Hi! Why did you change my edits? - Albedo039

I have removed the reference you added to this article regarding "The Shoveler" in World of Warcraft. There is no reference which shows that this is a reference to Mystery Men. Please do not re-add the information again unless you can postiviely demonstrate that this is the case. Thanks, Malla nox 22:46, 15 April 2007 (UTC) reply

• I am not the one who added the World of Warcraft reference to the Mystery Men article. But I put it back when you removed it for no good reason that I can see. Also, I'm not at all sure what you mean by a "reference which shows that this is a reference." Please explain this. Zubenelgenubi 02:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. One or more of your recent edits, such as the one you made to List of Urusei Yatsura characters, have been considered unhelpful or unconstructive and have been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. A link to the edit I have reverted can be found here: link. If you believe this edit should not have been reverted, please contact me. lwalt 21:12, 21 April 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank your for sharing your concerns about the text that was removed from the article List of Urusei Yatsura characters. As you know, I participate as one of a group of Wikipedians who patrol the main article space for vandalism. As part of this effort, vandalism tools were used during this effort, and the text in question was flagged as possible vandalism. Since you expressed that your contribution was a genuine addition to the article, I apologize for removing this content. Because your recent contribution to the article was removed by mistake, I have personally reinserted that portion to the article. I hope that this action addresses your concerns about your submission. Many thanks for your contribution to Wikipedia. lwalt 08:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC) reply

How much overlap do you think there should be on this page vs. the individual character pages? I basically went through and removed more specific, detailed info already found on the individual character pages that I felt to be somewhat extraeneous. -- BrokenSphere 07:11, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

I really question the need for individual articles for each of the Urusei Yattsura characters. I very much doubt that a casual reader would bother reading text on the List of UY Characters page and also go to each individual character's article. Furthermore, most of the individual articles are so small that they really don't need to exist. It will also be a lot easier to monitor and maintain one single article rather than two dozen smaller ones. Zubenelgenubi 07:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

The problem that comes up if everyone is described in detail on 1 page is that the page will get too long and unwieldy to navigate and read, even with a TOC. Personally I think that when an entry or section gets long enough it can be branched off to its own article space. This is really where more detailed, esoteric character info belongs as opposed on a general characters page, which I think is intended to provide a general who's who without getting too detailed or mirroring too closely what is described in further detail on an individual character page. As for the monitoring thing, as I was going through and moving info onto the character pages, I was also adding those pages to my watchlist and am already doing this for most of the Ranma characters anyway, so I guess I've gotten used to it. -- BrokenSphere 07:34, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

What is a "TOC"? I agree that a long enough section in another article can and should be branched off. I just don't think that this criteria is met for the vast majority of the characters in UY. (BTW, those individual character pages are FULL of inaccuracies). Esoteric character info is also not really necessary for Wikipedia articles at all (Wiki is not intended to be an exhaustive source). So rather that shorten the list of characters article down to one or two sentences per character, it makes a lot more sense to eliminate the individual articles for all but the four (or even two) mains and fold the info back into the bigger article while eliminating the very minor trivia (like voice actors). Zubenelgenubi 07:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

TOC = table of contents

I'm not familiar enough with the series to be able to make a valid call on who should or shouldn't get their own page based on the info available on them from the manga and anime sources, so I'm just working with what's existing. For "esoteric", I meant things like name meanings, more specific info re. character abilities, traits, relationships, etc.

If a character is minor enough that they don't warrant their own article space, which may be the case for some of those who do, and like I said, I'm not in a position to jduge this, then they could stay in the general character space; but, if the minor characters (the current presentation doesn't outright indicate unless the descriptions are read) could be put into a list of minor characters page to distinguish them from the primary, recurring, or otherwise significant characters.

As to the minor trivia, I saw the big fuss that was raised over removing some of the VA info. I personally think that this series provides a great example of having too much VA info; this was why I wanted to relocate or migrate that info because it was too much info and too distracting. It seems that you have issues with what would be short, stub class character articles, is maintenance largely the issue for you? -- BrokenSphere 08:21, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

Yes, maintenance is one of my biggest concerns. And yes, there is no real need (in my opinion) for any voice actor info. As far as stubs are concerned, I don't have a problem with them if they have the potential to grow. But these stubs would always remain stubs, since adding too much trivial info to them would violate Wikipedia policy about not being an exhaustive source. Zubenelgenubi 08:31, 21 June 2007 (UTC) reply

The ‘bizarre’ Noah reference which you removed was my edition. I think my edition was appropriate, since it was under the sub-heading ‘Paranoia and superstition’ and it was supported by the ending of that passage in its earlier version ‘the comet became the subject of many bizarre beliefs and theories’. So actually, what you refer to ‘bizarre’ was right on and my editing ‘fit’ into that sub-heading and its content. Thus, it should not be remove.

In fact, my edition was ‘ apocalypticism associating Hale-Bopp's possible last perihelion in the days of Noah [1];’

Hale-Bopp came almost at the end of the millennium and like the article said ‘was notable also for inciting a degree of panic about comets not seen for decades.’ The panic is about the ‘apocalypticism’ as much as the ‘millennialism’. There are hundred of websites, connecting Hale-Bopp with ‘End Times Event’ one way or the other. In fact, I have added a link, which is an educational link, ‘Ask the rabbi. Research at Ohr Somayach Institutions, Jerusalem, Israel. The ‘Noah’ reference was not as ‘bizarre’ as it seem, since the Jewish Rabbi stated that ‘there was indeed a new star 4,100 years ago at the time of Noah according to traditional sources’ which he pointed out too that Hale-Bopp according to NASA last appeared about the same time 4,200 years ago.

It is important that we address Hale-Bopp in all its aspects, and give the public general informative facts concerning the comet. With the introduction section of Hale-Bopp as ‘panic about comets not seen for decades’, I strongly belief that the Paranoia and superstitions section, should say something about Hale-Bopp connection with the ‘End Time Event’, instead of just focusing on ‘Heaven’s Gate Cult’ alone. The ‘fact’ is, though as ‘bizarre’ as it may seem, many people do connect Hale-Bopp with ‘Noah’ and ‘apocalypticism’. -- The Olive Branch 17:02, 5 July 2007 (UTC) -- The Olive Branch 17:04, 5 July 2007 (UTC) reply

Yeah, just so you know, I was Assistant director of an observatory at the time of Hale-Bopp's passage. Our mission was entirely public education. I was very well-versed on everything related to the comet, including all the oddball theories already mentioned. We conducted scores of programs for tens of thousands of guests. I read all the newsgroups, web sites, and astronomy magazines of the time. This "Noah" stuff is totally new to me. And nobody that I know in the astronomical community has ever heard of it either. To me it seems to be just a random bit of obscure weirdness. I don't think it merits inclusion for that reason. (as per Wikipedia policy on not being an exhaustive source).