User talk:Erc/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome, newcomer!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:

Also, here are some odds and ends that I find useful from time to time:

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Best of luck, and have fun!

ClockworkSoul 04:59, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Carbine page

Were spelling/grammar issues the only issues you had with the carbine page? You didn't leave any comment on the talk page, and spelling was the only thing you mentioned in your edit summaries. If you have any more feedback, stick it on the carbine talk page and I'll work on cleaning it up. If it's just spelling and grammar, I'm pretty horrid for editing my own work, as I see what should be there, rather than what really is; if it's more fundamental stuff, then I can work on it. I will admit that most of the work I did on the article was stream-of-consciousness writing. scot 01:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Shinigami (Bleach)

I didn't mean to offend you or anything, sorry if I did. The reasoning behind the removal of most of the info was just that - a copyedit. Removal of info is part of copyediting if that info shouldn't be there (in the opinion of the copyeditor). I know I should discuss such changes first, but as you may have notices, I'm only home 2 days a week (sometimes 0) and we probably won't reach a consensus until I leave tomorrow morning. It's good that you added me on MSN Messenger, there I can explain the reasoning better. But I'll do so here anyway.

Commander-General is also the Captain of the 1st Division--it can be seen as a ex officio office, similar to the Covert Ops.

Maybe I shouldn't have removed this, although it hasn't been confirmed that either is an ex officio office. This is implied because Soi Fong got both positions after Yoruichi (and not just one), but we don't know for sure. I'll change the paragraph to reflect this.

Captains are the most revered of shinigami (with the Central 46, Demon Art Corps, and Covert Ops Corps leaders possibly being on equal status). Captains are the undisputably the most prominent shinigami, and all captains in Gotei 13 history has known bankai except Kenpachi Zaraki. etc...

There are several problems with this paragraph:

  • Speculative info, they've so far been the most prominent because we haven't really been exposed to the entire Soul Society. Moreover, we know for sure that many nobles who aren't shinigami captains are at an equal or higher status. It could be changed to something like 'Captains are at a high position on the shinigami social ladder, although other corps' leaders and nobles can be of equal or higher status'.
  • What does knowing bankai have to do with prominence or reverence? Maybe that part should be moved to a new paragraph. A different sentence at the very least.
  • The paragraph as a whole isn't that important when aiming to explain what a Gotei 13 captain is.
Captains are also skilled in the use of shunpo, kidou, and generally have excellent knowledge of shinigami history and battle tactics. All of these factors create a huge power-gap between captains and the next highest level; a captain can generally defeat several vice-captains at once without even needing to release his bankai.

Also speculative info, although so far we've seen most captains use different tactics (as opposed to lieutenants like Renji who just fight or use demon arts), there is no proof that to be a captain you need to be skilled at demon arts, flash steps, battle tactics, etc. Zaraki, Tōsen and Komamura for instance have so far not demonstrated little or no knowledge of these (presumably they know flash steps for speed). However, this could probably be changed to something like 'most captains have shown to be adept at demon arts, flash steps, battle tactics and more, creating a huge power gap between them and lieutenants.' The last sentence is redundant and purely speculative.

And finally, there's the issue that you seem to write quickly, hoping that others will correct the terminology or spelling (e.g. kidou -> kidō or demon arts; vice-captain -> lieutenant). No offense meant of course. But you should probably put more effort into writing stuff like this.

-- Ynhockey 08:09, 21 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've read your response and will read the article again now to see the changes, etc. (just got home). Just a note about the whole kidou/ō or vice-capitain vs. lieutenant - this isn't a matter of preference but of consensus that we reached on Wikipedia. For example, I prefer to use Soul Reapers when writing about Bleach, but we agreed to use shinigami, therefore I will respect the consensus. There's a Wikipedia police about consistency in terminology in artices, and this is basically what it's talking about. -- Y Ynhockey || Talk Y 08:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga

You are listed as a participant of WikiProject Anime and manga. A recent change in how participants are listed — using a category — will result in your inadvertent removal from the project. If you wish to continue your participantion, please check the the project page for details on how to add yourself back to the project. - Squilibob 01:02, 11 March 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

List of shock sites

Someone has put this up for deletion yet again. Care to cast your vote? Skinmeister 10:40, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  • There's some sockpuppet voting, so a simple vote count doesn't work this way. Even if is, a consensus will be more of a 3:1 ratio. In any way, no consensus is a keep by default, so don't worry too much. - Mailer Diablo 01:26, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    • No problem, if you have any more doubts or questions, feel free to let me know on my talkpage. :) - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 01:34, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Ikkaku as strongest man

