とある白い猫

User posts: 04:08, 8 January 2025 UTC [refresh]

Inquery

Comments such as "Otaku own the internet, and the Wiki, like the internet, bends to their wishes. " is not creating a pleasant enviorment and is most certainly not improving the article. May I ask what are you intending to achieve on Talk:Kawaii with such comments? --Cat out 20:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

As a response to the user's obvious question, I felt it best to be blunt and a little "tongue in cheek". Simple explanation: is often used by writers as a warning that the following comment will be overly insensitive, due to time limitations, etc. Since I also forwarded him to longer, more accurate sources I don't feel my comment was out of place. I do believe that Chokaro's comment was also meant as "tongue in cheek", as nobody really plans on fighting any "wars" over Wikipedia.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  02:00, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I think an actual straight answer (as per concensus, see arcives) would be more aproporate. Refering to an otaku cabal is inaproporate and is no way to refer to fellow wikipedians (myself included).

Chokaro's comment can be easily be interpreted as an invitation to a revert war. Please be sensative with your responses so as to make sure we avoid unnecesary confrontations.

--Cat out 11:11, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Inappropriate? Have you checked google lately?

• "otaku own the internet" gives 332,000 hits
• "otaku dont own the internet" gives only 58,600 hits

I assume you've read Wikipedia:Assume bad faith and I still don't see how my comments relate to you in the slightest. I would appreciate it if you didn't accuse me of seeking an "unnecessary confrontation" with you, when I have don't nothing of the sort.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  06:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You were 'blaming' otaku for the existance of the Kawaii article, I find that attitude hostile and uncivil. Just because there are google hits doesnt give you the excuse to be uncivil. All I gave you was a friendly warning so that you evade a confortation with some other person (not me) which you interprted as an accusation... --Cat out 13:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

While I understand that you feel something is uncivil, I still fail to see why. As a side, please don't bend the facts. ...is not creating a pleasant enviorment and is most certainly not improving the article sounds much more like an accusation than a warning to me. Usually friendly warnings work like "Hey, would you mind not saying stuff like that? I know you were just poking fun but it kind of bugs me" but then again, I don't really expect you to be friendly, and I don't mind being accused; you've been friendly enough to me before and I know basically what to expect of you. Also, I'd like to remind you again of something you said, May I ask what are you intending to achieve [...] with such comments?, which is clearly asking for my opinion on this matter, and I have respectfully done so.  freshofftheufoΓΛĿЌ  00:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I honestly have no idea what you are trying to say. All I have to add to my previous statement is, avoid comnnets such as Otaku own the internet etc... This chain of comments is being most unproductive. --Cat out 00:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Air

I realised I havent yet created this anime an episode list... I think I will in a day or two (I generaly create the hole thing in one edit) --Cat out 21:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Funny I just happened to catch you creating that article (I was about to do the same), but I really don't think we should go with the OMG format with Air. By only having two episodes each, there is a LOT of wasted space. Personally, I think we should just move over the tables we already have in the main article. --SeizureDog 19:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You see the raw version, I haven't even started. --Cat out 19:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Still, that's twice as much space to fill per episode. What are you going to flesh it out with? Summary?--SeizureDog 19:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't that how it is on OMG article? ;) --Cat out 19:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Except for OMG the titles themselves take up 3 lines, and there are 3 episodes per disc instead of 2. You're going to have to write about x4 as much summary as OMG does if you don't want it looking empty.--SeizureDog 19:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

OMG has a simple story plot compared to Air's drama. I do not believe the 4x as much summary will be too chalenging. --Cat out 21:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't forget that you also need to keep the spoiler count down in that x4 summary too though...--SeizureDog 21:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I actualy need help with one mater. I am not certain with what dvd did the recap episode was given out with (if it was at all). --Cat out 01:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Isn't it this?--SeizureDog 02:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

On another note, why is every DVD cover you put except for the first one different from the ones I'm finding on amazon.co.jp? looky It says you're finding these pictures on Amazon but what's your search term? I can't even FIND the freaking things in the English side. --SeizureDog 02:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I actualy searched for "Air" on amazon.co.jp (remember, the name isnt avalible in kanji). There are a lot of false hits but eventualy you get to the anime. There are two versions of the dvd covers. I picked the ones that featured the characters more, with the exeption if the first one which the alternative is ridiclously low on quality.

Air hasn't been licensed in the US yet (to my knowlege) so it is quite normal why it is not on amazon.com.

--Cat out 04:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Silly me, I didn't open the images all the way. Seems that images.amazon.com hosts the images for all languages. Also, would you mind drawing up a character table such for the OMG characters? I could start working on those articles. I'm not sure how many fields will be needed though, as I'm not sure if there is random information for the characters height and such.--SeizureDog 04:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

It shall be done. --Cat out 08:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Ranks and insignia of NATO armies officers needs to be fixed please

I am not good at fix html, but I noticed something wrong with this page. The American Officers is wrong. “Second Lieutenant” is O-1 and “General of the Army” is not O-10, but it is a rank reserved for war, which is correct. So, to fix the American Army ranks on this page, just move “First Lieutenant” to the O-2 position, and then move all the other ones up one and that will fix it, and in the O-10 position should be “General.” If someone could fix that, I would appreciate it, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.34.57.24 (talk • contribs)

You are confusing US rating and NATO rating. See U.S. Army officer rank insignia for both of them. --Cat out 13:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Chris is cool

It is not currently protected. I think it should probaly not be described as such until it is. having said that, iI do ot see any point in reverting it. You could ask User:dvib to protect it, he is fairly responsive, and deleted it originally.Dolive21 15:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Working on it. Take a deep breath and give me a few minutes/hours... --Cat out 15:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

==Re:OMG==

Check Excel Saga, they have some pretty good sources and ideas in their article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 15:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your Mediation Cabal case

I appreciate the time you took to discuss your case with me on IRC earlier and especially your willingness to help prevent its escalation. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.

Thank you for allowing MedCab to mediate your case! ~Kylu (u|t) 15:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

character stubs

Cool Cat, why are you creating all these Air character stubs like Michiru? WP:FICT suggests characters be discussed in the article about the show unless the content is too long to justify, which doesn't seem to be the case here.--Kchase02 T 08:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)