User talk:TheFarix/Archive 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17

Gundam Reconguista in G

You reverted the content I changed. I removed content because the sources it used had inaccurate information and added further content with accurate sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.50.167.159 (talk) 04:06, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

The reception part of the article is quite bad in general. It starts off saying the series was panned but later says how it was highly praised. Reference 14 seems a bad choice being a summation of many series, often with misinformation such as F91 being about a jupiter threat. The sales uses incorrect data but even then the sales are quite good, yet it is no mentioned there was a positive public response. That might seem minor but it very much effects the tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bb15435 (talkcontribs) 09:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "inaccurate information" when you are quoting the opinions of a reviewer from a reliable source. Your edit was a clear attempt to scrub reviews you didn't agree with. —Farix (t | c) 12:19, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
But that was not a proper review, at best it can be called passing comments little more than some comment on an article. Sometimes with incorrect information about the show. They don't seem to even have watched Gundam X instead commenting it has no legal release, is that really the quality of "review" that should be used? There is also no reason to remove the line about 16th highest selling of 2015, especially with an ANN source. That edit was a clear attempt to scrub facts you didn't agree with. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bb15435 (talkcontribs) 18:10, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
Regardless of whether Lauren Orsini watched another Gundam series or not does not discredit nor invalidate her opinion of Gundam Reconguista in G. The Yoshiyuki Tomino story has also not been refuted by another reliable source. My revert was because you removed both of these sources by inappropriately calling them "inaccurate". This is clearly a sign that you disagree with the opinions and the story. —Farix (t | c) 20:35, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
You seems to have made the mistake that I was the one to edit it, I am simply agreeing the articles current state is lacking. It very much does bring into question the articles credibility if the writer has not viewed some of the shows and gets points on series like F91 wrong. A source should have merit and seeing as there is already one negative review it really does not need a more questionable one, the point is still made. At lest the part should be shortened to correspond to the questionable nature two people have pointed out. I don't think the quote from Tomino need removed but the paragraph need rewritten as it is misleading. He is apologising if people misunderstood, not saying he believes there is a fault. The line is "If I was told" and "because I was bad" not "There is" and "because it was bad." Again there is also no reason to remove the line about 16th highest selling of 2015, especially with an ANN source. The only tweak it could need is combining the last two paragraphs as they are on the same subject and possibly added that the public reception was better than critical as seen by sales. You have yet to address this point and I am coming to believe you simply reverted it because of change and did not consider what was done. A compromise could be reached here yet you are shooting down everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bb15435 (talkcontribs) 21:11, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Tomoya Haruno

A tag has been placed on Tomoya Haruno requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section R2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect from the article namespace to a different namespace except the Category, Template, Wikipedia, Help, or Portal namespaces.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Stefan2 (talk) 15:02, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Glitter Force move review

There is a move review at Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2016_February#Glitter_Force that you might want to look at. It's about moving "Smile Precure"/"Smile Pretty Cure!" to "Glitter Force". --Joseph123454321 (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Open Sesame

So, I noticed you removed the genres I added to the page, with the reason "unsourced genres". Now, first of all, thanks for helping me out, I appreciate it. Though, I have to ask, since I'm just a newbie here, how do I prove that these genres fit this work. I got them from B-U Manga: https://www.mangaupdates.com/series.html?id=1. If I add it to "External links" at the bottom, would that suffice. There isn't much data about this series flowing around on the net, anyway, so... --Fukukaze (talk) 13:02, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Ratt

Regarding my changes to the Ratt page...I am the reliable source. I personally know the guys who are performing under the name Ratt. What more is required? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Qnsryker (talkcontribs) 17:01, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

@Qnsryker: Sorry, but you are not a reliable source. Wikipedia has a very strict policy regarding verifiability which requires that all content must be supported by reliable, published sources an extensive guideline to determining what those reliable, published sources are. You could be anyone, from a vandal deliberately adding false information or an partisan party pushing for a particular point of view that is not supported by reliable, published sources. —Farix (t | c) 20:54, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Redundancy error

In this edit, you mention a redundancy error. I'm not seeing any errors on the page. If you can clarify your edit summary, I'd be happy to help look for it and fix it. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

See if I can try this again before power or my internet goes down again. The problem seems to have fixed itself after I redid the infobox. Some parameter was triggering one of the infobox's redundancy checks. Still need to figure out what is triggering the check in Hello Kitty (TV series). —Farix (t | c) 02:37, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Shinya Suzuki for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Shinya Suzuki is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shinya Suzuki until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. AngusWOOF (barksniff) 01:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:5 Centimeters Per Second#Numeral romanization

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:5 Centimeters Per Second#Numeral romanization. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 03:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

The Testament of Sister New Devil English dub removed?

