Talk:Mukuro Rokudo

hell rings

in his fight with Byakuran there Mukuro had two hell rings —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedarklonewolf (talk • contribs) 02:59, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Since he neither mentioned what they were nor was he shown to use them, we lack information on them, and is thus not worth mentioning in the article for the time being. DarkAngel ^{█▀▀007▄▄█} 05:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Chrome

Is it necessary to have a section for her in this article? She is already explained in the main characters list and info respecting their relation could be added in plot/abilities/perso/lead, etc. Regards.--Tintor2 (talk) 20:33, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Mainly to prevent the creation of a Chrome article. However, besides the kokuyo arc and the events of the future arc, their lives (thus their plot and abilities) will most likely be intertwined, so instead of repeating events in both articles, it's better to mention it in just one article. Also, instead of explaining how they met and their relationship separately into the other sections, it's best to just keep it altogether in one little section. DarkAngel ^{█▀▀007▄▄█} 06:23, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Edit-warring

Please, no more reverts on this article. Instead, the best way to proceed is to bring up concerns at the talkpage. See also Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. --Elonka 01:04, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok lets start the discussion. Several pieces of information have been removed from the article. This also includes the lead which has been reduced to only one paragraph and now is not able to pass GA due to this. Per WP: Lead, the lead should give an overview of each section from the article without going into details. The infobox now bothers the article due to the short lead. Important content from reception has been deleted. The few reviews we had about praise of Mukuro have been removed. I recommend to check GA characters articles to see examples including Sasuke Uchiha, Sagara Sanosuke and Belldandy. Other parts from personality have also been removed. This section should describe his notable traits such as his acting or when he worries about his friends. The same goes for the remaining section. As a conclusion, the article will never pass a GA review with all these content removed. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I know there shouldn't be anymore reverts, but I reverted the article to the version prior to edit warring in order to discuss further editing in the talk page. I would request protection, but there does not seem to be much time spent in edit reversions nor enough editors involved to warrant this, for now. I mostly agree with Tintor that vital information that usually makes an article a good one is being removed. Most notably is the removal of most of the lead that provides adequate information summarizing the rest of the article as per WP:LEAD. The removal of information that tries to put the article in a perspective that others, besides those who have seen the series, can understand (per WP:INUNIVERSE) is also being removed, putting the article in an in-universe perspective. And I would also like to know what information is incorrect so that can specifically be removed. DarkAngel ⁰⁰⁷ 06:40, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

User Serpent keeps reverting the edits and has even removed the comments from his talk page.Tintor2 (talk) 18:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

The reverts must stop. If either Tintor2 or Serpent makes another revert within the next 24 hours, their account access will be blocked. Technically, I should just block both accounts right now per WP:3RR, but I'm actually being lenient here. So please, concentrate on talkpage discussion, and making changes to the article, rather than just reverts. Ideally, there's a compromise available, rather than the article having to be "one way or the other"? --Elonka 18:41, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

According to the edit war, shouldnt the article be reverted to an old version before the edits to decide then the changes? And then the article may required to be protected to avoid any more changes until this ends?Tintor2 (talk) 18:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, my job as an administrator is not to decide which version is "right", except in the cases of obvious vandalism. Protection is an option, but that's more of a case of the "style" of whichever administrator is monitoring a situation. Personally, I dislike protecting an article except as a last resort, because when an article is protected, no one can edit it. Instead, I prefer to identify which editors are disrupting an article, and to take action on them individually. Not all admins would handle things the same way though. To be honest, most admins in this situation probably would have blocked both Tintor2 and Serpent for violating 3RR, and would have protected the page for a week, probably at the wrong version. That's because most admins are insanely busy, because there are thousands of things going on on Wikipedia at any one time. So many admins take a quick look at a situation for about 2 minutes, make a snap decision, block/protect, and move on to the next situation. As for me, I'm laid back today, so I'm more in the mood to caution than block.  ;) I realize that from your point of view, your version is the "right" version, and Serpent's is the "wrong" one. But Serpent would probably disagree. And since I'm not familiar with the subject matter, I have no way of telling who's right or wrong, so I focus on more specific behavior issues: Who is edit-warring, who is reverting without engaging in talkpage discussion, who is making edits in violation of talkpage consensus, who is adding unsourced information, who is using bad sources, who is misinterpreting good sources, who is giving undue weight to minority viewpoints, etc. Or in other words, you're saying that Serpent's version is "bad", but how is it bad? Which policies do you believe that his edits are violating? --Elonka 19:01, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I would also point out that Tintor2 has been acting in good faith, requesting assistance with the issue, and communicating his position on the talk pages, while Serpent132 has simply removed the warnings from his talk page, while refusing to discuss anything. 3RR alone does not place them on equal footing here. Doceirias (talk) 03:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, when admin attention was first requested here, there was no discussion on the talkpage, by either party. Since then though, Tintor2 has definitely made the attempt. So if Serpent reverts again, without attempting discussion at the talkpage, s/he will be blocked. --Elonka 04:24, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I don not said his version was the bad, I only commented that this article may require to be reverted before all this edit war started.Tintor2 (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Length

