Talk:MSN-02 Zeong

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Discussions on this page may escalate into heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when commenting here. See also: Wikipedia:Etiquette.

	Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, which aims to improve and expand anime and manga related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or visit the project page.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.

This article is part of WikiProject Gundam, which aims to organize, expand, clean up, and guide Gundam related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project.

Looking to help? Check out the to-do list:

1 Comments
2 Go away A Man In Black
3 Not Vandalism
4 Point by Point
5 New Organization
6 request for edits

[edit] Comments

The "References" section is a mess; it looks more like an "External links" section. In-line citations need to be used instead of the current system.
See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction); the article quickly becomes overly in-universe.
Images need fair use rationale. Also don't need to be thumbnailed if there's not caption but I took care of that.
Article is currently sectionless.
More out of universe information would be nice, if possible.

I think the article still has it's fair share of problems (especially how references are handled), so I'm bringing it back down to Start class.--SeizureDog 00:28, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Damn it all, it's still no better than when I started? Oi... I'll try to work on the issues you have suggested. Erstwhile, how exactly do I go about making in-line citations, exactly? I'm a bit unfamiliar with the syntax and what have you. I'll try futzing around with it in the meantime. MalikCarr 20:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Inline citation. Cheers, Moreschi ^{[[Wikipedia:Requested}

^{recordings|Request a recording?]]} 20:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've sectionalized it up (if you can think of a better title for the "elsewhere and miscellaneous" section, please suggest so here), no more external links in the body of the article, put the appropriate rationale/copyright information on the images, and I've sourced everything directly where an obvious link could be found (e.g. the Zeong's appearance in the Gundam: The Ride attraction). Better now? MalikCarr 01:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Go away A Man In Black

Current article looks pretty nice and is well sourced. Stop futzing with it. Jtrainor 12:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The current article is poorly sourced, as it is sourced entirely to stores and fansites. Most of the references are in passing at best; for example, this.

The "In Mobile Suit Gundam" section is largely in-universe. It describes the thinking of the conception as the endeavor of fictional characters, with little reference to the works in which this is depicted.

Elsewhere and Miscellany is poorly sourced, with many fundamental claims unsourced. The only sources are "Such-and-such Zeong licensed goods were made, such as foo (with a reference to a store selling foo)."

This is not a pretty nice article, nor is it a well-sourced article. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 12:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Look, you, I've sourced everything down to the most reliable material and media I can find given my limited resources (both time and capital). I've got a number of published items (official and unofficial) and whatever else I can get my hands on, and there's been an inline citation to a physical thing on practically every line on areas you call "poorly sourced". What more do you want? A personal interview with someone at Sunrise? Bandai Japan's marketing staff as to why this thing sells products? Oh, wait, none of those would be third-party sources, would they...

In any case, given your previous connotations with the deletionist movement, I cannot help but think that my B-rated article has become a target for you simply on account of prior exchanges. My article on a little fictional machine has more references, cited statements and references than the damned Lightsaber, so why is my article having chunks of itself deleted with no prior explanation and being bombarded with enough templates to make the eyes bleed? MalikCarr 19:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletionist movement? It is to laugh. Don't take joke "movement" pages on meta seriously.

The quality of the sources isn't official versus unofficial. It's reliable and independent versus not reliable or not independent. We're not looking for the most official sources, but instead sources that are publications with editorial control or peer review. We're looking for insight into design processes, critical impact, and influence on other works. This is actually one of the better articles, but that doesn't mean it can't be improved.

The first two paragraphs in Elsewhere and Miscellany, for example, are promising, but wholly unsourced. I suspect the second paragraph is original research, and as such may need to be removed.

I am here because these articles are largely poorly sourced, poorly written, and heavily in-universe. They need a hefty dose of sourcing, rewriting, and possibly merging. For the time being, though, I'm concentrating on the low-hanging fruit: cleanup tags, blatantly unencyclopedic tables of statistics, and really awful articles.

This isn't your article, and if you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed by others, do not submit it. These articles still have a long way to go. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 20:05, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

While I am aware of WP:OWN, taking a quick glance at the edit history of this article should prove that that is effectively the case. I'd like to think that I've made a difference in the health and encyclopedic quality of this article (and getting a nice rating from a large WikiProject is always nice), and then someone who I know and love from the thirty-odd AfDs I've voted in (always on the opposing side, of course) comes along and starts deleting information, pasting templates everywhere, and proclaiming my article is "unsourced."

