User talk:Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici

Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations

License tagging for Image:ReiA10nervclips.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ReiA10nervclips.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

V

One day somebody lame is going to visit your user page and simply remove your image of V, because it is copyrighted, and then you will be sad. Fair use doesn't extend to user and talk pages I'm afraid. ;( Just a heads up. - Phorque 09:05, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Beneath this mask of a screename there's more than just flesh, beneath this mask there is an idea, and ideas are bulletproof. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 03:19, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I replaced it instead of simply removing it. So what does that make me? --GunnarRene 23:51, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

....that was incredibly odd. I would not have minded if you simply removed it. Please do not do that again. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 03:27, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

List of Neon Genesis Evangelion episodes

Hi. Please see Talk:List of Neon Genesis Evangelion episodes --GunnarRene 21:01, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Let me know when you've restarted on the List. My figurative pen of editing goodness is ready and waiting.--Gatotsu91112 April 2007

A matter of days. Of course, I just started the episode guide because no one HAD already; besides, the "heavy hitters" (episodes bearing the most analysis) are ironically the last 8 or so episodes in which the production was actually rushed. I don't speak any Japanese, and I literally started watching Evangelion when it reran on Adult Swim six months ago (though now I openly lament that I was not watching it when *I* was 14 some 7 years ago...). At any rate, "Rebuild of Evangelion" comes out in September 2007; even if the Live Action Eva Trilogy (Frankly I would prefer a Tetrology) is stalled at the moment, Rebuild will give it a shot in the arm. Okay, I'm a huge Lord of the Rings fan, it's why I went onto "the Internet" in the first place and I can tell you now: Evangelion now looks to be the "next big thing" "next Star Wars/LOTR/Matrix", and the current state of Eva I equate with Lord of the Rings in 1998-99---->After a 10 year furlough from the "original" (over 40 years in LOTR's case) they're going to make a new "adaptation". Long story short, I want to get heavily involved in all Eva articles (I have been punching all of them up for the past 6 months are so as best I could) and eventually launch a "Wikiproject: Evangelion" as a sub-part of Wikiproject Anime (just as Wikiproject Middle-earth is a sub-section of Wikiproject Films and Fantasy). You know, there ARE quite a few other Eva fansites out there, but many are just old holdovers from 10 years ago or so or don't have a lot of people going to them: I mean theoritically I could just make a dedicated "EvangelionWiki" like Wookipedia is for Star Wars: however, I'm focusing my efforts on Wikipedia itself because this is where the most "casual new fans" go for information, and I'm trying to do my part to hook them in. More "Visible" on Wikipedia itself. So there is a two-part goal this summer: launch a Wikiproject Evangelion, and round out ALL Evangelion articles to the point that they are DEFINATIVELY completed, and then we can just sit around and do maintenance on them. Not long after that, word will start coming out about Rebuild of Evangelion, which will basically DOUBLE all Evangelion material, and hopefully give enough new buzz to get Live Action Eva off the ground. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 23:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Righto. Actually, you sound remarkably like me - except I watched EVA after buying the DVD boxset because it sounded like something I'd enjoy, I actually DID watch it when I was 14/15 (I had my birthday in the middle), and, well, yeah. I'm surely in a minority here, but to me EVA is a personal thing rather than a media thing. I kid you not when I say that my mental and emotional state was ALMOST IDENTICAL to that of both Shinji and Asuka (but especially Shinji) at the time I saw the series, and by the time it was finished it had radically overturned my outlook on life. I think of Hideaki Anno the way many people might think of, say, Jesus. At any rate, I am therefore fiercely devoted to the series, on not just a level of fandom but of personal appreciation as well. I'm not the social type, but I always like to share my observations and analyses of something so important to me with those who are willing to hear. That's why I take such an interest in EVA-related editing. And by the way, EVA is the only anime for which I would say without any hesitation that the English dub is equal to, if not greater than the Japanese.

