User talk:Lucia Black

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

• Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
  • If I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
• Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
  • Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
• To initiate a new conversation on this page, please click on this link.
• You should sign your comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~).

hello

Hello Lucia forgives the bother but I am new in wikipedia I want to ask him as I can join the WikiProject Anime and manga Greetings --RLR123 (talk) 18:44, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You dont need to ask to Join, its open to everyone. You can identify yourself as a member by pasting this {{User WP Anime}} onto your user page.Lucia Black (talk) 18:51, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Your removal at Ghost in the Shell

Please do not revert productive and constructive edits as you did at Ghost in the Shell, I am in the process of updating it, and if you must take issue with the content itself please discuss it on the talk page. This page is for the media franchise, not the manga. They are different subjects and are to be treated as such. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:32, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I put back the manga page... I was wondering why it was absent... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:37, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Lucia Black. You have new messages at ChrisGualtieri's talk page.
Message added 20:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Again. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 21:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not need notifications.Lucia Black (talk) 21:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Ghost in the Shell

Hello, I undid you revert of ChrisGualitieri for the under construction tag removal. If a user wants to identify that they have the intentions to improve an article, it a best to assume faith and leave the tag present. Now secondly I advised Chris on the actions to take upon moving the nominator from on hold to failed as the article is not near a good quality for that status. Thirdly your opening of a RfC was inappropriate and the first cause of action should have been an actual discussion with Chris or getting a third party to review. John F. Lewis (talk) 23:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

January 2013

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Ghost in the Shell/GA1, you may be blocked from editing. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:25, 4 January 2013 (UTC) - Removed, it appears accidental on second view. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:30, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

The discussion was posted in the talkage of the main article, not GAN. I was merely going to move it there. I will not be blocked for a misunderstanding.Lucia Black (talk) 23:27, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

You removed my post, it was proper there. You should not remove other people's posts. Oh and it was at the GA the whole time. So I don't know why you are moving it anyways.ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:30, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

The diff here shows it. You removed my comment from the review page.[1]ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:36, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

This matter is starting to get out of hand. Chris has the intention to work on the article, no consensus is needed nor is a specific number of editors. Please leave the tag in place until Chris as finished as it serves as a source of information to other editors. John F. Lewis (talk) 00:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Lucia Black. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga.
Message added 01:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Narutolovehinata5 ^tccsdnew 01:20, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

FLCL merge

Do me a favor and post this to the Anime page, I can't believe this merge proposal has sat on an FL for this long. Your reasoning is right, so it won't be canvassing to discuss this at the relevant wikiproject. I can't close it as no consensus, but I just made a case for what should be done instead. That banner is an eyesore to me... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 06:33, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested

The Mediation Committee has received a request for formal mediation of the dispute relating to "Ghost in the Shell". As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. Mediation is a voluntary process which resolves a dispute over article content by facilitation, consensus-building, and compromise among the involved editors. After reviewing the request page, the formal mediation policy, and the guide to formal mediation, please indicate in the "party agreement" section whether you agree to participate. Because requests must be responded to by the Mediation Committee within seven days, please respond to the request by 14 January 2013.

Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page. Thank you.
Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 21:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Universe continuity

Alright, seriously, explain YOUR version of the continuity because it is completely different from mine then. The manga has the SAC cast in it, it also takes place before SAC and while much can be said of artistic interpretation the canon material from the manga to the SAC flows pretty easily. Even more so that Motoko's behavior and abilities compliment her 'marriage' and merge with the 2501. It actually put Oshii-san's interpretation with the movie out by focusing on the case, and the rest has members of the Section 9 featured. And Section 9 disbanded in 2029 after Motoko's little stunt in the manga, but the rest is as your know. How about explaining your deal with it, because you deny all day, but you don't support anything. SAC is based on the manga after all. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

To put it simply: Manga=Fuchikomas, SAC= Tachikomas, Film series= No fuchikoma nor Tachikoma.

But to be more complex:, SAC series has an established timeline, just because each episode is different plot, doesnt mean its not linear. The established timeline for SAC is 1st=2030, 2nd season=2032, TV-film=2034. Within that timeframe Motoko Kusagani leaves section9 in 2032 and returns in the TV film but not completely. In which the manga she left in 2030 and she merged with the Puppeteer (making it obvious that the manga and the SAC series are not one in the same because by 2030, Motoko wouldnt be in the series). The interpretations differ even further: Characters such as Yano, and Azuma, they appear alonside eachother as rookies in SAC 2nd Gig but the manga shows Yano in the first manga and died before they even showed him alive, and Azuma appears almost as Motoko's replacement in Ghost in the Shell 1.5 manga.

Mamoru Oshii's condensed the series not only on the case but the timeline. In the manga, each chapter has a date and the events of "Robot Rondo" (and you can tell by the date in the chapter being 2029 and the Puppeteer merger in 2030) happened before the merge of Kusanagi and the Puppeteer, however that story happened after the merge in the film sequal: Ghost in the Shell 2: Innocence and adds further differentiations with Motoko/puppeteer together. Plus fuchikoma dont exist in the film series.

I can go on about every single difference but these are the ones that make it obvious.

I'm sensing a lot of Oshii issues, that's exactly what I point out. Though SAC is also based on it, but the universe is still basically the same.. and Yano's death is a good difference, but its not really that major when you compare it to Gundam. If you want to go with the whole timeline style spin, then why not, but SAC itself could be split up as well if you wanted to be all super precise, multiple authors and such. It is still, by all accounts, the same 'universe' when compared to others. Even Tengen did an alt ending, Evangelion manga and anime and movies... need I say more? Those are all the same Universe. Different tellings, but really, if you want to split hairs I guess you can split hairs. Neon Genesis Evangelion is also the media franchise. So its not helping your argument about media franchises, (we can say that it stays by this point, right?), but for the point of wording... I'll let you word it as you wish. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Alternate endings are different from alternate storylines. What I'm saying whatever is introduced in SAC stays in SAC, for example: World War III and IV. That was only in Stand Alone Complex. look at character articles of NGE, they each separate the continuities because each one is different. Neon Genesis Evangelion is a poor article that needs an overhaul. SAC is based on Ghost in the shell manga, and the same for the films but not in the sense that the story. Tenchi muyo is also a poor article and deserves an overhaul aswell. Ghost in the Shell is different in the sense each series has its own article.Lucia Black (talk) 04:18, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Activeanime discussion

FYI, I have opened up a discussion regarding the use of ActiveAnime as a reliable source at WT:ANIME#Is ActiveAnime considered a reliable source?. Also, just so you are aware, there's an RfC on Niemti here. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 19:00, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

WikiWomen's Collaborative: Come join us (and check out our new website)!

