User talk:Jinnai/Archive 3

Re:Dragon Quest

I'm still game and will fix problems. However, I really wanted to re-nominateThe Chronicles of Riddick: Escape from Butcher Bay on Tuesday and there may be a conflict if that happens. GamerPro64 (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

O.k, for my first look, the article my be a home run. All of the references are good and aren't dead, I fixed the only dab, and most of the ALT texts are good. The only problem is the logo's ALT text. I have no idea how to improve the text. Your opinion? GamerPro64 (talk) 20:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Damn. I was looking at theautomated tips and we may need to get a copyeditor to ce it before its FAC. Shall I call upon one (i.e Scapler or Jimmblackwing)?GamerPro64 (talk) 03:19, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Do you think it should finally be up for FAC? I don't there's anymore problems.GamerPro64 (talk) 00:51, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Hey, my two weeks are up. Are you gonna be active when I nominate Dragon Quest for FAC? GamerPro64 (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I should be.陣内_Jinnai 03:02, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

O.K, i started the FAC. You can name on the nominator section.GamerPro64 (talk) 20:34, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Jinnai, do you know anything about rationales? I can't do jack withLaser Brain's comment on the FAC about the pictures since I don't know anything about pictures. GamerPro64 (talk) 14:56, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I say we should try A-class first, to be on the save side.GamerPro64 (talk) 18:56, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

• O.K. Made the A-class request here. GamerPro64 (talk) 22:53, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

BarnSakura

	The Anime and Manga BarnSakura Award
	For your tireless work on anime and manga articles. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew03:42, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Lisa Simpson

In response to your review of the page, I have removed some of the single episode occurances mentioned. However, I left some in. For example, "Bart Star", which is one of the most prevalent times that the writers take shots at her idealism. It is used as a specific example in at least two books, so I figured it is worth mentioning. Other times they are used as examples. For example, "Her brightness manifests itself in various ways. The episode "Homer's Enemy" (season eight, 1997) reveals that Lisa has an IQ of 156, and in "They Saved Lisa's Brain" (season ten, 1999) she becomes a member of the Springfield chapter of Mensa." If I removed the examples, it would just be "Her brightness manifests itself in various ways", which isn't really that informative. The examples help illustrate what is said and helps readers understand. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:30, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

So, in response to [1], whould you say your concerns have been addressed? --Scorpion⁰⁴²² 02:49, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

As i said, I think you could get by with 1/2 examples you mentioned. I realize you need something to give an idea so pick whichever one has the best secondary sources.陣内_Jinnai 04:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Done. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:40, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to your comment at the FAC. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 22:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

A sincere thank you from Wikiproject Good Articles

On behalf of Wikiproject Good Articles, I would like to express our gratitude to you for your contributions to theSweeps process, for which you completed 13 reviews. Completion of this monstrous task has proven to be a significant accomplishment not only for our project, but for Wikipedia. As a token of our sincere appreciation, please accept this ribbon. Lara 00:23, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

List of .hack characters

I reorganized the .hack article and i was wondering if the organization tag should be removed. what do you think?Bread Ninja (talk) 15:59, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

i just added my latest proposal onto the article, i feel a bit confident about this one.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Article talk pages

Please refrain from comments such as "Just because you cannot read Japanese, ..." on article talk pages. They do not help improve the article. Please reviewWikipedia:Talk page guidelines and "comment on content, not on the contributor". Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 21:21, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Rozen Maiden - Volume list

Is it really necessary to have the (incomplete) volume list on the main Rozen Maiden page, when a paragraph above it there is a link to List of Rozen Maiden chapters which has the complete list? Plough | talk to me 00:45, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see the link at the top of the section. If it is there it doesn't need to be.陣内_Jinnai 21:10, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (fiction)

I hate to interrupt your ongoing reversions of Gavin's edits, but the section wasrewritten to replace the examples with a note that most articles pass via commentary, criticism, and reception instead of extraordinary circumstances which the previous examples highlighted. Nifboy (talk) 21:57, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Dragon Quest 9

Yo, did you hear the good news?GamerPro64 (talk) 01:02, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Bishoujo game citations

Jinnai, regardless of whether you want to use Template:Cite journal or not, the way you are presenting the citation on the Bishoujo game page is incorrect. The citation you are giving is for the journal; it is a special themed issue, but except when discussing the issue as a whole the reference should still cite the individual paper. The full citation (in Harvard style) would be:

Jones, Matthew T (2005). "The Impact of Telepresence on Cultural Transmission through Bishoujo Games." PyschNology Journal 3(3): 292-311.

Also, for most citation styles, when citing academic papers (as opposed to books or monographs), one does not give the specific page of the article from which a quote or fact is extracted, as articles tend to be short. -JRBrown (talk) 20:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

For journal article citations, the main citation includes the page range occupied by the entire article (as shown in the example above: the article takes up pages 292 to 311). But in most citation styles, it is not required to give the precise page from which a specific quote or fact was extracted when citing an article, as you would with a citation to a book. - JRBrown (talk) 21:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Virgin Roster

The article Virgin Roster has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable games, unreferenced over 3 years, zero relevant ghits on Books or Scholar

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may bedeleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing{{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, andarticles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Kenilworth Terrace (talk) 19:10, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

A discussion

Howdy. You may be interested inthisdiscussion.--Rockfang (talk) 03:54, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Popotan

Whew, done. [2] and after. I marked where I started moving things around for flow in the edit history; feel free to revert any unsatisfactory changes.ZeaLitY [ Talk -Activity] 03:53, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads up, I submitted The Real Adventures of Jonny Quest to FAC.ZeaLitY [ Talk -Activity] 00:20, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

The Political Cesspool

Thanks for your feedback atThe Political Cesspool's FAC page. If you have any more suggestions or feedback, feel free to take another look! Stonemason89 (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the excess wikilinks per your feedback; I think I got all of them. Thanks again for your help. Stonemason89 (talk) 14:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Chrono Break

Absolutely does not meet the GNG. Wiki isn't a place to speculate over lapsed copyrights. Set up a redirect instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added bySheeeeeeep (talk •contribs) 15:15, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

WP:FICT

There's a grammar problem, and it's severe enough that I couldn't figure out what you were trying to say. "... retained temporarily in order to find sources to demonstrate not readily accessable ..." doesn't parse.—Kww(talk) 15:32, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Template help

I'm sorry, but I just don't have the free time right now to help. What I did already was at the limit of my knowledge and it took forever - and I have a charity to setup.

I suggest dropping by Wikipedia:Requested templates and/or trying atWikipedia:Village pump (technical). They're the experts, I just poked until it kinda worked. :-) GreenReaper (talk) 21:05, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

You could try asking Dinoguy1000, or I could have a go at it, though both options might take a while... G.A.S^talk 05:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

BarnSakura

	The Anime and Manga BarnSakura Award
	I hereby award you the Anime and Manga BarnSakura for your perseverance in improving School Rumble to afeatured article. Well done! G.A.Stalk 12:32, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations!

On School Rumble becoming an FA. Enjoy another bronze star; you earned it. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 13:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Add my Congratulations too. It's about time after 3 failed attempt. So what's next Jinnai? --KrebMarkt 15:40, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Next I'd like to work on Dragon Quest (joint project), but that's stalled waiting for A-class reviewers. Other than that, I have a couple visual novel items.陣内_Jinnai 16:22, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

What these guys said. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:58, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Also my congratulations to you for getting it up to FA, having reviewed and passed its good article nomination. It's one of those anime/manga articles you can take pride in as being one of the best articles on the site. –MuZemike 18:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

I may be a week late, but I thought I'd also give my congratulations; you definitely deserve it after all the trouble you've gone through getting WP:ANIME's fourth FA. Cheers! 「ダイノガイ千？！」^{? · Talk⇒Dinoguy1000} 01:25, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Nintendoland.com URLs

I'm sorry, but I am not seeing where the URLs for Nintendoland.com were fixed, which you mentioned in the NES FAR. I'm still unable to access the information through web-archive.org. Is there something I missed there? –MuZemike 18:35, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

It's possible I missed it, but if you can't access it nor is it archived I'd remove it is questionable whether it is a RS.陣内_Jinnai 19:28, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"Unessasary"

It is always necessary to provide the romaji for Japanese text unless it is identical to the "English" reading. In the case of the two instances in the lead of Bishōjo game, neither the "English" or the romaji reading are identical, so it's necessary to include the katakana for pronunciation guide.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:06, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Not per according to the Video game guidelines which this is more under. Galge i can see, but Bishojo game does not need that.陣内_Jinnai 04:38, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The WP:VG guidelines are completely wrong. You always include the romaji. Also that guideline only concerns the titles of video games. Not any sort of definition text or whatever is covered by the lead paragraph at Bishōjo game.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The WP:VG guidelines are completely wrong. You always include the romaji.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:49, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

{edit conflict)No its not. It has consensus. There was no clear consensus to remove that last time it was brought up at WP:MOS-J either. Also there is no reason to use it for Bishojo game because bishojo, the non-english word here, is already using romaji.陣内_Jinnai 04:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

But you still use the katakana for "game" which should be written out anyway. It doesn't matter if you have "Bishōjo" twice. Articles on Japanese biographies have the person's name twice in a row, even if it's just written in a different order the second time. It does not harm the article to keep the text "gēmu" in the lead paragraph at all, so it does not need to be removed.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 04:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

1.Barbarian: The Ultimate Warrior's A-class review

While looking at article's that's up for A-class review, I noticed that you are reviewing Barbarian: The Ultimate Warrior. I also noticed thatJappalang has addressed your problems. So please look to see if your comments have been addressed. GamerPro64 (talk) 02:27, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I still feel those 2 issues i haven't hidden with haven't been dealt with. However, i'm prepared to let them slide if a second reviewer does not have a problem with them. I am keeping them open so that said 2nd reviewer is aware of my concerns.陣内_Jinnai 02:39, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

re Lolicon tag

I responded on the Lolicon talk page. Herostratus (talk) 01:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Akira Toriyama‎

This is just to inform you that an article has to be reviewed atWP:ANIME/ASSESS and gain a consensus before it can have an importance rating higher than Mid. —Farix (t | c) 17:22, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Not that I'm against doing this, but....I don't see anything there stating such and it does seem to go against WP:COMMONSENSE that he wouldn't be such.陣内_Jinnai 18:33, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Peer review

Please see my comments at Wikipedia:Peer review/Hayao Miyazaki/archive1. Feel free to contact me on my talk page anytime. Cheers.4meter4(talk) 04:43, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Here you go for your hardwork

	The Anime and Manga BarnSakura Award
	For bringing School Rumble (which BTW is one of my favorite anime) to FA. Good job!Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew12:08, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Sakura Wars- So Long, My Love - Cover .jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Sakura Wars- So Long, My Love - Cover .jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under aclaim of fair use. However, the image is currentlyorphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it offhere and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot(talk) 05:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Star Wars: Battlefront II

I have replied to your assessment at Talk:Star Wars: Battlefront II#requested assement. Additionally I feel that Jet Moto (video game) meets C-Class criteria per Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment#Grades. If you feel that it must be start class, then please provide a rationale for your assessment at Talk:Jet Moto (video game). C-Class criteria have been met per the official guideline "The article is substantial, but is still missing important content or contains a lot of irrelevant material. The article should have some references to reliable sources, but may still have significant issues or require substantial cleanup." Jet Moto has no plot as it is merely a racing game, so the article remains with simply Gameplay, Development, and Reception. Each section provides substantial content, but may require cleanup.--Teancum (talk) 01:58, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I've provided further justification for Jet Moto (video game) and have requested a second opinion --Teancum (talk) 06:41, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I want to apologize for being so direct with my rebuttals. I should have waited to reply until I thought things through. If you wouldn't mind, I've expanded Jet Moto (video game) significantly and cleaned up the issues you listed at Talk:Jet Moto (video game)#assement clarrification, along with providing a rationale for C-Class. Could you take another look at Jet Moto? I'm also cleaning up Star Wars: Battlefront II and will get back to you when I have completed the things you required. Again, I'm sorry for being so rude. Please accept my apology and take a look when you can. --Teancum (talk) 16:50, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Portal:Anime and Manga

I've noticed you spent a lot of time at the portal, and I appreciate all the work you've done. I think you may be interested in this discussion as well.:| TelCoNaSpVe :| 19:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of One Piece manga volumes/archive2

Hello. Since you commented during the last FLC of List of One Piece manga volumes, I thought you might perhaps want to comment on the current one as well. I have posted the same message on every editor's talk page who commented during said FLC. Regards, Goodraise 11:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

.hack improvements

improvements on the .hack series is mentioned in the .hack discussion page iff you wish to participate in the discussion.Bread Ninja (talk) 08:32, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Milhist A-class and Peer Reviews Jul-Dec 2009

		The Content Review Medal of Merit
		By order of theMilitary history WikiProject coordinators, for your devoted work on the WikiProject's Peer and A-Class reviews during the period July-December 2009, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. TomStar81 (Talk) 01:41, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration notice

You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#MOS:JP – Romanization for words of English origin and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—

• Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests#Requests for Arbitration;
• Wikipedia:Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Prime Blue (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Please use Talk page when modifying articles

I'd like to kindly ask you to use the Talk page when modifying articles that are undergoing heavy editing. For instance, in History of role-playing video gamesyou removed content that was pretty easy to verify when instead you could have asked for clarification. You also removed two useful links to a sub-section of another article that were meant to help readers better understand the issue. Lastly, you broke one of the citations used in the article that would have otherwise been hard to retrieve if I had not caught it in time. Thanks! SharkD  Talk  05:46, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for re-assessment of Jet Moto (video game)

I have rewritten major sections of Jet Moto (video game) per your assessment and have had a second editor look over the article as well. Can you take a look at it to see if it meets what you were looking for in regards to B-Class criteria? Thanks. --Teancum (talk) 18:16, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I have responded to your comments at Talk:Jet Moto (video game)#B-class assessment. Please let me know what you think. --Teancum(talk) 17:36, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I have updated the article per recent comments and replied on the article's talk page. --Teancum (talk) 11:45, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Please notify me if you revert my bot

You reverted revisions including my bot's edit to clean up some OR, which is fine, but please notify me if you need to revert my bot as part of the cleanup so I know to reapply the edit. Thanks Rjwilmsi 18:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation of Video games developed in Japan

A request forformal mediation of the dispute relating to Video games developed in Japan was recently filed. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process ofmediation is entirely voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. Please review therequest pageand the guide to mediation requests and then indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request welcome at the case talk page.

