User talk:Tintor2/Archive 8

FF13 Revision

Why did you revert the change? You say "subjective writing, no quotes used". I used the same expressions as in the article, but paraphrased. Read it yourself. --134.93.78.76 (talk) 09:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

"Soi-Fong"

Where are you getting this spelling when "Suì-Fēng" is official?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 03:51, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I actually never wrote. It appears it was an anon.Tintor2 (talk) 15:30, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

It looked like it showed up in your edit.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 18:28, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

When last editing the chapter and episode list, I have been only adding release dates and reverted the anon's name change. However, they continued going on and I haven't been paying attention to the lists.Tintor2 (talk) 18:40, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Didn't you edit the list? I'm not sure what's Viz Media's official spelling of the name, but if you think what is the correct one, be bold.Tintor2 (talk) 18:48, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I've been trying to fix everything on the page, getting rid of bad formatting, and making sure that the proper romanizations are used. Suì-Fēng happens to be the one for Soifon.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 23:23, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

But we are supposed to use the official Viz Media names per wp:common name.Tintor2 (talk) 23:24, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Metal Gear

Hello TIntor2. I have written to User:Havermeyer to see if he will voluntarily undo his move. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 23:47, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Character list references

Hey, I noticed you introducing a variation of the referencing style I created to List of Naruto characters. As you know, I'm not quite happy with it yet. I was wondering if you had any thoughts on my latest version. Goodraise 15:34, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

It's good. Personally, I like that it contains the chapters from each volume. Maybe a discussion in the project could be good. I started doing it in the Naruto list, as it was so big that loading times were relatively longer. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 15:39, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, loading times depend more on template usage than on plain size. Still, your changes caused a speedup of around 5 seconds (from 20.640 to 15.351). By the way, did you look at the source? I created two new templates to make things yet easier. Goodraise 15:51, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I noticed. It could work with any series unless the English version's volumes are different like Ranma 1/2.Tintor2 (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

File:KonohamaruIruka.PNG

Hi! I wonder, is File:KonohamaruIruka.PNG being replaced because now there are better images of another character that are there, and you do not want the character page to have too many images? Thanks WhisperToMe (talk) 09:59, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

The article already has a large number amount of images and one that shows only two characters may not be helpful. Also the six Pains' image could also be removed to avoid further copyvio.Tintor2 (talk) 15:18, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion over manga volumes to just volumes

it's in WP:ANIME archives, it wasn't that long ago, so you'll be able to find it. Anyways. it was discussed.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:13, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Discussion actually took place after the move and never commented in the actual list.Tintor2 (talk) 00:20, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

ANd you went against consensus anyways, even if it was after. That's like reverting something everyone already agreed with because it wasn't originally discussed before the bold edit. It could even be considered something similar to BRD but more like BDR (but against consensus).Bread Ninja (talk) 00:24, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I hadn't checked the page, but what was the specific reason for that? Even more, none of the links to such page were fixed.Tintor2 (talk) 00:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

It was a small consensus, and i made the discussion as active as possible.Reason was, there was no reason to be specific for "manga volume" if theres no other kind of "volume". basically no need to make things that specific.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

I see. I'll add the link to the list and move it.Tintor2 (talk) 00:59, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring

Your recent editing history at Squall Leonhart shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block. If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly.

For what it's worth, I agree that "protagonist" is more appropriate than "hero", but this needs to be worked out at the talk page, not through reverting. rʨanaɢ (talk) 19:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

Commented there. Removed every message from IP as the discussion was already on his own talkpage.Tintor2 (talk) 23:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

RE: Copyedit and some opinions needed

I finished copy editing for grammar and other style issues. Here are recommendations that I think will improve the article.

• Add a "Description" section.
  • This will provide context for the rest of the article.
  • The details provided here should allow you to trim details in "Appearances"
• Reduce the number of non-free images
  • The fewer the better
  • Try to make every image count as much as possible by using an image with as many elements as possible.
• Rearrange the content in "Reception" to improve the prose's flow.
  • Try to group similar comments together, basically categorize the reception and put similar categories in the same paragraph.
  • This will help the reader by avoiding unnecessary switches between ideas.