V Userbox

i've just made a userbox. you may like it:

V	This user knows Ideas are bulletproof!

just add {{User:Doma 89/Userboxes/v4vendetta}} to your userbox list;)

shhh

Writing in capitals is considered to be SHOUTInG. Please do not shout, not even in article titles. -- RHaworth 06:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

• (sigh) the name of several Neon Geneis Evangelion episodes is indeed spelled out in full capital letters. I will move them back. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 15:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This IMDb page does not contain any shouting. Where is your justification for caps? Even you do not use it: in Both of You, Dance Like You Want to Win! the title in the infobox is not capitalised. In this Google search how many times is the title capitalised? -- RHaworth 21:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

See List of Neon Genesis Evangelion episodes#Episode titles. The translated Japanese titles simply have some titles which are all-capitalized, and apparently wiki-project Anime states that this takes precedent over the standard manual of style. Please move this discussion there, and stop making more work for me to do by reverting everything back after we're already decided it is correct the way it is. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 06:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Have a Barnstar

		The Barnstar of High Culture
		For your contributions to Librarians are hiding something among others, and in recognition of your excellent taste in movies, music, and television. Goodnightmush 00:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Umm...thanks, how do barnstars work exactly? I mean with "Librarians are hiding something" I was actually trying to write a serious article about what I thought was a new internet meme. Is this just something one individual can award another or was there a vote on this or what?--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 13:59, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Howdy. Check out barnstars for more information on barnstars. They're generally given for dedication to one task or another. I can see you do a lot for wikipedia, although your work with "Librarians" is the only material i am also familiar with. Good taste in culture is generally not a criterion, but I was so impressed I had to note it in the award. Goodnightmush 14:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Characters of The Big O

Wikipedia has a manual for writing about fiction. It basically says fictional events should be recounted the way they happen for the viewer, not the way the happen for the characters.

Like saying "Roger was adopted at the age of five by an affluent family" at the start of his entry when the viewer doesn't learn that until halfway through the series. It should read "In Act:14, Roger reveals through internal monologue he was adopted." or something of the sort.

Take Schwarzwald. His entry read...

"Michael Seebach is a vigilante reporter before the main narrative begins, but later he is transformed into Schwarzwald."

Now, we both know it didn't happen that way. When he appears he is already transformed and Seebach does not actually appears on the show. So I changed it to...

"Schwarzwald first appears in Act:04, 'Underground Terror'. His real name is Michael Seebach, a reporter for Paradigm Press."

--Nohansen 16:04, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh I know I know; I'm going to have to brush up on that eventually; yeah the "In-universe" stuff won't be a problem, it's just that I like all of the info from the show that had to be removed (which basically just means next time around I"ll actually have to say "this is revealed in Act 5", etc. etc.) The goal is of course to eventually get like, independent articles for the major characters....but I'll have to learn how to write them up good to justify that. Well like I said I"m too busy at the moment and I really don't want to devote my life to wikipedia (I just drop in on shows I like)....so I"ll have to spend some time working on that later. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 16:13, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Adult Swim

Er... you seem to know a lot about Adult Swim, so I think it's worth asking: What shows would they, and could they, air, and on what basis do they select them? That is to say, for example, could my dream of watching Excel Saga on AS ever become a reality?

Few people actually know alot about Adult Swim, except Adult Swim. What I do know is that their annual "run potential new shows, or new anime we like, past the ad companies and see which ones they like" event is April 26th. After that, who knows. I have yet to figure out who has exclusive contracts with them (Gainax, ADV, whatever). I DO know they have acquired the rights to Death Note, but acquiring the rights to it does not mean they will run it (they only run stuff if they think they can later make money on it and enough will watch). I *do* know that they actually really liked Elfen Lied (story of the diclonius mutant Lucy (Lucy is like Asuka to a factor of ten). Problem was, they went so far as to ask the censorship board if they could run a *censored* version of Elfen Lied, but the censors flatly said it would be a cold day in hell when they could run ANY of that show. As a result, I am now leading an online drive (well, mostly just the Elfen Lied fans from Adult Swim) to get it on another channel, i.e. IFC, which DID run "Gunslinger Girl" totally unedited. The hope is to garner enough interest to eventually get a sequel. But I do not seriously expect good results. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 03:10, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

You wanted a userbox...