Why did you do that on the talk page? MrWii000 (talk) 16:43, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Because you were using the talk page as a discussion forum about the article's topic instead of discussing improvements to the article. Talk pages are not place to speculate or make "wish lists" of voice actors. —Farix (t | c) 19:08, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Ok, sorry. MrWii000 (talk) 02:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC) MrWii000 (talk) 02:16, 12 May 2016 (UTC)

Sage of the Six Paths

Hi TF, I've indeffed Sage of the Six Paths for copyright violations. (I notice some warnings from you on his talk page.) If you happen to notice him editing as an IP, or anything that might suggest sockpuppetry, please let me know. Many thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Vixens

See my reply on my talk page. --Protnet (talk) 10:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Grisaia voice actors

Okay, for the record, there's far more in play than a site like anidb resulting in this edit. I'd like you to look at all the other voice credits for these games. Japanese VAs have a history of using pseudonyms for "adult games". There's numerous sources on the other voice credits using fake names for the 18+ versions of the games, and all of them sound exactly the same between games. Between two versions of any game in this franchise, the lines shared between them are most certainly not re-recorded. The voice actors are the same. And if one site isn't enough of a "reliable source", here's another. And here's a link to that very voice actress's personal blog. To revert based on what is considered "reliable" when the same fact applies for every other voice provided in these games is foolish. Schiffy (Speak to me|What I've done) 19:50, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

If you are going to make the clam that X is a pseudonym for Y, then you must back it up with a highly reliable source. Especially since VAs use pseudonyms to avoid scrutiny that could negatively affect their careers. Also, every VA attribute should be cited to a reliable source. This is just one case where I notice an attribute being added without citing a reliable source. —Farix (t | c) 20:58, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm honestly not sure what part you're not understanding here. Is it the part that re-recording the lines for an "all-ages" version would be a waste of resources on the developer's part? Is it that the voices sound exactly the same between the two versions? Is it the link to Tsukigase's personal blog? Is it that all of these factors together and the bare minimum amount of inductive reasoning can point you to the fact that "X is a pseudonym for Y"? I've been doing constant research on these games, and everything I've ever found has pointed me towards the conclusion that all the differences between voice actor/actress names between two versions of a single game are because of pseudonyms. I'm not sure what else you want. I'm not going to start making up information and saying "trust me it's legit", but for only one or two voices to break the standard that the rest of them meet would make little sense.
And if you really want even more sources, I've found two more while typing this message to you. Schiffy (Speak to me|What I've done) 21:29, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
No, you don't understand Wikipeida's policies on variability and biographies of living people. We don't speculate on whether X is a pseudonym for Y. If such relationship has not been publicly disclosed, then it should not appear on Wikipedia because such links can harm an individual's career. Whether they "sound the same" is not good enough to make such a link. Also, neither link you post are reliable sources. The first is yet another user generated database, which anyone can add information to. Checking the about page of the second link via Google Translate also shows that it is a user generated database. User generated websites cannot be used as sources for contentious, career destroying information.

Fanmade games

79.41.42.136 I actually thought that inserting informations about fan products would had been legit, as they are still part of the series (unofficially, but still part of it), even to fill an eventual "videogames" part, now empty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.41.42.136 (talk) 07:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Wikipeida's core policy is that all content is required to be verifiable. This is achieved by citing reliable sources. Just because someone made something up on the internet doesn't mean it should be included in Wikipeida. No top of that, fanmade games are a copyright violation, just like fansubs and scanlations, and cannot be linked to or mentioned in accordance to Wikipedia's copyright policies. —Farix (t | c) 11:30, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Attack on Titan has been nominated for Did You Know

Updated DYK query.svgHello, TheFarix. Attack on Titan, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of Did you knowDYK comment symbol. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:01, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Genre or theme

In the latest D.Gray-man databook, the author said the series' theme is "tragedy." Should that be added to genres? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 16:31, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

If you source it to the databook, shouldn't be an issue. —Farix (t | c) 21:34, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Attack on Titan

