User talk:SephyTheThird

Thanks

Hey just wanted to thank you for being the voice of reason at the AfD for Susuwatari. While I'm sure most of the editors are going off the first keep vote, some of the arguments presented have been simply confounding. I quickly gave up since it didn't look like anyone was going to change their minds, but it's reassuring to know that there are editors trying to keep the arguments at AfD based on evidence/policy and actually evaluating the sources. Opencooper (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No need to thank me, I tend to take up against badly made points in AFD regardless of my views on the subject itself. In this case I don't have an opinion either way but even if was voting Keep i'd want the arguments to be made properly. Although AFD has been mostly sensible lately for the most part so it was only a matter of time I guess.SephyTheThird (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can respect that. I think the tone of AfD varies depending on the territory: controversial subjects will always be heated, but pop-culture can also be dear to people, and Ghibli films are often the gateway anime for Westerners. Anyway I guess we just gotta keep at it when it's needed. Opencooper (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Before removing the websites...

Just check the articles if they have the most recent website present. The ones without articles you might want to move the reference over to the magazine name. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

While you are souring the demographics I am going to update all of the "official website" links on the separate magazine articles. When im done the references for those with articles can be removed from the manga magazine list. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:32, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm done for the night but I'll start using MADB to source the dates tomorrow.SephyTheThird (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dates

I am okay with expanding the date values but are you going to include month/day/year or month/year? The table is sortable, so if more info is added it is more work to make sure the dates are in order. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:13, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've just added {{dts|}} to the dates I had added so far. Problem solved. As the list develops it should come together.SephyTheThird (talk) 00:22, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good. =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:23, 24 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Updates on Sk8erPrince

So it's been a few weeks since the last discussion on him. I notice that he's back to nominating AfDs this time, and while some of them appear to raise legitimate concerns, some of the comments in this nomination, particularly his reply to Athomeinkobe seem a bit worrying. Now what? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:40, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the responses are to me after my rebuttal. Frankly it's clear that they have no clue and still believe they are above everyone else opinion. My responses have been quite damming in my opinion but he just twists and turns everything. Apparently I don't know how AFD works whilst he is clearly demanding the article be deleted because he doesn't like it. It's not about the article and could be argued it never was. It's about getting his own way. That AFD needs closing, the longer it remains open the longer it validates his decision to reopen it. It's a bad faith nomination and he is proving it with every post. I still believe it warrants a speedy close as bad faith, gaming the system and ignoring the completed process (and as I said in the AFD, it should be a valid speedy. No new means for deletion have been brought forward, only their determination to see it gone.It's become a matter of principle and respect of process. It's not for me to tell the admins what they should do but he doesn't appear to have learnt, so something should be done. unfortunately I tend to react to ignorant people who demand things but I've managed to keep it relatively civil. Theres really nothing more for me to add so I'm not planning to. SephyTheThird (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It hurts for me to say this but I think he needs to be brought to ANI again. Last time he was given one last chance to reform, and I'm very sad to say it seems he hasn't really changed much since then. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 12:55, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you'll understand that I'm not prepared to get involved in it for both myself and the debate itself. I think it's clear enough from the AFD and I'm pushing it on AGF already.SephyTheThird (talk) 12:57, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should I raise it again or WT:ANIME? Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thats up to you.SephyTheThird (talk) 13:10, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's best to let him be at the moment. If it escalates, I'll notify other users and see what needs to be done. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 13:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dead cites

Hey just a note that we don't remove citations solely because the link is dead. For example on Battle Royale (manga) I was able to find an archive for one of the links and by just removing the cited sentence the rest of the section didn't make any sense. I can understand removing the information if it was a link to an unreliable source (like the forum post), or the information itself was sketchy, but in this case it's just saying the manga was rewritten (which likely can be cited with an alternate source) and was from Newsrama. Also, please make an effort to find an archived version of the source from archive.org or archive.is, or a websearch first. You might find Wikipedia:Link rot helpful. Happy editing. Opencooper (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ANI

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.

This is in regards to Sk8erPrince, seeing I mentioned your edit summaries comment if you would like here: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Sk8erPrince not using edit summaries when nominating articles for deletion Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:03, 23 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Big West Advertising

I noticed your comment on the de-prod of Big West Advertising and I'm interested to learn more. Your note, "I believe there is sufficient scope for improvement," intrigues me as I wasn't questioning that the article could be improved upon or given more depth, but that there isn't enough notability for it to exist in the first place per the original prod. Every article has potential to be expanded upon, but that doesn't mean that there should be an article on it in the first place. As this is not my subject of expertise, I'd love to hear more about Big West Advertising as there are very few (English) results on Google, which makes WP:GNG a concern of mine. GauchoDude (talk) 20:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can totally see why you prodded the article given it's state at the time. I was just as surprised it was on my watch list than anything, I assume I added it years ago on my previous account. The problem with this article is that it does need some knowledge of the subject area to start from as the information is going to be in specialist sources. I've done some initial searching and have some more online sources to check out as well as at least one book source. Ultimately the main point for a wider notability is going to be the legal cases but I believe this should be enough to solve the wider issue.SephyTheThird (talk) 21:23, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Moving forward, I'd appreciate if you would please Template:Reply to me so I know when you've responded. With that said, I'll reserve further judgement and let you build out the article with the sourcing that's available to you. With a bit more prodding, I've found this story detailing a bit about the legal case. I'm eager to see what you're able to find as I fear it might not pass WP:EVENT if "... the main point for a wider notability is going to be the legal cases." Looking forward to what you're able to contribute here, good luck! GauchoDude (talk) 22:18, 1 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information

It's good to be reminded that WP is exactly the same as I described - a slowly-decaying club of "elites" who wink at each others' blatant breaking of byzantine rules that are only used to keep others out. After all, they might take the principles seriously and loosen the elites' ownership of articles that have degenerated into armed camps controlled by cooperating tribes. Which is the whole reason that Colbert aptly pointed out what a joke you've become, spiraling down the same route as TV Tropes... and amazingly, now even less-believable than either "side" of the corporate media. Cheers, and I hope you enjoy the self-importance and Ignore All Rules (except to use them as a club) while it lasts. 2001:558:600A:5B:3552:477F:31AA:33CD (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]