... And I made one.

This user serves House {{{1}}}.

{{User:The Userboxer/Userboxes/Silmarillion High Elf Houses}}

Enjoy, The Userboxer^Complain/_ubx 20:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

A new genesis of mankind

Hi V,

You wrote a message to me about the project and after some thinking I accept your offer and would like to join and insert everything I know. :)

Just tell me what to do and I'll see what I can do. :D

Kind regards, --MisteryX 08:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Naturally, I'll be contributing whatever I have too. It's NERV or nothing!! -- Gatotsu911

Sorry

I just noticed that you have blanked the page and I assumed it was mistakenly created. My apologies. --Captain Wikify ^Argh! 22:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Eva portal images

Hi.

I removed the Selected Image section from the Eva portal simply because there are so few potential images that you can have there. Wikipedia does not allow fair use images on portals. It sucks, but that's the way it is. --129.241.214.41 18:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC) Note also that fair use has been removed from lists, the main page, and probably completely removed from Wikipedia in a while. Are you sure you want to use Wikipedia for this work? --129.241.214.41 18:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I see now that this was a wikipedia-wide policy, apparently similar to when the images were removed from the episode lists. .....EvaMonkey may be better; wikipedia is always just a launching point (i.e. MemoryAlpha is better than wikipedia's Star Trek section could ever be). --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 19:16, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, there might have been a good reason for using one fair use image to illustrate a featured article on a portal, but having somebody elses propriatory image as a "featured image" - not a chance. --129.241.214.41 14:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What exactly does "Fair use" mean? Do not link to the fair use article I have already read it but apparently, I don't understant what you mean by it. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 18:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia has stricter rules for fair use media than what would be allowed under US law. See Wikipedia:Non-free content for the policy and guideline on this. Note that as of late, certain administrators have started interpreting and changing policy on fair use to be even stricter than this - it is anticipated that all images, sounds etc. that aren't PD/GFDL/CC-BY will be removed in a while. --129.241.126.121 22:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Little context in Enemies in World War Z

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Enemies in World War Z, by 61.45.36.159 (talk · contribs), another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Enemies in World War Z is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Enemies in World War Z, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Enemies in World War Z itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 01:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Evangelion images and episodes

