User talk:Remurmur/Archive 1

This is an archive of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

Contradiction

This user finds copyright paranoia disruptive.

I see no proof that those M:TG symbol images have had their copyrights released. If you cannot provide the evidence promptly I will move to have them deleted.--SeizureDog 10:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Disruptivley Paranoid?

Uh-huh. Thats a contradiction. Right there. Yeah.

So anyway, It is true that the M:TG symbols dont have their copyrights released, thankyou for picking me up on that, if possible instead of deleting them could you please change the copywright stuff. The pictures are being used fo the M:TG Wikiproject and it would be Very unhelpful if they were to be deleted.

Thanks Mate, Dfrg.msc 08:03, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Donkey Konga

Just saw it during new-page patrol and saw that nothing linked to it. I wasn't aware that you were trying to split it off. Since I saw info in it that wasn't in the main article, a merge seemed like a good idea. You can drop the merge notice if you want.--DCAnderson 22:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Revert about controller on PS3

Blah. The reason I added that stuff about Sony being considered to have ripped off of Nintendo is because the PS3 article is very much lacking a neutral point of view. I see virtually none of the criticisms listed in the article and I know there are many to be had. Many people in the gaming community do consider Sony's controller to be a cheap move, and I tried my best to base it with statistics and sources as to avoid the whole "many people dislike the PS3's controller" comment that has no basis. What exactly SHOULD I use if not a Gamefaqs poll? There's hardly any other way to give a number to the statement to support it, and to leave the critism out altogether isn't proper.--SeizureDog 04:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

A Gamefaqs poll tells you what a certain subsection of Gamefaqs readers think. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't find that particularly noteworthy, and don't think it needs special mention in the PS3 article. Trying to use it to justify broader statements about a general feeling of outrage is, I feel, disingenuous.

And NPOV does not mean having criticism for criticism sake. Where relevant, where notable, where verifiable, one can, even needs, to include points of critism. But to list every point of critism that can be made is, I feel, giving undue weight. Which is in itself a very subtle, but insiduous breaking of NPOV. While I don't mean to patronize, I'd like to point to WP:NPOV#Undue_weight as justification for my points. --Codemonkey 09:06, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

But my point is that it isn't a "very small minority opinion", and the poll reflects that. At the very least, it qualifies as a "significant minority" as stated in the link you provided. And to brush aside the results of the poll as merely "what a certain subsection of Gamefaqs readers think" is asinine. ANY poll is only what "a certain section" thinks, as it is impossible to get everyone's opinion. However, a GameFAQs poll is fairly unbias as far as polls go. It's not as if it suffers from a specific audience that would skew the poll one direction or another. Now if that poll was found on "Nintendofanboy.com" or something, then yes, it would be a terrible representation. But as it is, GameFAQs polls are about as good as you're going to see in terms of a fair representation of the community at large, and it shows that a fair amount of people don't approve what Sony is doing. Just as the Wii article deserves some talk on the unpopularity of its name, the PS3 article deserves a blurb on the unpopularity of its controller (and pricing) decisions. --SeizureDog 20:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The Wii article uses a Forbes article to do so, though. A fair step up from a GameFAQs poll. Anyway, as for the 'undue weight' part, if it indeed is a "prominent minority" opinion, it should, as the link states, "be easy to name prominent adherents". If it is something more than that, it should be easy to "substantiate with commonly accepted reference texts". If you feel it needs adding, the burden of evidence is on you.

As for polls in general; real polls, conducted by actual polling bureaus, are easy enough to misuse already, and Wikipedia guidelines state that they should be used "with the utmost care".

And last, if you can't find anything better than a GameFAQs poll, as you seem to suggest, it might not deserve a mention in the article. It is not about what you feel 'deserves' to be in the article. We are not about truth in Wikipedia. We are about what is verifiable. It it isn't verifiable, it doesn't belong. --Codemonkey 20:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that Forbes is much of a step up from GameFAQs. While it is an established magazine, it's subject matter isn't video games at all (the fact the Wii thing got mentioned is a fluke) and if you noticed, Forbes itself was basing its reaction on message boards, which, I would use as a source myself if I didn't already know there's no way that'd hold up as a valid reference. I suppose all of this arguement has been good for something though, as I just found [this article] stating that a major employee of Nintendo is mad about the controller as well. Happy?--SeizureDog 21:03, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, yes. That is much better. And I hope I haven't come across as to hostile in my replies. If so, my apologies. --Codemonkey 21:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I apologize as well if I came off that way. In any case, it worked out for the best for all of us. Would you mind being the one to work this information though? You'd probably do a better job wording it than me, and would save that extra step of you rewriting whatever I put down ;) --SeizureDog 21:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Sure. Just give me a minute. :) --Codemonkey 21:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Gin Tama

