User talk:S261157

16 Suspects

Why did you remove what you wrote on the 16 Suspects OVA page? Just wondering. CarpetCrawler^{message me} 20:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Pictures of people for cases

Hello. First of all, thank you for updating the episodes and uploading pictures! Great job there! Just a note when uploading pictures for the "People" section of a case: we aim for a "square" dimension of 225x225 pixels since it's neither too big nor too small (in size) yet resizes pretty well in the frame. For example, see Roller Coaster Murder Case, the picture of the owner is File:EP1_Mansion_Owner.jpg. It's 225x225 and "squared". It's important that it is squared as it sets a standard when it gets resized in the frame. Therefore, could you also follow those standards please? I would really appreciate it. Thank you and keep up the great work! :) --Maurice 03:00, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

RE: Detective Kobayashi Profile

Thanks for that, my good fellow. Not really sure what I'm gonna do with him (if I'm gonna make him a character that gets his own page, or just a small blurb on the Police page with the picture,) so we'll see how it goes in a little while. CarpetCrawler^{message me} 18:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Ethan Hondou

In the characters article, I moved him up to the Black Org section since he was in the Org and we lack a separate category for CIA. Kir is in the Org section, so why does Ethan belong in others? Chekhov MacGuffin 05:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

He was in the Black Organization as a CIA agent who infiltrated just like Rena. He didn't have a code name - that we knew at least. You can read about his history in file 604 / Volume 58 file 7.

Maurice just made a CIA section so I think the point is moot now. Chekhov MacGuffin 01:26, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Favor

Ok. I actually resized it to 100x100 which is the standard size for those types of images (for character boxes). --Maurice 19:22, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

RE: Changing picture

Well, that's the most passable expression of him that I could get a snapshot of. I didn't like the one where he was introduced because there'd be that blue thing under his chin. When I cropped his chin, it looked unnatural (and I'm not in the mood to redraw its missing parts). If you could send me a better pic, I'd be happy to resize it for you. ~ lashedcheek 04:27, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

RE: Instruction

Yo, not very demanding, eh? Anyway, I changed the pix. As with Taizo's, I thought those were just his lips heh. Thanks for pointing out the error. --lashedcheek 02:12, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

RE: Another Favor

I just uploaded it. For the next time, all you have to do is resize the picture to 225x225 (as long as you get most of the head inside the square, it's good). --Maurice 23:25, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

RE: Officer Chiba

It was agreed upon that "Officer Chiba" was not as good as "Detective Chiba". The reason why the picture is called "Officer Chiba" is because we cannot change filenames upon uploading a picture. I would prefer to not save it and re-upload it again, as it will be of lower quality. CarpetCrawler^{message me} 07:13, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

RE: Pictures of people for cases

Just what I did was impr pant, paste in the paint and upload the file. how can i do to make the photos are 225 x 225?

RE: Stop

Hey S261157. I just wanted to point out that anyone can edit anything if they wish to help out. It's always welcome. Some specific job cannot really be somebody's job only. What you should do is agree with LaJota about which episodes you're working on so that each other's edits aren't interfering. But he's perfectly free to make relevant edits as long as there is coordination between fellow contributors and it's helping out the wiki. If you believe he's not doing his edits properly, you could simply teach him how it should be done. :) Remember to have patience with contributors as some are totally new to this all wiki thing, but over time they will learn and be really helpful, you'll see. Thank you for your consideration! --Maurice 21:47, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

It's alright, it's gonna be perfect, I know it! :) But not without everybody's help. The more contributors the better. Even if they are new, they will learn over time and be valuable assets to our contribution team later! This wiki project is sooo huge that we definitely welcome any motivated soul out there that wish to help out. It's a community-based project after all. So, everyone is free to join in on the fun! :P Thank you for your understanding btw. I appreciate it! --Maurice 21:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

RE: Sorry

Mmm.. what do you mean? Why are you saying sorry? Do you want me to resize the new pic that you uploaded? ^^ --lashedcheek 08:35, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