Basically, a non-free image has to say what articles it's being used in explicitly (See file links is a bit iffy) and explain exactly why this image is important to each article it's being used in. A lot of using non-free images is to do with spelling out common sense, I think. If the Evangelion wikiproject makes their fair use rationales more detailed, the images have got more chance of not being deleted in the next fair use purge, whenever that'll be. You could look at how others do their images - GA-FA class articles have to have their images properly fair-use, so it might be worthwhile looking at those. The major problem with Image:Spear_of_longinus_and_unit_00.jpg for me was that it didn't name its articles, and didn't say why the image was important to each article - both problems that Willbyr kindly had a stab at. Try using Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria as a checklist for each image - and if it doesn't explicitly state something on the Image: page, it might be worthwhile editing the Image page to state the bleeding obvious. Another issue is the image sizes - the only concrete mention I've found of this is at Template:Non-free_media_rationale#_note-1, where it suggests 300px or less. Anyway, I hope this helps - I've linked the non-free criteria and the fair use rationale guideline on your project page so that it's handy. Eventually, your episode articles could have stuff like the production and the real-world response - that'd be the stuff that'd need citations, and it also helps make the articles out of universe and more interesting. Anyone can watch an episode, but it takes some research to find out about the production of it. you'll notice that in WP:SM we don't have any episode articles - that's partially due to having 200 of them, and partially due to not being able to find much in the way of real-world information about them. Mind you, we do link to an external Sailor Moon wiki for episodes. None of this stuff has to be done right this second, but you might like to keep it in mind as the Work Group gears up. Best of luck. :) -Malkinann 00:56, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that even after reading through the image use guidelines, I keep getting that feeling that I think I know what I'm supposed to do when I really don't. (sigh) I'll be getting back to this. There's a prototype EvaWiki in the works, so the overall plan is to actually make the episode guide articles here conform to rules more and get them GA-quality level, and then expand upon them on the private site (similar to what MemoryAlpha and WookiPedia do). Problem is that anime episodes, that is individual anime episodes, don't have as much of a "real world reaction" as say, Star Trek's "These Are the Voyages" (I pray you never had to live through that mind-bogglingly bad series finale, but I digress...). While I like putting up the "summary" part, I always focus on developing the Notes/Analysis sections; this actually fits well for Evangelion, because the writers kind of "painted in the corners" and little things scribbled on notes a character is holding are actually little hints about the plot that they drop (i.e. in Lilliputian Hitcher's Notes section, the thing pointing out that the hand-written stick-it notes are an Easter Egg). Well I'll be working on this for a while, so "work in progress". Thanks. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 01:29, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Yo, V⁵...I think we need to talk about the future of the images in the Evangelion articles. I've started a discussion at the WikiProject's talk page. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

WP Evangelion

I will need some help on getting the articles to GA status. I have been working on my sandbox for The End of Evangelion (see User:Sjones23/The End of Evangelion). How does it look? Greg Jones II 21:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Be back in a few hours please wait. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici 21:35, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Got your message just now. I'm in the process of getting all the images in the category size-reduced and giving the purposes for each a bolster so they can meet FU guidelines...I'm about halfway done. After that, I may try to tackle the episode articles. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:50, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Got your message, I'm looking forward to what you've got. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 03:38, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Thought I better alert you to this...if any of the work that you've been doing relates to the individual episode articles, you'd better go ahead and get it into them ASAP before we lose them. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Neon Genesis Evangelion episode review

V, I could put Neon Genesis Evangelion on the review list, or you could — actually, anyone can start the process. But if you're interested in keeping the articles, you can start looking for real-world source material now, and improve the articles before the review starts. Some of the reviewers are pretty harsh and dismissive of what they call "fancruft". The best defence against them is to have lots of real-world context as well as the fannish info the articles have now. If there are interviews with the creators, artists, voice actors and so forth, that would help; so would reviews printed in a reliable source. Personally, I'd rather wait to put another anime series on the list until we see how the Oh My Goddess review goes. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 17:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Eva 1.0 article

Hi, I'm copy-pasting this image to all you members in the Evangelion workgroup, since there seems to be no communication/to-do template in your workgroup yet (not sure if I have the time to join myself yet). The article on the newest movie needs serious help, particularly in converting listcruft to prose. Note that you may expose yourself to some spoilers if you choose to help. Evangelion: 1.0 You Are (Not) Alone. --GunnarRene 14:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Elfen Lied/GAR 1

Your comments at the GAR page have been removed. Commenting on the GAR is done, so such comments would belong on the talk page. However, as they were also uncivil and included a threat to deliberately disrupt Wikipedia, I decline to move them. Ranting and making such threats is not acceptable. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 00:15, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Again, your remarks on the GAR have been removed. They were not constructive and not civil. Also, your edit to Lucy and Nyū to delete the redirect of a merge is borderline vandalism. I strongly suggest you stop the ranting and the pointy edits. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 19:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant; the comments were directed at you and I know you read them. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 15:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

So if they were directed at Collectonian why'd you put them in a closed discussion? I'd also like to know what you have against WP:Verifiability. I dont see how changing Wikipedia articles to conform to the available and published facts is is any way ruining the pages. Any other encyclopedia would require the same level of referencing, and not having proper references on pages is what gives wikipedia the reputation for being unreliable. --Kraftlos (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2008 (UTC

