User talk:TheFarix/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions about User:TheFarix. 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.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

runtime parameter for {{Infobox animanga/Video}}

I know you earlier poo-pooed the idea of activating the parameter for anime series, but if you would please add your input to the discussion at WikiProject Anime and manga, it would be appreciated since you created that template in the first place. Carolina wren (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Problem with user over the Attack on Titan article

I reporting about user Ryulong behavior over a discussion about the main character's surname is either Jaeger or Yeager. I have repeatedly asked him to come to the Attack on Titan Talk page to discuss about this yet he has ignored me and chooses to to make changes without the consensus with everyone over the name. Now he accuses me of playing around with the Attack on Titan article by claiming i was two different anonymous users from different countries while i was away at work and claims i created the section about the character's surname recently when in reality it has always been there since April 2013.

Your help to settle this matter is much appreciated. --FonFon Alseif (talk) 08:18, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

FonFon Alseif has misunderstood some of my comments to him, particularly the "two users" one. I have not accused him of being any IP editor while logged out. And I decided to start a new thread because I frankly did not see the old one. However, this has not stopped FonFon Alseif from reformatting my comments to link to the old thread despite having told him not to do so.—Ryulong (琉竜) 08:54, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hey =)

Are you back to editing? It is great to see you again and hope you stick around a bit longer this time. Not much has really changed with the anime/manga wikiproject lol. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

I've been back for a while. Just been editing under an IP. But for a couple of discussions, I thought it best to use my regular account. —Farix (t | c) 01:52, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Oh okay, why not just use your account name though? (Curious) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Part not really feeling like logging in, part experiment to see how well received IP edits really where, part I didn't want a bunch of off-wiki POV pushers identify my edits to a particular video game article. :P —Farix (t | c) 02:08, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Sailor Moon#GA?

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Sailor Moon#GA?. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 23:59, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

Was this what you meant?

I hope I didn't step out of my bounds to do this, I hope that's what you meant. If not, my deepest apologies, I just felt it was really needed to edit it ASAP to that. Lixxx235 (talk) 14:56, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

And this Lixxx235 (talk) 15:44, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Animelo Summer Live

Hi, you had previously flagged the Animelo Summer Live article for notability and editorial standards, but had not responded to my last post on your talk page after I had added some external references to Animelo Summer Live. It also somehow missed being on your user page as one of the Anime and Manga articles with notability issues, even though it was you who flagged the notability issues in the first place (I have just added it in).

Could you please suggest how these issues could be reviewed with a view to having the Animelo Summer Live page meet notability and editorial standards guidelines?

Splouge (talk) 07:39, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

The article was tagged 4 years ago, but by the looks of it, it is entirely disorganized and does not focus on what Animelo Summer Live is. Instead, it gives a program guide like listing of trivial information. See articles on Lollapalooza or MAGFest on how such articles may be organized. Also, there are no reliable, third-party sources listed anywhere on the article. Subjects must have significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines. —Farix (t | c) 21:45, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

It's probably a case of there being almost no coverage of Animelo Summer Live except in the Japanese language, which made and makes it difficult for me and others as non-Japanese speakers/readers to find third-party sources.

Splouge (talk) 01:43, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Saint Seiya Episode.G

Hello. I'd like to avoid constant reverting, so I hope you don't mind my replying to you here. :) I did consult with the Anime and Manga Wikiproject before adding that ref. You can find the topic archived here. Let me know if you still find that particular ref should not be used, because that would imply rewriting the text. Thank you. Cyn starchaser (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Previous discussions involving user ratings:

Every single one of these resulted in online user ratings being classified as unreliable sources for reception (do to the self-selective nature of online ratings and the easy at which they are spammed). I don't see how the opinion of one editor can override all of that. Besides, 54 up votes is hardly a case to make for it being on a "top 100" list. —Farix (t | c) 20:50, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Hi TheFarix, where have you been? You were gone for almost two years. Here's a kawaii kitten for you.

By the way, Puella Magi Madoka Magica is up for peer review, but it should be ending soon. Is it alright if you take a look at it?