If you don't like this article for whatever reason, just AfD it and let's be done with it. Otherwise, if you feel you absolutely have to keep editing this little corner of Wikipedia for whatever reason, why don't you improve it, not make it look like something controversial. If I had the time and effort to go out and buy the written publications I've referenced on this page, surely the same could be said for other Wikipedians... MalikCarr 20:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

You don't own this article. I don't care how long you've been editing it, you don't have right of refusal over edits made to it. You don't get to decide which edits are allowed and which aren't. Come off it.

I want to improve this article. Tagging a poorly sourced article with several badly-written sections as such isn't an effort to delete it, it's an effort to get more eyes on it in the hope that it can get cleaned up. If I wanted it deleted, I would send it to AFD.

I would highly suggest that you read the guidelines linked from those cleanup templates then take their wise advice, instead of just deleting them. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 14:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

You're the only person here who thinks this article is "poorly sourced." Additionally, some of your revert comments sound more like threats than explanations... combined with the fact that you seem to be rather set on templating up articles I've effectively recreated to avoid the big deletion purge a few months back, this raises quite a few suspicions. MalikCarr 19:28, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm the only one because when someone tries to clean up these articles, they run into a wall of article ownership and blank reverts.

B status is entirely meaningless. It's a vague description of progress, and it means that the article has a complete outline and a relevant picture. You seem to be under some sort of misunderstanding that I'm here as part of some major purge; I'm here because this article has problems, and I'm planning to work on these problems. It's not a badge of honor. Featured article status is a goal. B-class status is something an article has when it's a full outline.

Obstructionism isn't going to get these articles fixed. I think many of them may be merge candidates, and large chunks of them (the stat blocks, most of the non-free images) will indeed need to be deleted. Right now, I'm concentrating on the easy-to-solve problems, which involve deleting the dross. After that, it's going to be time to consider the structure of the articles, but articles like this are much more likely merge candidates than deletion candidates.

Now. You can be obstructive and get into big fights over people touching your articles. Alternately, you can participate in this collaborative project to build a free encyclopedia and take the advice of someone who has spent a great deal of time cleaning up a wide variety of fiction articles.

Your choice. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 19:38, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not being "obstructive." When I started working on this page, it was my intention to create the most useful page possible for someone browsing Wikipedia. Nothing is unsourced or unsubstantiated, no speculation or original research, and to save it from the claws of the deletionists, I've put in as much "real world impact" as I could get my hands on with my limited resources. Then you come along and decide, "This page is crap, because I said so." You've thusly denied anything that would possibly give my arguments any sort of legitimacy, and any of my objections of the sort are dismissed with utmost prejudice and callousness.

You didn't just "find" a few articles in need of assistance; reviewing your contribution history is plain enough of that. Why you've decided to focus on the three little articles I've pulled out of MER-C and Moreschi's conflagration, I'll never know. Fun fact: I didn't recreate these articles for my health, or because I thought it was fun. No, I put the effort forth to save them from being deleted by a band of anti-content marauders with a few administrative friends.

In those days, the weapon of choice was allegations of "non-notability" "unsourceability" and "fancruft", so I have done my utmost to satiate those claims. However, it has become apparent to me that the times are changing, and the anti-content movement is a constantly evolving creature. Since those weapons are useless against a perfectly well-rounded and well-sourced article, the new paradigm involves discrediting the small group of people who work on them using buzzwords such as "obstructionists" "trolls" and "fanboys" combined with a particularly draconian interpretation of certain policies that not so long ago were not nearly as severe.

I have three non-free images on this page. All of them are 100% necessary to the clarity of the article. Therefore, in order to undermine the article's credibility and leave it a target for the anti-content movement, you have taken it upon yourself to remove as much content as possible, disregard the sourcing and referencing, and take an aggressive and offensive stance against those who would seek to see even a small degree of justice done. You've discredited our motives, knowledge of Wikipedia, faith to the project in general, and any number of other relevant (and some irrelevant) conditions and qualities. All I and a few others have done is accuse you of what you blatantly are: a deletionist. For speaking up against this movement, we are already being silenced; accounts blocked, comments erased, shameful titles invoked...

