User talk:Yaksha/blah

Shared IP template

Hello - in response to your message on my talk page, these templates are typically added to talk pages of IP addresses that have been engaged in vandalism and/or other controversial edits, and it appears that the IP address is shared. Once an IP's talk page has any content on it, some small links appear on the bottom of that page that do "lookups" on that IP to see who/what organization it is registered to. These links look like this:

[RIRs: America · Europe · Africa · Asia-Pacific · Latin America/Caribbean]

In this case, just clicking on "Asia-Pacific" clearly indicated the owner of the IP address. I hope this answers your question. Please let me know if you have any further questions or concerns. Cheers! --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:23, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah...i get it. Appreciate the explaination. Yaksha 07:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Anytime --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 14:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism templates

Hey, I see you've been fighting the vandalism on Manifest Festival like me. Just a note, when you fix some vandalism, if it's something recent you might want to go to the user's talk page and slap on a warning from Wikipedia:User warning templates - there are even a few designed for potentially shared IPs if you're worried about scaring genuine users away. Unfortunately some people don't get the message that vandalising (or just willy-nilly editing) articles isn't the done thing, and they need to be warned, and they especially need to have been properly warning if there's a chance we need to get them blocked.

In any case, keep up the good work! Confusing Manifestation 07:44, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

hey. yeah...i know about it. I've just been sort of reluctant to warn people. I guess i really should stop just assuming some other editor who's more experienced around here will come along and warn people when i've been the one reverting edits. I'll try it next time. --Yaksha 09:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I would have tagged the most recent ones, but because they were from IPs and there was some difference between when they vandalised and when it was fixed, I'm a bit reluctant to do anything. The repeat offender, on the other hand, if he should return, will get a mention on the Admin noticeboard with a request for instant blocking. Confusing Manifestation 03:51, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Name

Your name forms an interlingual pun (dajare) in Japanese. Is it intentional?  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  12:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

You're talking about "Yakusha" for actor right? No, not intentional. "Yaksha" is just a name, it's not meant to mean anything. And it's supposed to be pronounced as only two syllables: Yar-ksa --Yaksha 13:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I see. Well the pun would have been yak-sha, as in yak car, which is pronounced the same as yakusha, because the u is unstressed. To an English speaker it sounds like 2 syllables when spoken fast, but anyways, it wasn't intentional so never mind : ).  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  03:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Image tagging for Image:Needs Attention Cross.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Needs Attention Cross.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 13:08, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hunter articles

I left notes in all my edits with name changes to refer to notes left on the talk page here. It would be poliet if you could actually read the notes left on the talk pages (as indicated on all my edits) instead of just ignoring the explainations? --`/aksha 04:43, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The thing is--I have read them. The problem with that is that it doesn't make any sense to put them there. For example, the most ridiculous example is the change of Kalluto to Karuto. We all know that every single child in the Zoldyck family has two "L"s within their name when romanizing it. Keeping Kalluto as "Karuto" is the same thing as if we changed Killua to "Kirua" or Illumi to "Irumi". The "Zoldyck" to "Zoaldyeck" arguement still is inaccurate. Do a search on google for them. Zoldyck clearly beats Zoaldyeck by a few hundred votes. Zaoldyeck seems to be the most popular out of all three (And the one that's the most incorrect), yet apparently you've decided to go with "Zoaldyeck", the least popular of the three names. Why is this? User talk:Mr. Toto 01:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to break your last edit up. I hope you don't mind, this is just for ease of replying. Since you've made a huge edit and by the looks of it, i'm going to make a huge reply. I've copy and pasted your signiture so it won't be too confusing to read.

"The problem with that is that it doesn't make any sense to put them there" are you meaning the fact that i edited my explainations onto the hxh talk page? That's what's generally done when one discussion topic covers many articles. It just seemed redundant to post an edit explaination onto every hxh article i edited when it was the same article.

Kalluto/Karuto because that's whats used in the scanlations, and because Karuto is more popular. From my understanding, r and l (as well as double r and double l) are often inter-changable since japanese doesn't have both r and l. So Kalluto/Kaluto/Karuto/Karruto are technically equally correct romanizations. So both are valid translations, except that one is more popular than the other. Using the "ll" rule as evidence isn't really counted, since Wikipedia is pretty strict about no original research and no speculation. I must admit it was a mistake for me to add the ll rule into an article in the first place. --`/aksha 06:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I think you misinterpreted the point I was trying to make. First off, not all scanlations follow "Karuto", as that is clearly the incorrect name. It does not matter if this is the most common one--it's not what Togashi intended the character's name to be. Karuto just does not fit the naming structure, and if you're going to write his name as "Karuto", then why are you not also writing "Alluka" name as "Aruka", when that name hasn't even been confirmed yet? It is just obvious that the character's name is supposed to be "Kalluto", and the scanlations in this case are incorrect. It doesn't matter if it's the romaji, that's not how the name is intended to be spelled. Sure, it's a way to translate it. However, if you're going to keep the double L in all of the other Zoldyck children's names, then it makes absolutely no sense to keep it as Karuto, even if it is the most popular name to people who read the scanlations. Most people know that it's incorrect, so this needs to be changed.

User talk:Mr. Toto 20:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

For a start, there has only been one english scanlation group scanlating hxh since Karuto appeared as a character in the manga (his appearance in York Shin arc doesn't count because his name isn't mentioned), so i have no idea what you mean by "not all scanlations". Secondly, there is no evidence whether Togashi intended the names to be Karuto or Kalluto, Togashi has never written out his name in english letters (as oppossed to say, "Ging" or "Phalcnothdk" for pakunoda). The naming structure is fan-made, although it does work, It's both speculation and original research, both of which being things which should have no place on wikipedia. So basically, there is no evidence that Karuto is "incorrect". It's not wrong - i've already said this, Togashi never specified Karuto or Kalluto. The naming system is speculation, and it works just as well if you replaced the "ll" with "rr" or "r" or just "l", because they are equivalent in japanese. It is a fact that Karuto is prefered over Kalluto, whilst all the other Zoaldyeck children have the double 'l'. It is strange, and i have no idea why it ended up that way, but it doesn't make it 'incorrect'. Otherwise, you may as well argue that "Kurapika" should be "Kulapika" or "Curapika" or "Culapika", all of which are also equilvalent. It just happened in this case, ViZ also adopted a 'r' as opposed to a 'l'. --`/aksha 06:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

As for Killua's surname, i made the page into Zoaldyeck because last time i checked, that was what was being used in scanlations. I have to be honest here and say i didn't even realize there was a difference, i though people just used 'ao' and 'oa' interchangably. But alas, google test proves me wrong by a mile by showing 'ao' is more used. So i'll go change it if you don't beat me to it. --`/aksha 06:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That's not the point I was trying to make. I was saying that both "Zoaldyeck" and "Zaoldyeck" are incorrect translations of Killua's name. Let me show you personally. His name is spelled "ゾルディック" in Japanese. This is literally read as "Zorudikku" and its closest translations are "Zoldick", "Zordick" or "Zoldyck". These are the only three readings that it can be. Now, "Zoaldyeck" would be written like "ゾアルドイェック" in Japanese. "Zoarudoiekku". See the difference? "Zaoldyeck" diverts the furthest from all of them, since the first syllable is completely different from the Japanese one. "ザオルドイェック" is how you would spell it in Japanese. This one does not remotely even resemble the original term. Therefore, Zoldyck, Zoldick, or Zordick are the closest translations to the actual word. Anything else is wrong.

User talk:Mr. Toto 20:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

They are not translations. Zoldyeck, Zoldick, Zordick, Zoaldyeck, Zoldyck...whatever one you want...none of the are translations. They are direct english versions of the name based on the sound. None of them, including ViZ's one, are meant to be the actual romanization. Otherwise we'd be using Zoludikku/Zorudikku. None of them are translated either. They're just what "Zorudikku" would sound like to an english speaking person when it's said in japanese. Which makes versions like Zaoldyeck and Zoldyck and Zoldyeck equilvalent - because they sound the same. Technically, the versions with just 'd' instead of 'dy' are closer to the japanese prounciation. But something like Zoldick was neither adopted by scanlations or by viz (and frankly speaking i'm not surprised.) --`/aksha 06:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Another problem is with the inconsistency of the romanizations. Some terms are left all in Japanese, despite being in Katakana. An example of this is "York Shin City". It makes no sense to keep the "York" in English, but not translate the "Shin" as "New", when it is quite obvious the place is supposed to be a pun off of New York City. Not only that, but it makes even less sense to keep the "York" when it's written as "Youku" in Katakana. That's translating just half the word, and it makes no sense.

"Kite" to "Kaito" doesn't make sense either. Again, this is supposed to be an obvious translation. The name is even written in Katakana, so even Japanese readers realize that this is supposed to be "Kite". The fact of the matter is that the site is just using names that are translated based on pure speculation of what the name should be. It was just a shot in the dark in what the translated name should be to these translators, and I'm really sure lots aren't correct.

"Senritsu" is the Japanese word for Melody. It's not her real name--it's an alias.

"Deme" means protruding eyes. Protruding-Eyes-chan doesn't make a very good name. "Blinky" gets the meaning across--drawing attention to the eyes.