I thought VIZ used "Gin Tama" - http://www.shonenjump.com/gintama/ WhisperToMe 04:27, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Cowboy Bebop

Please see split discussion.--Dangerous-Boy 20:09, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

GA

Thanks, SeizureDog, for clueing me in to a fact about copyright law that I didn't know when you reviewed the GA nominee article, Jesse Macbeth. Please accept this cluestick as a token of my appreciation, and recognition that you do, indeed, have a clue, and that I am now more clueful because of information you included in your rationale for GA failure. Bugmuncher 05:12, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

What I meant about the Footnotes are that footnotes and references are different things. A reference is used to cite information, and a footnote is a note without a link provided to add clarification without splurging the text. I'd write more than 2 paragraphs, I'm sure you could push it. Was there any romance? Was it popular in Japan? Was it released outside of Japan? Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 15:41, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I won't re-review it, and just because it's better here than other places doesn't mean it should classified as good overall. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 22:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

If I think that it shouldn't be a GA, if problems haven't been fixed, I'll fail it again, which isn't reviewing. Reviewing is studying the article freshly, checking if things have been fixed isn't. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 23:06, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Double posting

Fair enough... But can it ever be more than a dictionary definition? Is it notable beyond being two words put together? Grandmasterka 01:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I have taken the article to Articles for Deletion so others can comment on it. Feel free to voice yourself there. Grandmasterka 02:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Virtual Boy Wario Land

While you may have always referred to the game as just "Wario Land", the actual title is "Virtual Boy Wario Land". box The art says this, the cartridge says this, and the title screen says this. The article should reflect its offical title, especially considering it's just a rearrangement of the words. I have relocated it again, please contact me first if you still disagree.--SeizureDog 00:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I know memory is a very tricky thing, so I generally don’t edit based solely on it. When I originally moved the page back in January, as best as I can recall I had just directly examined the box and the cart. In case I’m wrong, before moving it again, I will double-check when I’m at my parents’ house next, but I have no doubt that what I see will bear me out: in the U.S., at least, it was just called Wario Land. Did you take those pics yourself? If you did, I don’t know how to explain the discrepancy, if you didn’t, then I would tend to think they’ve been edited, though to what end, I don’t know. - - WikidSmaht (talk) 00:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

It's ok, it's an easy mistake to make. In all likeliness when you looked at the box your eyes just glanced right over the "Virtual Boy" part of the title. You might have assumed that it was merely saying it was for the Virtual Boy system and not an actual part of the title. It's a lot like Yoshi's Island. Everyone always drops the "Super Mario World 2:" at the begining. And those images are from Planet Virtual Boy, the largest site on the subject of Virtual Boy and I highly doubt they have been altered in any way. --SeizureDog 00:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

NGE assessment

SeizureDog, first of all, thank you for your help with Excel Saga: it's a much improved article for your effort. Proving that no good deed goes unpunished, however, I wanted to say that I disagree with your assessing Neon Genesis Evangelion as A-class. While NGE might meet the "Reader's experience" aspect of A-class, I don't think it meets the "Editor's experience" or the actual criteria: although it requires "sufficient external literature references," NGE only has two, one of which is Madman's website, the other a reference to a book, the very citation of which might itself be original research. I also think the article could be structured better. I love Eva, and I want to see it reach FA, so I'll leave some notes on the peer review when I have time (I've been meaning to do so, but Excel has kept me busy!). Hope you don't mind my discussing this privately. --Monocrat 14:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, how does user-talk-page-communication work? Pardon my noobness. ;) I understand that standards should (perhaps) be different for anime, but we're never going to get an FA if we don't ultimately judge ourselves against the rest of Wikipedia. Looking at some of the comments FACs receive, I honestly think NGE would be ripped apart right now, anime or not. Heck, looking at the FACs, spurred on by your comment, is what moved me to rewrite all of Excel Saga. Beyond that, however, I don't know I agree with the idea of one person awarding A-class: FA requires (theoretically) the (at least tacit) approval of many Wikipedians, whereas a GA requires one disinterested Wikipedian's approval. Shouldn't A-class be somewhere in-between, demanding several Wikipedians? I was thinking of proposing to the project that A-class be awarded only after nomination. What do you think?

