Well to start, I apologize if I offended you. The term of the not a crystal ball really exists in wikipedia, as be bold or anything else. Second, although I read Episode G I dont understand many panels so I dont understand the weapons. Third, many editors have told me not to edit somethings unless Im sure. Again, I apologize and I hope we will get on well(that sounded strange...). Tintor2 10:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I apologise you in return for being angry. I don't know if I've shown too much aggression on what I told you. If I have, sorry.

As for Kreios' Soma, I've provided the possible weapon Kreios' Soma can be on the concerning talk page already. Please check. I'm willing to discuss. Anthonydraco (talk) 22:54, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About that line I checked in two editions and the quoote of Shaka was:

"I dont understand it... if the Pope was Saga how couldnt I feel minor darkness inside him?" It was the same page, I read two versions.

Apart from that if you read Lost Canvas I wanted to ask you if you know if the specter Veronica is a man or a woman. Tintor2 10:38, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not that far yet.Anthonydraco (talk) 21:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that the manga translation in this my zone is not very reliable after all. My version clearly said that. If the english and original says otherwise, I have nothing to argue. Thanks for the info. I'll write to the publisher of the version I have about it. Anthonydraco (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, long time. After a talk with an experienced user from manga and other things, he told me we can edit the volume 7 although we dont know the chapters. The point is that as most tankobon come with 8 chapters I wrote 8 in the volume 7. However, before writing the volume 8, we need to confirm its release date. Well see you.Tintor2 21:15, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About Episode G, I have most volumes downloaded from a website but in spanish, I think you can create an article of Episode G characters and merged the ones of the article to reduce the length of the main one. I have been rewording some characters from Lost Canvas to present tense but they are a lot. Ill see what I can do.Tintor2 00:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might require page numbers too. If the web can provide those, then by all means, feel free to tag them. Anthonydraco (talk) 01:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mind if I create an article for the characters in Episode G? that would be more organized in my opinion, Im also going to give more style to the chapters guide giving dates, isbn and their respective references.Tintor2 12:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're asking the wrong person. I didn't write most of the Episode G, just parts on Mu, Doko, Shion, Shaka and Deathmask and add details here and there. The person who did that seems to be HadesDragon. I could be wrong, so... just check the history who wrote most of it.

I started a discussion in Talk:List of Saint Seiya The Lost Canvas characters. Please pay a look and comment. Tintor2 00:03, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is something I would like to ask you: Do the tankobon you have of Episode G have some words of Megumu Okada? The Episode.G characters article need some out-of-universe. Also, I would like to know if Megumu Okada comments sometimes about Pegasus Seiya (opinions, bla). Regards.Tintor2 17:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I know of. I see nothing of that sort. Anthonydraco (talk) 21:04, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh god, I was waiting for someone to use my up-and-coming artist UBX. Thanks so much! Are you really one? Want to see some of your work then. ;) --Jw21/PenaltyKillah ^{VANucks|24-14-4} 07:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I'm glad I'm your first user then. :D I'm not exactly an artist... well, not yet anyway. I'm actually someone forced to take something I don't like and it's now too late to turn back. My work ain't that good. I've sold only one. x_x

And... you said you want to see my works, check http://anthonydraco.deviantart.com/gallery/ if you want. Be warned though, you might not share my preference.

Nice... those portraits are quite life-like. Thanks for sharing. I bet you won't need that "up-and-coming" prefix anytime soon! --Jw21/PenaltyKillah ^{VANucks|24-14-4} 20:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Next time when you post a comment on a talk page, always sign your name at the end of the message (click the button with a signature, in between the "No W" button and the dash button).

