You are invited to join the discussions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga § Merging defunct WikiProjects and at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga § Need some help on the Biography task force's anime credits. sjones23 (talk - contributions) 12:46, 11 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect Fuck ICE has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 December 6 § Fuck ICE until a consensus is reached. Happy Editing -- IAmChaos 23:50, 6 December 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Proposed acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A generic name error. References show this error when author or editor name parameters use place-holder names. Please edit the article to include the source's actual author or editor name. ( | )

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can . Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 11:18, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I saw your recent edit removing a sentence and saying it "fails NPOV in its framing, the "some critics" are just two different people at Anime News Network" and then adding that "these comments are also not related to Mikami's career or categorically discussing their body of work in general and belong at the reception sections for the respective Wikipedia pages of those series" and then adding this falls into WP:CHERRYPICK. As the person who added that sentence, I never intended it on being cherry picking nor falling into NPOV territory.

There aren't that many reviews of Mikami's series, especially beyond There's No Freaking Way I'll be Your Lover! Unless.... I mean, there's a whole bunch of works listed on the Japanese language page for Mikami, but... the sourcing on that page well... isn't great (I think there's only ten sources). The Mikami page in Chinese is even weaker (in terms of sources and content)

While saying all of that, I'm not going to contest the removal of the sentence as your logic, on the removal, is generally sound. I do not know if there are enough reliable sources to justify creating a If You Could See Love page, but if I have time, I'll look into it.. Apart from that, I'm glad the sources were retained, as they are certainly of value to the page, even if not in that specific sentence.

There's there's the edits about Mikami's pronoun use, but I haven't found any reliable sources for that. When I asked the user who added the he/him pronouns to Mikami's page for a source, the user... referred me to a Reddit discussion. Sigh.

I'll keep in mind what you said in your edits as I continue to edit on here. I'm not always as good at editing bio pages, as much as others, as they can be a bit more tricky, but I suppose I'm getting better over time. Thanks again for all you do as an editor on here. Historyday01 (talk) 13:24, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I understand you didn't mean it that way; I probably was a bit too blunt in my edit summary so I apologize. (For what it's worth, I did already add the available critical opinions on Watanare's portrayal of consent to the series page myself in the past.) I know it can be difficult when there's not a whole lot of sources available on a notable topic, but I also feel that when there are fewer sources is when it's the most important to take care to avoid overgeneralizing in describing the critical consensus on the topic using the few sources that there are.

Since ANN usually holds outsized dominance when it comes to English language sources of opinion on a lot of anime and manga topics, the opinions of the broader community don't necessarily align with their writers. But since we usually can't include those dissenting opinions as they're often user generated content, I generally try to make it clear in my edits who said what about which thing and when without suggesting that the opinion described is representative of any broader group. I often follow the template of "[Writer] of [Publication] believed that [Work (or specific version or installment of it)] was..." in any reception section on any piece of media, to avoid the impression that the opinion of the writer in question represents the entire editorial staff of the publication they wrote for, or anyone else for that matter. I'm not sure if this is the best way to do it, but it is nonetheless the way I prefer to handle it. Even still, it can be difficult to be sure I'm maintaining NPOV, since other factors can come into play like due weight and so on. So I'm definitely not perfect in this regard either.

I think if there was a section of Mikami's biography article created for covering the critical reception of their body of work at large, it would potentially be appropriate to insert opinions such as those that were described there, but in that case there would probably need to be enough material published discussing their bibliography in context rather than just a few different people saying they did or did not like a specific series. I'm not sure that enough sources exist for that now, but it might be a conversation worth having on the talk page at some point. silviaASH (inquire within) 23:20, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Financial censorship, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

Moritoriko (talk) 22:50, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]