User talk:Erachima

This user is working himself to death at college, and probably won't be editing actively, except maybe on breaks, for the foreseeable future.

Talk Page Archives
01 Perm. link 01	11 Perm. link 11
02 Perm. link 02	12 Perm. link 12
03 Perm. link 03	13 Perm. link 13
04 Perm. link 04	14 Perm. link 14
05 Perm. link 05
06 Perm. link 06
07 Perm. link 07
08 Perm. link 08
09 Perm. link 09
10 Perm. link 10

This page is archived every 25 topics, by the removal of the oldest 25 topics.

Please remember that page move support/oppose votes belong on the article's talk page, NOT at the WP:RM page. Georgia guy (talk) 00:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, forgot about that. Sorry. --erachima formerly tjstrf 01:05, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I take your comments very seriously and blp very seriously and was not being dismissive just concise. Hey, best wishes. Thanks, SqueakBox 01:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

..Is going HEY GUYS I'M VANISHING in all your edit summaries really the best way of going about it? Because it's on my watchlist, like, 12 times right now. --erachima talk 07:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Do I feel it is ideal? No, but I expect people would complain about incorrect edit summaries if I didn't say what I was doing and why, and there's apparently no other way to do it except to do it myself. Unfortunate, but I don't feel that staying on Wikipedia in order to implement a better way is in my best interest. If you wish to do so, I will however, applaud the attempt. In the mean time, I'm going to stick with what I can do, which is to remove the user name references which continue to spring up in search engines as that is the best I can do. FrozenPurpleCube (talk) 07:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a big world out there - Roop Kumar Rathore is in the movies! Roop Kumar Rathod - alternate names: Roop Kumar Rathore. And maybe "Machis" was supposed to be Maachis? And this was just the first place Google brought me. Well hey! The third ghit was Roop Kumar Rathod ! And searching on "Roop kumar rathore" would get you to the same place (second hit on search here) Big place here, bigger place out there...  :-) Shenme (talk) 08:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. I just get interested in anything that looks like Indian English (or Strine) as an exercise in how we can communicate in this shared language. And how English 'advances' (cough!) on multiple fronts. I'd heard about the invention of 'prepone' years ago. ("Terribly sorry, sir, but due to scheduling needs your flight was preponed.") And also here I came across an article proudly detailing how a private/local group had "metalled" a town's roads. Which is an old English usage kept on in India. So... I get a "what's this new thing then...!" attitude, and go looking around. :) Shenme (talk) 04:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you should have archived that the way you did -- I believe that normal archiving practice would be to archive sections where there hasn't been any change in a few days, not sections started a week ago. Several of those sections had edits from today, for example, and the discussion, however painfully and tediously long, was still going on. Anyway, just my two cents' worth... thanks. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 19:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've already discussed this, but I'm not digging through your archives to be certain. I initially suggested removing the myriad of pop culture references altogether many, many months ago, so I've got no problem with it. However, the games Final Fantasy VIII and Final Fantasy X actually do reference the weapon by name. I don't see why you'd want to remove the only semi-credible information that's been added to the bottom of that page in years. "Final Fantasy only" is not what I was going for, as you probably noticed I removed the bullshit addition about Cloud Strife's "big sword" resembling a zanbato in the same edit. Nevertheless, call it as you will, I'm not gonna argue. I'm pretty much done with Wikipedia these days. Gamer Junkie ^{T / C} 07:45, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't being biased or hypocritical at all. The additions you've mentioned, every last one of them, have never mentioned that the weapon used by Ruroni Kenshin or Naruto or whatever else is specifically named a zanbato or similar Japanese translation. If indeed they are, then by all means add them with references that prove this. Quotes from characters or game manuals will suffice. "Cavalry Sword" is not adequate. If you must, use the original Japanese translations where the weapon is labelled "zanbato". I would be more than happy to keep them if you were to do this. Not only would it provide the article with much needed referencing, but it would stop the constant additions that make no reference whatsoever to the weapon as a zanbato simply because it's a "big sword" or "looks like one". Gamer Junkie ^{T / C} 08:37, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand. Why didn't you simply add them yourself? It could have saved us quite a bit of hassle. Gamer Junkie ^{T / C} 09:10, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self evident perhaps to somebody familiar with the mangas and animes or somebody who visits articles about those characters. Most people don't, like myself. You need references for each and every article, that's how it works. Otherwise it's OR. Gamer Junkie ^{T / C} 09:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate it if you'd stop speaking to me in such an obnoxious manner. This is nonsense. There were no references or links to other such articles of any kind. You know this. As far as the gaming goes, I'm not a fan of Japanese pop culture such as anime and manga. To suggest that I, or anybody else for that matter, should know this information already is completely unfair. Gamer Junkie ^{T / C} 09:57, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in but, I was thinking, would it be too much if I re-added Zabuza Momochi and Kisame Hoshigaki from Naruto, who also wield zanbatō-sized swords? Or do you folks really want a WP:SOURCE confirming such obvious statements? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:02, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no. "Zanbato-sized swords" could just as easily be zweihander. Both are big swords designed to cut down horses and pikemen, but they aren't the same weapon. A zanbato is a specific weapon. It would be the same as adding a fictional gun from a game based on a real gun and passing it off as that. Unless there is actual proof that these weapons you've mentioned are actually zanbatos, you shouldn't add them. If you look at the article now, you'll see what I mean, as Erachima has already added references for a couple of the swords mentioned. Gamer Junkie ^{T / C} 06:05, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I note your comment at WT:FICT and would be grateful if you could try and remain civil. --Gavin Collins (talk) 19:35, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Started a new discussion here. Feel free to join.--Tintor2 (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make you aware of the section ("ruined Wikipedia") at User:U-Two. It includes you (first). StewieGriffin! • Talk Sign Listen 14:52, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that Collectonian is at it again, this time seeking to delete several articles, one of which survived 2 previous AfDs (Soul Reaper (Bleach)). Links:

1. Soul Reaper (Bleach), Hollow (Bleach), Bount
2. Zanpakutō

Cheers, Ynhockey ^(Talk) 18:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review. I have a few clarifications to make. First off, I added a character section, but I was unsure about what information could be used to make a 'publication' history section. Secondly, about the Dyson Sphere... it actually is in the heart of the planet, so you'll have to blame Nylund for creative license... :P Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 02:27, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks for the clarification. I'll pop you a line here when I'm done. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:26, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does it look better now? I'm going to add some text citations for a bit of it, but in terms of what you were looking for to pass. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 03:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your time, I was a big GA reviewer before I graduated to FA :P I've added a few more sentences to each so they are all at least 3+ sentences long; better? Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^(talk) 19:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I consider "antagonist turned into friend of protagonist" not to really be an antagonist per se, but I can see where you're coming from. The relevant model was List of Naruto antagonists, which is a bit easier to classify. For the characters that were antagonists stopped being so, they're listed in the "Other characters" section of List of Naruto characters. I can see that this is more problematic for Bleach, but again, I wouldn't really consider Byakuya, Ishida, Renji, and so on to be antagonists per se in the greater context of the story. Ideally, the Bleach antagonists list would have Aizen, Gin, Tosen, the Espada, whatever random arrancar we care to include, and notable hollows (Grand Fisher is the only one that comes to the top of my head). sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 05:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your re-deletion of data is being disputed on the talk page. Please address your concerns more specifically so this can be resolved. Tyciol (talk) 10:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review and for the fixes to Philitas of Cos. Eubulides (talk) 03:05, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, GA reviews are now done on a subpage that is linked to on the GA nomination template. I believe this was primarily done for the purpose of User:GimmeBot updating the {{ArticleHistory}} template correctly. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:52, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey tjs ... uh .... Erachima; just wanted to give you a hello since i had only recently come back from a very long wikibreak, and I wanted to see how are you doing. I hope you're not still involved in that Negroid debate - I expect that's still going on .. lol--danielfolsom 03:58, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh very nice! I've mainly been working with spotlight, and I'm actually making a lot more mainspace edits than I did before; although, with the start of school coming & with me trying to get back to work on Wikipedia in other areas, the frequency of my edits will probably drop down pretty soon. From a distant perspective your article seems pretty solid; I wish I could review it myself, but sadly I probably need a refresher on WP policy, and even then I'm not familiar at all with articles on that subject, but I'm sure you'll find someone soon! Good luck, and thanks for the response; it's great to hear from you.--danielfolsom 04:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh really? I didn't know that about WP:GA! Thanks! Hey - if the article isn't done within 2 months (which it'll probably be - but you never know, sometimes editors can be lazy (whereas I'm usually lazy, but have bursts of energy at inappropriate times – haha, I'll actually have to force myself to edit less when school starts- can't afford any more mediocre grades :!), then I will review it. I say two months because that's probably how long it'll take me to remember everything :)--danielfolsom 05:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Per User:Nixeagle/GA, the reviewer has been owing me a re-review of the article for several days now. If you wouldn't mind reviewing it, I'd appreciate another set of eyes on it. As is, if you'll review the talk page, I do appear to have addressed all the reviewers concerns--the only remaining question was whether they had been addressed satisfactorily. Jclemens (talk) 05:27, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your GA review of the