Hope it helps. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 15:13, 7 November 2011 (UTC))

Thanks for the copyedit. I'll see what I can do. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 15:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Removed the other media image and expanded the caption for the Part II image. I found one sketch that talked about Naruto's Part II design but I don't know if it would more suitable.Tintor2 (talk) 15:47, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

I did some copy edits to the description at User talk:Tintor2/ draft. Here are further comments:

• The second sentences seems awkward. Maybe change "featured most of the times wearing" to "frequently wears".
• The "following his graduation" part confuses me. Does it apply to the jumpsuit and the head band or just the head band? If the latter, maybe move that part to earlier in the sentence with commas, "and, following his graduation, a headband representing him as a ninja from Konohagakure."
• The statement "shows minor changes in his body" seems to conflict with the preceding statement, "able to maintain his human form". Not sure what to suggestion though.
• The last sentence doesn't make sense to me, and I'm not sure what to suggest. I think it is the "no mean" part.

The article is really taking shape. Keep up the good work. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 17:25, 15 November 2011 (UTC))

Extra copy edits never hurt. If you plan to go for GAN, then it might be fine without. If you plan to go for anything higher, then yes, another copy edit is in order. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 14:00, 21 November 2011 (UTC))

Interview

Hi, I am a Wikipedian and researcher from Carnegie Mellon University, working with Professors Robert E. Kraut and Aniket Kittur. We’ve published many scholarly papers on Wikipedia and are partnering with the Wikimedia Foundation on several new projects.

I have been analyzing collaboration in Wikipedia, especially Collaborations of the Week/Month. My analysis of seven years of archival Wikipedia data shows that Collaborations of the Week/Month substantially increase the amount and nature of project members’ contributions, with long lasting effects. We would like to talk to Wikipedians to better understand the processes that that produce this behavior change.

We’ve identified you as a particularly good candidate to speak with because of your involvement with the WikiProject Video games' Collaborations, which is one of those we’ve been investigating. It would really help us if you would be willing to have a short talk with us, less than 30 minutes of your time. We can talk via skype or instant messenger or other means if you’d prefer. Do you have time at any point during this week to chat? If so, please leave a message on my talk page.

Thanks! (This my personal website)Haiyizhu (talk) 04:51, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Sephiroth

Sorry for the edits I've made on the Sephiroth page I was just trying to help, don't worry I won't edit anything again.--68.205.43.4 (talk) 21:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Naruto Uzumaki

The article Naruto Uzumaki you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Naruto Uzumaki for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Redtigerxyz ^Talk 10:52, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Characters like Sherlock Holmes, James Bond (character), FA Batman also have these sections. Also the language is sloppy. You are free to ask for reassessment. All the best. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:21, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

The sections are not the only reason of a fail. The language and inadequate clarity of jargon like Part II, chakra is also a major reason of fail. Thus, it needed a rewrite in this aspect too. If you think that the article can be a GA as it is. Please approach GA reassessment. Thanks. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 03:35, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Having read the GAN, I have to say that I don't think the article should have failed so quickly. I disagree with the need for excess fictional details, which can often be summarized for simplicity and length. And I think the examples given give undue weight to the subject's fictional details. Valid issues were brought up (like a more consideration for the layman), but typically a week is given to address issues. The only item that qualified for quick fail was the fact tag, which the reviewed added 17 minutes before failing the GAN. I say there are grounds for a reassessment. Though, it might be easier to get the article copy edited and renominate it. (Guyinblack25 ^talk 22:21, 5 December 2011 (UTC))

A barnstar for you!

	The Writer's Barnstar
	This is for all of your edits on the Dragon Ball Z articles. VegetaSaiyan (talk) 00:20, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

	Merry Christmas!
	Best wishes, Fleet Command (talk) 17:49, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

RE: Characters of Persona4

Sorry! My bad, yes, I removed too much @-Kosh► Talk to the Vorlons►Moon Base Alpha-@ 20:19, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your support and a Merry (belated) Christmas to you as well. You had asked me last year if I had the Mega Man Official Complete Works books for information regarding the Mega Man Legends articles. Well, I got the the original and X books (obviously or the development sections all the MM article would be pretty poor) but they have no information on the Legends series. However, there are some Japan-exclusive DASH books you could tap if you have the time. This page has some links to some translations if you're interested. ~ Hibana (talk) 20:47, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

List of Naruto episodes

Can you please give your source from where you assumed the anime had 5 seasons and grouped them as such? The new season order that you placed conflicts with the article and the sources, either fix those things and give sources for the new order or revert the changes so that the sources, article and season order reflect each other. By the way those articles (including the article on individual seasons) were once considered as featured article and the edits you have made doesn't go with the other info. Personally I think the previous 1-9 season order was correct and since at that time it was approved for FA, I have no reasons to believe otherwise but if you have some proofs that the new 1-5 season order is the right one, then I would definitely like to hear that and if not then please correct them all asap.117.197.241.202 (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I cant seem to find the source you are talking about for the new order. I only see sources that states season 1 has 1-52 episodes and since the anime has been fully adapted in English, the seasons should be ordered by English ordering as this is English site.117.197.241.202 (talk) 16:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

