User talk:Dandy Sephy/Archive

Ok. I'll try to do that.Tintor2 (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I saw from here that it's been exactly one year since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 05:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips! This is my first time creating an episode list for anything. Having trouble finding "reliable" release date sources in English... ANN and MyAnimeList was all I could find. On the AT-X website here http://www.at-x.com/program/index.html the release dates are shown pretty clearly. However I cannot link to the tables directly! It is the full schedule. I can link to the program itself: http://www.at-x.com/program_detail/index.html/2373/week which as you can see just notes the start date (2009年4月2日（木）スタート) and then says it runs every Thursday and Sunday... What should I do in the event of not being able to directly link to the episode guides? Its generated from that drop down combo box. Any tips? Will be expanding the lead in after I finish the summaries (and actually finish watching the series...) Dex1337 (talk) 12:00, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmm yes, it's not a very helpful site, and the official anime site isn't any better. It doesn't need to be done right now, just keep it in mind. Dandy Sephy (talk) 12:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

If I am watching a show and the episode list doesn't exist, I will make sure to write one (its pretty easy after all). Thanks for the encouragement Dex1337 (talk) 01:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Dandy Sephy. I was wondering something about Viz's release of Gin Tama. Is the character Sarutobi Ayame (the ninja in love with Gintoki) commonly called Sachan as in the Japanese version? By the way, does Kyuubei Yagyu use macron or two u? Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 13:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll have to get back to you. I got the first 8volumes last week, but I've only read the 1st one so far - and that was with adding the references as I went along. I'll let you know when I get that far. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I'm giving you spoiler ^_^.Tintor2 (talk) 16:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries there, I've seen the first 90-odd anime episodes anyway. A week ago I'd have no idea who Kyuubei was in the series, so you timed it well :p Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about Kyuubei, but Viz use "Sa-chan". Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:20, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. Kyuubei does not appear until vol. 13.Tintor2 (talk) 23:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Dandy, it is very much appreciated. I'll be working on this article for a long time and I prefer a large number of small changes rather than huge changes once or twice. I understand you don't have time to work on this article but I'm open to any suggestions you might have and try to improve it to the best of my ability. I'll provide references at a later time. My focus for today was the language - as it was aweful - and I'm not yet finished. However, I do not agree with the fact you took down the "To coincide with seasonal change, the last three episodes feature chracter animatons in an autumn setting, as opposed to a summer setting in the rest of the series." - it was present in the article before and it is simply a fact. OutOfTimer (talk) 02:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

In addition, I'd be happy if you could tell me - as an experienced user - how much work in your opinion must still be done to take the cleanup and merge flags down? Thanks. OutOfTimer (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I was gruff the other day: I came back after a long period of inactivity and got very frustrated at all the work to do (on top of that the inactivity is due to multiple real-life problems that weren't exactly giving me a sunny disposition either). Things are a bit more stable now. Sorry, frustration of big project (I've been angry about wiki-OR standards ever since they deleted the episode guide we wrote up)...need to try to focus on being productive (the last big thing was did was sort out the "how do we phrase Kaworu's sexuality?" thing which I think we finished up fairly well). My suggestion would (I guess) be to start on the Asuka article and try to get that to standards then build from there as a paradigm. I dunno.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 00:58, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