When you reply, just add a colon (":") in the beginning of the line, followed by a space. It would cause an indentation, imitating a nested-style thread. Hope this helps. (Reply at my talk page.) --Jw21/PenaltyKillah ^{VANucks|24-14-4} 20:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the link to WP:Prose in the misunderstanding on how Wikipedia prefers prose over lists. IMHO I believe it works better the other way around. When in Rome....Zer0Nin3r (talk) 09:34, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have a little request. I have been working in Himura Kenshin and I found this [1] and [2]. I noted you know japanese. Could you tell me what does image 1 says and what image 2 too? Thanks. Sorry for bothering.Tintor2 12:57, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, sorry to say that my Japanese isn't that fluent. I'm not too good with grammar. Sentences in the manga are not so formal, and quite beyond my grammartical knowledge. I can translate some Kanji, but I need help from Kanji dictionary too. It takes time for me to translate. I'm too near an exam. I honestly can't help, not that I don't want to help.Anthonydraco (talk) 18:01, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem.Tintor2 18:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments of Shiori Teshirogi, it will be very useful.--Tintor2 (talk) 23:40, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Fancruft. Only important notes about the character should be added, no possibilities or overdetailed summaries. A good example of a character list is this one.Tintor2 (talk) 17:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the Episode.G question, I dont understand the draws very well. About the other question, feel free to revert any edit you consider overdetailed and explain why. Best wishes.--Tintor2 (talk) 00:25, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate your answer.

Fair enough; perhaps instruction creep was too derogatory a term to use, as it implies that you were intending to over-control the article. Allow me to unequivocally state that I do not feel you were trying to do that. I just feel it really isn't necessary. If the same sort of problem keeps occurring, its usually best to come the discussion page, find a consensus, and then point to it when/if the problem recurs. Most folk, I have learned through long, hard experience, don't listen to hidden instructions anyway. They do listen to consensus, or fail to at their peril. Thanks for letting me know politely, Anthonydraco. You have no idea how much I appreciate civility. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 13:52, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kudos, but I give credit where credit is due. That gem of an article is largely the work of Tintor2 and Kung Fu Man and if i've had a part, it's very minor. Sincerely Subzerosmokerain (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only removed the mention of destroying the soul snare to make the sentence more readable, I wrote the plot section originally and had mentioned the destruction of the soul snare, it was removed to thin the section down. I agree with you and only removed it to lessen the length of the plot section, I meant no slight on your wording. Revert the edit/re-add the mention of the snare being destroyed, I would but I'm on my iPhone and it runs the desktop version too slowly haha, apologies for any misunderstanding dude!Bobfordsgun (talk) 15:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't offended! You were completely right about the summary needing an extra phrase to clarify that Neo grew up in the simulated world, so I kept that addition with a bit of rewording.

As for the debate over how to describe the point at which he's ambushed: "just before" is a fair enough way of wording it. I only reduced it to one word "upon" because of my longstanding obsession with keeping the section's word count as low as possible. I know it's only a difference of one word, but I can be a bit wary of edits that might eventually lead to the plot summary creeping up above the recommended length, as it has in the past! :) --Nick R^Talk 13:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Sections don't have to be a set length, just not too small that they could be merged into another section. The sizes seem ok to me. I have just got a job so I can't help much either. I youtubed and found The Matrix Revisted here (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=+The+Matrix+Revisited+&oq=+The+Matrix+Revisited+&gs_l=youtube.12...944.944.0.2396.1.1.0.0.0.0.264.264.2-1.1.0...0.0...1ac.1.gBrI5gxrYcc) assuming thats the right one. You can cite video, just cite it from where its from (So from a dvd or whatever) not Youtube but you need to use Time codes to say what point of the vieo you got a particular piece of information from. So "Trinity was intended to be a 400ib black man" then your ref would say 13m50s or something like that. When you get t that point I can show you how to ref like that. What I would suggest you do at this point is add it to the Guild of Copy Editors waiting list because that will take a while, I had things on there for weeks, you can continue working on it while you wait. You could also nominate it for GA as they will tell you what is wrong and what needs fixing, but there is some risk involved since if its something you cant get done in time (about a week) they might fail it (not a big deal you can nominate it again in a few weeks). It will instant fail if it has things like "citation needed" on it though. You might also want to post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film as that is the film project. You could say what you are trying to do, explain the situation and you might attract someone who is interested in the film or sees how they can otherwise help. Or try Wikipedia:Peer review. Peer review is where someone basically comes along and reviews the article, tells you what it might need to improve (but they wont help you with it). Lots of options for you. I know it's hard work Draco, most articles I have done I have had to do alone and it takes a while, people only tend to work hard on things they are interested in, so there are lots of film editors who will be working on articles, but on the films they like. So I worked on Scream (film) first because I was into it at the time and that was my first GA and that had been a mess for years before I started on it. Don't get discouraged, it'll get to GA in time even if it isn't in the next few weeks. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:03, 28 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Anthony for the good suggestions. I wasn't aware of a word limit on Wikipedia article plot summaries, but it makes sense--I've seen some REALLY long movie plot descriptions in some Wikipedia articles, and I don't want to encourage that. As I was editing the Plot section, I realized it was already pretty long, and wondered if I was just making it tediously longer. I'll come back to the article to do some trimming later, but it's a little late tonight for me to do more work on it. JohnSawyer (talk) 08:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are exceptions, of course. 2001:A Space Odyssey (film) for instance. It's a good article. But really, an exception is an exception only when not article aims to be one. LOL. I'll edit that myself. Anthonydraco (talk) 16:00, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, following a review of your contributions, I have enabled rollback on your account. Please take note of the following:

• Rollback gives you access to certain scripts, including Huggle and Igloo, some of which can be very powerful, so exercise caution
• Rollback is only for blatant vandalism
• Having Rollback rights does not give you any special status or authority
• Misuse of Rollback can lead to its removal by any administrator
• Please read Help:Reverting and Wikipedia:Rollback feature to get to know the workings of the feature
• You can test Rollback at Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback
• You can display the {{User wikipedia/rollback}} userbox or the {{Rollback}} top icon on your user page

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me. Reaper Eternal (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel it would improve the article then feel free to add it in. I agree it should be in considering the leap from Casino Royale to Skyfall in terms of gross, but I would wait until the figure settles down a bit beforehand. TheClown90 (talk) 21:45, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anthonydraco. You have new messages at Darkwarriorblake's talk page.
Message added 02:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]

Darkwarriorblake (talk) 02:33, 4 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy to try. Finding a third-party mediator is an excellent first step and something Wikipedia encourages. --Tenebrae (talk) 15:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I went to Talk:Skyfall shortly after you asked, and SchroCat replied there saying he wasn't sure you both were that far apart. He asked that you supply some additional information on that page. I guess that's a place to start. --Tenebrae (talk) 00:36, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the US, actually.

I'm a little confused. I went to Talk:Skyfall, said I'm be happy to mediate, and SchroCat wrote, "I'm not sure exactly what's being mediated here, as I think it's partly to do with a mis-reading of the situation, so perhaps AD could outline what he sees to be the main points of the issues?" I then came here and suggested that would be a good start — outlining how you see the main issue(s). Try that, and after SchroCat sees it, I'll ask again if he's willing to try mediation. Hang in there — having been on the other side myself, I know these things can take time. --Tenebrae (talk) 05:29, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I've posted. And please forgive me if I edited out the details about my work. It wasn't my intention. Anthonydraco (talk) 12:30, 7 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Anthony. I'll go take a look. As for SchroCat's "idiotic" comment, it looks like he was referring to himself in a self-deprecating way and not really being uncivil toward anyone. --Tenebrae (talk) 18:21, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see that other edit summary here. It doesn't appear to refer to your immediately previous edit, but to an earlier one where someone had replaced a dollar sign with a pound sign. And you're right: We should never use such insulting language as calling another editor's work "idiotic" — that's uncivil and just unnecessary. I find that very disappointing and I'm surprised to see an editor of our caliber sink, however temporarily, to that level. --Tenebrae (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