The only source I see that contradicts with VIZ's season order is IGN's season order, which says the season has 26 episodes but since it is not a reliable source as I think that is user based I don't think we should consider it and since viz has released season box set, we should go with it. See this template {{Japanese episode list}}, as stated in it, we should first consider a Japanese or English season box sets for season order but if that fails we should go with opening and closing theme song changes but if that also fails the list should be broken with each season containing approximately 26 episodes, and I think the previous list was done by breaking each season into 26 episodes since at that time season box sets were not available but now the case is different and we have season box set so the list should be arranged according to it. I can help you to correct it if we have achieved consensus. 117.197.241.202 (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will do that just after I remind myself what my 2nd wiki user account's(CaseNotClosedYet) pass was. I forget a lot. 117.197.241.202 (talk) 19:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Protect Naruto Ultimate Ninja Storm Generations's Page

OK it keeps Vandailsm It Revert Edits North Amercian's Release Date is March 13, 2012 I Don-t Know How Protect Page Thanks Joeblanc98 (talk) 05, January 2012 21:29 (UTC) —Preceding undated comment added 02:29, 6 January 2012 (UTC).

That was in December.Tintor2 (talk) 12:18, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Persona 4 arcana

Listing this information is not pushing into game guide territory. The Tarot motif is central to the games and is an important aspect. You made a bold edit, and I partially reverted it. Instead of reverting me entirely and doing a whole additional series of edits that go against the established form of the pages, it would be best to raise your issues on the talk page.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:58, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Also it is not a stretch to say that the next episode of Persona 4 is going to air a week from yesterday, considering the English simulcast is scheduled for that day.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:00, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

You reverted addition of other sources and fixes just for the addition of what is each character's social link so I had to revert such edit. First of all there is no explanation to what is a social link in the article. They don't help explain the character's motives or traits, so how are general readers supposed to need such information. They only explain what new fusion will be better in the game, which sounds more like game guide content rather than description of the characters.Tintor2 (talk) 23:27, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

I put the references back in. And the social link content is central to the game and the social links type often directly correlates to the characters' personality by means of the Tarot interpretations.—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

But it's still OR and completely unreferenced. Moreover, there is no need for trivia when the actual section is supposed to describe the major traits. The social links are still unexplained and they are better for the gameplay section of the games.Tintor2 (talk) 23:44, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It is not OR when it is explicitly stated in the games. And I've introduced prose describing Social Links so please do not remove it, again. And it is not trivial because the whole Tarot theme is central to the games.—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:52, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It may be central to the game but not to the characters (how is the general reader going to find that Ai's social link is the Moon?). And it still remains as unverified information.And don't use capitals for edit summaries.Tintor2 (talk) 23:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

It's verifiable from the bloody games.—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:59, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

But no reference was used or reasoning for the non-gamers. Also, please keep in mind WP:Civility.Tintor2 (talk) 00:02, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't need to provide a citation to show that something exists in the game itself.—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

[1] [2]—Ryulong (竜龙) 00:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do you think the article is tagged for lack of references? Moreover, you still did not make it clear why the arcana are important for the character list. It may be a central part of the game, but so is the weather. This a character list, and information here should be about the characters, not how the game works. So please stop making those edits without taking those things into account.Tintor2 (talk) 13:21, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

The arcana are important for the character list because it is a central theme to the franchise. And your edits to remove it take it out of line with Characters of Persona 2 and Characters of Persona 3, where the Arcana information is listed on both. And would you stop requesting a stupid reference for the airdate of the next episode of the anime? It is not unverified that the next episode is airing on the 12th. I've been giving you this damn link to show you that but you don't seem to go to it.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:25, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh dear.... We already said lots of time it's a central part of the game, but not why they are important for the character themselves. Bringing other character lists who are requiring work is just other stuff and is not valid argument. As I said the mentioning of arcanas in the list is confusing and unexplained to the reader, and don't make a single impact to the characters. If you had already a source to cite the next episode's airdate, why didn't you add it to begin? Never add unsourced information to the articles.Tintor2 (talk) 00:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Could you not copy-edit the Persona 4 episode list? You are removing things that interconnect with other episodes (Yuuta seeing Nanako in her costume in episode 13 is the reason he fights with Kaneko in episode 14; and Nanako comes across all of the people we see in episode 14, so mentioning Shu in some manner is important) and things that are otherwise relevant (the reason why Rise chooses the night club in episode 15; why Kanji is keeping everyone from helping Naoto in episode 16). I'm not even sure if you've even seen the programs to determine what information is relevant to the plot or not. So could you leave the copy-editing to Jinnai, who has been doing a bang up job of it?—Ryulong (竜龙) 23:22, 28 January 2012 (UTC)