RE: Favor

could I continue with the episode 338? because I am in that part of history

RE: Please

Done! ^^ --lashedcheek 18:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

RE: Thanks

You're welcome! You know what, I always see you editing your post in talk pages twice.. correct me if I'm wrong but when you want to add a new section, you edit the section that was first created then the timestamp of your signature, am I right? Mmm.. just a tip: if you want to add a new section, you could just click on the plus (+) sign beside the edit tab. Then when you want to add your signature with the timestamp, you could type four tildes (~) in a row or just press that second to the last icon at the top (the one with sort of like a signature on it and at the left side of the horizontal line icon). Ehehe..Anyways, have a good day! --lashedcheek 20:38, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

RE Careful

sorry, I did not realize. sorry for the inconvenience

Re: Favor

What do you want fixed exactly in the murder case boxes? All I see that needs to be done is adding information to the boxes (such as "location", "cause-death", etc...). But since it's been a while since I've seen that episode, it's best that someone who just watched it fills it up. --Maurice 03:49, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

I think, just like what lashedcheek said here, that having several murder boxes for the different murders is a good way to do things. So, it's alright to have multiple boxes there. --Maurice 03:17, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Kyousuke

I'm the one who named the article, and I checked the trans again just now and Kyousuke is correct. It's one of the long "o"s like how 1412 can be written as "Kaitou Kid" and "Kaito Kid" depending on your method of romanization. Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 22:13, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

RE: Request

Hey, Maurice said it's okay to have multiple murder boxes in one case. This is better so we could differentiate each crime. If there's anything that needs to be changed, it should be those that I uploaded, i.e., several crime scenes in one murder box. --lashedcheek 15:34, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

RE: Fine

What the editor did for Holmes Freak Murder Case wasn't entirely bad and if I'm not mistaken, the third crime was committed on the second part, anyway. But yes, I see what you mean. I also wanted only one murder box per part (see Ski Lodge Murder Case). Yet when you think about it, it's a bit confusing when I put two different crimes in one box (Murder - Attempted Murder). Don't you think it's best if we could describe each of them in detail? There's another (sort of) crime before Sonoko's, by the way, that I wasn't able to put (I have to fix that) but that's another issue. Hmm.. I have been thinking about it, so let me see what I can do. I think this is just a matter of taste, though. But let me see what I can do.. --lashedcheek 00:04, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Samizu Kichiemon profile picture

I must say I like the keyhole profile picture better. It shows more detail and the aspect ratio of the screenshot is off on the newly uploaded one. Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 00:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there are any rules about a profile picture having to be from the anime. Pictures from the anime are often chosen because they are in color and show lots of details. In this case the keyhole version is better, so unless the animators decide to draw a better version of Kichiemon, it would be best to use the keyhole. Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 00:56, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

What do you mean by "let's get it over with"? Change it back? Have a thumb war to determine which picture is better? Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 01:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

If you are getting a clearer version, make sure you get the aspect ratio correct. Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 01:18, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Looks good. Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 03:05, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Kyosuke Haga

why did you put that wrong information in his profile and in his introduction?? where did you get that he is a detective?
ok, no problem, but i did not understand where that information had come :-P Lajota

Mistake Response

Yea i know. I was gonna fix it when i added the summary later with everything else.

RE: Come on

It's exactly like lashedcheek said. I do believe it's best to be as precise and detailed as possible per crime (or crime attempt). It's not only cleaner to have a box for each crime, it's also much LESS confusing for the reader and that's our ultimate objective here: to be as reader-friendly as possible. What if an episode has a robbery, a murder and a murder attempt situation? Will you really try to put all 3 (which are all different in nature) into ONE crime box and explains all three crimes and contexts in that one small box? That would really be unfriendly and confusing, believe me. :o I know a lot about those kind of things, since it's part of my job too (I'm a web developer). Even if you may find it weird now, I'm pretty sure you'll quickly get used to it (if lashedcheek didn't do it all in one box the first time, you probably wouldn't have noticed :P). Anyway, remember that the key part here is to provide knowledge about DC in the most accessible way while being as less confusing as possible. And it's really hard to be as clear and clean when everything is mixed up into the same box/frame. Maybe in the future, we could find a better way to present crimes but I think it's reasonable enough for now. --Maurice 02:42, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