No worries, I made sure to give you the polite reply. Character articles are the last thing to do if you ask me, with rebuild 2.0 a long way from a good fansubbing, theres going to be too much being added, changed and removed, and its going to be difficult to keep track if you are avoiding spoilers like me (I've already removed the page from my watchlist). I know exactly which page needs doing first, and will "announce" it once I finish off preventing an article from losing its GA status (far more important then my own personal projects). However the eva taskforce needs MASSIVE improvements, because frankly it seems clear to me that there is no focus, and as I said before, a massive lack of knowledge in editing practices, and how to create a proper page. Currently all the eva pages are crap at best (the rebuild 1.0 article probably being the best, but it still needs quite a few changes). As dinoguy has stated, there are a lot of technical issues with the pages, which I'm hoping to try and show you so you can fix them yourself as well. I also suggest considering the value of using the book being used as a source on several articles. If its that "bad", why is it being used? I'm sure there are alternate sources that can be used. Dandy Sephy (talk) 02:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well the "if the book is bad why is it used in this article as a reference at all?" thing has been a major headache; basically a problem with anime fandom is that many "experts" (people actually writing printed books) may have made mistakes; the number of "anime experts" was too small to reach an "objective consensus" (sort of like wikipedia).....the result being that a crazy person like Sean McCoy could become a self-proclaimed "Eva expert" when he has no idea what he's talking about; but that's panels stuff; as for books, Drazen's "article" on Eva is....a 12 page section of a larger book in which he basically restates "Eva is complex"; i.e. things directly answered in the theatrical pamphlets he doesn't know. The problem was that many of the guidebooks didn't come out for many years in English, and in the intervening time fans got used to making some very wacky/outlandish interpretations; the result is that I personally think the Drazen article in which he mentions Kaworu Nagisa, Shinji, and homosexuality, is utterly unusable as a citation. I don't think its a "good" source at all, made obvious errors (not on opinions, I mean established facts about the show; that's a warning sign). Anyway we got into a big argument over "should we remove this or not?" but Folken and others kind of thought the Drazen article should stay because it was a citable opinion from a printed book. We sort of agreed to disagree by at least stressing "this is Drazen's opinion". But it results in things getting very slanted. If you check project Archive 2, look where I review the Susan Napier article on the show; if you actually get the article and sit down and read it....it's utter gibberish. She basically just re-stated "this is what Eva is about", and the most glaring issue was that she devoted literally one sentence to the finale movie, just to say that she personally was so disgusted at how violent it was that it was assuredly "revenge on the fans" and should be ignored in favor of the "real" TV ending (despite the fact that production art, storyboards, cast interviews, etc. confirm that the TV ending was the result of a budget crisis, it's basically scenes from End of Eva shown out of context, End of Eva was the real ending, etc.)...............further, an interesting question: In the past two years I've started running Eva panels at anime cons, and apparently people thought I knew what I was talking about because now I'm running Eva panels at Anime Boston, one of the 10 biggest national-level cons. Meanwhile "Sean McCoy" is this infamously crazy guy who runs Eva panels at Fanime in California (it's as if he didn't even watch the show but considers himself an expert; he managed to dupe ADV into letting him due commentary on the DVDs, which is now regarded as infamously wrong).....if he's an "Eva expert" at what point do I become an Eva expert? ****Keep in mind that I've been making it a point to stay "objective" and not push my own positions on wikipedia (helped by the fact that my "position" is basically to tell everyone "these are factual, citable statements the series creators said about the show, and we should read these before we start making crazy theories about the show; we need to be grounded in evidence"...I dunno. My point is that I've realized that many "expert articles on Eva" are actually glaringly wrong, and they're only considered "experts" because its 6 or more years old and we've grown accustomed to treating these as "the official word" on the series; i.e. how the commentary on the End of Eva movie DVD is infamously non-informative). But the funny thing is just that Napier's article was uninformative, and Draven's was simply nonsensical personal opinion; how can I say they're a "bad source"?--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 20:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

That was certainly more excessive in detail then I was looking for. I'll have a look at the specific quotes, but at the end of the day, someone publishing a book means theres an element of expectation that they know what they are talking about. However theres a good chance that much of the claims will simply be removed from the articles for being nonsense, but I need to have a proper look. One thing that absolutely needs to happen is the removing of entire paragraphs being quote as references, it makes the references hard to follow, and vastly increases the text and file size. Such references, if kept need to be using a template to show the book details and page number and not repeat chunks of a book or article. Thats something I'll explain on the project page soon. Dandy Sephy (talk) 20:52, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

For you, the objective is so close and the road seems so long but take care, you aren't alone. --KrebMarkt 15:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

mmmmm cookie. Thanks. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi,

Check this. Spring special Cheer !

Is it RS? Answer: here there: that the TV Drama links Van_Pelt_Library. If a librarian specialized in Japanese studies from an university think it's RS then people will have hard time to dismiss it.