I removed for reasons already stated. None of episodes 13's sentences are explained in the 14th's summary. Rise's reason is not completely explained and shows no relevance to the summary as well as Kanji's claim. I have seen the episodes and none of the sentences I removed have clear connections with other ones. Think about the reader's idea when trying to read sentences like "a boy sees Nanako" and then it jumps straight to another scene rather than telling every detail.Tintor2 (talk) 01:46, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The Yuuta seeing Nanako as Loveline thing is mentioned in the episode 14 summary. The event concerning Shu is a problem to tie in, but the two episodes are interconnected. And Rise's reason is because of the events of Persona 3 where a Shadow causes a major blackout. Everything in episode 15 ties in with Persona 3 so I do not know why you keep removing the link to the other page there.—Ryulong (竜龙) 02:37, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

And you added more pointless weight just for the sake of connecting with another summary. That is the reason why the summaries require copyediting. Every summary should stand on its own. Just by claiming "there is no context for THIS episode", it's more obvious that it's pointless for the episode. And the link was removed cause it links to a video game, not an article or section about Tatsumi Port Island which is already incorrect.Tintor2 (talk) 18:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

GA Naruto Uzumaki

Congratulations! I appreciate your responsiveness! And your hard work. Best wishes, MathewTownsend (talk) 02:05, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

		The Good Article Barnstar
		Thanks Tintor2 for helping to promote Naruto Uzumaki to Good Article status. Please accept this little sign of appreciation and goodwill from me, because you deserve it. Keep it up, and give someone a pat on the back today. --Sp33dyphil ©hatontributions 05:47, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!Tintor2 (talk) 11:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

P4U

I do not know why you removed it, but I have restored the table on the Persona 4 Arena article. It is not necessary to have all of that exposition in prose when a tabular format provides the information in a clearer and more coherent matter. Also, the information on the Personas thecharacters is important to the game, even though you suggest it is not important to the article, as it is the name of the game. And also, the prose as you wrote it suggests that the three Persona 3 characters use their initial Personas from the game, rather than the ones that are listed on the official website and are supported by all of the reliable sources.—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:30, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I saw your edit. The fighting game is inherently different from the other Persona pages so we should treat it as a fighting game, or at least provide the information in a way that isn't bogged down in prose.—Ryulong (竜龙) 20:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Is there really a rule that has to make fighting games articles different from other video games articles? The characters from the other Persona games are also playable characters, and I don't see a reason to change it since all of them are related to the game's plot just like the RPGs. Other FA fighting games articles like Super Smash Bros. Melee and Super Smash Bros. Brawl just mention the notable changes made from its prequels while there was a huge debate in Talk: Tatsunoko vs. Capcom: Ultimate All-Stars about the listing characters. If I remember correctly, Atlus released several promotional posters of Persona 4 Arena. One already shows all the playable characters with Narukami's Izanagi and could be used as an alternative to list characters similar to File:Tatsunoko Vs Capcom box artwork.png.Tintor2 (talk) 21:47, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

It does not make sense to not list the playable characters just because we have an image that features the same content. I just find that the way you are doing it in prose with citations for each one to be not as easy to convey the information as a bulleted list or table would.—Ryulong (竜龙) 21:54, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

I said that only as an alternative. All the characters are already shown in the article but in prose and have a little more context than the bulleted one which uses the same citations for each of them. That's how all other video game articles reference the characters in prose.Tintor2 (talk) 21:58, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

If not how about expanding the character descriptions such as "Naoto Shirogane, a well-known young detective who uses the Persona ; Aigis, a cyborg who uses the Persona;" etc.? All the Persona 3 characters have their biographies updated from their sources and could be incorporated into the section.Tintor2 (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 4

Hi. When you recently edited List of Saint Seiya: The Lost Canvas chapters, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spin-off (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) 11:18, 4 March 2012 (UTC)