"Kuroro" It is very clear that Togashi wanted him to have a foreign name, as he's had three romanizations that all don't follow "Kuroro". "Chrollo" and "Quoll" are the ones that make the most sense, and "Chrollo" seems to be the one that's used more than "Quoll". Especially since "Chrollo" was used in a handbook released pretty far into the future instead of the 12th volume like Quoll was.

"Genei Ryodan" is literally "Phantom Brigade" in Japanese, and "Troupe" was chosen because a "Brigade" is a large body of troops. There are only eleven members in the Phantom Troupe, so they changed it to something with a similar meaning. User talk:Mr. Toto 01:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

These are all good points, but there is no such thing as "correct" when translating names from one language to another. With Senritsu for example, exactly where in the manga does it say it's not her real name? And exactly where does Togashi make it clear Kuroro is meant to have a foreign name? ViZ choose to use the Chrollo because that's how "Kuroro" is sounds in english. --`/aksha 06:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is a correct way to translate names from one language to another. It's all in the spelling and pronounciation. The name "Kite" is the easiest example of this. His name is written as "カイト" in Japanese. In Japan, this is the word they use for "Kite" and it's pronounced as "Kaito", exactly as it's written. Therefore, the name is Kite.

"Senritsu" has some fairly good evidence that points towards it being an alias, but again, it's never explicitly stated. First off, her name is written in Kanji, not katakana. The kanji it's written in literally means "Melody". If it were in katakana, then there would be a really high chance that her name would be Senritsu and that would be it. But I think that it's supposed read as the actual musical term "Melody", since she's a music hunter.

If we're not going to translate Genei Ryodan to "Phantom Troupe" or "Phantom Brigade", then why bother translating the names of other organizations? Why not write the Chimera Ants as "Kimera Anto" or the Heaven's Arena to "Tenkou Tougijou" or "天空闘技場" (These kanji combined literally mean Arena in the Sky, or Heaven's Arena--There's no mention of anything that translates to Celestial or Tower), as it's written in the manga? You need to face that scanlations are not always correct because of the limited time frame that they get to translate. Also, they take creative liberties as well with the dialogue and translations to what they believe the name should be. I'll give you "Yorkshin City", because it's written all in katakana (Although clearly it's supposed to be referencing New York City), but these other examples work. User talk:Mr. Toto 22:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

There is a difference between translating a name and changing a name because of the way it sounds. Genei Ryodan to Phantom Troupe or Phantom Brigade is a translation, because it takes the meanings of the word "Genei Ryodan", and replaces it with english words of similar meaning. There is no sound similarity between "Genei Ryodan" and "Phantom Troupe/Brigade".

Similarly, "Senritsu" is a translation. Regardless of how her name is written, the change from Senritsu to Melody is a translation because it's based on meaning. Even if senritsu is written in a way where it was meant to mean melody, Senritsu is still her name in japanese, and Melody being the english translation, the two are not the same. When you are looking at words like Youku --> York or Kaito --> Kite, there's no 'right' way. Using Youku/Kaito is more accurate, using York/Kite makes it easier for the english speaker. Neither of those options are right.

"If we're not going to translate Genei Ryodan to "Phantom Troupe" or "Phantom Brigade", then why bother translating the names of other organizations?" because Genei Ryodan is commonly used, where as Tenkou Tougijou is not. Kimera Anto to Chimera ants is a different story because it's not a translation, just a change based on the sound of the word. I suppose by the same line or argument, i could say if ViZ bothered to make names like Genei Ryodan into english for the sake of english readers, why didn't they write New York City instead of York New City? York New City was clearly a pun on New York City?

All we're doing here is debating back and forth about why individual names are the way they are in either scanlation or ViZ. Nothing you have said proves ViZ's translations are more correct (or more accurate if you consider Togashi to be the ultimate authority). And i'm not even going to bother trying to say the scanlation translations are more correct - all i'm saying is that they're not wrong, but they are the generally used version. --`/aksha 03:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, Togashi's wanting Kuroro's name to be romanized in a cool way is simply my observation and speculation. My reasoning is that every time "Kuroro" has been romanized, it is never in the romaji. I know that Togashi must be able to at least put words into romaji. Otherwise, he wouldn't be able to use a keyboard on a computer. Clearly, if he wanted his name to be "Kuroro", he would have put "Kuroro". Not "Quoll" or "Chrollo". These are both official romanizations, and although they differ, I think Chrollo was probably the one he intended to use. User talk:Mr. Toto 20:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You think Chrollo was the one he intended? Why? He never said it was suprior to Quoll, or that Kuroro was wrong. Similarly, i really do think "Phalcnothdk" was what he intended for Pakunoda, but i don't use Phalcnothdk, neither does the scanlation group who scanlates it, neither does ViZ. The names spelt out in Togashi's 'official' ways are sometimes used (like Ging over Gin, Jing, Jin...etc), sometimes not (like Phalcnothdk), and sometimes debatable. As for Quoll and Chrollo, if Togashi was contradicting himself (as in providing two different spellings), then i really can't see how anyone can argue which one was Togashi's prefered one unless the guy comes out and makes a statement himself. --`/aksha 03:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

It's got nothing to do with Togashi's romanizations. Togashi's romanziations are used neither by fans or by ViZ. Otherwise, Viz would be having Hyskoa for Hisoka, Curarpiky for Kurapika, Matiy for Machi, and something along the lines of Phalcnothdk for pakunoda. --`/aksha 03:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Togashi's romanizations are incorrect because he's not very good at using the English language (Or at least was not when he wrote them--that was quite a while ago, so he may have improved). He tried to create romanizations that sounded English, but failed because he did not have a good translator with him. Perhaps none at all.

User talk:Mr. Toto 20:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

""Troupe" was chosen because a "Brigade" is a large body of troops" the key word there being chosen. ViZ's names are not the "correct" names, they're the names ViZ's staff CHOOSE. And since ViZ licensed the manga, it makes their selections official, but it doesn't make it any more correct. --`/aksha 03:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Checking various sources, the word "Troupe" in English works as a synonym for "Brigade". Technically, these work the same way. If you're going to deny this, then how can you accept "Celestial Tower" for something that doesn't read remotely the same way? "Troupe" is closer to "Brigade" than "Celestial Tower" is close to "Heaven's Arena". Viz just chose a synonym that works in the exact same way. If you need any more evidence, then here's some solid proof for you: The Japanese word for "Troupe" is the "Dan" in "Ryodan". The "Ryo" in "Ryodan" means travel or journeying. Therefore, Ryodan in Japanese can be translated not only as "Brigade", but "Traveling Troupe" as well. They're synonyms in Japanese too--Viz just decided to go with "Troupe" instead of "Brigade".

User talk:Mr. Toto 20:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

i have no idea what you're trying to argue. I never said anything about whether Brigade or Troupe was closer to the japanese. You where the one who made that comment. All i said was that ViZ was also making choices. Their translations are not that way because it's they are correct. It wasn't so black and white. If they encountered two options which were equally valid, they would have had to just choose one option. And the choice could have been arbitrary, or simply based on which one 'sounds nicer'. --`/aksha 03:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

If you find the popular translations a problem because they're inconsistent - ViZ's ones are not the pinacle of consistency either. ViZ translates some names when they can match up english meanings to it (regardless of whether Togashi intended them to or not. A name could have a english translation simply because many japanese names do have meanings.) ViZ changes some names depending on sound (i.e. Kaito --> Kite), and some on meaning. Some like Chrollo may be because they thought that's what Togashi wanted, but quite clearly, what Togashi wanted is not a priority because we don't have names like Hyskoa or Matiy.--`/aksha 03:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Saying that Togashi's romanizations aren't a priority is a groundless statement that had to have been said without thinking it through fully. Here's a simple way of looking at it--If a name in Hunter X Hunter is written in Kanji and isn't an actual name in Japan, the reader is obviously supposed to know the meaning of the name to associate it with the character. Senritsu, or Melody, is pretty big proof of this. If a character's name is in katakana, but also the word has meaning in Katakana in Japan, their name is supposed to be the direct foreign word that it comes from. I suppose this is debatable, but it's true for nearly every character. And other names are just romanized by Togashi himself. Unlike what you say, it is a priortiy. Otherwise, people would probably translate Gon's name as "Gon Freaks" instead of "Freecss". "Ging" would be "Jin" to everyone. "Killua" would be "Kirua". "Leorio" would be "Reorio". Do you see where I'm going with this? Togashi's romanizations generally are important, and just because he screwed up with a few does not mean that all of them should be taken with a grain of salt.

User talk:Mr. Toto 21:19, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Most of them are screwed up. The ones which are not have mostly be adopted, by both scanlations and ViZ. The ones that are screwed up obviously aren't a priority - that much is obvious, since they're not used by fans, or by scanlators, or by ViZ. In other words, they're not used by anyone. --`/aksha 03:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

All you've done is listed off reasons for ViZ's name changes, and i'm sure ViZ does have reasons. But i can as easily list off reasons for the scanlator's changes. York Shin, for example, wasn't a "translation" at all. Youku is simply the japanese word to pronounce "York". "Youku" itself is not a japanese word, therefore it's clear the word was made up. So it was changed to York because the word was mimiking the english word york. Where as Shin is a real japanese word, changing it to "new" would be translating the name based on meaning, which is not generally done in scanlations.