See you at Love Hina GA review :p --KrebMarkt 09:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent! Thank you! Now I have my article to focus on before anything else (time permitting)!. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:23, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi. When you're feeling up to it, could you please look in your 1994-1997 issues of Animerica for Sailor Moon-related information? I figure those dates would probably be the most likely to have SM in them, although the 1999 one is a possibility as well. Please let me know when/how to pick up the information from you. Thanks. :-) --Malkinann (talk) 00:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I do have an issue with Sailor Moon, but I'm very busy at the moment and don't have time to dig the issues out and go through them. It's unlikely I'll be able to do so for a few weeks. Dandy Sephy (talk) 15:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Cheers - just send me a message when you're ready. Glad to know that there is some SM information in amongst your magazines.  :-) --Malkinann (talk) 22:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it something specific you are after? Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Not as such - more trying to find out what's out there, so that I can incorporate it into the article and make the article more reflective of a broader range of 'the literature', you know what I mean? --Malkinann (talk) 01:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Do you have a specific reason for reverting the merger? The article is not good in any way, and it is unlikely to ever improve. The list entry is the best way to go with such an article. TTN (talk) 23:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually I completely support the merger, and just removed the articles from the WP:Anime cleAnup list due to the merger. I actually accidentally clicked the rollback button, and thought I had cancelled it in time, obviously not! My apologies! Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ive undone the accidental rollback.Dandy Sephy (talk) 23:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, For now, I will drop the matter in order for you to achieve your GA status, but I still happen to believe that I am right on this issue. It shows that although there were problems with the Leblanc estate, the series was not totally denied from the French public. It's incredible that Lupin III, inspired by one of the most famous characters in French literature, was re-named when broadcast on French TV! I have been more restrainted than you may think: I could point out that only a handful of the anime episodes have made their way on to the French market, as both TV broadcasts and as DVDs; and that none of the mangas appear to have been published in France. I cannot find a definitive source indicating these things which is why I haven't, but I am sure of the re-naming of the anime which is why I will be putting it in again &mdah; if not now then sometime in the future. My only regret is that we cannot find a consensus on this.--Marktreut (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm glad you have decide to listen to reason, although I'm dissapointed you seem intent on forcing the information in at some point. You've highlighted some of the problems that we are trying to explain to you, but you keep not seeing them. Sourcing is part of the issue, the insistence on re-adding sources which had already been ruled out was beyond stubborn. The other issue is really the constant attempt to prove a point, both by your edits and the information you are adding. Theres not a dispute over that the series was renamed, it's about how relevant it is. The truth of the matter is that Lupin has been renamed many times, I've counted 4 names that are't simply writing Lupin III in the local langauge, the french version is just one of them. By adding that the french version as renamed, you are trying to convey a point across. Simply saying "oh it changed name" isn't enough to make that fact relevant. We can't say it was because of the copyrights, because a)theres no reliable source for it and b)a reliable source says it's rumour and that they probably changed the name on their own decision, rather then being forced to or being worried by copyright. Shows are renamed all the time , and frankly it's never important unless its an english adaption - this is the english wiki after all.

I have two pieces of advice, the first is to not to attempt to readd any claims like this without discussion on the talk page (now or later, its the same). Find some decent sources and discuss them before adding them. You were reverted before for adding things without them being checked, and they turned out to be unreliable sources.

The other thing is more of a general comment. You seem to have a habit of getting into edit wars and arguements for trying to force your points across, even against editors with a history of writing quality articles and having a good idea of what they are talking about. I strongly suggest learning to be more patient and try to understand why people object to your edits, it's a waste of time and energy on all sides to argue over things in edit summarys and revert cycles. Try to convey your point in discussion before people revert you 3 times, you'll find people more receptive and understanding, and you'll learn how to better edit a page. You aren't expected to be an expert editor right away, but at least show you are willing to learn. If you can't reach a concensus, that just shows it's probably not a point that needs making. Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I rather think that the question is who is not listening to reason, but we'll leave that for now. As a result of all this, I got in touch with a friend who is very knowledgeable about cartoons shown in France. He himself cannot find the reason why the name was changed and concluded that it was one of those obscure business deals made behind-the-scenes between the Leblanc estate and the producers of Lupin III, details of which remained confidential (which is not unusual in the business world).

"Find some decent sources and discuss them before adding them": I found plenty of decent sources, it's just a pity some took a different opinion of them. If we were to discuss things before putting the information in it could take ages. I mean, I've expanded whole articles on movies and such like without discussing them beforehand and they've remained fine. It's only in the last month or so that I have had the kind of grief that is going on right now. I've never been blocked before or had whole edits undone just like that. And I might add that I am the one who starts the discussions over the subjects.