Will the heavyhandedness of your movement know no limitations? Will there be a new conflagration of articles irrespective of their content, but solely decided on the criteria of their subject?

I would consider myself a good Wikipedian. I make edits in good faith, I try to correct errors when I see them, and I like to engage in dialog with people who disagree with me. However, if I must have the albatrosses of "troll" "obstructionist" and "fanboy" hung from my neck in the name of upholding a sliver of dignity, then I shall endure that burden until the day that I, like many who have spoken out against Orwellian regimes before me, am too silenced. I am nothing if not a man of principles, as principles are what separates man from primate. MalikCarr 04:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

The anti-content movement? Such movements exist only in your imagination, and nonsense like "Orwellian regimes"� is ridiculous. This isn't a holy cause, and the grandstanding belongs on USENET, not here.

I am not trying to remove as much content as possible. I am trying to remove unnecessary in-universe detail which also happens to be a copyright violation. I've also tagged this as poorly sourced, which it plainly is, when you consider that not a single source is a publication with editorial control or peer review. I didn't decide this page is crap because I said so. I decided that this article has largely poor sources, and tagged it as such for improvement.

If I wanted to delete this article, I'd just send it to AFD. These accusations of ulterior motives are insulting and a textbook example of not assuming good faith. I am telling you what I am doing and why. Considering I have sent to AFD or prodded those articles I actually wanted deleted, it's fairly ridiculous to accuse me of planning to delete any other articles.

Now, as for non-free images in this article, three images is probably too many. There's no particular reason to illutrate the Excel Saga parody in particular; it's a fleeting reference, as part of a larger parody of several mecha series. Indeed, that parody only merits one sentence in this article.

As for the two images that were in the infobox, two images is one too many. Either image allows for identification, and since identification of the article subject is the purpose of the images, we don't need two images with redundant purposes. Personally, I prefer the legless one because it actually is in Mobile Suit Gundam and allows for a more interesting caption, but I'm not particularly picky on which we use. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

As I've stated before, the best way to win a war is to convince your enemy that they aren't being attacked. Rather like the National Weapons Law of 1938, if you're one for history. I'm not accusing the deletionists of being Nazis or employing fascist-like tactics (I prefer to stick to factual allegations), but there are parallels.

Anyway, on to the finer points of this argument. You have been the sole arbiter in this situation of what is "unnecessary" "trivia" and "copyvio." The star of the show and, indeed, the franchise, the RX-78 itself, has a more expansive infobox than this page does in terms of statistics, and that page was rebuilt to survive the great deletionist conflagration in January. For being such a target of total contention, if including easily available and well-known published figures was "copyvio," wouldn't we have seen more of it at such a figurehead page? (you running off to delete content from that article doesn't count, especially when you stick templates in the archived versions)

An image was the only way I could quickly come up with a citation that there was actually a Puchuu-ified Zeong in Excel Saga, since there aren't many (read: zero) English language "reliable, published, third-party publications" that discuss little trivia bits like that in anime. If I don't include such a source, then the claim is "unreferenced" or even worse, "original research", and if I leave the claim out, then I've lost one of my tentpegs of "real world impact" which was the cornerstone of the deletionist movement in January and February. How would you propose I cite that occurrence otherwise?

The Perfect Zeong image is important not only for visualization and reference purposes, but because it too is representative of "real world impact": the 1/100th scale kit of that model is the largest and most expensive Gundam model that is mass-produced. Now, since you claim to be a fan, you should know this better than anyone: insignificant mecha from Gundam either entirely do not, or receive exceptionally limited, coverage in the "Gunpla" area. How many Double Zeta "uglies" have gotten anything other than a single kit in 1986? They weren't important, so their coverage was limited. You'll note I haven't been campaigning for pages on the Geymark or Buggy Doga.