Generally you would come back over to my talk page to post your responce. This way, the "You have new messages" thingy flashes up. But in this case, I just refreshed your page so it's no problem :P Obviously NGE isn't worthy of FA status yet, but I feel that it does have all of the information needed to be one, once it is smoothed out and sourced. It no longer needs much expanding, just polish, which is to me what the A-class is all about. I agree with the thought that more than one person should agree on the A-classification though. Perhaps ask a third person to view these comments and give an opinion? I don't see it warrenting more than a three user vote process though, it's not something that needs too much effort wasted on.--SeizureDog 18:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, although perhaps the practice should be ratified by the group?--Monocrat 18:14, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

No need. You're not likely to get more than 3 people to vote in our group anyways. And like I said before, A-Class is not a formal process. Plus when you think about it, a GA only takes one person, it shouldn't be much of a step up from that.--SeizureDog 18:19, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Go for it. :) --Monocrat 18:24, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You're the one who's objecting, it should be your job to find somebody :P Plus I have to take a shower now so I'm rather busy.--SeizureDog 18:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks like I am the one who has been asked. I had already noticed that NGE was rated A-Class and I have read the article through and yes it is thorough and complete in content. There are some minor grammar problems for example: "Just as humanity is finishing its recovery from this disaster, Tokyo-3, a militarized civilian city located on the last dry sections of Japan, began suffering attacks by strange monsters referred to as Angels." (Incorrect tense. Should be has instead of is or, alternately begins instead of began). And reading that sentence I have just realized that it would read better if it were reworded so Tokyo 3 isn't explained mid-sentence.

There are also no references where there definately should be references. When the editor makes a statement with According to then that sentence needs a reference because you are quoting someone. There are three instances of According to in the article, no references of them. The lead of the article should only talk about one aspect of the anime once. The lead currently has some information about the anime as a production and it also has information about the origin of the Plot.

It talks about the production first

• Neon Genesis Evangelion (新世紀エヴァンゲリオン, Shin Seiki Evangerion?) is a Japanese animated television series, begun in 1995, directed and written by Hideaki Anno, and produced by Gainax

Then it talks about the plot and how Hideaki Anno had depression and how it affected the story. Then it goes back to talking about the production again.

• The television series aired in Japan from 1995 to 1996, ran for 26 episodes, and was released on VHS and DVD in North America and the UK by ADV Films. The show premiered on Adult Swim on Thursday, October 20, 2005, although it had been previously debuted in the United States in 2000 on KTEH, a PBS station located in San Jose, California. The first two episodes were also shown once on Toonami, albeit in a highly edited form.

• The unedited / DVD versions received a Parental Guidance certificate, though some episodes are considered to be stronger than the certificate might otherwise indicate because they deal with issues of violence, emotional trauma, or contain some mild sexual themes.

The plot information in the lead then becomes a case of "scrolling back" because the actual Plot section in much later in the article. Then the Plot section also suffers from "scrolling back" when the reader gets to the Translation notes section. For example under Translation notes the sentence "The term Gehirn is German for "brain". Seele is the German term for "soul". Nerv is the German term for "nerve"." could have been included in context when they are first mentioned in the Plot section. So that's another example of referring to the same content but separated.

Now I don't think that it currently should be assessed as A-Class, but it is the subject of a peer review... I guess I just did a peer review so these issues can be raised on the peer review page if wanted, or they can be fixed. I don't think a reader should be able to find several areas on an article that need work and be able to class it as A-Class, my opinion is to bump it back to GA or even B until that peer review ends. I do think it is close content-wise but it just needs polishing. --Squilibob 23:43, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry it took so long to get this to you.--Monocrat 19:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• Noted and lowered. Now we don't have any true Featured OR A class articles. How depressing. --SeizureDog 19:48, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Agreed, but that will make future triumph so much sweeter. ;)--Monocrat 19:52, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Barney deletions

Hi, I just wanted to say thanks for your amusing comments on the Barney deletions! It was worth nominating every last one of them just to read the comments, yours included. It's a scary day when one finds a whole category of these kids hiding out there in the wilds of Wikipedia. I'm glad to see they will likely be deleted without much problem. Cheers! *Exeunt* Ganymead | Dialogue? 04:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Template:GAnominee