@Maurice *gasps* :o are you blaming me?? TT_TT lol I kid, I kid. ;P So, are we good now, S261157? Is this case now closed? Don't worry, this wiki is everyday evolving. And if you, or we, find a much better way, we will be implementing it right away. ;) --lashedcheek 05:14, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Okiya Subaru and Bourbon

It has not been confirmed Okiya Subaru is Bourbon, so your wikilink in Black Organization to Okiya Subaru under Bourbon's name was reverted. Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 20:24, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: OAV 05: The Target is Kogoro!! The Detective Boys' Secret Report

Counter-question: Have you actually watched the OAV? If so, you may have noticed that in this episode Kogoro does show true initiative and professionalism as a private eye. Both he and Conan did come to the same conclusions solving the case more or less independently, and the Detective Boys provided important cover for the shadowing. In this case, Conan did not have to solve the whole case for him as he does most of the time.Daniel46 21:32, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

• Just done that.Daniel46 21:37, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Page Move

You do know you can rename pages using the move command (tab up by edit)? Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 22:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

You should redirect the page instead of blanking them. Put
#REDIRECT [[page_name_to_redirect_to]]
on the page you want it to go to. Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 00:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

RE: Mistake again

No one is gonna freak out if its not correctly bracketed or if it shows his full name, but thanks for notifying me about it.

Blanking Pages?

Why are you blanking pages and remaking them by copying and pasting the previous one? Ex: The Tennis one. Just wondering --Cheesus 01:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Messages on other users' talk pages

I have noticed you have been leaving some not very polite messages on User:Vegito2010's talk page. It's OK to tell him that he made a mistake but please try to be polite and helpful rather than saying he messed up and keeps making more mistakes. Not everyone is an expert at editing and is it better to be encouraging. Also, little things like the difference between "Case solved by Kogoro Mouri (via Conan)" and "Case solved by Kogoro Mouri via Conan Edogawa" are very minor. It is best to just fix these things without saying a word to the other user. Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 00:48, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

MY user page

Man, why the heck did you create a user page for me? I purposefully didn't do that. That's quite improper, y'know. You may create wiki articles but leave user pages alone (unless you're given permission to do so). Now my name isn't red. TT_TT --lashedcheek., 11 February 2011 (UTC)

You surprised me alright. It's quite okay, I guess.. I know you meant well. For retribution: you have to work twice as hard in this wiki! ;P --lashedcheek 23:40, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm so sorry really!!!!!!!!!!!!! I'm already feeling depressed! -_-

Ehh, you didn't have to format my name. o_O That's another thing that you shouldn't do: edit other people's messages. But as I've said, I know you meant well. Just be mindful next time, okay? :) --lashedcheek 23:50, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Ok I understand! I promise I won't ever do that again!!! ;)

If you were one of the DC characters

who would it be? --lashedcheek 04:14, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm just curious.. If you were a DC character, who would it be? :) --lashedcheek 04:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Yo, check out my user page! --lashedcheek 00:30, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Good news

Thanks for your contributions. However, I am sorry to burst that bubble, for in most of these cases you presented Conan uses Kogoro as a front instead of allowing him to solve them under his own brainpower (little as there is). I recommend you check the stories beforehand for yourself to get a better distinction about how Kogoro works things out for himself, instead of relying too much on what other contributors have provided.Daniel46 09:03, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: I don't get it

Yeah, it is true that in Raven Chaser Conan is the one who cracked the case. However, I also added that Kogoro has solved the mystery of the Mah-Jong stones independently from Conan for the joint police commission, whom Conan did not inform about his progress. Have you ever watched the whole movie?

Besides, the erasing of volumes is justified from my point of view, since I happen to own nearly every volume of the manga series from 15 onwards, with a few scatterings still open inbetween and a few bigger gaps between 1 and 14. So unless you can judge from personal analysis, I ask you not to place too much reliance on second-hand information. A personal impression is always best for this sort of thing. After all, this section lists specifically those cases in which Kogoro makes the detective work more or less by himself, not with Conan using him as a mouthpiece or proxy; you have to differentiate more carefully.Daniel46 16:16, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Doesn't look like it

I knoww... >.< I just added any pictures that contains Kogoro and Conan together. I was going to change it when I get a hold of the right picture. Ummm... Thanks fr reminding me, but I currently have the shot when Kogoro is pulling Conan's ear D: --Arai Kaoko 00:10, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Officer Kinoshita

Sorry, I thought since it was a wikia it should have everything. I didnt realise Kinoshita was left from that page on purpose. Does that mean his name shouldnt be on any Tokyo Police page at all? Coz he is a member of the Tokyo Police. Just wanna make sure.