There is no evidence ViZ's ones are better or sticking to Togashi more. --`/aksha 06:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Um, the word "Youku" was not made up. That's actually how the Japanese write "York" in the word "New York". The pronounciation is the exact same as the way it's written. It's not as if you write "NEW YORK" in English if you're talking about it in Japanese--that would be silly. It's written as "ニューヨーク" and pronounced "Nyuu Youku". The word "Shin" means "New", but had he written that in kanji or hiragana, it would be in different context. "ヨークしん" means "The New York", talking as if it were literally something new, like a new bicycle. "ヨークシン" means "Yorknew", and not literally as if it were something new. It's read as "Youkushin" in Japanese, but it's supposed to be understood as "Yorknew" in Japan as well. This is a very obvious reference, and I'm sure that at least 90% of all readers of Hunter X Hunter in Japan realized this at the first reference.

Oh, and if you're going to try and say that the Viz Translations are no better at sticking to Togashi than scanlations, then maybe you should ask someone with at least some knowledge of the language.

User talk:Mr. Toto 21:28, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

...i meant "Youku" was not a japnese word in that it's an imported word, not that it was made up for hxh. The word Youku doesn't actually mean York, it simply sounds like York. So it's just "york", except re-written so it's easier for japanese people to pronounce. --`/aksha 03:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

"Emission" to "Emitter" is a pointless change--An Emitter is a person who can emit something. It's a form of the word "Emission", and it's useless to put it in parenthesis next to the original term. Same goes for Specialization and Manipulation. Viz actually has used both.

"Baise" to "Veze" doesn't make sense. The name was written as "Baise", and I can't see why it was changed in the scanlation version but not the translation. User talk:Mr. Toto 01:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

If you consider it a pointless change, then why not just keep it as emission? I for one, don't consider it as pointless. Emitter is a noun, it refers to a person. Emission as a nen type is an adjective - it describs a form of nen. Changing all the nen names, even if we use the scanlation ones, to nouns means re-writing sentences. And a person using emission has always been referred to as "an emission type nen user" and not "emitter". The main reason for changing the nen types, however, is because there are some differences. Like reinforcement/enhancer, and transformation/transmuter. So if i'm going to change the names back to scanlation names, i can't well keep half of them as nouns and the other half changed can i... --`/aksha 06:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

That's the thing--the Japanese names for the nen types have interchangeable translations. The Japanese word for "Enhancement", Kyouka, is the exact same word for "Reinforce" as well. Same thing with "Transformation" and "Transmutation". They're interchangeable. Since an official source has translated them like this, it makes a lot more sense to write the English name before the scanlated translation because that's how it's listed in the states. Only in scanlations and fansubs are they listed as "Reinforcement" and "Transformation".

"Emitter" is less of a mouthful than "Emission Type Nen User" (a literal translation, but it's less large in Japanese), especially since the Japanese way of writing it is tiny in comparison. If you wrote "Emission Type Nen User" in a translation of the manga, you would either need to extend the text box or reduce the text size. These two terms are interchangeable and mean the exact same thing.

User talk:Mr. Toto 21:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

You see, at the end, you're argument still comes down to the fact that it's better to write the english as how the "official source has translated them" instead of how scanlators translate them. You say Kyouka is both enhancement and reinforce equally, so at the end, the only difference is the fact that one is official and the other is not.

Which is exactly the point i'm trying to make - the only real difference used by the translations between the scanlators and ViZ (in the case of names which are translated - Not things like deme-chan to blinky, where deme-chan is non-translated and blinky is translated) is that one is an official source and the other is not. --`/aksha 03:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Even if google proves that the scanlated translations are more popular, that still does not necessarily mean they are correct. In all of the cases above, the Viz translation has been more accurate and faithful to the original Japanese spellings. It's understandable, since they spend a lot more time on the product than scanlators do. There are even more cases as well that I still haven't listed. Even the Nen types, although the names can be interchangeable throughout both versions, work just as well in the Viz version.

The point I'm trying to make is that it makes little sense to go with a more popular fan translation, despite if it is correct or not. What if the HxH anime was licensed here and they used the Viz names? Then, more fans would prefer the English translation. Would we change it then? Or would we still cater to the fans who got their information through illegal means? I still do not see the logic in choosing a more popular name if fans like it better than what it is supposed to be.

Let's say I write a letter to Viz on their translating process--If I came up with some hard evidence that they consult Jump themselves and spend lots of time on translating the HxH manga correctly, then would we still keep the names that are more popular? Or the correct ones?User talk:Mr. Toto 01:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

For a start, a lot of these names are a matter of either keeping the original japanese or adopting a translation. It just happens that it's much more of a rule amoungst scanlators to keep japanese names than amoungst manga companies. Take a look at Usagi Tsukino. All official english versions translate her name into Serena Tsukino. But the japanese (which is also what people in the scanlation community use) is used for the wikipedia article. --`/aksha 03:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

This example is invalid. Serena is a name change, not a name translation. There's a difference. Name changes are when there's a blatant difference between the original name and the Japanese name. Especially changes in pronounciation (Which is actually occuring on the Zoldyck family page--for the last time, Zaoldyeck and Zoaldyeck are completely not acceptable as translations of his last name), flipping letters around, or changing the name completely. This isn't the case for any HXH character (Except maybe Kurotopi), simply because you're doing the exact same thing the dubbing company for Sailor Moon did to those character names. Only you're trying to justify it because you're used to it and that's what your fansubs say, so they must be correct. I've provided more than enough reasons as to why most of the Hunter x Hunter names in scanlations are incorrect, and also how Viz's translations come the closest to the original romaji and pronounciation (Except for terms you leave untranslated on here like "Genei Ryodan"). User talk:Mr. Toto 21:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

The point of citing the Serena example was to show how the a japanese name takes preference over an english one. So deme-chan being japanese takes preference over blinky, which is english. I've never tried to prove the scanlations names to be correct. I've never claimed those names are correct - in terms of correct-ness of translation, my stand is still that there is no such thing as "correct" when translating proper nouns (names) from one language to another. Which is what i've been saying all along. My justification for using those names on Wikipedia is that they are the commonly used ones. And almost all the guildlines on naming conventions, as well as the ones specific to anime/manga, show how we use names which are generally used. This has nothing to do with getting things right, or accuracy - since name changes are not a factual thing. --`/aksha 03:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Give me something other than "fans prefer this name", because that's completely irrelavent to the factual basis of an article. Just because fans prefer "Zaoldyeck" does not make it correct or even close to the original katakana writing of the name. If you're unable to do this, then there should not be any reason as to why we should not change to the Viz names. User talk:Mr. Toto 21:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

There is nothing other than the fact that the those names are prefered. The names themselves are irrelavant to the factual basis of the article. How to spell a name that's imported from another language, and how to translate proper nouns is not a matter of fact. ViZ chooses names they prefer, similar to the scanlators. ViZ has their priorities regarding what names are most suitable, the scanlators have theirs. I can't, and wont' bother trying, to provide another reason because there's no need to do so. It's clear the scanlator versions are more popular, and the guildlines make it clear for us to use the generally accepted names. --`/aksha 03:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Names like Senritsu and Deme-chan would stay regardless because they are the japanese names. Unless Senritsu and Deme-chan become names which are rarely used amoungst english fans, and Melody and Blinky become names which are commonly used amoungst english fans. Same goes for Kuroro and Genei Ryodan, both being the original japanese names. --`/aksha 03:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, if we follow that logic, then Gon's name should stay "Gon Furiikusu". And Kuroro's full name should be "Kuroro Rushirufuru". This arguement makes no sense. "Senritsu" and "Deme-chan" are not real Japanese names. "Senritsu" is the word for "Melody" in Japan. "Deme" is in reference to the eyes, and "Chan" is just a suffix that works as a nickname that has absolutely no equivalent in the English language. "Heaven's Arena" should be "Tenkou Tougijou". "Greed Island" should be "Guriido Airando".

Once again, this arguement is ridiculous. You're translating only some terms while leaving others untranslated. It makes absolutely zero sense to translate half of a word and not do the other when working with another language, unless it is intentional. Quite obviously, it wasn't intentional. Japanese fans understand "Genei Ryodan" as "Phantom Brigade". It makes complete sense to them because it's in their native language. "Genei Ryodan" is not in the English dictionary. No one knows what it means unless they look it up. ::User talk:Mr. Toto 21:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i suppose it should be. Gee i wonder why "Gon Furiikusu" is used neither by scanlators or by ViZ? Same goes for "Rushirufuru" for Lucifer. There is no obvious reason for it, and i'm not going into an arguement about it since it's irrievalnt - both scanlators and viz do not use lucifer over rushirifuru. However, for osmething like senritsu to melody - melody is clearly an english translation. Similarly, blinky is obviously an english translation. --`/aksha 03:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

As for debatable names like York Shin City, i'd suspect it will be under heavy debate. If it because more popular and there were people advocating both for keeping it and for changing it to York New. --`/aksha 06:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I was under the impression that Wikipedia was about accuracy, not about whether or not a fan likes the name better because of the way it is written. If this truly is supposed to be an online encyclopedia, then perhaps we need to make some changes in terms of if the content is correct or not. User talk:Mr. Toto 01:26, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

But the problem is, neither is "correct". Offical does not mean correct. "Genei Ryodan" is very much the correct name in japanese - after all, that's what Togashi used. The question is whether ViZ's translation is deemed as correct in english as Togashi's ones are in japanese.