Your edits ended up breaking every talk page the template was used on. I'm not exactly sure what the cause was, but it made things a big mess. I have reverted the changed.--SeizureDog 05:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you know how that could have happened? -- Avi 05:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to try it again, and see if this fixes it. Can you describe what was broken so that I can recognize if it happens again? Thanks. -- Avi 05:28, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll take a screenshot for you when you change it.--SeizureDog 05:30, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Just did, how does it look? -- Avi 05:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

No problems this time. And FYI, before what was happening is that orange boxes started surrounding everything. --SeizureDog 05:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I think I messed up the <noinclude>...</noinclude> tags.

Believers

OIC. Anyways, since I helped you out some could you do me a favor and review Believers for me? I've been waiting a while for it to get done. And man, I thought that reviewing Good Articles was going to be hard (I thought I'd want to pass too many of them) but so many of these nominations are blatantly missing things. It's rather sad -_-. --SeizureDog 05:55, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I'll look at it,but it may need to wait until tomorrow evening, as it is 0237 EDT (-400Z) and after all those template edits I cannot even see straight :-) -- Avi 06:38, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I felt that it failed, but just barely. See here Talk:Believers#GA Review: Barely Fail: June 7, 2006 for more details. In a nutshell, the article is well-written, a few more tweaks and I thing it would be considered good. -- Avi 16:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Your comment on my talk page

Ok I agree with you on the references thing. I have to ask why you aren't using the Template:Ann name though? I'll start using that, not the cite web one. As for adding a short description, I did that a couple of times and the copied description was totally inaccurate. So I only add information to pages that I'm sure about, that is, I have seen at least the first episode of the series. I don't want to add incorrect information so I hope you understand that. --Squilibob 01:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Oops disregard that, I understand why you use the cite web one instead... because it shows the date accessed. By the way I have noticed recently that when you add {{anime|class=stub}} to a talk page it doesn't get put into a category. You have to use a Captial letter for stub {{anime|class=Stub}}. I made this mistake on heaps of articles and had to go back and change them all T_T --Squilibob 01:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that it didn't automatically captialize, but I didn't know it didn't group them either. I only made the mistake a couple of times I think, so I'm not going to worry about it. Might should get someone to fix the code though--SeizureDog 01:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok ok I understand why you are using cite web, I guess we were writing to each other at the same time there. I really don't want to copy the descriptions from AnimeNfo as they are almost always poorly written. Sometimes I even have trouble figuring out the genre of the anime let alone what it is about from those descriptions!

It seems we were. Plus a 3rd user also left a message and the same time so a bit of a hop skip and a jump between talk pages going on. Oh, you're using AnimeNfo? Well that's your problem. Use ANN, it's hella better. --SeizureDog 01:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

By the way congrats on helping getting Believers to GA status. --Squilibob 01:32, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks :) It was a major pain to have to cite reviews in both Japanese AND French though -_- My logic at the time was if I pick a minor title to improve on, I can get all of the information I can into without having to leave anything out. Turns out it's too damn hard to find the information you need then >< better to have too much than too little for sure. Which is why I think I'll try to get something like Shuffle! up to par next.--SeizureDog 01:38, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think that Shuffle is already Class-B? By the way I fixed some of the assessments that had the lowercase s that you added. --Squilibob 01:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I meant that Shuffle is currently assessed as "Start" when it should really be "Class B" --Squilibob 06:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Rename Believers

Hello, Seizure. What do you think about renaming the page "Believers (manga)" for disambiguation reasons? -- Avi 01:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm indeed

Hehe... thanks for telling me. It's my "Article in progress", which I copied from the main namespace article... but forgot to remove the categories. Removed now. Thanks again. EuroSong ^talk 10:05, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Air

I would love to help the article grow, especially in the video game section since there's not even a section the article for it yet. Sadly, I have never played the game, so I am unable to help you in that respect, though I do have the studio recap episode (13) that you are lacking. Other than that, I have seen and have in my possession the regular Air TV series (1-12), the Air in Summer specials and the movie.--Juhachi 23:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

That seems to be a brilliant way to tackle the article, though with the supreme lack of game information, much of the article would be empty. And then would the characters section get so large that it would then have to be split into a different article entirely? I'm currently tackling that problem in the Strawberry Panic! article I've been working on and we're just about to split the characters section off because the article just reached 30 KB in size.