Airgrimes PS thanks for fixing btw :)

Incorrect

Incorrect my friend, you werent here before but i posted some convincing evidence ;)

If you look at any of the wiki pages where his name is in the title, look at the picture in the page. Kudo goes first than Shinichi. --Cheesus 02:30, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

lol you mad bro?

Whatever. Chek will do something about it when he comes on. Well ima change it back in time. --Cheesus 02:47, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Oh thank you thank you thank you!

Naming conventions

Please check out Detective_Conan_Wiki:Discussion#Naming_conventions_in_titles for further discussion regarding the naming conventions. Thanks. --Maurice 18:23, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Hidemi Profile Picture

Sorry. I want to upgrade all profile pictures to the newer graphic and art. At least leave your signature so I could have replied to you before :o Haha, yeah... I didn't like about the gun either. Don't worry, I will try to take another shot ;D Please be patient. Thank you! XD Oh, and call me Kaoko~ Officer Kaoko 18:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

RE: You too?

Yeah.. I don't think we'll ever know. --lashedcheek 01:12, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you seen the drawing of Sango that I made for you? It's not that good but I tried. :P --lashedcheek 01:20, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Lol yeah.. I felt really guilty of snapping at you when you meant no harm. Anyway, I was just asking. :) -lashedcheek 01:28, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Yep. None at all. :) --lashedcheek 01:33, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I take back what I said.. You know how culprits make mistakes in DC and then Conan would be able to catch them? Apparently, this person is just like them. He committed many and it's just a matter of time before the admins realize that. :) --lashedcheek 02:21, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

And it's sad 'coz he obviously likes this wiki.. a lot. But I guess it's just not enough for him to let things slide. If only... --lashedcheek 03:56, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Minor police officers

I doubt it, unless he is a recurring anime detective I don't know about. If it were me, I'd toss him on the Minor law enforcement page and redirect him if he his own separate page already made. Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 20:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Older than you. Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 20:51, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

minor law enforcement link on main characters page

Why did you take the link to minor law enforcement out from the law enforcement listing on the characters main page? I put it there because many of the officers listed under minor law enforcement don't appear on the law enforcement page. Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 21:43, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"Doesn't look good" is not a legit reason unless you are talking about something like pictures on a page. Also it saves people the double click through, and is even more helpful in the case somebody is trying to pin down a character not listed in the main character section without knowing their name. It's a list of characters and thus is relevant to the law enforcement section. Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 21:56, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What does "Okay?" mean? I'd like to get a third person's opinion? I don't care? I'd like to discuss more? Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 22:11, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Oi, I'm not grumpy or anything... I didn't mean to come across that way. :( Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 22:17, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What the fruit are you sorry for? We had a reasonable and totally civil discussion and no one got angry. Or at least I didn't, dunno about you. I'm the one who should be sorry for not making it clear I wasn't pissed or something. Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 22:24, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

"That looks wrong when you put Minor law enforcement" I don't understand. It should look like this.

Looks ok to me. Do you mean the capitalization? Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 22:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Could you explain more precisely "No, it looks wrong to me and no, I don't mean capitalization.". I am wondering if it isn't displaying properly. I see

Main articles: Law Enforcement and Minor law enforcement

I tried to match the wikilink colors but I probably didn't get it exactly...Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 22:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I forgot to add that I am asking for details because if it is a display issue, I'm going to need to inform Maurice. Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 22:48, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Bothering you with an orange box in case you missed this posting. :) Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 22:58, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Do these match?

Except for the colors of the links, do the two lines below look like one another?