see my talk. its all fine JTBX (talk) 12:41, 11 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anthonydraco. You have new messages at Erik's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	I know it's hard doing referencing and harder doing it on an already built article like The Matrix where you have to fix references you didn't create, but you're doing a great job and your work will pay off! Darkwarriorblake (talk) 14:15, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! *shed tears of joy* Anthonydraco (talk) 19:12, 4 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what typo you were referring too, but if you want to modify it for display purposes, you can. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Start a discussion and I'll support you, I agree that the edits you describe are not appropriate, especially the use of "warm". You can say it received a generally positive reception, or acclaim if it won major awards, but "warm"? No, that means nothing. Darkwarriorblake (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Barnstar, there were missing punctuations here, you said "I know its hard" and "didn;t" so I fixed them before you came. If you're offended, sorry about that. I know I should've waited. >_< Anthonydraco (talk) 04:20, 5 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Jumper (film), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Teleport (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Good news... the copyedit is now complete.

Bad news... there's significant close paraphrasing (see WP:PARAPHRASE) from at least one source.

Duplication detector report from before I started copyediting, to show the extent of the original problem with use of that one source (it could in fact have been worse than this previously).

Duplication detector report showing what's left right now.

You probably need to find out who added the most problematic of these copy-pastes (Wikipedia:WikiBlame may be able to help) and then work out what else they added to the article, as that will also need checking.

This may all seem a bit extreme, but it's better to sort it out now rather than later. Otherwise, if it's submitted for GA and passes, it'd likely end up getting de-listed later, which makes the reviewer, the nominator, and the copy-editor all look silly, and also ends with no GA. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 19:05, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking me about Eva 3.0 and letting me know about the plot problems (though it seems you were already working something out with our mysterious contributor, while I was getting a good night's sleep). I've made some of my own edits, which you are welcome to examine and edit (plot is still over the 700 word limit, but the sheer amount of plot dumps and not fully explained vagaries may prevent this). Thanks again for reaching out! Ode2joy (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I didn't know things were in flux — it seemed like with you and ScroCat especially it was good hands. I'll go take a look. I've seen AmericanDad edit and he can be needlessly aggressive. --Tenebrae (talk) 14:52, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Anthony. Just now seeing your post on my talk page. I'm certainly all for changing refs from fan sites to journalistic sites. Good research! --Tenebrae (talk) 15:06, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've paraphrased some material that was directly copied from this article. Compare this duplication report with this one to see what I've done so far. As you can see, only five-word matches are left now (except one which lists the names of the actors). Five-word matches include phrases that don't have to be or can't be translated (e.g. The Lord of the Rings). Therefore, I think we don't have to paraphrase the remaining material that could've been taken from Andrew Godoski's article. What do you say? Nataev ^talk 11:42, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have a quick question. In the article different sections of The Matrix Revisited DVD are cited. Should I call them sections or chapters in the citation syntax? Take a look at this edit to see what I mean. I think they should be called sections. What do you say? Nataev ^talk 07:36, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've already changed all of the short citations. Do you think the current version is better? Take a look at this discussion. It seems like if we cite a lot of books we might have to use sfn style again. Nataev ^talk 10:09, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Didn't know about this. Sorry. (Btw, I think it is not going to be easy to ascertain which full stops are part of the quoted material and which are not.) I think the best thing we can do now is to undo all of the edits until we reach my edit where I changed the punctuation. Then one of my edits needs to be restored. Shall I proceed? Nataev ^talk 11:22, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand what you're trying to do. Which edit should we revert back to? Also, determining which full stop belongs inside or outside is easy. If the quote includes a whole sentence, full stop goes inside the quotation marks. If it's a phrase, full stop outside. Anthonydraco (talk) 11:35, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's done. I've reverted my edits. Since I did't know about the wiki manual of style, I thought having all the symbols inside quotation marks would look nice. Now I see I was wrong. Like I said above, I've restored the previous punctuation of the article. Nataev ^talk 12:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

hi,

I disagree with your undo of my change on The Matrix page. i wish you would have talked before undoing unilaterally.

