in point: I fully expect the editor who uploaded all those images to remove your group image and re-include his eight single images due to his past reverts, and the fact that he was calling me a vandal. What will you do then if/when the editor does that? Some of the time, I've found, you just have to be forceful enough, and the other editor will back off. Of course this doesn't always happen, but the end result was the same, wasn't it? The images ending up getting removed in favor of a group image. Had I been more familiar with the article's content, I'd probably uploaded a group image myself, but as I said before, I would have fully expected it to get reverted. And because I didn't want to chase my own tail by going into a debate with the user on the article's talk page (as I have done before in similar cases, mind) I asked for help from the project, and got a quick response and solution to the problem. I'll keep in mind your advice for future references.--十八 02:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The article was being vandalised. Pure and simple. He just came in, removed all the images and insisted it was right. No attempt at starting a discussion in the article's talk page to reach a consensus was made. He just removed the images while insisting he was correct as he had been here longer and failed to address the fact that many other anime pages have character sections full of non free use images, and nobody seems to have an issue with it, despite those anime pages being far larger and frequented than Kara no Kyoukai, which would also be policed by far more editors.

If he was really concerned with addressing the issue of excessive usage of non free use images, he would have gone around removing images from many more articles, and not just this relatively obscure article. For instance i do not see him removing Kurosaki Ichigo's FOUR non free use images from the bleach character section, and everyone agreeing with the removal. In fact i am very sure that if i were to right now, this instant, go and remove all of Kurosaki Ichigo's non free use images from the bleach character section, citing the same rule the KnK article vandal did, the removal would be immediately reverted and there would be a major uproar about my vandalism and people complaining that i had made no effort to ask for a consensus on the article's talk page. The KnK vandal knows that this would happen, hence the reason he did this to a relatively obscure article rather than a major one.

If other anime character sections can have this many non free use images per character, then clearly the Kara no Kyoukai article can have one per character. You can argue that one group image would suffice. This argument applies to...oh...every single anime character section on wikipedia. And yet, evidently dozens of editors and contributors have no issues with not using group images for many anime character sections.

Differences in opinions on what should or should not be in an article must be settled through discussions on the article talk page and an appropriate consensus reached, rather than one guy coming in and constantly making edits that he insists is right, while claiming the article is in violation of a rule that more major articles have evidently been violating for years with nobody raising any objections, except for one guy for one article. I would therefore like the article reverted to its previous state before this issue occured while the issue is discussed on the article's talk page. Question2 (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It's nice to find someone on the Manual of Style pages who thinks editors should be treated as intelligent adults. Please stick around; there aren't so many who think so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I am currently in the process of moving what will be deleted from my user space onto my new INNewsCenter Wiki. However, I am wanting my wiki to be very similar to Wikipedia.

BTW, I have saved those articles on my hard drive and ready to be transferred to the INNewsCenter Wiki. If you have any other ideas before 9/22/08, I would like those suggestions.

I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.

• Aeverine Frathleen Nieves 16:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question, they should be removed when spotted on anime/manga articles. A lot haven't yet, but that's cause we also haven't cleaned a lot of articles period yet ;P There is a lengthy discussion about it on either the project or MoS page, and the consensus was reached between both our project and the Japan one. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 04:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, two of the three topics I've made are entirely lists, so I'm actually more intimately familiar with topics based around lists. As for your proposal, my big sticking point is creating all the spinout lists. The present list is 56k, and after improvements (lead, sourcing, cleanup, etc.), I would estimate it to be no greater than 65-70k, so it would be a bit of a stretch to divide up the list. So unless you plan to add more material to each individual sub-list, then there's little-to-no point in splitting. Also, the main list actually needs content to make it through WP:FLC, so having more detailed sub-lists would be necessary. When I think of splitting stuff out due to size, my foremost thought is List of Naruto characters (89k) and the necessity of having List of Naruto antagonists (61k) separate to make the former manageable. I've actually spent a lot of time investigating potential topics since good topics were put into place, and it's often harder than it looks to create a viable topic (Talk:Naruto#Another of my big, dramatic ideas and User talk:Collectonian#Claymore FT are two such ideas). So yeah, if I was rather dense right here and missed something in how you envisioned this topic being formed (which wouldn't surprise me given how tired I am), then please inform me. Now, off to bed... sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm glad you're finding it so hilarious.

What makes you say that the page is already at Honour killing? Isn't the latter just a redirect?

Also, please remember to talk about requested moves on the article's talk page. Thanks, Andjam (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. Andjam (talk) 04:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Think I got everything. Cheers, sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

The article Vinland Saga (manga) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Vinland Saga (manga) for things needed to be addressed. Wronkiew (talk) 04:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I know I'm being insistent, but I've got ten (imaginary) bucks that says if I move the thread to UNDUE they'll tell me it's the wrong venue... probably only several hours later, since it's quite late now in the States. care to bet any imaginary money? :-) Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 08:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

PS— technoclassical? Dude, I love Tomita's version of The Planets. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 08:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'm really confused. The DVDs correctly match the seasons up to the Bount Assault arc, and after that, it becomes really weird. The DVDs split the Arrancar arc in half, make the other half and half of the Hueco Mundo arc into an arc, and then make the rest of the Hueco Mundo arc into its own arc (see List of Bleach episodes#DVD releases). I was going to cleanup the rest of the episode lists, but I believe this disrepancy needs to be dealt with first. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 04:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

So, do we need to revamp the season lists, or is just the way the DVDs go? This is basically the only thing that needs to be resolved so I can start fixing up the rest of the lists. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 01:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

np. In any case, are the translations in List of Bleach episodes#DVD releases accurate? If so, I can start revamping the rest of the season lists. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I think I've cleaned that up. Also, I've listed the Bleach episode lists as a potential topic here at the topic workshop, so you might want to list yourself as one of the collaborators on the topic. Cheers, sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Could you check out the sources in the AfD found for Lady Luck (rapper)? I think they might meet your concerns. Hobit (talk) 03:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Is there a reason delistings should not be at Wikipedia:Good_articles/recent. You made an edit indicating there is.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The recent page is a place for people to see the latest changes in the list of GAs. Delistings are important changes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that Featured content promotions and demotions are both included in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost and Wikipedia:Goings-on. Wikipedia:Good_articles/recent is the only place to find out the recent changes in WP:GAs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I undid your edit. Gary King (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I guess I misread the topic as Notability as it related to lists. Please accept my apologies for the interruption of your private conversation on Anime.Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

A Thank You Card!

Dear Erachima, thank you so much for your words of support, kindness, and your trust in me. My request for Adminship has been closed, and the support the community has shown will be with me forever. I have no way to properly express how grateful I am, and all I can tell you is this: I shall try not to disappoint you nor anyone else with my use of the buttons... and if I mess up, please tell me! :) If you ever need my help, either for admin-related stuff or in any other way, you are welcome to ask, and I shall do my very best. Please take care. G.A.S 07:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Just noting that a pertinent place to perhaps introduce your proposal for list inclusion that will have lots of community attention is here. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Erachima, you posted at one or more of the recent discussions of short FAs. There's now a proposal to change the featured article criteria that attempts to address this. Please take a look and consider adding your comments to the straw poll there. Mike Christie (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Awesome job on it. 207.80.142.5 (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)