Updated DYK query.svgOn 9 July 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Attack on Titan, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Brock Lesnar was used as a model for the appearance of the Armored Titan in Attack on Titan? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Attack on Titan. You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Attack on Titan), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 01:50, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

D.Gray-man Hallow

For some reason whenever I enter the website, I'm stuck with the Youtube video. Could it have the release info from the episodes? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

Which website are you referring to, the TV Tokyo's D.Gray-man Hallow website? —Farix (t | c) 22:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Yes.Tintor2 (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I have no problems scrolling down. But perhaps this link will help, since I assume you are looking to confirm episode titles and dates. Unfortunately, the site doesn't appear to list the the latter, though, it would be good to get writer and director credits from. —Farix (t | c) 23:35, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
I found the dates in TV Tokyo's site! Yes.Tintor2 (talk) 02:12, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Only for already aired episodes, but I'll move it up into the header. —Farix (t | c) 02:19, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Yo-kai Watch Confusion edits

Hi TheFarix! I would like you to know that I reverted some of your edits on the inked article as it may seemed confusing to me. You may re-add your edits regards to that since the IP address was warned two times already for vandalizing that article. I hope you understand. Thank you. Hamham31Heke!KushKush! 23:52, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh! ARC-V

Seriously the episodes aren't fake but it's hard to find reliable sources and I never put up fake info for ARC-V. I been editing that page since the first episode. Kaido of the Beasts (talk) 03:35, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

If you can't find reliable sources, then it doesn't belong on Wikipeida. Verfibiability is a core policy and all information must be verifiable though a reliable source. Also, your tactic of editing logged out to engage in a edit war is inevitably going to result in a permanent vacation. —Farix (t | c) 03:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Farix, this guy was indeffed as a sock of Sage of the Six Paths. Homeboy apparently either has no comprehension of, or regard for, our need for sourcing, and has shown total disregard for copyright policies. I indeffed him for persistently adding copy/pasted content, and sure enough Kaido does the same nonsense. He does a shitload of editing while logged out, so if you see IPs (both IPv4 and IPv6) that geolocate to New Jersey editing anime articles, you should be circumspect. Some examples: [1][2][3]. I've also noticed that when I semi an article, he has a tendency to surface with his new account. If you see anything weird, lemme know, please. Many thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:47, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Edits on Good Morning Call

Hi Farix,

You made some edits recently on Good Morning Call removing some unsourced additions that stated the series got a live action adaptation. I don't think your edits were helpful or the right way to respond to those sorts of additions. It was trivially easy to confirm that the series got a live action adaptation and to find a good source for that information (just search for the series name on Anime News Network or Google), so I'm guessing that you didn't even attempt to source that information. When you see someone add information that clearly belongs in the article if true, but without a source provided, your first response should be check if it is easy to find a source and add one if you can find one. You should only remove the content if you fail to find a source. Just removing the content when you could have sourced it is doubly bad, as it both leaves the article without content that belongs, and it is kind of bitey to new users who may end up thinking they can't contribute. Even if your intent is to teach new users that they should provide sources, you shouldn't remove useful content to do so. Instead just inform them on their talk page that next time they should give a source. When you see similar edits in the future, please try to source them yourself rather than just removing them. Calathan (talk) 03:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