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 02:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Viz Media's license for Sailor Moon

We here in Canada do not have official access to Viz's streams of Sailor Moon at this time. This is a direct contradiction of Viz's earlier press release, purporting to hold distribution rights in Canada. By saying that Viz Media is distributing it in North America, you are also making an implicit claim that it is actively distributing it in Canada, which is not the case. In fact, right now Viz is not doing any business whatsoever in Canada, and has not been doing so for at least the past five years. -- Denelson 83 01:17, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Licensing has nothing to do with availability. Just because Neon Alley isn't available in Canada at this time doesn't mean that Viz's license excludes Canada. Such an extraordinary claim requires a reliable source stating such a claim since such licenses always include both the US and Canada. —Farix (t | c) 02:22, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Not web host

Heya, out of curiosity, shouldn't the block of ratings content at Talk:List of programs broadcast by Adult Swim#Content Ratings be removed per WP:NOTWEBHOST? If the content isn't suitable for the article, it doesn't get a second life on the talk page. I'm reluctant to do this myself since I am/was engaged in the debate. On the other hand, I'm not in any hurry, and I can see the removal being a form of gravestomping, which I am not interested in doing. Thoughts? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 15:40, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Re

I gave you my reply on the talk page. It does pertain to improving it, because this determines how the episode summery is going to be written regarding the ending (after Souta hugs Nanami, I'm not sure what happened). 72.177.50.227 (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

Managed to figure out what happened after the ending, it just took a few more-rewatching. They were in the real world (Souta was after the boat blew up, and he did encounter Akane, and as far as we know the girls were only part of the virtual world, how they got in the real world was not explained though, just that they were). 72.177.50.227 (talk) 02:38, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Mo mo mo MOS:BOLD

Hey Farix, I found another MOS:BOLD problem child at Yuri Lowenthal. I removed the boldface here, but it was quickly reverted by Norozco1 with the bizarre explanation "this is nothing related to him, so don't change it." Anyhow, thought I'd mention it to you after the Michelle Ruff fiasco. Be well! Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:12, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Please for the love of whatever you believe in help me fix monster musume -w-

	Please for the love of whatever you believe in help me fix monster musume -w-
	I'm begging you! AraYamaRaja (talk) 02:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Michelle Ruff

Heya, TheFarix! I was confused by this reversion. The notable_works parameter of Template:Infobox person does exist and ostensibly has some utility. I was curious why you removed the content, though not curious enough to stir up trouble by reverting it. :) A good day to you, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 17:48, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

What determines "notable works"? What determines which things someone is "known for"? That is the primary problem these parameters as they are sources of editor's opinions, rarely sourceable, and really don't add anything to the infobox. —Farix (t | c) 03:33, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Though I understand your general objection, the criteria is pretty clearly established at WP:ENT, for example or WP:NF or even the WP:GNG. Typically, anybody who would receive a starring credit in any movie that is non-trivial, that has received an award, or wide press coverage, etc. I'm not saying that your revert was wrong, I was just curious as to your specific rationale. I believe you and I are on the same side, but I shan't provoke you any further on this issue. :) Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:17, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I threw in some anime convention profiles to address the "notable" works in the lead paragraph. Whether they should be added back to infobox or not is up to you guys. -AngusWOOF (talk) 04:39, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm only here to provoke discussion, and anime/manga ain't my speciality. So I'll gladly yield to TheFarix. I was thinking that a rash reversion could conceivably have been taking place, but I ain't interested in losing any friends over my curiosity. :D Cyphoidbomb (talk) 05:48, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

The claim that someone is "notable for" is entirely separate from WP:ENT. WP:ENT is an inclusion criteria and has a much lower standard in that only the performance is significant and that the film or television series is notable. However, that does not mean that the performance is independently notable. After all, WP:ENT only requires that the performance be significant, not notable. —Farix (t | c) 12:03, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Episode list template

I don't see why you're opposing the change to have the Japanese text come before the romaji, but you can see here that when the English language parameter is absent it produces exactly what you were talking about.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 18:38, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Please use preview

the red error seen here is not what we want. Frietjes (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

What red error? —Farix (t | c) 20:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

This one: Warning: Display title "<i>s-CRY-ed</i>" overrides earlier display title "<i>S-CRY-ed</i>" -- Magioladitis (talk) 20:13, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I didn't see any warning before, but it is showing up know. But this would have been avoided if @Frietjes: had used an edit summary explaining the propose of the edit in the first place. Without it, it just looked like someone performing test edits. —Farix (t | c) 20:42, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Merging characters

Yeah, why not? I've justified all my redirects. Most of the as you've noted are too WP:IN-U. The ones I've merged in particular were too short that doesn't need to be split up (e.g Hanasakeru Seishōnen still with only 15k, and the bigger, Big Windup!, is only 30k). I guess that only throwing undesired content on the characters lists don't help to "get the relevant real-world information" in the main article. In fact, many of them have both the main and the character list in very poor condition. Last but not least, "being articles, stand-alone lists are subject to Wikipedia's content policies, such as verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and what Wikipedia is not, as well as the notability guidelines." Cheers, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 05:02, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not like I'd merge all characters lists, don't worry. If someone wants to contest my edits... fair enough, but it's not like I'm forbidden to do it once guidelines supported me. And, I guess guidelines are above projects. So, sorry but I'll not undo what I did. If you want to undo I'll not bother, though, as you'll be the one who I'll re-add that mess again. Regards, Gabriel Yuji (talk) 05:23, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Gundam bootlegs

Hi there this is the individual who put the information about the bootlegs on the g gundam page. The reason there is no citation is because the company is no longer around to get such information from. I have recently gone through an ordeal on ebay where i had to prove they were fakes, which was very hard seeing as the company is no longer around to ask. I just want the information to be available for people so no one has to be ripped off in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.16.83.100 (talk) 20:10, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not here to prevent people from getting "ripped off" by bootlegs. Wikipedia is here to provided verifiable information based on reliable sources. If something cannot be cited to a reliable source, it should not be on Wikipedia. —Farix (t | c) 20:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Knights of Sidonia

OK, perhaps you can dispute whether this is MILITARY sub-genre or not. But you cannot be really serious disputing this being SCIENCE FICTION ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by NeonPuffin (talk • contribs) 20:22, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Mecha is a sub-genre of science fiction. In keeping with MOS:A&M#Categorization, only the more specific genre will be kept. However, a reliable source is still needed for the genre. —Farix (t | c) 20:32, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I am trying to make Wikipedia intelligible for general public. While only manga-fiend will know what "Mecha" means, everybody knows what is "science fiction". As for a reliable source, I am a hard-core sci-fi fan and I have watched the whole series, and if this is not sci-fi, then I am a penguin. But whatever - I am not going to lose any sleep over this - have your small victory, if it gives you kicks - people like you were reason why I left Wikipedia a few years ago - one is trying to do a well meant and judicious modification and then someone who thinks he/she is a guardian of Wikipedia just comes and reverts it back to original. I am resting my case. --NeonPuffin (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh woe is you because someone reverted you, provided a reasonable explanation, and asked for sources. How dare some filthy editor like me intrude and require that articles follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. People should be able to put any damn thing they want on Wikipedia. Don't they know who the hell you are! </sarcasm> —Farix (t | c) 21:58, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

A Moment to Talk.

Hello, my name is Editor35109. I am aware of the fact that I am a suspected sockpuppet of a banned user named "CensoredScribe". However, it is not true. I am in no way affiliated or associated with this person or any other of his confirmed sockpuppets. I am an editor who has tried to contribute to Wikipedia. I hadn't known that some of my edits were similar to the aforementioned username. I had started my account a few days ago and started with a few contributions. Sometime after this, I received a notification that I was some sort of sockpuppet who was associated with CensoredScribe. What I am saying is that I am innocent of the claims that have been made against me. I am sorry for any confusion that has surfaced because of this and if there is anything that I can do to clear myself of these claims, feel free to notify me at any time.Editor35109 (talk) 00:47, 12 August 2014 (UTC)Editor35109.

Then why are you edit waring over categories on multiple accounts and using sockpuppet accounts to continue the edit war? The WP:QUACKING is way too loud to say you are someone else, CensoredScribe. —Farix (t | c) 01:04, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Zombiepowder intro

Better? I can see why you were unhappy with the previous run-on introductory sentence, but Zombiepowder's relationship to the career of the author does need to be in the intro somewhere. Not only is it the "primary assertion of notability"/"only reason anyone would ever read or write about this topic," but it's a factor discussed throughout the article and therefore mandated by WP:LEAD. --erachima talk 17:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Angel Cop

Hello — I see you've trimmed a lot of content from Angel Cop. As one whose general knowledge of Anime is minimal, I'd like to sincerely ask: Is Anime News Network considered a reliable source? (For example, it seems to have a professional editorial staff, but I would be unable to judge if its published content is biased.) I noticed that Anime News Network did publish a review of Angel Cop, but, perhaps curiously, our article didn't cite it as a source. Unician ∇ 21:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

