User talk:Timothy Perper/Archive

Hi Mr. Perper. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia.

I have read a few of your discussion page comments and it seems like you would make a great editor. I wish I could respond to a few of your suggestions, but I'm not knowledgeable about manga or Tolstoy myself.

I hope you continue to participate, and I would encourage you to edit what you think needs work. All pages keep an edit history, and everything done can be undone.

Boilerplate follows.

Welcome!

Hello, Timothy Perper, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! / edg ☺ ★ 22:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

helpme

{{helpme}} I just added some explanatory material and references to the article "Proceptive Phase." Somebody who knows the format and style should look at it and fix it, because I sure don't know how. BTW, the page was marked as needing references -- which it did.

I fixed the article up. You may need to look at it again and see if it was what you were talking about. Jac _roe^Blank 19:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Jacroe. I also added a URL with some background material. Again, I don't know if the format is OK. I appreciate the assistance! Timothy Perper 20:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Added two more references by John Money that I got from Google Scholar. - TwoOars 20:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. They're useful references. Timothy Perper 20:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Just a heads-up: Adding your own name and your own papers might be considered conflict of interest and is frowned upon; but in this case the references attributed to you apparently add value to the article it may not be considered COI as such and I don't think you have done anything wrong; but please be careful in the future about adding your own research and read up WP:OR#Citing_oneself if you haven't already. Cheers. - TwoOars 20:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, regarding your note at Talk:Proceptive phase, For my credentials for doing so...: wikipedia has no process to check the credentials of its users and all are considered equal. So technically anyone can edit any article, even articles requiring some degree of expertise. But that also means you need not limit yourself to a field of your proven expertise. :) - TwoOars 20:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

helpme

{{helpme}} You raise an interesting and significant point. Let me expand on it below in the indented material following.

Concernng Twooars' question about conflict of interest, immediately above. I am following standard scholarly practice when I cite my own published scholarly work and the work of others, like Beach, Moore, Money and so on. In fact, in scholarly print publication (which is my background) not citing one's own work can considered unprofessional because doing so tells the reader what background the writer has. However, if Wikipedia's COI policy prohibits or seems to prohibit me from citing my own work in an article, then I have no role in Wikipedia -- and neither does any other published scholar in ANY area. The all important verifiability criterion requires that I include sources to substantive statements, and that means and includes my own scholarly work.

Thus, I encounter a strange situation. If I make changes or suggestions, or if I add material, I cannot cite my own work for fear of COI. But if I do not, then I run afoul of non-verifiabiity, and the changes and additions should be deleted. The result is *because* I have published material on the subject, I cannot contribute to Wikipedia -- it's a deadend in each direction.

And yes, I *do* understand the problem. Anyone can claim to be a "published" expert by citing their own webpages, blogs, or letters to the editor of a local newspaper, and the verifiability criterion is down the tubes.

My strong feeliing here is that this needs a good deal more thought and input from others. As I have said, I know essentially nothing about Wikipedia, but feel sure that there must be avenues or mechanisms for addressing the kinds of problem I am facing. May I ask you to initiate whatever processes those might be?

Until then, I will not contribute any further material to Wikipedia. Perhaps the problem I am encountering here helps explain why so few experts do contribute to Wikipedia.

Timothy Perper 21:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello again Timothy Perper. :) Like I said above there does not seem to be any problem with what you did. I am just letting you know that such a guideline exists. I did not mean to imply that what you did was wrong. In fact, what you did is expressly permitted as mentioned at WP:OR#Citing_oneself. Sorry for the misunderstanding. - TwoOars 21:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

In fact, more experts are required, especially because so many of the biology articles are half baked and unreliable. I certainly don't mean to drive you away by that note above. It was meant to be informative, not a warning. - TwoOars 22:05, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, TwoOars -- that does clear up the issue. As time permits, I'll try to help complete the articles I see that I feel I can work on competently. Timothy Perper 02:30, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

RE: concerning "sexual intercourse"

First of all feel free to edit any article, since wikipedia belongs to us. By now i think you know how to internal link using [[square brackets]], like this sexual intercourse. But You can refer to manual, for style issues. Contents which others may require to be supported with references, otherwise you can edit just like that. Dont feel bad if anybody reverts your edits, they will be doing it since they think that content is inappropriate. Here are some links for you.

Getting started Wikipedia tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia • Getting "adopted" by an experienced user How to: edit a page • upload and use images • start an article Getting help Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and guidelines Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

User community Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Writing articles Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Peer review Miscellaneous User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Regarding sexual intercourse, lead section needs to be expanded, feel free to do that, and also cleanup below sections if you think they are too long. Use that article's talk page(discussion) for help/comment. Happy editing! Lara_bran 03:39, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Tapirs, Elephants, and Dreams

Re: your message - Thanks for alerting me to the conversation! I had noticed the new comments on the tapir talk page yesterday, but since I only know about zoological tapirs, I didn't have much to add. However, it looks like you've done some great research into the topic, and I would be happy to help re-write the Cultural References section to more accurately portray the tapir's role in Asian stories. Let me know if I can help!

Oh, and I'm glad you like the stuffed tapir. She was fun to make.  : ) - Sasha Kopf 15:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Timothy Perper/Baku (spirit)

Hello again :) . About that revision of the article, it is preferable to discuss changes on the article's talk page itself (at Talk:Baku (spirit). I can format that article and post it myself but do not want to - because I don't know anything about the subject and wouldn't be able to answer if someone questions me about the edits. But you can be bold and add it to the article yourself. I can help you with the formatting. - TwoOars (Rev) 16:29, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Twooars. I agree with you about discussing the changes on the talk page -- and I've been posting this material to that talk page for some days. That means the material I specifically included in this revision.

