User talk:Xexerss/Archive 1

4587:

like I am wrong by refusing to understand your point of view when you have assume and falsely accused me.” That would be more accurate. If you read that article you know it not a professional review at all. And again it is not just me that thinks that. You explained your opinion over and over is not my refusal to understand your opinion but knowing the difference between a professional review and personal opinion. That article you are defending is not a review or a reception, it is an personal opinion like ours. I believe you know the truth and that is why you are saying I refused to listen, falsely accusing me, acting like you don’t understand me to be right, and you said I think they are wrong when it is not my opinion. Let me add, you have said you don’t understand my point, which is unfair to say I refuse to listen because we are on two different pages. The article you are defending is an unreliable opinion on an reliable website. The first article I posted is a professional review on the same website. I know the difference and you refuse to understand the difference. It is not refusing to understand your opinion on the matter. It is you refusing my real point which you claim to not understand.

4653:

and accept an invalid article because it just a personal opinion to be right. __ What I get any review could be add if it on a reliable website. Again saying it in a different way, it is common sense a personal opinion is not a professional review. That article is a not a professional review meant for the reception area. I know I have been clear in this and I don’t understand why there is this issues besides trying to be right. You know the difference and you know I am right. If not, If you are having problems with understanding others on Knowledge or misunderstanding something very clear, then I suggest a new hobby. In your attempt to be right and trying to enforce your own view of my point on me, it does not put me down nor does your blaming me instead it reflects only you, like your understanding of plain English and of others. Now please stop blaming me, imposing false assumptions and arguments on me. Stop changing my point to be right. Stop making it my opinion and viewpoint when it is not and it is just common sense.

4470:

opinion on them. Yes it was their take as a mere fan not as a professional. And that is why it is less valid. Nothing about “tone” or a “serious tone.” Also, if you believe in that unreliable opinion than why don’t you add it to all the articles of the anime they mentioned. Don’t allow it on one, if you will not add it to the others, if you believe that highly of their opinions. I think you are talking about the other source at the end, why are you defending that? I agreed and had no issues. Would you step back and take a breath and read this again. You have made many assumptions and none have been correct. Please be respectful. Oh maybe I made an assumption. But I will ask instead of going what I first interpreted. or are you talking about the other that was just added? They seemed to had it sourced it well when I looked. But there was another one that was removed. I don’t know how this will look and I don’t know the code for it. Therefore, I removed the < : -->

4524:

could add it to the others. Why did you consider that being forced? Ratings from IMDD, Crunchyroll, tomatoes, Nielsen’s and etc. have been used on many articles on Knowledge. It would appear many don’t share your opinion or you have your work cut out for you. However, they add it because user generated data and ratings are part of the reception. Please be respectful and maybe if you took the time to comprehend, you will learn that my point is very simple to understand. Maybe you do understand but just want to act the way you are. Shrug. Over the months I had respect for you but I have moved on from that. Thanks for understanding and having an awesome attitude that makes Knowledge a great place to connect and communicate to others. I learn that more-experienced Knowledge users do take the time to comprehend and help instead of being rude and condescending that doesn’t assume or falsely accuse you. Thanks, I know who to go to if I have another concern. Bye.

2849:, primary sources are fine too, but secondary sources have priority, and titles don't really need a source for such a thing as their original title characters, it's enough to know that they are or are not officially written with Japanese characters. Honestly, I don't know if this has been discussed, but I think that there are no reasons to extend the name of people writing their Japanese names in kanji/kana if the article doesn't require it, we don't list every Japanese people's name without an article using the nihongo template, so I think the addition was unnecessary, but I added a link to the Japanese Knowledge article, that should be enough. Well, I suppose there are no problems changing his name to Kiiro as various English websites use that name instead of Kiro, although it is also commonly used on various sites. - 4404:

unreliable the authors are. It has nothing to do with their take on the show, I would be saying this on their positive reviews and wait... I did. When I mentioned they were not added to the two positives ones I checked because it is an unreliable opinion. People just added more positive reviews with reliable sources but they were removed. Again it had nothing to do with a negative or positive reviews it is an unreliable opinion. None of my comments should gave anyone that impression. Again if this unreliable opinion should be added then why isn’t it added to other pages where it gave positive reviews instead of just one anime mentioned to my knowledge? Because it not an unreliable opinion but on a reliable source. I have not seen a opinion like this used on Knowledge over my years of using Knowledge.

