This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Wordbuilder (talk | contribs) at 18:40, 14 January 2008 (→Aggie comment: Aggreed.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 18:40, 14 January 2008 by Wordbuilder (talk | contribs) (→Aggie comment: Aggreed.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 3 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
I prefer to comments made here on this page, so please watch this page until the discussion is done. Please note that comments which are uncivil, contain vulgarity, flame baiting, or are excessively rude may simply be deleted without response. I'm also a neat freak, so I regularly archive items from my talk page when the discussion is resolved or closed, hence the archive box over there. ->>
Are you hear about an edit I made? You may want to check my user page first to get some general info on some common questions about edits I make. Here are some quick links as well:
 | Welcome to my talk page. Please adhere to the talk page guidelines and particularly the following:
|
Trinity Blood Name Edit
I was just wondering why you changed the names to fit the novel rather than the Anime. I was under the impression that this article wa created using references from the Anime more than the other two versions. It really doesn't matter either way, and I believe that it was unecessary to bother. I would stick with the Anime because it is probably better known than the other two versions, but either versions work.
--AndrewR5D4 (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Per Misplaced Pages guidelines and the anime/manga MOS, articles about series with multiple versions focus on the first version, with the rest mentioned as adaptations/retellings, as appropriate, not the most popular one. As the Trinity Blood novels came first, and are the source for both the manga and the anime series, the novels are what the main article and character list must use as their primary source. The episode list, of course, will still use the anime as its source because that is the specific version it is about. :) Collectonian (talk) 04:54, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- Whatever works I guess, but the spellings in the novels are translations, so there is no absolute certainty about the validity of the spellings in a different language. I suppose we should avoid overcomplicating the situation and just assume that it is correct, and leave it at that unless some reliable source say otherwise, but for the time being it doesn't really matter. --AndrewR5D4 (talk) 22:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- True on the translations, but in general we use the official English translation unless there are reliable sources that show that the translation is incorrect. :) Collectonian (talk) 23:44, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Marmalade Boy
Oops -- I see we're stomping on each other. I'll get out of the way. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
- LOL, no worries. I just couldn't take looking at the layout anymore. I'm done for now. Need to go eat. I've tagged it as underconstruction, so if you want to work on it some more, just change it to inuse then change back when done. *grin* I left a note on the talk page detailing the work I saw as needing done, if it helps. Collectonian (talk) 21:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Merge with Princess Leia's Theme?
I don't think that's a bad idea at all! It would certainly be appropriate—since Wookiepedia's page on Leia already has that title as a section—and would give the article a relieving boost. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:35, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- BTW, I've noticed, by skimming the Theme article's history, that you've had to deal with an IP vandal who kept on trying to add the Leiabikini image. I and several others have had to deal with that same IP vandal over the past few days, and I thought you'd might like to know that he's been temporarily blocked. Kudos to you for handling the situation so well. ;) — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:46, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, he's been changing IPs so I also filed a request for the page to be protected. I don't get why that guy is so hung up on having that image, other than I guess he just liked it. Collectonian (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Although it's obvious he likes the bikini pic (by running through his contribs you can see he's been adding the same pic over and over to various Star Wars-related articles), there were much more relevant images to add. Besides, it wasn't even the article about the character herself, so an infobox was in no way necessary. — Cinemaniac (talk • contribs) 02:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- LOL, yeah, that was my guess...he could just make it his desktop wallpaper and leave it at that. ;-) Hopefully if its merged, the issue will be fixed, at least on that one. Collectonian (talk) 02:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Request for Arbitration
I have filed a request for arbitration which involves you. Please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration#The Television Episodes Edit Wars. John254 02:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thank for the notification, though I disagree with being included in it. I have added my statement. Collectonian (talk) 02:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- For what it's worth, they won't take the case. I participated in the prior case and ArbCom is not going to rule directly on the content issue. I think the consensus among admins is that blatant disruption will be dealt with harshly from here on. Cheers, Jack Merridew 12:26, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Good to know. I was mildly annoyed with being included as I have attempted to actually do what people complained about TTN not doing, starting merge discussions first if I feel there will be some complaint and attempting to do the needed work in a more friendly way. Of course, several times people have made no remarks on the merge discussion, then after the merge is done, complain anyway, but its stayed fairly civil throughout. If no consensus can be reached for a merge after explaining, then and only then have I resorted to AfD (rather than just straight redirecting). Collectonian (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
→==Aggie comment== Regarding this, I'm confident BQZip01 was not intending an insult. He is an Aggie himself and, at the least, meant nothing more than to be informative; and, at most, meant nothing more than a good-natured ribbing. Just came across the edit and wanted to chime in. I would hate to see such such a little misunderstanding escalate. Keep up the great work. →Wordbuilder (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah, I figured he was just trying to get in a little ribbing, but it really isn't appropriate for putting in an article, even if one wonders about the anon user that changed it in the first place :P Collectonian (talk) 15:37, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- I agree. Just wanted to make sure you didn't feel there was anything malicious on his part. →Wordbuilder (talk) 18:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Copyedit
See the top of my talk page. I can't really afford to get involved in a big project like this at the time, I'm afraid. Circeus (talk) 15:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- No problem :) Collectonian (talk) 15:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm happy to provide a thorough copyedit, but it will take me a couple of days. (There are two articles in line ahead of yours.) In the future, however, please contact me for a copyedit before the article is listed at FAC. I don't care for working under the pressure of the FAC process. Thanks and I'll be in touch. (If I haven't made comments by Friday, please send me another message.) – Scartol • Tok 18:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Hello freak!
You don´t mind if I have another account, do you? Yaeh, it may take a while for you to call again the support of yr peers. Lulu Margarida 17:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)