I don't know what you mean by "adding it to the article." Does that mean I go to the article, highlight it, delete it, and then paste in the new material? It's not a matter of changing a word or two here and there; I've rewritten the article itself, including much of the original, deleting material that lacked references and didn't seem likely to get them.

So how to I proceed? And how do I find that talk page again?

Timothy Perper 16:42, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

On second thoughts, it is prolly better to at least fix the formatting a little before moving the material to the article. Am on it now. And yes, you'll have to replace the entire text at the article with your rewrite. You can do that when I tell you that I am done with the formatting. And about finding the talk page again: I have linked to that talk page in my previous post above. Basically, any article's talk page is at [[Talk:article name]]. - TwoOars (Rev) 16:49, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok that seems to be enough. We can edit the minor details after you move this stuff to the main article. Here's what you have to do:

1. Click on the edit button at the Baku (spirit) section on the User:Timothy Perper/Baku (spirit) page.
2. Select and copy everything except the first line.
3. Go to the Baku (spirit) page.
4. Open the page for editing (by clicking the Edit this page button at the top).
5. Select and delete from the top of the article till the line that says ==See also==.
6. Now paste the stuff that you copied earlier.
7. Save with a descriptive Edit summary

- TwoOars (Rev) 17:14, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh and please recheck whether the inline citations are linking to the right pages before moving the stuff. I moved them to make them inline, so I could have messed up, though I don't think so. And link no. 8 can't go into the article I think, if it is a blog as the link address suggests. - TwoOars (Rev) 17:17, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually I have already edited the article, minutes after you edited it. :D Take a look at the history of that page. And you missed the first point in my instructions above :-/ which led to this. But no worries; as you can see I have corrected it. This is just for future reference. - TwoOars (Rev) 20:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Baku (spirit) edits

{{helpme}}

I can't say I find this Wiki-syntax exactly *transparent* -- and I'm not computer illiterate. Oh well.

OK. Now we have a partially edited revision of Baku (spirit) up, and the article needs some small fixes -- like "citation needed" in a couple of places, Some underlining needs to be added.

All right, onwards.

Timothy Perper 21:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

do {{fact}} for , and as far as I know, underlined text was dropped by media wiki markup.--Kerotan^{Leave Me a Message} Have a nice day :) 05:50, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Sandbox

Hi Timothy, my apologies for not replying sooner as I was offline.

User:Timothy Perper/Sandbox

should do the trick!Pedro |  Chat  18:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

You're most welcome. Happy editing! Pedro |  Chat  19:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

How to fix an image

{{helpme]]

The illustration on Baku (spirit) is nearly impossible to see. So I copied it, darkened it and upped the contrast, thank you Photoshop, and now have an image that you can actually see. And, my goodness, the creature in the picture now actually *looks* like an elephant, which it is supposed to.

So how do I replace the picture that's up there now with the new, clearer one?

Thanks.

Timothy Perper 19:41, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, this is funny (because of the coincidence). :D The helpme template wouldn't work because you used ]] instead of }}. But I had come here anyway before you posted that (see the section below).

Anyway, here's the answer to your question: you upload the illustration you created by clicking on the upload file link on the left side of your screen, in the toolbox, which is below the search box. Then, follow instructions on how to upload. When you are asked to give a filename for the image, you can give the existing name (HokusaiBaku.jpg). You'll be asked if you want to overwrite the existing image; answer yes. That's it. WP:IMAGE might be a useful guide.- TwoOars (Rev) 20:03, 11 September 2007 (UTC) Wikipedia:Uploading images is more pertinent. - TwoOars (Rev) 20:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Timothy Perper/Sandbox

Hi, I chanced on that page and I see that you have some trouble with formatting again. Apparently you had copied some text from the Manga page for editing but the formatting has not been preserved. Here's what you have been doing wrong: Like I mentioned above, you are missing out the first step. When you copy stuff, do not just copy it while in the normal or "view" mode. First open the page by clicking the edit this page button at the top and then copy whatever you want. That way, the existing formatting (wikilinks, references, subheadings etc.) will be preserved, so you'll only need to format any additional stuff you add. - TwoOars (Rev) 19:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I added a wiki style ref for the Schodt book to your sandbox. Looks like you have something good started. I'll keep an eye on the page, and feel free to discuss any issues you have. You can reply here, at the manga page, or at my talk page and I will respond at that same spot. - Peregrine Fisher 20:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

For books it looks like

<ref>{{cite book |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title= |year= |publisher= |location= |isbn= }}</ref>

if you're only using the link once, or

<ref name="whatever">{{cite book |last= |first= |authorlink= |coauthors= |title= |year= |publisher= |location= |isbn= }}</ref>

and then <ref name="whatever"/> (note forward slash)wherever else you want to use the citation without having to do the big cite again. The authorlink is the name of the wikipedia page for the author, if they have one. - Peregrine Fisher 20:07, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Uploading images

I can upload the image for you if you want. My email is pfisher (at) gmail (dot) com. It's also easy to upload the image yourself. Because the image is over 100 years old, it's in the public domain (at least as far as the US is concerned). So all you have to do is click the "Upload File" link in the "Toolbox" area on the left below the search box. Then browse to your new file (name it something other than the original file's name) and select it. In the edit area, Put something like this

==Summary==
Baku (獏) by Hokusai.  Contrast adjusted version 
of Image:HokusaiBaku.jpg, taken from 
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/53/HokusaiBaku.jpg
==Licensing==
 {{pd-old}}