3219: 4555:. I'm sorry if you thought that I was being rude, but I tried to explain the same thing over and over and you refuse to understand that the opinions from the ANN reviewers are still valid, as long as the website is considered a reliable one, and there is nothing stating that they should be removed for whatever reason you think they are wrong/not valid. There's also nothing stating that it should be removed because it was an "express review/opinion" (or something like that) instead of a more structured review. - 300: 31: 3038: 2051: 3801: 1096: 373: 2526: 1011: 3738: 1787: 457: 4621:

reception section must work and not about how the reviewers gave their viewpoint. Those opinions came from the staff of Anime News Network, not simply internet anime fans, and if you think that only the specific and more structured review articles from the website are valid, that is your standpoint, and there is currently nothing stating that the other kind of review/commentary/opinion can't be added. That's the end then, bye. -

329: 199: 2967: 4285:

the writers and not any real data. I don’t think it should be there either. I never seen personal opinions in the reception areas. In addition, I looked up two other anime mention in the article on Knowledge this source was not used on either of them. I would remove it but you use Knowledge more to know what is allowed in that section. I don’t think it should be there.

3353:, it doesn't seem that they are referring to the number of sales. They're saying that with the publication of the 6th volume (on April 30, not released yet) the manga will have over 1.4 million copies in circulation, and not, in most cases the sources just talk about copies in circulation and not the actual sales. For example, 3278: 4660:

Bottom line: By your actions and words, you know that article is unusable but you don’t want to admit to your mistake when it would been easier. And you know what I would had still have respect for you. Maybe even more. Please let this be the end. It was wonderful talking to you. I look forward to

4586:

How about for example I put, “I have tried to explain my point over and over but you refuse to understand or acknowledge what I said because you are trying to be right when you know you are wrong. Instead of acknowledging your mistake or misunderstanding, it is best to put the blame on me and make it

4507:

Look, if someone wants to add those reviews from the ANN link to the respective articles, there's no problem. It is not my job to add those reviews to every article. I kept the ANN link on the Yashahime article because the website is considered reliable, that's all. I'm not forced to add every review

4160:

I thought about writing a brief plot section but, I wonder, if I were to briefly mention the changes the anime has without having an actual source, would that count as original research? I remember the anime added several stuff like Kaoru's father, the Hiruma brothers, the doctor's grandchildren, the

3326:

I know that the nunber of circulation is not the same as the number of sales, but when this type of news are written, they are actually refering to the number of sales. If you go to the references of most of the manga in the List of best-selling manga, you'll see that most titles are "X manga reaches

2814:

The first episode was released on Amazon Prime Video Japan, isn't that enough to update the number? These secondary sources don't directly specify the original japanese titles of the themes, why would the primary source which cites both the opening and the ending theme be removed? If one should stay,

4652:

That is not my point or what I am saying at all. It is not my standpoint in what is difference between personal opinions from a staff and a professional review. I am sorry that you can’t tell the difference or acknowledge my real point because you want to be right in your false argument on my point

4523:

Xexerss, I don’t want to add it to any but it makes me wonder why they only added to one. The website is reliable but not that article. I don’t force you or even insinuated that. Sheesh. It’s just you seem deeply devoted to keeping that unreliable opinion on one page that if you cared, so much you

4093:

About the article, I'm not sure what image should be used since I never dealed with anime adaptation articles. I guess the first VHS or DVD might help or a DVD box. From my understanding the image should provide a common understanding of the series' subject so I'm pretty sure it could be one of that

3681:

Well, usually I just copy and paste the infobox and volume template from other articles and replace the content. Adding the info from ANN, Natalie and other websites is not hard using the citation template. This took me like 30 minutes. If you can, could you add a plot section or add its chapters? -

3482:

Great job! I'll try to check it thoroughly soon, but I took a general look anyway, and although I don't know if it's necessary, I've seen that the character creation content for a series tends to be included in the respective list of characters article instead of the series' own article, for example

2799:

Officially, the series has not yet aired in Japan, so the number of episodes should not be increased for now. As for the theme songs, it's preferable to use secondary sources to use the official anime website, so there was no reason to change the ANN link. Also, we should use Japanese characters for

2293:

About Rurouni Kenshin: Restoration. Sadly, that manga was never published in my country but from what reviewers say (and due to my experience with the classic series) Watsuki tends to talk a lot about the series' making so if you get to find a book, there might be more stuff to add. Also, the first

2008:

Add reliable sources, please. A video from a random Youtube user or a low quality image from a random retailer don't count as reliable sources. Even if what you're saying is true, it must be verifiable by reliable sources. In fact, I'm trying to search info about the series translation in Indonesia

392:

for more information on uploading your material to Knowledge. For legal reasons, Knowledge cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use

4755:

I haven't read the article, but at first glance it looks overall pretty good to me. I personally think that a list of episodes is feasible, since it has various sources, a summary for each episode and home video release, not to mention the content that could be added in lead. I haven't watched the

4307:

I don't know what are you talking about, but if you're referring to the Anime News Network article, that "personal opinion" is a review from a reliable website, and that's what reviews are after all, personal opinions, but they should be added because they are considered professionals and not mere

4284:

You are one of the ones that reverted an edit on Yashahime, which you are right, I could not find an article on Crunchyroll which supported it. Therefore, the information was not reliable. However, what you reverted the section back to is an a reliable source but it was just an personal opinion on

4183:

There must be some reliable reviews explaining something about the changes. Perhaps Watsuki wrote something about those changes in volumes, I don't really know, though. Anyway, as far as I can recall, those characters were not that relevant to the overall story, so they could maybe be added to the

546:

and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion

4643:

How you worded that any review could be posted, fan or staff because a fan would be a reviewer giving their viewpoints. They are staff but they are fans too. That article was a fan viewpoint from staff, which implies from your standpoint, any review could be referenced in the reception section.

4636:

Xexerss... “That link is not a review or a reception, it is an personal opinion” that answers your questions. But you had issues comprehending, it seems. You see a personal opinion, professional or not, is unreliable for a reception. It is not about one person’s opinion, it is more than that.

4546:

If that ANN link is currently added only to the Yashahime reception, it doesn't mean that it NECESSARILY need to be added to every other show reviewed in that link. If I haven't done it personally, it's because I don't need to and I'm not focused on that task, that's all, but it's not because the

4450:

Did you not read what I said? no one says that the reviews from that link can't be added to the respective shows. And for the last time, I don't get why do you insist their opinions are "unreliable". The tone of their reviews of whatever don't make them less valid, it's just their take and that's

955:

Please note that since 21st Century mostly publishes works in Chinese, Chinese-language hits for the name in Chinese 二十一世纪出版社集团 will be far more common than hits in English. Do note that this is a bilingual English-Chinese edition published by that company (I used to own some volumes of it myself

4469:

Xexerss. I could ask you the same thing. “ no one says that the reviews from that link can't be added to the respective shows” that is your interpretation of my words and not what I was saying at all. If you read the articles and know about the authors you would know. Looks like many has this

4403:

Xexerss, You misunderstood my points, my point was that it was not added to the other articles I checked because that article is irrelevant in that section. Why is it added to one and not all because it is unreliable. If the articles were read than you would fully understand and if you knew how

4375:

No one says that the reviews of the other shows can't be added to their respective articles. I honestly don't get the comparison or why do just insist their opinions are not valid. If you disagree with their take on the show, feel free to add a more positive review that could be found on one of

4620:

But again, why do you insist that it is an unreliable/invalid opinion? because it's not a structured review and it's just a more simple and kinda informal opinion? Where does it say that it does make it less valid and, therefore, it must be removed? The issue then is about how do you think the

4590:

Therefore, we are talking about different things and I hope you will understand. Please understand when someone says sorry and then followed by an if, that if means you don’t take responsibility for your actions. Example: I am sorry I hurt you vs I am sorry if I hurt you. Think about it.

4661:

the next time. Have a great day! I will definitely come back to you when I have a problem because you understand so easily and make a conversation problem free. Man! I wished I had those understanding skills and able to help others in a caring way when they come to me. Have a great life!

4508:

from the link to those articles to make valid my point. Secondly, is this serious? Crunchyroll rating is user-generated, same reason why MyAnimeList or IMDb ratings are not useful and not considered valid at all. Seriously, I'm done, I don't even know what is your point anymore. -

4647:

This indicates my point is still misunderstood. “ if you think that only the specific and more structured review articles from the website are valid, that is your standpoint, and there is currently nothing stating that the other kind of review/commentary/opinion can't be added.”

4597:

In addition, you said you were done and with that, it means you were not willing to listen or understand the other page of the book. No point trying after you said your done. I acknowledge and left. I acknowledge it and I am saying bye again. The damage is already done. So, bye.

2634:

Hi, great job!...Uh, I'm not entirely sure. Maybe an "overview" section or a section with similar title could work. I think in this case the background of each story can figure with the own story to make it all more readable instead of making a different production section. -

4451:

all. There's nothing stating that the reviews need to have a "serious tone" or something like that as long as the website is considered reliable. And I removed that "reliable" piece of content, because it was poorly sourced and can't be verified, that was all. -

3137:

is File: Kaifuku Jutsushi no Yarinaoshi logo.png Even the Japanese Knowledge and this article is translated from that wiki. 2- In this article, having a section for each character helps to link to that character if needed elsewhere or even in this article

2327:

I tried cleaning up Shishio's article considering how the liveaction films resulted in comments about his role in the story. However, I couldn't find too much about Enishi's reception other than 4 or 5 sources. Guess we'll have to wait for his liveaction

1113:

Stop adding One Piece future predicted sales and Demon Slayer's franchise future predicted sales figures, Volume 18 is not even out yet and you have added the predicted sales figure which includes not only manga, other publications like spin-offs in

493:. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images taken from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites or other printed material as a source of 4656:

Please let this drop. It would be easier to accept you had made a mistake and misunderstood me than holding on to that and try to enforce that point of view on me while blaming me. I wanted a real conversation with someone I had came to respect.