Actually this is another crazy invention by fans. It never says anywhere that he is the strongest man. This is simply a translation nuance (I think perpetuated by Manga 7). Reading the raw will reveal that sex was not stated or even implied. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:42, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry, actually that page (203-04) does say that he is the 2nd strongest man (of course, according to Yumichika). I think there was another place where he didn't mention sex. But again, in Japanese this does not necessarily mean a man, as it wouldn't in English. I will suggest a wording on the talk page. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Anyway, I just went ahead and changed the wording, feel free to farther play with it. I agree that saying he is probably stronger than Yachiru is too speculative, given what we have, but I also think that we shouldn't interpret the text literally and exclude the possibility (my edit reflects that to the best of my ability). -- Ynhockey (Talk) 19:53, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Karakura Superheroes

Actually there are several omake pages with Kanonji and the Karakura Superheroes. I have no more time today but will try to find them on Thursday. On a side note, I think the Karakura Lion Jet episode is an anime creation (not 100% sure). -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Found one - Omake chapter 88.5 (volume 10). -- Ynhockey (Talk) 20:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Your VandalProof Application

Dear Hobbeslover,

Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact with the new 1.1 version release it has even more power. As such we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that unfortunately you do not meet the 250 mainspace edit minimum - please try again in a few weeks. Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again in the not too distant future. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof.

- Glen TC (Stollery) 01:05, 4 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Discussion page for BAYT

Read the discussion page of Bet Avraham Yoseph of Toronto, the old speedy deletion was for when it was copied of the website word for word! It is NO LONGER THAT it is changed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gregorykay (talkcontribs) .

It shouldn't even be regular delete

Why should it be regular delete it is a completely new article! There is no reason it shou;d even be regular delete! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gregorykay (talkcontribs) .


Plz inform me how i am vandalising there is NO REASON THAT PAGE SHOULD BE DELETED! Im just annoyed because everyone all day is saying to delete it just because at the beginning it was copyright infringement but it no longer is. Just say why it should be deleted, is there a reason? Or you just saw that someone else nominated it for speedy? Because this article is diffrent one--Gregorykay 01:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think it is vandalism..

I think it is Vandalism that you keep on adding the tags even though this is a diffrent article, look at the origional reason why it should be deleted, Copyright Infringement, after that it was deleted and I made a brand new article with NO Copyright infringement. So I ask again why should this be deleted? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gregorykay (talkcontribs) .


This synagogue is notable, it is the largest in Toronto as for the sentances being same they are changed around. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Gregorykay (talkcontribs) .


I've been following the proper procedures. Don't know why this isn't working. --JChap 01:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks. Once again, I've been following those steps. Don't know why this isn't working.

Hobbeslover, steps 1 and 2 are complete. That is why it is so puzzling to me why step 3 won't work. This is far from the first time I have listed an article on AfD, so I've got the procedure down. Don't know what it is this time.--JChap 01:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The page I am proposing for deletion misspells "opression" in the title with one p. Problem solved.

Confirmation. It worked. Thanks for your help. --JChap 01:50, 30 May 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Deus Ex: Invisible War page

It would certainly help if you could explain how my changes amount to "vandalism." If you compare the two versions, you will see that my changes involved moving a section called "Criticisms" to a point further down the entry, after the detailed discussion of the gameplay. There were _no_ substantial textual changes made to the entry. So I'm surprised at your claim of "vandalism."

You see, when you are explaining something to people in an encyclopedia entry, you provide them with a detailed and impartial description _first_. Only _then_ do you outline controversies and criticisms. As I said in the Discussion area, an entry on a film would provide a plot description _first_ before delving into chat about controversies or critical analyses. My revisions followed this logical (and less biased) structure.

I suggest that, unless you can document this "vandalism" claim, you ought to let my revisions stand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)


Thanks Hobbeslover :) I accept the nomination and will do the required process shortly. I am greatly honoured that you have thought of me. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 11:01, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Arghh, just as I was going to move the page, my comp (graphics card, for some reason) died on me!!! (:() it means I won't be able to take it to repair until sunday (holidays here). Damn. But I'm using a different one right now, hopefully it won't die too. I just have no luck today. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 13:51, 1 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Gotchi entry at Wikipedia

Could someone please explain to this author of the Wikipedia entry for 'Gotchi' why Wikipedia wizards are against neologisms?

The terms Wiki, Wikipedia, Wikipedians are all neologisms. To delete Gotchi would 'hoist Wikipedia by its own petard.' Look that up your Funk and Wagnells.

Please let Gotchis live.

my CV:

and for some early early Web 2.0 Mashup (another neologism listed in Wikipedia), check my collabs: - 2002 - 2006 or on a mobile phone

“They that approve a private opinion, call it opinion; but they that dislike it, heresy; and yet heresy signifies no more than private opinion” -- Thomas Hobbes.

cheers, datatect

I would bother responding if you had any semblance of grammar, syntax, and clear reasoned sentences. Which you don't. Please try again. Hobbeslover talk/contribs 01:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Re:RfA (2)

How do I withdraw? -- Ynhockey (Talk) 21:35, 2 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I think a last-minute compromise consensus might be brewing. Come check it out. youngamerican (talk) 13:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)Reply[reply]