WikiWomen - We need you!

Hi Lucia Black! The WikiWomen's Collaborative is a group of women from around the world who edit Wikipedia, contribute to its sister projects, and support the mission of free knowledge. We recently updated our website, created new volunteer positions, and more! Get involved by: Visiting our website for resources, events, and more Meet other women and share your story in our profile space Participate at and "like" our Facebook group Join the conversation on our Twitter feed Reading and writing for our blog channel Volunteer to write for our blog, recruit blog writers, translate content, and co-run our Facebook and receive perks for volunteering Already participating? Take our survey and share your experience! Thanks for editing Wikipedia, and we look forward to you being a part of the Collaborative! -- EdwardsBot (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Adventure Time

I just resurrected the articles for Finn and Jake. Any chance that you would like to help me make them into proper articles like I did with Marceline? It does seem weird only having a character article for her. Anyway, the articles are really just stubs right now, but that could soon change.--Gen. Quon (Talk) 06:25, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected

The request for formal mediation concerning Ghost in the Shell, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. To read an explanation by the Mediation Committee for the rejection of this request, see the mediation request page, which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time. Please direct questions relating to this request to the Chairman of the Committee, or to the mailing list. For more information on forms of dispute resolution, other than formal mediation, that are available, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [•] 21:39, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

It might take a while to get good replies

But I did post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Editor Retention. Best wishes to you. If you have specific questions you could ask me at my talk page. Biosthmors (talk) 22:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm dealing with a discussion now where I think reason isn't being applied well! So I know how you feel. Biosthmors (talk) 22:24, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh ok thanks. What gets me the most is i habe potential to make GA-class articles but i have to constantly drop personal projects.Lucia Black (talk) 22:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

So you think the bar is too high? Biosthmors (talk) 22:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

The issues just never get enough attention is what im saying.Lucia Black (talk) 00:16, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

We are definitely a work in progress! So there's always something not getting enough attention... I'm trying to do my best to further us along, while I can. =) I'm sorry if it's gotten to the point where things are unenjoyable. It's your choice to quit, take an extended break, or whatever you want to do. I don't know much about the content area you work in, or anything specific that's been troubling you. Do you care to share more details? Biosthmors (talk) 01:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Its clear that it could get enough attention but it doesnt. Im working on Ghost in the Shell. I posted the issue at WP:ANIME. It needs review on those who are an expert on the subject:Ghost in the Shell. The massive changes were due to a fan claiming to be an expert but suddenly proved nothing as claiming to have hundred of sources but provided none, splitting the original media away from the main article and disappeared after he got what he wanted, which was to merge all media (regardless if its secondary media) onto the main article making it overly redundant and somewhat closer to WP:SYNTHESIS.

The problem is in WP:ANIME is that there is a simple vote count and they dont attemptnto reason or discuss and i take it personally because i KNOW their actice and other discussions get an instant view. Making my work even harder.Lucia Black (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Your recent changes to Ghost in the Shell appear to have been accepted so far! I'm guessing WP:SPLIT might be the issue of most contention, at this point? Biosthmors (talk) 20:34, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Until the same editor claiming to be well experienced returns. Thats the problem, i can easily rearrange this to the way i want but i wantmy contributions to stick. If i do any more editing that goes further into my goal, then itlk be considered WP:POINT.Lucia Black (talk) 21:44, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Tables

In this article yu-gi-oh I made a table and it seems that you have deleted it. Is there a reason why can't it be there? --Oskars Čaikovskis (talk) 23:13, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

You mean the 3 separate ones? --Oskars Čaikovskis (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

It's not a big deal, but when you go on wikipedia, almost every page about a franchise has a table like that. Why is this an exception? --Oskars Čaikovskis (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Your post

I read your post on the Anime project's page, and I'm sorry that you don't feel welcomed. It sounds like you're feeling very frustrated right now. I hope you feel better. Rapunzel-bellflower (talk) 19:48, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

You also have my deepest sympathies, Lucia. I hope you feel better. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. It really means alot to me. For now, im just going to focus on other articles and see how it goes.Lucia Black (talk) 06:41, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I guess that's fair enough. Best wishes, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:45, 11 March 2013 (UTC)

Re: Award for you

You have my thanks. I will continue the good work, and I hope we can work together on many other pages. --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Youre welcome. And yeah sounds good.Lucia Black (talk) 20:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

FYI

Hello. Just so you are aware, I've started an RfC subpage on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Niemti at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Niemti/Additional Evidence. If you have the time, can you provide some evidence there? Thanks, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 15:34, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Motion to close RFC/U

You have previously commented on Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Niemti.