Thank you, AGK 22:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced tag

From the usage documentation: "This template can either be placed at the bottom of the article page (in an empty "References" or "Notes" section—usually just before a

template), or at the top of an article, or on the article's talk page." It's a perfectly acceptable practice to place it in the references section. If you feel so strongly about it, I would suggest you go to the{{unreferenced}} talk page and get it changed there.--Malkinann (talk) 20:25, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Not exactly an RfC, but close to it. (List of One Piece manga volumes)

Please see here. Regards, Goodraise 22:13, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Category:Tandy games

Hello and Thank You for your contribution to the[3] Is it possible, that you refer to Tandy 1000 as a platform? This would explain something. Cheers -- Make (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes.陣内_Jinnai 23:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Dirty Pair (disambiguation)

Hello Jinnai. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion ofDirty Pair (disambiguation), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Seems a reasonable disam to me. Needs discussion at XfD. Thank you. GedUK  21:00, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

OrphanReferenceFixer: Help on reversion

Hi there! I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. Recently, you [4] my fix to Dragon Quest.

If you did this because the references should be removed from the article, you have misunderstood the situation. Most likely, the article originally contained both <ref name="foo">...</ref> and one or more<ref name="foo"/> referring to it. Someone then removed the <ref name="foo">...</ref> but left the<ref name="foo"/>, which results in a in the article. I replaced one of the remaining <ref name="foo"/> with a copy of the<ref name="foo">...</ref>; I did not re-insert the reference to where it was deleted, I just replaced one of the remaininginstances. What you need to do to fix it is to make sure you remove allinstances of the named reference so as to not leave any .

If you reverted because I made an actual mistake, please be sure to also correct any reference errors in the page so I won't come back and make the same mistake again. Also, please post an error report at User talk:AnomieBOT so my operator can fix me! If the error is so urgent that I need to be stopped, also post a message at User:AnomieBOT/shutoff/OrphanReferenceFixer. Thanks!AnomieBOT⚡22:57, 21 November 2010 (UTC) If you do not wish to receive this message in the future, add{{bots|optout=AnomieBOT-OrphanReferenceFixer}} to your talk page.

TRAJQ

Trying again for that Jonny Quest article, which is substantially unchanged since the last nomination (which died due to inactivity). Just dropping by in case you still wish to support or review; thanks! ZeaLitY[ Talk - Activity ] 05:22, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for stopping by; implemented all suggested changes.ZeaLitY [ Talk -Activity] 16:42, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hello

Hi Jinnai, hope you're well. As an editor who hasused the services of the Guild of Copy Editors, I thought you might be interested in knowing that the Guild is currently holding elections for its coordinators. To view the discussion and voice your opinion, please visit theelection page. Thanks! Lunalet (talk) 10:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Dragon Quest Anime and Manga

I saw your post on the Anime and Manga project. I'm not sure exactly what information your looking for, but I have the Shounen Jump that the serialization of Dai no Daibouken started in. (I don't have the ones with the one-shot stories before serialization). It is the 1989 No. 45 October 23rd volume. Though since they advertise volume 46 going on sale on October 17th the volume probably went on sale on the 10th. There is a poster in it for the Dragon Quest Anime (Abel) with information about the characters and the story on the back. It also has information about the then upcoming Dragon Quest IV. The only thing of interest there, though, is probably Horii talking about why he added mini medals to the game. I haven't been very active here lately so I haven't had a chance to add any of the information myself to the related articles, but feel free to ask for more details if there is anything there that sounds of use.SMimas(talk) 14:40, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

The two big things would be citation to verify that it was serialized in the Weekly one (reliable sites in English just say Shonen Jump), but since you have the one that starts serialization, that can be used to note when it started serialization. If they mention there that its a continuation from the one-shot stories because I can't find any RS, Japanese or English, online that confirms that. The other is Horii's reason for adding mini-medals. Info on the anime about what it was based on if its mentioned is all that is really needed for the main article, but could really help the anime article itself.

On a slightly-related note there is a Dragon Quest task force. Right now its relatively inactive, but its a good place to centralize discussion about what to work on and do.陣内_Jinnai 16:26, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, I put my response under the talk there so that the info would be available to others as well. SMimas (talk) 15:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

MOSJA

I think your opinion would be most helpful in the "Names of modern figures" discussion on the talk page, as well.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 19:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

N

I took your concerns into account and tried to make the notability guideline more clear. Somewhere down the line we're going to need to work on the other guidelines, especially for lists. For now we're just trying to builda consensus around Blueboar's statement. Not sure if you caught it when you were in the discussion the first time. Shooterwalker (talk) 00:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I think that is fine. I think trying to make anything more than List of X is bound to get us into trouble. Before WP:FICT was turned into an essay we basically passed the buck on lists because character and episode lists were too well supporte d by the fiction community. I feel that any attempt to remove the majority of them as "unnotable" will cause an uproar in the fict community as a number feel that they've already given a lot of ground while their opponents keep asking for more.陣内_Jinnai 02:55, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Endof year awards

	The Anime and Manga BarnSakura Award
	I award you this BarnSakura in recondition of your contributions to anime and manga articles during 2010 and because everyone deserves a little recondition every once in a while. ;)—Farix (t | c) 14:27, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Anime TV articles

I removed your unexplained merge tags on Anime and two Anime TV articles. See step I in WP:MERGE and explain your proposal first in the Talk page. Helping people learn how anime appears to the Japanese public is a good idea, but follow the process so we know what you have in mind.

I added "See also" links in Anime to those articles (the link on "UHF" in the text isn't helpful because to a reader that looks like a link to a "UHF Television" article so it won't be followed).

One of the articles does seem too large to merge into Anime well, so a summary in Anime with suitable linking to the article should be sufficient. The UHF Anime article is quite short... but there is a note that the Japanese version should be examined for more material. Wow, the Japanese article is much longer, so that article might also grow. I wonder if the Anime project has UHF Anime on their task list. -- SEWilco (talk) 20:05, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Can you remind me what the two were? I think one was Late night anime, but can't rmember the other.陣内_Jinnai 20:14, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I had a typo above in UHF anime. That's the other one. --SEWilco (talk) 04:03, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

DQIV

There is no guideline or policy suggesting that we match the box art with the article title. Regardless, your argument does not lend itself to using two box arts, only one. Your argument merely ends up with removing the NES box. I don't really mind which one is removed, as long as one is. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler!Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 20:39, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the wording that restricts images to 1 per infobox, does allow in exceptional circumstances 2 images. I'd say that for this title, it is an exceptional circumstance. I can't remember what policy/guideline that was in offhand (that restricted it to one), but I remember clearly reading the wording as not being absolute.陣内_Jinnai 20:50, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I commented on the discussion on the article page, I think that it should for convention to match V and VI use the Quest, but if both cannot be in the main infobox, why can't one be used further in the article. It is for reference to 2 different products, so should the IV DS game be split into a separate article. Final Fantasy IV was split into 2, one for the original, and 1 for the DS remake. The DS Remake of DQ IV has an additional chapter, as well as graphical updates, and new features. If it is merged, both should be represented.Sgetz (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:VG/GL - remakes should have both a good reception and development section to be split. Also DQ4 is the only one to be released with 2 different titles at 2 different times in 2 radically different forms.陣内_Jinnai 21:12, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I feel that we should remove the NES box, just by the virtue that if we were going to use any of them, it would be best to use one that also depicts the characters. Additionally, removing that fair use image makes it easier to provide a better fair use image.

Speaking of images, wouldn't it be best if the screenshots for the two versions were the same scene, to make the rationales stronger? - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 03:00, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

For the screenshots, yes, but I have no idea how to take images from a DS. Also for the DW4 title, that should imo still be used as its radically different. It would be best if we could just combine the 2 into one merged image.陣内_Jinnai 03:34, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that even with the images merged into one image file, they still constitute two separate images and need two fair use rationales. The image is different to be true, but the question is, is it necessary to demonstrate the differences? An image can only be included if there is serious discussion about the difference between the two box arts, and even if there were, one may argue that there is something that is more strongly discussed that would be more important to discuss. - The New Age Retro Hippieused Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:12, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I know at least one source discussed the difference, but not how much.陣内_Jinnai 04:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, it'd be simpler to get a screenshot of the NES version that matched the PSX version. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 04:32, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Well the PSX version isn't the same as the DS. It was entirely revamped.陣内_Jinnai 04:51, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

We do not have to compare the DS and NES versions. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 05:37, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

if there is significantly different, and have enough coverage, than it could be split so it could be less confusing.Bread Ninja (talk) 05:52, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

The graphics and sound are signifigantly different, but that's about it. IMO that in and of itself is not enough for a split. I doubt we could get the main DW4 article to FA which is what I'm hoping for as it will lack a lot of development info and it'll likely be asked to merge the other back into this parent.陣内_Jinnai 01:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

DQVI

Thank you, 陣内. User:Kelzorro doesn't seem to understand that multiple sources, albeit weak in their integrity, can corroborate factual information and improve the accuracy of an article. i would like to add a note, since the article talked about the SFC fan translation, about the recent DS fan translation as well. What do you think about re-wording that section?--69.223.190.148 (talk) 01:52, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, I'm not sure if you're aware, but the content you restored is enclosed in comments so it doesn't matter and isn't included in the article anyway. You may want to fix this. --99.54.148.225 (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm aware. I purposefully am keeping it hidden till the discussion at WT:VGhas finished since flagged revisions isn't on that page.陣内_Jinnai 21:11, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Contradicts what guidelines?

Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines? -hahnchen 15:08, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I guess 1/2 items they must have changed since I last checked. That was not to upload a new image unless to replace an existing one, even if it was a non-English one from the country of origin, without consensus. My only concern with the wording is if the release was released as part of a compliation in English, such as some of the Growlanser games. The guideline would not be able to adapt to that.

Also that one does not allow for a free replacement from a foreign source if one exists, which violated WP:NFCC.

The other, the number of images in an infobox, does not allow for exceptions by stating without exception. Since this is a guideline it shouldn't be so strongly worded. Nowhere else is the 1 image/infobox supported.陣内_Jinnai 15:33, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Guidelines cannot cover all cases, Growlanser would be an edge case which should be discussed under its own merits. I'll make the guideline state that replacing non-English versions with English versions is OK. There is nothing disallowing free images, the entire section is built on top of NFCC, there was nothing about free versions in the text I replaced. One image per infobox was present in the previous version, although was tempered by the word "generally", I'll put that back in. - hahnchen 15:45, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I'm talking about games where a version goes into public domain in one country, but remains in copyright in every English country. There would be a huge problem if that occurs imo, even if its not the country of origin.陣内_Jinnai 15:53, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Mega Drive content note wording?

