User talk:FelipeFritschF

Hey you said we don’t know if they rekindled the relationship or not. Well the movie clearly shows they don’t rekindle anything. I mean how could you say that? Have you even watched the movie? Don’t edit that out again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.84.160.48 (talk) 09:56, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, added some talk on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rei_Ayanami#The_inclusion_of_reiayanami%28tentative_name%29_in_this_article if you're interested. The article in general needs to be improved to meet standards, and since you've been involved in this recent bit, I'd like to have some input.

FrittyFelix (talk) 08:46, 25 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Felipe. Again, thank you for your contributions on Shinji Ikari. What about a Good Article nominee?--TeenAngels1234 (talk) 00:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You claim that we don’t know if they didn’t rekindle their relationship. Well the film clearly shows they don’t. Misato doesn’t want to pursue a relationship with Kaji anymore. Even Kaji starts to see this. This is why he asks Shinji to protect her as he couldn’t. He knows the relationship is over. Plus the film made no hints to suggest or imply them ever getting back together. So please don’t remove that. Plus that was there long before the edit was made. So please don’t edit it againz SG1994! (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I felt you didn’t elaborate that Misato and Kaji never rekindle their relationship in the Rebuild continuity. Cuz in the film they never make an effort nor any hints of that ever being possible. Misato never shows any romantic feelings towards him anymore in this one. She show a bit lore animosity towards him than she did in the original. And they have broken-up more times too. Cuz in this continuity, they have had multiple on and off break-ups. Which seems to indicate that their relationship just didn’t work for them and Misato was just done. Plus she blames Kaji for her drinking and self-destructive attitude. Which seems to be correct cuz in this series, she doesn’t have daddy issues like she did in the original. And she she seems to drink when has seen him. Which means that she is so tired of him she wants him to stay out of her life. She has made it clear she wants nothing more than to do with him. Plus it seem in the movie that Kaji was never faithful to her. Which may have been why they had so many on and off break-ups. Cuz he not only flirts with other girls a lot but he seems to like pissing her off. So it seems he isn’t faithful and kind of a jerk at times. But later in the film he seems to acknowledge that him being around her is doing more harm than good. Seeing as how she is persistent in wanting nothing more than to do him and just wants to get on with her life. He even starts to see how her drinking is getting worse and that him not being around her anymore is for the best. Which is why he asked Shinji during the water melon field scene, that he promises him to take care of Misato and protect her as he never could. Just felt that it should be addressed. She shows less animosity later but still no indication of them ever rekindling any romantic relationship. SG1994! (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless you have evidence of him returning in 3.0+1.0, you don’t have any reason to doubt this. There was no evidence of Misato ever having lingering feelings for him. And he is confirmed dead in 3.0. They made obvious hhints he is dead in 3.0. SG1994! (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dude you are starting to get on my nerves. That link you tried to post was a geekforum. That’s not a credible nor reliable source. Says nothing about Kaji returning. So stop lying. SG1994! (talk) 19:53, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In 2.0 they never rekindled. Nor was their is significant possibly ever hinted in the film. So stop denying it. This fact was hear long before I came to this Wikipedia page. It was there for a reason. SG1994! (talk) 19:58, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dude I am dead serious. Quit it. You have no reason to remove that. That is the case as shown in 2.0. There is no possible hint of them ever getting back together. She has shown no lingering feelings for him in the film. Just leave it. Damn, son. SG1994! (talk) 20:21, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also Kaji asked Shinji to protect Misato as he could no longer do so. This was during the scene in 2.0 when Kaji was tending to the watermelon fields. Meaning he won’t be around her anymore. And seeing as how Misato is persistent to not wanting to have anything to do with him in this continuity, this backs up my argument. SG1994! (talk) 20:32, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You’re right. The statement I referenced is all taking from Newtype June 1996.[1] I made a mistake, thank you for correcting me.--EzrealChen (talk) 12:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well, unfortunately I can’t. I don’t know whether there's anything relevant in that September 1996 issue.--EzrealChen (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have looked over the changes that you are proposing, and it appears that I would have a difficult time making them into a concise RFC. So my advice is to identify paragraphs or groups of paragraphs that you want to change, and the RFC can say "Should the paragraph beginning with ABC be changed to DEFGHIJKL", or something like that, or "Should the paragraph beginning with QRS be deleted?" RFCs are listed in a master list that is maintained by a bot, and the first sentence, or at most two or three sentences of the RFC, are listed in the summary. This is done by putting the question or summary statement after the {{

