| Revision as of 14:28, 12 September 2013 editChrisGualtieri (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers457,369 edits →Do not revert constructive editing without discussion: re← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:05, 12 September 2013 edit undoErachima (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users16,650 edits →Do not revert constructive editing without discussion: reply to ChrisNext edit → | ||
| Line 810: | Line 810: | ||
| ::You snap-reverted a substantial edit because you didn't like one part of it. Think for a second why that might provoke a strong response. --] <small>]</small> 14:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC) | ::You snap-reverted a substantial edit because you didn't like one part of it. Think for a second why that might provoke a strong response. --] <small>]</small> 14:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
| ::: Again, you assume bad faith and you assume incorrectly that I disagree with a "part" of it instead of the whole thing. Three editors commented, including one originally opposed to its removal. You have once again made it a community MOS which it is not. Why are you railing against me, what have I ever done to you? I try to help A&M article and I work very hard on it, what have I done to you to make you so upset? ] (]) 14:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC) | ::: Again, you assume bad faith and you assume incorrectly that I disagree with a "part" of it instead of the whole thing. Three editors commented, including one originally opposed to its removal. You have once again made it a community MOS which it is not. Why are you railing against me, what have I ever done to you? I try to help A&M article and I work very hard on it, what have I done to you to make you so upset? ] (]) 14:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC) | ||
| :::::"you assume incorrectly that I disagree with a "part" of it instead of the whole thing." | |||
| ::::...So you disagree with ? --] <small>]</small> 15:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:05, 12 September 2013
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Misplaced Pages articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:47, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Your GA nomination of Dragon Ball
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Dragon Ball you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. 
This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ComputerJA -- ComputerJA (talk) 16:12, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
- Hi, Chris. I'm terribly sorry for the late review. I just posted my concerns on the review sheet. I'll give you a week and three days to address the concerns. Thanks and hope you enjoy the weekend. Best, ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 03:26, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
|
The Good Article Barnstar | |
| Congratulations for promoting Dragon Ball to Good Article status! I'm happy to have read/reviewed such an informative article. I wish you luck on your future projects. ComputerJA (☎ • ✎) 16:30, 8 September 2013 (UTC) |
- Thank you! ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
September 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Anime may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 1 "{}"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
- List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
- /ref> Theatrical anime continue to be produced and re-released on different formats.<ref name=ae />{{rp|13> Television is a major medium for the distribution of anime, the first anime series began appearing
- are not just made up, but can be based on real life locations from ''] to ''[[The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya (anime)|Melancholy of Haruhi
Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for September 6
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Anime, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dubbing (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) 11:19, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
NGE
Hi! I'm . Thank you! I am Italian, and I do not speak English well ... so, if there are grammar mistakes, please correct them! :) (I contributed with the article because I love NGE, and I hope it becomes a GA!) --TeenAngels1234 (talk) 08:46, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- Everything is good! I hope it does become a GA. Thanks again for the work. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 13:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
In your last comment at RSN, you say that "Anno's response, in English, to criticism was summed up as "I have no problem with them. If there's a problem, it's all with you guys. Too bad." And you cite http://web.archive.org/web/20020606012703/http://masterwork.animemedia.com/Evangelion/anno.html.
"On Evangelion's last two episodes , which upset many fans...
ANNO: I have no problem with them. If there's a problem, it's all with you guys. Too bad. "
Please tell me you DO understand that Anno's answer refers to the "last two episodes", with which he has no problem, and not to criticism.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- Stay off my page. I said before that I don't want you posting here. Your polemic and rampant POV pushing is a problem. You ignore simple questions and create drama, you counter my good faith with bad faith and insults. You have demonstrated little knowledge of Anno's personal life and less for the information on Evangelion itself. You do not even understand the context of the sources you debate and this post was proof of it. Goodbye Folken, stay off my page. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:38, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
- You're the only one insulting me here. I've been very patient with you. But obviously, whenever you have to interpret sources, there is a problem, and I'm merely trying to understand what it is, since we both have to collaborate on Evangelion.Folken de Fanel (talk) 20:44, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
We are currently running a study on the effects of adding additional information to SuggestBot's suggestions. Participation in the study is voluntary. Should you wish to not participate in the study, or have questions or concerns, you can find contact information on the SuggestBot study page.
IMPORTANT CHANGES: We have modified the selection of articles SuggestBot suggests and altered the design to incorporate more information about the articles, as described in this explanation.
Note: All columns in this table are sortable, allowing you to rearrange the table so the articles most interesting to you are shown at the top. All images have mouse-over popups with more information.