---

Main articles: Law Enforcement and Minor law enforcement

---

I need to make sure the template is displaying properly or otherwise I have to go and tell Maurice there is a problem. Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 23:08, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

As I understand it, you are saying the template isn't displaying properly. Can you either #1) upload a cropped screenshot of the above two lines being displayed or #2) verbally explain to me in precise detail how the template is being displayed on your computer because I am going to report the error to Maurice in order to fix the template. I would prefer to have a working template because there are other places on the site where two main articles are listed. Also, I am not going to let something like a technical detail get in the way of being able to list two main articles under the law enforcement characters section. Therefore I am not "savvy". Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 23:22, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This discussion has moved well beyond "do you like two main articles or not". This is about a template that you say isn't working right and Maurice and I need to figure out why it isn't working right because this template gets used in many more places on the site.

If I wanted to come up with a better template, I could use:

For more details on law enforcement, see Law Enforcement and Minor law enforcement

Finally, just to nitpick, you posted your comment in the wrong section of my talk page. The one about the the law enforcement and the template is the second from the bottom. Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 23:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Kazuha Toyama names

I don't have the relevant case closed volume, but I wanted to check to make sure that "Kazuha Toyama" isn't Kazuha's English manga name. Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 22:05, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I did some checking and found out that Kazuha is called Kazuha Toyama in the English manga, so I am going to re-add her English manga listing. Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 22:18, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Lupin and friends

Sorry, I couldn't get the pictures of Lupin and friends like you wanted. Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 22:30, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

I saw them when you uploaded them. They looked nice.Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 22:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

You can upload a new version of an image file by clicking that image so you are on the image page with the upload history and description and stuff and selecting the "Upload a new version of this file" option. Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 22:47, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Obvious?

Are you referring to my telling how to upload new files or about my asking you about the display of the main article link? It would also help if you didn't create a new subject for each conversation and instead edited the old conversations and simply indented every time. Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 22:52, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Cast in Red vs Black

I am with Maurice on this on having the cast listed for each episode. Red vs. Black is the longest anime arc and the characters do switch up between the subcases. My policy is the more information, and more specificity, the better. Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 16:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Minding your own business is not how wikis work. Wikis are a collaborative project, meaning anyone can give input on anything they want because everything on a wiki is public. Also you never remove another user's talk page message from another user's talk page unless it is offensive (e.g. obviously insulting or vandalism). This is a blockable offense. Consider this your first warning. Furthermore, I found your message on my talk page rude. Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 18:24, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

RE: Problem

Hey, what's wrong? You may send me a private message in the forum if you like. --lashedcheek 18:43, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Here [1] is the link to my forum profile page then just click on Send me a private message below my display pic --lashedcheek 18:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Have you validated your account yet? --lashedcheek 19:02, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you Ghostbot? I could PM you. --lashedcheek 19:11, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Private Message :P Oh, it says I can't 'coz you're still not validated! --lashedcheek 19:20, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

No worries. Okay, if I remember correctly, when you first registered, you should have received an email with a link saying that you should validate your profile through that. When you click on it, it would redirect you to the login page. Once you logged in, you're validated (I think). Try to find that very first email. --lashedcheek 19:34, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Sigh* Alright. I just sent you a chat message on Y!M. Go online, am waiting... --lashedcheek 19:53, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Short story characters

Hey, don't you think it's better if we use the People template for the characters in the short stories? I would also prefer that they be in the Cast part like the episodes but it seems that the Char Appearances template is used for DC-related ones. Hmm.. Or maybe we could use it there, too. --lashedcheek 23:25, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

I knoww.. I was thinking about that, too. Hmm.. let's ask. --lashedcheek 23:31, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Maurice or the other editors. I'll just post the question on the OVAs talk page. I'm sure someone will answer. If we don't agree, then we could discuss. :) --lashedcheek 23:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Request

I'll try to do it sometime soon (hopefully tomorrow). --Maurice 02:35, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. :) --Maurice 21:26, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Homes freak murder case

Talk page discussion. Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 23:59, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