As an outside editor, I have moved that this RFC/U be closed. If you wish to comment on the Motion to close, please do so here. Fladrif (talk) 14:42, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Warning

No consensus was reached. An agreement between only two people is not a consensus. If you have issue with my edits than start a discussion on it rather than blindly reverting them. Consider this a warning before I report you for inappropriate behaviour. This is not the first time I've witnessd you stubbornly reverting on this page. --G-Zay (talk) 20:38, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Re: a different focus

I will take your advice, for the time being. By the way, can you describe more clearly what you would like done with Final Fantasy Dimensions? I know I've done a lot of plot fixes and additions over the past few months (I think), but I can't clearly see what's wrong with this one. Unless it's the fact that it seems to tail off rather abruptly. --ProtoDrake (talk) 07:29, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Looking at it and reading through it, yes. I see what you mean. I will do my best, but portable games aren't really my strong point. to be frank, I'm best with the Fabula Nova Crystallis series. But never mind. I will at least do copy-editing on this article. The grammar is quite bad (and if you were the one who wrote it, no offense meant, it was just a fact from my POV). --ProtoDrake (talk) 07:39, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Calm Down

Would you calm down a bit? I hadn't been on Wikipedia since I reverted you, so I hadn't even realized there was a discussion. (Come on, what was it, like 10 hours ago only?) Furthermore, I left a pretty clear edit summary, so its not like I didn't discuss at all either. Now, I'll respond on the Sonic series template talk page, but yikes, tone it down some... Sergecross73 msg me 10:42, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

So, don't worry, I have no intention of continuing our discussion other than notifying you that I am an admin, since the things you were saying before sounded like you thought I wasn't. That's all. Sergecross73 msg me 23:56, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Izno and GITS template

Would you please make a statement on the formatting on the template to Izno? He believes that because you edited the template in the form that he preferred that it is your opinion that you also prefer that form because you did not revert the edit that he made (he took the SAC episode list link out of the parentheses).—Ryulong (琉竜) 02:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to you let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You do not need to participate however, you are invited to help find a resolution. The thread is "Ghost in the Shell, Talk:Ghost in the Shell". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! EarwigBot ^{operator / talk} 15:26, 19 April 2013 (UTC)

Notification

Hi, Lucia. I know you are understandably upset over the Wikipedia-related situation with the GITS article and issues with other users. I am so sorry if I have caused you or any other users any trouble, and I know you don't want to be blocked for this matter, so please don't get stressed out when dealing with difficult users. Per our no personal attack policy. "Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all." Also, per this policy, "serious accusations require serious evidence". Also, please note that when someone has asked you not to post on their talk page, you really shouldn't unless you have to. Continuing to post on others talk page after being asked not to violates the Wikipedia policy of harassment, see WP:HUSH. If you have concerns about a user's behavior, take it up to a noticeboard like WP:ANI or WP:AN and provide your evidence (i.e. diffs) there, or discuss things constructively (but do watch out for the WP:BOOMERANG effect). If you want to let off some steam, please take a step back from the computer and come back when you feel refreshed. Also, remain civil in discussion. Discuss changes on the talk page if one reverts you. Otherwise, you will end up being blocked for edit warring and worst of all, you don't want to be violating WP:3RR. Since Wikipedia works by consensus, discussion is necessary between other users and consensus can change. Just calm down. Okay? Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 00:00, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Hey Lucia, noticed people are being troublesome. I have had many contentious arguments with other users over the years, and Sjones is right, we need to keep cool. Also, if users are bothering you, remember they are usually bothering other people too, and a point will come where they have annoyed too many people to ignore and will be dealt with. You don't have to shoulder the burden of getting ride of them, or fixing their mistakes alone. I bide my time, and am usually able to fix mistakes others make, but it takes some time and some laying low. I need you here also to help with Wikiproject Square Enix, so out of the boxing ring with you! :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:36, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Final Fantasy Adventure

I put it up at GA nomination. We should add the Nintendo Power stuff, and can we cut the Japanese links we used from the talk page to do? I don't know which ones were used, my Japanese is rusty! And finally, I have a link to a 1993 famitsu scan, and the author says its a top ten best gameboy games list with FFA listed in it, do you know Japanese? Does it say that? If we could site famitsu, we will be golden for GA. Here's the link. FamitsuJudgesurreal777 (talk) 01:24, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

No I don't know japanese. I recognize the characters, find them in the katakana or hiragana article and manually find the characters to put in google translate. I usually ask for help if its a video page for translations because it provides no letters. I'm unsure, but if a blogsite provides actual magazine, I doubt their lying. I see the purple sectioning mention both 5 and GBA. So I could look them up but I don't think its an innacurate translation. Both blog seems consistent on the top 5 GBA games.Lucia Black (talk) 01:33, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you could just give it a cursory check, I don't want to be wrong about this :) Judgesurreal777 (talk) 01:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Ok. Ill get back to you ASAP.Lucia Black (talk) 02:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Farewell

I am sending this message to the users who I have closely collaborated with. I will be taking a temporary Wikibreak for at least 5-7 days to let off some steam and get myself reenergized. Some of the stress has got to me, so I think it's best if I should take a couple of days off. I also have final exams coming up as well, so I have more important things to worry about. I, however, will be here to contribute to some articles that I have worked on. Until then, farewell. With my very best and warmest regards, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Anime and manga Project

Would you consider coming back to help out? It has almost been two months now and I feel that your input has been useful on the articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

I've been mainly discussing to reech consensus and non controversial edits but nowhere near full expansion just to test the waters. What do you need help with?Lucia Black (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Lucia Black. You have new messages at Oda Mari's talk page.
Message added 07:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Oda Mari (talk) 07:31, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

SAC

What are your thoughts on merging Ghost in the Shell: S.A.C. 2nd GIG to Ghost in the Shell: Stand Alone Complex and then just having the 2nd GIG episode list at the 2nd GIG article?—Ryulong (琉竜) 05:56, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

The main SAC article is really packed. I doubt we can merge them both together considering that their length and how distinct the plots and reception.Lucia Black (talk) 06:03, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

It doesn't seem there's that much on the 2nd GIG page though.—Ryulong (琉竜) 17:13, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm all for the merge if we don't have to cut info and the article won't be so heavy. But right now I can't imagine a good cosise article without cutting a lot of info. That would have to relate to the plot, and then related media. Ill support the merge, but only because the S.A.C. 2nd Gig isn't the most grounded articles of Gits. But if more info can be found for 2nd Gig, then we can attempt to split (with consensus of course).Lucia Black (talk) 19:31, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Cease your merging efforts for now, the matter is at DRN and I treat all topics, broadly, under GITS to be related. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:55, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Did I ask for your opinion?—Ryulong (琉竜) 23:07, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

You treat them too broadly. And I have no plans to merge anything.Lucia Black (talk) 21:11, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