Hey, I feel we're on the verge of wrapping this up, but maybe that's just me. What would you like me to change in my footnote? I like the "most sources agree 29 million" explanation line in the content note explaining the path to higher sales, do you have a wording tweak suggestion? Something like "nearly all sources for worldwide sales agree 29 million with 14 million sold in North America" instead of just "most" ?--SexyKick 17:25, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I think something like "most sources use 29 million sales data, but this data was originally released in 1995 before production and sales of the Mega Drive ended."陣内_Jinnai 17:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, I can go with that. I plan to update the article today at some point since we have at least a 5 (or 6 with Indrian, 7 with LedRush) to 2 in consensus.--SexyKick 18:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Help

I'm currently on a new internet service and don't know how to get to my account manager, so i wont be able to go to certain estricted areas such the New Angeltalk page. So i was thinking if you could check it out. a discussion about merging it, though i'm not getting through. This was already mentioned before on WT:ANIME, but i thought you could help out get a consensus there.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:49, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Alright I've gone over and given my 2 cents. We'll see what happens as it still seems to be just 1 member against the merge.陣内_Jinnai 02:29, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

technically 2...but i guess i could see why you would say 1.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:37, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Well I put my voice in. It looks like one is really trying to elawyer the GNG.陣内_Jinnai 02:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

i don't know what that means, but if you're talking about the GNG, i think i know what who you might be talking about. oh well thanks for your help. I'll try to fix my account settings soon.Bread Ninja (talk) 02:45, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi guys. I am not trying to wikilawyer anything. Have explained myself further at the central discussion. --Malkinann (talk) 07:47, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Have also started a new topic at the main anime wikiprojecthere.--Malkinann (talk) 08:58, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Spawning (video gaming)

Hi, you recently movedSpawning (video gaming) to Spawning (video game). Was this indended? I was sure "video gaming" is the dab term for video game terminology/topics, e.g.Level (video gaming), Boss (video gaming), Continue (video gaming),Ghost (video gaming), etc. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK20:54, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

If it is, then it changed without my knowledge. I thought it was (video game) for everything unless there was an actual video game with that name.陣内_Jinnai 21:33, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for input! I started Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Video gaming or Video game for disambiguating to hopefully get a consistent convention. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK22:51, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Rozen Maiden

I think the anonymous IP User and I have done some trimmed and merged quite a few sections aswell as moving certain information to it's respected article. Do you think the tag should be removed? Or do you think there are still more sections that can be merged?Bread Ninja (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Are you talking about the {{Condense}} tag? If so, I think that could be better done by moving the plot info the plot section and have the anime/manga sections talk about the real-world aspects of each as both do some repeating; the only plot-related info that needs to be in those sections is when some of them take place during the story for the anime releases since it isn't chronological.

Also there are a lot of 1-sentance pagraphs. I think you could just combine those into a larger paragraph. 1 paragraph should be enough to sum up each season. More info can be mentioned on the episode listings since you already have plot info for common aspects.陣内_Jinnai 06:27, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

ON the episode listings? i'll do my best but i really didn't understand the last bit.Bread Ninja (talk) 06:42, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

The way for the main page it sounded like it was done was to list the commonalities in the plot section. Going with that, I would take the plot info from the manga and anime sections, move them under plot (where they really belong since neither is radically different (unlike Popotan's anime vs. its visual novel) and then make 2 subsections, one for manga and one for anime that give an overview of the plot differences.陣内_Jinnai 16:29, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

well first season mainly follows the beginning of the manga, but with some minor differences i think could be mentioned in the respected characters. It is mainly the second season is where it starts to change things plot-wise but i've never seen the anime to give enough detail on the differences.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:22, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Well TBH we have only 2 FA articles on specific titles both of which are similar in their original works. I will note that when I brought up School Rumble the question was posed as to why isn't there any info on the anime and its differences in the plot section (i was also asked why there wasn't a seperate character section too). I was able to deflect that only because the changes did not affect the plot - such as a longer bike chase scene.陣内_Jinnai 21:34, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Well i'll do my best on to finding a good layout for the article. if you don't like the way it is now, just tell me and i'll try to fix it.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Basically IMO it could be:

1. Plot
   1. Anime/Anime adaptation/Differences in the anime/etc
   2. Characters
2. Media
   1. Manga
   2. Anime - The info on the Duel Walzer OVA is the only place imo outside the plot section that could give additional plot info as its not really a part of Rozen Maiden's plot.陣内_Jinnai 21:43, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Re: WP:VG/GL move proposal

I think you've got the wrong guy here. :) BTW, your email doesn't appear to be to be enabled. Regards, Deacon of Pndapetzim(Talk) 05:54, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I don't think PocketBook page is advertisement. You may write specifically what bothers you we'll see that.

PocketBook Page

Hi, I don't think PocketBook page is advertisement. You may write specifically what bothers you we'll see that.--Brainsteinko (talk) 11:36, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Re:Copyedit requests

Sorry, but I've just got too much on my Wikipedia plate right now. I'm already doing a content collaboration on Maniac Mansion, copyediting both that article and The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening, and waiting for User:PresN to give me the go-ahead on the next article in his planned thatgamecompany FT. On top of that, I've got a dormant project of my own—Flight Unlimited—waiting on the side. Even though Dragon Warrior 1 is one of my favorite games, I honestly can't fit it into my schedule. Again, sorry; I know what a nightmare it is to find copyeditors. I hope you can find someone before too long.JimmyBlackwing (talk) 14:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

The request for mediation concerning Video games developed in Japan, to which you were are a party, has been accepted. Please watchlist the case page (which is where the mediation will take place). For guidance on accepted cases, refer tothis resource. A mediator should be assigned to this dispute within two weeks. If you have any queries, please contact a Committee member or the mediation mailing list.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK 21:35, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
Message delivered byMediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.

Formal mediation has been requested

Formal mediation of the dispute relating to Role-playing video game has been requested. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process ofmediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. For an explanation of what formal mediation is, see Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy. Please now review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then, in the "party agreement" section, indicate whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page.

Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 19:44, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for mediation concerning Role-playing video game, to which you were listed as a party, has beendeclined. An explanation of why it has not been possible for this dispute to proceed to formal mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Questions relating to the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to themediation mailing list. For more information on other available steps in the dispute resolution process, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 14:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered byMediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Re: Nintendo power

No problem. I can get you the info sometime between 3/4 and 3/13 - I'll be at my parents' where I have my NP collection.Andrevan@ 08:37, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The best I can tell, the title is simply "Dragon Warrior."Pictures of article in zip. Andrevan@ 23:43, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Reported

User:IvoryMeerkat has gone ahead and reported me on the revert I did involving wikipe-tan, does WP:OI apply here? -Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Notification

Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan_conflictIvoryMeerkat (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Pop Girl shows category on Tokyo Mew Mew

I've noticed from having Tokyo Mew Mew on my watchlist that an IP user (86.44.194.149 and 86.44.206.220, which I assume are the same person) has tried to categorize the article as having been shown on Pop (UK TV channel) andPop Girl (a sister channel of Pop). PreviouslyUser:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars undid that, and now you undid that when the IP user tried to add one of the categories back. I think perhaps you are misunderstanding the purpose of the category and thinking it means something about an ill-defined "pop girl" genre (whatever that would be). However, I'm pretty certain it is an attempt to categorize the article as having been shown onPop Girl, which seems appropriate given that it is already in categories for having been shown on Fox and YTV. There is also a reference in the article stating that it aired on Pop Girl (reference #29). I've also noticed that the IP tried to add the "Pop shows" and "Pop Girl shows" categories to many other articles on TV shows, but that User:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars seems to have undone all those additions. I'm not quite sure whyUser:Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars did that (perhaps because no one actually created the category pages, but just added the articles to the categories without creating the pages), but if it is appropriate to categorize articles on TV shows by the channels that broadcast them, then perhaps that should be undone and the category should actually be created. However, if I am misunderstanding the situation and you actually think that Tokyo Mew Mew shouldn't be categorized as having been shown on Pop Girl, then please explain why you think so.Calathan (talk) 22:44, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Maybe the category should be renamed to make it clear that its talking about a channel? like Category:Pop Girl network programs or Category:Shows on Pop Girl network.陣内_Jinnai 23:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The Otaku Encyclopedia and moe

Not to add fuel to the fire, but I think it might be very worthwhile consulting The Otaku Encyclopedia for the Moe article.--Malkinann (talk) 23:24, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

WAF

Btw, thanks a lot for your revert. I wrote both versions, so you reverted from something I wrote to something I wrote. Clearly, my less sophisticated past me agrees more with you than my current me. :)--78.35.220.2 (talk) 14:58, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Your request

It seems User:Eubulides (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has left the building. Pity.LeadSongDog come howl! 17:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Re:Dragon Quest FAC

Reviewed? Wasn't I a co-nominator in the last FAC? GamerPro64(talk) 19:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

MTCG entry on lolicon?

Thanks for adding in the Otaku Encyclopedia entry - do you still have Manga: The Complete Guide? It could be another useful perspective. --Malkinann (talk) 08:56, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes.陣内_Jinnai 14:10, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Dq X

Hey Jinnai, since its been a month and we havent heard anything, and that your pushing the DQ article for featured still, Im wondering if youd like to handle the merge? I should mention that New age made some expansion to the article yesterday, in terms of its speculation, not about the game itself. Ill leave it in your court since you are the expert it seems on DQs main series article. Cheers. Ottawa4ever (talk) 10:21, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There's some question now as to whether it now meets the GNG. Even the nominator admits it may be enough.陣内_Jinnai 18:29, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Jinnai. Im assuming you mean there is no question now. First I want to say I really support your work at getting DQ to featured status in May. It will tribute the series. Second Id like you to know, Im fine with keeping DQX Im not objecting to this, though i humbly disagree with the merits for keeping instead of merging. My frustrations on the talk page here; Talk:Dragon Quest X are only how you handled the merge, And I dont think It was made any better at resolution after i voiced my initial concerns. The new merge discussion lasted only one day to overturn the afd. You complained that their initially wasnt proper notification to the DQ task force at afd, but there were still two editors from the original afd (including the original nominator), that really should have been encouraged to at least verbally say they were ok with the merge on the DQX talk page before you closed it as new consensus- also you should mark off the template to preserve the integrity of the merge., ie close the new discussion after removing the merge templates. Im sure though that the other editors are ok with the work done on DQX, but they should have contributed to the discussion before the new consensus was declared- for record purposes. Anyway Jinnai, you do fine work for the most part. And i do hope you success with your fa reviewsOttawa4ever (talk) 10:00, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm not saying that its definatly not notable in and of itself atm. What I am saying is that the former AfD consensus no longer holds as even the nominator has agreed the article has changed substantially and that the local consensus seems to be keep. It'd have to be brought up for another AfD at this point and being brought up so soon after might not be seen as acting in good faith.陣内_Jinnai 16:39, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Re: Dragon Quest FAC

Yeah, I've finished with an arb case and my own FAC so I should hopefully have a full review today or tomorrow. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 18:37, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

need help with NFC

an editor persistently believes this image is necessary. can you please look at the article. on here DJMax Portable Black Square (the special edition section). i'm very tired of this editor for always being bias towards this topic. so i'm trying to get third-party whenever i can, but the WP:VG doesn't seem to care.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:55, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Since it falls under user-created images, the guidance on when to use/not to use is more vague. Honestly, I'd say no because if its to show the LE version, I would expect to see all the contents. The box itself does little to increase the understanding of the game. Even then, without some kind of development commentary or reception, I'd still say it doesn't help the article out any to have it.陣内_Jinnai 21:02, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello! I am planning on improving usage of the picture in the context and using it in other areas (main DJMax article) but Bread Ninja is just not listening to a reason. Like you wrote it's usage is bit vague. However there are two strong opposing opinions about the matter. Nobody has cared about our (I and Bread Ninja) issues from the start and nobody does anything to help us. We have been practically arguing and arguing on these grounds for months now (Please read everything on my talk page (and other talk pages related to djmax articles) and give your insights on the matter User_talk:Mikitei#DJMAX_topic). Please understand that this is not about just one picture but as a series of articles as a whole. Thank you very much! And I hope you don't mind if I ask if you can please state your relationship with Bread Ninja. I need to know that you're offering independent opinion and not for example her friend or something stating what she wants to tell me though you. I really hope that you're the party to offer your opinion about the matters. I am also very sorry on your behalf that you were pulled into this mess. I hope that won't be the case since she had similar thoughts in past. I am starting to get very tired of Bread Ninja opposing everything and anything I do to improve these articles. I also don't like her way of not always following the Wikipedia guidelines (only when it's advantageous to her own cause) despite that she claims to follow them (I can't say I am always following them either. It is just annoying that this is like a game for Bread Ninja). For example now she could have gone to WP:RFC but she didn't. We always haven't been following WP:DISPUTE when making comments about the matter. Bread Ninja for example doesn't write good english on many occasions and that leaves me confused on what she wanted actually to message me about. I know that I am not writing perfect english but she should be able to write better quality english since she is native english speaker (apparently). But she lacks basics of writing. She also doesn't understand technological or cultural points of the matters. For one example she doesn't know how to use IRC, which is pretty much one mouse click on Wikipedia help page. I tried to make direct contact with her but she doesn't want to talk directly to me. She doesn't understand that "PC/DVD" means "100% IBM-PC compatible PC and DVD-media". And I really don't know what made me just openly write to you all this but I guess I am really fed up with fighting over simple small things, explaining general knowledge and few big ones just because we have separate opinions about the matters and we just happen to be the only committers to DJMax articles. Once again I apologize on my behalf about this matter and I hope that you can give us lots of insights on the matter. Thank you! And now to the actual point of view... Current image is the only free image about collectors edition in question and it's the best we have right now. I feel that image is needed in one or two places...