I had modeled my change on the pages for the Matrix franchise, Bound, V for Vendetta, the Invasion, and Speed Racer. All the past credits that I have found to Larry elsewhere in Wikipedia have been changed to Lana (Ectokid...)

Let me ask you this: In real life, how would you explain to a ten year old who has never heard of the Matrix who the creative team was?

Would you tell someone:

1) "The matrix was created by The Wachowski Brothers" or 2) "The Matrix was created by The Wachowskis"

Alternate question: 1) "The Matrix was created by Larry and Andy Wachowski" or 2) "The Matrix was created by Lana and Andy Wachowski"

People interested in the origins of the creative team and their history can click on the link to the page "The Wachowskis" and learn everything there is to learn.

Alternate question: in 20 years, will there be any mention of the Wachowski Brothers anywhere outside of a few pages that explain the transition?

Also, not sure why my entry was against Truth and History. How is my entry ("The Matrix was directed by the Wachowskis") untruthful or incorrect historically?

Finally, how do you go from my entry "The Matrix was directed by the Wachowskis" to your comment: "Incorrect: Larry was a a man at the time, nothing changed on his birth certificate". Where did I imply the he wasn't a man at the time? Did I say "The Matrix was directed by a man and a woman"? Isnt the name "The Wachowskis" compatible with both members of the team being any gender?

Best, Camille Camille Lambert (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Camillelambert,

Whatever your reason was, you need a source to conform with WP:V.

They are credited as The Wachowski Brothers, not The Wachowskis.

Note that they are "The Wachowskis" and "The Wachowski Brothers". Capital T, proper nouns. Those are the names they chose. A normal "the Wachowskis" could mean their entire family, but "The Wachowskis" only means Lana and Andy. Same goes for "The Wachowski Brothers", which means only Larry and Andy.

Your entry is false, because while this does not identify their gender, they adopted The Wachowskis as their official credit after Larry became Lana. You also said "written and directed by The Wachowskis, formerly known as The Wachowski Brothers," meaning that you admitted that "The Wachowskis" and "The Wachowski Brothers" are two different names, so which name to use matters, and the name of the directors must be the ones they use at the time they directed. Again, you cannot contradict the source materials. Also, the sentence, while true, rang false. It sounded as if they directed the film while they were "The Wachowskis", while "The Wachowski Brothers" had been their name before they did the movie. Openly naming them Brothers is clearer.

Let me ask you this: In real life, how would you explain to a ten year old who has never heard of the Matrix who the creative team was?

I will say "The matrix was created by The Wachowski Brothers" or "Larry and Andy Wachowskis". And if he asked who they are, I will explain who they are now and who Larry became. But that point of being Larry should be left noticeable, as Lana being once Larry affected the production. For instance, Weaving stated that he made Smith's voice after Larry's voice. This is the article about the movie, not about her. Things should be complete, obvious, clear. The less we need to dig about it, the better. Obscuring the fact that they were once Brothers takes away the key point that Lana was once male and how his identity affected the production. The more we avoid using The Wachowski Brothers in its respective past context makes Lana's former identity more deeply buried. Wikipedia is not a place to bury this fact.

People interested in the origins of the creative team and their history can click on the link to the page "The Wachowskis" and learn everything there is to learn.

This is irrelevant. People can do the same to the link when it says "The Wachowski Brothers".

Alternate question: in 20 years, will there be any mention of the Wachowski Brothers anywhere outside of a few pages that explain the transition?

At this rate, if revisionist keep trying to bury the name "The Wachowski Brothers", none - or at least increasingly scarce. This is what I mean by "Wikipedia records truth and history": record and preserve verifiable knowledge. Keep pretending "The Wachowskis" has always been "The Wachowskis" and not once "The Wachowski Brothers" damage the clarity of the record. The point of recording history is to remember, favorable or not, as long as they're true. The recorded facts should be easy to recognize now as 20 years from now. The more we try to use "The Wachowskis" in place of "The Wachowskis Brothers" before the transition, the harder it is to dig this fact up in the future. Out of respect, we use that term that for their subsequent productions and their biographic page. But this is an article about the movie, not the persons. Wikipedia is not a place to right the great wrongs (WP:GREATWRONGS), in this case: satisfy their/transgenders' need to bury the fact that they were once born with different genders.