It's up to the person adding information to provide sources per WP:BURDEN, not on me to do the work for them. I will continue to remove any unsourced information I see in articles in the future as I see fit. —Farix (t | c) 04:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Farix, just because someone else didn't provide a source for good content that belongs in an article doesn't mean you shouldn't. I think you have lost sight of what we are trying to do here, which is to write good quality articles. Just removing useful-looking content without trying to source it doesn't forward the goals of having good articles. WP:BURDEN is a policy to bring up when someone is persistent in adding information that no one can find a source for, not the way to respond to an edit that looks promising but doesn't have a source. It certainly isn't saying that you should be lazy about improving the article just because someone else was. Calathan (talk) 04:26, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Calathan, I'm an administrator on the English Wikipedia, which means I'm pretty familiar with established community behavior and protocols. (TheFarix is also very experienced and familiar with the same established behaviors and guidelines--I'm only passing through here as I deal with another matter). There is simply not enough time in the day for editors to vet unsourced contributions. It's a massive time suck (especially given the high level of vandalism we encounter daily) to perform the research you suggest for content that appears "useful-looking". Everything could be construed as "useful-looking". As TheFarix has noted, the burden falls on the person contributing the content to provide the source, not on the reverting editor to perform the research. If you see a contribution reverted and you wish to do the research on it, that's great, and you should be encouraged to do so, but it's not mandatory for other editors to be expected to go that extra mile. To your point that our goal at Wikipedia is to write good quality articles, while that is true, the strength and quality of the encyclopedia relies entirely on the sources provided. Unsourced content weakens the project, because as I'm sure you've experienced, when you see unsourced claims at Wikipedia, your first instinct is "yeah right..." Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)
Cyphoidbomb, I'm also a very experienced editor (I've been here for more than a decade). I understand that there is a lot of bad unsourced information added to articles, and I think it is fine to just remove unsourced additions when you aren't sure if it would be easy to confirm whether they are true. What you are missing here though is that Farix is very knowledgeable about anime and manga, and I know he is aware that Anime News Network is a good source for anime and manga information. While it might be a lot of work for him to confirm whether something on another topic is true, I know he could have effortlessly confirmed that this specific addition was true, and effortlessly found a good source for it, just by taking 30 seconds to check the most obvious place to look for a source (that being Anime News Network). Also, being knowledgeable on the subject of manga myself, I could tell that the added information seemed perfectly plausible, and I would have expected Farix to have the same impression. While a lot of unsourced edits might prompt a "year right..." response, this one shouldn't have. Also, I want to mention that I've felt for a very long time that Farix wasn't friendly to new users, and part of the reason I was posting here was that I was hoping to get him to consider being more friendly. For as long as I've interacted in him, he has been quick to revert things and template people's talk pages, but I can never remember him being friendly or welcoming or helpful to anyone who did something wrong. I know that not everyone wants to explain things to new users (rather than just reverting with an edit summary that they might not even read), but my thought was that I should at least suggest he do so. So my posting here was very much about the both the specific subject and the specific user involved. Calathan (talk) 19:09, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

Aoki Ume Article

I updated the article on Ume Aoki with a reference on one of her currently running manga, Binetsu Kuukan, linking to the MyAnimeList article on it. I understand that I may not have made the reference perfect, but it was serviceable. You could've taken the two seconds to fix it rather than delete it and send me a message about it. Now the page makes no mention of one of her current running series. 70.81.35.20 (talk) 01:17, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Any unsourced information on a biography, especially one of a living person, must be removed. Since you did not cite a reliable source, but instead cited a user generated wiki that anyone can edit. Per WP:BLP, the information had to be removed until a reliable source is avalable. —Farix (t | c) 13:21, 17 July 2016 (UTC)

Supernatural Battles Becomes Commonplace

I just edit the article and is about to locate the source. Sorry to bother you, but would you mind be patience first. --Hongqilim (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

If you are going to cite a source, cite it when you add the information. Don't wait until later when someone challenges it under WP:BLP. —Farix (t | c) 16:14, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Yo

I want to make (show) button with these "Other Networks". And you reverted the new logo and extra Japanese networks... ChowChowChowChow (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

I reverted it because the network field is for the original Japanese network only. I also restore the image because you did not provide a reason to change images. But since the original image does not properly identify the subject anyways per WP:NFCC, I've removed the image entirely. —Farix (t | c) 22:55, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

The new image a better png logo. That people can use. It is also not a screenshot of Fansub or Raw, which is illegal. The previous was. I need you to make field for Other Network that you expand. Please. You are giving me a hard time. I just want to update this stub. ChowChowChowChow (talk) 22:59, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Edit War? You the one deleting my hard work with consent. You do not delete something just it wrong. If its wrong you fix it. Not delete it. ChowChowChowChow (talk) 23:03, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

We do not include any networks in the infobox except for the original Japanese network an the English-language networks. The edits you were making were completely nonproductive. —Farix (t | c) 23:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Ok. But, they are not nonproductive in any way. Somebody that knows make field like you, can see page. Look at. And say missing Other Networks... Add the Field and copy the non-Jap networks. Simple ChowChowChowChow (talk) 23:10, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

No, a consensus at WP:ANIME decided long ago decided to remove all non-Japanese networks other than the English language networks, which have their own field, from the infobox. Not only do I still agree with that consensus, I will not upend it either. —Farix (t | c) 23:14, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Why is this the case. Doesn`t that make harder for people researching about the anime. People who are trying to purchase very dub released. This helps know which dubs where aired. And ultimately speed your research... ChowChowChowChow (talk) 23:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)Cite error: There are <ref> tags on this page without content in them (see the help page).