In the meantime, I suggest that you make your changes to the article twice, not three times, and see what happens. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:16, 22 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at

I checked the linked you mentioned in the edit summary but sadly I don't have access to that Newtype poll. Could you possibly show what characters are in such poll to see if I can expand the popularities of characters from different series? Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 21:33, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, that's the subforum for the new film so it's locked under a password, "spoilmerotten". There is a picture of the April issue here (no page number, as you can see), and a scan of the June one here. You can see they also list their ranking in the previous poll, but I think it's probably unnecessary to list every single poll listing the Eva characters after the new film released as they'll probably be featured on those for quite a while. FelipeFritschF (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

You have asked me on my talk page about a dispute with a user, but I don't see what the dispute is. What is the content dispute, and how have you tried to resolve it? Robert McClenon (talk) 16:58, 14 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Neither you nor

WP:ANI. Try to discuss, again. The fact that they didn't discuss a few months ago is not important. The fact that they still don't discuss is important. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Right, I have already tried to make that edit and was reverted. I didn't ask for discussion again because it'd be the same subject that had already been discussed and ignored. Do I have to go through the entire process again with likely the same result since the IP user received the same treatment despite the many steps of discussion already taken? It feels redundant to say the least and that he won't talk either way. I'm not comfortable with going to the ANI nor do I prefer it, but at this point I feel it became unavoidable and might have been the better option at the time. I suppose I'll try the edit a second time - I'll include the approved source this time as well. FelipeFritschF (talk) 03:09, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you should repeat the process of trying to engage with the other editor, including asking them to discuss, again. And, yes, you will have to report them to

WP:ANI, even though it is an unpleasant noticeboard because unpleasant editors are reported to it, and because unpleasant editors make reports, some of them stupid, some of them reasonable, to it. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:35, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for your attention. I don't like to have bothered you for this long about this, should I ask for advice on a potential RFC elsewhere? FelipeFritschF (talk) 04:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I see that TeenAngels1234 is now using the talk page. So discuss with them. That is what the talk page is for. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

What is the question about an RFC? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:42, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have to reorganize it since you told me

WP:3O went nowhere and I think a new one wlll have the same result since my previous attempts at explaining things (and the general opinion expressed by others) seemed to have flown over his head - I hope he wasn't deliberately stonewalling me. But I'll re-try the 3O, again, first. If that doesn't work a binding RFC could be better.. or not. Thanks again. FelipeFritschF (talk) 04:49, 18 August 2021 (UTC)[reply

]

The new 3O agreed yet again, some IP and I went ahead and removed the rumour and the editor insists there is no valid reason to remove and keeps reverting it despite not participating in discussions at all. There are other disagreements I have and have been similarly ignored and I know it's a lot even for a single RFC. Can I try just one at a time? What if he ignores the consensus again? FelipeFritschF (talk) 02:05, 23 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at

Hello! Voting in the

2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Evangelion: 3.0+1.0 Thrice Upon a Time into Rebuild of Evangelion. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content, disclosing the copying and linking to the copied page, e.g., copied content from [[page name]]; see that page's history for attribution. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. Please provide attribution for this duplication if it has not already been supplied by another editor, and if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, you should provide attribution for that also. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. — Diannaa (talk) 13:44, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the content in the original page as well, and wrote most of that original page also over a year ago including the entire Production subsection. I noticed the Rebuild page was lacking background information into the overall production of the film series, which I had noted on the fourth film's page, and made some further modifications to keep it focused on the overall franchise. I was under the impression there was no need to credit myself, and it'd in fact be bad form. However I understand it might be necessary to note some of the content was already present in another article, so I'm going to note it in another edit summary. Thank you for pointing this out. FelipeFritschF (talk) 02:09, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your feedback is requested at

Hello! Voting in the

2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The

topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review

NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply

]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: Society, sports, and culture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: Media, the arts, and architecture request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: Politics, government, and law request for comment

Your feedback is requested at

]

Feedback request: History and geography request for comment

Your feedback is requested at