Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:11, 14 May 2010

Thanks for the copy edit on UFC. --Nate1481 11:58, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

A bit tag happy??

I've seen your edits to Asistencia Asesoría y Administración and frankly I think you've gone a bit overboard with the tagging here. The clincher is the one where you tag the WOrld X-Cupp with "Which" in the sentence right after the X-Cup has been mentioned. Gee maybe it's the ONLY ONE mentioned on the page? I think you're a bit overzealous in your tagging.  MPJ-DK  (No Drama) Talk  10:27, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

"Edit"

Please say more than "edit" or "copyedit" in your edit summaries. State what you are really doing like "adding information on ".—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Tags on Tokusatsu

Almost all of the tags you have added to this article are either unnecessary or covered by supporting text. For example, you are placing {{whom}} next to the word "dubbed" when it refers to the filmmaking technique. Other instances I have fixed the issues that you put the tags there in the first place.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:08, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, these tags are irrelevant. Do not add "whom" for dubbed when it refers to dubbing over lines and not being named designated as. If you do not understand the context of the sentences do not add tags that mean that the information is not supported. Also, changes like "...are considered by the Japanese..." to "...the Japanese even regard..." completely changes the meaning of that sentence.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:29, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I've seen this on a bunch of articles. You do realize that if you read the whole sentence, these {{whom}}, {{fact}}, {{which}}, {{when}} tags are supported? This "whom" tag isn't even part of the prose of the article. It's part of a hidden comment that says that people shouldn't change the numbers. And also do you realize that when you edit references you break them by putting several extra carriage returns at the end before and after the </ref> code?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

You don't listen do you? All of the tags are covered or unnecessary.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 06:55, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Seriously. Stop it or I will report you, again.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:02, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

WP:ANI#HoundsOfSpring, again.—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 07:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Re: Linda McMahon

Hey HoundsofSpring!

I'm Screwball, and I want to say thank you for helping improve the Linda McMahon article. I don't know whether you could, but I would love to see some images and added info in her "on-screen roles" section. It's been disappointing that we had so many images on her page before, but they all were removed because of the Creative Commons policy. Anyway, I gotta admit, with some serious editing, we can make that page one helluva lot better.--Screwball23 talk 00:54, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Your edits are being discussed at the Administrators' notice board

See Misplaced Pages:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Odd_edits_by_HoundsOfSpring. EyeSerene 10:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately your reply in the ANI thread seems to me to amount to "I'm right, you're wrong". The problem is not your edit summaries but your misapplication of article cleanup tags. We expect all editors to take the concerns of their peers seriously and address potentially problematic editing; you aren't doing this (see WP:IDHT). I'm therefore leaving you this final request to stop misusing those tags. This, for example, is not only a completely incorrect use of the {{whom}} tag, but is edit warring. I'll be reluctant to apply sanctions to your account because you do also make some valuable edits, but I will block this account if there's any further disruption. EyeSerene 09:46, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Magical-girl?

Why do you change "magical girl" to "magical-girl" when you copyedit Sailor Moon articles? I've never seen the phrase as "magical-girl" in the literature, as "magical girl" seems to be preferred, and it adds unnecessary text to a page, especially when you pipe the phrase. --Malkinann (talk) 13:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation. I believe that WP:COMMONNAME contradicts your application of WP:HYPHEN, specifically "Common usage in reliable sources is preferred to technically correct but rarer forms, whether the official name, the scientific name, the birth name, the original name or the trademarked name." The common use is clearly the unhyphenated version. --Malkinann (talk) 10:02, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I have never seen the term magical girl referred to as "magical-girl" in the literature that discusses the concept, and so I feel that the hyphenated version is wrong, as it is not what the literature uses. I could ask for further clarification at WP:ANIME, if you like? --Malkinann (talk) 00:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Sounds great, but I really don't have the energy for such a discussion, so if you could bring this up with the grammar project, I'd appreciate it. My position is that nearly all of the literature which discusses the concept uses the unhyphenated version, e.g. e.g. e.g. e.g. e.g. e.g. e.g. therefore the unhyphenated version is the common name, which should be used. Thanks. :) --Malkinann (talk) 08:08, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks heaps for looking after this for me, I really appreciate it. :) --Malkinann (talk) 00:44, 8 May 2010 (UTC)