......I acknowledge that these are the rules as they have been set forth and that I cannot possibly change them or resist them. I will not bring this up again. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I don't wanna be a harda$$ about this; this is just how WP operates. I'd like you to know that I'm trying to maintain the original character of the sections I work on. I don't think anyone wants to butcher the article down to just references; it just has to say where the information came from. That's all. --Kraftlos (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not blaming you or anyone specific Kraftlos. I'm just mad at The System. Don't think anything of it. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 20:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

The Dark Knight

This edit is not supported by the source you provided. Please readd the information when you have a source which actually states that from Eckhart, and not in the comments section, thank you. Until then, Iv'e reverted it out. ThuranX (talk) 02:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

and you think this will make people take wikipedia seriously as a "reliable online encyclopedia"? Why so serious? ^_^ --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 02:43, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Vocative

Hi, Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici. Second declension words with a nominative ending in -us (but not -ius) have a vocative ending in -e. Hope this helps. Regards, Aramgar (talk) 02:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Second declension nouns ending in -ius simply drop the -us in the vocative: e.g. "fili!". Those ending in -er (and vir) are the same in the vocative as in the nominative. Happy to help. Aramgar (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I would be happy to send you a PDF of the article on the vocative of deus if you are interested. Aramgar (talk) 04:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Please do not add commentary or your own personal analysis to Wikipedia articles, as you did to Canton, South Dakota. Doing so violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy and breaches the formal tone expected in an encyclopedia. Thank you. Metros (talk) 03:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Metros, whatever respect for you I used to possess as an anonymous person whom I have never met who has self-proclaimed himself as an administrator of "respectable" online encyclopediae, I have now lost. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 03:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, sorry to have disappointed you, but you cannot add "It is a wonderful place to live" to an article. Metros (talk) 03:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That sir, was a compliment to the fine inhabitants of Canton, South Dakota, living embodiment of the frontier spirit. Why would you want to remove this? And further....I didn't know you had such a vested interest in Canton, South Dakota. Or, do you really take Wikipedia that seriously? Sir, reality has become commodity, and the free market has spoken. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 03:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. If you vandalize Wikipedia again, you will be blocked from editing. This includes any Colbert-related vandalism or any off-topic, unnecessary talk page discussions such as the "why so serious?" stuff you're posting at Talk:Canton, South Dakota. Metros (talk) 04:03, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I honestly didn't know even discussing it on the "Talk" page counted, and was not trying to push beyond the original locking. Sorry, was not trying to start a revert war. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Posting "why so serious?" isn't discussion; it's unnecessary and does nothing to help the article or anything. Metros (talk) 04:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That is clear now. I will not post on this again, as commanded. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 04:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The Brotherhood

Saberwolf116 (talk) 02:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)Hey man. I just wanted to thank you for helping me out in "The Brotherhood" article. Appreciated the input!

-Sabe

Speedy deletion of "Bonerplasia"

A page you created, Bonerplasia, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, organisation, or web content, but does not indicate why its subject is important or significant.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Bullzeye ^{(Ring for Service)} 04:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Revert warring

I'm fed up with your constant revert wars.

If you're not able to contribute as a normal wikipedian, and discuss article content before blindly and savagely reverting, actions will have to be taken against you.

How many times will you disrupt Wikipedia just because "you are personally insulted that your edit isn't the final one" ? If no one can ever modify (even slightly) the edits you make in an article, with no other reason that you refuse to admit the possibility that you can make mistakes sometimes, then it is a case of article ownership which is not seen as an acceptable behavior on WP.

Besides, given the last revert war you waged on me happened only a few days ago, one could think that you've actually targetted me and that you're determined to revert all of my edits just out of spite, because I dared to question your way of editing. Which is incivil behavior, and can result in blocks.