3017: 4805: 2415:'s article after a big clean up to reduce inunviverse info and expand outofuniverse info. However, I think it would be good if you revised the prose of Shishio's article (as well as Restoration) since English is not my first language. 4120:

I remember an image from MyAnimeList, I guess, of the Kyoto arc, which features most of the main cast, except Yahiko (but I don't know if that is relevant). I suppose that is the kind of image that would be fitting to the article. -

3997: 2410:

I did some google of Master of Flame but apparently it was never serialized in English regions. The only thing I found was a commentary involving Watsuki and his wife Kurosaki involving how they feel about this work. I left it in

3425:

I do the same, I am currently looking for the sales of the manga Phoenix of Tezuka (they are not even in the japanese wiki) and the overseas sales of the Doraemon manga (I've already found the China's ones), if u wanna help btw.

838: 4547:

reviews are not valid, ok? (also, I was not even the one who added that ANN link, but anyway, I'm also opposed to have it removed); Secondly, unlike what you are saying, the ratings, for IMDb for example, are used when it is

4582:

You do understand this comment of yours is rude, “ I tried to explain the same thing over and over and you refuse to understand.” No, that is not what happened here at all, and that is more talking about yourself there.

4691:. Feel free to discuss if that kind of ANN opinions or whatever are valid or not, and if there's a consensus that it must be removed, then it will be removed. Now, please, stop. This discussion has been insanely long. - 2952: 3557:. When browsing through wikidata and other language versions of Knowledge, I noticed there are some of his works that don't have an English Knowledge article but do in other languages. King of Wolves has an article in 2836: 2789: 786: 4348:

In contrast, this is just a personal opinion that lack professionalism from a professional on a reliable website. It is a “Personal opinion” like a mere fan not as a review as a professional. Please be respectful.

4733:). What do you think should be done about it? Still, I'm not sure about nominating the article so I requested to the Guild to copyedit bot Akudama and Darker than Black, mostly because of their recent expansions. 1923:. I'm not saying this to get at you, but just in case you were planning a campaign with more edits like this. Obviously, I agree with your other ones where you correctly straightened out contractions! Cheers 2699:

90M in Japan was announced when Bleach manga ended. It did not specifically state/include WW or digital. Knowing Bleach's previous circulation numbers in Japan, it's easy to deduce that 90M was Japan only.

3361:

article, you will notice that most of the series have a dagger (†) symbol, which means copies in circulation rather than sold, because in most cases the sources don't usually refer to actual copies sold. -

2815:

it is the primary source. We don't have an article about Kiiro Akiyama, so his japanese and romanized names should be included, where do you see that we should do otherwise? Also his name is Kiiro Akiyama

3153: 2738:

I don't exactly agree with you reverting my formatting change. I was trying to tidy up the wiki source. I think it's harmless either way, any particular reason you need/want to keep the article as is?

691: 1684:. For some reason, it wasn't complete and I was thinking that you'll fixed up all the way through this year (2020). I'm pretty sure you're the expert on anime and to make sure people will understand. 2553:. 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 1038:. 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 3163: 4485:/ref It was sourced. Verifiable. A true reception. If the positive reviews are being removed how would people know and I think the truth should always be posted not some unprofessional opinion. 4640:

And again?! see you are trying to make me the blame: “ The issue then is about how do you think the reception section must work and not about how the reviewers gave their viewpoint.” False.

1443:

I found some long-lost Japanese Manga magazine templates that I resurrected and I was wondering if you'll fix the titles of the manga to make sure people will understand. Here are the templates.

4594:

Please understand I said bye because I moved on from this topic because I understood you the whole time and it is sad you don’t see that or that we are talking about two different things.

445: 4551:(from professional reviewers, not the audience). I personally have never seen a single article using the Crunchyroll user rating as a source, and if it is used, it should be removed, per 2212: 899: 4819: 4688: 2569: 1054: 3057: 1895:

I re-added the source stating that the series was broadcast on Animax Asia, sorry about that. Anyway, even if it is true, a forum discussion is not by any means a reliable source. -

3975: 1802: 1780: 712: 704: 3960:

Thanks as well for creating the article. I haven't read the series yet, so I don't know about the plot or characters, but I'll add more content if I find something else. Cheers. -

3209: 2709:

That's where the information Manga Zenkan uses is from. I'll leave it upto you if you want to revise Bleach's wiki back to what 90M in Japan and 120M total WW or leave it as is.