As for it being an encyclopedia - yes, that's why ViZ's names are included and acknolwedge in the articles. If you feel there needs to be more in the articles explaining ViZ's translations, then feel free to add them in. But the actual names used in the article is a matter of format, or style. And Wikipedia deals with it by the various "manual of style" guildlines which we have.

This is akin to how articles about living organisms are named by their commonly-used/popular names over their scientifically-correct latin names. (although all accurate information about scientific taxonomy about a species is included in the actual article) --`/aksha 06:19, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Once again, if you're choosing not to translate one term for an organization, then you might as well not do it for all the others. It makes no sense other than you like the name "Genei Ryodan" better because it sounds more awesome to you. That's not a valid reason as to why we should write it as "Genei Ryodan". The arguement with living organisms makes no sense either. Let me put it into terms you may recognize. The difference here is that you're not using the original names for everything, nor are you translating everything. You're using fansubs and scanlations as your only source of information without even checking the original Japanese source material, trying to translate, or even attempt to understand and search why Viz would use these translations instead of the ones you're familiar with in scanlations. Here's a fact: Your scanlations are not correct. Karuto is not what his name is intended to be. Gon's last name is officially spelled as Freecss. Killua's last name is not, nor will it ever be, Zoaldyeck or Zaoldyeck. That was a translation error. Check all of the other errors. Actually read and think about what I'm saying.

You seem to be quite familiar with Sailor Moon. What you're doing to Chrollo Lucifer is akin to writing her name as Seiraa Moon. You're not translating Sailor, but you translate the word "moon". What you're doing to Killua's last name is like if you wrote Sailor Galaxia's name as "Sailor Garaksheya" because the katakana has it as "Garakushia". Sure, these are extremes that you are unlikely to get wrong. But it's just the same way. What you're doing to the Phantom Troupe by not translating their name at all is as if you wrote Queen Nehellenia's name as "Jouou Neherenia". At least consider what I'm saying, because it all makes more sense than what's happening on the pages right now.

User talk:Mr. Toto 22:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

And i think what you are saying is wrong. All those facts you mentioned...the only one that is actually a fact is the "Gon's last name is officially spelled as Freecss". So at the end, it still comes down to what is official. Fansubs was never in the equation. I'm not using scanlations as the only source of information - i judged which names where more popular by which ones everyone uses, that includes hxh forums, hxh communities, and the sites that were used as references in writing the articles. I understand why ViZ uses those translations, but i don't agree. I'd say if anything, you don't try to understand why scanlators use their translations. But clearly, you don't seem to care - because scanlators are unofficial and that alone is a bad thing to you. --`/aksha 03:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Anyhow, this discussion is getting us no where. We're arguing on different tangents. You are trying to prove ViZ's naming is correct and better. I'm don't care whether ViZ's translations are more correct because i believe there's no such thing as correct when it comes to translating proper nouns.

If you don't mind, i'd like to move this entire discussion over to the hxh talk page (as in copy and past the whole lot over, or at least continue the discussion over there). This would allow other people to join in the debate (not that they can't here, but i doubt there're anyone else interested in the hxh articles who just happens to also be watching my talk page).

(also, i've changed the indenting completely. When you cut into my comments, please remember to copy and past my signiture to the end of the comment you cut in, and change the indenting somehow to show you've cut in. otherwise, it becomes really difficult for me to work out where my comments stop and yours begin.) --`/aksha 03:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Digimon

You do realise the last time I updated my user page was months ago, right?  :)

I was always helping out with WP:DIGI, anyway, just a little less now that I've finished going over and basically wikifying all the Digimon articles. x42bn6 Talk 16:08, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hiroaki Yura being bundled into an AfD

You're right that it's normally standard operating procedure to create a separate AfD for each article, but I think what the nominator was doing by bundling the man with the orchestra was saying that outside of the orchestra (which may or may not be notable), the man doesn't seem notable by himself. He may well be notable for some other reason, but since the two articles are connected it kind of makes sense to bundle them together. You'll see it every now and then at AfD - a band might get nominated and the nomination will also include the article on their lead singer and their debut album, since it's all kind of part and parcel of the same thing. BigHaz - Schreit mich an 12:14, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Academic journal query

Thank you for your comment to my proposal on the Village Pump. I am not sure that I would equate academic journals with "journals" - the latter could mean anything from Cosmopolitan to weekend paper colour supplements! However, I do consider you might have raised a valid issue about any one with access to a university library having access to academic journals. ACEO 18:57, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Isometric projection

You deleted an allegedly "exact same" image which was not in fact "exactly the same" at all. Please use more caution in future. AnonMoos 12:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

yeah, sorry. I thought the two pictures were serving the same purpose just from reading the captions. Guess i really should have read the actual article text as well. Will be more careful in future --`/aksha 01:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

D&D class articles

Please see Talk:Hexblade#Requested move. Please stop any further moves of these articles. -- JHunterJ 14:21, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I've seen it. The moves actually aren't for disambiguation purposes at all.

It's simply to standardize all the D&D class articles. Even though it's not explicitly stated, all the D&D class articles act like as if they're part of a series (in the sense that if D&D wasn't so big/popular, we would have just one article for D&D classes, as many RPGs do. However, given that there is much to say about each class, we split it up into seperate articles for each class.)

As far as the reader is concerned, the articles also read as part of a series. This is especially true when you consider the fact that many of the class articles are basically orphaned if not because all articles with the "D&D Character Classes" template links to them.

Favoured Soul, for example, is linked to only by "complete divine" "Character class (Dungeons & Dragons)" and two other character class articles.

The "(Dungeons & Dragons)" after the name shows it's the Favoured soul from D&D. The "Article titles give the reader an idea of what they can expect within an article. A reader may have found your article with a search, with Recent Changes or accidentally, or in some other way that robs him of the context, so do him a favor and name your articles precisely." (the ration behind Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)).

It also groups all the class articles together. It's the same reason why all episode articles for a TV series have the series name in brackets behind them. (For a good example, see Category:Buffy the Vampire Slayer episodes). many episodes need no disambiguation, but having "Buffy episode" behind it tells the reader as soon as they get onto the article what the article is about a episode from a TV series.

Similarly, "Favoured Soul (Dungeons & Dragons)" immediately tells the reader they're looking at something from the fictional world of "(Dungeons & Dragons)". Which has nothing to do with the literal meaning of a soul that is favoured.

It's also for consistency --> most of them already need it (about 50 out of 70).

So it's not because of disambiguation at all. It's true those articles don't need disambiguation. But the "D&D" after the article does no harm to us. But it does benefit the readers in that it groups together the D&D articles, gives the reader a better idea of what to expect in the article as per ration behind the precision naming convention, and it's more consistent. "Names of Wikipedia articles should be optimized for readers over editors" Wikipedia:Naming conventions). --`/aksha 02:06, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If you saw the discussion, why didn't you discuss your moves first, rather than making edits that ran counter to the established consensus? Wikipedia:Naming conventions makes no mention of parenthetical (disambiguating) phrases in titles. As an analogy, Operation: Mindcrime gives no indication to the reader that it is a musical album, but it shouldn't be moved to Operation: Mindcrime (Queensrÿche album). -- JHunterJ 14:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

May I politely suggest that this discussion occur at a central location so people who contribute to D&D articles can give their opinion? Yaksha, you are somewhat misinterpreting the spirit of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision). It says to use precision only when the title is ambiguous. Yes for something like Nirvana, but Hexblade? --Aguerriero (talk) 14:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

As i already said, the moving had nothing to do with needing disambiguation. The quote from the precision naming conventions was about the philosophy behin the convention - that is, to give readers a decent idea of what article they're reading by the title, which is the same philosophy behind the moves, hence the quote.

Operation: Mindcrime doesn't need (album) tagged onto it, it's just one article - disambiguating it is not making it consistent with anything, it's not making anything clearer for the reader. Where as tagging something like Hexblade with "(D&D)" does make it more consistent with the other D&D class articles.

Otherwise, can you explain why The Voyager Conspiracy (Voyager episode) has "(Voyager episode)" in the title like every single other Voyager episode when there is nothing else titled "The Voyager Conspiracy" (in other words, it needs no disambiguation). Or why Doublemeat Palace (Buffy episode) needs disambiguation? The only reason is to group together all the articles tagged with "Voyager episode" or "Buffy episode", and for consistency since most of them do need the disambiguation.

We're not talking about a few articles here. We're talking about 70 or so articles which are clearly grouped together (many of them are nearly orphaned if not for the D&D class template), and mostly function together. This isn't like the pokemon articles, where only a small handful of pokemon species need disambiguation. We have a very large number of articles where the majority already has disambiguation, and are obviously grouped together by the "(D&D)" bit on the title. The minority follows suite to make the D&D class articles standard, and because it groups them in witht he majority which already have "(D&D)".

I'm not really sure where a good place for D&D centralized discussion would be. Just move it where you see fit, but please do tell me so i can go join in. --`/aksha 01:18, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

don't worry about it. I've found the disucssion over on the rpg project talk page. --`/aksha 01:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Here Comes the Squirtle Squad

These articles need to be nominated for deletion also. These pages have little summaries.

Please check them out Ryulong and her sockpuppets are vandaizing these pages.

