User talk:Rachel Thorn

Sure, I can talk. I do talk. Talk is in my repertoire. Talk to me, baby, talk to me!

I don't log in often these days, so if you need to contact me, it's best to e-mail me at [email protected]

Hello Rachel Thorn! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. You may also push the signature button located above the edit window. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. Below are some pages to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! -- Kukini háblame aquí 13:53, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial How to edit a page The five pillars of Wikipedia Manual of Style Be bold in editing How to write a great article WikiProjects Getting your info out there Citing sources Neutral Point of View Describing points of view Attribution Uploading images Image use policy Getting more Wikipedia rules Policy Library Getting Help New contributors' help page Where to ask a question Help Desk Frequently Asked Questions Getting along Etiquette Civility Sign your posts Wikipedians Resolving disputes Getting technical Cleaning up vandalism Pages needing attention Peer review Tools Village pump

Dear sir,

I was thinking of merging the shounen ai and yaoi articles, and I thought you might like to put in your two cents about it, as they are a part of shoujo manga. I proposed the merge because it seems to me that titles historically designated as shounen ai (such as Kaze to Ki no Uta) are being conflated with yaoi under the terms yaoi or BL. If there's any scholarship out there which clearly distinguishes the historical shounen ai from yaoi, then that would be useful to halt the merge. Any guidance on what else should be in the yaoi article, how to reorganise the yaoi article, or additions to the further reading for yaoi would also be appreciated. It's a poor article, but I'd like to think it has improved over time. Thank you. -Malkinann (talk) 07:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I got your message, thanks for responding, and so quickly too! If you would like any help with Wikipedia stuff, please feel free to ask me, or just put {{helpme}} on this page with a description of your difficulty and someone will come and help you out. That yaoi is considered more parodic is what I've been seeing in the literature, (hopefully it's made its way into the actual article too...) and I guess it follows from shonen ai's origins that it's considered to be made up of original works (and perhaps more serious? I'm not sure...). I guess I find the definitions to be the hardest parts, but I guess it's an ongoing discussion. It's interesting that "yaoi" has become outdated in Japan, and it's definitely something I'll try to find a published-outside-of-Wikipedia source for. -Malkinann (talk) 12:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's good to see another manga expert join the fray. Many of the Wiki articles on manga are quite good, and (alas) many are not. They all need work. Please let me know how I can help if you decide to plunge into editing any of them heavily. Also if I can be of any help about details and mechanics of editing, please just ask. Wiki can be fun, but it can also be frustrating. I'll put this page on my watchlist and join in from time to time -- I've not done any really heavy editing since revising the manga article. Again, glad you're here. Timothy Perper (talk) 00:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Tim! I read your user page with great interest. Now I wonder if I went too far in deleting the lines about shoujo anime in the shoujo history section. IIRC, I had complained about the jumbling together of manga and anime on the discussion page, but when I was editing the history section, I could think of no way of keeping what was there on the subject of anime in a way that made sense. In editing that history section, I did try to respect and incorporate what had been there, unless it was simply wrong or irrelevant (which much of it was). I don't have the energy to even look at the rest of the shoujo article: doing so might provoke me to take an extra dose of Valium. BTW, I created my first article from scratch, Katsuji Matsumoto. I'd be grateful if you could take a look at it some time and "grade" it for me. Some of it is, admittedly, subjective and interpretive, but I felt those parts were necessary to help readers understand the context and address the all-important question, "Why should I be reading this at all?" I would also appreciate it if you could tell me if my references are properly formatted. I wasn't exactly consistent. In particular, I wasn't sure how to reference personal communications. (A lot of the details I got directly from Matsumoto's daughter, via e-mail.) I've been studying manga for nearly two decades, and still am wary of trying to define something as slippery and amorphous as "genre," so I think for the time being I will stick to biographical articles and other more concrete subject matter. Hopefully, building up a body of articles on specific creators that describe their historical significance will provide material for better general articles on things such as "genres." But what do I know? I've been doing this less than two weeks. I have to admit, though, that I'm pretty leased with my Matsumoto article, even if no one ever reads it. A friend asked me why the hell I'm wasting my time writing something that won't earn me a penny and may be butchered by someone else, but the Matsumoto article is the kind of thing I am unlikely to include in any kind of print publication, unless by some miracle some publisher decides there's an English-language market for a book on pre-Osamu Tezuka manga. Anyway, any advice or guidance would be very much appreciated.Matt Thorn (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do what I can. The previous Shōjo article reduced me to burbling tooth gnashing. Keep working on it. Here are some potential problem areas and difficulties.

Wikipedia has a very specific, strongly defended definition of the genres of manga and anime. It is to define them solely on the basis of the (putative) demographic of the magazine or publication they appeared in in Japan. I have had some real arguments with people about this. The reason for the Wikipedia definition is that everyone and their uncle has an opinion about genre, and they needed a clear-cut, single definition even when that definition makes no sense in content or readership.

Reference everything you include in an article. My own rule of thumb has been one or two references per sentence. Many, not all, of the editors on Wikipedia do not reference their additions, which are therefore merely opinion. It is an immense help to have "Wiki-verifiability" on your side when someone comes in with a completely erroneous "correction" or addition.

The more you use print references, the better, especially to scholarly books and journals. Beware of citing the web; there are immensely complicated Wiki-arguments about "reliability" of web-sites. My rule of thumb was to use website references for electronic versions of print papers and for primary documentation of a manga title (e.g., a reference to TokyoPop or Viz website that describes the manga I was talking about). Avoid blogs whenever possible.

Wikipedia has an impossibly complicated array of citation styles, templates, and other whatnot for citing things. When I was rewriting the manga article, I ignored it all, being more interested in getting the references into the article than being worried about format. Use a format you're familiar with and gives author, date, title, and place of publication (in other words, the standard scholarly citation). Format comes later. BEWARE of the web citation template. It does not include the URL in the final copy that you see on the screen but buries it in a hidden hyperlink. Drives me crazy.

I can think of a place to publish an article on pre-Tezuka shōjo manga. Mechademia! I'll email you about it.

Basically, the Wiki policy you need is Wikipedia:Be Bold. Use it!