2539: 1024: 515:

If the external website or image belongs to you, and you want to allow Knowledge to use the text or image — which means allowing other people to use it for any reason — then you

3404:

No, I'm not lol. I just use Google Translate, but anyway, the own Japanese sources usually will tell if they're talking about cumulative circulation or actual copies sold. -

3357:

in one instance had over 100 million copies in circulation and it was also stated that of that 100 million copies, around 90 million copies were sold. Also, if you check the

579: 287:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting

4377: 2832: 2785: 1867:

Do you need to say stuff like "Stop this nonsense" or "Stop it" all because of these little edits. I'm not trying to be rude nor attack you but you need to calm down a bit.

2676:

Hi. Yes, I saw an image stating so, but sadly, I can't find yet any reliable link referring to it. Oricon's official list just has the top 5 best-selling manga of the year

174: 2442: 782: 4338:

The second part, I see your point but maybe I am not explaining it well. Maybe, if you read the two articles and compare? I went to Inuyasha wikipedia and I found this:

2858: 2840: 2809: 1778: 2997: 936:. Please keep in mind it's common for links to expire. Kindly do not remove links only if they are 404'ed - there are resources for getting archived copies available: 2233: 1744: 4029: 1839:

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at

4170: 4107: 3239: 1857: 2723: 2254: 2136: 1961: 1947: 1136: 2595: 1208: 3460:. It got way too big so I tried dividing subsections similar to Chainsawman or Jujutsu Kaisen. Could you give it a look and revise any issue possible? Cheers. 1080: 1322: 1280: 923: 703: 584: 401:, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Knowledge takes copyright very seriously and persistent violators of our copyright policy 4637:

Look up review vs opinion. As an Knowledge editor you must know that and that article is not a good article for the reception section. It is common sense.

2239:

Yes, I was planning on adding it later. If I'm right, I think Anime News Network have articles with the entire cast for both the Japanese and English dub.-

790: 4771: 4199: 3094: 2389:

Sadly, I didn't even find something about Master of Flame. Shishio's reception seems solid with variety focused on his main appearances and the liveaction.

1549: 796: 1773: 965: 4730: 3514: 1812:, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply 1591: 1393: 2283: 2165: 1375:

and I found it a bit curious. Are Katanagatari and Monogatari part of a single Nisio Isin series? His website, for example, seems to suggest otherwise:

4138: 3152: 1275: 762: 641: 2309:

Sadly, I don't have the volumes. There must be some articles or interviews in Japanese online for the production, but I can't find anything by now. -

1359: 1317: 636: 4800: 4228: 3123: 1586: 1298: 833: 3543: 3327:

X copies in circulation". And then we use that number in the sales figure, because in the 99.9% of times they are referring to the number of sales.

1628: 1430: 1203: 3336: 1521:. This is ok if you make sure that this is acknowledged. Some people do it through their edit summary but it's even better if you use the template 678: 4811: 4436: 4413: 3782: 3435: 3392: 3260: 995: 1904: 1487: 865:

a legal necessity to comply with Knowledge's copyright policies, and lets other editors know that the content predates other sites mirroring it.

4427:

And you just removed reliable sources on the reception of Yashahime and added back an opinion not a reliable source on the reception section.

3321: 3177: 2793: 2018: 1932: 1736: 1718: 1544: 1502: 2927: 4700: 4630: 4564: 4517: 4460: 4389: 4317: 4273: 3413: 3371: 1508: 2001: 1662: 1286: 340:

without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Knowledge with an accurate

4085: 4067: 3969: 3669: 3383:

True, I will pay more attention to whether the source talks about copies in circulation or sales, and just by curiosity, are you japanese?

2868: 2688: 2191: 3947: 3916: 3691: 3651: 3637: 3614: 3600: 2944: 2769: 4765: 4193: 4154: 4130: 3508: 3191: 2516: 2471: 2398: 2372: 2337: 2318: 2248: 2206: 2130: 3760:, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the 2644: 2510: 2443:

https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2020-11-05/kento-ankoku-den-cestvs-kento-shito-den-cestvs-manga-get-tv-anime-in-april-2021/.166004

4684: 3894: 2170: 2115: 1001: 4573:

xexerss: I am coming from the point of view “It is only fair, it is added to all or none at all.” And probably an anti adding it.