"You seem to have a habit of getting into edit wars and arguments for trying to force your points across, even against editors with a history of writing quality articles and having a good idea of what they are talking about." I've been editing for over five years now and many of my edits, from the minor to the major, have lasted. I've also produced whole articles from scratch to which others have contributed without any objection from me. If I find something that is doubtful but not impossible, I put a ^{[citation needed]} tag next to it, hoping that someone else will, in time, come up with the evidence. What I find appealing about wikipedia is that it expands and evolves, but some seem to think that it should be narrowed and cast in stone.

What is really bizarre in this situation is that you have accepted that there were copyright issues between Monkey Punch and the Leblanc estate but will not accept that these issues were overcome at some stage, albeit short-lived. Equally weird is the fact that one simple sentence appears to indicate the end-of-the-world.

Wikipedia is getting increasingly paranoid, which is sad and dangerous. I've noticed that I was not the only one to be blocked over this issue of Lupin III: someone else was also blocked for "failure to assume good faith".--Marktreut (talk) 11:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You didn't find decent sources, you found random fansites that used other random fansites for their info. either of which were reliable. And please don't make a point out of you being the one to start the discussion, it took multiple reverts for it to happen, so I can't really accept that you were being accomodating, more that you got fed up of being reverted. Talk of your previous editing history isn't really a factor here, there are something like 3 million pages on english wiki, only a small percentage of them are what can be called quality articles, and its entirely possible you only recently started making debatable edits or edits to pages that people weren't worried about. I'm not interested in your edits over 5 years, I'm only your recent edits, which don't really show someone of five years editing. If you think wikipedia is getting "paranoid", then don't edit. Tightening the reliability and accuracy of its information is not paranoid. This discussion is going nowhere, once again you are just ignoring the points being made, and it's just wasting peoples time. Dandy Sephy (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

And you are denying facts. A certain amount of good faith is needed on a site like this. Let me put it this way: I could go through every film, book and TV series on this site and put in the titles they were given when shown in France: Captain Harlock became "Albator"; The Sword in the Stone (film) became "Merlin l'enchanteur" ("Merlin the Magician") etc., but I won't because I don't think that that is relevant. On the other hand, I believe that a cartoon inspired by a famous French literary character but renamed when shown in France itself is a matter of interest.--Marktreut (talk) 01:00, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Multiples comment:

• First everyone agree that the name of Lupin III was changed into Edgard in its French localization this is a non issue.
• Second the question of "Why it happened?" fundamentally there are nothing but rumors because everything was built around a non-event, something that could have happened and yet did not happen. Wikipedia should be accurate and not include rumors & speculations as facts. Wikipedia permit to mention the existence of rumors when there are RS to assert their existence but in no way it can account them as truth.
• Third Wikipedia requires credible & reliable sources to assert informations it contains. That creates a gap between trustworthy websites and blogs but lacking credibility and those who can prove both. Why can i trust a given website? Who are them? What give them the right and the authority to emit an opinion on XYZ field? Answer like that is a fan dedicated website sounds rather poor.
• Fourth There are countless renamed series in many countries so what make the French localization worth mention in the English article on Lupin III? Can you convince other editors that it's worth it?

@Dandy Sephy I apologize to jump into the dance but i could not help myself. --KrebMarkt 20:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

you put it better then I've managed, I'm getting tired of repeating the same points and being ignored. Dandy Sephy (talk) 21:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

		The Manga and Anime BarnSakura Award
		For your work over the last month in helping Lupin III retain its Good Article status, being patient with my possibly overzealous application of the GA criteria, and getting the article that much closer to a potential second FAC! Great job! -- Collectonian (talk · contribs ) 00:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

yay, first barnstar! FAC is definately not on my radar just now, but we could certainly do with another! You are better placed then me to say how close it is. Presumably we should wait one month for the page to stabslize properly then peer review it. Dandy Sephy (talk) 01:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I support that one too :)

Long overdue Barnstar and well deserved one. I think it was a good "rehearsal" for Love Hina future GA review. --KrebMarkt 06:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations Dandy for keeping Lupin as a GA! It looks it improved a lot. Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 22:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)