I'll help when I can. Timothy Perper (talk) 09:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Katsuji Matsumoto bamboo figurines.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 09:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 09:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy that I've helped you become more comfortable on Wikipedia, and you are selling yourself short - having real experts on Wikipedia is awesome! Thanks for publishing so much of your writing freely on the internet - it's really interesting and helpful to write articles with. I forgot to mention, if you ever pull a wonder-stunt again like creating a (footnoted) article in under five days, an interesting footnoted fact from it can go on WP:Did you know? and your article will be mentioned on the front page for an entire day! -Malkinann (talk) 07:25, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I need some help. User:Vapour is in the middle of translating the Japanese Wikipedia entry on manga and adding it to the article here on manga. He is not adding references and is also adding opinions and assertions that are, for all I know, complete and utter guesswork. He refuses to listen to me. Can you take a look and tell everyone (on the manga talk page) if he is translating the Japanese correctly (his English is not very good at all) and if there are any references in the original Japanese article to anything he is saying? He is not adding any references, and that's no good. Thanks. Timothy Perper (talk) 06:15, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I let him have it with both barrels, both on his talk page and the manga talk page. I can confirm that he is simply translating (poorly) the Japanese article, which contains virtually no references, and is even worse than I had imagined. You can see what I wrote on the manga discussion page. As for the Japanese message to him, I am basically telling him more bluntly what you have been telling him politely, and telling him to cut it out. Matt Thorn (talk) 10:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sensei. ;-) Timothy Perper (talk) 11:33, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You did a great job with Vapour! Thanks again!

Do I sense a desire on your part to get at that #@$%^ manga article and fix it? I certainly hope so! Not that I'm suggesting we do that right now -- the shōjo/yaoi material comes first -- but, in case such a time does arrive, here's a little history and background.

When I began to work on the article, somewhat less than a year ago, it was in rotten shape, even worse than what Vapour added -- a mixture of random opinions, factoids (most of them wrong), bad writing, fancruft, and ignorance. So, with the help of Peregrine Fisher, an editor on Wiki, I plunged in and started systematically replacing sections with heavily referenced material. I am not, and do not claim to be, an expert on manga in Japan, but I do know something about manga in the US. So Peregrine and I focused the article on manga in the US, and wrote the history sections with English-language readers in mind. Later, as the new material slowly attracted (positive) attention, we also rewrote other sections, including material on manga outside of Japan.

However, our revisions also attracted negative attenion. Several "editors" -- who shall remain nameless -- attacked what Peregrine and I were doing, never adding anything themselves, but telling us we were doing it wrong. This flak continued all during the time we were actively working on the article, and, IMO, got worse with time.

Matters came to a head when someone nominated the (partly revised) article for Good Article status, and someone else nominated it for Feature Article status. I felt and said that the nominations were premature, but they brought out the worst in the editors who had been attacking us. I was getting tired of the whole mess -- a lot of work for no thanks -- and stopped working on the article. Both nominations of course failed.

One result is the mish-mash you now see. Several sections were not rewritten at all (e.g., doujinshi) and are laughable. Other sections were cut down. whole subsections being eliminated when the article was transferred (edited down by other hands) to the History of manga article. For example, all mention of Berusaiyu no Bara was removed from tha manga article because one "editor" didn't think it belonged there. So I just quit -- to hell with that kind of garbage. I've policed the article, preventing the kobolds from wrecking it completely, but as Vapour shows, that is a constant battle.

Eventually, it will be worthwhile for us to return to the manga article. With you now editing Wikipedia, we have a much better chance at stopping the kobolds in their tracks, not only by repairing damage, but by including new and better material. However, as I said, the shōjo/yaoi material comes first.

We'll keep our eye on Vapour and remove his edits if he can't supply references. Something tells me he won't be able to.

Timothy Perper (talk) 14:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a friend and colleague of Tim Perper's. Though I don't consider myself to be an expert on manga, I'm interested in it/them and have published an analytical article on Tezuka's Metropolis. More generally, I respect scholarship and I know how to think about culture.

I'm interested in helping on the main manga article, though I'm not sure what I can do. It seems to me that roughly the first half of the current article is workable in the sense that, given consensus on what's to be done, it can be brought in line fairly directly. However, I don't have the knowledge needed to do that (e.g. I'd bought-in to the Tezuka & cinematic style myth).

Once we get through the history & characteristics section, we've got problems. The rest of the article is a bit disjointed and needs tightening and, perhaps, some material should just be dropped (e.g. the section on awards). Here we're working against length considerations.

The big issue, it seems to me, is manga techniques, aesthetics, and style. I know that, at one time, this had been brought up on the talk page, but that discussioin's now been archived. There IS a Manga iconography article that covers some of this material, but that article has no references whatsoever. Do we need a separate section on techniques & aesthetics in the main manga article? I don't know. One issue is that of "no original research." Are there enough citable sources on this to justify a separate section? I'm thinking, for example, of the kinds of issues that Scott McCloud discusses in Understanding Comics, where he has some interesting comments on manga.

It may well be that what's already in the history & characteristics section is adequate on this topic for the purposes of a main article. I don't know. Hence I'm raising the issue. It seems to me that we need to figure out where we are on this issue before we can figure out how to bring the main article to "the next level," whatever that is. Bill Benzon (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bill. To be honest, I have not read the whole manga article, because I don't want to give myself an ulcer. I just glanced at it yesterday, saw the misleading image from Tezuka's "remake" of New Treasure Island, and thought "Ugh." History of manga, the manga industry, reader's habits, etc., are my specialty. In my own classes, I deal with the aesthetics, but from from a historical perspective (i.e., how certain techniques evolved and became standardized, and how they are eventually displaced by something new). I find that attempts to characterize "manga style" end up as gross caricatures at worst, or snapshots of the present at best, and for every technique described as "representative", I can offer a hundred exceptions or contradicting evidence. My own inclination is to simply "not go there." That being said, there are any number of articles and books, in both English and Japanese, that could be cited in such a section. At the moment, I'm focusing on getting the Yaoi, Shōjo manga, and Josei manga articles up to snuff. If I still have energy and time after all that, I'll jump into "the big one." I could, though, work on a specific section, such as history. I've glanced through the history section, and it looks like a mess to me. One big problem I see is that there is no consensus, in Japan or elsewhere, about when and how manga "began." This is of course true of comics as well. It's important to point out some of the major arguments, including references to representatives of each side, but not get bogged down in minutiae, and certainly not describe one scenario as if it is "the truth." All the talk about the etymology and meaning of the word "manga," too, is distracting. Sure, you can find ancient instances of those two kanji being put together, but not necessarily to describe what we think of as manga. Again, we should note that this is much debated, offer a few succinct and referenced examples, and move on. As for Tezuka, it has really only been in the last five years or so that the most prominent baby-boomer manga critics (e.g., Natsume) have acknowledged that they have focused too much on Tezuka and pretty much ignored narrative manga prior to Tezuka. Although there are still a couple of die-hard Tezuka worshipers, most scholars and critics are now trying to make up for the imbalance. Tezuka was in many ways a genius, and was probably the hardest-working cartoonist who ever lived, but he was a man, not a god. He was also notoriously competitive and jealous, and reveled in his image as the god of manga. His remake of "New Treasure Island" was a deliberate attempt to rewrite history, literally, and his account of his first hit's publication (portraying Sakai as the "bad guy") needs to be taken with a fistful of salt. My own argument has been that Tezuka's real contribution was creating manga with profound themes that resonated with readers and kept them hooked long after they were supposed to "grow out of" manga. Anyway sorry to ramble. If you have any specific questions or requests, I'll do my best to help. Matt Thorn (talk) 02:32, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Bill -- glad you've commented on this. One thing to remember is that the manga article is a product of many people's contributions -- which means it lacks the common focus and sharp analytical quality that a scholarly essay would have. When Peregrine Fisher and I first started to work on it something like 9 months ago, it was an absolute mess; we added all the referenced material -- all the non-referenced material pre-dates us or was added after I had stopped editing the article. Furthermore, a variety of other people have removed our material wholesale. A somewhat better version is the History of manga article, which Peregrine and I put together, and has sustained much less damage from kobolds and other unpleasant folk.