Also, not sure why my entry was against Truth and History. How is my entry ("The Matrix was directed by the Wachowskis") untruthful or incorrect historically?

This question is already answered above.

Where did I imply the he wasn't a man at the time? Did I say "The Matrix was directed by a man and a woman"? Isnt the name "The Wachowskis" compatible with both members of the team being any gender?

You didn't. However, your version of wording hides the fact that Lana was once a man, and place that fact where it is harder to spot, where it should've been obvious. Anthonydraco (talk) 06:58, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Tony (can I call you Tony? :) kidding

So you write "I will say "The matrix was created by Larry and Andy Wachowski"".

So by your logic, if I ask you "Who directed the matrix together with Andy Wachowski?" You would reply "Larry Wachowski"?

And if I ask you "Who directed the "Cloud Atlas" together with Andy Wachowski?" You would reply "Lana Wachowski"?

Cheers,

Camille Lambert (talk) 06:24, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly as you said. One of the two directors of The Matrix: Larry. One of the two directors of Cloud Atlas: Lana. Anthonydraco (talk) 08:46, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So would you consider the following statement incorrect: "Lana Wachowski co-directed the Matrix."?

Of course, it is incorrect. She was not Lana at the time. Anthonydraco (talk) 21:01, 4 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Camillelamber, I have reverted your removal of my entire talk page between this reply and my previous reply. Please study WP:talk, especially WP:TPO before removing my entire talk page except this discussion. On my talk page, you do not have my permission to edit anything else besides your own comments. Anthonydraco (talk) 00:14, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This was of course an honest mistake, my apologies. Was logged off by wikipedia and tried to ctrl+c my change before logging back in. Must have dome something funky in te process.

Will dig out and repost my entry (properly) later.

Thanks, 209.122.206.100 (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No need to bother. Here's the response:

CamilleLambert, you've said it yourself: "they are not brothers anymore but siblings." If you are an English speaker, "the Matrix was directed by The Wachowski Brothers" shouldn't be confusing to you, as it says "was", not "are". Whether The Wachowski Brothers are still The Wachowski Brothers now is irrelevant. The info you're trying to add is about what they are, but the sentence is "the Matrix was directed by".

Here is the recommendation from the National Lesbian and Gay Journalists Association on the historical usage of gender pronouns, provided by another long-time respectable editor who contributed many good articles:

And when I asked the NLGJA by e-mail to clarify its policy on reporting about Manning’s past, a spokesperson for the group said it would recommend “he” for historical reference too: “When writing about events prior to when the person began living publicly as the opposite gender, NLGJA recommends using the name and gender the individual used publicly at that time. For example: Chelsea Manning, formerly known as Bradley, came out as transgender last week. In a statement, Manning said she had felt this way since childhood. Manning grew up in Oklahoma. In middle school, he was very outspoken in class about government issues and religious beliefs, friends said.

You can read the full article at http://entertainment.time.com/2013/08/28/when-did-chelsea-manning-become-chelsea-manning/. It seems like a very sensible recommendation to me i.e. the "she" pronoun is not applied retrospectively, but only applies from the point that Larry took "Lana" as a name.

No newspaper would print such a sentence today because they are not responsible for keeping historical record but printing the news now. Most links you've provided mean almost nothing, as their concern is concision and convenience, not historical accuracy. While historical record IS the purpose of Wikipedia. It's easier to respect Lana by using her current name, but many news outlet don't bother to go beyond that to clarify the historical accuracy. None of the links actually proved that Lana directed The Matrix while being Lana. The news writers were not concerned about it. The links only proved that the same pair of human beings directed it; not that one of them has always been identified as a woman. That none of them bother to clarify this these days emphasizes my point. Someone somewhere should be keep the record, otherwise it's going to be completely buried. You might think this won't happen, but same goes for using two digits to record year number in computers before Y2K problem. It can be avoided by only a little foresight. If your concern is respect, we're already respecting her in her biography, but Wikipedia shouldn't compromise truth over it. We post no libel in Bill Clinton's article and show him no disrespect, but still his article contains his sex scandal. The latter is not respect, but as long as it's verifiable truth, it goes in. We even respect spree killer the same way, but any kill details go in.