Mesoamerican ballgame article. I've done a couple of reviews (3 now) and it's not an easy task. Appreciate your help, Madman (talk) 21:53, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Erachima, I saw that today you passed Underoath as a GA. Just wanted to say that I didn't intend to abandon the review; I was meaning to give the editor his time, and for the most part I've been keeping up with the comments made at the review page (except for the past few days, maybe). Thanks, Jamie^☆S93 02:40, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The target article doesn't discuss his role in the Smash series, so why is the category relevant? - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In further reading, it does, but it shouldn't - the Smash information is not relevant. - A Link to the Past (talk) 05:16, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks for the clarification. Suigetsu 22:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[1]. Please see the discussion page - this content was removed as it violated NPOV policy, which like BLP policy, is critical to this encyclopedia. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you retract that vandalism claim. Ncmvocalist (talk) 07:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reply is at ANI. Thanks again for your help in letting this article go backwards even more - Naadapriya's effect on it was simply not enough. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's a bit of both I'm afraid. Inaccurate bits: (1) Ugabhoga was the origin of improvisations and (2) Ughabhoga is integral to a Carnatic music concert. No scholar actually has encountered this wild imaginary thought, particularly 2, which is why a source to back it up is not something that can be done and it goes back to the reliability of the original source. As for the accurate part - yes, it is sung in the Carnatic music repertoire nowadays in the same way a Viruttam or Sloka or Thillana is - but it's not the most common and significant form in Carnatic music, which is why like those 2, it should get a mention as it currently does in the compositions section. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:33, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your prompt and succinct review! Ben MacDui 08:15, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Erachima. Re. your edit:[2]. I think I have actually answered to basically all the issues raised by User:Dana boomer during the last two weeks. Dana is aware of that. Could discuss with her before closing the nomination? Cheers PHG (talk) 10:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello there! Following up on PHG's comment above, this was an ongoing edit process that was improving the article towards GA. Really, it is considered rather rude to close another editor's GA reviews without checking with them first. While it is quite allright to contribute to a GA review, it's not to close a GA review on which you are not the lead reviewer, unless the reviewer has apparently disappeared and nothing has been done on the article for a very long period of time, which is not the case here. Dana boomer (talk) 13:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know what inspired me to write that, I had been watching my friends make fools of themselves on YouTube, and listened to Dane Cook too much, but I'm glas someone thught it was funny. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasuke9031 (talk • contribs) 16:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see you closed the GA review on Eglinton Tournament of 1839. It was appropriate for the review to close, since it had been on hold for a week, and it was still some way off. However, I feel that, as the initial reviewer, it was my place to close the review and offer explanations (which I intended to do after the weekend). I invested time in the review, and built up some rapport with the lead editors, through discussion and user talk pages, and feel it only fair that I should be the one to conclude matters. For the editors involved, such an approach would offer less discouragement, especially if they felt they had reached some understanding with me. I understand your concerns about the backlog of "on holds", but wish you had approached me first. That said, I don't hold a grudge, and am not greatly offended! I will, however, bring the matter up at the GAN talk page, to see what consensus is: it might be I've over-reacted to what is standard practice! Gwinva (talk) 23:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. No toes broken... I've commented at the review page and user talk pages as I intended, so all sorted. Sorry if I sounded snotty. Gwinva (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Erachima.