One section that Peregrine and I never got around to was about manga stylistics. The manga iconography entry is a complete disaster area, utterly and totally useless. But it illustrates what we're up against. The otaku are fascinated primarily by in-universe material and know almost nothing about anything else. But they have opinions, and by God, their opinions are as good as ours! So they put in opinions and makeshift observations (and, of course, no references). And they can turn nasty and vicious when their work is deleted or criticized.

Concerning Tezuka. I would like to see the article cite those scholars (Schodt 1983 is one of them) who have helped put Tezuka into a commanding position as forefather of modern manga AND those later scholars who have understood that Tezuka's work had its own roots in both Japanese art (e.g., Takarazuka) and in Western cartoons. Here we again run across the otaku, who have no way to address this question except to say that Tezuka was "influenced" by Disney (the otaku have never heard of Fleischer) and maybe "influenced" by Takarazuka (which they might have heard of, maybe). But -- and now we enter into some of Bill Benzon's territory -- there is no clear, generally accepted, canonical definition of "influence." I think of Franco Moretti's work and also work by Wendy Siuyi Wong on comics from Hong Kong. Tracing out origins and history in an era as rich as ours is in transnationalism and glocalization is a **difficult** job. It can be done, but it'll be a big job.

Next, I will admit to a personal reservation. I am currently working on an essay with Martha about "implicit social worlds" in manga and anime, by which I mean the assumptions, usually never foregrounded, about the nature of human social existence. Some of those assumptioms are Utopian (Sailor Moon, Little Snow Fairy Sugar, Samurai Champloo), some are Dystopian (Akira, Eva, Utena). I am, to be quite frank, more interested in doing that essay and publishing it in Mechademia or IJOCA than I am in hassling with amateurs like Vapour on Wikipedia. So, to be honest, I am more likely to think about Tezuka in relation to the "implicit world view" he puts into Michi or even Metropolis (and certainly Buddha!) than I am in disinfecting the manga article. An article Martha and I write for publication we can sign and publish; writing for Wikipedia is distinctly not one of my major interests. I'll do the best I can, as a professional and a friend, but -- and the but should be obvious.

So the manga article is "beyond my scope" at the moment. I'll help out with the smaller articles, like the josei manga stuff we're doing now, but I'm not about to tackle something as large as the manga article again. If you guys want to do it, I will certainly help, but I won't be in the forefront. (Peregrine and I added something like 120 references to that damn article.)

Anyway, good to hear from you, Bill, and I hope you stop by Matt's Sandbox 3 and see what we're up to for josei. It's at User:Matt Thorn/Sandbox 3. Your comments will be most welcome.

Timothy Perper (talk) 03:31, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tim pretty much sums up my reluctance to dive into the manga article. The level of interest among well-intended but clueless fanboys means there is no end to the mischief wrought by kobolds. I feel like my efforts are better channeled into articles that are of interest to me, but not so popular that they attract kobolds. That's the great irony of Wikipedia, I suppose: the bigger the topic, the less reliable the article.

This is completely off topic, but I've been paying more attention to Japanese-language Wikipedia articles lately, and am stunned by the low standards. References/citations are the exception, not the rule, which is probably why Vapour saw no problem in his edits. They must simply not have enough administrators, or the administrators are too timid. I was amused (in a sad kind of way) to see on the discussion page of the Japanese yaoi article that the contributors were using the English-language article as a source. Matt Thorn (talk) 04:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Guys! Of course, I too have my projects, chief of which is a book on what I"m calling "naturalist poetics" or perhaps "naturalist criticism." And when that's done - I'm already late on my contracted delivery date - there are other things, so I'm not terribly anxious to wade in on the general manga article either. But I'll stick around and take a look at this or that and make comments if I feel I've got something helpful to say. But I'd like to make a few remarks in response to some things you guys have said above.

One general difficulty is we're dealing with stuff that doesn't fall into hard-edged categories. Brinktops are clearly different from fluffbottoms, but you can always find this or that case that resembles a brinktop as much as it does a fluffbottom; so, does that mean that the distinction between brinktops and fluffbottoms is arbitrary? Perhaps it means only that the boundary between them is arbitrary, but that's not a very comfortable situation.

This problem infects any attempt to account for the origins of manga, or the novel, or the blues, what have you. We've got substantive issues and matters of "mere" definition. But it's difficult to sort those things out. The historical situation may go something like this: Here we are in good old Gorblovia and florgords just seem to be showing up here and there. And then someone says, "Hey kids, look at all the florgords." "Yeah, they're all over the place." "Cool." And thus florgords were born.

As for Tezuka's status in manga, some years ago I read a biography of John von Neumann, who was a formidable polymath. I'd known that before I'd read the biography, but I hadn't realized how may pies had benefitted from his fingers. So, I began quipping that von Neumann was the Einstein of the 20th century. On any terms, Einstein was a great thinker, but his iconic status has as much to do with mythology as with his accomplishments and my quip is playing against the mythological part.