Then you just change the name of the file in the Baku (spirit) article, and voila, it appears. The licensing part can be complicated, but because of this work's age, it's a snap. I'll look for some US manga sales refs. - Peregrine Fisher 04:33, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I got the email. Could you send it to me again, but in JPEG format? TIFF is owned by Adobe, which is a no no on wikipedia. - Peregrine Fisher 16:12, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Glad you like the reference. I've been watching the sandbox, and I really like what I've seen. Unfortunately, the file you sent me was a TIFF again. - Peregrine Fisher 00:59, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind words! The file thing is weird. It's a .jpg when I attach it, and when it opens through Photoshop after I sent the same image to myself as a test. I've sent you another email, and we just keep trying. I'm using a Mac, and when I try to copy the .jpg image, the screen snapshot does open as a .tiff.Timothy Perper 13:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I put the image on the Baku (spirit) page. You can see the head better. Cool, improving the wiki a little bit at a time. - Peregrine Fisher 19:00, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Timothy Perper/Manga

Me likey. Tell me if you want to start doing wiki style refs, add it to the actual page, or anything else. - Peregrine Fisher 04:06, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I converted a couple refs. Check that it's working out in a way that you like, and I can do the rest if it is. - Peregrine Fisher 04:41, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Notifying editors and then replacing the intro sounds like a good idea. I think we'll start getting a lot more feedback when the actual article starts changing. That's what gets people interested. I may be participating in the creation of a featured article, which would be historic for me. I have over 10,000 edits, but have never done anything like this. If the current density of references is any indication, we should end up with 50-100 of them. Whohoo! - Peregrine Fisher 15:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I like the way it's going also. Take a look at the new material on Sandbox2. It's a first first draft and is going to need changes, so I'm not talking it up yet.

I agree with you about getting more comments once the introduction has been replaced. And not all will be happy, either... well, we deal with *that* when we get to it.

Timeframe. As soon as you get the formatting done, and we've gone over it together, then we can post an ALERT on the manga and manga/anime project pages. Then a day or so later, we replace the introduction.

How's that sound?

Timothy Perper 15:37, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. I'm not sure how to do the Kishi 1998 ref. Should it just be (e.g. Colorful) or should I cite the comic, or both? - Peregrine Fisher 15:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I also changed "global manga" to "world manga" based on what this reference said. Feel free to change it back, or adjust as necessary. - Peregrine Fisher 16:13, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I'm not sure either, It's a tankobon and therefore a book, so my impulse would be to cite both. We can always change it later. Heh-heh.

I knew that... damn. Good catch. Thanks. Can you add that reference to the text?

We're moving along.

Timothy Perper 16:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) OK, I'll do it both ways. I found and added a ref for "If a manga series is popular enough, it may be animated after publication." I also reworded the sentence a bit to match the ref. It's a 1998 book, so I don't know if you think that's too old. I also think we should have some sort of ref for "although sometimes manga are drawn centering on previously existing live-action or animated films." I haven't been able to find one, but maybe you know of one in the books you have been perusing. We could just add an (e.g. Star Wars (manga)), but I think we're bordering on original research. Basically OR means that just because we notice a pattern, and have examples to demonstrate it, doesn't make it something we can say in a generalized way. I guess that means it would be nice to have a ref that says they're typically B and W, but sometimes in color, also. I'll look for a ref for that. - Peregrine Fisher 17:03, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, the Kittelson ref sounds fine. Use it.

The second one is simply a truism in the area... popular manga get animated, sometimes very quickly. Let me look through some of my references for it. It's like looking for a reference that says that Hollywood films are often based on popular books. It's something "everybody knows." Think Peyton Place... But let me look at the text again. This may call for "The Alexander Technique," based on Alexander the Great who just hacked the Gordian Knot into small pieces. In brief, maybe removing the sentence is the solution.

Timothy Perper 17:18, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I found a ref for manga to anime, it's the anime/live-action films to manga that needs a ref. I think removing it may be the best option. - Peregrine Fisher 17:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I would say get rid of "although sometimes manga are drawn centering on previously existing live-action or animated films." and we're done. I think we can get away with the Colorful (Kishi) reference, since we have a ref that says their usually black and white. If someone complains, we can excise that too. Looking forward to your history rewrite. - Peregrine Fisher 17:43, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine. Get rid of it. Timothy Perper 17:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Manga

You say in your revision that "Manga is the Japanese word for comics and print cartoons". Can you explain the difference between comics and print cartoons? Also, I think the first line should specifically mention that is a special style of Japanese cartoons. - Mgm|^(talk) 09:44, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Mgm! Thanks for your question.

I'm using "comics" to refer to serial or sequential art, like Superman, Tintin, or Death Note. When we talk about these, we often say "comics and cartoons" but the word "cartoon" suggests animated cartoon, so I wanted to distinguish manga from anime. In your second sentence, you used the word "cartoon" in precisely the sense I meant. This is a glitch in English, really, since we have two wotds for comic strips and political cartoons, which would both be "manga" in Japanese. It may be simplest to remove the phrase "print cartoon."

Actually, in Japan, manga is not a special style of cartooning. It's the only style, because the word refers to ALL "comics and cartoons." It's only us in the West, used to OUR style of comics and cartooning, who think that manga is a "special" style used by the Japanese. In modern American comics marketing, "manga" is indeed a "special" category, but that refers to US marketing, which will come much later in the entry.

How does that sound?

I'm putting this here and on your user talk page, so I'm sure the answer gets to you.

