User talk:Doracake

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Doracake, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! – Allen4names 19:28, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

Your recent editing history at Bowser (character) shows that you are in danger of breaking the three-revert rule, or that you may have already broken it. An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Breaking the three-revert rule often leads to a block.

If you wish to avoid being blocked, instead of reverting, please use the article's talk page to discuss the changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. You may still be blocked for edit warring even if you do not exceed the technical limit of the three-revert rule if your behavior indicates that you intend to continue to revert repeatedly. JDDJS (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

- Thanks for notice, but it's also very strange that I haven't seen any discussion and updates in talk page before undone reversion. Though I don't insist here, but you seem make it showing I'm causing deliberate harms, even that I've repeatedly asked for advices. If there won't be other further progress, I can only back out or recover the article. -- Doracake (talk) 01:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why your edits were reverted in Rozen Maiden Article

1) removing character info in character section is look down upon in wiki. Any blank section is looked down on. 2) the section naming are unnecesatily detailed. "First series" and "second series" is enough. 3) some of it was unverified. Be sure to find sources. Your edits are too big. Make smaller edits at a time, so you can gain more experience and know more on how wikipedia works.Lucia Black (talk) 10:51, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to have two character info for the same character "Jun Sakurada" to confuse readers. You should put yourself in the shoes of other readers who are new to Rozen Maiden. 219.74.128.96 (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sophie Sumner

Please read WP:BLP and make sure that you only add sourced material to this article. Mt king ^(edits) 08:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do all of us a Favor...

.....and NOT TO BE A TYRANT regarding Pretty Cure Information. Regarding the Doki Doki! info you just DELETED, a lot of fans were angry on what you did. To put simply, Toei THEMSELVES filed that named last month and made it public! Anime News Network already confirmed that in English! For you, you ALWAYS deny those because "BLEH! I hate Third-Party Sources! I only trust official sites!".

Dora, leaks happen. They can be both reliable or either misleading and the only way to find out they're real is to choose to trust on them. Seeing on your editing record, you just despite third party sources so much and relied and first party which is always limited on information. You won't be a good wiki editor if you DON'T cite third party sources that are reliable (yes, there are reliable third party sources and unreliable ones). Read WP:THIRDPARTY and Wikipedia:Party and person.

Not everyone in this wiki will be happy on what you're doing.--Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) (talk) 02:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's surprising to be said being a TYRANT for the first time telling without discussion. Anyway, thanks for telling.

Overall, in this topic I think the news about the next year's show should be determined if it's not officially declared. About the source: the registration of trademarks, my answer is uncertain because this could mean other things, like the Allstars trademark which isn't another new show, because we can't check any information from this title (eg, it's a sequel to the previous story, or it's just a special show with one episode only).

And about the Anime News Network, theis report link I checked didn't show any resource itself, so the news can be true but this webpage isn't usable. I know there is the Japan Patent Office, and the resource can be the office itself. The other concern is Japanese editors all know the leak, but they didn't, or can't use it to write this article.

My opinion is this article can be retained, but shouldn't be added any information since there is no information, only until an official anouncement of broadcast or show outline. If you don't have more opinions, I'll make editions and try to make it in a better way.

--User:Dorayaki 12:04, 9 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LOOK! CAN'S THIS EVEN GET INTO YOU! That is an official source and you keep on revering and DENYING THAT IT EXIST because.....oh I know "Only official companies can announce it". Do I look dumb that what I'm sourcing is from somewhere official too? Stop reverting this because you think it's not official. Again, LEAKS.HAPPEN! and we got to either trust or deny them but don't revert all of the community's edit because you think you're right! Toei isn't also accurate with everything. So leave the pretty cure community alone. Please!--Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) (talk) 10:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to stress on the leak of information, it's not because "wrong information", but "improper resource", that's why I suggest getting the patent office website as the resouce, as I said in the las section. It's weird to see you saying these things without improving the article by yourself.