4350: 4094:

has the logo of Rurouni Kenshin. I guess another image for Samurai X could be used in release in a similar way I did with the article

2456: 602: 4742: 4264:

I couldn't find anything on Viz archived links or English volumes on Amazon. It seems that it was never actually licensed by them. -

3727: 3203: 2727: 2424: 2303: 1957: 1928: 1435: 1294: 844: 616: 524: 409: 385: 4715: 4670: 4607: 4576:

Again, that article is not a review but a personal fan opinion. I have seen personal seen audiences ratings in Knowledge articles.

4533: 4494: 4362: 4294: 2912:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Knowledge's 747:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. When you feel the article meets Knowledge's 698: 2661:

The Promised Neverland is the 6th most sold manga this year in japan, so I think you should add this information on the wikipedia.

2435: 1225: 520: 389: 2980:

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Knowledge! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

1808:

In accordance with our policy that Knowledge is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia

3922: 2781: 2670: 1888: 1691: 976: 3722: 3578: 3872: 2611: 2082: 2074: 446: 1697:

Hi, thanks for letting me know. I will try to make myself time to fix it. Should this template also include, for example, the

523:. The same holds if you are not the owner but have their permission. If you are not the owner and do not have permission, see 3789: 3313: 3235: 3100: 2434:

Hi Xexerss, there is new article to create about a manga with a newly announced TV anime adaptation, can you create it? It's

2429: 1969: 929: 612: 344:. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the 3605:

Alright. We should probably coordinate so we don't create the same article twice. Which one of those do you want to create?

440: 4720: 3771: 3469: 2619:. Do you think I should add it to the page as is or should I put all the production info in a separate Production section? 2591: 2495: 2483: 2288: 1984: 1953: 1924: 1880: 1388: 1076: 134: 4098:

as X was often published in the West under the name of X/1999 which resulted in a different style of covers for the books.

1653:

Sorry, but genres need sources. If the Japanese Wiki lists a genre, that doesn't automatically implies it is confirmed. -

3147: 2750: 2028: 1993: 910: 814: 317: 110: 1609: 1340: 4251: 3938:

article, the publication information you added is a huge plus and now the whole thing is looking very clean and solid.

1131: 984: 695: 598: 4242:

is truly licensed by Viz? I've tried to find that manga on their web but nothing appears, maybe the license expired.

3492: 2719: 1567: 1411: 1145: 918: 142: 2916:

and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.

751:

and thus is ready for mainspace, please click on the "Submit your draft for review!" button at the top of the page.

187: 3761: 2694: 2359: 1871: 1532: 1472: 1221: 590: 361: 2217:

Sorry if i disturb you again, but i'm here to tell you that there is also a long character section to be added in

1638:

If you confirm about Super HxEros Genre, so please check out Original Japanese wiki page of Dokyuu Hentai HxEros.

233:

Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The

4706:

Thanks for the links. I did stop, without you asking, see last two paragraphs in my last comment. Thanks again

4279: 3876: 3072: 3029: 3008: 2954: 2587: 2142: 2041: 1247: 1072: 659: 543: 482: 450: 377: 4353:

And if they should be added why isn’t it added to all the anime listed instead of just one (to my knowledge)?

3223: 3211: 2065:

Happy two years of editing, and thank you for your tireless and invaluable edits to anime and manga articles! —

293: 4076:

Hi Rurouni Kenshin, my mistake, apologies. The copyvio tool seems to look everywhere but Knowledge. Regards. --

3988: 3548: 3488: 3484: 2650: 683: 490: 3994:

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to rewrite it in your own words, you can

3088: 2628: 1647: 1457: 3496: 2993: 234: 203: 124: 93: 3024:

Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to

773: 4014: 3025: 3004: 2562: 1477: 1217: 1181: 1047: 882: 767: 466: 129: 2482:

Great job on all of your new manga articles. When you create them, though, could you please tag them with

2363:

article? I think that it was created to promote the second live-action film, but I'm not entirely sure. -

715:, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. It needs more citations from 4043: 3984: 3864: 3812: 3790: 3268: 2712:

Manga Zenkan is a good source but it's not updated frequently enough. So please use it with discretion.

2658:

Thank you very much for taking care of The Promised Neverland's wikipedia, you're doing an amazing job.