And the same is true for William Shakespeare. His literary accomplishment was of the first order. But his historical status does have a mythological component and that component is so deep that it is all but inescapable, even for the most sophisticated Shakespeare scholar. But Shakespeare, the man from Stratford, couldn't have been Shakespeare, The Bard, if the world had not been ready. And once he'd done his stuff, it's so much easier to tell the story of English literature if we can lay it all at the feet of this Great Colossus. I suppose Tezuka has been assigned to that role in the history of manga.

See you around. Bill Benzon (talk) 15:34, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am new to wikipedia and am not sure where to join in a conversation. I can't really call myself a manga expert, but rather I come at it from the Edo period. I am trained as a Japanese art historian and have been working on illustrated books of the Edo period for years. I have been going through the archive of the main "manga" article very intensively today (I have done this less intensively over the years) and have been amazed at the changes in especially the history section. I can see why it's contentious, but wonder if those of you who seem to care would like to comment on why the pre-WWII history got simplified so that it says very little. Why not have more mention on figures such as Kitazawa Rakuten or Okamoto Ippei, for example? (or separate articles)

And why did the alternate names for humorous depictions get omitted? In my view Hokusai's manga is not the same manga as it got to be in the early 20C, but because mass media developed in the late 19C, manga as comics emerged in the last 19C century. (And I don't mean just the "punch-e".

I won't go on for long now, since I'm not sure if I'll get an answer, but I thought I'd put out a feeler. Snurf (talk) 06:50, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That one floated by my watchlist -- thanks for fixing the errors introduced by whoever it was. Half my life on Wiki consist in patrolling such idiot errors. Also thanks for setting up the new Sandbox. More on that over there. Timothy Perper (talk) 17:43, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a longish note plus references to the talk page for Death Note where someone deleted a reference. I gave a bunch more references plus some reasons not to delete the one that was deleted. If you feel so inclined, come over to the Death Note talk page and comment. Timothy Perper (talk) 19:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope that helped! Matt Thorn (talk) 08:16, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It sure did. Thanks! Timothy Perper (talk) 12:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm editing the introduction of Death Note. Why don't you come over and throw some heavy duty references in Japanese at the publication date stuff in the introduction and about the light novel. You'll see the ^{[citation needed]} tags I added. Timothy Perper (talk) 23:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Combi harmony.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image was accidentally deleted and is now back up on Katsuji Matsumoto. Matt Thorn (talk) 05:50, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed this one up here - it's important to fix up these things on the image page itself, especially when a bot does the tagging and can't read your replies. Hope this helps! -Malkinann (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've found a good essay that explains the basic process at WP:GNGA, but you might want to ask Nihonjoe or for another experienced Wikipedian at WT:MANGA to help keep things smooth when it goes up for review, so that you don't become overwhelmed by wiki jargon. It can take over a month for articles to be reviewed. As far as GA goes, I tend to be on the other end of the procedure - the delisting process. (Which is why I thought it had potential, lol.) Hope you're keeping notes for that future "Katsuji Matsumoto, Wikipedia, OR and GA" blog post. (Well, *I'd* read it keenly!!) -Malkinann (talk) 11:48, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Malkinann! Matt Thorn (talk) 15:12, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I second Malkinann's advice -- Nihonjoe is one person, another is User:Tony1 though I think he may work primarily on FA's. There's a lot of bookkeeping in the GAC process, and I sure don't know it. The first step, I think, is to get the article "peer reviewed" and then make the changes they recommend. If I can help, let me know. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Matt -- can you come over to Talk:Original English-language manga and comment on a debate I'm having about original research with another editor? Thanks. Timothy Perper (talk) 15:00, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Matt, I was wondering if you'd had time to find a quotable source for Weekly Shonen Jump pandering to fujoshi yet? There's no rush or anything, I'm just reminding you as a potential convenient distraction from shoujo. I find that when I get frustrated at the progress on one article, it's helpful to switch to another, more lonely article. Yaoi has been the target of my frustrations for some time now, haha. (And doesn't it show?) Also, I was wondering if you've received BL Shin Nihonshi yet, and if it's any good? (You mentioned it about a month ago - I'm not sure how quickly books get shipped on Amazon...) -Malkinann (talk) 01:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Malkinann. That strange editing war on Shōjo is incredibly frustrating. I'm afraid I lost my cool a bit, but the stubbornness and arrogance is mind-boggling. Anyway, I'm searching for references for "Shōjo Jump," but haven't found anything solid so far. Googling "Shōjo Jump" in Japanese turns up quite a few hits, but they are mostly from BBS's, 2chan, or the comment sections of blog entries or news items. It seems to be common knowledge that Jump is sarcastically called "Shōjo Jump", and I've found a few respectable items that point out that Jump is popular among girls, and fujoshi in particular, but none of these solid sources actually uses the phrase. Maybe they're afraid of incurring the wrath of Shueisha. I'll keep looking. I got BL Shin Nihonshi. It's not bad, but it's nothing that could be useful in the yaoi/BL article, unfortunately. You would think there would be at least one really good on on BL, but if there is, I can't find it. But I'll keep looking. P.S.: Thanks for trying to cheer me up (^_^) Matt Thorn (talk) 14:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to check out Wikilove - it's a cute article which I find helps me get into a better mood. I also find it helpful to remember that all or most editors are firmly convinced that they are helping Wikipedia. It's just that some people's definition of 'helping' differs from others'. XD The phrase "Shoujo Jump" itself isn't important (although it is funny). Having respectable sources point out the general trend of shounen being popular with fujoshi is important, as it could potentially save the article from becoming a list of every popular slashable series. BL Shin Nihonshi might be more useful than you think - these days, I'm finding that when I get my hands on sources, I go 'but I know that already! :( ' It might be that you know the stuff that's in the book already, but it's lacking in the article. (Which is still quite possible). It might be that people are too busy having moral panics over yaoi to think about the history of it. :P You might or might not be interested in the discussion I inadvertently started here about how to assess importance for biographical articles for WP:MANGA. I think I've pointed out the pertinent facts of 'lol, where are all the women?' and 'hey, although their articles don't show it, the year 24 group are all really important!' I've also asked at P:MANGA about just how high-quality an article has to be before it's selected as part of the portal - and GA is enough! It might get some more eyeballs on Katsuji Matsumoto, once it's GA and portalled. You're welcome, I hope you're feeling happier now. ^_^ -Malkinann (talk) 17:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It means "Don't Feed The Trolls." It's a wiki-saying. It means continue to ignore Da Vynchi. The person clearly knows no Japanese. Timothy Perper (talk) 13:30, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the sound advice. (^_^) Matt Thorn (talk) 15:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OMG you are an "expert" on shoujo manga, no wonder you care so much about that 少女 article. I didn't meant to step into your territory, but I just feel compelled to contribute to any article that has Chinese words in it. XD--Da Vynci (talk) 18:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, Da Vynci. I understand. I think the etymology is an excellent contribution. I just wanted to be clear on the meaning of the word in contemporary Japanese. Matt Thorn (talk) 01:23, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have access to the article mentioned on the talk page for Shōjo Sekai? Please post over there if you do. Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Matt, when looking for sources for the yaoi article, I've come across something disquieting - I found an article that I think has used the wikipedia article as a source without citing wikipedia - reading their article, it seems to me that some of the phrases are eerily familiar (especially when comparing to versions of our page just prior to the rewrite of "Critical attention"). Do you think that it's just that it covers the same subject matter in a similarly brief space, or is it more than that? I'd like to get yours and Tim's opinons on it before I start looking into contacting them about the content. Thank you. -Malkinann (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I don't really have the time or energy to read and compare the articles. I'm sure that sort of thing is rampant in general audience publications, though. People seem to assume that Wikipedia doesn't need to be cited. If you could point out particular sentences that you think are pretty much lifted from the Wiki article, I could give my opinion as to whether or not it is plagiarized, and I could write an e-mail to the editor if necessary. (Sad to say, as a teacher I've become pretty good at spotting plagiarism.) I spent most of today cleaning up and adding references to the Shōjo Sekai article Nihonjoe made, and tracking down the Chinese source of the Shōjō legend. What I really want to do now, though, is work on my next blog entry, which will be an introduction to the July, 1958 issue of Shōjo. I don't know if you've ever seen my blog, but you might find it entertaining. Matt Thorn (talk) 14:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, I'm sorry you feel so awful. :( Hopefully this should just take two minutes to check, and then we can confer with Tim. There's only a very little from Wikipedia in there, but it's still annoying to find it. There's the 130 English publications as of 2006 figure (originally came from the boinking article as being "approx. 100 out and 30 due this year", so I added them...), and this:

In May 1992, gay activist Masako Sato attacked BL fans in a published letter in a zine, accusing producers for promoting images of gorgeous and successful gay men that make gay men in real life seem quite inferior. However, BL fans retaliated by writing that BL characters are not supposed to represent real men. With 18.5 million hits for "Yaoi" on the internet alone as of last month,

The bits on "Masako Sato" I believe are similar to the "Debate" section as it was before the rewrite. (I've linked to when I originally put it in as it is clearly before the article was published.) The 18.5 million hits is a piece of WP:OR we've had sitting around in the article since July. For some reason googlehittery is a much-loved metric, and an IP thought we should have a more recent figure (I haven't had the heart to remove it). I know we've reworked the article anyway, but I was so darned proud of finding that out; and I'd like us to be acknowledged (if it's not just me "seeing things"). If it's in an educational publication (the .edu suffix) and in a Wikipedia article, the knee-jerk reaction is that Wikipedia was the one doing the plagiarising. I know I should be worldly-wise by now about unfairness, lol. If it seems to you and Tim that it was plagiarised, we can then think about what kind of communique we want to send. WP:FORK has some suggestions for a similar circumstance. On another note, I love your blog, it's really fun to read! ^_^ I just haven't had anything worthwhile to say on any entries yet. -Malkinann (talk) 15:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Came across this, thought you might be interested: Wikipedia:School and university projects - using Wikipedia as a teaching tool - instead of handing in an assignment, students edit a non-existent or stub article as close to Featured as they can, like you've been doing with Katsuji Matsumoto. It doesn't seem like the Japanese Wikipedia has an equivalent page, but I wonder how hard it would be to set something up? -Malkinann (talk) 14:24, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You mean set up a similar page on the Japanese language Wikipedia!? Eek! As I wrote on the Shoujo Discussion page less than an hour ago, the Japanese Wikipedia is a mess. To be honest, I don't even want to think about touching it (although I am working on a Japanese version of the Katsuji article). I think the concept is great, though. It would help students learn about what constitutes solid research, how to organize and categorize, how to do actual non-Wikipedia research, and, perhaps best of all, how to distinguish between a good Wikipedia article from a bad one. Matt Thorn (talk) 14:32, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You could also, if you didn't want to let your students run wild on the "big wikipedia", get your tech department to set up some wiki software on your university's system as a "class wiki" and get your students to edit articles there. Then the articles could be transferred to the Japanese language Wikipedia and nominated for FA as part of the assessment process. (although I'm not 100% sure how FA works over there...) Trouble with the "walled garden" method though is that the students don't get the chance to mingle with "the great unwashed". (which might just be a positive, lol!) Also, you'd have a learning curve on how to run a wiki yourself. -Malkinann (talk) 14:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool idea. But since 80% my students are prospective artists, it's hard to see how I could work something like that into the curriculum (not to mention that I'm currently on sick leave), and I can't think of any professors in other departments who might be interested. I think most of the professors who even know about Wikipedia consider it to be a virus. (^^;) Matt Thorn (talk) 15:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to me, a science undergrad, that to understand an artist's works, you must understand their lives - writing short biographies of the greats, perhaps. (although I swear having to study Ted Hughes' marriage during high school turned me off blokes for a while...) You're the arts professor, though, so if you think it'd be impractical/annoying to try to use WP in your curriculum, then you know better than me. :) -Malkinann (talk) 16:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Huh, no kidding. What kind of science? I'm trained as a biologist, long ago, and my doctorate is in bio (genetics, actually) though it has been quite some time since I've worked in the field. But being a biologist might explain why I like strange animals like orangutans (shoujou), tapirs (mo), and giraffes (kirin), and pick up on mythology about them. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Do you recall my definition of kobold? Timothy Perper (talk) 16:19, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in the deletion discussion for this manga artist since you've written about her in the past. Do you have any good sources for information about her? ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:46, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote an entry on the discussion page. I'll gather sources and info on her as soon as I can. Matt Thorn (talk) 06:34, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the deletion debate over Hatsu, I just voted keep and posted a website that sells two of her books in e-format. Timothy Perper (talk) 12:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What do you think about the "conflict of interest" accusation? I'm afraid to even begin to list all the manga artists I'm friendly with, for fear of being banned from editing more articles, but it's a pretty lengthy list. Whatever happened to "assuming good faith"? Matt Thorn (talk) 15:28, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The WP:COI policy permits you to edit the article with some provisos - which is mainly a glue-like adherence to the relevant policies and the expectation to try consensus on the talk page (and AFD page!) first. It's pretty much "the usual stuff" - try to keep your potential biases in mind when writing the article, avoid floral language, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:BLP. Are you aware of any awards she's won? That would help satisfy another criterion of WP:BIO. -Malkinann (talk) 16:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes... sigh.... take a look at the item immediately above this one, about kobolds. You think I'm making them up? Ha! In any event, there is no policy or guideline that says that you cannot edit an article about someone or something you know. Look up the Conflict of Interest guidelines and see. There is nothing wrong with that at all (bearing in mind the possibility of bias). Instead, IMO, the COI comment was just a ploy to get you off balance. Ignore it. Thanks for your explanation of where the name "Rinko" came from. From the comments so far, there's no consensus to delete, but rather to keep. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:29, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarifications, Malkinann and Tim. Yeah, I did get the impression that the "conflict of interest" accusation might be the Wiki equivalent of an elbow to the ribs. I also got the impression that as the person who originally marked the article for deletion, she didn't like someone stepping up and arguing notability. ("If I don't know this manga artist, she can't be important.") It's interesting how many Wikipedians who display kobold-like tendencies also have the "This user tries to do the right thing" userbox on their User Pages. Remind me to never put that userbox on my own. Maybe I'll make a new userbox that reads, "This user is more humble and modest than you." As for awards, I've been looking, but haven't found anything yet. I'd be surprised if her recent Uryūdō yume banashi series hasn't at least been nominated for something. Anyway, I will of course be careful to adhere to policy on NPOV, etc. (^^) Matt Thorn (talk) 00:47, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Collectonian means well, and does a lot of good here on WIkipedia. She does sometimes tend to be bullheaded about things if she's made up her mind about something, but (as I said) she has been an amazing force for good in cleaning up anime and manga articles here. I think it's better to allow everyone a few eccentricities as long as it's for the better good. I certainly have enough of my own. :p ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 05:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I came off sounding harsh. I shouldn't have judged her by this one encounter. The Unintelligent Designer knows that I have many eccentricities myself. Matt Thorn (talk) 05:29, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've been hunting for a few good books on the history of anime, especially if they include pictures for each entry and do a good job covering the early part of the history (including Imokawa Mukuzo Genkanban no Maki and similarly older works for which information is harder to find). Here are a couple I've found, and I'd like your opinion on them (especially if you've seen, read, or own them yourself):