Only IMDB seemed to word it well enough: "Lana Wachowski - previously Laurence (Larry) Wachowski - is a sibling of Andy Wachowski, of the creative 'Watchowskis' duo behind ground-breaking movies like The Matrix (1999) and Cloud Atlas (2012)." As they acknowledged Lana's previous identity, but you will note that 'Wachowkis' here is used in general English sense, not 'The Wachowskis'. Plus, IMDB is made up of user-generated content. They are unreliable by Wikipedia standard.

Of all the Wikipedia articles you have provided, you can dismiss all that are not officially acknowledged as good article. The rest are in shambles because no particularly experienced editors care to make any significant changes on them. Among those that work, only Bound works in any good sense. And it works in Bound because the editors agreed, and that their gender identities did not affect the production in a verifiable (citable) way. The rest are irrelevant because by the time they directed those movies, Lana was already Lana.

If you desperately need a compromise, the modifier (the clarifier, the note) should be secondary to the historical record, for instance: "the Matrix was directed by The Wachowski Brothers (currently known as The Wachowskis)". Or something like that. And keep the rest of the article as it is because they had been males throughout the direction of this movie. We don't use 'The Wachowskis' anywhere here as this means them after the transition. And we use 'the Wachowskis' only in flexible general English sense for variety. We're not going to go out of our way to bury the fact that they were brothers. Anthonydraco (talk) 01:16, 5 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anthonydraco. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the edit at The Covenant. My edit was to make the references to David and Walter consistent throughout the article. In the first paragraph David is called a synthetic, while in the second paragraph Walter is called an android. These should be consistent and possibly you can look at this. Either choice of description works, though they should be consistent if you could edit in your preference for both of them. ManKnowsInfinity (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2017 (UTC) .[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Anthonydraco (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Caught by an open proxy block but this host or IP is not an open proxy. Been using this account for almost 10 years with no problem. No alternate account. Hardly even log off to edit with bare IP address. Always follow the guidelines and policy and has never been blocked by administrators before. Please investigate. Anthonydraco (talk) 20:43, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Hello! You forgot to tell us your IP address, so we can't investigate your claim. You can find this using WhatIsMyIP. If you don't wish to provide this publicly, you may use WP:UTRS. Yamla (talk) 20:51, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Anthonydraco (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

UTRS appeal #18446 was submitted on Jun 05, 2017 21:08:32. This review is now closed.

--UTRSBot (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please try now. I think I have lifted the block which was affecting you. The previous person on that IP address was running a proxy. --Yamla (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved. Asked the unblocking administrator and found that the problem was caused by the rotating IP address having once fallen into the hands of an open proxy provider. No violation on my part. Kept for reference. Anthonydraco (talk) 16:12, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, you asked me rather than the blocking admin. But your statement is correct. No violation on your part. At this time, your account has zero blocks. You are free to remove any messages you wish around your unblock request (or, really, anything else on this page). --Yamla (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I didn't expect you to see this, but I would like to point out that I asked the "unblocking" admin, which was you who unblocked me. I suppose that now I am correct on both part of the statement? Anthonydraco (talk) 16:16, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are, and I need more coffee!!! I was monitoring this page in case you hit more IP-block related problems (which would still not be your fault). I'll stop shortly, so you don't have a talk-page stalker. --Yamla (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Anthonydraco. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:10, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article Sanctuary (Saint Seiya) has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline requirement nor the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) supplementary essay. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page here in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back through WP:ECHO or by leaving a note at User talk:Piotrus. Thank you.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]