It's not about the pictures. It's about multiple crime info boxes. Maurice was the one who set up the standard for multiple info boxes in the first place. Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 00:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think it's about time we set standards for the pages. I asked Maurice about creating a style sheet for pages, you should probably give some input. Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 00:10, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I reverted back to your version, so do whatever you need to do. (Not because I agree, but because I don't want to start an edit war with you.) The page standard thing needs to be done anyway. Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 00:25, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Discussion copied from Chekhov's talk page: Yes indeed, we already established that it's better (and MUCH clearer) to have separate crime boxes in a given article for so many reasons (i.e. more reader-friendly, more details can be given, better images for each crime, crimes can be different -such as murder and robbery-, better description for each crime, clearer list of suspects/victims/locations per crime, and so on...). I actually already kind of implied the possibility to have several crime boxes in the manual of style for cases images. As for character appearances, we should indeed update the Manual of Style with some standard. I'll see what can be done there. --Maurice 00:33, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think Lashedcheek did a lovely job too, but stuff changes and people's work gets modified as the wiki grows. Lashedcheek shouldn't mind. Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 01:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Re: But

If you don't like it, you simply have to state your reasons why. You can't just say: "I don't like it". We provided reasons as to why having many crime boxes are much better in general:

1. More precise details about each crime:
   • Type of crime
   • Location
   • Victims
   • Suspects
   • Cause of death
2. Clearer and more detailed description of the crime (can you imagine writing the description of 3 crimes into one single little box??)
3. Much better image of the crime (fans will appreciate this in general)
4. Instant visual idea of how many crimes occurred (by seeing the number of boxes). Having only one box forces the reader to make some effort in understanding what really happened, how many crimes occurred, and how (they actually HAVE to read the whole description to understand what happened, when and in what order and who was victim of the first crime or the second crime, etc...). One of the goal of this wiki is to provide information in the most accessible way possible (it really does make a BIG difference when you can easily grasp information from an article versus having to fight your way through it. Just think about it...).
5. There's the possibility of having different types of crimes: such as a crime and robbery. Putting both crimes in the same box would make it so much confusing to the reader...
6. All of the above makes it so much more accessible and reader-friendly to fans reading the wiki
7. And many more reasons?

Now, it's your turn. Could you give me some good plausible reason as to why all the crimes and information should be compacted into one single box? Thank you. --Maurice 21:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you didn't understand. ALL of the points (numbers) above are reasons as to why it's best to have separate crime boxes. So, no, the Manual of Style makes sense and is correct. You may not change the articles back. Thank you. --Maurice 21:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for finally trying to give a reason. But your reason is that you found 7 guys who "got confused of why there's more info boxes" and "they don't feel okay about it"? First of all, it's logically harder to edit one single box that talk about 3 different things at the same time. Editing one box per thing is much easier. It's also easier to read about one thing at a time in its own context (instead of several things all discussed at the same time). This is normal "writing content" behavior. I'm not inventing anything there. Everybody knows that we shouldn't talk about many things at the same time and/or mix things up when talking about a given topic. There's usually sections (for example: chapters in a book) to help separate ideas, content and ways of thinkings, all of which ensure there's a structured "reading flow" and that the reader isn't confused. When you put ALL of the information into one single box, it breaks this logic and the user eventually become confused. I would be curious if you could tell me who are those 7 guys you found? And if you do give me their names, I bet I can find 10 times more people who would prefer seeing multiple boxes instead of one where everything is compacted without much details and hard to understand (even the image is hard to understand when there's only a tiny bit of actual "picture content" per crime).

Also, please, do not revert changes before a consensus has been agreed upon and/or the Manual of Style dictates a different way of doing things. When there's a discussion pending, you should NOT edit the pages to do as you please before we even come to a conclusion. This is not how this works. You can't just take decisions like that on your own. That's why we have talks... We take action after we reach a conclusion, not before. Finally, you don't have the authority to supersede any decision we take (or may take in this case) about a specific discussion. The fact that you have reverted changes on those pages so many times gives me no choice but to protect these pages until you either become reasonable or we somehow reach a different verdict. --Maurice 23:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Something's wrong

It's normal, don't worry. I've made an announcement on the forum about it: file uploading temporarily disabled. --Maurice 20:39, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

"W-Code"?