Thanks for your GA review of Brain Gym. I've made a couple of changes and replied on the talk page - I'd appreciate your input as the reviewer before I nominate it again - if you wouldn't mind taking a look, I'd appreciate it. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 03:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your plea on the GA talk page. I would be happy to review the article so that you don't have to wait in the queue again, but I don't know anything about manga. Let me know if you would still like me to review it. Awadewit (talk) 16:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You've been mentioned in ANI initiated here by Ncmvocalist (talk) in connection to Carnatic Music article. If you wish you may provide your input. Thanks for your earlier constructive comments on the article. Naadapriya (talk) 07:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to resolve the dispute between A Link to the Past and MickMacNee and get closure on the AfD (both users are have now been reported to ANI on this situation). I didn't quite understand what you meant by WP:NOTNEWS, as I didn't mention the policy at all while trying to argue that the article be kept. I stopped trying to argue with MickMacNee when it was evident I wasn't going to do any more good by arguing further. However, the user persisted with others, and I felt that dispute resolution steps (in this case, via WP:3O) would be necessary to stop the ongoing dispute. MuZemike (talk) 21:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not trying to get anybody blocked, I'm trying to get help to explain to a newbie how articles should be written. Corvus cornix_talk 19:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so you may be right that I could have went about it in a different way. However, due to past experiences on Wikipedia, I've found that most of the time trying to avoid a conflict or an edit war is out of the question. Case in point: I fully expect the editor who uploaded all those images to remove your group image and re-include his eight single images due to his past reverts, and the fact that he was calling me a vandal. What will you do then if/when the editor does that? Some of the time, I've found, you just have to be forceful enough, and the other editor will back off. Of course this doesn't always happen, but the end result was the same, wasn't it? The images ending up getting removed in favor of a group image. Had I been more familiar with the article's content, I'd probably uploaded a group image myself, but as I said before, I would have fully expected it to get reverted. And because I didn't want to chase my own tail by going into a debate with the user on the article's talk page (as I have done before in similar cases, mind) I asked for help from the project, and got a quick response and solution to the problem. I'll keep in mind your advice for future references.--十八 02:22, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article was being vandalised. Pure and simple. He just came in, removed all the images and insisted it was right. No attempt at starting a discussion in the article's talk page to reach a consensus was made. He just removed the images while insisting he was correct as he had been here longer and failed to address the fact that many other anime pages have character sections full of non free use images, and nobody seems to have an issue with it, despite those anime pages being far larger and frequented than Kara no Kyoukai, which would also be policed by far more editors.

If he was really concerned with addressing the issue of excessive usage of non free use images, he would have gone around removing images from many more articles, and not just this relatively obscure article. For instance i do not see him removing Kurosaki Ichigo's FOUR non free use images from the bleach character section, and everyone agreeing with the removal. In fact i am very sure that if i were to right now, this instant, go and remove all of Kurosaki Ichigo's non free use images from the bleach character section, citing the same rule the KnK article vandal did, the removal would be immediately reverted and there would be a major uproar about my vandalism and people complaining that i had made no effort to ask for a consensus on the article's talk page. The KnK vandal knows that this would happen, hence the reason he did this to a relatively obscure article rather than a major one.

If other anime character sections can have this many non free use images per character, then clearly the Kara no Kyoukai article can have one per character. You can argue that one group image would suffice. This argument applies to...oh...every single anime character section on wikipedia. And yet, evidently dozens of editors and contributors have no issues with not using group images for many anime character sections.