So consider this as a "friendly" way of making things better between us, before I use official warnings. I can't see why I would be the only one to be civil, to try to discuss edits and to reach compromises between my ideas and some of yours, when you seem to be perfectly fine with just reverting to your version.
So, to conclude, concerning the Eva 1.0 plot summary, if your next step consist in discussing the edits, explaining and giving reasons why you don't like my version, and taking into account what I have to say on this matter, and if you wait that we reach a compromise before doing anything else (like reverting), then it's fine. Otherwise, I will have to go further in what I mentionned earlier.Folken de Fanel (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Continue this discussion on the Rebuild talk page. Folken it is you who are unable to contribute normally: you've done little actual work on these articles other than to cut things out the rest of us wrote and call it "actual work". You never tried to achieve consensus on anything, but simply cut stuff out and keep badgering everyone else. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 23:15, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

No, it is you who are unable to contribute normally. Whatever "great" actuall work you claim to have done on the articles do not give you the right to claim the ownership of an article:

I am as entitled to you to make edits on Wikipedia. And yes, "cutting things out" can be positive. That's why we talk about summary style, and that's why there are many rules and guidelines about how to edit on WP, because obviously, you can't write on WP as you would on a forum. You are obviously not familiar to the WP style, and I remove what must be removed in order to be more wikipedia in style.

Because, no matter how great you think you are, you're still making mistakes. And they can't go uncorrected forever.

It's you who never tried to achieve consensus on anything: how many reverts did you need before actually taking the matter to the talk page ? You just reverted, and reverted, and reverted, without a single attempt at explaining yourself, beside showing how you dislike me and how you're determined not to allow any of my edits, as if you were an admin.

But let me say to you that this is incivil behavior, and if you continue like that, you will get into trouble ?

So I don't want to hear these kind of lame accusations from you again.Folken de Fanel (talk) 01:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

you are in no position to be making demands, and it shows that you feel like you own these articles yourself; I asked for consensus when it became apparent that you wouldn't stop; but you're just stirring up more conflict; we will adhere to the results of the vote I began, which will reflect the consensus of everyone: not your orders. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 02:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

1.0

I've done as you've requested and commented. If you'd like to return the favor, you could do some stuff on Neon Genesis Evangelion RE-TAKE. --Gwern (contribs) 21:22 10 October 2008 (GMT)

Re:NGE deletion

You did everything correctly, although you missed one minor but important thing: the editer who created the article should be notified using the template syntax provided on the afd template ({{subst:adw|Neon Genesis Evangelion RE-TAKE}} ~~~~ ). I went ahead and placed the notification message on the user's talk page, otherwise my hats off to you for getting it all right on first try. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:05, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I notified the article creator by personally informing him on his Userpage's Talk page.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 13:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

!!!

Hey, wait a sec... are you...?

...also, how do you put those button-things on you user page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gatotsu911 (talk • contribs) 16:52, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm pleased to meet you and I hope you guessed my name, but what's puzzling you, is the nature of my game. Otherwise, as you know I founded WikiProject Evangelion, and I created the Eva Portal. I also wrote up the episode guide article series, but of course, Wikipedia admins gutted those and deleted the entire thing. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 01:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Most professional "wikipedians", hardcore wiki-addicts, are morons who don't make it easy for other people to understand wiki-templates even though the whole concept was "a website anyone can edit". At any rate, do what I did: those "buttons" are "Userboxes"; I figured out how to use them by "reverse-engineering" other people's userpages. Search "Userboxes" and find ones you like. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 01:42, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Have I seen you on other websites, though...? I've got a nagging feeling... Gatotsu911 (talk) 13:55, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I hate when I go to edit a template and its just a mess of javascript. I took a year of java and it still confuses me. I think wikipedia has some good programming talent, but they dont seem to realize that they're quite advanced. It would be nice if they put in comments into their code, explaining what does what.... gah.... I feel your pain. --Kraftlos (Talk | Contrib) 02:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Petit Eva