As for the recap episode, there were no new scenes and I thought it was unnecessary to make.--Juhachi 23:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

No, each character would have their own article. It wouldn't be a list of characters article. And I only saw the first episode of Strawberry Panic! but I thought it sucked -_-

Oh, okay, that seems like a great idea to give them all seperate articles. As for Strawberry Panic!, I estimate I've contibuted about 85-90% of that article alone, taking it from a one sentence wonder (seriously; look at the earliest version) to what it is now. Me and Remy Suen have been steadily building it up to its current version.--Juhachi 00:40, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Bad Category

Ok if you say so. --Squilibob 06:06, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

screenshots

Not that it bothers me, but to better protect your screenshots under fair use you might want to upload smaller versions of them. I'm not sure if the size they're at would be considered "low res". It's a hot topic about using screenshots on Wikipedia right now, so it's good to be safe. -- Ned Scott 07:17, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Actuary: Failed GA

Reasons (as per WP:WIAGA):

• #1.b: Virtually no lead.
  

I will address this issue -- Avi

• #6: No pictures. Not a requirement, but hurts.
  

There really aren't any decent pictures that are both representative and public domian/wiki-allowable that I could find -- Avi

• More references couldn't hurt.
  

I will address this issue -- Avi

• Plase use straight (' ") quotes instead of curlies (”). Ther curlies screw with my browser.
  

This is often a function of the various citation templates; further it is more professional and in my opinion should be a plus, not a minus. - Avi

--SeizureDog 12:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your time, I have responded above, and may relist this later when I have made enhancements.-- Avi 14:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Professional or not, they end up creating an automatic space behind them for me. Curly might be more professional, but straight is more accessable. In the end, it's personal preference (unless I'm missing a style guide on the issue), but straight does seem to be the norm. --SeizureDog 14:31, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:mos#Look_of_quotation_marks_and_apostrophes where it states either is acceptable, and while straight was used more in the past (most likely due to the keyboard layout - straight quotes are on the QWERTY keyboard, typographical quotes are not), the only difference is that if typographic-style qu an article's title there should be a straight redirect. -- Avi 14:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

GA Nominations

Please use edit summaries. Highway ^{Rainbow Sneakers} 07:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Air

I realised I havent yet created this anime an episode list... I think I will in a day or two (I generaly create the hole thing in one edit) --Cat out 21:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny I just happened to catch you creating that article (I was about to do the same), but I really don't think we should go with the OMG format with Air. By only having two episodes each, there is a LOT of wasted space. Personally, I think we should just move over the tables we already have in the main article. --SeizureDog 19:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You see the raw version, I haven't even started. --Cat out 19:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Still, that's twice as much space to fill per episode. What are you going to flesh it out with? Summary?--SeizureDog 19:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that how it is on OMG article? ;) --Cat out 19:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Except for OMG the titles themselves take up 3 lines, and there are 3 episodes per disc instead of 2. You're going to have to write about x4 as much summary as OMG does if you don't want it looking empty.--SeizureDog 19:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

OMG has a simple story plot compared to Air's drama. I do not believe the 4x as much summary will be too chalenging. --Cat out 21:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that you also need to keep the spoiler count down in that x4 summary too though...--SeizureDog 21:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I actualy need help with one mater. I am not certain with what dvd did the recap episode was given out with (if it was at all). --Cat out 01:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it this?--SeizureDog 02:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

On another note, why is every DVD cover you put except for the first one different from the ones I'm finding on amazon.co.jp? looky It says you're finding these pictures on Amazon but what's your search term? I can't even FIND the freaking things in the English side. --SeizureDog 02:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I actualy searched for "Air" on amazon.co.jp (remember, the name isnt avalible in kanji). There are a lot of false hits but eventualy you get to the anime. There are two versions of the dvd covers. I picked the ones that featured the characters more, with the exeption if the first one which the alternative is ridiclously low on quality.

Air hasn't been licensed in the US yet (to my knowlege) so it is quite normal why it is not on amazon.com.