Differences in opinions on what should or should not be in an article must be settled through discussions on the article talk page and an appropriate consensus reached, rather than one guy coming in and constantly making edits that he insists is right, while claiming the article is in violation of a rule that more major articles have evidently been violating for years with nobody raising any objections, except for one guy for one article. I would therefore like the article reverted to its previous state before this issue occured while the issue is discussed on the article's talk page. Question2 (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's nice to find someone on the Manual of Style pages who thinks editors should be treated as intelligent adults. Please stick around; there aren't so many who think so. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 17:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am currently in the process of moving what will be deleted from my user space onto my new INNewsCenter Wiki. However, I am wanting my wiki to be very similar to Wikipedia.

BTW, I have saved those articles on my hard drive and ready to be transferred to the INNewsCenter Wiki. If you have any other ideas before 9/22/08, I would like those suggestions.

I apologize for any inconvenience this may have caused.

• Aeverine Frathleen Nieves 16:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question, they should be removed when spotted on anime/manga articles. A lot haven't yet, but that's cause we also haven't cleaned a lot of articles period yet ;P There is a lengthy discussion about it on either the project or MoS page, and the consensus was reached between both our project and the Japan one. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 04:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, two of the three topics I've made are entirely lists, so I'm actually more intimately familiar with topics based around lists. As for your proposal, my big sticking point is creating all the spinout lists. The present list is 56k, and after improvements (lead, sourcing, cleanup, etc.), I would estimate it to be no greater than 65-70k, so it would be a bit of a stretch to divide up the list. So unless you plan to add more material to each individual sub-list, then there's little-to-no point in splitting. Also, the main list actually needs content to make it through WP:FLC, so having more detailed sub-lists would be necessary. When I think of splitting stuff out due to size, my foremost thought is List of Naruto characters (89k) and the necessity of having List of Naruto antagonists (61k) separate to make the former manageable. I've actually spent a lot of time investigating potential topics since good topics were put into place, and it's often harder than it looks to create a viable topic (Talk:Naruto#Another of my big, dramatic ideas and User talk:Collectonian#Claymore FT are two such ideas). So yeah, if I was rather dense right here and missed something in how you envisioned this topic being formed (which wouldn't surprise me given how tired I am), then please inform me. Now, off to bed... sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you're finding it so hilarious.

What makes you say that the page is already at Honour killing? Isn't the latter just a redirect?

Also, please remember to talk about requested moves on the article's talk page. Thanks, Andjam (talk) 05:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clearing that up. Andjam (talk) 04:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Think I got everything. Cheers, sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 06:53, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article Vinland Saga (manga) you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Vinland Saga (manga) for things needed to be addressed. Wronkiew (talk) 04:22, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I know I'm being insistent, but I've got ten (imaginary) bucks that says if I move the thread to UNDUE they'll tell me it's the wrong venue... probably only several hours later, since it's quite late now in the States. care to bet any imaginary money? :-) Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 08:14, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS— technoclassical? Dude, I love Tomita's version of The Planets. Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 08:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm really confused. The DVDs correctly match the seasons up to the Bount Assault arc, and after that, it becomes really weird. The DVDs split the Arrancar arc in half, make the other half and half of the Hueco Mundo arc into an arc, and then make the rest of the Hueco Mundo arc into its own arc (see List of Bleach episodes#DVD releases). I was going to cleanup the rest of the episode lists, but I believe this disrepancy needs to be dealt with first. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 04:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So, do we need to revamp the season lists, or is just the way the DVDs go? This is basically the only thing that needs to be resolved so I can start fixing up the rest of the lists. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 01:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