Changes to SuggestBot's suggestions
We have changed the number of suggested articles and which categories they are selected from. The number of stubs has been greatly reduced, the number of articles needing sources doubled, and two new categories added (orphans and unencyclopaedic articles). We have also modified the layout of the suggestions and added sortable columns with various types of information about each article. The first two columns are:
- Views/Day
- Daily average number of views an article's had over the past 14 days.
- Quality
- Predicted article quality on a 1- to 3-star scale. Placing your cursor over the stars should give you a pop-up describing the article's quality (Low/Medium/High), current assessment class, and predicted assessment class.
The method we use to predict article quality also allows us to assess whether an article might need specific types of work in order to improve its quality. The work needed might not correspond to cleanup tags added to the article, since our method is not based on those. We have added five columns reflecting this work assessment, where a red X indicates improvement is needed. Placing your cursor over an X should give you a pop-up with a short description of the work needed. The five columns seek to answer the following five questions:
- Content
- Is more content needed?
- Headings
- Does this article have an appropriate section structure?
- Images
- Is the number of illustrative images about right?
- Links
- Does this article link to enough other Misplaced Pages articles?
- Sources
- For its length, is there an appropriate number of citations to sources in this article?
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. We appreciate that you have signed up to receive suggestions regularly, your contributions make Misplaced Pages better — thanks for helping!
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please let us know on SuggestBot's talk page. Regards from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 00:16, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Editor disputes
Hey I just have noticed that you do not seem to be getting along with three editors now all from wikiproject anime/manga (Lucia Black, Ryulong, and now Folken de Fanel) I am just saying I notice a trend here and hope things can get better. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:03, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- I'm sorry, but editors have issues with them as well. Ryulong and Lucia you already know about, but Folken de Fanel has been blocked on several pedias for POV violations and sockpuppeting. Here he is willingly misusing a bad publication to go against the original source. I have dozens of interviews with Anno, I can call a bad synth and a bad op-ed when I see it. I cited the original source and he removed it as "unsourced", making a false statement in his edit summary. The original source should be used, not some third party paraphrasing that was done by the editor's friend. Folken assumes the op-ed to be more reliable than the ACTUAL source and just because I can't find the original Japanese article he is making a fuss about it. Misplaced Pages doesn't work that way. Also using bad sources and synthing them is a problem one of BLP levels because he is misquoting Anno and taking it out of context. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:18, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Well if it is a bad source then yes the right thing to do would to be find a more neutral reliable source. As for the editor disputes it is just something I have seen I guess. If the editing gets hot you can always take a break just for future reference =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Yep. Been a rough day, but the original is still the best source as always. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 12:09, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Well if it is a bad source then yes the right thing to do would to be find a more neutral reliable source. As for the editor disputes it is just something I have seen I guess. If the editing gets hot you can always take a break just for future reference =). - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:30, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
Do not revert constructive editing without discussion
I do not understand nor particularly care about your vendetta against the MOS:MANGA page, but your wholesale reversion of improvements at simply because you disliked one component of the edit demonstrates a carelessness and haste that is not excusable in any Misplaced Pages editor. I trust you will be more cautious in the future. Have a good day. --erachima talk 13:52, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- You come here assume bad faith and make a personal attack despite never interacting with me before? I disliked the whole edit and another editor put up its removal, I actually replaced it with the MOSTV and commented on your reinsertion and why it was a problem yet you redid it anyways. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- You snap-reverted a substantial edit because you didn't like one part of it. Think for a second why that might provoke a strong response. --erachima talk 14:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Again, you assume bad faith and you assume incorrectly that I disagree with a "part" of it instead of the whole thing. Three editors commented, including one originally opposed to its removal. You have once again made it a community MOS which it is not. Why are you railing against me, what have I ever done to you? I try to help A&M article and I work very hard on it, what have I done to you to make you so upset? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- "you assume incorrectly that I disagree with a "part" of it instead of the whole thing."
- ...So you disagree with the consistent spelling of licensors? --erachima talk 15:05, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Again, you assume bad faith and you assume incorrectly that I disagree with a "part" of it instead of the whole thing. Three editors commented, including one originally opposed to its removal. You have once again made it a community MOS which it is not. Why are you railing against me, what have I ever done to you? I try to help A&M article and I work very hard on it, what have I done to you to make you so upset? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:28, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- You snap-reverted a substantial edit because you didn't like one part of it. Think for a second why that might provoke a strong response. --erachima talk 14:24, 12 September 2013 (UTC)