1. Pokéball Peril
2. The First Pokemon! The Last Battle!!
3. The Pokemon Center is Very Busy!
4. Deciding Match! VS Regice!!
5. Begin! From Futaba Town to Masago Town!!
6. Find Pikachu! Route 202!
7. Meowth Rules!
8. Get the Show on the Road
9. A Ruin with a View
10. Perap and the Pokémon Comedian!
11. Mean With Envy
12. Attack! The Stray Manyula!!
13. The Scuffle of the Legends
14. Battle Pyramid Again! VS Registeel!
15. Pacifidlog Jam
16. Eight Ain't Enough

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pokeant (talk • contribs) 11:18, 28 October 2006 (UTC).

That's nice. I'll have a look at them. But you have no right to slip them into my AfD and make it look like as if i've nominated them. Stop doing it. --`/aksha 01:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

This guy is reverting Pacifidlog Jam, on the grounds that you are looking into the article. Any suggestions on what to do? I have no interest in breaking 3RR. -Amarkov ^babble 02:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I've never even heard of the article before.

He tried to slip a bunch of articles into an AfD i started on the basis that "those articles should be nominated too". I told him to stop slipping things into my AfD and that i'll go take a look at the articles he suggested personally.

But it doesn't really matter. People shouldn't be doing things to articles on the basis of an AfD until after the AfD is finished.

He's already suspected to be a sock and made a huge mess on the said AfD (deleting other people's comments). Maybe report him in for vandalism? --`/aksha 02:13, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I knew the stuff about the AfD, he kept trying to keep the notice and kill off the redirect that was put on. Oh well. -Amarkov ^babble 02:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There was an AfD notice on it? The articles weren't even nominated for AfD. I'm going to remove them. I think, even if the articles should be bundled in, it's quite rude after so many days to add more article into the AfD. At least, it's sort of unfair for the people who voted early. --`/aksha 02:21, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to be blocked for indefenity. I am not a sockpuppett. I'm sorry I'm just a 15 year old boy.. Pokeant

Then don't get into edit wars with people. If someone reverts your edit, and you don't understand why (or don't agree), try talking first. It means less fustration for you and for everyone else. --`/aksha 02:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

May you include them in the AfD??? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pokeant (talk • contribs) 12:33, 28 October 2006 (UTC).

For a start, sign your comments. Secondly, maybe. I'm not sure. Including articles after an AfD has started can be rude, and unfair for people who voted early on. --`/aksha 02:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I have talked to Ryulong (my friend has) and she and A Man in Black continues to revert / merge the articles. I need help!! Pokeant

They continue to revert them because they are not part of the AfD discussion. Therefore, you have no right to state that they may not be changed. And seeing as consensus over at WP:PCP is to merge them, you're not going to get anywhere. -Amarkov ^babble 02:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) no you don't. what they are doing is fine. They're probably just carrying out merge plans as decided from discussions in the pokemon collaboration project. --`/aksha 02:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

But does'nt that seem that the PCP is a sort of Dictatorship? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pokants (talk • contribs) 12:45, 28 October 2006 (UTC).

No. It's called consensus, and one person isn't allowed to override it. Especially when said person does not actually want the articles to be there, but wants them kept so they can go on AfD. -Amarkov ^babble 02:47, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The project takes care of pokemon articles. There are tons of users involved in it. They discussed about what to do with pokemon articles. Anyone can join the project and join in discussions. ANd now they're carrying out mass merges i believe. Also, sockpuppetry is VERY not allowed. Pokeant just got blocked so you pop up with a new account? Lastly, sign your comments!--`/aksha 02:51, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Why do you want the articles to be removed? All of the other episode pages of different shows have pages. Whats so bad of having pages of Pokemon there are like 30+ people at the PCP it would be some extra work to keep the articles vandal-free.

Do you want me to tell why I was blocked? I was offened when someone wrote the GD word. My mommy and the pastor (I go to church) told me that, word was a very very bad word. I'm 15 year old. Also I am new to Wikipedia.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pokants (talk • contribs).

Let me lay out the bad things you've done.

Disrupting Wikipedia to make a point
Adding AfD notices to articles not on AfD
Going against consensus and restoring articles you don't even like
Adding new articles to an AfD
Editing other people's comments
Sockpuppetry

Don't do pretty much everything you've done. I reccomend that you go read all of the policies.-Amarkov ^babble 02:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The 4400 AfD

Hi. Just wanted to say I strongly support your AfD for The 4400 episodes. I cannot see how the closing admin made his judgement to keep, and I have posted on his talk page asking for a clarification of his reasoning. If you want to take this AfD to WP:DRV, I will support you. Zunaid ^(T•C) Please rate me at Editor Review! 08:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I too would support challenging this in DRV. Wikipedia is not a democracy, and I fail to see how numbers outweighed rational arguments. -- Ned Scott 08:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No, i'm not planning to take it up to deletion review. I have no idea how deletion review works, and i'm really not interested in picking fights with anyone. There're a few people who seem bent on protecting their articles. And they seem to have far more time and effort to spare defending what they want on wikipedia than I. I am, however, planning to renominate them for deletion if there is no improvement on the articles after a few months. Since the main reason for keep was that the articles will get better in the future. --`/aksha 04:48, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I'd like to suggest that you put the articles up for deletion again in a few months, citing the previous AfD then. This is the most peaceful solution; thanks. —Xyrael / 17:22, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I hope I haven't embarrased you

Yaksha,

I'm just writing to let you know that I've mentioned an earlier incident involving you, me, and another user that took place a few days ago. I didn't use your name, but I did provide enough documentation that it can be easily discovered. I know you said you weren't particularly bothered by the incident, but I was. I took you up on your departing comment and edit summary that the two of us can have fun by continuing our discussion about that incident without you. (I see in the above comments that the catalyst for that incident, the 4400 nomination, has not been resolved to your satisfaction.)

I have no intention to offend you, or drag you into anything. I just need to resolve a chronic personal conflict between myself and another user. There's no need for your participation in any way. I apologize if I overstepped.

--Loqi T. 16:04, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to reference the continued discusson. It can be found here. --Loqi T. 16:11, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

No, it's okay. No harm done. --`/aksha 04:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

disambiguation

When television episodes are named after things, they need disambiguation. This applies to most of the Desperate Housewives episodes, which are usually named for Stephen Sondheim songs. - Outerlimits 05:57, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i'm well aware of that. If there's another article already with the name, disambiguation is not used. But when there's no other article with the name, then there's no point disambiguating.

Many of the Desperate Housewives episode articles have this kind of unneeded disambiguation, which is why i'm moving them.

(see discussions at WT:TV-NC) --`/aksha 06:00, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

They need this kind of disambiguation, which is why I'm adding it back. If the (peculiar) decision has been taken to not provide it in the article title, the reader must at the very least be pointed to the appropriate article treating the pre-existing song after which the episode is named, whether that song has its own article or is covered in the article of the musical in which it appears. - Outerlimits 06:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, i know. A header disambiguation template is used for such cases. Disambiguation is only used when there are two existing articles of the same name. It's not actually any new decision. If you take a look at the disambiguation guildlines, and then TV episode naming guildlines at WP:TV-NC, you will find that both quite specifically address the issue of when not to use disambiguation - that is, when there are not two articles of the same name. It's been like that for ages. The current discussion was just a decision to actually change series which don't follow the pre-existing guildlines.

For cases as you've outlined, the header disambiguation template can be used. Which i am planning to add in the case of episodes which are after songs. Or you're welcome to do so if you want, you obviously seem more familiar with the area than I. --`/aksha 06:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I did take a look. I'll let you do the work; as long as you're willing to clean up after yourself, I won't feel obligated! :) - Outerlimits 06:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Sure, sure. I'm about to fix the links on the episode list article. Double redirects are already fixed. The header disambiguation tags will be added once i'm done with the episode list article. --`/aksha 06:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

The Pardoner's Tale

This redirect (a common name of a cornerstone of western literature) is not eligible for deletion. However, I've created a disambig link at The Pardoner's Prologue and Tale, which should solve the problem. Thanks. Chick Bowen 06:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

If you'd like to open it up for discussion list it at redirects for discussion. Chick Bowen 06:07, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Category of deleting redirect pages

You wrote: "What Smothered needs is a speedy tag, under the category of deleting redirect pages so proper (not cut and paste) moves can be made." Unfortunately, Elonka makes this statement from the uncontroversial moves section at WP:RM false: "If there is any doubt as to whether a page move could be opposed by anyone, do not list it in this section." --Serge 06:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Uncontroversial doesn't mean everyone agrees. It just means it's a simple black and white matter, where it's obvious what needs to be done.

I assume you're referring to "if for no other reason than that the term "Smothered" can reasonably be assumed to later be needed for some other article, so disambiguation is appropriate. I would also point out that discussion about the issue of disambiguation is ongoing at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (television), so it is premature to be engaged in page moves at this time. Please do not be disruptive." I didn't take that into account at all. The first part of her statement is directly addressed by our guildlines - we don't pre-emptively disambiguate on such assumptions. The second part of her argument is nothing but a misleading statement, consensus at the discussion was already reached and page moves are legitimately underway.