• 1. On a Black Square article to show the size and design of the box. I also feel that it should show the contents but it probably won't happen until I get Black Square Collector's Edition myself (I'll probably have it by July if things go as planned) so that I can take free photo of it and upload it to Wikicommons.
• 2. On a main article page for yet non-existing part which is about these limited editions. DJMax limited editions are gorgeous and beautiful sets. However I think that there's no need for taking all limited editions into a picture. Currently existing Black Box image is just fine. I tried to suggest that if Bread Ninja doesn't like the image on Black Square article she moves it into main article and starts the section in question about these limited editions. But she was not willing to do that.
  

Bread Ninja wasn't even willing to negotiate on this matter and outrage just disagreed with my point of view after asking it. She probably just did it to annoy me. I don't entirely believe that but I got that feeling again when she immediately wrote to me that I was somehow biased and practically just made my day miserable by starting this whole fight again... I am agreeing on some of her changes like removing the comparison about DJMax and other rhythm game which I kept just because I found it interesting while it maybe wasn't really important for the whole picture. Mostly Bread Ninja just removes content and doesn't add anything new on her own to replace or improve the quality of available information. Anyway so I asked for a third party opinion and she gave your talk page as a link to me. For a final thing... I really hope that this is not too much of a trouble. I know this is big and complicated matter which went silent for a few weeks but now is starting to heat again. I hope you can help building these DJMax articles with us since it's now being proven that two people might not be able to solve issues they have together and need a third wheel so that things can progress forward. I am probably just like her. Our will is to improve Wikipedia and articles but our views for doing so conflict too much. Which is sad since if we could work as a pair, we probably would be unbeatable pair in writing interesting articles. PS. This was a reconstruction of my previous comment which my Macintosh ate by making a kernel panic twice. ;_; I apologize for it's possible lack of linear path of thoughts. --Mikitei (talk) 22:48, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me also add that most things are negotiable with me. If there's a good reason for removing the photo and people (more than 3) support that action then I can perfectly accept that it just won't be there. But as the things stand I still don't understand why Bread Ninja doesn't want that picture there. What harm does it do? What kind of misinformation it spreads? And in generally what is her problem? (Among the other things and issues.) I so much would like to work with her and I don't see any better showcase of that than those long messages I've sent to her, trying to understand her and hers point of view. I am waiting for your reply. Thanks! :) --Mikitei (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Please help me and her. Now she just edited my comments (by adding bold) to give different message. I reverted that and then she reverted it and I had to revert it again. Why can't she just make a quote? Why she often splits lists into smaller pieces and makes her own comments on top of them giving readers false assumption that she wrote them? I have to then practically move them into one group so that things aren't mixed. It alone shows that she doesn't know any proper netiquette. At least in my honest opinion. By the way, is there a problem in my written english language? I admit that I am not a native speaker. Usually I have no problems with talking and communicating with people using english but trying to communicate with her has made me doubt myself quite a bit more than once. :/ --Mikitei (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

First, as to my relation with Bread Ninja, I know her from working with her onWP:WikiProject Anime and Manga, WP:WikiProject Square Enix and elsewhere. We both have stuff we agree with, but I do disagree with her evenrecently so I hope that should be enough to show I am not some partial member or worse.

Now as to the image, I do agree that it isn't necessary; manyfeature articles lack such an image. However, it may still be appropriate if the rest of the LE's content is shown. Lunar: Silver Star Story Complete has an image of its content. However, even then, the question that would come up is how does it help improve the article, ie why is the LE box important. Final Fantasy XII had a LE box, but doesn't have one because its content was just an alternate cover with an extra disc and that was recently determined to need a higher criteria for inclusion. Is there any production info on the LE or commentary? Sales reports, etc (something other than press releases and promotion)?

However, I ultimately I cannot say the image should or should not be there; only that it isn't necessary. I would say just the box by itself doesn't really add anything to the article and even in the Lunar example, they show the content within it. (That image too should be replaced with a free version).陣内_Jinnai 23:47, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

my main problem of how blindy bias s/he is.......everything has a personal opinion on the topic, not on their views on wikipedia's standards. describing things such as "beautiful" and other to justify his/her reason. y wirting isn't perfect, but i'm not aiming for perfection at all, and i didn't know how to use IRC because it didn't work. it was until i switched different browser that it did work. I've explained many of these things to Mikitei but refuses to accept them. i'm just tired....i'm very tired of this.Bread Ninja (talk) 00:06, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that's enough Jinnai. I trust you... And I understand that point about CEs (/ LEs) you wrote about. I earlier wrote something similar to Bread Ninja also but she misinterpreted it. If it was just an alternative cover, there'd probably be no point having picture of it. I also wrote something on a similar lines that it is not "absolutely necessary" because it's not important news picture about major event for example. But like in the case of that Lunar game it still has a small valuable reason for being here. And I really do plan to improve the article and improve information about LE box. Black Square's LE box has lots of various stuff packed into it (see here andhere). It's a huge box and article itself has/had information about the box, its content and how many where produced and so on... And I can guarantee that once I get the box I'll add free image I've taken myself of it and its content into Wikipedia to replace that image if nothing else emerges. The problems with LE are for example that there's no free image available of it and it's contents. Only free image is the image in question. Of course I could just try to ask people on the net for a free picture which shows the contents. For examplehere andhereare two promising pictures but permission for their usage should be asked first. Current picture is better than no picture at all. It shows the size and look of the box. Of course the LE box itself is pretty unique and only comparable thing which comes to my mind is "Nokia N900 Hackerbox edition" which had shiny black box you had to "hack" open before you as a selected member of the press got access to it. (Hackerbox was only available to press members and few selected hackers if I remember correctly.) Without a picture of LE I think DJMax Black Square article would be less informative and less interesting article to read. That picture has also been a long time there. Numerous people have been editing the article but Bread Ninja is the first one to object having that picture there. Koreans have the same picture in same connection in their article too. Shouldn't the usage be justified since it adds clear value (albeit not much, until better image arrives) to the article and is not against Wikipedia guidelines on the matter... As for the information about the box... Most DJMax sources are in korean. I don't see it as a problem but apparently it's huge problem for Bread Ninja. Of course trying to verify something without knowing korean is hard then but since services like Google Translate do exist which can give rough image of the content in korean text for english speakers it shouldn't be too big of a problem. Wikipedia IRC channel thought that it's acceptable in most situations when there's no english language sources available which all take priority over everything else. Of course only then (like it stands in WP:NOENG)... And I'll add that this is first time Bread Ninja writes that she got IRC working. It's not a problem of accepting something or not but a problem of understanding what she actually wants to say and how she understands my messages. Her actions are also sometimes completely opposite of what she says. But there's probably no point if we tell you about these things since we are both no good for it. --Mikitei (talk) 09:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

again, you are bias. you never fully think these things through. this is the first time you are seeing me talk about the IRC? please reread my comments on your talk page, i've told you at least twice. which you refused to accept. I'm a cleaner who only keeps the necessities in bringing an article to the most informative. Your reasoning again is poor. please think three times (not just twice) about what you are saying. An image being there for a long time doesn't mean anything. And what value does it serve? whats so significant about the limited edition package?

here comes the big words that should change everything you have thought up until now. Wikipedia isn't here to be the most informative. true most informative as possible when it comes to citation and verification, but other than that, it doesn't have to be. And Wikipedia doesn't aim to be the most interesting either. Wanting this to be interesting doesn't have to do with pictures. Numerous people have not been editing, it's been a long time since people have edited, and again, you still try to justify it by using other people not touching it or objecting to it. Should i use same tactics as you and just say "you're the only one objecting to it because no editor since has removed it". how is that valid?

wikipedia isn't here to illustrate everything. Only everything that would help understand better. such as gameplay that is extremely difficult to put into words, o how the game looks like, which is usually why we add a game cover. illustrate special edition in this situation is even more meaningless.

A similar situation with most RPG games, was when they've added special editions of it with a PSP. the image always gets removed due to not being necessary. Unlike the collector's edition Lunar: Silver Star Story Complete, it's version was much more significant as it was the initial release of the English version that game with two disc along with a special edition disc.DJMax Portable Black Square doesn't have anything that actually extends the game. it's just trivial media such as artbooks, speakers, postcards, bandanna, and other little things that don't make up the actual game (unlike Lunar:Silver Star Story Complete). If you want to improve the article, add information about the game itself, the original version. then if you truly feel this is necessary, look up information on how relevant the special edition. and please stop using things such as beautiful and other subjective words that don't matter in discussing to support your reason or other stuff that is clearly original research. because in Wikipedia, it really doesn't matter whether you think it is beautiful or not.Bread Ninja (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Mikitei, I think the big thing that would help is to find commentary or production info on the LE box. I don't know if it exists, but I do know at times that some reviews will comment on packaging. That would really help.陣内_Jinnai 00:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

i think that could be the only time when an image of the packaging could be called out for, but the caption still has to compliment what the section says about the commentary.Bread Ninja (talk) 06:15, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Jinnai, I find it hard to discover any professional or semi-professional level reviews for this game in english language sources. I yesterday spent my free time for that. I need to check korean language sources next. I think that Limited Edition packages all went to common people, after googling around a little bit. Of course I cannot be 100% sure of that. I started thinking so because unlike most games (for example in United States) where "Limited Editions" or "Collector's Editions" are released in huge quantities... This Korea only "QUATTRA Limited Edition" of "DJMAX Black Square" was limited to exactly 1000 packages. And I have to say that there are english language sources but they are probably going to be blogs, unboxing videos and user/fan reviews. This is after all pretty unknown small time game series in America and Europe. What kind of stance you have on these hobbyist reviewers? I think some are acceptable nice reviews which could be considered, but they for certain aren't professional ones and should be threaded as such. Jinnai, I think you can see why collaborating with Bread Ninja is so hard even on this page. Last time when she wrote about IRC to my talk page she wrote:

...i never used IRC and theres nothing to type in, or where to type... Bread Ninja(talk) 20:47, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Which I interpreted that she didn't get the irc working. When I suggested of having real time chat I was ready to offer her help to get online and start talking with me and so on if she would have asked it... I was not expecting that she knows beforehand what IRC is and how it works. Especially because IM-services like Messenger are so popular in United States. Practically messaging went something like this... (You can and you should read the complete messages from my talk page)

...Never liked the IRC because i can never use it, it's nothing like wikipedia's format... Bread Ninja(talk) 19:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

...Using irc is easier that using wiki... you just click one link and it takes you to where you should be. Unless you want of course use some dedicated application for that like Mirc but you don't have to install one. It's just enough that you have working Java in your computers to use irc trough www browser... Mikitei(talk) 18:43, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

...Overall, the IRC isn't even good for situations when there's a dispute at hand... Bread Ninja(talk) 00:36, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Besides how you can like or dislike something you've never even used or seen? That is illogical. And in what way getting online and starting to talk is a bad thing when there's a dispute at hand? Isn't the talking just the thing needed to solve dispute? Note that the "one link" I refer to is link to Wikipedia's Java IRC client which has been preconfigured so that practically all you need to do on that page is click connect and it takes you to Wikipedia's help channel where ones can seek help for various things. I offered it few times in my message...

...Please come to wikipedia-help IRC channel[5]. We can talk faster that way... Mikitei(talk) 17:55, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Now that I wrote about her writing that she didn't get something simple like irc working on my talk page here on your talk page, she suddenly pops up and says it was working. Which was the first time she wrote about it working so I added note about that to my message. And how does she replied to that? She wrote:

...this is the first time you are seeing me talk about the IRC? please reread my comments on your talk page, i've told you at least twice. which you refused to accept... Bread Ninja(talk) 11:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Just what is going on in her mind? I don't want to offend anyone but this is just absurd. She's like poison to my motivation. I hope we can talk this thing through and resolve this dispute in a civil manner. --Mikitei(talk) 09:02, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I almost forgot to show these sites... It's easy to find these two blog posts about DJMAX Black Square. Both are about "unboxing" DJMAX Black Square Limited Edition...[http://www.protocolsnow.com/2008/12/31/dj-max-portable-black-square-limited-edition-dj-max-technica-ultimate-collection/http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Fan_service&diff=prev&oldid=399860615

Hey! - 67.224.51.189 (talk) 04:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC) ] and here [6]. Sorry about this really fast and bit messy reply. --Mikitei (talk) 11:14, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Break

Read ALL of the comments, and you'll see it. this isn't the first time you accuse me of being low-tech over the IRC and this isn't the first time i told you this. choosing this time to actually pay attention is beyond me. I've seen it before, I've attempted to use it. but it wouldn't let me type in, until i used a different browser.

Anyways, I never trust blogs unless they are written by the creators themselves or the person itself is notable to include their opinions. So i dont think we can use these to support the image.

