This is an archive of past discussions about User:Juhachi. 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.
Hi, I'm RonBot, a script that checks new non-free file uploads. I have found that the subject image that you recently uploaded was more than 5% in excess of the Non-free content guideline size of 100,000 pixels. I have tagged the image for a standard reduction, which (for jpg/gif/png/svg files) normally happens within a day. Please check the reduced image, and make sure that the image is not excessively corrupted. Other files will be added to Category:Wikipedia non-free file size reduction requests for manual processing. There is a full seven-day period before the original oversized image will be hidden; during that time you might want to consider editing the original image yourself (perhaps an initial crop to allow a smaller reduction or none at all). A formula for the calculation of the desired size can be found at WP:Image resolution, along with instructions on how to tag the image in the rare cases that it requires an oversized image (typically about 0.2% of non-free uploads are tagged as necessarily oversized). Please contact the bot owner if you have any questions, or you can ask them at Wikipedia talk:Non-free content. See User:RonBot for info on how to not get these messages. RonBot (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2019 (UTC)
Check-up and question
Just checking up. I'm wondering whether or not to get another delegate for Featured Topics to help process nominations faster. What do you think? GamerPro6418:58, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
@GamerPro64: If someone is willing to join, then by all means. I was under the impression that no one wanted to, since it's been just us two for about 5 and a half years now.--十八19:36, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
Good day. Do you really offer "this" to discuss? Firstly, the list was returned without any comments by the user without a real contribution, and secondly, this list violates a bunch of rules, starting from duplication of several categories and potential dimensionlessness, and ending with “wikipedia is not the list”. Try to create a "list of westerns" in the article about westerns and begin to constantly supplement it with all known westerns that you recall. You yourself know how many days or hours it will live. Solaire the knight (talk) 09:23, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
@Solaire the knight: Well, actually, Category:Lists of Western (genre) films by decade, so it's not like Wikipedia doesn't have lists like this. And I don't know what you mean by "wikipedia is not the list", as there is nothing at WP:NOT that prevents lists from existing. So far, you haven't linked to any guideline or policy that prevents the list from existing, so your argument seems a little shallow to me.--十八10:13, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
First, this article is entirely devoted to the list, and is not a list within another article. Moreover, this list does not contain "Western as a secondary element", based on a heap of "in this episode, the characters portrayed cowboys". It would be more reasonable if you gave me an example of an article about a popular genre, where there was a similar constantly updated list, but there is no such. I repeat once again, I am confused not by the list itself, but by its location in the article about the genre itself. P.S WP:NOTCATALOG - first point. Solaire the knight (talk) 10:36, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the edits at Unlimited Blade Works. I don't plan to nominate the article to GA but I still feel its prose is too weak. Sadly, I already requested two articles to the Guild of Copyeditors so I wondered if you could make a request. Cheers.Tintor2 (talk) 23:09, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
Orphaned non-free image File:ClariS members.jpg
⚠ Thanks for uploading File:ClariS members.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Hello, excuse, may I ask why do you consider whar I wrote unnecessary in the Higurashi plot? What was written there does not explain anything about the characters and the key elements of the story, what I wrote is actually the plot and I explained various aspects of the story which are key to understand the subsequent episodes. Before I watched the anime I looked up the article of Higurashi, and I did not understand a thing because there is nothing clear there, that "plot" section there is confusing and does not explain anything. クラウデド (talk) 13:56, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
@クラウデド: All you did was add a very long description of the first arc, into a section titled "story overview", meaning there is meant to be a general overview of the overall story, not a detailed description of individual arcs. Think about it, if all 8 arcs had as much detail as you put in for the first, nearly the whole article would just be one long wall of text for the plot. There are guidelines about this, like MOS:PLOT and WP:NOTPLOT (...in addition to concise summaries of those works), to prevent additions of enormous plot details. Besides, there are summaries for these arcs in the List of When They Cry episodes article already. MOS:PLOT specifically states "The length of a plot summary should be carefully balanced with the length of the other sections, as well as the length of the story itself". The fact is, Higurashi with all of its plots, has a very long story, and most of what happens in the individual arcs don't have much bearing on the overall story, which is why a summary of the overall major plot points is already provided in that section without going into too much detail.--十八20:06, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