Her complaint doesn't make the move contraversial. It's like someone going "opposse, i just don't like it" to a uncontraversial move - it doesn't turn it contraversial. Elonka's complaint isn't much of a step above "i just don't like it". --`/aksha 06:34, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Tainted poll?

Hi. Sorry to bother you. You participated in a television episode article naming poll which now lives at this location. Some feel that wording changes have compromised the results of that poll. If you don't mind, could you please take a look at what is there now and add a quick note at WT:TV-NC#Looking for anyone who objects to the last poll to say whether your feelings on the matter remain the same? Of course you can feel free to read over the entirety of both links for more information. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

posting notes on everyone's talk pages huh? haha... seems like a good idea. I think you already know how i feel about this whole "we need a new poll" mess, but i'll go respond anyway. --`/aksha 02:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Shocking I need to do this for a poll that finished at a nearly 4-to-1 ratio but whatever... —Wknight94 (talk) 02:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Civility

Please try not to refer to good faith comments as "immature." [1] Could I suggest that mundane editorial disagreements are most likely to resolve quickly and productively when editors observe the following:

• Remain polite per WP:Civility.
• Solicit feedback and ask questions.
• Keep the discussion focused. Concentrate on a small set of related matters and resolve them to the satisfaction of all parties.
• Focus on the subject rather than on the personalities of the editors.

Thanks!

Also, may I point out that nearly all of your wiki-time has been spent on moving articles and participating in the Naming Discussions issue. Some of this behavior might possibly be seen as suspicious, since there are concerns of sockpuppetry. May I please encourage you to get involved in other areas of Wikipedia as well? Thank you. --Elonka 19:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid i simply could not find a more civil way of expressing my opinion towards your words than to just state it. Of course, it may be more poliet to not express my opinions at all, but last time i checked, civility does not equal being "poliet".

There is absolutely nothing wrong with sockpupptery. It is only disallowed when it is "to create the illusion of greater support for an issue, to mislead others, or to circumvent a block". If you believe i am doing any of those things, then you are welcome to report me in for a sockpuppter investigation.

You should, however, check your facts before stating them. Your case will be far more believable when you are not making suggestions such as that my 69 edits and 307 page moves (associated with this disagreement) out of a total of nearly 2878 edits constitute "nearly all of my wiki-time."

If you believe throwing around "sockpupptery" accusations like this will scare me into stepping down, you are very wrong. There are few things i personally find more appalling in an online community than experienced members trying to scare off newer members with accusations veiled behind false civility. --`/aksha 06:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh, boy, do I know where you're coming from on *that* observation. Makes one wonder if "equal" in Wikipedian means "some are always more equal than others" Sixty Six 08:48, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Lost episodes

Just an honest mistake. I apologize. --Woohookitty^(meow) 07:53, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

...

What? MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 09:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Generally most people refer to it as a "Typographical error" — You know when a word is incorrect? Some people may refer to it as a spelling mistake, or maybe you might know it as an "incorrect word" — It may help if your signature actually stated your name? MatthewFenton (talk • contribs • count • email) 11:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop moving articles

Yaksha, as you may be aware, there is currently a very active discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Naming conventions (television) about article naming. This discussion is not concluded, and the guideline itself is clearly labeled as being in dispute. As such, I do not believe that it has been helpful for you to be moving articles, nor to inform editors in other Wikipedia projects that the discussion has a clear consensus. Can I please ask you to stop moving articles, until the discussion is concluded? Thanks. --Elonka 08:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

sign...this is getting really tiring. No, i'm not planning to stop. Article moving started long ago and is going to continue. The discussion concluded long ago, your own summary proved that. The guildline is not labeled as being in dispute, the use of the guildline is, but that doesn't mean we ignore it until we sort out our exceptions.

As for editors in other wikiprojects, they've agreed to the moving, or they've gone and done the moving themselves, or there has been no response. If this is to do with the lost episode articles, then go take a look at the survey yourself. You and matthew are the only ones who are oppossing.

If any other episode article moves is causing contraversy, then i can have then ran through "request moves" as i have done so for the lost articles. --`/aksha 08:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

And stop assuming other editors are stupid. You can tell them what you want, i can tell them what i want. But at the end, keep in mind they're more than intelligent enough to go take a look at things for themselves. --`/aksha 08:05, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sockpuppetry

Well first, no, a checkuser request does not have to go through RFCU. See Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_checkuser#Checkuser_requests_made_through_other_means. Though I guess some time could be saved by simply asking you: What other accounts do you use? --Elonka 02:28, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

hmm...i apologise about my comment regarding the "backchannels" thing. I had simply assumed RFCU was the only place ordinary wikipedians where supposed to go for Checkuser requests.

What other accounts i use is of my own concern only. I have no reason, and need not to, disclose them to anyone. --`/aksha 02:36, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Have any of them been used in any of the naming-related discussions? --Elonka 03:30, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No. None of them have been involved in anything at all related to TV episodes articles or related discussions. --`/aksha 03:37, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Then why keep them hidden? If there not being used for malicious purposes why would you have to hide them :-)? thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:07, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you're not watching Elonka's talk page but one of his "socks" is plainly listed on his user creation log. Now I'll ask that you stop persisting with this inquisition. This little exchange is turning into a WP:STALK violation. File an RFCU (over the table or under the table) or leave him alone. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No I'm not watching Elonka's talk page, nor am I watching this but thank you for notifying me that operating sock puppets is not beyond him or her I have a pretty good idea of one of his or her sock puppets, thanks anyway. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 18:59, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not even sure what that means. Read WP:SOCK for the difference between sockpuppets and abusive sockpuppets. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Mediation request

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Hunter x Hunter character pages

Hello. I'm thinking about renaming the HxH pages, and I noticed you created some of them. Wanna help me come up with the best possible titles? The normal page naming convention would be "List of Hunter x Hunter characters" but that's not going to work here since there's Main, Minor, etc. - Peregrinefisher 21:14, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

back when i created them, i didn't know what the naming conventions are. Or rather, it didn't really occur to me we had naming conventions.

the main/minor characters should be easy. Just follow the convention and have "List of Hunter x Hunter main characters" and "List of Hunter x Hunter minor characters". It's the page with the hunters that i have no idea how to name. It's like, "List of Hunter x Hunter hunters" would be really confusing. I thought of naming it as just "Hunter Association", since the page does have information on the Hunter Association, not just the characters. What do you think? --`/aksha 10:00, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Good points. I'm going to look around at what other pages have done. - Peregrinefisher 17:06, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Stop moving pages

Wikipedia has clear procedures on moving pages. Other than in exceptional circumstances all pages should be moved by following the instructions on the Requested Moves page. Unilateral moves can trigger edit wars, break links and cause a lot of problems. Please stop unilaterally moving pages and follow the correct procedure. --Elonka 19:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please cease and desist. Continued unilateral action such as this will prevent mediation from being successful. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 19:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, demon, but shouldn't the mediation be formally rejected at this point, with more than one user placing "disagree" on the agreement section? -- Ned Scott 21:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

My understanding is that people are allowed to change their minds, up until the deadline. It is probably ^demon's hope (and mine), that everyone will agree to mediation, so that we can find a civil way to proceed. --Elonka 21:40, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Not all page moves have to go through Requested Moves. Even the Requested MOves page itself says that. Stop trying to be misleading Elonka. The page moves started about a month ago, and i don't know how you can call it unilateral. More than half a dozen editors have been helping with moving articles for various TV series after the initial list got posted, and even outside parties from affected Wikiprojects have helped . So far, i've only filed one Request Move proposal was filed because Lost editors made a big fuss about their articles, and it resulted in a clear consensus for move.

Mediation is supposed to fix the problem. Stop trying to use the existence of the mediation as an excuse to create an even bigger fuss Elonka. --`/aksha 23:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Take it easy with all these moves, please. Seek consensus from other involved editors if there are disputes. Cleaning the mess after unwanted moves is a pain in the behind and unnecessary extra work for us admins. See this as a friendly warning. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Looking at your contribution list, I see way too many moves in a single day. Slow way down do a few at a time and seek feedback from other editors about it before doing any more moves. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 03:36, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should take a look at the context before giving your "friendly warnings". We had a list of 30 odd TV series to move. Doing them one at a time is hardly excessive. Especially considering every single Wikiproject whose articles where affected where given ample warnings (~2 weeks) and time to respond. --`/aksha 09:11, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Jossi, you should really have a better look at the situation before jumping to conclusions. There is consensus for these moves, and the only objections have generally been from two individuals who don't agree with WP:D or WP:NAME. These moves have been done to bring the pages in line with wikipedia guidelines, they are clearly wanted moves cleaning up the mess. There's no reason to move any of them back, and so far there have only been two individuals who have even suggested that. RM's have been done in a couple cases, and support for the moves has been a clear consensus. And even when RM's have been made, those two individuals still charactarize those as "disruptive" (even to a WP:POINT). There were many pages that needed to be moved, doing it slowly just drags out the situation. The resolution of this is for all moves to be completed, and the sooner that happens the sooner we can all move on and be done with this. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 04:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC).