This brings us to the next article. I wouldn't dare mention this in the article, because it's original research until I can find an English language publication that says so (which I doubt I have the means to do, assuming one even exists), but the Zeong is a massively notable machine because it did what the other fifty-odd mobile suits seen in Gundam thus far couldn't do: it killed the Gundam. Mind, it was more of a double homicide, but regardless, it blew the series' star mech away. With that in mind, I strove to create the most complete article possible, as far as Wikipedia should be concerned. As is (before you keep deleting crap out of it, anyway...), this Zeong article is almost entirely complete. It provides information on both the in-universe and real-world design history, the only official variation, appearances outside Gundam (for cultural impact), and can effectively tell any casual browser everything they want to know about it, without dipping (okay, maybe a little) into fandom.

Now, if that infobox really drives you fucking insane, I suppose we could crop it a bit. The mobile suit type and manufacturer aren't really important, but it does very much need at least a dimensions and armament section. Despite what WP:WAF would have you think, someone coming to Wikipedia and typing in "Zeong" isn't going to be harmed by seeing a few published figures for quick reference. But we can discuss policy interpretation later.

As far as your incessant "in-universe" template is concerned, if that's what you believe, fine. I will continue to contend otherwise. Wikipedia has a very confusing set of policies on precedents (they all seem to favor anti-content mentalities... I wonder why?), but I can guarantee to you, 99% of non "Good Article" or A-rated articles on fictional stuff have got a lot less "real world impact" than this article does. I entreat you to go examine the fifty-thousand articles on ships in Star Trek to get an idea for a source of my contention. Their sources are the episodes themselves, which just link to other Wikipedia pages... although, if you want to see what "ownership" and "obstructionism" really looks like, go prod or template-up those articles, and don't say I didn't warn you after what happens in response. And they are not alone by any stretch of the imagination; go find a tech-heavy science fiction or fantasy article of your choice, and try not to claw your deletionist eyes out with what you see.

You're probably the most polite and civil deletionist I've yet encountered (that's not saying much, but it is nice to actually be able to have dialog for once), so maybe we can come to a conclusion on this matter at some point. MalikCarr 21:18, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Seeing as you cited the Star Trek ships. I took a look at USS Enterprise (NCC-1701-D). Recommend working on a simple infobox to replace the bulky one currently on the page. KyuuA4 04:45, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not Vandalism

Removal of uncited pov statements ('interestingly' 'one of most bizare' etc.) ARE NOT vandalism.

Requests for cites and tags for Original Research of uncited information most clearly ARE NOT vandalsim and should never be removed unless the statements so tagged are removed or cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.28 (talk) 23:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

MalikCarr - if you had looked on the talk page before reverting you would have seen that I HAD come to the talk page to re-justify my edits beside the obvious comments within the history page. Continual reversion of 'request for cites' and tags for 'OR' without addressing the concerns by providing cites or removing OR IS vandalism. You are on notice.207.69.137.27 12:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Now the notice of vandalism for removing {OR} and {cite needed} tags without providing reliable sources is also applied the Jtrainor. Items in Wikipedia must have reliable verifiable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.29 (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Point by Point

TVwiki as a source- 1) its a Wiki being used as a source, 2) doesnt meet Wikipedia standards for a Wiki even as external links (For a wiki purporting to cover TV, the articles for NBC, CBS, Gilligan's Island, and even Star Trek have only the initial posting and the wiki as a whole has an average 12 edits a day. Therefore it falls far short of meeting the 'substantial user' requirement)

'It is interesting to note' - this language is pure POV unless cited to a particular source. Therefore it has been removed from the article.

'In Universe Perspective' - the entire section is written from within the fictional world and does not reference the relation any of the material within the section has to the real world.

'The MSN-02 Zeong enjoys' is POV - an animated robot cannot enjoy at all and any statement indicating otherwise would require a reference.