np. In any case, are the translations in List of Bleach episodes#DVD releases accurate? If so, I can start revamping the rest of the season lists. sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 02:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I think I've cleaned that up. Also, I've listed the Bleach episode lists as a potential topic here at the topic workshop, so you might want to list yourself as one of the collaborators on the topic. Cheers, sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 07:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could you check out the sources in the AfD found for Lady Luck (rapper)? I think they might meet your concerns. Hobit (talk) 03:13, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason delistings should not be at Wikipedia:Good_articles/recent. You made an edit indicating there is.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The recent page is a place for people to see the latest changes in the list of GAs. Delistings are important changes.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep in mind that Featured content promotions and demotions are both included in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost and Wikipedia:Goings-on. Wikipedia:Good_articles/recent is the only place to find out the recent changes in WP:GAs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your edit. Gary King (talk) 19:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I guess I misread the topic as Notability as it related to lists. Please accept my apologies for the interruption of your private conversation on Anime.Soundvisions1 (talk) 06:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please accept this notice to join the Good Article Collaboration Center, a project aimed at improving five articles to GA status every month. We hope to see you there!--LAAFansign review 02:05, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply] {{{1}}}

A Thank You Card!

Dear Erachima, thank you so much for your words of support, kindness, and your trust in me. My request for Adminship has been closed, and the support the community has shown will be with me forever. I have no way to properly express how grateful I am, and all I can tell you is this: I shall try not to disappoint you nor anyone else with my use of the buttons... and if I mess up, please tell me! :) If you ever need my help, either for admin-related stuff or in any other way, you are welcome to ask, and I shall do my very best. Please take care. G.A.S 07:38, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just noting that a pertinent place to perhaps introduce your proposal for list inclusion that will have lots of community attention is here. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 20:21, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Erachima, you posted at one or more of the recent discussions of short FAs. There's now a proposal to change the featured article criteria that attempts to address this. Please take a look and consider adding your comments to the straw poll there. Mike Christie (talk) 20:05, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome job on it. 207.80.142.5 (talk) 19:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. This is about the article you reviewed August 27th (that was a long long time ago I know). Anyway, um, you mentioned that the article needed the Japanese release dates. I have searched for them, but haven't found any. Would the Japanese release dates be on Amazon? (Also I followed your advice about the Production/Media sections. If you could look at Planet Ladder and see if anything else still needs to be changed or added, that would be nice.) Thank you. Kaguya-chan (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you did the first GA review for Firestar's quest and I have fix all the problems. Can you review it again? Gears of War 2 04:17, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks a bunch ;) Oh, and a quick question. I remember that you used this website as a source for some episode lists in the past and I used it for a good chunk of my FLs. Could you comment on its reliability, as it was a frequent discussion at WT:ANIME. If it's associated with some company or some official database, it'd be a great help sourcing-wise for a lot of lists. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:49, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you have been asked to clarify your statement in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Afghanpolicy27. Thank you in advance! Kotiwalo (talk) 14:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I noticed your comment regarding your personal archives at WP:Village pump (policy)#Does talk page archiving violate CC-BY-SA. You may be interested in {{talkarchivehist}}, which incorporates a few permanent links into the standard archive header. It looks like you create your archives in single edits rather than incrementally, so it should be compatible. If you're interested, I could apply it to one of your archives as an example. Flatscan (talk) 05:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

you seem to know how articles work. you tihnk you may help me remove trivial information?Bread Ninja (talk) 19:29, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder on that one. . . I think I set the precedence of spelling it disambiguaion on the talk page. Sorry about that. --John (User:Jwy/talk) 23:02, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator and I have been staying at Wikimania together for the last week, hence the lack of action on his part :). He's informed me IRL that he has a few more tweaks to make before he's satisfied, so I'm going to give him a bit more time on it, since he's on holiday for most of this week as well. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 11:17, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's fair enough. Conference was excellent - particularly the bit when after getting a round of applause for a question I asked, I was dragged out of the audience by a moderate and plonked in the panel for a talk. Ironholds (talk) 18:08, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the article. I have made some replies at the review, so please review them again at your convenience. Arsonal (talk) 09:21, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Gosox5555#Joseph Smith, Jr. GAN ^~Gosox⁽⁵⁵⁾₍₅₅₎

I upset him. HalfShadow 23:31, 15 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]