And like I've stated before, unless the release of a special edition packaging actually does something significant to the game (other than include merchandise), it really doesn't justify an image no matter how different it is. especially since the section itself is low on information to actually include an image. I don't support the idea of not one image in there until it's shown to have significant different in reception, development and gameplay. Learn when some things just aren't important enough for inclusion. If it isn't necessary than it's trivia.Bread Ninja (talk) 17:39, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Looking at the last two links, I can't find anything that would allow them to pass WP:SPS unfortunately. The other avenue you can do instead of reviews is to look for production info, although it needs to be more than just what's in it, and the like. You'd need stuff like, why some of its content was added, why their was a LE released, details on the individual items that are packaged, etc.陣内_Jinnai 17:58, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

One thing I would do is go over to WP:CP to make certain the image is copyright free and has no trademark violations. I'm not really sure because the its an image of a box so it could fall under free use because the box itself is not copyrightable being it has a simple design. However, the logos are likely trademarked and while most of it is text (and more easily reusable), there does appear to be a special symbol on the red stripe.

While I think it may be fine, I'm not well versed in the intricacies of copyright or especially trademark law.陣内_Jinnai 06:25, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

I know that it doesn't matter what kind of picture it is, you practically always need a permission from its owner / person who shot it. There are some cases which might maybe allow free use but studying if it falls there is more complicated than just asking for direct permission. I am sending emails asking from bloggers if they are willing to contribute a picture to Wikipedia. So far many haven't answered and one has refused to give a permission. At the moment I am going through the korean websites and stuff. I find it disappointing that game's official website won't mention the Limited Edition. It's however quickly mentioned few times in developer blogs. But there's nothing worth adding to wikipedia to support the case. For example somewhere they mentioned that "LE's content has been set few days ago". They had this kind of small mentions but I might have missed something. It apparently was more huge deal to developers that "Clazziquai Edition" had been leaked to web before official release and they almost cancelled whole "Black Square" because of that if I understood the text correctly. It was something they had many times in their blogs... Since my knowledge of korean language is very very limited it might take a while I go through korean web sites. I hope you won't get impatient with me. Especially because I don't have that much free time from projects I am working on in university. And I need to rest sometimes too. :) --Mikitei(talk) 13:29, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If you can find some significant commentary (significant varies, but at least a whole decent sized paragraph devoted to it). I'm not saying that would be enough because it would depend on the content, but it would be a start.陣内_Jinnai 14:32, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Like i said, the content exactly isn't really significant to the game itself. adding more just to add an image seems very promotional considering there's nothing unique about the limited edition package that could be found that made such an impact. By the way, the game itself isn't limited edition, it's just a package that was released with it for a limited time. I myself was slightly curious to see hat i could find on the limited packaging, but have only found information on unboxing it from blogs. most of it are blogs unfortunately.But from reading the conversation, it seems the consensus of the box itself isn't enough is in order. So changes will be made.Bread Ninja(talk) 15:38, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. --Mikitei (talk) 20:57, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

consensus is image isn't necessary. and the image of the box isn't really necessary. you would have to find significant information for an image of the contents to be kept as what is discussed here. Having an image just because isn't really necessary. and if you dont agree, please bring reason. so try countering every point i mentioned.Bread Ninja (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been trying to explain why it's needed and you don't understand my view point. Besides I will talk this over with Jinnai and after that it will be still there, will be replaced, or removed. Or something else will be done to that picture. Please wait. --Mikitei (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I am at the moment whenever I have time I am searching stuff likethis from the web. In that link developers are being interviewed about Black Square and how they came up with the idea of releasing two titles one for casual and one for hardcore gamers and various other stuff. I know at the moment why the special edition is cube. But I am still searching for better sources for it. There's this guy whom wrote that limited edition's name Quattro means four in italy. Which I checked hold true. It was chosen since the Black Square is the fourth title in the portable series. Limited Edition is cube because of this square analogy, see[7]. There where only 1500 copies of Black Square Limited Edition (not 1000 like I previously stated) and it's definitely a limited number unlike what Bread Ninja wrote. She didn't obviously understand that there are two editions of the game... normal and this limited edition. Black Square Limited Edition has a ridiculous price point of costing you more than 200€ these days despite the fact that it was released only few years ago (that means price has got a lot higher from 50€ something.). Its a real collector's item. --Mikitei(talk) 21:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

nothing on the special edition. even if "you" know, you are not a reliable source, so we can't use your opinion. And reason why it's called quattra (quattr4) might not be really significant. plus it's quattra in the limited edition packaging not quattro. And i never said anything on the limited number. And i do understand there are two releases, but that doesn't mean it isn't the same game. The prices mean nothing to distinguish the game. you're seeing this at a commercial stand point, not encyclopedic.Bread Ninja(talk) 21:58, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I wasn't the source for that. And I already shared link to the source of that information. You know, I made a typo when typing the name. Thanks for pointing it out and correcting me. I know only a little bit about italian language... You're not seeing the recording value of the information. You're not understanding the cultural point nor the other points I've tried to explain. The fact that you want to remove the picture so hard is practically a censorship... Besides I think that you're forgetting what an encyclopedia is...

"An encyclopedia is a type of reference work, a compendium holding a summary of information from either all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge."- Wikipedia

I really think you should let me and Jinnai talk this out. If Jinnai is clearly on behalf of the removal the it's ok. At the moment, Jinnai has this 50-50 feeling about the matter, staying neutral on the subject. You think that picture should be removed and I think that it should stay there as it is. This is not a consensus as I can see it. You're not even giving me time to search for this stuff. Besides you still haven't answered what kind of negative effect the picture has on the contents of the article. It's only adding value in various forms to the article. Why it should be removed? I would understand your point if the picture had no relation to the contents, would be bad quality, had license issues or something like that. But there's none as far as I know. Of course it would be much better if contents would be shown. But until I get the Limited Edition package or somebody gives permission for a that kind of picture its not going to happen. Can you at least await for Jinnai to actually make a reply on this subject. One other thing I don't like about your change by the way is that you're destroying the list of limited edition contents. That list is easy to read. I guess it's a matter of taste (just like this picture conflict between you and me is) but I think that you're lowering the readability of the article by making a long sentence out of things inside the package. You might as well just remove the whole Limited Edition section if you're doing that. However if you do it I will revert that change since I oppose such actions. Why don't you do something constructive for a change and actually try to write something? Good night! --Mikitei (talk) 22:35, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I initially asked Jinnai on his point, so there should be no trouble me staying. the only reason why Jinnai has mixed feelings is because it's a free-content image. though he agrees the image of the box isn't helping. the image is unnecessary and provides so little benefit it practically does nothing at all but whatever convenience the person thinks it has. And that's the type of stuff that gets removed quickly because it's trivial. Trivia is lil bit of information that only benefits a certain group of readers instead of all readers. as for the secondsource, it seems unreliable, some guy speaking about the game. like I've said before, blogs are not reliable unless the person is significant enough and related to the topic.

the change on not listing it is actually to preserve space and avoid such unnecessary spaces taken. I'm a cleaner type as you described and summarize information to keep it's most important. Yet again, Lunar: Silver Star Story Complete holds a good example to this as it's at Good-Article class. the English version was different from the original release and it was initially released as special edition so an image is more significant, the content the special edition has isn't listed vertically. yet it's at GA status. My style is to keep all that is necessary and most significant. Images i have different standard than text, but the image has to be significant enough (through reliable sources) and its significance and relevance is backed up by . Same with music content and video content. there's a reason why these things aren't posted like crazy. Another good example is flOw a featured article (currently the best rank it could have) have only 3 images, the gameplay to illustrate how the game is played (and a section full of information to help make the image that more significant) and the creator and the development section of how he created it that helps the image stay there.

Now, for limited edition, has no change in the gameplay or doesn't hold any features much different from the original. it's a limited edition package that holds some merchandise. but the game itself holds no difference. Black Square itself was made for hardcore gamers while Clazziquai Edition made for casual as stated in the source you provided but shares nothing on the image, and I've given quite significant amount of time and you've reported with unreliable sources and not much significant information.

hypothetically if an article barely mentions something like "a limited edition was released that contains this and this and this" and nothing more, would an image really be needed to be added? the paragraph/sentence mentions nothing on impact, how different it is from the original release, nor any commentary. you see, these things need to be taken accounted for. An image for gameplay is always necessary as text doesn't always do a good job explaining the significant part, and it's visual media, so it can't be helped (unless replaced with a better clearer image). the difference in content (within the game) of DJmax portable black square from the limited edition are nothing. there hasn't been any information on reliable sources other than release date and how many are available. the section has to have significant information that calls out for an image. And your opinions don't count, verify how significant it is. why they chose the name Black Square? possibly in development section (if you found it from a reliable source).

Now, Jinnai has already said the box itself isn't helping much, and an image would be better, and he also stated on certain information before adding it. So things are decided. although he has mixed feelings he still said. But maybe i'll request someone who does know more on subjects such as this. So i'll ask someone else along side with Jinnai.Bread Ninja (talk) 23:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Bread Ninja, as far as I can tell, Jinnai thinks that the picture is ok but should be better or around it should be more "flesh" (like text about the limited edition) instead of it being bare "bones" to limited edition section of the DJMax Portable Black Square. I think he is right about it. And I also think that you and me should not be talking about what is Jinnai's personal opinion since it's Jinnais opinion. It clearly reads on this page that Jinnai at any point has not directly stated "that the image isn't helping to build quality article". That's just a mirage you've built inside your mind since you expect Jinnai to agree with you.

And it's the only free image available at this point in Commons. However I actually got permission for better image but I need to know if the owner of the image is willing to license it under CC-license before I'll add it to Commons. That image shows the box and it's contents and it's much better image for this purpose.

The current image is not unnesseary for this "showing the box" purpose. That's a fact from my opinion. It isn't just a trial piece of information since I think it benefits the article as a whole and in future it would benefit also the limited edition section in the main DJMAX article. Just because you don't see the value or purpose to it you want it to be removed. That lowers the quality of the article and makes it harder to approach. I expect that image deepens the readers understanding of the text and supports text around it. It's fully serving all of the readers.

Bread Ninja, you fail to understand that this limited edition, like the actual game too, was never released in United States of America. That effectively limits the english language sources and gaming press information about this black box. Are you saying that since there aren't enough sources available in english this article and section shouldn't exist at all? I think that's the direction this is conversation with you is heading into. I think that korean gaming sites and Pentavision developer blogs which are in korean of course are valid sources. You don't understand that some of the important development information is written to these developer blogs. I agree with you and Wikipedia guideline which points out that just any blog isn't a good source unless person who writes that blog has some significant relation to the matter at hand.

List makes it easier to read and lists exist to list things. It's not a waste of space especially in an article this small. If you think lists as a waste of space, you're not thinking it from a readers perspective. Long sentenses which are essentially just lists of things are not easy to read. And that certainly isn't helping in rising the quality of the article. There's a difference between really making a summary of information and "cleaning" or "rewriting messy sentenses using better language". I think you're just mainly removing information instead or doing actual cleaning and rewriting the sentences so that they are more understandable for readers.

However I have to admit that after browsing throught List of video game collector and limited editions only a few articles actually had a limited edition box contents listed in an actual list. This was done since the most articles had lots and lots of text. If the special edition was mentioned then items where described in a few sentenses per item. So I think we can edit the actual list out of there since listing things like that is not commended in english wikipedia. Thanks for pointing this out. Let me do the editing later this evening... I've probably edited the list out by the time you're reading this.

It's obvious that we have different kinds of criteria for selection images. But at the same time we have a common goal of helping reader to better understand the core context of the article text. I've been writing about Black Square limited edition package now little bit more and I even more want the picture there to show just what kind of package it is. People whom have no possibility to get that package can also enjoy it when they see what's it like. I understand your point about Flow but there are other reasons for pictures also. Limited edition for example comes with a plant seeds and small speakers. Just how many gaming boxes take their expression to that level? Especially when it's a product for a handheld media device like PSP. Black Square limited edition comes also with DJMAX Technika card which extends the game beyond the PSP. I should think somekind of methaphora here... There's a difference between science and religion. Both are valuable in their own way. They have a relationship which ties them together. However at the same time they reject each other. Get it?

Oh, and if you think that I have lots of free time you're wrong. I am going to university, I am working at company and still trying to enjoy my hobbies. Besides I am not a very fast translator. Time you've waited is only a brief moment. And like I stated before this game did never catch interest of english language gaming press. After that I tried to demonstrate what kind of material you can find in english. And I agree with you that it's not very good quality. I am pretty sure that almost all good reviews and press material is available only in korean. I am doing what I can but you should understand that pressuring like that doesn't do any good. It only accumulates my stress.

The image we have here is not against Wikipedia's guidelines, it's a free image and it's related to the subject. It's point is to provide readers a picture of the subject talked about in text. Even if it's just a picture of a box, it does its job well.