If you can provide any justifications for reverting these edits, please note them here. Otherwise, you Jtrainer and MalikCarr are simply vandalizing the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.7 (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

You're the one who's violated the 3RR, my friend. At any rate, I'll choose to debate these issues with you when you stop making blanket reverts on them. MalikCarr 22:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

WHAT MORE THAN THE POINT BY POINT EXPLANATION HERE _AND_ IN THE ORIGINAL _AND_ RECENT REVERT COULD YOU POSSIBLY BE LOOKING FOR??????? WP:RS207.69.137.36 22:40, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

And don't go throwing around 3R - YOU and Jtrainer are the one who has been making blanket reverts with no justifications. Even in my blanket reverts I have clearly indicated why the changes were made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.26 (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Organization

I added a section for 'merchandise' and renamed a section that I called 'History within storyline'. I THINK that title reflects the content in the section, but there may be a better description.207.69.137.42 14:17, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to revert all edits by IP addresses as often as I am able. I am quite aware that all those Earthlink IPs vandalizing the article are the same person, who is angry at me for my previous AFD nomiation of the White Privelege article. Jtrainor 16:44, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Editing to require sources and remove 'in universe' perspective is not vandalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.10 (talk) 17:49, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Hopeless case , simply hopeless —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.39 (talk) 05:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] request for edits

{{editprotected}} In the "Elsewhere and Miscellany" I would like to request that you

remove the WP:Peacock/POV word 'famous' from the phrase "often in the vein of Mazinger Z's famous "Rocket Punch" "
replace the POV/Peacock phrase: "Of interesting note, the Zeong is the first mobile suit..." with the NPOV "The Zeong is the first mobile suit..."
replace the POV/Peacock sentance (that includes a contradiction to a statements elsewhere in the article that the Zeong has made other appearances): "Despite its brief appearance in the animation, limited to a single sortie, the Zeong has enjoyed considerable coverage in the merchandise area." with either "The Zeong has been reproduced in a number of pieces of merchandise." or "Despite its brief appearance in the animation, the Zeong has been reproduced in a number of pieces of merchandise."
replace the POV/peacock phrase: "Perhaps the most bizarre iteration, a "Puchuu-ified" Zeong ..." with "A "Puchuu-ified" Zeong..."

I am also looking for a way to rephrase to remove the word: Puchuu-ified, but I am failing and will defer to your editing.207.69.137.39 06:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

The irony of this situation is killing me. You want to have the same edits that we've been warring over inserted into the protected article, effectively defeating the purpose of protecting it in the first place. It is to laugh. Listen, when your talk page isn't composed entirely of vandalism warnings and block lists, maybe we can take your edits more seriously. MalikCarr 09:27, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I requested protection in hopes of getting the edit war to cool off. It wasn't to endorse your version or the anon's version.

I've more or less washed my hands of the entire issue at this point otherwise. I'm continuing to watch this page, mainly because I want to know when a protection request is necessary. Maikeru 02:31, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Its nice to see that you [MalikCarr] can actually read the comments. Did you take any time to think about them to see if they are valid edits to the article and develop any responses based on WP guidelines as to why the changes should not be made ~~- or did you simply run to throw a vandalism tag on the account on the editors' account?~~

In not one of your reverts have you suggested any reasonable defense for not including the changes. This is NOT your article. If you want to write your own article and not have anyone change it, you need to go somewhere other than Wikipedia. Please start addessing the actual quality of article concerns brought with each edit to the article instead of jumping immediately to personal attacks.

Secondly, any IP address any Earthlink subscriber uses is going to have both valid and basesless charges of vandalism. From my experience in going back to articles where accusations of vandalsim have come from, many accusations ~~(like the ones you have thrown against Earthlink Anon)~~ have been baseless threats not related to any edits that have actually been vandalism.

And finally, even if an editor has had a million substatiated charges of vandalism, any further edits made still need to be judged on their own basis WP:good faith.

I hope that you and Jtrainor begin to edit articles with content in mind, ~~and stop flying off on personal attacks~~.GundamsRus 23:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, my bad, you're another anonymous IP whose talk page is also full of block warnings and wants the same edits done as the other one. How silly of me. MalikCarr 09:30, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

~~Theres no use in getting an account when fanboys will just throw 'vandalism' accusations and block your account every time you require a citation in 'their' article~~.207.69.137.27 11:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Save your breath, Mr. Earthlink. None of your edits to this article will be accepted because we know full well they are not in good faith. Jtrainor 12:25, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Good faith notwithstanding, they are requests that clearly are substatiated within WP editing and guideline standards, while your and MalikCarr's [are] unsubstatiated claims of vandalism by Earthlink Anon ~~are simply laughable~~.