I just got done watching all of them on YouTube...very cute and very funny. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 02:42, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer more plot. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 18:22, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Eh, I don't expect something like this to be very plot heavy...I've got the original NGE for that  ;-) Willbyr (talk | contribs) 23:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Tbere isn't even any dialogue. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 00:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

sorry for accidental deletion

My accounts password had been hacked by my cousin, he tried to start an edit war on the Gundam 00 faction page by deleting the images a previous user tried to delete but I caught him before he did, my appologies it won't happen again.- Deus257 (talk) 21:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Evangelion: 2.0 You Can (Not) Advance

Why do you keep re-adding that information to Evangelion: 2.0 You Can (Not) Advance? It's original research, speculation, and unreferenced. —TheLeftorium 15:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

The reference is that I'm describing what the trailer is; that isn't Original Research (the original description by that other guy WAS original research, he took it too far and into speculation; you were right to change his version; but I brought back a toned down version of it. In either case, it will be removed in four months when the film is out. I appreciate that you asked on my talk page instead of changing it back again.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 16:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

it technically counts as original research if you dont have the source to back it up.Bread Ninja (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Evangelion

Right, I'm currently preparing a extremely rough draft of something, however I need to ask another editor or two to run through it and give their thoughts before making it "official". I'll leave a message on the task force page when it is ready for public reading and discussion. Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Eva interpretation

So I've been thinking that I ought to gather up my ideas on how to interpret Eva correctly into one big essay covering everything, since I'm so dissatisfied at what I see in general - lots of bits and pieces, but nothing doing it all. I'm going to start with my impromptu dissertations at http://www.reddit.com/r/anime/comments/99f2m/im_introducing_neon_genesis_evangelion_to_my/c0bwhc6 but I recall that from what I saw of your presentation, you seem to think along much the same lines as me, so I'm curious as to whether you see anything obviously wrong with my therapy paradigm & whether you've written up anything already. --Gwern (contribs) 05:05 7 October 2009 (GMT)

This will take time, and whenever I try to direct a vast new sweeping reorganization on here I get yelled at for "telling people what to do"; so I can review through what you post on wikipedia but I'll have more of a hands-off approach.--Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 20:13, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Hm? Oh, no, I think you've mistaken me. I intend this as a non-WP thing, since I know the synthesis and sources needed wouldn't fly here, even though I'm sure I'm correct. :) I'd be putting it on my personal wiki, with other essays of mine like http://community.haskell.org/~gwern/static/Culture%20is%20not%20about%20esthetics Contacting you on WP was just the easiest way, and I didn't think it needed the privacy of email. --Gwern (contribs) 23:16 7 October 2009 (GMT)

Eva economics

Since I know how much you enjoy reading the latest interpretation of Eva, I thought I'd link you to something I found today: http://members.efn.org/~dredmond/GV.html

Apparently Eva is about the conflict between globalism and protectionism, and borrows many elements from James Bond movies. I felt so enlightened after reading it - and since it's a published academic work, I can't wait to begin rewriting our articles based on it! --Gwern (contribs) 23:07 5 November 2009 (GMT)

And isn't it fascinating that the title of NGE comes from William Burroughs, and that the character based off Nadia is not Shinji as we and Sadamoto always thought, but Misato? --Gwern (contribs) 00:26 7 November 2009 (GMT)

I have heard of that article before: it is beneath contempt to the point that we don't even need to make an argument against it, like for Sean McCoy etc.; it's as complex as the inane scribbling on a bathroom wall; for God's sake he openly states he only based it on the first 14 episodes. To be read once so if other people stumble on it you can tell them to avoid it, but otherwise...making a counter-argument would only prolong its life, when instead we should let it die a quite death of obscurity. --Vi Veri Veniversum Vivus Vici (talk) 16:09, 9 November 2009 (UTC)