We aren't here to help people purchase this or that dub. We are here to help them learn about the show itself. Listing all the networks on which it aired is irrelevant to that purpose. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 23:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
The reason we don't include other networks is because there was a lot of false information being added by IP editors and the information was never verifiable to begin with. It also, caused the infobox to be excessively long. If it was broadcast in other countries, and that information can be cited to a reliable source, it may be added to the body of the article. However, I will not added a field for other networks to the infobox just to satisfy one editor as that would be against the preexisting consensus, which again, I still agree with that consensus. —Farix (t | c) 23:29, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

HxH episode source

How was I personally attacking you I just stated where I got the source from the upcoming episode, If you are going to continue acting this way refusing to accept the reliable sources, then I don't know what's up with you?--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

In addition I found the source on the Zap2it.com website: http://tvschedule.zap2it.com/tv/hunter-x-hunter-hit-x-the-x-target/EP011491580077?aid=tvschedule--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 14:12, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
First, calling me a "huge jerk" is very much a personal attack.[4] Second if you have a source, add the citation to the article. However including it in the edit summary is not a citation of the source and does not comply with WP:V and specifically WP:BURDEN. The burden is on you to cite the source when information on an article is challenged. —Farix (t | c) 14:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
What's wrong with you? Your the one refusing to comply with me, and the BIG reason your making me act this way and the majority of the users you face. Secondly the "huge jerk" at you isn't a personal attack a personal attack is when I put in death threats, or make a vulgar language at you. So this is on you, not me or to any user on this site on this page. I can honestly talk all day on this page while you continue to justify yourself but If you're going to continue pissing me, then I don't know how to deal with you.--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 14:21, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
You were informed that you needed to cite a source for the information you were adding to a page. You didn't do so. Instead, you insisnt that it should be me, who is challenging the air dates under WP:V, to cite the source. However, that is entirely contradictory to the WP:BURDEN section of the policy. Also, "huge jerk" is an ad hominem and is classified as a personal attacks uer the Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. However, if you continue to throw this kind of fit every time information you add to an article is challenged, then you will ultimately find yourself blocked under Wikipedia:Competence is required. —Farix (t | c) 14:28, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Continue justifying yourself to piss me off all you like, but I got one message for you: My message on your response--AnimeDisneylover95 (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Re: Psycho-Pass

I removed that quote once since I think I often use many and tried to paraphrasing but the anon reverted it. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Title Header Alignment

Hi. Re Kabaneri of the Iron Fortress - please do not make these changes while a discussion on this issue is open. Ozflashman (talk) 13:54, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Super Pig

Why remove commonly known things such as that a English version was produced by Saban for which sources can be easily found? Also, the episode list of Saban is clearly different from the original. Please read it before you remove it...--118.217.210.66 (talk) 12:18, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

I removed it because I believe that information is not verifiable though reliable sources. Now that the information has been challenged, the burden is on whoever reenstates the information to the page to provide a reliable sources. Second, we don't include two episode tables for the same thing. One is enough. —Farix (t | c) 12:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Again, the tables are NOT the same thing. Did you even compare them? The English translation and the Saban titles is clearly different.--118.217.210.66 (talk) 12:55, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
There is only one television series, so there only needs to be one episode table. That Saban's titles are different is not enough of a reasons to create a separate table for the episodes. If you are going to treat Saban's dub as an entirely different series, then you must create a separate article for it. Secondly, the sources you cited are not reliable at all as they are all based on user generated content. A couple of them even engaged in the illegal distribution of copyrighted materials. —Farix (t | c) 14:43, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
There are more series with multiple episode tablets on Wikipedia because there are different versions, for example Shin Chan. If you know the method to add the English Saban, the Polish and Dutch titles to existing table you are free to tell me. It's obvious you only looked at some sources because some are even the tv schedules from the network themselves.--SomethingOther343545 (talk) 15:40, 28 July 2016 (UTC)

Gundam Reconguista in G

You reverted an edit I made to Gundam Reconguista in G without providing any reason outside of the comment "Switching IPs isn't going to help" which seems to suggest you think that I'm some guy you're having a pathetic internet fight with. I'm not. Please keep me out of this. 240F:74:ABE:1:40E7:B5D3:BE7:D534 (talk) 21:17, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Sakigake!! Otokojuku

