User talk:Pitman6787
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Welcome!
Hello, Pitman6787, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
- The five pillars of Wikipedia
- How to edit a page
- Help pages
- Tutorial
- How to write a great article
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! —User:ACupOfCoffee@ 21:19, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Contents |
[edit] Re: Change in "Editing of anime in international distribution."
You have the wrong person, I think; I don't think that I've ever seen the article in question. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 10:54, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Re: Kayko Yukimura
Yes I know, but I am implying in the Editing of anime in international distribution that it is only for the Tv series, not for the movies. In the Second YuYu Hakusho movie: Poltergeist Report aka Bonds of Fire her name remains as Keiko, not Kayko but that is only because U.S. Manga Corps and not Funimation were the ones who distributed that movie. -- Adv193
[edit] Using Show preview button
Please use the Show preview button when editing. There's no reason to keep making tons of tiny little tweaks after posting it. The Show preview button will allow you to see what your post will look like, and then make any changes as needed. Thanks! (^_^) --日本穣 02:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sources
Please be civil when writing comments to other users. There is absolutely no reason for you to write what you wrote, especially since I just barely made the change. Just because you can edit a mile a minute doesn't mean that others do the same. Please also note that just because I don't respond immediately doesn't mean I'm not going to respond. Learn a little patience, please.
As for your comments, I removed a duplicate link and a reference to a Wikipedia article which was already linked to at least four times in that section alone. There was no need to include yet another link to the Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind, so I removed it. I also removed all the other duplicate links in that section.
Now, to answer all the questions you've asked:
You asked: I am currently doing a school research paper in which I am opposed to anime editing, so original creators opposing anime editing would be good support, so I researched and researched and researched on the internet, in books, etc., and never found any case other than the Miyazaki one in which an original creator complained about their anime being edited. Is that not enough of a basis for writing that? I guess what I'm saying is, if a fact isn't found after tons of research, is it valid to say to say that that fact's not true?
- If you can't find information to back something up, you can not claim it is a fact here on Wikipedia. As we are writing an encyclopedia, we need to give sources for our information. If you can't provide them, you can't make claims about what people have said or done.
You asked: Oh, and I wanted your opinion on something, as I can tell that you are an expert and verteran of wikipedia. I put in an external link on the page to a list of some petitions that dealt with anime editing (like fans advocating uncut anime or parents wanting to ban anime, because editing it isn't enough; it was just a page that brought up the search results for "anime" on petitiononline.com, but MANY of them dealt with this issue; I thought it was important, because it showed how viewers feel about editing of anime), but someone erased it. What do you think of it? I might put it back in.
- I'm not an expert or a veteran, but I appreciate the comments. I'm learning as I go. (^_^) Generally, lists of petitions are useful for anything. Those kinds of petitions are easy to fake and are not scientific in the least. Therefore, for an encyclopedia, they are preactically useless. I don't recommend adding it back to that article.
You asked: Are those sources good enough? Can the disclaimer be taken away? And why did you move the Table of Contents to such an awkward place?
- One of the sources is good, but one of the others is basically a duplicate (refers to the main page of the Nausicaa section on Nausicaa.net) and the other refers to an article already linked to in the section. There is no need to link to it again. Yes, the disclaimer can be (and was) taken away. I agree the TOC looked awkward on the left, so I moved it to the right, which looks much nicer, IMHO. Placing the TOC there makes more effective use of the space. --日本穣 05:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] An Automated Message from HagermanBot
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button 
located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 20:09, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