--Cat out 04:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Silly me, I didn't open the images all the way. Seems that images.amazon.com hosts the images for all languages. Also, would you mind drawing up a character table such for the OMG characters? I could start working on those articles. I'm not sure how many fields will be needed though, as I'm not sure if there is random information for the characters height and such.--SeizureDog 04:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It shall be done. --Cat out 08:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if Air is technically a series. A series implies sequels. Air just got remade...3 times. It's kinda like calling Romeo and Juliet a series when it has so many adaptations. Do I have a better suggestion? No. I just felt like pointing it out as it's likely to bug the hell out of me. Oh me and the things I focus on :P --SeizureDog 11:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The anime has a ridiclously siple title... Air... I mean wtf were the creators thinking? Technicaly the OMG OVA and the OMG TV series are unrelated. OVA is a prarllel universe on its own detached even from manga. TV is... different from the manga. Movie is well also different. Mini series has a mind of its own. Its kinda the same deal with air just that air's stories are much closely related.

I just dont like labeling Air as a game, an anime or a manga etc since its both and more...

--Cat out 15:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

muchas gracias

Thanks for (quite correctly) renaming/redirecting the list of episodes of the melancholy of the gerund of the clause article. --moof 21:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

John Sculley

Thanks for passing this article for WP:GA which I've worked on a lot! Thanks again! — Wackymacs 14:25, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Good point about the commercial, I will add something about that later on. — Wackymacs 14:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

To boldly expand what no one had expand before!

I think Air (series) structuring is complete. Feel free to expand character and series artciles... :) --Cat out 16:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice :) Btw, what the hell would you say is Yukito's hair color? It goes from gray to lavender to freaking purple (movie mostly). Also, do the character infoboxes have the ability to show multiple screenshots like for the OMG characters? I think showing the differences in style can be pretty important for this series, especially with Misuzu as she looks like 5 years older in the movie. --SeizureDog 16:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Umm... "Gray/lavender/purple"?

The character infobox is a modified version of the OMG infobox and only redundent parameters like "Angel" "Dimention" (etc) are removed. It can have the extra images just like the OMG infobox.

--Cat out 16:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Mk. Also, I think the "first appearence" field should be changed to "era" or something. Seeing how most everyone is introduced in the first episode. It's not as staggered as OMG. lol, funny thing just happened though. I was looking at Misuzu's article and I suddenly just saw the phrase "soul bears" and I was like "wtf is a soul bear?" The full phrase was "Thus, each incarnation of Kanna (e.g. Misuzu) will eventually die after she has found true happiness and friendship, alone, without ever having had the chance to heal the wounds that Kanna's soul bears." lawl, soul bears XD--SeizureDog 16:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. "First apearance" field is gone and "Era" is introduced.

Ya... soul bears.. :P

--Cat out 17:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Wario Land (Virtual Boy)

Hi I'm kind of wondering why you changed Warioland (Virtual Boy) to Virtual Boy Wario Land from all the material I've seen the game is called Wario Lanxd so we should keep it as the former name. Deathawk 18:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Page Blanking

On 15-June, you blanked DUH. Blanking pages is generally considered a bad idea. I redirected this article to Duh. In the future, if you believe the redirect should be deleted, please follow the redirect portion of the deletion procedures. If you have questions, please let me know. Thanks! -- JLaTondre 12:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

List of Virtual Boy games

I have asked admin RadioKirk to look at this matter, as what has been done - atleast in my eyes - breaks many more rules then the images. You can see my post on RadioKirk's talkpage here. Please feel free to comment on it and add to it. Havok (T/C/c) 08:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

User:Ned Scott

Do you know anything about this user? He is begining to bother me... --Cat out 17:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Mario Kart Arcade GP 1995 in games Kiddy Kong Miki Ito Mega Man Anniversary Collection Rayman 2 WCWM Bullet Bill Donkey Kong Land III List of video game animals Donkey Kong, Jr. Math Takano Morisato Red Steel List of video game mascots Klaptrap 1996 in games The Kids Will Have Their Say 1994 in games 1999 in games

Cleanup 2003 in games Luna Sea Mario Party Merge Donkey Kong 64 Armored Core NES 2 Add Sources Mr. Game & Watch Super Mario All-Stars Triforce Wikify Operation Ivy Bells Brazilian Army Marcin Expand Blade of the Immortal Sonic the Hedgehog series Supplemental Security Income

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 02:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

NeXT

Hey there. Can you read through this article and check if it can get the Good Article status? Its currently a nominee on the list. Thanks! — Wackymacs 06:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Straw Poll for List of Air episodes

There is a straw poll in hopes of quickly resolving the dispute over List of Air episodes. Talk:List of Air episodes#Straw poll for which episode table to use. Thought you might want to comment. --Cat out 16:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)