2574: 2477: 2218: 2176: 1814: 1518: 1467: 1364: 1059: 861:

Please provide attribution in your edit summaries when you copy content from another article. It is both

810: 79: 71: 66: 3190:

Oops, sorry, I think I added the wrong template. I made the category by mistake. I wanted to create the

1920: 1605: 1336: 4729:

but I don't know if it's properly arranged or if the episodes should be given its own list (kinda like

3868: 3443: 3358: 2486:? A quality rating (likely start/stub) and importance rating (likely low) would also be appreciated. — 1884: 1668: 1462: 1163:

Error: No text given for quotation (or equals sign used in the actual argument to an unnamed parameter)

1115: 1104: 1100: 548: 38: 96:. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful: 4055: 3520: 3248: 2032: 1997: 1862: 1563: 1407: 589:

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited

564: 508: 425: 404: 4476: 4141:. I added a promotional image of that showed its two leads since it was divided into two arcs while 4351:

https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/feature/2021-03-29/the-best-and-worst-anime-of-winter-2021/.171109

3777: 3297: 3256: 1452: 1108: 473: 2091:

article which was missing, can you also create two articles that they are also missing? They are:

1843:. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it. 145:, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Knowledge. You can visit the 4552: 2992:. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they 2733: 1854: 1732: 1243: 914: 655: 245: 3162:

Why would you create this category, then nominate it for deletion but not post the CFD query on

3128: 2877: 2869: 2100: 1910: 1447: 684: 164:(~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out 115: 101: 4579:

You see, I know, there are differences between a professional review and a personal opinion.

977:

http://web.archive.org/web/20190803193036/http://www.21cccc.com/mainpages/bookInfo.aspx?ID=504

4777: 4711: 4666: 4603: 4529: 4490: 4432: 4409: 4380:, but just because it is not a positive review, it doesn't mean that it should be removed. - 4358: 4290: 4247: 3431: 3388: 3332: 2989: 2800:

songs written with Japanese titles, but not for the artists. I re-added the titles change. -

2550: 2094: 1089: 1035: 991: 961: 348:. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on 322: 250: 192: 1980:

You must've only seen the opening as the actual episode itself is dubbed, I am not kidding.

4334:

The beginning of that first comment was agreeing with you that is what I was talking about.

3747: 2905: 2715: 2561:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 1989: 1876: 1840: 1643: 1046:, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The 909:木崎さんのなりすましにより、悪戯投稿をしたことを反省します。木崎さんのなり済ましをして申し訳ありませんでした。今後は荒らし編集をしないように、心がけて編集をするようお願いします。-- 778: 740: 606: 553: 528: 414: 381: 313: 270: 183: 169: 153: 105: 3907:

I added some more sources to the article, including reviews from IGN and Splash Comics. -

8: 4761: 4756:

series yet lol, but I could check the article later and try to help in any way I can. -

4696: 4626: 4560: 4513: 4456: 4385: 4339: 4313: 4269: 4189: 4126: 4081: 4063: 4025: 4006: 3965: 3943: 3912: 3880: 3766: 3687: 3633: 3596: 3504: 3409: 3367: 3301: 3252: 3199: 3143: 3084: 3076: 2940: 2854: 2805: 2765: 2684: 2666: 2640: 2616: 2506: 2467: 2368: 2314: 2244: 2202: 2126: 2014: 1975: 1943: 1900: 1809: 1714: 1658: 1498: 1372: 1365: 1213:

An automated process has detected that you recently added links to disambiguation pages.

802: 532: 366: 289: 165: 1985:

https://www.tokopedia.com/yohanesff/kaset-dvd-anime-ninku-dubbing-bahasa-indonesia-promo

609:, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. 4815: 4810:

Go and check COAMIX's official website the rigts are owned by COAMIX & Tetsuo Hara

4233: 3718: 3665: 3647: 3610: 3574: 3309: 3231: 2746: 1847: 1728: 1688: 1677: 1540: 1484: 1290: 1127: 972: 772:

Announced is the of manga of Dragon Ball GT by Saikyou Jump in June 2, 2019 look site:

146: 4806:

Fist of the North Star rights are no longer owned by Shueisha it's now owned by COAMIX

2179:, which received an OVA/OAD adaptation, an anime film adaptation, and a sequel manga. 4796: 4738: 4548: 4224: 4166: 4150: 4103: 3847: 3710: 3539: 3465: 3119: 2533: 2452: 2420: 2394: 2333: 2299: 2279: 2229: 2187: 2161: 2111: 1769: 1624: 1582: 1426: 1355: 1313: 1271: 1018: 829: 674: 632: 623:

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these

345: 341: 280: 222: 214: 47: 17: 3834: 2704: 2175:

Hi Xexerss, there is another missing article about a manga, can you create it? It's

2088: 985:

https://megalodon.jp/2019-0804-0436-07/www.21cccc.com/mainpages/bookInfo.aspx?ID=504

4707: 4678: 4662: 4615: 4599: 4541: 4525: 4502: 4486: 4445: 4428: 4405: 4370: 4354: 4302: 4286: 4259: 4243: 3427: 3399: 3384: 3344: 3328: 2973: 2958: 2624: 2581: 2546: 2491: 2294:

volume is lacking the prequel chapter summary but I don't remember it well. Cheers.