Timothy Perper 13:54, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• I think removing "print cartoon" altogether would be the easiest solution. In English using the word "comic" really covers all the stuff that needs covering, unless anime is a form of manga, but I really don't know about that. - Mgm|^(talk) 21:02, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Timothy Perper 23:20, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Timothy Perper/Sandbox2

OK, I've finished User:Timothy Perper/Manga. As far as the web refs go, I think they're mostly fine. People may complain about using google to convert yen to dollars, but I say wait and see (it's based on citibank info, so that seems reliable to me). I think anime news network is reliable for definitions, but I could be wrong. I don't think they allow just anyone to edit. Most of the other web refs are citing web versions of books and journals, so I think those are fine. For the colorful ref, I linked to a translated version of a Japanese page that's selling it. People may not like that, but really we're just citing the book. I think it's better than not, but we'll see what people think.

I like the way the way the history section is going. It's better to discuss trends broadly than cite anecdotes about individual mangaka. Waiting breathlessly to put in the refs. Looks like it will be citing a lot of the books we used in the intro section, so when the time comes, it will be easiest to put the two sections together. This means I can just do <ref name="Schodt 1996"/> instead of the whole thing. - Peregrine Fisher 18:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Great (heaves vast sigh of relief, and, since it's 2:30 here and I've been on this since 7:00 this morning, visualizes a nice cold glass of beer...).

I agree that we'll have to take a let's see approach here. I'm glad you like the trends approach. It makes sense to me, and pulls together some very different viewpoints.

I'll check the references next. But (visualizes that glass of beer again) perhaps not *quite* at this moment.

Timothy Perper 18:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I think I'll take a break as well. Enjoy your beer. - Peregrine Fisher 18:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Star Wars manga

I cobbled together a couple of refs that say manga can be based on "anime films" and "movies." I also cited the Star Wars manga itself, which isn't the best way to prove it's a manga, but I think it's adequite. If we're comfortable saying movies = live-action films, then we're good to go.

If a manga series is popular enough, it may be animated after publication. although sometimes manga are drawn centering on previously existing live-action or animated films. (e.g. Star Wars).

Anyways, that's the state of things. - Peregrine Fisher 01:43, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, good to go. Can you put it in? Once again, thanks! Timothy Perper 10:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

See Sandbox2 for the transnationalism footnote where some of this might go. Timothy Perper 17:10, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Your Question

Why is what giving you errors? Answer me on my talk page please. I hope I can help you:)--SJP 07:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

You're Welcome

Glad I could help. Take Care and Enjoy Your Sunday...NeutralHomer ^T:C 16:34, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm back

I was busy yesterday, but I still want to work on our project. I'll start looking at the star wars refs, and the tagging sections. - Peregrine Fisher 17:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Going live

I'm thinking we should go live with the intro this morning. I'm not sure that the mini dictionary ref is a reliable source. It seems to be a personel web site. I've found refs for cine-manga whlch don't mention the name animanga,[1][2] Instead of saying "This article does not deal with cinemanga, animanga, or anime-manga..." I think we should either remove that line, and we can just add a link to Films comic in a see also section at the bottom, or include some information about the topic in this article. It does seem to be a (well selling) type of manga. - Peregrine Fisher 15:11, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's ALEXANDER the cinemanga stuff. Cut it, and then we can deal with this kind of manga later when we get to it. That'll solve the $%^& problem with the footnote, too.

Yes, let's go live. Why don't you add a note to the Manga discussion page and to the Manga/Anime project discussion page? Just something saying "We've replaced the current introduction with the revised introduction, and thank you, everyone, for your help. It is much appreciated." Then say something about how we're working on the following "History" section, and expect to have something to put up in a few days. Or I can do that -- but I think it'd be better if you posted this note because it will give folks an idea that this revision is not the work of a single crazed vandal.

For the discussion page notes, note that someone made a bunch of subheadings for this revision, like number 13. I guess the note goes there. Or maybe not... use your judgment.

Oh -- leave the image in place. We'll deal with illustrations later.

OK, go for it.

Timothy Perper 15:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

It's live. Whohoo! Which discussion page notes subheading are you talking about in the above post? - Peregrine Fisher 15:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Whohoo indeed!! The discussion page subheadings don't matter any more. Sorry about that. Now we can let this sit for a bit and then archive the work pages TP/Sandbox and TP/Manga, and keep working on TP/Sandbox2 and TP/Manga2, which contains the opening section of the Origins section. I kind of like the word "Origins" -- it's more interesting than "History."

I looked up Colorful on amazon.co.jp. Yes, his family name is Kishi.

Now I can start working offline on the second history section, "A Timeline of Manga," or something like that.

Timothy Perper 16:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Whenever you're satisfied with User:Timothy Perper/Manga2, I'm thinking I'll add it to User:Timothy Perper/Manga, that way we can format all the refs and make sure the ones from part 1 (like Schodt 1986, etc.) that are reused in part 2 are working correctly. Then it can go live as well. - Peregrine Fisher 16:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Yes, that sounds like a good idea. I think the history (Sandbox2, Manga2) need some more tinkering, but it's getting there.

So let's make TP/Manga the *main* revision page, which will have everything, and use numbered sandboxes (etc) for what we're working on at the moment. I like that.

Timothy Perper 16:36, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I added a few internal links per Cattus' suggestion, hope that's alright.

For komikku, I found a better ref that mentions it in terms of gekiga, so it may be useful later in the article too. I'll add it to manga. The one you provided doesn't allow for the search to be specified in the URL (web address), so it would just be a link to a general dictionary search page. It would work, but wouldn't be ideal.