• 日本のアニメ全史
• 日本アニメ史学研究序説

What are you thoughts on these ones? Do you have any others you'd suggest? I'm trying to find some good resources for filling in the older anime holes in Wikipedia. Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 04:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Nihonjoe, I'm out of my depths here. Anime is not my forte, and I'm not familiar with any books on anime history. I'm actually more familiar with pre-otaku (pre-Yamato?) animation (back when it was still called dōga, firumu manga, or manga eiga) than with the stuff most people think of when they think of anime. So I have a passing familiarity with prewar and wartime animation, as well as postwar theatrical release animation (e.g. Toho's stuff from Hakujaden to Taiyō no ōji Horusu no bōken), but I can hardly claim to be an expert. Matt Thorn (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's the era for which I'm trying to find information. (^_^) There's very little information in English for anime or manga before the late 1960s, and I'd like to create more articles for these in order to make WIkipedia a better source of information for these works. ANy tips or pointers in the right direction are helpful. Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 02:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have you seen 日本アニメーションの力—85年の歴史を貫く2つの軸 by Nobuyuki Tsugata (津堅信之)? Tsugata is probably the best known and authoritative historian of Japanese animation. Don't mind the reader reviews. The guy who gave it 2 stars is basically complaining because Tsugata didn't write the book the reviewer thought he should, and also splitting hairs over the relationship between Tezuka and Miyazaki. The Japanese Wikipedia article, quite naturally, includes virtually no references, and the text portion on prewar Japanese animation is a joke, but the 年表 is a good place to start to look for proper materials. Sadly, most of the earliest animation is either lost or survives only in fragments. (You may recall there was a bit of an earthquake in 1923.) Some of the most important prewar animators are Hekoten Shimokawa (下川凹天), Jun'ichi Kōuchi (幸内純一), Seitaroh Kitayama (北山清太郎), Kenzō Masaoka (政岡憲三), Mitsuyo Ose (瀬尾光世), and Noburō Ōfuji (大藤信郎). Here are some more YouTube videos of prewar anime:

• のらくろ伍長
• 絵本1936年 オモチャ箱シリーズ
• 動絵狐狸達引

Hope this is helpful. Matt Thorn (talk) 07:49, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 20:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to User:Matt_Thorn/Sandbox_5.

I left you a message on CZ. Timothy Perper (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Responded over at CZ. Matt Thorn (talk) 01:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion page of Sally the Witch. Kasuga says the bolded sentence has the word "Bewitched" in it. I don't see it. I added a comment to that effect. Timothy Perper (talk) 16:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You and Kasuga were both right. I think Kasuga did not understand that his or her phrasing made it sound as if Yokoyama was ripping off Bewitched. Matt Thorn (talk) 01:42, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I thought also. Your change in the article is a good fix. Thanks. Timothy Perper (talk) 12:26, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is helpful. Oda Mari (talk) 05:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is great, Mari! Thanks! I never thought of searching the 国立国会図書館. I often search for old books on 日本の古本屋, but that didn't help this time because the only copy of the Buchan book there was titled 「魔法のつえ」, not 「魔法の杖」(-_-;) Thanks again for the search URL. Matt Thorn (talk) 08:09, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

お役に立てて光栄。こちらこそ、よろしく。Oda Mari (talk) 15:25, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

はいはい、読みました。大爆笑させてもらいました。わたしの名前、ちゃんと読んでましたね。拍手！　これはアカウント作るときに、あれこれ名前を入れたのがみんな、もう使われてますとかではねられ、頭にきて入れた名前です。前々から、どっかで使えるかなと思ってはいたんですけどね。あと、原真紀なんていうのもありかな。あとで知ったんだけど、なんとかって漫画の登場人物にOda Mari がいるそうな。Oda Mari (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