Hi. How about discussing major changes before making them? I created a section on the Talk page purposely to discuss what I was doing. I removed the Script Writer column as it was repetitive and I could not absolutely confirm Akira Miyashita as script writer although I get the impression that the anime episodes closely follow the manga. Regarding the story arcs, they help break down the overall series, and have been listed in the Story section for some time, therefore have a reasonable level of acceptance. I'm removing the Writer column and will look at a better way to manage the story arcs. Meanwhile I have content edits that need implementing. Ozflashman (talk) 11:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

MÄR-related

Hi. I just got a notification that you had reverted the page for MÄR claiming that the Oz template had nothing to do with the anime despite the fact that there were some references to the Oz characters in the anime. Plus somebody put that anime under the media section of the template. I'm just letting you know that. --Rtkat3 (talk) 15:34, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Is there a reliable source establishing that there is relationship? Because it looks like fan theory to me. —Farix (t | c) 15:35, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

August 2016

Oh, is the official source I gave you not enough? If the air date is such a problem why don't you just remove the entire listing? I can't even find those titles anywhere. Signing out, A Clockwork Orange From the Future | Ask me anything. 17:30, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

You did not actually cite a source. When information is challenged, a source must be cited before it can be restored. —Farix (t | c) 18:16, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
It's cited. At the top. Of the box of episodes. Next to "original airdate". It's a group source. For EVERY. EPISODE. (in Japanese, at least.) Signing out, A Clockwork Orange From the Future | Ask me anything. 18:52, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Just cite the source directly when you add the date rather than throw a temper tantrum like a little kid when the date is challenged. —Farix (t | c) 19:04, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

My Hero Academia - anime infobox

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, TheFarix. You have new messages at Talk:My Hero Academia.
Message added 04:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Orielno (talk) 04:26, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Episode List - Linecolor

Hi, Can you direct me to where the style guide says that Linecolor should only be used when a television program has produced 2 seasons/series or more. [[5]]. In cases where I've applied a line colour I have followed the style guide in using "Colors for the seasons are often selected based on the series logo, DVD artwork, or for other reasons." Yours, Ozflashman (talk) 13:01, 23 August 2016 (UTC)

Alice in Murderland

Hi there. It's been quite a while since I spoke with you, but it's good to see you again. I was wondering if we could talk about this revert? And I mean that in the most friendly way. I'm not upset at all, just a little perplexed, because we seem to have a little confusion over what is necessary. I find that adding the date and country of publication for the cover is helpful to me as a reader, since the majority of manga/anime articles have at least two editions discussed in the article (Japanese and English). There's been a recent trend of keeping the English cover as close to the Japanese one as possible, and I thought it would be helpful to explicitly distinguish between the two. Thank you for listening, and I'm looking forward to hearing from you. Best wishes, Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 21:34, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

I messed up

When I added the last summary for List of D.Gray-man Hallow episodes, I apparently removed something important but I don't what is it. Could you give me a hand? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 22:35, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

What are the grounds for claiming that "Not a reliable source"?

HI,私は日本人です。 日本のアニメを世界に知ってもらいたいと考え、日本の信用出来るサイトで英語を利用しているサイトを見つけ、そこをSourceとして執筆していました。 ですがあなたは私の過去の投稿もすべて削除されました。 プレスリリースの内容に沿って正しく掲載されていると私は判断しています。 あなたが Not a reliable source とする根拠があれば教えて下さい。 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Animeotakudesu (talkcontribs) 01:20, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Please read the policy on reliable sources, particularly the part about self published sources. This is just a random blog that has not established itself as a reliable source. Their about page even states that they are simply fans and not an established expert on the subject matter. —Farix (t | c) 02:29, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Crunchyroll

There seems to be confusion over Relife,. This does appear to be a Crunchyroll license. They started streaming it in July, with the Funimation partnership announced in September. Funimation are dubbing the series and publishing the home version, but ANN is saying Crunchyroll hold the license.[6][7] I haven't seen anything to say this is any different, although the actual arrangements are not necessarily going to be published anyway.

Now granted, this is an unusual deal, but in some ways it's pretty close to a distribution deal. The difference is that the distributors are contributing their expertise in dubbing (and possibly mastering and replication). I think there is enough of a room for debate that it should be discussed. After all, this is only one of the many titles that may be affected. I don't think it helps that the field is called "English anime network" but the display is "Licensed by". This is very open to interpretation as publishers are not necessarily the license holder and this is a good example of where that may be the case. Normally we can use some common sense due to how the industry usually works but with deals like this it starts leading into interpretation.