And your opinion Bread Ninja is different and you can have different opinion but you don't have authority to decide it alone whenever the image is indeed unnesseary or not and right to remove it just because you think it's "trial" information. That would not be the kind of democracy I expect from Wikipedia users. It would be helpful (and much appriciated) if more opinions are collected about this matter. --Mikitei (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Mikitei, if you find info later on it can be re-added. As long as the image is on commons it'll be easy to re-add. I have to agree that it doesn't add much. Does it have some tangetle benifit? Yes. Is that benefit worth inclusion - under normal circumstances if this image had elements that were a main part of the image - such as characters - as part of the box it would be removed. The only reason I haven't outright said no is because it doesn't. There's no policy/guideline other than what WP:NOTIMAGEsays.陣内_Jinnai 04:58, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Jinnai, temporarily taking the picture out from the article doesn't sound that bad indeed. However what I am most concerned is that the picture might be removed during that period it is not being used. Can you assure it won't be removed from Commons? I know it probably won't be soon but the possibility is there. Also at which point should we make a deal about bringing the picture back? How much information should be added until it could be added there? I know that if we make a deal about the bringing the picture back at later when certain information or conditions have been met for it... And if I or somebody else meets those requirements we negotiated for bringing it back... Can you assure that it won't start another fight? I think that it's more than likely that for example Bread Ninja probably would not honor that agreement and would probably start saying things like "it was already discussed and decision was final" or "you're still not meeting the requirements we made a deal about". Besides if there's a value (albeit small) that picture adds and it doesn't conflict with policies of Wikipedia why it cannot stay there? Probably easies solution to meet expectations of everyones would be that the current picture is replaced by image which shows the content of the box. Right? ...Hey! I tried to add more text to go with the picture on the DJMax Portable Black Square page and I hope that you can check it out. Korean gaming sites give small pieces of information I've tried to translate those sentences into a english. It's bit hard to make it quality text because I need to translate korean to finnish and then translate it from finnish to english inside my head. I'll give my reply to Bread Ninja later on... hmm... what else? I just quickly builded DJMax Mobilearticle and I was hoping somebody could inspect it. Could you do it? Thanks! Now I'll go to sleep. It's so wrong and immature to stay awake till 4am fighting in Wikipedia about a single picture so often. :) --Mikitei (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Upload it to commons, however, before you do make certain you ask about it atWikipedia:Possibly unfree files to make absolutely certain that it has no copyright problems. If you want, I can do that. I say this because it may be tagged for deletion because it is packaging, but if you have gone through a process and its been shown not to have any copyright problems or trademark issues then that's fine. You might have to defend your image, but you should win any attempts.陣内_Jinnai 16:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

If there isn't enough information for inclusion, then i will remove it, simple as that. So the chances of another fight are high depending on how much information you believe is enough. to me two full blown paragraphs of it might do some good. And you have to find reliable sources as Jinnai has stated before on the package. So before adding another image, you should probably ask another user just in case. And if s/he agrees than it will be fine. And again, i have my doubts on the image with it is content just as much as without for relevance in overall article, because it doesn't exactly give us anything worth talking about that's related to the game more than the packaging.

An image of gameplay showing off the new features probably might be a better benefit than the contents of a limited edition package. DJMax Mobile doesn't have much to be notable. If you find sources that you have to translate, than add them in the talkpage and ill see what i can do with the translations.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I have university to attend to and I am not able to do this stuff right now. I got permission for a new better picture which shows the box contents but before the owner changes flickr copyright to CC I pretty much cannot add it. Anyway looks like Bread Ninja acted on her own once again... What should I do with her? I will revert the change she just did and then correct her spelling later on. It's really annoying that she uses word "consensus" when only consensus we have here is pretty much only her own. Besides I would need to do this for 24/7 to get everything there and I just don't have that kind of time to give for Wikipedia.--Mikitei (talk) 04:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Don't be a hypocrite. acting on your own is the very thing Wikipedia does a lot. You on the other hand are commercial bias and not neutral in this instant. And consensus is clearly here. Only problem is that you ignore it pretty strongly. Do you even follow you're own conversation? it's all text here, reread what you said and what Jinnai has been trying to tell you.Bread Ninja (talk) 15:25, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you read your own text? You're not getting what I am saying at all and you're just not even trying to reach agreement here other than what are in alignment with your own goals. And consensus isn't consensus until parties (all three of us) agree to it. And it has not happened if you read the text here. And so far we all have our own opinions about the matter. Besides you're accusing me of something I am not. You're not neutral here. Get more people to back up your opinion. Get more people to talk about this thing at all. You're not building things. And you're not the one whom should be deciding what information goes in and what goes out. Section name should be specific in this case because there's only two releases, normal and limited edition. If there where more than two special packages and both where listed there I could agree with you on more general naming. Other than that it's just distraction and making article hard to read and understand. You where fine with the Black Square article being what it was for years. Why don't me and other people improve it? Please read the conversation... Jinnai has not written the words you wrote in change log of Black Square. --Mikitei (talk) 17:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Consensus is basically majority. if theres only one person against, the group can still have consensus. Because if itw ent where everyone agreed, wikipeida wouldn't have made any progress.
why am i not neutral? you say I'm not neutral, but why? what side am i leaning on? where am i bias? is there hidden motives to removing an image?
All you do is discuss about me, but you barely bring anything to the table at all.
it doesn't matter if there two releases, that's enough to generalize the section's name. I was planning on adding more specific information in there about the normal release. And it's perfectly readable and understandable.Changing it to a simpler name does not make it difficult to understand what-so-ever and "distracting" is highly subjective. i was not perfectly fine with how they are, in fact I'm not fine with how any of the DJMax articles currently are. Most if not all are in stub-class. There are a couple campaigns that i barely put my contributions too and there are even older articles than DJMax that need even greater improvement. And i am perfectly acceptable with others "improving" them. I'm not against removing information, but i am against adding trivia, and other small tiny information that really doesn't seem to help the article, in fact it makes the article lose NPOV and more commercial bias.
this is why i have a problem with the image (even with inside content) in it. Because it doesn't help understand or improve the article about the "video game" to a significant degree. if the limited edition had it's own article, than yes i would agree. But it's just a promotional piece of media that we have yet to see if it made a certain impact on the people about the video game.Bread Ninja (talk) 18:01, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't see Jinnai agreeing with you here. Jinnai has to clearly state his side on this matter for consensus. That has not happened. You're just acting on your own just as much as I am, before that happens. I'd say you're either bullying me or doing this for your own amusement if you ask from me for your hidden agenda for doing this. Besides you're not telling me good enough reason to remove the image. That's the problem here from my point of view. You just want it removed because you think it doesn't improve the article when in fact it does improve the article in a ways which you cannot see.

I wonder how you can state something is "perfectly readable" when you don't know the difference between words "inexperienced" and "experienced", write "a art book" instead of "an art book", have problems forming good sentences and results are usually something like "if there two releases", "Because if itw ent where everyone agreed, wikipeida wouldn't have made any progress", and so on... I am not a native english speaker and certainly not a perfect typist but even I can do better job writing english... You still could be right about having a separate media section (and where would be a separate cd section for one soundtrack item) but I'd need a multiple examples of that kind of structure for having just a one media item under two sections even if it strongly relates to already existing section. Or strong backing from other contributors. If there was two or more media items I'd understand the point and this wouldn't be a issue at all.

There are people whom find small details interesting and there are people whom don't find them interesting. I guess it's up to us as contributors to determine which details should be in the article. For example, if something was sold in a some price and currently that something has a value which is a lot higher than what it was originally sold, don't you want to know what the original price was? I'd find that interesting information. Besides how you can see that as a something which moves the article out side the neutral point of view? Trivial information would be something like telling "black square has a song something where a something in a some corner is seen doing something at point something" and so on. I would remove that kind of trivial information. Every article on wikipedia is built on top of small but important details (some more than others). If you're only writing about the video game as a what kind of game it is from gamers perspective then you're missing the neutral point. In a way just in a same sentence both denied and admitted that you support removing of the information... I think that your perspective is highly one sided considering what the matter is just as much you think mine is. This probably calls for a more opinions about the matter. I hope Jinnai can come up with clear answer. I'm off to read for swedish exam... Good night! --Mikitei (talk) 19:02, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Basically my point is that, yes having it could enhance the article. Having images usually enhances an article, up to a certain point. However, not having it doesn't really detract from it much. It's fairly easy to describe the box and its contents. However, I'd not rule it out entirely if some kind of commentary on the LE, either development commentary or analysis/review commentary by independant RSes was found. Go ahead and take the picture, just store it someplace outside of Wikimedia. If and when that commentary is found, the image can easily be added.There's no rush; the article appears to be notable.Mikitei, go and work on it for a few months and get some more info fleshed out. You might find stuff on magazines too. You can ask around atWP:VG if you have an idea what issues to look at.

So yea, the bottom line is as it stands now its hard to justify it with the only exception being that its not covered by normal fair-use criteria. I cannot say it will be so with a better quality article. I would also ask up atWT:NOT to see what they say since its not an NFCC issue, but more, according to BN, a promotional one.陣内_Jinnai 22:43, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

MIkitei, if you can't understand why small subjectively important information can change the articles NPOV< than you can't see why i say you're commercial bias.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:41, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Bread Ninja, I can say those same words back to you. You don't seem to have neutral view on the subject and you just remove what you feel like instead of thinking if its needed or not. That's why you're promoting censorship.--Mikitei (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

And on another note, we may have completely different views, but that doesn't mean mine are completely one sided. ANd if they are, then it's Wikipedia's side.Bread Ninja (talk) 03:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I am taking Wikipedia's side as well here. Problem is that Wikipedia doesn't define good or bad in cases like these. We can both happily work for the Wikipedia and still have a completely different point of views. Both of us have one goal in mind. Improving the articles. What is different is our methods.--Mikitei (talk) 07:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Jinnai, I really appreciate that you're so great guy to talk to, and you give good replies too. But that reply doesn't really help with this issue since Bread Ninja is really impatient and has that attitude that she doesn't want that picture there (sigh).

About the magazines. I don't think anything about this can be found from USA gaming magazines. Korean, chinese and japanese gaming magazines are different thing but accessing them is almost impossible for me (remember, I live in Finland). We need somebody who has easy access to them and is able to properly read them... And I understand your point of view. But where is the line for accepting the picture back? It can be anywhere from high to low. And no matter how much information I come up with Bread Ninja can refer to this conversation and remove the picture or that commentary information needed for the picture (which already happened while I was improving it). That's the main reason why I am not accepting those terms. Even if it is great compromise. But after what I saw Bread Ninja do I don't think that she can honour the decision. It needs a clear criteria for allowing the picture back in. I think I already wrote about this issue earlier. What can you say to this problem? ... I'll try WT:NOTlater on. I don't think it's promotional one since you cannot buy the thing in the first place. You probably (with Bread Ninja) would be right about promotional issues if not the game was from year 2008 and you cannot buy it as of 2011. It's not marketed and it's not available. Thus it falls for documentary class of what kind of it was. Besides picture is a great way to show what kind of the box is without writing few long lines about it which might leave obscure impression for reader. Do you understand my point? Bread Ninja is wrongly accusing me of being "commercially biased" but I think she just doesn't understand the matter from the game collector's perspective. These things are interesting.

Besides I think I might actually already have a better picture to replace the debated one but since the picture owner just replied "yeah, sure" but didn't change the picture's license to CC on Flickr (where license is still set to "all rights reserved") I am not able to replace the current picture... By the way what do you think of having a [8] where the limited edition box is open and all items inside it laid around it? What do you think about that?

So could you please take a look at the Black Square article as it is right now, think a while, and then could you please just state yes or nofor the image for now (meaning time period of 3 to 6 months). And this will be settled for now. And after time has passed we come back to think about this if there's a need to think about it. Is this arrangement OK to you? Thank you!

I want you to know that I probably won't be able to come to Wikipedia for the rest of the week. I am having really busy time now in real life.--Mikitei (talk) 08:52, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

DJMAX Black Square Image Debate Part 3

1)actually i thought hard on it. And the very thought of repeating the same thing to me, is immature and shows you're not willing to defend your reason but continue to counter mine instead by saying the same thing. Which I'm trying to do both. And a comment like that, it's practically you to look at it from a different point of view. That isn't a comment you can say "Right back at ya!" and expect to let things take its course. You have to actually attempt to see one point of view of a different editor to try to reason with you, but when i put myself in your shoes. All i see is everything is relevant no matter how small it is. And thats where the cleaners/refiners come in.