And the point should be the relevant articles being used, not that leak. The reason why I edited the articles is that it's just a title of a show. About other existed related articles, they have the date of broadcast, story outline, and these parts we have to wait for the official to declare. There shouldn't be anything in the areticle Doki Doki! PreCure. It's like we all know there will be Toei's new Rangers every year or NCC News everyday, but we just can't tell what they are, or that can only be "prediction". I wonder what's your thoughts about it.

Additionally I do see that you're saying some emotional words like "you think you're right" "leave the pretty cure community alone". Beware that you can still be banned even if you're the right one, just don't lose your mind in discussion. --User:Dorayaki 19:05, 14 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I am losing my patience alright! I don't wanna be told on what to do because I can do things by myself! But if you want to see it then follow this. Click this link, enter 4 at "文献種別" and enter "2012-079491" at "文献番号". There's your source, now leave me alone!--Blackgaia02 (Talk if you're Worthy) (talk) 01:19, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I knew this webstie in the previous year of the show. My concern is that if it has it be searched and doesn't have a certain page to be linked in Wikipedia, or maybe it's why the Japanese editors aren't willing to use it.

I'll still do with undetermined information I mentioned (date, story). In the end, I just can say that Wikipedia should be an open resource. Some words like little community or leaving alone jut sound like monopolization, or disregarding in the whole website rules. --User:Dorayaki 10:45, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for November 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

List of Doraemon characters (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to Ministry of the Environment

The Doraemons (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to 3DO

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:28, 11 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Doki Doki Pretty Cure

Sorry but I feel that the ref is legit so just leave it alone unless you have a better one. I don't know if you're a hotshot around here or what but the truth is that Toei filed the trademark and it was confirmed by a news feed(not the encyclopedia) on Anime News Network. Without the ref I'd just say it was a candidate for deletion by wikipeda rules because we can't confirm that the title is legit otherwise.Darkcat1 (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The other user asked about this article. As I replied in the last section you can see. The point isn't whether the trademark legit or not, but that there is nothing behind the trademark. Just like someone faked the storyline of this story, any information about this trademark is not legit. --User:Dorayaki 12:04, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

November 2012

Hello, I'm Zujua. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Pretty Cure without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! Zujua (talk) 01:51, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dokidoki! PreCure

Hello, I'm Jim1138. I noticed that you recently removed some content from Dokidoki! PreCure without explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks, Jim1138 (talk) 10:20, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

-- The section was lack of necessary comfirmed source, this would be determined if other editors would provide. --Doracake (talk) 18:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what you ment on talk:Dokidoki! PreCure. You might want to familiarize yourself with WP:NOTCENSORED and Wikipedia:Spoiler Cheers Jim1138 (talk) 10:24, 9 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Discuss it in talk:Dokidoki! PreCure any further edits may result in a block. 3RR is a "bright line". Stop now. Remember to be wp:civil in your discussions.

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Dokidoki! PreCure. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jim1138 (talk) 06:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Doracake. You have new messages at Jim1138's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Nomination for deletion of Template:Future TV show

Template:Future TV show has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Cyan Gardevoir ^{(used EDIT!)} 23:27, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Aikatsu!, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Arcade (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) 09:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for December 30

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Pretty Cure, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Violet (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) 11:16, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PreCure

In the future, provide sources for items like this or don't add it at all because it violates WP:NOR.—Ryulong (琉竜) 18:15, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Why'd you remove that?—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:27, 10 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to bother you, I have some problem with [1] .- Doracake (Doracake) 15:05, 6 Feb 2013 (CET)

I have started a discussion on Talk:Pretty Cure about the table on the article after User:Animegirl14 edit warred for its inclusion. I would appreciate your input.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:51, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for October 17

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited M&M's, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Orange (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) 11:20, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Final Warning - Edit Warring and Changes Against Consensus

Final Warning - Stop making changes against consensus. The consensus on the talk page is that we don't need to continually point out the color in every sentence. For quite some time now, you keep re-adding it. You need to adhere to WP:BRD - and wait and make changes only if the consensus changes. Feel free to keep debating it on the talk page, just stop continually changing it. If not, you'll be blocked. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 15:08, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for March 10

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HappinessCharge PreCure!, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Gohan (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) 08:58, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Doracake. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, 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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]