Either way, I think looking for a consensus is going to be necessary, if not now then in the future. SephyTheThird (talk) 19:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Also Funimation are attributing their increased Dubs to their partnership [8].SephyTheThird (talk) 19:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DisneyChannel1983

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/DisneyChannel1983. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 13:18, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Thought I recognized that particular edit pattern, but I couldn't remember which account(s) it was. —Farix (t | c) 14:52, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Revenge

the reason i add Revenge anime and manga because characthers include Guts from berserk who seek revenge against his former friend who made him and his lover for sacrifice and i thouget i will add Revenge anime and manga because i had seem films about revenge by --Sunuraju (talk) 04:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Removal, no explanation???

Why are you removing my edits? (Chizzy-chan (talk) 21:24, 30 November 2016 (UTC))

Because you moved the source from the body of the article into the lead. Per WP:LEAD if a fact is sourced in the body, it should not be re-sourced in the lead. —Farix (t | c) 21:29, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

The 'fact' ie that it started on the 7th was never stated. I only just added it there now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chizzy-chan (talkcontribs) 23:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Hilbilly's Discount

I thought it added a nice splash of color - I also thought it was a good example of what appears (appeared, evidently) to be a typical local business, which is the sort of thing I like to add into articles from time to time. It doesn't really matter - the article's fine without it - but I always think that more images make an article better. They help show different aspects of a place, give a fuller flavor to it. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 06:12, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Square Enix titles

Sorry about yesterday, but more importantly the one thing I need you to help me with is that turns out that all the Square Enix titles that Viz Media has the rights to only have partial rights (paperback distribution only) as Square Enix gave the digital distribution rights to Yen Press. Aside from Fullmetal Alchemist, there is also the following titles as stated in this ANN article ([9]), O-Parts Hunter, The Record of a Fallen Vampire, and Nightmare Inspector: Yumekui Kenbun. Any help with improving the pages for the remaining three titles would be appreciated (as Yen Press partially owns them) and the link I provided or any link to source when distribution began from Yen Press's website should help with sourcing. 67.171.250.202 (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of Brave Witches episodes#Lead paragraph

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of Brave Witches episodes#Lead paragraph. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 22:54, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

About the LOGH edit

here's the source.

http://www.beachboundbooks.com/author-interviews/author-interview-solea-razvan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Duras19891989 (talkcontribs) 16:33, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

That is a self-published blog and is not a reliable source per WP:RS. And looking at it further, the blog has a "paid promotion" section where they solicit payments to promoted books and conduct "interview".[10]Farix (t | c) 16:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Consistent

Will you be consistent and delete other interpretation of Symphogear char.names? Alex Spade (talk) 22:36, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Done.SephyTheThird (talk) 22:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


Ajin

Hi, you left a message on my talk page about the edit I did regarding Ajin chapters. As you can see on Ajin page, the last chapter of the second volume and the first of the third are both listed as "chapter number 10". Actually, the last chapter of the second volume works as a prequel/spin-off to the main events, and is listed in the manga as "file (or chapter) number 00". I think my edit should be restored. ClaudioLai2000 (talk) 2:29, 30 December 2016 (CET)

Good eye!

Wikisjanitor has been CU confirmed as a sock of Sage of the Six Paths. Now we know he's a straight-up liar. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 18:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

the genre to dagashi kashi

so? uh, from before I found the source on here http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime.php?id=17723 but if should there be a small statement telling the genre(s) and a summary of the show? but if not? like its too vegue, just leave that part 'blank?' Tainted-wingsz (talk) 03:29, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

@Tainted-wingsz: ANN's encyclopedia section is based entirely on user generated content and is not a reliable source.

oh. I guess that part is left out for a while, then? but on an earlier edit by someone, that section use to had a genre and it was deleted out? as it was replaced with the 'cite web' part. Tainted-wingsz (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 04:08, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Whether a genre was previously listed on the article is irrelevant. Any information that cannot be verified by a reliable, published sources must be removed. Genres is one of those areas where editors who are not familiar with Wikipedia's policies often add their own personal interpretations. This is why I frequently challenge them by removing them. —Farix (t | c) 04:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)