But here's the problem....how am i suppose to even see a hint of wikipedia's standards when i see this as your reasoning:

• Single picture tells more than thousand words.
• We don't have any other pictures in Wikipedia which show what kind of scale, design and general size, look and feel these very unique DJMax special edition game boxes present. There are several in the DJMax series. This is just one. And just one is good enough to show and give the general idea about them from the text. This is not a just a some cheap box you throw away after you took the item from it.
• It describes what kind of Black Square special edition box is. Not everybody has seen or does get the idea about them. If we have a picture about design chair or cheap chair you probably want to remove either but both are needed in their own ways for a article about chairs to show the diversity and design.
• You probably won't get the idea but "black square" roughly means "black box" and package is high quality black box and has a nice texture to it. It's beautiful in it's own way. Not to mention the final touch of having that nice red (rubber) band around it.
• It's in an article and in a section about that box and it's content. I find it important that this picture is here. The one who originally inserted it there thought so too. Don't you find it interesting in its own way?
• It could be used elsewhere for example in the main article about the franchise in a similar fashion. I actually wouldn't mind if you move the picture out from Black Square and add it to the main article (DJMax) and write little bit about the special editions of the game and how they are rare and expensive collector's items these days. Send a message if you agree to this proposition. :)
• These are things you should realize yourself too. Ask yourself why Wikipedia often states that articles should have pictures? If you only see just a black box then you probably shouldn't touch that picture. Besides you remove information with a value (no matter how low or high) and don't add anything as valuable or more valuable to replace it. Often this is because you don't understand the value of the said information. Some things I do understand but there's a clear line which shouldn't be crossed.
• Koreans are happy having that same picture on their wiki page about Black Square.

Mikitei

The main thing supporting you is that it's a case by case situation. Nothing concrete specifically for why it's significantly important, and Jinnai has said this time and time again and has also stated the box isn't necessary, that just describing the box in text is enough. I mean honestly, go back and read all of what you said and give me the most significant reason you brought up in this entire discussion in order to keep it other than the fact that it's a limited edition.
How relevant is this image? Why is this image so significant? On a scale 1 to 10, how much damage will removing this image do? I ask you this because you say you're not bias, but are you really? i have not a single attachment to this article as korean music video game that has a number of fanbase. But i do in fact want to improve it for the fact that it's a stub. Yet, i see various attachments to you. I highly doubt you would be arguing about me removing a limited PSP Bundle for Kingdom Hearts: Birth by Sleep if by chance they obtained a free-content image.
And game collector's perspective IS commercial Bias! HOw can you not see this!? I mean seriously, i've given you plenty times that you just haven't understood what it means to edit wikipedia. But this as of now, makes it seem like you both admit and deny you're commercial bias.Bread Ninja (talk) 10:32, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
Wikipedia IS NOT about getting ALL of the perspectives it can have. Even game collectors. It's to be informative on the information that is meant for everyone in general not for a certain group. thats where trivia comes in. It's one of the principles of wikipedia.Bread Ninja (talk) 10:40, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

I will say first, BN, that the standard you're applying there is what we apply to NFCC images. CC licensed images do not have that same hurdle. The hurdle is whether there is any "encyclopedic content". Obviously people will disagree with what is encyclopedic or not, but its not the same as directly related significant commentary requirement that NFCC requires otherwise we wouldn't allow for image galleries.

Looking at the article as it stands now, with the LE section specifically, its much better than when I first saw it. It's hard to say one way or another, but if I were coming at this without any background today and doing a formal review, and so long as it could past muster that there were no trademark restrictions with B-symbol (the stylized one) and just to confirm that the image did not fall under something that would violate copyright being a black box with a red stripe with some basic text would have issues (in fact I will do so now).

That said, I do know there is a disagreement by at least one member andassuming good faith on both parties I'd have to say even if I would favor it to be yes, it wouldn't be a strong yes. It adds something to the article, but it doesn't add much; its easily describe with text. However, as I stated before, that criteria only applies to restricting non-free content. The criteria here is whether (assuming those at MCQ agree there's no copyright issues) is whether the image adds encyclopedic content. In that, it may given the surrounding text just barely squeak by depending on how you define encyclopedic. Since there is an issue as to whether it adds much, if anything since there appears to be no reviews or commentary on anything.

As for it being promotional, its true its not promotional in the commercial sense for the product, but it could be seen as being promotional to the franchise as a whole since there still seem to one commercially on the market. It could also be seen as promotional in that its similar to an alternate cover issue.陣内_Jinnai 16:53, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Not exactly, the standards i apply aren't to NFCC, but overall content in general to Wikipedia. it's trivial. true, more has been added and it does look better, but it doesn't look significant. What i did suggest was change it to "Versions and Merchandise" similar to kingdom hearts articles. which would add less confusion. my problem is overall reasoning is so basic and half-baked. Obviously, people want to improve Wikipedia in their own way. but often the principle is whats forgotten. and that's what i see in this case. Mikitei really focus on the including part of Wikipedia, but isn't that strong on cleaning and refining parts.Bread Ninja (talk) 16:59, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

Bread Ninja, I'm still in process of writing proper reply to you but I have to write now that "Versions and Merchandise" is not going to work in Black Square article. In fact it would confuse the reader. What is even your logic and reasons for that? When I took a look at "Kingdom Hearts" article they've listed items sold separately from the core products. Music, manga, toys, "game bundles" etc. It isn't suitable in Black Square because based on what I know there are no for example toys, figures, manga, etc. sold separately under DJMAX Black Square title. There's only one limited edition package. There are no Black Square PSP bundle package. You cannot buy items in Black Square Limited Edition package separately as they only come in that package... "Birth by Sleep" PSP bundle is something I would probably accept as a image to that article (depends on image and it's purpose) and I probably would argue with you about it if the argument had some point in it. However this example is not really comparable to Black Square Limited Edition since "Birth by Sleep" PSP Bundle is a standard PSP bundle in which many other games have also been shipped with. It features PSP with the game related textures and the game. Does it come with soundtrack? No. Does it come with plushies? No. Does it come in a high quality package? No, it's the average PSP cardboard package with a nice texture ruined by lots of text Sony had had to insert there. Black Square Limited Edition is made from rubber and metal if I remember right. It is also totally black with only text is the symbol Q4 there which is "heat pressed" (I don't know what is the english word for it) there.

However I (maybe) understand the logic here. Let me show you Bread Ninja a case where your suggestion of "Versions and Merchandise" would totally work. Do you know american game called "BioShock 2"? I haven't personally played it but I know that when they pushed it into market they released several versions of the same game. If I remember right there was at least two different downloadable digital versions and at least three different retail versions. They published soundtrack of the game in various sources and they also made figures to sell. You didn't have to buy the game to get figures or the soundtrack as they where also sold separately from the games but some editions of the game shipped with them. They also published an art book which was probably also separately available from games. The largest "Special Limited Edition" of Bioshock 2 was manufactured "in a limited production run" which means that there are probably tens of thousands of packages of this supposedly "limited" package which features lots of not so limited stuff. Only thing which made "special limited edition" special was the fact that only it came with LP featuring soundtrack from the game. But you can buy the soundtrack (for example from itunes) so it lowers the value of that edition. So they have to huge amount of stuff and if somebody would write about them suitable section title would probably be something like "Versions and Merchandise". Since there are various versions and merchandise. Black Square isn't like this to my knowledge.

Also Bread Ninja, when article is short stub there isn't nothing to clean. First somebody builds a rough version of the article and then community starts thinking what is really important and what isn't. If you start cleaning the article while somebody is building it you're just going to ruin his/her motivation for building articles in the first place. Please keep that in mind.--Mikitei (talk) 14:38, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Not entirely true....when in stub there is always room to clean up and refine, even if there isn't much. It's too make way for more...As for versions and merchandise i was mostly focused on the merchandise aspect of it, than the "version". I only added versions because it included the game. But since there is no different versions, it might aswell just be called merchandise despite being sold together all at one. But I'm really not seeing why this is confusing...

You're reasoning for image inclusion is still based on the fact that these are releases special and/or limited edition packaged with more additional media, not whether it compliments the given information of the entire article, or help explain certain aspects, such as critical impact. You're still not seeing this simply as another piece of media. Other than the artbook and soundtrack, the release isn't much. It all jsut seems complimentary to the game, and the way it was released is also, trivial. Sure, it was released in a plastic and metal box with a log on it, but other than that, what makes this significantly important to show?

this image seems complimentary (at most) but the article nor the section calls for it. Everything seems to be added in and explained pretty straightforward. there's not much such as impact, nor any other commentary than simple description. If it gave some sort of reception or additional commentary other more aspects of the release. Unfortunately, DJMax isn't the most known series in the world. So finding that information even in Korea is difficult. And just to add a some-what complimentary image?

Images such as those aren't going to help make the article up to start nor up to C or B-class. Adding information does. And not just in the limited edition. Such as reception, gameplay, and development.Bread Ninja(talk) 00:33, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Bread Ninja, if you imply that there's something multiple times when there's actually only one, it causes confusion. Topic would have to say that there are three packages of the since retail version. Your topic doesn't do that. There also isn't any merchandise. I don't see how you can tie that word and its meaning to something it doesn't represent. That's also why it would be confusing for the reader. There are also other things to consider than therese but mostly for these two reasons I cannot support the "versions and merchandise". "Retail editions" would sound much better. "Releases" is not directly related to the topic and sounds like it was speech instead of written language and I don't like it but it's not totally unacceptable. You're not following me at all on this topic. I've tried to explain to you that limited edition itself is worth the picture. You're not seeing the big picture. It is significant because of what it is in the series as a whole. I really don't want to add lots of pictures or anything like that when just one picture can do it everything in a single article. Besides it's art. Why aren't you questioning articles which have other kind of art of having pictures? It's nearly the same thing or the same thing. You're not understanding the point of the "Son of Sun" for example. Is it my fault if you're not understanding something? You're limiting contents of the article in a way which is not acceptable in my honest opinion. This is related to the scope of the article, even if you're not seeing it Bread Ninja. This image is helping the articles about DJMAX to get better class, believe it! Also if you want to rise the article to a higher class why aren't you doing work towards that goal? It just seems like I am doing stuff and others too but you're just standing there and doing bad copyediting which is mostly just breaking things instead of building them. I know that I've represented this same question in various forms to you from time to time again. But I still don't understand how you can want something and aren't willing to work towards that goal. Instead you start debating about small things like these. Just watch this thread for example. It's already embarrassing from my point of view that we are doing this in somebody's talk page. Arguing about picture which doesn't do anything wrong. There are lots of articles which have pictures which have uncertain rights. Why don't you go after them? For example I would probably delete the non-free picture Bioshock 2 article has about the "limited edition" which isn't even limited edition. I believe picture about limited edition would be ok there but that picture has uncertain rights in it. Besides it is from "limited production run" which is said to be "limited edition" based on that fact. It's cheating people from my point of view when "limited edition" isn't in fact "limited".

Bread Ninja, do you know what a neutral tone or a neutral opinionis? What kind of things form a neutral opinion? I'll tell you. A neutral opinion is one which effectively compresses hundreds of thousands view points, perspectives and aspects into a one sentence or maybe even into a one word. If you leave even one view point or perspective out of the neutral opinion... it will not be a neutral opinion from the neutral perspective anymore. Why? Because you ignored something. Are you understanding this clearly? Its because when you ignore something... it moves the balance of the perspective to a non-neutral direction. It means that you're not being neutral on subject. For example the "Collector's perspective" is important because if you aren't including it, then the text you write won't be from the neutral point of view on that corner of the topic. You can claim that Wikipedia is not about all the possible perspectives it can have if you want. And because of that I assume that you probably will disagree with me on my personal view about neutrality since you seem to have another ideological perspective into these matters. It just means that we have a ideological differences and it's a good thing in a one sense. The best thing about the Wikipedia guidelines (and at the same time the worst) is that they allow us to have these ideological differences. We can have the same goals but also different ways to achieve them.

I have few more paragraphs about these things you've written in this thread I feel I haven't really given my reply. Like I wrote to Jinnai, I don't feel like submitting them all since they are off-topic replies to your off-topic sentences. I wrote them so that you would understand my view point better to this subject but I don't know if I should even try showing them for more than a few reasons. :) --Mikitei (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Jinnai, can you explain to me where we are right now? What is going on in this topic? What is going to happen with the picture? Bread Ninja is bringing here stuff that I don't feel belongs to this subject anymore and I am not sure if she even has a goal she wants to meet. I think she doesn't understand the point here at all and does what she pleases. I have a long reply (actually two) for her which mostly just consists of lecturing her on philosophical subjects related to this matter which I feel is pretty far off of the actual point... actual point being about "what is going to happen to that image?". I don't feel like submitting that reply. Most importantly I feel that the image has its place and it's right at home where it is currently. It has a job and it does it. Albeit it could do it better. By the end of the month or early next month I can probably take a picture of the limited edition package with its contents laid before it and upload it to commons to replace the current image which just shows the box. And that's just maybe since the limited edition is really rare. If I do that is it ok solution for Bread Ninja who obviously want the current image out of there? It's hard to get anything concrete out of her. Jinnai, you've seen what kind of english she writes and I just cannot take her seriously anymore. My objective here is to have at least one DJMAX article which has a single picture to show what kind of limited editions DJMAX series has. I feel that it's worth a picture. Not every DJMAX article needs it. Just one article is fine. Something you can refer to in a main DJMax article. Since Bread Ninja is not doing article writing (= work towards the goal of improving it) I feel that this is getting pointless. If she really was doing something to improve the article up to next class she would start contributing stuff instead of just ruining the articles with her low class copyediting. --Mikitei (talk) 19:52, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Neutral tone is not combining all perspectives into one sentence nor into one word, but too avoid all of the other perspectives. that's what neutral tone is. When there's two sides to something, the person who is neutral is not on either side. that's what the word means.