「原真紀」も地味にいいですね。下ネタになるが、鈴木由美子のマンガに「オマタかおる」というのがありましたね。ウチの近所に「ふたまた」さんという家族がいるが、あの表札を見る度に「だんなさんの名前が翔（かける）だったりして」と考えちゃいます。ダジャレ大好きな僕にはたまりませんね。Matt Thorn (talk) 01:39, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, NDL is the best place. 宝の山です。They have manga too. You can read any out-of-print manga there. Read ja: 国立国会図書館. こっちのほうが英語版より詳しい。And if you need some detective work in ja, just ask me. At least I think I'm a faster ja reader. Happy editing! Oda Mari (talk) 05:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I might take you up on that offer. Matt Thorn (talk) 07:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I laughed at 大場かよ. 最高！Oda Mari (talk) 05:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The funniest thing is that it's a true story. 「小俣かおる」とまで行かなくても、結婚しておかしな名前になった女性が結構いそう。ミクシィにそういう人のためのコミュニティがありそう（笑）。Matt Thorn (talk) 07:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! Please take a look at the 'Japanese' question. I don't think 貯金箱's reply to my post is right. Or am I 大場かよ? BTW, I guess her daughter's name is 大場加奈子. Oda Mari (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

「大場加奈子」。ナイス〜。僕も何かバリエーションはないか色々考えてみたのに何も浮かばなかった。悔しい。 I'll take a look at the Japanese question. Matt Thorn (talk) 23:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the post at the ref.desk. わかっていると思うけど、「ひとことなんて、言ってないよ」is possible at the situation like this. 「ひとことなんて、言ってないよ。他人事って言ったんだよ。そっちの聞きまちがいだよ」それにしても、あんさんの日本語、ほんまによろしおすなぁ。ハハハ、変でしょ？　日本人だけど、京都弁はできない。お世話さま。Oda Mari (talk) 05:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I think 戸田奈津子 is a good example too. Oda Mari (talk) 06:30, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

こうかな？　あんさん、日本語、ようできなはりますなぁ。やはり、変でっしゃろ？ Oda Mari (talk) 06:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

「あんさん、日本語あんじょうできてはりますなぁ。」…かな？僕も京都は１１年目だけど、京都弁はムズいっす。いろんなパターンあり過ぎて。同じ京都市内でも、ほんまもんの京都弁をしゃべらはる人間は別世界にいはりますねん。せやし、僕は２年間松ヶ崎小学校のPTA会長を務めさてもろうたさかいに「一般人」の京都弁はそこそこ身につけたつもりねんけどなぁ。ちなみに僕もあの「ヒトコト」を見た時「『他人事』だったら…」と思いました。まあ、結局他人事だけど。(^^) Matt Thorn (talk) 08:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

追伸：多くの洋画のニュアンスを潰しまくって味気のないものにしてきた戸田奈津子は、死刑とは言わないが投獄すべし。そして彼女を雇って来た配給会社のおえら方も共犯で罰を受けるべし。はい。Matt Thorn (talk) 08:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.P.S: オダさんって、ミクシィをやってたりしません？Matt Thorn (talk) 08:11, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Who puts titles in the Yaoi Category (Category:Yaoi) and Shonen-ai (Category:Shōnen-ai) anyway ??? The Yaoi category look mess and the shonen-ai is not updated. There are so many Shoen-ai article in here but is not there. Please be responsible. --Jonica c (talk) 16:09, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you're feeling a bit better now. I've actually been thinking a little about the categories here - it's been wikiproject-anime/manga-fashionable to use categories rather than lists in genre articles for a little while now, and given that the yaoi article is now getting bigger, I'd rather use a category. I've been wondering about merging the two relevant categories into one, which I suppose would be Boys Love or BL. I've not tried this before - but it can't be too hard, right? (Famous last words? ;) ) My concerns with this course of action is that we might lose resolution - the difference between shounen-ai and modern-day BL which means ever so much to some fans. (and then the English-language difference between "innocent" shounen-ai and "porntastic" yaoi...) I'm also frustrated at the gaps in the article, which I may not be able to close... the gaps that are annoying me most at the moment are stuff on the Japanese publishing besides June and Biblos, and thematic elements. I'll be busy-busy this week, too. *plays the tiniest violin in the world* -Malkinann (talk) 11:49, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've recently been approached by someone who wishes to nominate yaoi to be a "Good Article" - articles which are decent, not sterling. I'm sorry that I misled you as to how highly the Katsuji Matsumoto article could be rated - I believe it is still one of the best manga/anime real-person biography articles Wikipedia has. He has offered to copy-edit the yaoi article for me. Writing good prose is my weakness, so I am tempted to try for it, although I am concerned that the article still does not do the subject justice. A little while ago, you described the yaoi article as having "serious problems" - could you please elaborate on them on Talk:Yaoi, if you have time? Thank you, and I hope you're feeling a bit better than you have been. Congratulations on having Est-Em's latest book out - I tried to check it out when I was shopping the other day, but all copies had already sold out, and the book shop wasn't taking pre-orders until next year. I've also recently worked on Princess Nausicaä, which I've only just realised you might be interested in looking at. (Looking at the main article for the Nausicaä series will only upset you, though, so don't do that.) --Malkinann (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I figured you might be busy - it's the right time of year for that. You seemed to be quite definite at the time that the article had serious problems, so I thought I'd just ask first. Why are you afraid to look at it again? Will it upset you, or don't you feel you have time to look over it properly? You don't have to, if that's the case. I'm glad you're okay, even if you're really busy at the moment. Take care. --Malkinann (talk) 10:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Matsumoto Kurumi.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Matt, the image was replaced by Image:Matsumoto Kurumi.png. ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 07:05, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're being more polite than necessary, Malkinann. I got this same obnoxious comment on my own discussion page. Jonica c, who do you think you are? There is no one person responsible for any article. We all know that the yaoi article has major problems, and some of us--particularly Malkinann--are trying to improve it, bit by bit. So if you don't like the article, instead of attacking the people who are trying to improve it, why don't you use your vast knowledge of the subject and fix it yourself? Just make sure you can back up your changes and additions with reliable sources and references. In other words, if you are not going to help, then please shut up. And please learn something about Wikipedia etiquette. Matt Thorn (talk) 07:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay. So I was wrong. Yeah. Anyways, I'm talking about the "shonen-ai/yaoi as an element" here. Okay, here's my problem, I REALLY WANNA EDIT the Yaoi and Shonen-ai Category, but sadly, the editors lock it down and I cannot move the titles. I know your one of the editors, but I'm not sure if it is also your responsibility to edit the BL Category. But if you are, I'm asking why did you editors lock down the page and can I edit the category? Some titles are put in the Yaoi category like Princess Princess and some, which should be put in the Shonen-ai category. So here you go, I'm trying to improve the page and somehow I cannot edit it. Have a good day. --Jonica c (talk) 09:34, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks? I already admit my mistake and I'm sorry. At least I'm asking you nicely! I'm just asking why is it lock down and at least I would know who are the people who is responsible for the category. AND YES, Malkinnan is one them. I check the "history" of the page and I found Malkinann's name. And she is the only editor of that page that I can talk to. I just talk to you because it seems that you two are close. THAT'S ALL. And if you re-read my post, I said "I'm not sure if you're the one of the editors...." and since I'm new, I'm just asking for some help. Can't you be just Malkinann? At least she's open-minded and acts professionally (ya know, someone who doesn't bother about someone's attitude). I want the problems of the Yaoi section solve, so I also act professionally, but if we keep digging on the past, the current problem won't be resolve and the future will look unclear. Okay, got it?--Jonica c (talk) 15:41, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Curse my need to eat and sleep and otherwise take time away from the computer. ;-) I've shown Jonica how to put an article in a category and pointed her towards WT:MANGA, so hopefully she will take further issues there rather than contacting you. --Malkinann (talk) 21:31, 13 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Malkinann. (^^;) Matt Thorn (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I created a Shōnen Sekai article to be a pair with Shōjo Sekai. Nice article by the way, if it weren't for that I wouldn't have known about such a cool thing like Shōnen Sekai. : ) Although...are you sure all of the pages you used for sources are reliable? : P – J U M P G U R U ^{■ask㋐㋜㋗■} 17:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you found it useful. I'm not sure I understand your question, though. It's been a while since I contributed to the article, and to be honest I don't recall much about the sources off the top of my head. If you've found an inconsistency, by all means feel free to fix it. Matt Thorn (talk) 07:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just finished translating this article from the Japanese article, and I wondered if you have any sources which could help expand it and better source it. Fell free to check my translations of the titles of her works, too, if you have time. Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 00:55, 1 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Will you weigh in on this discussion? We're trying to figure out the best translation for 教授, and there is some confusion on how it matches up to English-language terminology for various types of professors. Thanks for any help! ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 02:03, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your post there. I think that helped quite a bit. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 03:02, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I might ask you if you want your page Matt Thorn linked to your account, Matt Thorn (talk · contribs). Extremepro (talk) 10:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Extremepro. I'm not sure what the protocol is for that sort of thing. I try to stay clear of the article on me. I'm not even sure if it's appropriate for me to note errors or outdated info on the Talk page. :-/ Matt Thorn (talk) 15:13, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Generally, this isn't done as linking from articles to user accounts is not generally done for anything. It's fine to link the other way, though (from your user account to the article about you) if you wish. ···日本穣^? · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe 01:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking of using the {{notable wikipedian}} template as used on Talk:Angela Beesley Starling. Extremepro (talk) 07:02, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had time to absorb the use of the template, but it seems somewhat controversial. In any event, it's not my place to decide or try to influence any edits to the article. But thanks for asking, Extremepro. :) BTW, these days I log in only rarely, so if you need to contact me urgently, it's best to e-mail me at [email protected] Matt Thorn (talk) 11:10, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Matt, I just wanted to say thanks for your help in sorting out the issue at Jimbo's talk page. The endless recycling of unintelligible complaints was really starting to annoy me, quite apart from what Jimbo and anyone else thought of it. Whether it will all go away now I don't know, but I think you've put things in a position where it should now be so much easier to deal with. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 20:05, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing. Too bad it turned out to be much ado about nothing.Matt Thorn (talk) 07:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Whack! You've been whacked with a wet trout. Don't take this too seriously. Someone just wants to let you know that you did something silly.