I'm curious as to your reasons for moving episode 510 back to the name "Conan VS W-Code Mystery" since you never provided a reason on the Wiki page. If you can provide some kind of good reason for doing that, I'd probably be fine with it.

My main problems with it are:

- The W is sometimes used in Japanese to mean "double", since it's pronounced "daburu".

- Neither of the codes (the TWO codes, hence 'double') pay special attention to the letter W.

- By your logic, we'd have to call episodes 603-605 "The Séance's W Locked Room Mystery Case", which clearly makes no sense. EdiblePencil 19:28, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I did some background checking and corroborated that Conan vs. Double Code Mystery is correct. See the talk page. Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 20:17, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikilinks

I noticed that you have been deleting them in multiple places like the characters page or most recently in Detective Boys vs. Robber Group. Please don't. It is perfectly fine to have them; in fact, it is encouraged even if you can click the pictures up above and get to the same place. Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 23:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

RE: Fusae Campbell

Oh, I get it now! So they had English-speakers for the Japanese anime... Thanks. :) EdiblePencil 21:22, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Re: Advice

Hello there. Well, what you're trying to do is pretty difficult. They must be receiving hundreds (actually thousands) of emails everyday and they most likely only keep/answer the most pertinent (or necessary) ones. I don't believe they have an actual support channel just to serve the fanbase (since it would cost money for them and wouldn't be a profitable endeavour). So, unless it's a very important email, they will probably take time to respond or simply ignore it... --Maurice 21:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

What Maurice said. I don't think I will have better luck contacting them. Could you try the English publishers? Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 21:23, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The Crisis Beckoned by the Red Omen

Across the wiki, the situation has pretty much been one case, one page. This case isn't any different except it has two subcases, so it has been treated like the red vs. black page in that regard. This set of episodes is different than most others because they have unique names vs part 1 2, etc, but this is one case like any of the others. In any case, you need to stop reverting when Maurice and I have already talked about it. It's counter productive. As Maurice put it: "I think it's alright to have them be on the same page due to the way the episodes are set up: they indeed act like "parts" even though the titles are different. It would be more convenient for the reader to read about the cases if they're told in the same context, and thus the same article. When I face a typical challenge like this, I always put myself in the reader's shoes and think of what's more convenient and the best way to convey the information. So, I think it makes sense in this case to talk about the different episodes on one single page." Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 21:36, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I have blocked you for thirty minutes for changing back the pages despite the fact Maurice and I agreed the single page format was for the best. I will unblock you as soon as I can revert your changes and protect the pages. No. I don't do favors. I do what I think is best for the wiki. Also, I don't care if you don't like it. I don't like the wiki's romanization system and English name order for characters, I don't like that cases are numbered and described according to the anime rather than the manga. Even though I don't like it, I don't try to change it to the way I like, or ask Maurice to change the system because I have accepted that it how it was set up and that someone thought it was the most accessible system for users. Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 21:49, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

You have been unblocked now. Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 21:57, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

I blocked you so you wouldn't revert while I was protecting the pages. If you have reasons why the page should be changed back that are not "I don't like it", by all means post them.

I looked over our past disagreements and I noticed a pattern in the cases where you have conflicted with both me and Maurice. These conflicts were multiple cast lists in a single article, multiple crime infoboxes in articles about cases with several crimes, and most recently this. The pattern I am seeing here is that we often come into conflict on episode series that don't follow the standard pattern, be it because it is an extra long series (red vs. black), or has multiple crimes (Hatamoto case, etc.), or nonstandard naming (The Crisis Beckoned by the Red Omen). The source of the problem is usually you want to stick with the standard page format (one infobox, one cast list) for episodes where the standard way of dealing with things is not the clearest for readers because the episode series is in some way different. We would probably come into less conflict if you were to loosen up on trying to make every page fit a cookie cutter, inflexible mold, especially when dealing with non-ordinary cases. Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 00:07, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

I like the new Jodie picture

What the heading says. Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 20:34, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

While we disagree about certain things, that's one thing and this is something different. You are a hard working contributor and that should be acknowledged. If you would prefer, I will not post on your talk page unless there is a matter of unavoidable dispute. Chekhov MacGuffin ^talk 20:46, 17 May 2011 (UTC)