I understand what you say, but still, the section is called a "Plot" but from what you read there you don't get the plot of the story explained. When you see the plot section of every other article in Wikipedia you get to see what the story is about and how it unfolds. In there there's anything to help you understand the story, it explains something about the origins of the parasite which is actually an afterthought after most of the story unfolds throughout the arcs. Someone who doesn't know anything about Higurashi doesn't get what is it about from what it is written there, as I did when I first read that article before knowing the series. That is why I tried to explain what actually happens, for example how the main characters is informed about key facts to understand what is going on, eg. about the prior murders, Oishi's suspicions, the dam conflict, the Shinozaki clan, etc. クラウデド (talk) 01:34, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@クラウデド: You're missing the point here. The origins of the parasite is not an afterthought, it's one of the main points of the plot, as it explains the origins for people going crazy and killing either themselves or others. Most of the story in the arcs, including all the murders and the overall mystery, are completely irrelevant to the ultimate reveal of Takano's plan, and how that involves Rika and Hanyuu, which is explained in the last two paragraphs in the story review section. That is, in essence, what Higurashi is all about once everything extraneous is removed. Plot sections are not meant to be play-by-play, scene-by-scene explanations of everything that happened from beginning to end, because no one is going to read some 100,000 word summary that reproduces the plot word for word. Readers come to Wikipedia for a summary of the plot's major points. And besides, as I already said, a summary of the arcs as adapted in the anime is already present in List of When They Cry episodes, which again, are meant to be summaries of those episodes, not entire recreations of everything that happened in those episodes.--十八03:57, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
@Sk8erPrince: One RS doesn't get to decide if something is a genre or not (and that's not even for the series in question to boot). Need I quote the genre article that states "Genre is any form or type of communication in any mode with socially-agreed-upon conventions developed over time (my emphasis). So you're really stretching things here. If anything, Girly Air Force would be listed under war novel.--十八04:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
That's fine. Also, I linked that article because ANN compared Kotobuki to Girly Air Forcehere. These series are definitely action-orientated, but I feel like their militaristic elements are better classified with a genre that defines them better. I agree that war novel does work. Sk8erPrince (talk) 05:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.
Could you please close the 2015 Pacific hurricane season GT nom? I was unaware that a storm article had to be added as its content was mainly outside the scope of the topic (except for the first couple days of its existence which were documented in the main article). NoahTalk06:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
July
Thanks for fixing my error with the naming of the List of To Love Ru chapters article.
I'm new to Wikipedia, so I didn't know that was a thing. Technically speaking, it is still a volume list because it's not like the individual release date of each chapter is listed, but I understand why it's classified as a chapter list in the title. I only edited it because on the main To Love Ru page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/To_Love-Ru), the hyperlink says "list of volumes" and then links to the chapter list page. That sort of just bothers me. Is there a way to change that? Thanks. --SUPER7X (talk) 09:15, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
@SUPER7X: That's just a long-standing convention, both with the infobox and the naming of these articles as "List of...chapters", and there's no real reason to go against it.--十八10:22, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
Oh okay. Good to know. You can delete this thread or whatever now. I was reading the talk page guidelines, and I honestly don't really understand them fully, but I give you my permission or whatever to delete it. --SUPER7X (talk) 10:28, 9 July 2019 (UTC)
July 2019
Your recent editing history at Violet Evergarden shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that 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. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. NightShadow (talk) 22:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
@NightShadow23: Okay fine. If you want to remove that discussion, then so be it. You have my permission. But this correspondence will remain until I archive it.--十八11:26, 27 July 2019 (UTC)
Hi there. I've been meaning to expand the creation section of Shinya Kogami and I found two sources that talk about the character designer Akira Amano. From what I get when checking this site in romaji Amano talks about her work. I also found this site that from what I get from Amano is that she compares him with Judge Dredd. Am I correct? Happy editing.Tintor2 (talk) 13:58, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
@Tintor2: Yes, the first one has her talking about her design process of Shinya, saying that she started with the concept of a man with black hair and a suit, and although she was limited in drawing out characteristics with his clothing, she was able to include some individuality in each of her characters after some effort. The second site is written in Chinese and I can't read it, sorry.--十八20:51, 19 August 2019 (UTC)
I see. Thanks a lot. I got advice to ask you from Discord in case you haven't commented there. I guess I'll look for a Chinese translator.Tintor2 (talk) 00:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
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.
Miraclepine wishes you a Merry Christmas, a Happy New Year, and a prosperous decade of change and fortune.
このミラPはJuhachiたちのメリークリスマスも新年も変革と幸運の豊かな十年をおめでとうございます！ フレフレ、みんなの未来！/GOOD LUCK WITH YOUR FUTURE! ミラP02:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello, why do you think the translations of the movies I added are unnecessary? The translations resemble the English titles but are not identical. And also, do you think that the translations that I added are correct or false? please. Thank you if you answer! --123470C123a (talk) 16:46, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