As far as the graphic novel stuff that was added, I think we should wait for a reply from the editor who added it. If they don't respond for a while, we'll remove it. It does have some refs we may be able to use. As you can see, this is a problem with a wiki encyclopedia. Anyone can edit it, so bad pages are usually improved with each edit, and really good pages (or sections) are usually made worse with each edit. This is one reason that getting it recognized as a featured article is a good idea. Once you have a community recognized good version of an article, that's the one to go back to if the article subsequently get to far out of whack. - Peregrine Fisher 18:05, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The manga = japanese graphic novel refs seem reliable. Graphic novel says they can be anthologies, which deals with one objection. It depends on how broadly one defines graphic novel, I guess. This ref seems to agree. It isn't how I think about manga, but maybe I've just learned something. - Peregrine Fisher 19:57, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

For me, a "graphic novel" is a format, not a medium like manga. The term "comic" is what's usually used when defining manga. See the dictionary website that KyuuA4 cited, which quotes two dictionaries, both giving the "comics" definition. One says "graphic novel," which is true in a limited fashion -- e.g., it describes the Japanese tankobon and US trade paperback formats -- but they both say "comics."

Once these "comics" have been drawn, they can be published in different formats -- pamphlet form (the US "comic book"), in magazines, or in hard- or soft-back books either as anthologies or as set of episodes of the same story. My problem with KyuuA4's change is that it conflates format with medium. The "medium" is a "graphic NARRATIVE" in a graphic NOVEL "format" or in a comic strip "format" and so on. These are the publishing industry terms that Martha and I both automatically use.

Now, within the medium there are "genres" like action/adventure, romance, and so on. Then there are subgenres, like mountain climbing within the action/adventure genre and so on far into the night.

I want to let KyuuA4 tell us what he means. Then we can modify what we have and explain that we're incorporating his suggestions.

But in the meantime, I'm going to try to write a first draft of history subsection 2.

Onwards.

Timothy Perper 20:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I left a message on the manga talk page. You've convinced me, so I'll remove it tomorrow unless someone comes up with something more convincing. - Peregrine Fisher 21:33, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Using Set Notation, y'can create the group "Graphic Novel", and include "Manga" as a subset. The comparison is similar to the set "Animation" in relation to sub-set "Anime". If y'happen to notice, bookstores often sell "manga" under their "graphic novel" sections. Sadly, I read the "manga" definition including "Japanese" as a type instead of a style. Therefore, I was forced to agree to that. On the side, we do have the term OEL manga, used to denote "non-Japanese" manga.

Yet, for the most part, that intro looks a lot better now. KyuuA4 22:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) Maybe Comic book would be a better description than graphic novel? How does that work in set notation? Looking at our articles for the two, it seems like the difference is whether they usually have ongoing story lines (GN), or either self contained or ongoing (CB) stories, and whether they are generally for adults (GN) or children and adults (CB). It seems to me that would make manga a subset of comic books, not graphic novels, since they sometimes have self contained stories and are sometimes for children. - Peregrine Fisher 23:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

To further muddy the waters, I'm not sure manga really fits in comic books or graphic novels. This ref says that manga can be 4 panel comic strips, which I don't think is a subset of graphic novel either. - Peregrine Fisher 23:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, guys... do you mind if I emit a wan, sort of one-sided grin? You are both SO right -- no clear, locked-in definitions really exist. The Venn diagram, over-lapping set idea is actually the best, but I can't see **starting** the #$%^& entry with a reference to set theory... although it's about the only self-consistent approach there is... so, another wan grin.

Peregrine, I'm very glad you found a source for 4-panel manga. We're going to be able to use it later.

OK, let me check on the entry and the other stuff that's come up recently. I'm going to start a TP/Sandbox3 for the next part of the history section. More later.

Timothy Perper 00:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Azumanga Daioh is a prime example of a 4-panel manga. For the record, I'm quite open with the concept of an American manga artist. Like Fred Gallagher -- who is still not considered as a mangaka despite acceptance of his work by Kodansha. To my own dismay, I didn't favor the Dictionary reference on manga. Nevertheless, yes. A Venn diagram of the various sets in discussion overlap - and - therefore, they're not partitions.

Also, as a side-note, within my "calculation", I do not factor story constructions into the categorization of "what is manga" and "what is not manga". The fact that story genres transcend geographical and cultural borders makes it moot. Therefore, I focus mainly on visuals. KyuuA4 03:02, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Azumanga Daioh is an excellent example. So is Japanese Working Women by Risu Akizuki. Kodansha Bilingual Edition, Vols. 1-5, 1999-2000.

It's clear, I think, that we will have to have a section on formats in manga publication. That will have to include the formats that Emperor mentions, as well as 4-panel manga. I'm neutral about the issue of whether non-Japanese can be "real" mangaka. The issue enrages otaku of all stripes, and causes flame wars. I also am neutral whether or not TokyoPop's line of OEL is "real" manga. But that enrages people too... go figure.

Timothy Perper 03:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

wiki links

I noticed your comments at Talk:Manga and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. To make it easier for people to get to the pages you mention, you can make them into internal links using double hard brackets. Ex.[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga]] shows up as Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga. - Peregrine Fisher 01:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Timothy Perper/Manga2

In the next hour or two I'll tranfer Manga2 over to TP:Manga so I can make sure all the refs work, or I can put them both into a seperate page if you prefer. Once I've made sure the refs all work, then we'll go live with it. - Peregrine Fisher 02:29, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Great. Make sure that you see my changes in Manga2, like deleting some stuff and asking for references for Star Wars. When all that's done, you can create a combined document with both sections. I think it's probably safe to combine them on TP:Manga rather than create a separate document, but if you want to play safe, make it a new document. I guess that's a better idea...

OK, I will make a page called Timothy Perper/Combined.

Onwards.