"THE GHOST IN THE SHELL" is the Japanese subtitle for part 1.—Ryulong (琉竜) 15:48, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Your only proof is cover art. The cover also has masamune shirow in english and Japanese, should we say masamune was considered as "Masamune Shirow 士郎 正宗"? Here's an example, Eureka Seven in Japan has its english title as "Psalm of Planets: Eureka seveN" despite the kanji being read differently. Detective Conan is also one. Same thing for Sailor Moon. Its not known as "Pretty Gaurdian 美少女戦士セーラー ムーン" and Fullmetal Alchemist in japan isn't known as " 美少女戦士セーラー ムーン Fullmetal Alchemist" (except for FMA:Brotherhood but that's sourced).Lucia Black (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

It's also all these results in Google, the Japanese Wikipedia entry, every cover for part 1. It's not the translation of "Kokaku Kidotai" and it's not harming anything by leaving it in the damn article. You are being as bad as Chris right now.—Ryulong (琉竜) 16:25, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Of course its not the translation, but its the english intended title, not part of the Japanese one. Japanese wiki isn't a reliable source. And the harm is innacuracy. You only have cover art.Lucia Black (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

As bad as me? I see how it is. Considering neither of you seem to be able to read Kanji and clearly do not understand the multiple readings, why do you continue on? ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry but there's no way in hell that 攻殻機動隊 literally translates as "The Ghost in the Shell". And Lucia, if both the Japanese and English forms are given in regards to the Japanese release (note that 2 and 1.5 only have "MANMACHINE INTERFACE" and "HUMAN-ERROR PROCESSER" on their covers and not "THE GHOST IN THE SHELL" it stands to reason that the subtitle of the first volume is "THE GHOST IN THE SHELL".—Ryulong (琉竜) 19:28, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I didn't say that; check with your dictionary on the multiple meanings and interpretations, its clever ain't it? I won't tell you what they specifically mean, because the only way you'll find out is by learning for yourself. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 19:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Look, I'm not going to determine what the kanji says (some sources state Kokaku can also be translated as "Ghost Shell" but I'm not going to verify that). And that's not really the issue Chris. What is the issue is what is considered part of the Japanese title. Just because its on the cover doesn't mean its part of the Japanese title. And sometimes japanese sites add the intended english title but its not officially part of the Japanese one. I have not found a single first party/second party source mentioning "The Ghost in the Shell" as part of the Japanese. these things have to be verified thoroughly. Many Japanese covers use english titles intended for english release, example: Detective Conan/Case closed situation.

These things have to be verified. Here's an example: Kodansha nor any retail site has it with "the Ghost in the Shell". The "cover" doesn't prove anything.Lucia Black (talk) 20:27, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

I swear... even when I agree with you, you still argue with me. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

What????? I'm not even saying anything against you.Lucia Black (talk) 20:44, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

A friendly warning to you about Versus XIII

I just thought you aught to know, Final Fantasy Versus XIII is under threat. It's one of the user IP numbers that seems to be G-Zay. This one is 92.18.158.199: he/she put in a whole lot of unnecessary info about Versus XIII in there. Sound familiar? I've reverted it, and done a little extra editing alongside that, but I thought you aught to know. --ProtoDrake (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll look into it.Lucia Black (talk) 08:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

GITS

A focused and clean discussion of the future of the article is underway, because you made comments on Ghost in the Shell I am notifying you for your input in the debate. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:54, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

A beer for you!

Differences aside, we need to work together! Here's to cooperation in the future. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 05:23, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I will remember this.Lucia Black (talk) 05:26, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:49, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Look under: User:ChrisGualtieri

Disambiguation link notification for May 11

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Appleseed (manga), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ONA (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Versus: What's going on here now?

I don't want to appear critical or hostile, but why did you delete that whole raft of referenced material that had been cut down to the bone by a user who only wants to help? On top of that, you did not seem to see that someone had put in stuff about VGleaks and used fansite Nova Crystallis as a reference again (not a G-Zay puppet, I checked). Orphaned refs have needed to be salvaged and it looks more like something that has had a hatchet taken to it in a wild rage than anything carefully thought out. You didn't even give your reason. I'm not siding with anything G-Zay did in saying this, but your actions do not seem to add up to me. So...why? --ProtoDrake (talk) 20:13, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Okay, that was me being churlish. Sorry if I'm sounding offensive. Just was a bit of a shock. I guess you must have had your reasons and it's not really for me to inquire in the tone I used. --ProtoDrake (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

I took a nap. Sorry abiut tht. Didnt see the orphaned refs. Anyways. Sorry if it was too much of a nuesance.

Harassment

Read WP:HARRASS. I am notifying you that your reversion of my removal of your off-topic comments on my talk page is harassment and I will not tolerate it. Talk pages are quite suitable for discussing editor behaviour, but not for debating issues that properly belong on the talk page of the relevant article or template. Keep your unwanted and irrelevant comments off my talk page in future. --RexxS (talk) 01:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Why do you have these.odd ideas of wikipedia. Stop calling people troll and keep.your personal ideas to yourself. I informed you for a misunderstanding. Dont bother.Lucia Black (talk) 02:49, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

In this edit to Template talk:Track listing, you altered the meaning of my talk page comment. There is a clear injunction at WP:TPO "Never edit or move someone's comment to change its meaning, even on your own talk page." I now request that you revert yourself immediately, or I shall seek to have you topic-banned from that page for disruptive editing. --RexxS (talk) 07:08, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

its a typo. Caused by smartphones, i recently upgraded and it messes with what im typing. Calm down. Stop assuming others are trolls (especialy when youre arguing over subjective personal preferences over necesities).Lucia Black (talk) 09:53, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Final Fantasy Dimensions Battle.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Final Fantasy Dimensions Battle.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Before Crisis gameplay.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Before Crisis gameplay.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:49, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Final Fantasy Adventure Screenshot.png

Thank you for uploading File:Final Fantasy Adventure Screenshot.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Disputed non-free use rationale for File:Appleseed1-cover.jpg

Thank you for uploading File:Appleseed1-cover.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this file on Wikipedia may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the file description page and adding or clarifying the reason why the file qualifies under this policy. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Non-free use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your file is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a non-free use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for files used under the non-free content policy require both a copyright tag and a non-free use rationale.

If it is determined that the file does not qualify under the non-free content policy, it might be deleted by an administrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:50, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

ANI

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

May 2013

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. You haven't said the nicest things to User:ChrisGualtieri. You claim he attacked you, well prove it! He provided several examples, you didn't. Please don't attack. Thanks. WorldTraveller101^{(Trouble?/My Work)} 20:02, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Yip sock

I've removed the sock template from this page. Was confirmed as WP:LTA Jonathan Yip who has a repeated problem of actual trolling. The bad English, the claims, Lucia - like others before her - was targeted unfairly for the sake of drama. While I may be involved in a etc.)it of a dispute with Lucia, she is clearly not a troll and would not stoop to blatant meatpuppetry or sockpuppeteering. Please do not reinsert the template; because this little 'episode' only serves to feed JY. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 03:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You have been blocked temporarily from editing for persistent disruptive editing. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you think there are good reasons why you should be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first.  Drmies (talk) 05:32, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

• It should have been clear to you that aspects of your editing are deemed disruptive; this is just another example: you blatantly change the meaning of someone else's comment, and you can't do that. Drmies (talk) 05:34, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lucia Black (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Just because Chris gualtieri wont accept that smartphone issues causes accidental autocorrect, doesnt mean it warrants a block. editing is incredibly difficult when it comes to smartphone, especially with multiple tags. Often time the cursor would jump at a random spot in the talkpage and have to rewrite everything because I just realized my comment is being written in the middle of someone elses. Another issue is that sometimes autocorrect wont function and I have to move my cursor back to the typo and then move it back to where I left off. And trust me just making this comment is a hassle. Thats why half the time I dont even bother with manually correcting typos. Also, that one sentence, is incredibly minor, anyone with common sense would see it as an accident. Theres no need for blocking. Just tell me the issue and I can fix it. I didnt fix the last one because RexxS warned me, I fixed it because it was an accidental error. Lets stop getting trigger happy just because some of you dont like me.Lucia Black (talk) 07:23, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

Suggesting that you were blocked because "some of you dont like me" is pretty much the opposite of how the guideline for appealing blocks suggest you should handle an unblock request. In addition, if you are aware that editing with your Smartphone causes disruption, is difficult to control, and creates confusion for other editors, why would you continue to do so? You need to take responsibility for your edits, and that includes the technology you use to make your edits. Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 17:55, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lucia Black (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

The occurance is Rare. And I believe this goes against the blocking process as its obvious it could have been avoided. The disruption is incredibly minor, rare, and reversable, and accidental. Its not constant, its not intentional, and could have been avoided altogether. ChrisGualtieri knowing full well he could have simply told me I edited his comment, couldve avoided this. Taking responsibility for my edits doesnt mean blocking. I do take responsibility for mine, I fix the accident in the first place. The claims of "persistent" disruptive editing is false. And the disruption is minor too to even call it "disruptive editing".Lucia Black (talk) 20:41, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

It's a short block, only 48 hours, and to be fair given the intemperate behaviour demonstrated below, I think it would be enormously unwise to unblock you. Please, for your own sake, take a deep breath, relax and just sit out the 48 hour block, come back in a positive frame of mind ready to collaborate productively with everybody else. Nick (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Lucia Black (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

My very last unblock request. I find it injustice, that the declining for unblock isnt actually based on the actual block. Im asking for a completely unbiased, strictly on the situation review to determine unblocking. I removed a whole discussion merely because it fuels anger. This is my last unblock request. I understand the situation, however this block was incredibly premature and wrong. The issue is not persistent whatsoever and based solely on one edit. The system to block was ignored in this situation.Lucia Black (talk) 00:09, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

Decline reason:

No, this is not a block for a single incident, the incident is merely the last straw after all the issues raised at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive798#User:Lucia Black and previously. I have no previous involvement with any of this, but reading over the history it is clear to me that you have an attitude problem which is making it unnecessarily difficult for people to work with you. During the remaining hours of your block, please read WP:BATTLE, WP:AGF and WP:NPA, and think seriously about them. If you can follow the advice to "comment on content, not on the contributor", you will get on much better; if not, I am afraid you may find yourself facing longer blocks. JohnCD (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Actually its not. The issue of WP:BATTLE, WP:AGF, and WP:NPA are not relevant. That ANI is purely based on the fact that I compromised another editors way to being an Admin, and I can prove it. For one, the "personal attacks" was when the "accuser" was involved. Despite most of the issues being of the accuser. The other factors were completely off with personal attacks. Comenting on "content, not on editors" is impossible for ANI. ANI is meant to discuss the editor. Assuming good faith doesnt always work. Theres history here. Even the sockpuppet (despite the fact that it was a sock, this sock had no involvement whatsoever with me, it proves that this editor who is accusing me is the same editor poisoning the discussion and falsely accusing of personal attack and forgets this editor has the exact same issues. The only thing thats different is that Im having difficulty for actually proving it with links and the not so occasional accidental edit. The only thing that ANI proves is an editor having their last straw with me, not that this edit was the last straw of disruptive "persistent" edits and deserved Immediate blocking. The warning was received by RexxS, but again, if one is to assume good faith, dont you think editing another persons edit should be leave an editor to assume good faith by thinking it was an accident, especially if it has already been addressed with difficulty?

Drmies even addressed that there was little to no action, but changed when I dismissed the ANI. Now the block was imediate without AGF.

This being the last straw isnt that good. The blocking has to be done when it cant be avoided. Which is why ive requested unblocking 3 times. The first rejected by irrelevant matters while the second based on my anger which ironically fueled by this wrongfully block.

Ive reported the accuser 3 times, but uts a matter of which admin actually wants to keep tabs. And this is a sloppy way of keeping tabs because what you state is "the last straw" is incredibly minor and fixable. It was very rushed, and doesnt even give one to explain. This unblock request is completely on principle.Lucia Black (talk) 04:29, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Impersonator

Hey, Lucia, I just wanted to give you a heads up: earlier, the impostor User:Lucia Block started an ANI thread in your name. Not to worry, I've closed the thread and blocked the impostor. Cheers! Writ Keeper ⚇♔ 18:21, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The impostor had me confused. — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 16:03, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Im sorry if I made you mad, only trying to make both sides happy.

PrabashWhat? 00:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Grrrr....just STOP! youre not going to make both sides happy. Because the only way to make one side happy is to make the other recognize their faults and apologize for them. I hate that editor, and I hate that editor with a passion. I see that editors name on my talkpage and I see red.Lucia Black (talk) 00:38, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Lucia Black. You have new messages at WorldTraveller101's talk page.
Message added 01:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

WorldTraveller101^BreaksFixes 01:49, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

A bowl of strawberries for you!

Take these strawberries and have a wikibreak for a week or so, I can see you are getting involved in all of these things, I would just wait for the fuss to die down and then come back to edit. (WP:BREAK) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:02, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

ANI Notice

Hello. There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. WorldTraveller101^BreaksFixes 02:08, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

A cookie for you!

The way things happened was very unfortunate, and I apologize for them on behalf of my adoptee WT101. Could I offer you a cookie in return? TheOriginalSoni (talk) 14:46, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Im on a 2 week wikibreak however. Ill be back soon.Lucia Black (talk) 18:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Good luck with your wikibreak. :) TheOriginalSoni (talk) 21:27, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

Adventure time

Could you add the Quoted information from the to do list on the talk page? I'm not exactly sure how to phrase it's inclusion, and it could be nice to cite a magazine like Famitsu that was from the time. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 23:42, 12 June 2013 (UTC)

ok.Lucia Black (talk) 00:04, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

actually I need the ISSN #, the release date and all that before adding citation. So ill look into that.Lucia Black (talk) 00:11, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

What's the title? I'll grab it for you. I'm bored right now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 00:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

I dont remember, theres only a link to the image at the talkpage. Its from some blog. Famitsu BEST...thats all I got, not even a page number.Lucia Black (talk) 00:36, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

The blog said it was from 1993 I believe, perhaps that helps... Judgesurreal777 (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

You sure it wasn't from 91年4月19日? The title is ドラクエ、FFをブッとばせ！ And this seems to say it is after the table of contents.[2] You'll have to pull it from an archive or something, but I'd bet that would be it. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 02:31, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

No its not that one. This one was called Famitsu Best and featured 4 other gameboy games. The other three were ff legend, I forgot the other.Lucia Black (talk) 05:43, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Okay; I'll do more digging, but I don't have enough knowledge to find an expert in Japanese that probably could post a scan. I'll see what turns up though... ChrisGualtieri (talk) 14:15, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

Hello Lucia!

I'd just like to drop you a note that I am currently reviewing Final Fantasy Dimensions for its GA status. Please give me some time as I am a bit busy now. But I will do it soon :) -- ^(T) Numbermaniac _(C) 08:51, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Ok.Lucia Black (talk) 18:54, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

		Final Fantasy Dimensions is now a Good Article
		Congrats! The article you nominated Final Fantasy Dimensions was just promoted to Good Article status! Great job to all of your hard work! -- (T) Numbermaniac (C) 07:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Hopefully this is a stepping stone for more.Lucia Black (talk) 07:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Discussion threads

I’m aware that you edit and discuss on Wikipedia on your phone. But I’m sure that your phone has the ability to input colon characters. Please indent your Talk page comments per the Talk page guidelines, as it does help readability: it makes it more clear that a comment is a reply, and it shows what it’s replying to. Thank you. —Frungi (talk) 18:23, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, but it takes more time. You know how many edit conflicts have been done because I was trying to be too accurate? Ill try more often, but I will attempt to break the indent every now and then.Lucia Black (talk) 18:29, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Lucia, [3].—Ryulong (琉竜) 01:00, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

DragonBall Z edits

Hi! I deleted the page because we don't keep sandbox copies like that to edit, especially not with reasons such as another user refusing any edits to the page. I would honestly recommend trying to talk to the other user rather than create another page just for you to edit. If the person is claiming complete ownership of the page, then you might want to bring in a third opinion or go to the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents and open up a discussion there. This just wasn't a good way to create the page. I can put a copy in your userspace, (and I've done so at User:Lucia Black/Dragon Ball Z) where you can work on it until there is a consensus on whether or not to create a separate section for DBZ. Creating sandboxes in the mainspace just isn't really a good or viable option for this, especially when the reason is because you say someone else is claiming ownership of the article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• And as Ryulong said, we don't need an alternate copy just because there's an issue between editors. If you can't work with a user, go work it through the administrator incident board and get a third opinion into it. We don't need alternate copies of articles, especially not if the only reason is because there are present issues with a user claiming ownership. That's sort of creating a mainspace copy in bad faith, even if the other person is operating in what looks to be bad faith or is at least acting in a misguided but good faith fashion. (Two wrongs don't make a right as the saying goes.) Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:14, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I beg to differ. And I doubt I can get such an administrative action based on the fact that theres two sandboxes. This wasnt really meant to be the main article. I think WP is stepping their ground a bit when it comes to sandboxes. Even if one claimed it wasnt necessary. Speedy delete shouldnt be an option and I dont think G6 should apply to sandboxes.Lucia Black (talk) 08:19, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

But the thing is, subsections in main articles is greatly GREATLY discouraged. Partially because they've been so depreciated. It's much, much more feasible to create something in the userspace and go from there. The thing about Chris's version is that he created his in his userspace. You created one in the mainspace. There's a big difference there. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:34, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I think theres too much jniversal preference in wikipedia. I dont see the issue, even if they are discouraged, that shouldnt mean their unallowed. Ill be proposing open-sandboxes to be allowed, similar to a page incubator. Having user-based sandboxes is too difficult. Amd how is one get admin action on someones personal page? I dont understand this issue at all....Lucia Black (talk) 08:39, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• If you want to propose them, then feel free. It's just that subpages are greatly discouraged on Wikipedia and lately there's been more of a move to eliminate them in general, so I honestly doubt that you'll get much support as far as sandboxes within the mainspace goes. For the type of thing you're suggesting, they're really not an option at all and are considered to be inappropriate. Part of this is because these types of subpages are often mistaken to be official pages when they're not, even if they have something along the lines of "sandbox" or "test" in the title. Now as far as userspace goes, it's harder to get those deleted. Other than taking something to WP:MfD, the only way to really get something deleted it to either abandon it or make it so promotional that it could be speedied as such. However when you get to the MfD discussions, most times it takes a lot for a person's subpage to be deleted. I won't say it's impossible because it is possible for one to be deleted, but it's pretty darn hard to get a userpage deleted if the person holding it shows a willingness to work on the entry and isn't breaking any rules (promotion, attack page, etc). Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 08:53, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
• What I'm mostly suggesting mediation for is for the discussion on the talk page at the DB article. Right now what I'd recommend is that you use the userspace copy in your userspace to make any edits you might want to make to the article. Work on it for right now. If consensus keeps the previous results (not to have a separate page in the mainspace for DBZ) then just continue to work on the page in your userspace until/if the point comes where the consensus says otherwise. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:02, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

• For the sake of redundancy, that sandbox version has no appropriate history and would need to be merged into the history of the real thing if it ever gets to that. One more thing, and it's related to this: Lucia, Chris has asked you to stay off his talk page, here. You responded nonetheless, here, with a lengthy argument pace your first sentence in that post. I will say that Chris would have done better to just tell you to stay away without belaboring the point, but that they didn't want you on his talk page is clear. You have no option but to respect that; if you don't, I will (or any other admin can) block you for it. As for your comment to him, "Dont bring me up and try to undermind, belittle, or defame me again" (in that last post), giving criticism is not undermining, belittling, or defamation. If you believe that to be the case, to the point of a personal attack, you must bring that up at ANI, for instance. Please stay away from his talk page. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 15:42, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
	In recognition of your excellent work building an article that has been in need of restoration to Good Article status for five years, I hereby award you The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar! Please keep working on and nominating Good Articles! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 19:25, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. Lol, but I hardly consider it random. But I accept. Thank you.Lucia Black (talk) 20:57, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps "Unexpected" is better, I did not expect you to help so much and pick up my slack when I was busy and do all that copyediting. :) It also had a smiley face. Perhaps we can work on 4 warriors of light, or the dimensions character article. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm already working on 4 heroes of light. Ill also be working on dimensions character.Lucia Black (talk) 01:59, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

Catalogue Number

Having the number in the track listing does no harm, it provides further information. You dislike my choice to include it, fair enough. At that point you removed and I reverted. Per etiquette instead of reverting, you should take it to the talk page as what you are describing is a matter of opinion and not supported by a consensus or guideline. Reverting me back is simply inflaming the situation and crap judgement. You should start a discussion and educate others as to why you think it should be removed. — Lil_℧niquℇ №1 ^[talk] 23:31, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Your the first to actually care about catalogue number. Still, the tracklist is meant to be a tracklist, not a universal album info. (Relates to WHY I dont think artist parameter would actually benefit the goals of granularity and microformats). Its best suited in the infobox or not at all. Its too trivial to add especially in the tracklist. your ideology on tracklist is too much of "why not" but the headline is meant to help disambiguate between chapters. This is reason why we look for first edition ISBNs for books and even then kept only in the infobox unless its a list of chapters, and even then its not multiple ISBNs for a single volume within the listLucia Black (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Not what it seems

That last obnoxious user that left you a message was not who you probably thought it was. It was an impersonation account. It wasn't Andy. I've indef blocked them. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 23:06, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

I know. I put my talkpage in my watchlist to see If this editor continues to impersonate other editors that I have conflict with. Lucia Black (talk) 05:53, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Feel free to ping me if another drops by. Dennis Brown | 2¢ | WER 10:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Anime Episode list style

Hi, I was hoping to have your opinion for List of Persona 4: The Animation episodes. At first, I didn't care since it wasn't doing harm, but now there is Devil Survivor 2: The Animation and soon Danganronpa: The Animation to follow. There is something wrong with the Persona 4 list and multiple users have bought it up and been shot down. Before I bring this up to the anime wikiproject, I want to see your opinion if there is some sound argument to bring up on why that format shouldn't be used. Thanks for the time. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 09:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Other than the fact that the episode summaries are too long, the list somehow divides into sections which seems unnecessary, but I guess its to compensate for the long summary. The opening paragraph could possibly be summarized and better worded. Too much use of the word "unique". I dont see any discussion about it in the talkpage tho other than the summaries being too long. Ill make a new discussion, there if you like.Lucia Black (talk) 15:54, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. The discussion at at Persona 4. Currently, there isn't a strong enough argument for me to bring this up, so I'll let this drop. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 21:12, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I brought it up in the list talk page. If more editors get involved, opinions and reason become stronger. Only 1 editor is in the pattern of the dispute seems to occur yearly.Lucia Black (talk) 21:37, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hang on a second, I wrote Devil Survivor 2: The Animation with Danganronpa: The Animation soon to follow. The reason for this was that I followed the "trend" in the Persona 4: The Animation article, since there wasn't a lot of information on DS2's production available. I had hoped to turn Devil Survivor into a List class article but again, because of P4A and not wanting to create yet another article, this happened. Can you please explain the problem (besides the long summaries which I'll be getting too) so fixes can be made immediately before it repeats in Danganronpa? <KirtZJ>^Talk 21:50, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

