User talk:Lucia Black/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Album track listings with translations[edit]

Hi, at the end of the discussion at Wikipedia talk:No original research/Archive 56#Translations into English of album and song titles, you offered to start at discussion at WikiProject Albums about the presentation of original, latinized and translated song titles in track listings. Was there a conclusion, please? I would like to tidy up and standardise several articles. – Fayenatic (talk) 18:34, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Re Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Jamieclaymore_edits_and_stubborness[edit]

Hi Lucia. I hope you don't mind me replying here rather than at ANI (threads there tend to get lost in the clutter pretty quickly). First, allow me to apologise to you for my careless wording in part of my initial response: you haven't called anyone a vandal and I was wrong to imply that you had. However, I trust my point about the edit-warring you were both engaged in has been noted :-)

In reply to your question, if you find that another editor keeps reverting your edits no matter what, you have a number of options that don't include reverting them back. First you need to be sure that your position really is supported by an existing consensus and you're not just rejecting their edits because you don't like them. I'm not saying that's what you were doing, but I know from experience that sometimes I've assumed something that later turned out not to be the case, so it's always as well to check!

If you can point to an existing consensus (perhaps a similar issue has come up on the talk page before, or there's a Manual of Style, guideline or policy that covers the subject), then other editors should most likely support your position. If it seems like no-one else is watching the article you can ask at the relevant WikiProject or try WP:3O to get more people looking at the situation. If reverting continues against consensus a report to WP:AN3 will bring it to administrator attention. What you must never do though is edit war yourself or break the three revert rule—there are only a handful of exceptions to 3RR and content disputes aren't one of them.

If you don't mind a bit of advice, one of the threads I noticed when I was investigating your complaint was Talk:Claymore_(manga)#Claymore_Wikia. It seems to me that Jamieclaymore was correct in what they said about the Claymore wiki not meeting WP:RS. Rather than rejecting their suggestions it might have been better if you'd offered to work with them identifying parts of the article that they thought weren't well sourced and then either explaining why those sources were okay or looking together for better ones. That could have helped to build up a working relationship, perhaps avoiding the position we're in now. Regarding the layout of the article etc, it's important to remember that everything on Wikipedia is subject to change and if someone has different ideas (without breaking site policy of course!), that's something we must try to be receptive to.

I hope this helps. Best, EyeSerenetalk 11:09, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly. Similar situation to how it was implied that i called it vandalism, i did not refer to wikia as a reliable source. I listened but i also needed questions to be answered. Editor initially wanted to make the article 1st party sources only. The editor quit quite easily and hard to offer to work with, when editor was removing content claiming it to be obsolete and drops it and attempts to avoid the conversation. I am trying. The person wants to quit. They were big edits, and according to BRD should be discussed. It was stressfull....not personally dedicated to the article, but i am aware the article was a mess before so when it was cleaned up, i thought i didnt have to worry about it.

I think you've missed the point I was making in my last paragraph. You didn't say wikia was a reliable source, but you rejected their suggestions about only using certain sources because you (rightly) said that we can use any reliable third-party sources. I understand that you were telling them "we can't restrict the article to only some reliable sources", but based on their reply I don't think they understood that's what you meant. The silly thing is that you both agree that wikia is unreliable, but you ended up falling out over a misunderstanding when you could have used it as an opportunity to work together to improve the article. EyeSerenetalk 11:26, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it hard to believe because i stated to him/her beforehand what was considered reliable. Still....there were bigger issues. I dont know how responding differently wouldve changed anything. Or better yet, i dont know what other way couldve been the best responce.Lucia Black (talk) 11:29, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it wouldn't have changed anything. I agree that it's difficult dealing with editors who jump into an article with big changes and don't seem to listen to advice, especially when it looks like they're destroying your hard work. The important thing is not to get stressed about it and end up in an edit war—this is only a website after all, and not worth worrying about too much! You did the right thing brining your concerns to ANI and I don't want you to think that I'm criticising you for what happened. The other editor has posted that they're leaving Wikipedia, so perhaps they were never willing to work by our rules anyway. EyeSerenetalk 12:07, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Afd and PROD notifications[edit]

Hi Lucia. Back in November, you got either an AfD or PROD notification, and it was during one of the template testing project's experiments. If you could go here and leave us some feedback about what you think about the new versions of the templates we tested (there are links on the page), that would be very useful. (You can also email me at swalling@wikimedia.org if you want.) Thanks! Steven Walling (WMF) • talk 22:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indenting[edit]

You do realize that it's general courtesy and practice to indent your comments in discussions with other editors, usually one more level than they did?—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:26, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I find it gets too heated when editors "start" to care about that. So around the 4 or 5 indent i break out. Its not that big of a deal, and it never was. Indenting doesnt have to go that far.Lucia Black (talk) 03:30, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is what {{outdent}} is for. It's just that on my talk page you never bothered to do it at all, and I found it somewhat annoying as I responded to you in that form.—Ryulong (竜龙) 03:35, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I never used outdent template....and youre making a big deal out of nothing. Its trivial and i usually notice people care about outdenting indenting issues when theres something else behind it.Lucia Black (talk) 03:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi[edit]

For Sailor Moon (English adaptations), are you planning on being the one who does the merge? If so, I suggest you start working in a sandbox on how it will look when merged to Sailor Moon. Also, can you please decrease the size of your talk page? Being over 100kb makes it a difficult load. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 07:34, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DragonZero makes a good point. Quiet work will achieve more good in the long term. You've stated a policy-based case for merging. That's all you need to do. You don't need to give the sailor moon fan club any further attention. ClaretAsh 12:53, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Asimov Series[edit]

Thanks for your feedback here. I've added secondary sources (most of which support my proposal, but both points of view are there), which in themselves imply that the article's of a notable subject. I agree the article's a little underloved at the moment, but I'm going to work on it once it's moved. Please let me know what you think. Thanks. --xensyriaT 23:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV dispute[edit]

Hi. Would you like to comment at Talk:The MF Life? It concerns unconstructive edits made to the article The MF Life. Dan56 (talk) 16:51, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Lucia Black. You have new messages at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Anime_and_manga.
Message added 15:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:49, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Message from zictor23[edit]

Thank you for the feedback. I will take into account your comments. But I was taken aback when you said that I'm a little obsessed. I'm not. After watching End of Evangelion, I just enjoyed Re-Take, that's all, and I think it would be great if other Eva fans who haven't checked it out do so. I'm really glad that Azuma Takeshi of Studio Kimigabuchi decided to continue the story in the form of this doujinshi. I just think its a shame that Re-Take hasn't been released officially, as I think its a great follow-up to End of Evangelion. Maybe someday, you never know, given how popular it is. Have you read it yourself, Lucia Black? zictor23 (talk) 21:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Response from zictor23[edit]

Hello Lucia Black,

I'm not sure if you saw this, but I recently replied to your message on my talk page.

I hope that you know now that I wasn't obsessed by Re-Take. I just enjoyed it, that's all. zictor23 (talk) 11:48, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for responding to my message. Incidentally, have you ever read Re-Take yourself? zictor23 (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your message Lucia Black, I don't need to learn anything. I already know. All I did was ask you a friendly, straightforward question. What is wrong that? Does it really matter that it has nothing to do with improving existing articles? zictor23 (talk) 19:15, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that you weren't offended by my earlier comment Lucia Black. The last thing I want is to make enemies out of people. I can understand if you didn't want to answer my question. After all, its not a forum, like you said to me in a previous post. zictor23 (talk) 19:21, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Star_Wars#A_lot_of_unnotable_articles[edit]

Hi! I looked at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Star_Wars#A_lot_of_unnotable_articles

Nobody responded to your inquiry. I presume you can start converting those pages into redirects. WhisperToMe (talk) 19:24, 2 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

April 2012[edit]

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Template:Star Wars, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. MikeWazowski (talk) 23:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute resolution survey[edit]

Dispute Resolution – Survey Invite

Hello Lucia Black. I am currently conducting a study on the dispute resolution processes on the English Wikipedia, in the hope that the results will help improve these processes in the future. Whether you have used dispute resolution a little or a lot, now we need to know about your experience. The survey takes around five minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist in analyzing the results of the survey. No personally identifiable information will be released.

Please click HERE to participate.
Many thanks in advance for your comments and thoughts.

You are receiving this invitation because you have had some activity in dispute resolution over the past year. For more information, please see the associated research page. Steven Zhang DR goes to Wikimania! 02:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DJMAX Trademark[edit]

Hi,

After you wrote about capitalization to the DJMax article I started to wonder how it really goes. After looking a little while I think I found suitable source for it. DJMAX is according to the USA Trademark and Patent Office written with all capital letters and together as DJMAX. See here there entries in the USA Trademark Office database...

  • DJMAX - [1]
  • DJMAX FEVER - [2]
  • DJMAX TECHNIKA - [3] - Apparently this is for TECHNIKA arcade titles since the trademark covers "Coin-operated video games" among others.
  • DJMAX TECHNIKA - [4] - Apparently this is for TECHNIKA TUNE since it's a TECHNIKA trademark for "Computer game software and programs for hand-held video game machine". It also covers variety of other things.

You can check the owner field and see that Pentavision owns at least four DJMAX trademarks in the Unites States. I also checked the "DJ Max", there is only single entry for somebody who is a DJ who uses trademark called DJ Max Glazer (which was filled in 2005). It probably is the reason why Pentavision probably could not have a trademark for "DJ Max" when written with a space in between (around 2009 when Pentavision published Fever and Technika at United States). "DJ Max Glazer"'s entry is here. Apparently "DJ Max" however is abandoned trademark which means that even though he owns it, he doesn't use it.

I've also looked into Korean Trademark Office and their website revealed something interesting to me. Apparently Pentavision submitted application for both "DJ MAX" and "DJMAX". Korean Trademark office however rejected "DJ MAX" because it was already a registered trademark used by some (record) label called "DJ MAX MIX". But they did accept "DJMAX" and thus Pentavision owns the "DJMAX" currently also in Korea. Korean trademark for "DJMAX FEVER" was for some reason rejected however. I don't understand Korean language enough to know exactly why "DJMAX FEVER" trademark was rejected in Korea, even if I do understand some things.

In any case this shows that Pentavision has never officially released a game which would have had the name "DJ Max". They would otherwise infringement a trademark which doesn't belong to them. This is true both in United States and in Korea. However since the DJ Max Fever which wasn't a Pentavision title but that USA licensee's, PM Studios, title... If you owned the "DJ Max" trademark in USA, you could at least in theory sue, as the owner of the "DJ Max", PM Studios for the trademark violation.

Here are the Korean registrations entries...

  • 디제이맥스 / DJMAX - [5]
  • 디제이맥스 테크니카 / DJMAX TECHNIKA - [6]
  • 디제이맥스 피버 / DJMAX FEVER - [7]

If these links fail to work, just use the search engine of the Korean Trademark Office. I added link to their English search engine for trademarks registered in Korea.

Now we know the names which Pentavision owns and how those names are typed. If you want to rename all the DJMAX articles according to with all capital letters I won't oppose. With DJ Max Fever being an exception to that. Considering Wikipedia article of DJ Max Fever, I think the space however is important in article title (and otherwise) because it was released under such a title. Even if the trademark they had right to use says otherwise.

And while I do remember that you don't believe in what I and Wikipedia call "a common sense". I think that it is common sense to not follow these trademarks to the letter. I believe Wikipedia had an helpful article about that too somewhere. I remember reading it several years ago. I can understand if that all the DJMAX articles start with the capitalised "DJMAX". But additional title names such as "Technika" should be written without the full capitalisation. Even if the trademark shows it should be fully capitalised.

However I don't have the time to give to Wikipedia since I'm trying to finish my studies, keep working, and write master's thesis among other things. I am leaving this for you to consider. I'm also going to add this information also to the conversation page of DJMax later. Not word by word but most of it at least. Take care! And have a nice summer! And sorry for this quite a long message. :-) --Mikitei (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are still very unfamiliar with wkipedia. Please revise rules such as WP:TRADEMARK. although trademarked such as that. it is not commonly mentioned as "DJMAX". same with several other games.Lucia Black (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. If that's your opinion. But just remember that the name public uses is not nessecerely the name which the product has from a legal point of view. And I think that since there are so many ways to write it, it would be better to have stronger base under the name and in my opinion really good way to do it is to get that kind of base from the trademark office. It's bit silly that in different countries different communities use different name to call a single product family even if that product family has a common trademark registration too. And I don't know why you write that I'm "very unfamiliar" with Wikipedia. I've been editor since 2004. And I am perfectly aware of the trademark article which is why I mentioned it in the first place. I've read it in the past and I can check it again in case it might offer something new which I doubt. Apparently this was some kind of glitch in our communication, again. But I just tried to be helpful here. --Mikitei (talk) 17:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
how long u been here has nothing to do with it. A person can be here for years, and not be perfectly familiar. if you were aware of the trademark guideline, you would be aware, that using all caps would've been a bad choice, and you would've done more to find WP:COMMONNAME. You also have a busy life (as do i). Find a policy that will go in favour of your proposal. but as of now, DJMax seems more popular. if u find any reliable source using the other names u suggested. let me know.Lucia Black (talk) 21:24, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do respect the Wikipedia policy. That's how we ended up with "DJMax" instead of "DJMAX" it otherwise have might have been. And I also think that DJMax is a popular choise. But is it the best pick? For example the Japanese and Korean Wikipedia both favour "DJMAX" instead of anything else. And I have high trust for Japanese and Korean editors in matters like these. Have you checked out Japanese and Korean wiki pages of DJMAX? [8] [9] I guess I am still in-between the "DJMax" and "DJMAX". Anyway I am not going to do anything. And, yeah, if I find something interesting and usable new stuff I'll contact you like I did now. --Mikitei (talk) 22:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
its the best choice. You know the rules, then why not stick to them? dont understand why this has been brought up? Koreans and Japanese often put things in all caps because its simpler for them to do so then to use miniscules. Therefore, we don't rely on what the common international title is, we go with the common english title. Because this is the english wikipedia. similar situation where korean wikpedia used an image as a basis for why the englsih one needed it too. fail to recognize, korean article looks worst than the english.Lucia Black (talk) 22:21, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe it's the best choice. I believe it is best current option we have. You missed my point. Koreans and Japanese haven't written all the DJMAX title names using only caps. That proves your claim false in this situation. While it might hold up in some situations, it doesn't hold ground here. Only parts which have the caps are the trademarked parts. There are also significant amount of stuff which only uses the "DJMAX". Also this game series isn't native to English speaking world. It's native to the international sphere. And English Wikipedia is part of the international sphere. And you haven't understood that it would be only for the good of everybody if we all used the exact same title. And Korean article is a index article which contain first general information about the series, then all the titles in the series with short descriptions and complete release log of the titles. They have tons of more information there. So I'd say it's better than the English one. I'll probably translate all the good stuff out from Korean article to the English Wikipedia during next year when I start recapping my Korean. :-) And I'm sorry to say this but as much as I'd like to speak with you the clock here is 2 am and I seriously need to get some sleep now if I plan to get up 7 am for the lecture which starts 8.15 am. --Mikitei (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Its the best choice from what following the rules. Just because others use a different name, doesn't mean ts the best choice. the exception you are referring to, is much more broad than you make it out to me. You still show the same bias that you had when you started arguing about the things in the series. you're not really putting yourself in a third party. you're putting yourself as a fan.Lucia Black (talk) 23:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look of Disapproval[edit]

ಠ_ಠ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imadethisusernamemyself (talk • contribs) 06:14, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium (2010 TV series)[edit]

  • Support I approved your change of article title yesterday to Millennium (2010 TV series), and I have posted accordingly on the article Discussion page. Regards, -- Gareth Griffith-Jones (talk) 07:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Fun (band)[edit]

Hi Lucia. " Fun (stylized as fun.) " is the standard way we approach this kind of naming issue with bands on Wikipedia. See the lead sections of Kiss (band) and Client (band) for other examples. If you want to propose a move of the page to Fun. you'll need to start a formal WP:RM process on the talk page again. Note that the discussion in 2010 resulted in no move. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