In Serpent132 (talk · contribs) most recent revert of the article, he has cited that the article is too long compared to the articles of other characters. While the amount of plot information may be justifiably trimmed, this does not justify trimming the lead or the reception section in my opinion. Also, the length of the article compared to other characters is irrelevant. It may indicate that this article is further developed then the other articles or that the character holds more real world notability via coverage by independent sources. --Farix (Talk) 14:03, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

That comment from Serpent 132 would be similar to Wikipedia:Other stuff exists but almost all the other characters are stubs and need clean up. From personality his common traits were deleted. Some sentences from Plot overview are now hard to understand since there is no explanation. I checked the version before the remove of information and it was all well sourced.Tintor2 (talk) 14:21, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone that has been engaging in civil discussion here at the talkpage to show where the consensus is. It makes my administrator job much easier.  :) Since Serpent132 (talk · contribs) has chosen not to engage in discussion despite repeated requests, I have blocked their account access for 24 hours. However, I would appreciate if everyone here would continue assuming good faith. As I looked through Serpent132's contribs, he seems to be trying to help the project, not hurt it. He's just not engaging in discussion with other editors. In fact, I looked through his entire contribution history, and he has never participated on a single talkpage, ever. Not article talkpages, and nothing on his usertalk page except to delete messages that he has received. So it's possible that he's just not understanding how talkpages work. Though clicking on the "discussion" tab for articles may be second-nature for most of us, he may just be unaware that that's how things work. So I'd like to try and proceed via the WP:BITE policy for now, and assume that there's just some miscommunication. We'll see how things go when his block expires. --Elonka 16:06, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

So, should the version be reverted?Tintor2 (talk) 17:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

I figured a block would be necessary, if only to get his attention. If, however, he is willing to discuss, I think the block should be lifted. --Farix (Talk) 17:42, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Though I agree that Serpent's edits are probably in good faith, and that he might simply not be that knowledgeable of Wikipedia yet, his edits to this article, which are actually just removal of information, are unfounded. All the information that he has removed can be sourced and if assessed, will probably not be considered excessive based on the content of GA status anime character articles. As per WP:NPOV and WP:IN-U, plot information should be written in a way that can be understood by others besides those who are familiar with the series, which is what those tidbits he removed from the plot, personality, and abilities sections tried to do. If necessary, I can provide a source for every single sentence in the article (to a degree). Also, I previously tried to initiate talks with Serpent (as well as the IPs belonging to him) regarding another article, but he simply removed my comments. He can apparently communicate through his edit summaries, but I'm unsure if he actually reads the edit summaries of others. DarkAngel ⁰⁰⁷ 06:37, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

GA review

I have reviewed this article for GA status and have put it on hold. My comments are here. --Midnightdreary (talk) 15:14, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mukuro Rokudo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080112141904/http://www.tv-tokyo.co.jp/contents/reborn/news/index.html to http://www.tv-tokyo.co.jp/contents/reborn/news/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090528051506/http://www.popcultureshock.com/manga/index.php/reviews/manga-reviews/manga-minis-101408/ to http://www.popcultureshock.com/manga/index.php/reviews/manga-reviews/manga-minis-101408/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:12, 7 February 2018 (UTC)