Starry night

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		Don't let the criticism get to you; keep up the good work. (Radiant) 10:39, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Archive for this talk page

Request for Arbitration

I have submitted a Request for Arbitration for the TV-episode naming conventions dispute at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Naming_Conventions_for_TV-episodes_articles. As one of the involved parties, could you please come and take a look and submit your statement? Thanks, --`/aksha 12:53, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

You, sir, are my hero! Great job. I think I sense a future administrator...  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 14:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

By the way, in the other-methods-tried section, you may want to include that I asked Wikizach to recuse himself from the medcab but he basically stated that he would not. That's outside of my statement area of the RFAR so I don't want to touch it myself... —Wknight94 (talk) 15:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work, Yaksha. Succinct summary of the issues, no inflammatory language, everything backed up by diffs. Well done. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:45, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. And wknight, i've added a mention of it (you asking Wikizach to recuse) into the Arb case now. --`/aksha 08:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Your ArbCom statement

There's one thing that you might want to change in your ArbCom statement. You mentioned the The Sponge Who Could Fly RM as evidence of a consensus against pre-disambiguation. The issue there wasn't really about disambiguation. The previous title included "(The Lost Episode)" as part of the name of the episode. There was some confusion initially that it was an episode of Lost. Also, you say "and that the moves where disruptive" when you mean were. –  Anþony  talk  23:22, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions for TV-episodes

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions for TV-episodes. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions for TV-episodes/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions for TV-episodes/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee,—— Eagle 101 ^{(Need help?)} 18:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

With the arbitration case now opened it would be a good idea for you to not make any more moves until the case is resolved. Thanks. Thatcher131 23:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If there's a need to stop the moves that have been going on for a month with consensus (many fulfilled Request Moves) and no complaints, then i believe the ArbCom will grant a emergency injunction. Someone has already bought up the issue as a "proposed temporary injunction", so i'm sure the ArbCom will take notice of it. Otherwise, i see no point in slowing down normal wikiprocesses just because a related ArbCom case is going. --`/aksha 01:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yaksha, continuing to engage in conduct contested in an Arbitration case, at the very least is very detrimental to your case. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project • Request CheckUser ) 22:34, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Not sure why i even bother with these anymore. For my reply, refer to this talk page section. --`/aksha 22:45, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

To me, the issue is simplicity - you are in an arbitration about page moves, you are continuing to move pages, Thatcher131, an arbitration clerk has asked you to stop. If you do not, you may be blocked pending a more binding remedy from the Arbitration Committee. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project • Request CheckUser ) 23:00, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom has not issued an injunction. Elonka is entitled to her opinion in requesting one, but there's no reason to believe it will be granted. Until it is, the normal Wikipedia processes should prevail. That is, if Yaksha really is engaged in disruptive moves, he should be reported to AN/I and blocked under normal procedures. Elonka has already tried that, but nothing came of it since there's no evidence that the moves are actually disruptive. –  Anþony  talk  00:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

The sheer volume has been setting off alarms in the VCN for a while now, and jossi's assertion earlier seems to confirm that the VCN is not the only one that sees this volume of moves as disruptive. (As a tangential thought, you should read up on signature guidelines, Anþony) Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project • Request CheckUser ) 00:59, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Since when is getting a lot of work done quickly disruption? Those most familar with the case have commended Yaksha for taking on such a large project. Again, if there really is evidence of disruption, there should be no problem with taking this to the normal channels. As for my signature, I'm not really sure what you're referring to. Please elaborate on my talk page. –  Anþony  talk  03:30, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Peter, is there a WP policy that says that large quantities of edits or moves are inherently disruptive? It seems that moves should be judged by their merits, not by their quantity. If edits or moves are improving wikipedia, why should they be slowed down artificially instead of getting them done? --Milo H Minderbinder 15:18, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Generally speaking any high volume of anything done quickly is considered disruptive, and it's why we have the bot bit, so that programs doing such tasks can be identified so that they are not banned. If suddenly scores of pages are moved from their original place, it is inevitable that people are going to complain. If she wants to continue with the page moves I suppose I can live with that, but she would NOT be hurting things to slow down. The pages will still be there in 5-10 minutes, half an hour, or however long to move. There is no reason for the speed and it's just going to get her in trouble. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project • Request CheckUser ) 19:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

"any high volume of anything done quickly is considered disruptive" Is that from a wikipedia policy or guideline? If so which one? And if it were truly "inevitable that people are going to complain" wouldn't someone have complained about the Buffy and Angel moves? I haven't seen a single complaint other than Elonka's. I think the lack of complaints on the vast majority of the moves in question demonstrates clearly that they aren't disruptive. I doubt that many people even noticed the moves happened at all (which is about the least disruptive situation I can imagine). --Milo H Minderbinder 20:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:POINT. As well, I am complaining. Thatcher is complaining. Jossi is complaining. It is not just Elonka, as you say it is. Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 22:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

What part of POINT do you feel is applicable in this situation? It makes no mention of actions being disruptive based soley on quantity. --Milo H Minderbinder 22:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I would also point out that it's Christmas, and many editors are not spending as much time on Wikipedia. Please, can we have mercy on those who have lives and don't want to (or can't) spend time on Wikipedia during the holidays? For example, TobyRush and Riverbend were involved in this dispute on a near daily basis, but have been on wiki-breaks since early December. Accordingly, can we please have a Christmas cease-fire?--Elonka 22:22, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, people have complained, but none of those complaints have really been backed up by good reasons. Once again, if the moves are disruptive, then where is the {{mp4}} warning? Pressuring Yaksha to stop because you don't like it is not the same as giving real a warning because the moves are disruptive when clearly they are not. –  Anþony  talk  22:44, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

And what, pray tell, is a good reason? I think the fact that as many people have come and asked about it would be matter for concern, and I don't think requesting her to slow down hampers her in any way, so what's the issue? Cheers, ✎ Peter M Dodge ( Talk to Me • Neutrality Project ) 01:23, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Moving pages to follow a guideline isn't a bad thing. Others have been similarly moving pages including admin Radiant! (talk · contribs). This is in very good hands at RFAR where a section with the word "Injunction" has gone unused by any ArbCom members. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I've said this before, i don't see why i have to slow down just to prevent myself from setting off some bot. If my speed is causing false alarms with a bot, then it's up to the bot owner to fix the problem.

Requesting me to stop moving pages is one thing, but telling me to slow down my moving because other people (or a bot) can't keep up with my speed...is utterly absurd.

In case you don't understand, let me spell it out for you. I'm on a dail-up connection - a very slow one. It takes time, a lot of time, for a page (and then the move tab) to load. If i wait for a single page to load, then the move tab, then move the page...before going onto the next page...i'm going to be here all night. And that's not even counting the time it takes for me to put episode titles through the search engine to see if they are unique. Instead, i open a lot of move and search tabs, and let them load. This way, i can come back to wikipedia a bit later, and click on all the "move page" buttons. --`/aksha 07:18, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

• There is neither policy nor guideline that says doing high quantities of anything is disruptive. For instance, when I closed this MFD, I engaged in a high quantity of high speed deletions, and that was not a problem either.
• The reason bots need former approval is that they run an automated process lacking human oversight, and we want to be sure that it works fine even in borderline cases. Poorly written bots have been known to disrupt quite a bunch of articles.
• WP:POINT is about people who claim that "doing X is a bad thing" and seek to prove that by doing a lot of X (e.g. demonstrating the deletion process is flawed by making a dozen spurious AFD nominations). That doesn't apply here. >Radiant< 09:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Typo on evidence page

Hey, Yaksha. I was reading over the arbitration evidence page, and I noticed a typo that you probably want to fix. You've got a subhead saying All page moves made to remove unneeded disambiguation where supported by consensus. I think you mean to say "...were supported by consensus. "Where" is referring to location, and changes the meaning: it could be read as saying "Where page moves are supported by consensus, they're fine" instead of "The page moves were supported by consensus". On a normal talk page a mistake like that wouldn't matter, and in an article I'd correct it myself, but I think we're not supposed to edit each other's comments.

I probably won't be able to present my own evidence till tomorrow (real life beckons), but what you and the others have put up so far looks great. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 05:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

yeah...uhh...i was defintely meaning "were supported by consensus". *sigh* i seem to do this an awful lot. Thanks for pointing it out to me, i'll go fix it right away. --`/aksha 05:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

It's no biggie. The only reason I notice is that my father is a newspaper man, and would thrust articles with typos in my face and say, "What's wrong with this paragraph?" Copyediting is in my blood. That and printer's ink. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 06:02, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

New diff for your evidence...

[2]. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks --`/aksha 03:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hunter x Hunter articles

Hi, I would like for us to resolve the article as soon as possible, and I would greatly appreciate it if you would continue to post so we can make the Hunter x Hunter articles as accurate as possible, in terms of both names and information. Many of the bios need to be re-written, and perhaps you could assist in it. I appreciate your consideration. --Mr. Toto 21:18, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

With the article content - I will get around to working on the hxh articles eventually. I'm a bit of a chronic procastinator, and i'm also involved in a massive Arbitration case right now. So with that, and Cristmas/New Years coming up, i'm afraid my wikipedia time is spread a little thin. I've got all the hxh articles on my watchlist, so i am keeping an eye on them.

As for resolving the naming issue, if you want to press it, Wikipedia has plenty of places for resolving disputes or getting outside opinions. Otherwise, to put it bluntly, i really can't be bothered continuing. I've said everything i can say, and everything that other people have said in previous "professional vs. common name" debates (which believe it or not, happens a lot). HxH isn't a very known anime, and it seems like other people don't consider it a very big deal, figures...alternate namings is a widespread issue amoung anime/manga articles, since for the vast majority of anime/manga series, english versions exist primarily on the internet.