This is your first edit on Wikipedia. I shall assume you are that earthlink anon until proven otherwise. Jtrainor 14:33, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. MalikCarr 21:13, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I am a completely uninvolved sysop who was going through Category:Wikipedia protected edit requests when I came across this page. I do not know the history of this article, nor why the page was protected, but I have to say that the request is entirely reasonable. The anon cites the relevant policies. We don't need unencyclopedic phrases like "Perhaps the most bizarre iteration" and "Of interesting note". And now, looking briefly at the article history, comments like rv to last version by MalikCarr - your talk page is full of vandalism reports and block logs, why should I trust any edits you make to this article? are inappropriate. How is it assuming good faith, when the address has this disclaimer at the top This IP address, 207.69.137.27, is registered to Earthlink, an Internet service provider through which thousands of individual users may connect to the Internet via proxy. This IP address may be reassigned to a different person when the current user disconnects. I ask the users here to start assuming good faith and re-examine the edit protected request, and respond specifically to the valid, good faith request that certain unencyclopedic language be struck from this article.-Andrew c ^[talk] 14:51, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree with you. Whether or not the rest of the content is disputed, I think people can/should agree to try and make the language of the article more encyclopedic. Right now there's a bit too much fan-pagey language that can easily be snipped out without removing any actual content from the article. Maikeru 19:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

These same anonymous IPs, which appear to all belong to the same user (I'll request to run a checkuser on it later if it becomes pertinent), have simply come upon this article after participation in a rather heated AfD discussion User:Jtrainor and I participated in. Given the edit history of these IPs, I see no reason why this is not a WP:POINT campaign aimed at attacking us for having opposing viewpoints. That and the history of flagrant vandalism and policy violations made assuming good faith quite difficult. At any rate, we can discuss topics relevant to policy interpretation about OR and POV when the user is willing to discuss them before making sweeping edits and violating 3RR time and time again to keep them in the article. MalikCarr 01:56, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of that fact, would it at least be worth considering removing those words whenever this article is unprotected, not even taking into consideration the fair-use/infobox debate? It doesn't even require a significant rewrite--the words are just tacked onto otherwise complete thoughts. Maikeru 03:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I happen to believe that the uses of certain terms - "enjoys" "bizarre" etc - discussed here adds a more flavorful wording to the article in question. As literary devices, it is not impossible for an inanimate object to "enjoy" something beyond its stated purpose; for example, the AK-47/AKM rifle might "enjoy" widespread use around the world and coverage in the media. Its stated purpose is to be an effective weapon that can kill under harsh conditions and be used by unskilled operators, and it excels at that purpose magnificently. In this case, the Zeong's stated purpose was to be a plot element in the animation, and then sell merchandise of itself for Bandai's profitability, which it has also done well at (or so I should think I have demonstrated, at any rate). An inanimate object can certainly "enjoy" fulfilling its stated purpose to the best of its abilities.

Classic giant robot anime (e.g. Getter Robo') are famous in the same vein as any other genre-defining fiction. Given the endless remakes, merchandising, appearances in other media (Super Robot Wars especially), this seems obvious enough.

From an out-of-universe perspective, something this article needs as much of as possible, it is interesting that the Zeong, a work from arguably the first "real robot" anime, makes a connection to more classical giant robot works. I could go into further details about this specific topic, but I'm not sure anyone wants a page-long lecture about the inclinations of old "super robot" shows and how they can be reflected in more realistic programs, which Gundam laid the foundation for.

Finally, I object to rewording the article on simple grounds of principle. The anonymous IP user (and non-vandal, dozens of complaints and blockings aside) has stated that the uses of these terms are POV and "Peacock" instances, which are policies aimed at editors intentionally trying to push a point of view or unbalance the neutrality/verifiability of an article's content. This suggests a complete lack of good faith in the edits of users that contribute to this article in a constructive fashion. Combined with continual violation of policies and a total lack of any sort of discussion or suggestion in advance makes the legitimacy of these claims and resultant edits questionable. Even if you were following policy to the letter, engaging in name-calling, dodging 3RR violations by using multiple anonymous IP addresses (and then breaking 3RR on all of them anyway), putting offensive content on user pages, and so forth, does not make for a strong case as to why these edits are the way to go. I might have been persuaded that a, quite frankly, blander version of this article might be less POV had this user not decided to include them in a package of policy breeches and bad faith edits. I apologize if I sound like I'm not assuming good faith on the part of the anonymous user, but it seems silly to do so when it's blatantly apparent that the other party has predetermined that you aren't worth it either.