I am not a banned user. I have never been a banned user. Your statements to that effect appear to be lies, as there is nothing to be found to that effect on any Wikipedia page. Putting such falsehoods in edit summaries is beyond the pale in any community of the civilized, and is not acceptable even on Wikipedia. As for the images whose removal drove to such egregiously offensive behavior, "Wikipedia-only" permission is not accepted under the policies for used of copyrighted content established by the Wikimedia Foundation. As a university professor, you ought to be aware of the need to at least read such policies once before attacking people who merely implement them. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. I could have sworn I saw a big banner at the top of your user page saying your account had been shut down or something to the effect because of "disruptive editing." (I'm pretty sure that's the phrase that was used.) I can't find that now, so I will take your word, accept the whack with the cold trout, and apologize. Perhaps I was actually looking at another user's page and mistook it for you. I don't know. As to why I went trying to find out more about you in the first place, it is because I received no response to the extremely civil query I posted to your talk page about this very matter. And I still do not understand what the problem with those images is. I would be grateful if you would point out the specific policy they violated, and I would be even more grateful if you could advise me as to how to make them acceptable. Am I right in thinking that what you mean is that any image used on Wikipedia must be kosher for use anywhere at all, which is to say, in the public domain? What about "fair use"? I'm pretty sure I've seen panels from comic books used in any number of articles on American comic books, and I pretty certain they are not in the public domain. The "Mysterious Clover" image in particular is important, since what made it innovative was its visual aspect. Thanks in advance, and again, apologies for unjustly disparaging you. Matt Thorn (talk) 11:23, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are most likely thinking of User:Kiefer.Wolfowitz, whose real name is not Wolfowitz and who is no relation to Hullaballoo.

As for fair use, the English Wikipedia does allow it for media files, but only under very strictly restricted circumstances. More information about that is at WP:NFCC. I haven't looked at any of the images you're discussing, but an image whose visual aspect is discussed in reliable sources as having been significant, might be eligible for use under these criteria.

It is not generally useful to approach fair use on Wikipedia by using the example of what other media do, because their approach is often hugely more lax than the English Wikipedia's approach. Conversely, some argue that the English Wikipedia's approach should be stricter still; so for example the essay WP:VEGAN which alludes to German Spanish Wikipedia's complete ban (as I understand it) on fair use images. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thank you for the information. "The Mysterious Clover" and its innovative use of page layouts has been analyzed by [Fusanosuke Natsume]. I'm not sure if that would meet the criteria you describe, but I will look into it. The other images are not so important. Thanks again. Matt Thorn (talk) 19:46, 25 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Matt Thorn. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rachel Thorn. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Rachel Thorn. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion would be welcomed on the following matter: Talk:Yaoi#Requested move 8 November 2020. Morgan695 (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading File:Nazo no clover page 7.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:19, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Rachel Thorn! You're receiving this notification because you were previously listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over 3 months.

Because of your inactivity, you have been removed from the list. If you would like to resubscribe, you can do so at any time by visiting Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography/Members.

Thank you! Message delivered to you with love by Yapperbot :) | Is this wrong? Contact my bot operator. | Sent at 18:00, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]