Timothy Perper 02:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I didn't see your message in time, and I started doing it all at TP:Manga. I'll copy it over and revert that page back to how it used to be. I'm having a little trouble deciding what to do with the dates. I think the little numbered refs will be sufficient to tell people which book each idea comes from. I don't know if you were adding them to keep which ref goes where clear, or if you wanted them in the article. I looked at a few other featured articles, and they don't seem to include them. - Peregrine Fisher 03:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Timothy Perper/Combined

I've started combining stuff at the above page. The page you created at Timothy Perper/Combined was like an encyclopedia article, not a user article, so I've tagged it for deletion.

Things are starting to heat up, with other users becoming interested, which is a good thing.

One thing, and I'm not sure how to fix it, is the concluding paragraph. It strikes me as a little bit original research, although I could be convinced that it's OK. The opening paragraph says their are going to be two sides to the story, and the following paragraphs then lay them out. I think that's fine. The concluding paragraph then summarizes what the two sides think, which I think is more of a leap than saying there are two sides. I'll look for some refs, or maybe you have some. - -Peregrine Fisher 04:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

See? I'm getting tired. Thanks for deleting that page. Timothy Perper 04:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Linking to your sandboxes

To add a link to your sandbox, put double hard brackets around the name of the page. Ex. [[User:Timothy Perper/SDBXIndex]] produces User:Timothy Perper/SDBXIndex. Any page you put within double hard brackets becomes a link, including normal articles and user pages. - Peregrine Fisher 16:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Gone live with Manga#Origins

Check it out.

Taking a look at User:Timothy Perper/Sandbox3: no complaints, I'll start looking for Sazae-san refs. - Peregrine Fisher 16:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

We're getting some feedback at Talk:Manga#New Manga#Origins section has been added complaining about removing info on Rakuten Kitazawa. Not sure that it's justified, but it did get me thinking. It would be good if we could add some examples to the origins section, like we did with the Star Wars manga in the intro, to give people some concrete examples to read about. Kitazawa and Osamu Tezuka might be good for this. Or do you nave a plan to mention them somewhere later in the artilce? - Peregrine Fisher 19:49, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, that's exactly what we're gonna do. Look at my reply to Kasuga on the Manga Talk page. I'm going to include not only the people Kasuga mentioned but a bunch more. That section will be set up like the post-WWII page we're working on right now, and will be organized chronologically, from the Toba-e scrolls down to Kitazawa.

Timothy Perper 22:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Good reply on the manga talk page. That will win most people over. Plus, Kasuga has pledged assistance if we need it. - Peregrine Fisher 23:11, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Web refs

I was reading about google's book search and its copyright protections, so I'm not sure if these searches work for people besides myself. If the link don't take you to a page highlighting the relevant material on Sazae-san, etc. tell me and I'll try and find a different way of linking. Anyways, here are some refs.

This ref say "Sazae-san...whose relentless optimism and in the face of hardships held out the hope that things would somehow turn out all right."

This ref talks about Shojo being made by men, and then women were able to break into the field. Look at pages 74 an 75.

Gravett, Paul 2004 Manga: Sixty Years of Japanese Comics talks about the showa 24 starting at the bottom of page 78, although google won't let me look at page 79 to see how much it says.

This ref and this ref talk about Riyoko Ikeda and The Rose of Versailles. - Peregrine Fisher 01:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

The first book I just ordered from amazon.com plus another by Craig. These will certainly be useful.

The second is Gravett, whom we've been citing all along, but I'll check these pages.

The third is Schodt 1986, and we've been citing him too all along.

The last book I don't know, and I'll check it further if the preceding don't do the trick.

Ikeda is another one of the super influential manga and is another mangaka I'll discuss in this section.

I wasn't sure what you meant by copyright and Google -- when I link to these, I get a screen that slowly lets me scroll through the pages. There's nothing highlighted on the page, at least not that I see.

I'm going to change some of the set up on Sandbox3. It needs to be sub-headed, and I want to indicate where. I'll leave you a message on your talk page about it.

Timothy Perper 03:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least it lets you look at the page. When I use it, it highlights the words I searched for (like "versailles"), making it quicker to read. Probably has something to do with having a google account. Who knows. I'll look for your post. - Peregrine Fisher

03:29, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the Sazae-san ref. It says "Sazae-san...whose relentless optimism and in the face of hardships held out the hope that things would somehow turn out all right." Look at the last sentence in the second full paragraph on page 188. - Peregrine Fisher 03:45, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, I'll put this in the sandbox as you requested. - Peregrine Fisher 03:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. When the Craig book shows up from amazon.com, I'll cite that. Timothy Perper 03:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandal Block

As it happens they were already blocked by the time I go there! I am (since very recently) an administrator so I can block vandals if it becomes necessary. Please feel free to ask if there is anything else I can assist with! Pedro |  Chat  09:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Timothy Perper 09:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Removed individual artist line, changed section header to History

Good morning. I removed This article deals with manga in general. For individual manga series, plots, and artists, see their individual Wikipedia entries, changed the Origins section to History, and removed the An Overview of Ideas about Manga History" section.

The first change is because it's a type of meta information about the encyclopedia that by convention isn't included in articles. We typically don't tell people to see other articles unless we can provide a link to that article. We could provide a link to List of mangaka, but I think it's best if we create lilnks in the timeline of manga sections that will lead people to the various mangaka pages. That way we can direct them to important mangaka, and not just a list without context.