you also have to see the circumstances ir falls. Is it trully a "stylization" issue or is it actually the name? You need to provide proof or else it is just an assumption.Lucia Black (talk) 03:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you mean by "proof" of stylization or "proof" of trademark and how someone would go about finding such proof. It's a band name that uses non-standard English formatting, but whether Wikipedia should follow that formatting as we do with Panic! at the Disco, or not follow it as we do at Kiss (band), is a fair question. The last consensus at a formal move discussion was that we ought to call the band "Fun" with no period. The first bolded use of the subject's name in the article follows from that. Now, if reliable sources almost all seem to use the period as part of the name, even in the middle of sentences (and that appears to be true based on a quick Google search I just did, and contrary to my last comment I made on Talk:Fun (band)), then you might be able to make a good case based on WP:COMMONNAME to move the page to Fun. via a requested move. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 11:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
names dont need to follow standard english formatting. They are titles not sentences. Therefore if the name of the band is "fun." And it used in other places then maybe. The problem is fun. Redirects to fun (band). Try looking at WP:PRECISION. Also learn what "stylization" trully is. It is the way they write the name but it doesnt match the official writing. For example L'Arc-en-ciel is stylized as L'Arc~en~ciel however it uses both. If you can prove it is only stylization it would be easier to choose whether or not to move. A good way is looking uop the official website or any other first party source.Lucia Black (talk) 03:30, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, the band and their label say that "fun." is their official name. We need not refer to it as "stylized". It could be phrased " Fun (official name: fun.) is an American band... " The thing is, we can't have the title as "Fun" but then refer to the band everywhere else as "fun." – if we're going to refer to them as "fun." then the page should be moved there. But we don't have consensus for that (as of the last RM proposal). That's why I was suggesting another formal RM discussion. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 03:54, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There already is a discussion. It wasn't started by me, but it's there.Lucia Black (talk) 16:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but a formal move request would be needed for a controversial move to a different article title. Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:44, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for notifying me on my talk page about your proposed move. Please be sure to follow the instructions at WP:RM and use the {{subst:requested move|NewName}} template, or the proposal will not be properly advertised to other users. Thanks, Paul Erik (talk)(contribs) 02:16, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Got some good news[edit]

See see here — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 [talk] 16:32, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Son Goku naming[edit]

Hi! In light of the naming dispute involving Goku, I did some searches for English RSes that mention the full name Son Goku. I found quite a few: Talk:Goku#Reliable_sources_in_English_using_.22Son_Goku.22 WhisperToMe (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWomen's Collaborative[edit]

WikiWomen Unite!
Hi Lucia Black! Women around the world who edit and contribute to Wikipedia are coming together to celebrate each other's work, support one another, and engage new women to also join in on the empowering experience of shaping the sum of all the world's knowledge - through the WikiWomen's Collaborative.

As a WikiWoman, we'd love to have you involved! You can do this by:

We can't wait to have you involved, and feel free to drop by our meta page (under construction) to see how else you can get involved!

Can't wait to have you involved! SarahStierch (talk) 04:37, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know.Lucia Black (talk) 04:41, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 13:12, 19 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost in the Shell Lead[edit]

Hi, I recently rewrote the lead of Ghost in the Shell, using other featured anime articles as a guide. Then someone went in and scaled back a lot of my changes to the lead, but I thought what I originally did was all really good. Then I realized it was you, the person who recently posted on my talk page! Haha. Let's talk this out: what do you think was wrong with my lead and what are your ideas for how to make the article better? Difeon (talk) 09:07, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First i merged all the mangas onto the main series as it started it all and would be hard to separate the two. Also the lead was just way too long and detailed, so i shortened it. The lead is just to summarize what the article says so i shortened it but left what the article is basically about.Lucia Black (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Ok, I get what you're saying, but you making the lead shorter has created some new issues with grammar and flow. Just something to look at.
Also, I think we have lost some important information and definitely some clarity by making the lead shorter. Check out these featured Anime & Manga articles: School Rumble, Tokyo Mew Mew. I followed their examples when originally writing the lead for Ghost in the Shell. Their leads are four paragraphs long, very detailed, and each paragraph has a distinct purpose in explaining the topic.
Additionally, I just want to remind you that this article is about the whole franchise, not just the manga. I appreciate that you merged in the manga articles, but to delete information about the movies and anime from the lead changes the purpose of the article.
Difeon (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Theres a big difference in that those articles are based off the info. The lead reflects the article's information. I did not remove anything that isnt already covered in the article by reliable sources. But if you think i did, mention it here and we can discuss whether its important or not.
also the manga has been merged to the main article, it is now mainly about the manga as all other aspects of the series have their own article. If you see any grammar issues then please fix it yourself. But flow we can talk about together.Lucia Black (talk) 00:09, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, the lead section of an article summarizes the information in the rest of the article. I was trying to write the lead as sort of an "outline" for rewriting the rest of the article. At this point, before you stepped in, my lead had nothing to do with the rest of the article because I was still working on the whole article. So that's my bad. Before I was the only one working on this article so it was no big deal and I was taking my time with it. I'll show you when I finish working in the sandbox and you'll see what I'm trying to accomplish with the lead. And speaking of merging things, I think the only aspects of the entire franchise that warrant having their own article are the two films and Stand Alone Complex, but that's just my opinion and we can figure that part out later. Thanks Difeon (talk) 01:08, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Good, so as long as we add more info on the article the more the lead of the article can be expanded. The article is about the series, but now mainly focused on the manga (the one that started it all). The article already covers the films and stand alone complex that have merited their own article, the only thing that doesnt merit its own article (separate from the series overall) is the original manga, sot thats why it will have more info on the manga over the other media as it already has its own article and their spin offs (such as stand alone complex nivels and innocence novel).
Now you mentioned isssues of flow. Would you like to talk about it and see if we can find a compromise?Lucia Black (talk) 22:54, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation[edit]

Thank you for your recent submission to Articles for Creation. Your article submission has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. Please view your submission to see the comments left by the reviewer. You are welcome to edit the submission to address the issues raised, and resubmit once you feel they have been resolved.
Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! Jethro B 18:45, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex: Solid State Society, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NTV (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:13, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry[edit]

But the Ayane image must stick to this compromise. It IS clear that the majority vote is towards the DoA image, but that guy is awful. He won't let up. Real sorry, buddy. :/ --Anddo (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Multimedia templates[edit]

I see you just responded in the place I said not to respond. Can you help us keep the converstion centralized.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 20:08, 16 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talkback[edit]

Hello, Lucia Black. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga.
Message added 03:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:49, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Lucia Black. You have new messages at Gwern's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Ghost in the Shell wikia exist[edit]

If you like the show, you can check out the wikia with 416 articles on it. http://ghostintheshell.wikia.com/wiki/Ghost_in_the_Shell_Wiki No one has written reviews of all the chapters there yet. I happened across your post for requesting an article be created, and figured I'd mention this to you. I created the Manga Wikia at http://manga.wikia.com where such contributions would be welcomed as well. Dream Focus 21:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, ill look into it.Lucia Black (talk) 02:30, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

re: something minor[edit]

Thank you for the correction. I just seem to think of it as a trilogy now rather than 'The Lightning Saga'. I will keep that in mind for future comments. --ProtoDrake (talk) 21:31, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Merry Christmas![edit]


TheGeneralUser (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Happy New Year!

Spread the cheer by adding {{subst:Xmas2}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Hello Lucia Black! Wishing you a very Happy Merry Christmas :) TheGeneralUser (talk) 22:27, 25 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hitomi Azuma[edit]

Hello Lucia Black. I need some help. For some time, I've been thinking of creating an article for Hitomi Azuma (or as she styles it, AZUMA HITOMI). Although the anime she sang for has been critically panned and bombed quite badly in Japan, most critics and people I've seen agree that the opening and ending themes are good. Unfortunately, I can't seem to find enough information about her even in Japanese sources (she doesn't even have a Japanese Wikipedia article, which I find surprising), and her Oricon page has zilch info (it appears her single didn't chart, but given the circumstances of how well Fractale did in Japan, that isn't surprising). However, because she performed songs for Fractale, is she nevertheless notable, or is she just another marina? And by marina, I mean an independent singer who sings a few songs for an anime, and afterwards seems to just disappear or fall back into obscurity. Note that I have asked Juhachi about this, but he appears to be busy and might not reply, and I need feedback as soon as possible so that, should I start working on the article, I can do so as soon as possible. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:53, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Its most likely she's the latter considering youre having this much difficult. But if shes not and an actual independent artist, then i suggest maybe looking for an official site or page and see any albums she has released to see if you can find any info. Also find out if she has made any tours or appearances and that will probably help. Im not the best when it comes to Artist as i havent begun to try Japanese artist yet. But look around well-sourced Japanese artist articles and see if you can use the same sources they have to find more info on them. Thats how i learned how to improve articles to a degree.Lucia Black (talk) 04:19, 29 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Lucia_Black/Archive_4&oldid=1144525514"