One of the principals behind all of our naming conventions is that we make things easy for the reader - we use common names, most widely used names, most recognised names...etc. I've never seen anything that talks about using names based on what's 'official' or even what's 'professional' (even the more academic areas of wikipedia tend to follow this. For example, biology articles stick to using common names over standard scientific names). In other words, the current naming guidelines support using the most widely used spellings. I see no reason why HxH needs to be an exception to it. If you've got a problem with the guideline, it's really up to you to take the inititive. --`/aksha 11:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Back to this discussion, first off, the question you had on the Nen page is correct. Check Viz volume nine to see what they do to the names there--the terms "Enhancer" and such are only used to replace the words "Enhancement Type Person" and such. Secondly, "Dokkiri" cannot translate to "Deceitful." It literally means "Surprise" and would be a complete translation error to include it, no matter how much it's used.

"Flimsy Lies" and "Elastic Love" are the sub-names Hisoka gives to his attacks. Every single character in the manga has a primary name for some attacks and a sub-name. For example, Phinks' Ripper Cyclotron has the sub-name "Heavenly Rotation."

Also, I'm reverting "Freaks" once again. You're incorrect on this one, so I'm changing it back. I have actual resources that I can cite, including official merchandise from Japan and Togashi's own work. Plus, there's the fact that it's never been contradicted. Ever. --Mr. Toto 10:24, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

When you say the subnames - do you mean that they are used in ViZ's version as subnames? or in the japanese version? If they're just there in the jap version, then there's not much point including it. "Deceitful Texture" is the name that's most commonly used, you saying it's a translation error is unfortunately meaningless. And original research.

As for Freaks/Freecss, I've already explained my reasoning. Togashi never showed any signs of bothering to release official romanji - except Ging, which got included as a plot element. As far as i can see, it's nothing more than a coincidence/chance that Freecss was used both times. There're other names from Togashi that never got contradicted, but aren't used in the article because no one uses them. It just happened ViZ picked up on this one. --`/aksha 10:58, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Going back to this topic, check out the discussion page on Hunter X Hunter's main page. I've provided images in which Togashi himself uses the romanization "Freecss" in the exact same panel he reveals Ging's name in English. It's used twice--check my second source if you own the volume. Also, in regards to the name of Hisoka's nen ability, "Deceitful Texture" has the exact same number of results on Google as "Texture Surprise." One of the pages on Google in reference is this page itself, but even so both have 5 results. Therefore, there's no most commonly used name. Either works.--Mr. Toto 05:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

User page

FYI, I deleted your user page after Ghirlandajo (talk · contribs) created one for you. Let me know if there's something more to that. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:21, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Nope, nothing more to it. At least, not that i'm aware of. Wonder why he did it. Just out of curiosity, what did the page have on it? --`/aksha 07:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

It was just a comment <!--please write there something about yourself-->. I can't imagine what the point was other than to provoke something. S/he is claiming that s/he was being helpful for a new editor - even though you've been here for eight months! Elonka has predictably jumped on the opportunity --- more grasping at straws [3]. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Procedural question about page moves

Hi, Yaksha. Before you file the Star Trek move requests, I wonder if you could take a look at WT:TV-NC#Procedural question. I think that it might make a difference in how the moves are received at ArbCom. Thanks. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 08:52, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, i understand. I'll go reply over there. --`/aksha 09:07, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hunter likes Hunting

You are the one that has violated 3RR (your initial removal counts as a reversion) - I advise you to self revert and I will not report you. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 14:05, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

• Actually Matthew is wrong, a first edit is not a revert. Regardless, both of you should not be edit warring, especially over something as trivial as a tag. Page protected for now. >Radiant< 16:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually I'm correct, it is a revert as she is reverting the addition of the tag (liek iz it wocket science ;o!?111!!) - also you have a conflict of interest, totally inappropriate for you to protect that page, also Wikipedia:Protection_policy#A_temporary_full-protection_is_used_for: - you will notice the last revert was by YakSha at 1:33GMT. HTH HAND. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:55, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, argue with the man, that will help you out. -- Ned Scott 20:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Note

You may want to crosspost that to (or at least, link it from) the talk pages of the involved arbiters, otherwise they might not see the remarks. >Radiant< 10:44, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. Off to spam talk pages then =P --`/aksha 10:49, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Naming Conventions

The case is now closed and the results have been posted at the link above.

• It is the responsibility of the administrators and other responsible parties to close extended policy discussions they are involved in, such as this dispute. Closing consists of announcing the decision at the locations of the discussion and briefly explaining the basis for closing it in the way it is being closed; further, to change any policy pages, guidelines or naming conventions to conform with the decision; and finally, to enforce the decision with respect to recalcitrant users who violate the decision, after reminding them and warning them.

• Given the existence of some uncertainty regarding how to determine if there is consensus in a particular case, no remedy is proposed concerning those who violated the consensus in this matter for past violations of policy.

• Izzy Dot's editing privileges are suspended for a period of 14 days.

• Any user who purposely violates the consensus decision in this matter during the next 180 days may be briefly blocked. All blocks to be logged at Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Naming_Conventions#Log_of_blocks_and_bans. Administrators are expected to use discretion and judgment in enforcing this remedy rather than implementing it in a mechanical fashion.

For the Arbitration Committee, Cowman109^Talk 04:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Adding Categories to Digimon articles

I can very well see your need to confront me about certain articles that I try to edit. For one thing, I think it's plain common sense that the Royal Knights are knights. Do you even realize what a knight is? A knight is one (usually a warrior) who dedicates themself to a code of ethics and to maintain order. Obviously that is what the Royal Knights do with their own code of honor. Also, the Jedi don't look like knights themselves and they are considered knights because they follow their own code of honor and ethics.

In your opinion, the Royal Knights are *obviously* knights. That's good for you. But opinion doesn't belong in wikipedia articles. Wikipedia's guidelines on verifiability is very very clear. If you can't find a reliable source for your cats, don't add them in. Now i suggest you go read Wikipedia:Verifiability, and stop adding speculative categories to digimon articles. This is your last warning. --`/aksha 01:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Another thing, the merging of so many Digimon articles seems highly inconvenient, it makes it harder for Digimon fans such as myself to find information on specific Digimon characters and topics. Besides, what makes Digimon articles so different from the many other articles on Wikipedia? So what if there are thousands of different articles under a certain category? If an article belongs in a certain category (Digimon or otherwise), it should be included. Unknown Dragon 18:17, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Redirects still exist. You can still hit any digimon name into the search box, or the url and get to where you want. The reason digimon articles are being merged is not because there're too many of them. It's because they're not notable enough to have articles on their own. We can merge them - into combined articles for characters which are notable. Or we can simply delete them - as this AfD demonstrates. Here's one which did result in a delete - Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Seasarmon. I recommend you go take a read of Wikipedia:Notability. --`/aksha 01:20, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

It's not opinion, the Royal Knights are indeed knights, they even state this in the Anime and the Digimon X-Evolution movie about them having an order of their own to upholding peace in the name of Yggdrasil. If actually mentioning it in the series is not enough proof for you then I don't know what is. Fine, I will cease to continue putting the category about fictional knights in the Royal Knights article, as well as not to put any more categories in any more articles. But because you are prohibiting me from doing this, you have deprived millions of people who use Wikipedia of useful knowledge. Unknown Dragon 01:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

The reason you shouldn't add any more cats is because they're unverifiable (talking about which, I'm sure we have a guideline page somewhere about using categories appropriately, pity i can't find it now), and therefore against wikipedia policy. Which is probably why i'm not the only one who's been removing your cats. Not because i've finally bothered to dump a warning template on your talk page. --`/aksha 01:39, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

So, basically, Yaksha, you are saying the Royal Knights are not knights? Also, what is a 'cat'? By the way, I understand both your reasoning, and will not take a side or cause trouble. I'm just curious. Bellahdoll 00:53, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Bellahdoll

Agumon katakana

Oh my... I'm usually VERY mindful of that, because I often to search and replace operations in a non-unicode text editor. I didn't spot these because they were hidden in the captions.Circeus 04:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

I just wanted to thank you for closing those nominations at WP:MOTD. I know it's hard work to go through all of them without losing your sanity or consciousness, so thanks. --Tewy

haha, no problem. Some of them where really quite funny. I never actually knew we had a motto of the day project. --`/aksha 04:11, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, a big thanks for doing the job. Happy editing, S.D. ¿п? § 04:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Hunter characters

I notice you've been working on the HxH character pages. If you want to add images to it, there are ones that could server double duty at List of Hunter × Hunter episodes. - Peregrine Fisher 17:17, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure, thanks. A few of those would certainly work well. Especially since they're in color. All i've got is the manga version so any other pictures i dig out for the hxh articles will be in black/white. --`/aksha 11:19, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Spelling re

I'll go through them now, you've done lots of good work on Digimon articles as well, and as for the unsigner I left a kind message on their talk page. trainra 11:34, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

"divinatory"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=divinatory Yes, it's a word. Smiloid 08:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. The word got picked up by firefox's spell checker, so i'd assumed it wasn't a real word. Guess i probably should have checked on google first before editing it out. --`/aksha 07:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)