The second changes I made after looking at other featured articles, where a "History" section seems to be standard. Also, after you named the subsection an overview of manga history, that made it clear to me that it's the perfect opening for a section titled History. - Peregrine Fisher 15:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I just realized that List of Mangaka is under the see also section at towards the bottom of Manga. That's the standard way to do it. - Peregrine Fisher 16:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I put the subheader back

I don't disagree with there being two viewpoints, it just seemed to me that those two viepoints are best summarized under the header "History." Style-wise, it's good to have somethiing to ge in between the main header, and the first sub header. I thought the two viewpoints would be that info, then there would be two subheaders, "Pre WW2" and "Post WW2." We could have three top headings, "Origins," "Pre WW2" and "Post WW2," but the "History" with subheaders seems to be the way other featured articles do it. - Peregrine Fisher 00:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use images of manga

I noticed you asked Nihonjoe, but I can tell you a bit about adding fair use manga images. First, there are two sets of rules we must abide by: US fair use laws, and Wikipedia:Non-free content. The wikipedia rules are much more strict than what US law allows. You said "And no matter what kind of "fair use" I think I'm doing, it's still copyright violation." It actually takes a pretty egregious usage of copyrighted work to become a copy vio, which is per US law, and we're not going to run into that problem. What we'll run up against is wikipedia policy which says the amount of non-free (copyrighted) material must be kept to a minimum. What that means is up to intrepretation (minimum really is zero) but I would say that by looking at other featured articles in Wikipedia:Featured articles#Media, no more than five images in a large article.

What really makes for a "fair use" is the accompanying text, and how well the image illustrates it. Saying "such and such was an important manga," with an image of a cover or inside page of the manga generally meets US law. To meet wikipedia policy though, we should include images when say things like "such and such was an important manga. And it started the shojo genre of art which is drawn in a flowing style where beautiful characters with huge, intricately drawn eyes become spontaneously surrounded by flowers, stars, and/or bubbles." Then we could include an image that depicts that.

We can also use as many images from Wikipedia:Wikipe-tan as we want, since they're free. - Peregrine Fisher 16:42, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't trying to bypass your expertise! I apologize if it sounded that way!

You read my mind. I was thinking about the iconograohy of manga article, which could use exactly the kind of illustration and text you describe. In fact, in my opinion, at present that article isn't very useful simply because it doesn't have illustrations. But it doesn't look promising to add them now that you've described the Wikipedia policy. BTW, the problem is with civil lawsuits from copyright holders, and at least some manga publishers are (probably) beginning to eye the web and its (in their view) open abuses of copyright.

So the watchwords are CAUTION and METICULOUS CARE. OK, that's good to know.

I'm going to be offline most of today and tomorrow finishing the Manga After the War section. I've been assemblijg the references and there are more to come.

More later. Timothy Perper 17:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Sazae-san/Shojo refs

I couldn't find a ref to explicitly back up "Hasegawa pioneered the intense focus on interpersonal interaction and internal feeling that came to characterize later shojo manga." I added some refs to User:Timothy Perper/Manga3#Comments that may help, though. I also added a different web address for Yoshida. The address you provided would only take me to the main ASPAC page, not sure why. - Peregrine Fisher 21:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... I added the new reference, which actually takes you to her page. Timothy Perper 19:51, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Occupation censorship

I'm going to bed, but here are a few refs that may be helpful. First paragraph, Second paragraph, Schodt 1996 p.115 last paragraph, end of first paragraph, beginning of second, not really about manga, Schodt again, p. 128. - Peregrine Fisher 06:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll get to work on them tmw... Timothy Perper 06:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Later: for this, Schodt's our best bet. The problem with his book is that the index is really bad. If I don't put a post-it onto the page, after a while I forget the content. So the refs you found were really helpful. Timothy Perper 19:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Adding refs and going live

When I add the refs, I want to do it by taking what's in User:Timothy Perper/Manga3 and putting it into User:Timothy Perper/Combined so I can make sure the previously used refs like Schodt are working. Is it ready for that? After that step we should be close to gong live. - Peregrine Fisher 20:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I have a few more references to add, and some tinkering on Manga3. It's probably OK to do the transfer right now, keeping the "ref to come" notes in place. I ordered a couple of books from amazon.com, and expected them to arrive today, but they didn't arrive. Maybe they'll be here tomorrow. If not, then we have to wait till Monday. But otherwise, yes, it's ready to be shifted to Perper/Combined.

Also, let me know what you think of the content.

Timothy Perper 21:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed you haven't edited Manga3 for a while. Is it ready to be moved to Combined? - Peregrine Fisher 15:09, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

(reset indent) OK, I took a look at User:Timothy Perper/Manga3. It looks good. I added two "citation needed" tags because I'm not sure which ref goes with the two sentences. They are

Two very popular and influential male-authored manga for girls from this period were Osamu Tezuka’s 1953-1956 Ribon no Kishi (“Princess Knight” or “Knight in Ribbons”) and Matsuteru Yokoyama’s 1966 Mahōtsukai Sarii (“Little Witch Sally”).

Superficially Sarii may seem to resemble Samantha, familiar to American viewers as the witch from the 1964 US television show Bewitched, or Jennifer from the 1942 film I Married a Witch,

The first one is probably Schodt, the second one is probably part of the Yoshida ref that's used throughout its paragraph, but I want to be sure. Peregrine Fisher 15:25, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, you got it. That's Schodt 1986. Timothy Perper 15:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Couple more questions. I'm not totally clear on the Thorn refs. There are two?

Thorn, Matt 2004 Shôjo Manga—Something for the Girls. http://matt-thorn.com/shoujo_manga/japan_quarterly/index.html

Hagio Moto 1975/1996 They Were Eleven. In: Matt Thorn, editor Four Shojo Stories. San Francisco. Viz. Original story published 1975; US edition, which I'm citing, 1996

Yes, those are different citations. The first is to a Thorn paper on a website. The second is that he was editor/translator of the Hagio Moto manga, which I'm citing. You can probably simply eliminate his name in the Hagio Moto ref, by making it They Were Eleven, in Four Shojo Stories...

Also, some of the refs just say "Schodt" without a year. Are they 1986?

Yes, just about any Schodt ref w/o a year is 1986.