2070: 1798: 1403: 1384: 1119: 1066: 1031: 987: 957: 275: 87: 1974:

What do you mean by not dubbed? The video clearly has it dubbed see for yourself:

1597: 4205: 4051: 4047: 3934: 3925: 3449: 3037: 1639: 1555: 1525: 1399: 937: 839:

A page you started (List of Kaguya-sama: Love Is War chapters) has been reviewed!

486: 309: 207: 179: 157: 3833:

While all constructive contributions to Knowledge are appreciated, pages may be

1872:

https://www.animenewsnetwork.com/bbs/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=3050281&start=45

547:

tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with

485:

requesting that it be speedily deleted from Knowledge. This has been done under

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

4077: 4037: 4021: 3955: 3939: 3293: 3139: 3134: 2880:, is not suitable as written to remain published. It needs more citations from 2846: 2775: 2662: 2604: 2558: 2412: 1681: 1328: 1043: 904: 505:. Knowledge takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators 357: 349: 337: 255: 3628:

I'll start with Gigantomachia. I could make the King Of Wolves article too. -

3569:. Want to make some kind of an arrangement to make articles for those series? 4726: 3902: 3884: 3851: 3821: 3755: 3729: 3714: 3676: 3661: 3643: 3623: 3606: 3586: 3570: 3554: 3305: 3227: 3062: 3047: 2917: 2913: 2742: 2554: 1794: 1750: 1536: 1195: 1155: 1123: 1039: 892: 854: 850: 752: 748: 594: 265: 3166:? If you want this category, you can just request this as the page creator. 3003:

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now

2677: 1727:

Yes, absolutely! This template will include every film by Toei Animation. -

299: 4792: 4788: 4757: 4750: 4734: 4692: 4622: 4556: 4509: 4452: 4422: 4398: 4381: 4329: 4309: 4265: 4220: 4216: 4209: 4185: 4178: 4162: 4146: 4137:

If it has the logo and at least Kenshin I guess it works. For example, say

4122: 4115: 4099: 4059: 3961: 3908: 3683: 3629: 3592: 3535: 3531: 3524: 3500: 3477: 3461: 3420: 3405: 3378: 3363: 3195: 3115: 3111: 3080: 2936: 2891: 2885: 2881: 2850: 2801: 2761: 2680: 2636: 2502: 2463: 2448: 2416: 2390: 2364: 2352: 2329: 2310: 2295: 2275: 2271: 2240: 2225: 2198: 2183: 2157: 2153: 2122: 2107: 2010: 1939: 1896: 1765: 1761: 1754: 1710: 1654: 1620: 1616: 1578: 1574: 1494: 1422: 1418: 1351: 1347: 1309: 1305: 1267: 1263: 825: 821: 726: 720: 716: 670: 666: 651: 628: 624: 120: 4184:

production section, if there is something written about them out there. -

4058:

just copied and pasted the content of the same Rurouni Kenshin article. -

3857:

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing

3656:

How do you create articles so fast???? Also I found the wikidata item for

4054:

on the talk page of the article for this move. By the way, it seems that

3104: 3067:

Hey, I apologize to you if I came off as rude. And thanks for rewording.

2901: 2897: 2757: 2620: 2487: 2260: 2066: 1699: 1380: 1239: 941: 774:

https://comicbook.com/anime/2019/06/02/dragon-ball-gt-manga-resume-anime/

736: 732: 647: 465:

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read

3558: 3007:

without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to

2565:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

2050: 1050:

describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

388:

from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read

4239: 3457: 3453: 2543:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

1633: 1601: 1531:. For List of Parasyte characters, you can see that I just added it to 1028:

are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

945: 3277: 1793:

Hello, Xexerss. It has been over six months since you last edited the

538:

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may

4471:, This should be added: The anime is ranked 4.3/5 in Crunchyroll. 4095: 2525: 1705: 1095: 1010: 353: 333: 260: 3737: 3709:

I will see what I can do. Also, you should consider applying to get

3499:

and many others, but again, I'm not sure if this is a must to do. -

1493:

I guess I can make some improvements, thanks for letting me know. -

372: 4142: 3808: 3794: 3185: 3168: 3071:

Hi. No problem, no reason to apologize, but next time try to be as

3036:

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider

1514: 1232: 1190: 1151: 933: 4781: 4345:

It is a professional review on a professional reliable website.

3932:

Just wanted to say thanks for your contributions and work on the

2976:, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. 2703:

Worldwide 120M number was first announced by the movie website.

2679:. I will add the info when a reliable source can confirm this. - 2501:

Thanks. Yes, I tend to forget it. I will add them from now on. -

4776: