User talk:DeathQuaker

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

Hello, DeathQuaker, 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:

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 and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --OgasawaraSachiko Talk , 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Some requests

Thank you kindly for improving those articles of Michelle Cheung and R.O.D recently. One thing i really hate, though, is unnecessary and boring references like the ones you add. And now, i ask you some favors if yo don't mind since i know your edits is good.

1. If you don't mind, could you improve some informations on those articles of Madlax and Noir' characters i made recently, that is if you've watched them.

2. Could you improve the List of R.O.D the TV episodes i made so that it can be promoted as an FL? It lacks of informations and references a lot.

3. If you don't mind now, but i think those references on Michelle Cheung are really absurb, sorry if i bother you. But can you kindly improve them a bit, or remove them. OgasawaraSachiko (Talk), 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ogasawara, I agree there needs to be some cleanup to be done. I went overboard in my over-enthusiasm! But I don't know if I want to remove them completely. The original purpose was to actually clean up the text--rather than say, "In the manga she does this and in the TV she does that" just cite where it happed in a numeric reference so it doesn't clutter the text. The other purpose is to avoid edit wars.... the annoying thing about these anime pages are that people change the content based on their perceptions of the characters rather than what actually happens. Citing the episode where something is proven eliminates this. However, I think this can be reduced to only things that are really controversial or need to be proven (such as the spelling of Michelle's name, which does apparently spark arguments from time to time).
I will work on it when I have time, or feel free to put in some edits yourself. I can't do it immediately but will try to do it by the end of April.
As for the List of Episodes -- sure, I'll definitely take a look when I have time--again, hopefully within a couple weeks. The list helped me when trying to remember what happened in which episode, so glad to help in return. DeathQuaker (talk) 13:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I've readed your message, sorry i didn't know you were having a surgery. Anyway, i just added the category fictional detectives and Hong Kong characters for each. But in your opinions, will it be fine if i add fictional clones? The three sisters are kinda artificial. OgasawaraSachiko (talk), 15:21 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'm doing much better. I think the detectives and Hong Kong character additions are a good idea. I noticed another editor removed the "fictional clone" category. I think it's probably best left that way--technically, none of the sisters are actually clones (clones are exact or near-exact copies of an organism created by inserting that being's genetic material into a genetically blank ovum). Anita is a test tube baby made from genetic material provided by "the British Library's best Paper Masters" -- indicating she has multiple "parents" and is not a copy. Michelle and Maggie are existing, once "normal" humans who were genetically altered (at least, that's the way Junior put it).
Now, the Nancys, on the other hand, are clones of Mata Hari who have been additionally genetically engineered to have superpowers. Complicated, isn't it? Maybe for simplicity's sake we forget the whole thing for now. :) But continuing to add other existing Wiki categories is definitely a good idea. DeathQuaker (talk) 20:59, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yomiko Readman Page

What I want is a reliable, third-party, published source, yes, I can go and identify the anime myself, yet you cannot go ask every reader to do so. If a picture could be given, that would be alright, yet trivia sections are not encouraged anyway. Also, visual similarity are normally discouraged to be placed in articles, usually a secondary source stating specifically the appearance would be better and BTW, her outfit is a typical Japanese librarian uniform with an outcoat. MythSearchertalk 14:45, 31 May 2008 (UTC)