The news and reviews section of Anime News Network are considered reliable, however, the encyclopedia section is user edited and is not a reliable source. (see WP:A&M/ORS#Situational) The only content I removed were statements that were cited to the IMDb, however, that page is also user edited and therefore not a reliable source (WP:RS). The "controversy" is apparently non-existent. There were several external links to reviews on the article, but I moved them to the talk pages because they were not being used as sources in compliance with WP:EL. These links can be found at Talk:Angel Cop#Reviews. —Farix (t | c) 21:29, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

If you're looking for a source that it was deemed antisemitic, I recall Jason Thompson describing the plot as "The Jews Are Taking Over Japan!" in one of his ANN columns. --erachima talk 21:38, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

That was Justin Sevakis and he only briefly mentions the Jewish antagonists as part of the overall badness of the OVA. That isn't enough to base an entire section on Angle Cop being anti-Semitic nor single out that one bit of criticism out of all the other criticism he had about the OVA. And the other reviews don't even mention it. So a bit of due weight comes into play. —Farix (t | c) 21:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Thompson. "Saruwatari and Takajo aren't really drawing as an expression of Anti-Semitism like, say, Ichiro Sakano's “the Jews are taking over Japan” anime (later manga) Angel Cop; they're just in it for the gore."

That said, I agree with the general concern with creating "Controversy" sections, just noting that the criticism's not imaginary. --erachima talk 21:57, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

If reviews at Anime News Network are considered reliable, then the 2007 Justin Sevakis review, however negative, might be an appropriate source for this article, which could use one. (At the moment it cites none at all).

I'm not particularly looking for a source to justify a claim that Angel Cop is anti-semitic, although I was lead here by some dark clouds of Wikidrama hanging over Category:Antisemitism. As Farix points out, that would at best be a small part of the description of this work, not worth its own section. (Personally, the bit about gaming the ratings system with the English version seems a more interesting anecdote.) I agree that, until there are more sources and more content, even mentioning that detail would be seen as giving it undue weight.

Should we leave a few cleanup tags such as {{unreferenced}} and {{empty section}} as reminders?

Unician ∇ 04:40, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

new project

I need help making a couple of potential policies, guidelines. That is currently my only interest. Would you consider being part of building them. Lucia Black (talk) 09:10, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Without knowing what they are, I can't give you a definite answer. —Farix (t | c) 11:17, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

An official "double jeopardy" rule. and something in similar lines to WP:NOTPUNISH but without less advice (but not an essay). i'm not comfortable talking about it in talkpages. i can go in deeper level in my sandbox talkpage. Lucia Black (talk) 11:30, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

DON'T BLOCK PAGE !!! ><""

Don't Block Bladedance of Elementalers
I own this sources for airdate... so, unlock the page at least for me.
Source: [1]

Regards, Borrougagnou ^(Talk), 19:19, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

You own the website? Sorry, but the site needs to pass WP:RS, specifically WP:SPS, and I am not seeing anything on the website, especially here that gives any indication that it is reliable. —Farix (t | c) 19:40, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Go to the about Page of this site About this antenna (当アンテナについて).

I'm not own this website. And the source is not unverified...ok

Here is another source unverified BUT but that does not make mistakes because this site is a Japanese TV program....

All sites that have a good source are not necessarily reference in Wikipedia.

www.tvguide.or.jp Since 1996...

I am a seeker information ;), I contribute to Wikipedia for more than 4 years.

Regards, Borrougagnou ^(Talk), 20:37, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

If the source is not reliable, it cannot be used. And give the date the domain was registered and the about page, there is nothing there to indicate that it is a reliable source. It will serve you well to read the guidelines for identifying reliable sources. Also, the second link does not work. So there is no way I can examine it to determine that it is reliable. It doesn't matter how long you've "worked" on Wikipedia. You're edit history on English Wikipedia only goes back a few days, and it is clear that you are not familiar with the English Wikipedia's standards. —Farix (t | c) 10:25, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, for the second link... this page are not fonctionnal but Yesterday is fonctionnal...

but a third link: [Official Site of Tokio MX] convinced?

or a Program TV Guide of Channel Tokyo MX IN the Offcial Site of Tokyo MX: [Look at 24:30 TV Program]

I have been slow to understand wikipedia.. and the time prevented me...BUT I create the Temporary Profile in English with term in english User:Borrougagnou/(en)_Page1 I'm not a beginner, Although I am not familiar with all the English Wikipedia's standards.

French Wikipedia is more forgiving...I am determined to find evidence for English Wikipedia

Regards, Borrougagnou ^(Talk), 00:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

D.Gray-man

Hi Farix,

I noticed that you reverted my edit to D.Gray-man with the edit summary "Article covers the primary media." It is my impression that the article covers the entire D.Gray-man media franchise and not just the manga. The article structure currently suggests this very strongly; there is a section for the manga and there are several other sections for non-manga areas of the franchise, including one for the anime, one for the video games, etc. My only alteration to the article was to indicate this scope explicitly in the lead and categories. Could you explain further why you disagree with my edit?

Neelix (talk) 00:59, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

If you look at every other article covering anime and manga, you will see that the lead section always focuses on the original media. This is true for even the Featured Articles, such as Madlax, School Rumble, and Tokyo Mew Mew as well as other Quality Articles. Also, MOS:AM states "Articles about series which have been adapted into other media should introduce the original format of a work rather than the format of the work most popular in English." The edits you made to D.Gray-man did not conform to the standards set by other quality articles as well as the Manual of Style. —Farix (t | c) 02:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Super Robot distinction

What is the problem? You removed it under flimsy circumstances and I restored it because I thought it was accurate. A google search shows there's a correlation. I've never seen the need for a category to be sourced as you demand. My only experience is dealing with someone who picked five minutes of the show to base their categorization.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 21:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Ryulong, categories have always been subject to Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, no original research, and neutral point of view. The fact that these has been lax enforcement isn't an excuse to continue to ignore the problem. If you believe that categorization should not be subject to these policies, then you are welcome to start a RfC on the matter. But simply stating that categorization is not subject to these polices, and you think they are accurate is the same type of BS we had with CensoredScribe. But given that you finely did source it, there isn't a problem now. —Farix (t | c) 23:47, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you seriously comparing this disagreement with the actions of someone I was instrumental in getting banned?—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 05:50, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, because the basic problem is the same, adding categories based on personal interpretation (which is a form of original research). What got CensoredScribe banned was the scale of his edits, his absolute refusal to listen, and his persistence that he was ultimately right even when everyone else disagreed with him. —Farix (t | c) 10:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

No. His primary issue was creation of esoteric new categories and applying categories for singular events throughout a whole publication/broadcast history. And because he didn't listen. Don't compare me to that fuckwit again.—Ryūlóng (琉竜) 11:57, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

.... --'

thank for no response.... --" Borrougagnou ^(Talk), 17:42, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Tenchi Muyo's genre categorisation

As it currently stands the classification of "harem" alone is woefully inadequate, as Tenchi Muyo spans a multitude of genres, and no references that I add by using Google search seem acceptable to you. So where exactly do you suggest that I should look for acceptable references? The supplied link to: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:A%26M%5CORS&action=edit&redlink=1 did not lead to an active page on Wikipedia. I would appreciate the help. Thanks. David A (talk) 05:49, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, I found the correct link, and "Them Anime Reviews" on that list. David A (talk) 06:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

I know that I may seem like a douche bag for requiring genres to be cited to a reliable source, but you have to understand that this area is probably our greatest vector of original research and its time we start cleaning up the mess. Genres, like all other article content, must follow Wikipedia's core content guidelines of WP:Verifiability, WP:No original research, and WP:Neutral point of view. —Farix (t | c) 12:52, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your all your efforts here! I watched No. 6 and I'm sure that it belongs -among others- to the Shonen-ai genre. However, I recognize now that a more reliable source than the ANN encyclopedia has to be provided. Anime fan & Wikipedia noob: Xclub (talk) 06:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	School Rumble is today's TFA. Here's a barnstar for your work to the article. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 03:04, 26 September 2014 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:List of One Piece characters#Protagonists vs. main characters

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List of One Piece characters#Protagonists vs. main characters. Thanks. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 17:26, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

A mention in Jimbo Wales talkpage

I made a mention of you regarding the previous AN discussion at Jimbo Wales, if you feel i misinformed Jimbo Wales, or forgot to mention a specific detail, i urge you to respond and clarify. Other than that, i hope this isn't a bother to you. Lucia Black (talk) 08:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#RfC

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#RfC. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 08:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Halloween cheer!

Happy Halloween!

Hello TheFarix:
Thanks for all of your contributions to improve Wikipedia, and have a happy and enjoyable Halloween!
– Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:25, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Send Halloween cheer by adding {{subst:Happy Halloween}} to user talk pages with a friendly message.