1.not taking part or giving assistance in a dispute or war between others: a neutral nation during world War II.

2.not aligned with or supporting any side or position in a controversy: The arbitrator was absolutely neutral.

3.of or belonging to a neutral state or party: neutral territory.

4.of no particular kind, characteristics, etc.; indefinite: a neutral personality that made no impression whatever; a sex-neutral job title.

[dictionary.com]

the fact that you use your own personal definition of it instead of the actually using the real definition really affects this discussion. I already got a clear view with another. But the other seemingly off-topic relate to your views. You're not adding an image because the article calls for it, but you want to add it per your views. --Bread Ninja (talk) 06:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

Bread Ninja, like I though you disagree with me. However you're not understanding that neutral opinion is one which takes as many opinions in to account as possible. This is really simple thing to understand and definition you just quoted from dictionary.com only supports my opinion. If you don't take some opinion into account your opinion becomes twisted and moves towards a non-neutral sector. That means that your opinion takes a stance from a non-neutral point of view. Opinions and thoughts are like a round three dimensional space around each person. That space has a exact center point which is 100% pure neutral opinion. I believe that center point is something humans cannot attain but they can try to go towards that point. These spaces are also linked to each other by various dimensions. If something happens in one dimension it might effect also dimensions around it twisting the exact meaning of the opinion. This is really simple thing to understand. Why cannot you read my comments properly and at least try to think these out?

You can believe what ever you want but I am adding the image just because article calls for it. I am arguing here that you're removing it because you're not rational on this topic. Oh by the way, what about the random picture about game boxes the Halo (series) article has? Halo (series) article generally has pictures you probably would seem unworthy but it's still a "good" quality article. I see a contradiction here between you and others in a articles like those which have bit similar conditions and still have just accepted the image despite what you deem as a absolute direction. --Mikitei (talk) 10:21, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The problem isn't whether the image itself has a purpose it's whether the image is relevant enough to be placed in the article. And you constantly complain about my English, but this is coming from someone who isn't a native speaker. So maybe my speech is a bit more casual, but that does not mean my English is bad and that is the least of your worries. the point is to get the idea across and i assume you're understanding. If you see a grammar problems, than please ignore it just as I've ignored yours. And rarity shouldn't merit the article in yet again, another sign of bias.

Your objective isn't to improve the articles but to add a limited edition picture in at least one DJMax article. So do you honestly believe anyone can take you serious after this? Sure, the idea sounds nice if you weren't aiming for encyclopedic, but you're not thinking about whether the image really needs it. Again, i can't help but see the level of BIAS is incredibly obvious for even Jinnai to ignore...Jinnai has said all of what he could. What more can we ask of him? He's already stated the DJMax box is already described well enough to not need an image in. He repeated that a fair ammount of times. That right there seems like consensus that the image isn't necessary. Or are you just going to ignore that until one of us says an image should be added in?Bread Ninja (talk) 06:46, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

The first two things are more like one and the same thing. If the image has a purpose, it's relevant. If image is relevant, it has a purpose. And I believe it is relevant enough to be in the article... I complain your english because it is horrible to read. More specifically your spelling is horrible. You make mistakes only child in a kindergarten would do. You're hard to make out. I know I am not a native speaker but that's why I am even more so amazed how you can write so bad english. (You don't even follow proper Wikipedia commenting procedures and etiquette carefully). Besides I can't hear you talking since this is text based media we are currently writing for. Be more careful with how you write and what you write. Your written language is bad and in sentences where I would need to know exact meaning you fail to deliver those exact meanings. I've been so far trying to ignore most of your grammatical problems but please understand that I am little by little becoming more aware that my english is better than yours and you're not quite understanding what I am trying to say here... For example after you touched the limited edition section its grammar went haywire and it had to be repaired. You write articles like you write your comments. You're careless and you write bad english which these previous messages of yours demonstrate. You misunderstand my points often. You also misunderstand other people often. Like you've misunderstood Jinnai here more than a few times. I have to take that as a sign that your reading and writing ability is on a low level. That would also explain why you're not usually writing articles and why your research is often weak...

Another example... I understood that you hinted that you're person who has the perfect overview on this topic and who sees everything. Correct me if I am wrong. But if I am wrong it's just because of your bad writing ability... Bread Ninja, you aren't some kind of universal power or god (if there even is a god) who has right to decide what is important and what isn't. Have you considered the possibility that you're not seeing the big picture? Besides how can I even take you seriously? If you aren't capable of understanding my point or capable of negotiating, is it my fault? You keep accusing me for something I am not guilty of, while at the same time you're showing behaviour which is not suitable for a wikipedia editor... I am not sure how you make me "commercially biased". Jinnai actually had a one good opinion on this topic which I can understand. It is also the first good argument to remove that image I've heard in this topic. One which I can agree with partially... But you dear Bread Ninja didn't even try to explain it and instead started this long argument about the picture... And before I stop criticising you I want to criticise myself. I am personally well aware that I am guilty of at least one fallacy (probably several) after writing these comments. But that's nothing compared to your list of fallacies you've committed. For example it is becoming obvious that you have a conflict of interest here.

So far Bread Ninja, I've improved the articles more than you. That is why I am pretty sure I have better overview on the topic and I know how the image improves the article. You've yet again misunderstood one of my previous comments. Bread Ninja, why are you also supporting your claims with something Jinnai didn't write albeit you claim that he did? Jinnai actually has been pretty neutral here despite the fact that I at first had my doubts. He has tried to find balance here. Which is a very good thing. Why are you pretty much not even trying to think these thing out? Why are you also mirroring my arguments? You've been doing that for months now.

Bread Ninja, More importantly I haven't touched your comments like you can see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Jinnai&oldid=423815720, That is your edit and your comment. I don't know why you started editing your own comments and then starting to accuse me of editing your comments. Please keep that out of this debate. That's really dirty of you. --Mikitei (talk) 12:09, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

See. you drift away from the discussion by aiming towards me and not even try to touch at the point i made, this happens whenever i make a point. Why don't you talk about what i just said up above instead of talking about me? Deny all you want, Jinnai has several times said that the description of the box has been made clear in the text. I shouldn't even quote him, because it's right there. Don't judge my reasoning purely on the fact that you've had more time to edit DJMax. I'm tired of hearing this excuse. Just like you're busy at school. i have my own life to take care of. Not only that but there are other articles that are in worst shape than DJMax.

But you know what...i give up...in the likelihood that this article aims higher than B-class, I will bring the subject again. I'm tired...none of my comments are going through. And Jinnai also doesn't seem to respond to my comments.Bread Ninja (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your first paragraph but anyway... About second paragraph: OK. Until then... However I promise that I'll change the picture to something better soon. I'll show the picture first to you before doing any changes. --Mikitei (talk) 18:22, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

No such things as neutral opinion. Neutral reasoning? yes. Wikipedia is suppose to add all significant point of views and express them in a neutral way. What you want to do is write it in a non-neutral perspective. for example:

• Adding information based of reliable sources = neutral
• Adding an image based on my beliefs as a game collector = non-neutral

basically neutrality comes based off information we have not based off our own personal views as a reader. Images are harder, but it's the reasoning that counts. You're reasoning isn't based off information of the article, which makes it bias. not neutral.

For Bioshock, i can suggest removal of the special edition as the section is too small and barely does anything. I'm sure that's an easy one. Halo i could probably suggest removal as well as it barely illustrates anything just halo cover, halo 2, and halo 3. However, the section states trilogy and doesn't exactly list them directly so the section does seem to need an image to explain what the trilogy is made up of. Maybe a better image of just the 1st editions. But from the looks of it, that image isn't there just to show limited edition but to list the three games within the trilogy.

But why don't you tell me? What exactly does the DJMax Portable Black Square or any DJMax article call out an image? Unlike Halo, your reasoning on why it calls out for an image isn't based off the article but for the limited edition itself. Or maybe you tried to use other articles to prove some point that didn't get across?Bread Ninja (talk) 11:06, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

You're double talking now... Please... you're not rational here anymore. Why do you keep pressing the issue which doesn't even exist? And why are you hinting that the game collector's perspective is mine? Yes I wrote about it but I didn't strictly claim that it was mine. Please stick to facts. You're not following good ethics here anymore. There's no reason for me to keep writing replies to you but I am still doing it. Why? Because I believe that it might just work if you would be seeking a solution also... And we have already went this through why the image is needed. At the moment I've understood that we are at the point where the image can be there or not and it comes to our personal beliefs whenever the image should be there or not. Bread Ninja, If you want my single most important argument for keeping the picture then it would be something along the lines of "a picture is worth a thousand words". The same reason why there's a picture in Halo article, in Bioshock article, and thousands of other articles whenever they are game-wise or no. We have a case here where we have a section about limited edition of a game, which is nicely filled with text about the limited edition (most of which is also verified, and the only verified parts in the article actually). This limited edition is a bit different from norman "limited editions" by actually being a limited edition since only a strict limited number was manufactured and sold. It's also a kind of artistic expression instead of being normal "limited edition" where you commonly (especially if the game was made in United States) get same game, few downloadable additional content pieces for free and different cover art. Why aren't you consentrating on things which really matter like arguing with Bioshock 2 article maintainers having a non-free image of the collector's edition? There are hundreds of articles about games which have a non-free picture of limited edition package or its contents. Why are you using your energy on something like this? I know this sounds funny but I've started to think that you have a obsession of getting these articles into higher class. It means that you're biased to yourself by having this prejudiced view that it should reach higher class your actual motive being the honour you get from doing so. Your motive to rise the class isn't bad but how you're doing it is pretty bad way. You should also admit that it isn't possible to rise the class of these articles as fast as you're trying to do it without actually getting any of your own work to it. Why aren't you going after something easier than a korean game series which mostly isn't even released in northern america? Besides most sources for DJMAX are in korean, chinese or japanese internet sites...

Are you aware Bread Ninja, that you generally don't organize your replies properly? Because of you there was few times when Jinnai didn't even noticed the message I left for him. I think so because no reply written for me in this thread albeit I can see from the logs that Jinnai was active during that time and wrote a reply to you. You wrote so much that comprehending everything is difficult and replying to you often requires even longer reply message. I just feel bad for the sake of Jinnai. --Mikitei (talk) 12:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

1)Again don't be a hypocrite,. That doesn't merit an image. 2) There is no game collectors perspective in the article, so no point adding something based on a perspective that isn't there And i kind of got the feeling it was yours. 3)A picture says a thousand words, but images are here to clarify information on the articles. they're definitely not there just to sit there and illustrate just one thing. Cover images illustrate the article as a whole. I mean i provided many points, and your main point is "A picture says a thousand words". I mean, who's being more reasonable? 4) Halo images illustrates the 3 games as a trilogy. So it's not there just for show, but to help give calrification. However i do believe a better image could be added as the covers are barely recognizable. 5) You want me to concentrate on more important things such as a free-content limited edition of Bioshock 2 but not one for DJMax Portable Black Square? bias. 6) You still base your reasoning off the fact that its' a limited edition. You don't actually consider the other things, such as how much benefit it does to overall article. That image only compliments that section and might i add a rather small that isn't note-worthy. 7) Don't speak for Jinnai. for Jinnai's sake just stay on subject.

Ever been to a wikiproject? because that's the main objective wikiprojects have. And if improving the class of the article ISN'T your main objective, than we might as well never agree on anything. Your goal is to add one limited edition cover to one article because you feel it deserves it. Not because the article really calls out for one (i assure you it doesn't. Halo has its reasons that I've stated, Bioshock 2 not so much and could be challenged quite easily). I want the article to have neutral view on all topics. Adding an image of a limited edition seems highly promotional and not to mention the limited edition gave no impact and also as you said "game collectors" perspective (which might i add is the same as fan perspective). Yes it is rare. so what? does Wikipedia say: the more rare it is, we should give it an image? But like i said NOTHING is getting through to you.

Often times fans or those who have a personal attraction to the topic can be beneficial but other times not so much. Fans get the idea that because one personally knows more on a subject than the other, they can decide these type of things regardless of reasoning. because they themselves have other reasons not stated within the article. It doesn't take a fan or someone who knows a lot on the subject to know whats trivial and what seems highly promotional for inclusion. I personally believe its' better for experienced users.Bread Ninja (talk) 01:23, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Long story short: You want an image not for what the article has but for what the image has. and if you don't understand that. i'll elaborate a lil further. Merely mentioning that a limited edition exist doesn't merit an image and i'm sure we both know that. But you take it to a different level that doesn't apply to wikipedia. By talking about what a special edition is and how it's different. As if we could use your opinion as a reliable source to keep it.Bread Ninja (talk) 08:08, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Your Question on Wikipedia for the Lolicon article

I've left a comment on the Lolicon talk page with a source for Sanger's letter. Timothy Perper (talk) 22:32, 14 March 2011 (UTC)