I think the issue is mainly the plot summaries. Unsure if the table of content is necessary, small but relevant issues I believe.Lucia Black (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello again Kirtz. The issue here is that they should be episode lists instead of anime franchise articles, so it should be list of ... episodes. I'll use Devil Survivor 2: The Animation as an example which doesn't exemplify accessibility and structure Wikipedia should have. I would've discussed this with you but as far as I know, it isn't against policies since it complies with work in progress. DragonZero (Talk · Contribs) 22:10, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Then we merge them back to the main article until the need to split is more apparent. Unless you mean we make list of X episodes only, which would be an incredibly doffocult thing to propose. The list is part of the anime series. Its hard to cover it as a stand alone list.Lucia Black (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Alright lets see what we've got, the main problem here is the way the articles mainly Persona 4: The Animation, Devil Survivor 2: The Animation and Danganronpa: The Animation are structured, in that they should have been List-Class rather than franchises from the beginning right? Since Danganronpa: The Animation is in it's infancy a simply restructuring should suffice as well as a naming Move since there isnt much information in the article at present. One other thing, should the information in the infoboxes be moved to the parent articles, for instance Devil Survivor 2: The Animation's infobox --> Shin Megami Tensei: Devil Survivor 2's infobox? The reason for this is that I feel that I should take responsibility for at least the two articles I created rather than having others work out the error in my judgment of again using the P4TA's structure. <KirtZJ>^Talk 22:44, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk back at DYK

Hello, Lucia Black. You have new messages at Template:Did you know nominations/The Legend of Zelda: Hyrule Historia.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Repeated talkback. CaseyPenk (talk) 01:31, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

WP Square Enix in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Square Enix for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 01:35, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days

Hello, I just wanted to introduce myself and let you know I am glad to be reviewing the article Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by GA bot, on behalf of Sjones23 -- Sjones23 (talk) 03:17, 22 July 2013 (UTC)

Talk:List of Ghost in the Shell chapters#Rework

Lucia he's doing it again.—Ryulong (琉竜) 20:59, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!

I am glad that my work is noticed, and remember yours is too! I check your work on occasion, along with others in case they need help or are up to cool stuff. What can I say, I'm a social guy :) Can't wait for our next start to C drive once the GA's are done! Judgesurreal777 (talk) 00:46, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help find a resolution. The discussion is about the topic Ghost in the Shell, List of Ghost in the Shell chapters. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! — TransporterMan (TALK) 14:10, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

2nd GIG

We should really merge this with the first season's page. The article is short and it's just a second season.—Ryulong (琉竜) 12:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem is summarizing the plot even more.Lucia Black (talk) 01:28, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Wikibreak

I am sorry to hear about your family-related issues. You have been a valuable contributor and you are understandably upset about how things are going. Let me be clear: if you get involved with unsavory editors, bullies or sockpuppets of banned users, I would advise that it is best to remain polite and just ignore them as they can be very stressful. Remember, you cannot say that you are bullied if you do not feel bullied and they would not dare talk to you like that if you were face to face; also, Wikipedia is just a website. I can't emphasize that enough. Also, you may want to try other venues of WP:DR rather than cause too much drama at ANI and provide inconclusive evidence. During my time here, I've blown up at users before, apologized and tried my best not to do things like that again. As a user pointed out to me, being involved in a civility dispute is a "soul sucking thing." I almost had that once but I have moved on from that. I hope your Wikibreak goes well and I will await your return. Regards, Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 20:10, 31 July 2013 (UTC)

Topic and interaction ban

Per the result of this ANI discussion, the community has imposed a topic ban on your editing; you are topic-banned from editing at AN/I or on articles related to WikiProject Anime, broadly construed, for a period of three months. In addition, you are interaction-banned from interactions with User:ChrisGualtieri for the same time period. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:53, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

ANI

This is to notify you about this thread on ANI in which you have been mentioned. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:54, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Topic ban

You are topic banned from anime and manga broadly construed. This means you may not participate or start (unless given leave by the community or higher authority) talk page discussions regarding the articles you are topic banned from. Please do not post on my talk page again regarding this. Topic banning means you must stay away from the topic completely for 3 months. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:54, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

that doesn't change the fact that there is a dispute being solved in DRN. A dispute "before" topic ban. I can't ignore disrptionLucia Black (talk) 00:56, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Actually, yes, you can - and you will, unless you want to violate your topic ban. The fact the dispute began before the ban doesn't matter, you are still topic-banned from that topic, and there are no exceptions. Now, if you want there to be an exception to participate in this one matter until it is resolved, you'd have to request an exemption at WP:AN - but until and unless such an exemption is agreed, you need to avoid touching all articles and discussion about articles in this subject matter, including this DRN, with the proverbial ten foot pole, and that includes attempting to recruit other editors to proxy-edit on your behalf. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Drakengard, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Nier (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:11, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Topic Ban Violation

Lucia, just a word of warning but your recent edits to Template:Avatar: The Last Airbender are in violation of your topic ban. Remember you are completely banned from topic of Anime and Manga for 3 months. This is a friendly warning that you could be blocked if you continue to violate your ban. Canterbury Tail talk 14:10, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Talk:Kingdom Hearts 358/2 Days/GA1

Lucia, I was wondering what you wanted to do about this review. The original reviewer, SJones23, is blocked from editing anything but his talk page, and has been so since August 17. (It's a voluntary block, but he can't review anything.) The post from a supposed volunteer reviewer on August 6 was the last edit made by that person except for a very short single edit elsewhere on August 19.

We can either put it back in the reviewing pool—it has clearly been abandoned—or request a new reviewer to take over from the current one on the GAN talk page. Please let me know your preference, or you can post on WT:GAN yourself. Best of luck! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I think the former sounds good.Lucia Black (talk) 20:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I've just put it back into the reviewing pool, as you requested. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:40, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Blocked

Lucia, I hate that it's come to this, but your constant pecking around the edges and stepping over the line of your sanctions has left me no choice, especially after this which is blatant on both the topic and interaction bans - just because you don't say certain words doesn't mean the content as a whole isn't a violation. You've been blocked for 48 hours as a result, when you are unblocked please stick to the letter and the spirit of your sanctions so that when they expire you can resume productive editing in these topic areas - and please read WP:OWN as well, just because you've worked heavily on a subject does not make it "yours". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:55, 5 September 2013 (UTC)