And finally, I can't find the full Sanchez ref.

Sanchez starts at  http://www.animeinfo.org/animeu/hist102.html There are five links from there, which are different parts of the Sanchez essay.

We're getting there. - Peregrine Fisher 17:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Ad astra per aspera and other good stuff! I'm referencing Sandbox4 and am at the "Where the hell is that paper? I know it's around here somewhere!" stage.

Timothy Perper 17:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Page numbers

Did you happen to write down page numbers for your book citations? I was looking at Wikipedia:Featured article criteria and now page numbers are required for an artilce to be deemed a FA. It didn't used to be a requirement, but every year the rules get tighter. If you didn't, that's OK, the only thing it really precludes is it being featured for a day on the main wikipedia page. I'm sorry I didn't mention this earlier, but I was unaware. - Peregrine Fisher 17:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Good Lord. Only sometimes, because often I'm referring to a whole chapter or even the whole book. Giving page references to Schodt is going to be nearly impossible. We're not referencing factoids, e.g., "In 1997, over 62,000 people died of spontaneous contumely in Indiana alone" (ref Smith, 2004, page 68), but general commentary, e.g., "Shojo manga is popular" (reference, Schodt, chapter 4, 5, 6, parts of 7). Moreover, often I cite a book for the entire topic -- like right now I need a general reference to the bildungsroman, and that leads to Franco Moretti's book on, you guessed it, the bildungsroman. Yeah, the whole book. It's a good book, too. He's even a nice guy; I've corresponded with him. But it's impossible to assign a page reference for the subject. The whole book, yes; a page, no.

It's like asking for a page reference in a history of World War 2 in Europe for the statement "The Battle of the Bulge was bloody, time-consuming, and slow, but eventually US soldiers broke through German lines." How about a whole book on the Battle of the Bulge?

I have page refs where they count (or had them) -- for journal articles and for the "X in Y" references. But beyond that? Ain't gonna happen, because much of the time it can't.

Maybe you'll have to explain this to the FA people.

On another subject, come on over to Sandbox4 and look at the way I'm trying to handle the lists of manga. I'm NOT thoroughly happy with it, not at all, but we're getting somewhere maybe, especially if I can work in the popularity rankings from ANN as you suggested yesterday.

Timothy Perper 18:24, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, and something else. We have over 20 references to Schodt 1986. All them come into one and only one reference in the ref list. A page reference for each of the 20 means a different footnote for each different page. Probably there are workarounds for that, but this is the kind of make-work empty silliness that isn't worth anyone's time and effort, to say nothing of adding something like a 100 more lines to the reference list. Traditional print scholarly printing knows about this; it's why they use footnotes that say "Schodt, 1986, op. cit., p. 104."

Waste of time. I want to work on the article, not on this foolishness. Yes, I know that it isn't YOU who are telling me to do this, but are just explaining somebody-or-other's rules and regulations.

Timothy Perper 18:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about the page numbers. When citing whole books or chapters, page numbers aren't required, but if you don't have the page numbers already written down, hunting for them is too big of a job.

I guess I wouldn't worry to much about the inclusion criteria either. If we do want to limit inclusion, maybe using Matt Thorn would be a good way. He describes a good number of shojo manga in his essays, although I don't think it wold support the exact set of examples we have so far. On the other hand, we can just trust your judgement. - Peregrine Fisher 19:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Matt Thorn is a good source for this stuff. Thank you kindly for your trust, but I'd still like to have some kind of inclusion criterion that I can describe somewhere. Oh well. Let me get back to revising Sandbox4 and see what I come up with. Timothy Perper 19:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

User:Timothy Perper/Sandbox4

I added some semi-detailed comments to the bottom of [User:Timothy Perper/Sandbox4]]. I also added the Sazae-san image. You should probably improve the caption, mine is kinda generic. - Peregrine Fisher 22:23, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Web refs

When you want to do web refs, you use Template:Cite web

<ref>{{cite web |url= |title= |accessdate=2007-09-26 |last= |first= |coauthors= |date= |work= |publisher=}}</ref>

- Peregrine Fisher 17:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Couple more refs would be nice

I looked for a couple of hours yesterday for refs for:

In another shōjo manga bildungsroman narrative device, the young heroine is transported to an alien place or time where she meets strangers and must survive on her own

and

Yet another such device involves meeting unusual or strange people and beings,

Do you happen to have refs for these? - Peregrine Fisher 18:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You're about to see them in the next sentences. Each of the manga discussed and referenced next follow the pattern just described. I can reword it if you like, but it's like saying:

"World War II involved ground, naval, and aerial forces. The greatest of the ground campaigns were fought in Europe, like the Italian campaign and the Battle of the Bulge (references) whereas Pacific War campaigns were primarily naval and aerial, like the Battle of Leyte (references)."

Here too I'm referencing the details, not the general sentence that introduces them.

If you're asking for a reference to how a _Bildungsroman_ works, then the Moretti and Graillat refs will cover it.

You want me to reword this?

BTW, I just emailed you a largish file with an illustration of Tezuka's cinematographic technique. It should precede the Sazae-san image.

Timothy Perper 19:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

You're right. It works fine. We're pretty much there. It looks like we need a ref for Grigsby and Vampire Knight. - Peregrine Fisher 19:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

A friendly suggestion.

You might want to work on not being quite so verbose. You really tend to bog down conversations with mounds of text. Just sayin'.--SeizureDog 23:44, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I can be quite terse. But I can also put some 100 or so substantive references into the manga revision. But I guess you're just sayin' that we don't need no stinkin' 100 references about nothin'. OK, point taken.

Is that short and friendly enough for you?

Timothy Perper 08:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)