Addendum: When did using an ISP with dynamic IP ranges become a "get out of jail free" card to vandalize articles, anyway? 'Cause I'm sure I've got a few AOL discs being used as coasters somewhere around the house, if that's how the game's being played. MalikCarr 04:42, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I would rebut if you hadn't actually made each of my claims stronger by proving that you have no substance to back your revisions ~~other than a dislike for anon edits (well actually any edits) to 'your' article~~.207.69.137.10 11:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

And what do you know, another anonymous IP address full of vandalism warnings. Why am I not surprised? MalikCarr 22:24, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

~~can you not~~[Please] read the headings on IP user pages ~~or are you purposefully being ignorant?~~ anyone posting from an Earthink account gets assigned the next available IP address - so the addresses are used by hundreds and thousands of people who post valuable posts, real vandalism and material that generates FALSE accusations of vandalism from people ~~(such as you)~~ who flag accounts for things that are not even close to vandalism. The charges of vandalism follow the randomly assigned IP and not the user. If you were not aware, WIKIPEDIA POLICIES COMPLETELY CONDONE anonymous editing that is not vandalism. If you would spend half as much time finding valid sources for claims in articles as you do throwing around personal accusations, mindlessly reverting, and investigating edit histories, you would have much fewer people flagging your articles for {cite needed} and {or}. GundamsRus 23:49, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

You're a sock puppet created specifically to harrass User:MalikCarr. Since registering a username, that username has made no edits except to articles he has edited first. This isn't even in dispute, anyone can see it by checking your contribs. Your edits will continue to be reverted as violations of WP:POINT. Jtrainor 01:30, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, if I signed up with Earthlink and started editing anonymously, I could vandalize however many articles I want, then claim it was someone else on the service and be none the wiser? I'm not buying it, buddy. If you want to be taken seriously, why don't you register for an account like everyone else (or just use the one you already registered, instead of just trawling my contributions page for articles to mess with)? The days of Wikipedia being non discriminating against anonymous IPs are over. First they lost the ability to create pages, then to upload files, and now there's even a special protection template to prevent anonymous IPs from editing an article. It'll only be a matter of time before anonymous users won't be able to edit at all, and people like you will be the reason cited. Stop hiding under the banner of dynamic IPs, put up a name, and then maybe we can talk. MalikCarr 02:24, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

You keep assigining every charge of vandaism from the Earthlink IP's to me, that clearly cannot be true - even if I wanted, there is no way that I could physically have committed every act of vandalism charged against Earthlink IPs. You seem to be fixated on charges of vandalism and have no proof whatsoever of any edits to this article in the past week or so that are even close to vandalism. Each edit here has been clearly justified by WP guidelines (except for the 3R reversion war that you initiated.) Please - again I ask that you STOP with the baseless personal attacks and and focus on the actual edits to the articles. ~~You have become the boy who cried 'vandal'.~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.43 (talk) 03:58, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Spare me your platitudes. I know full well this is in retaliation for me nomming White privilege (sociology) for deletion. I recognize several of the Earthlink IPs from that AfD and from the talk page, where it was implied myself and User:MalikCarr were racists. You have about as much interest in actually improving the quality of this stuff as I do in writing a long treatise on the role of spoons in the Mexican-American War. Jtrainor 05:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, this sure clears up a few things... I thought those editing patterns were similar, but it never occurred to me to check. Right then, I think we've got our WP:POINT defense set up right and dandy now. MalikCarr 10:53, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

again, right for the personal attacks rather than addressing content issues. If you actually review the AfD mostly what was stated in the arguements was that you and malikcarr could not provide any basis for your nomination or your claims that sources were not reliable. the implications in the discussion were that you had a tendancy to attack those who did not agree with you rather than refute their cliams. That has been born out again here.Oops - i have been sucked into the morass of personal attacks!!! - apologies and removal of most offending material I committed in this section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.137.36 (talk) 12:14, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

While I have attempted to make a more peacefull setting by redacting my comments in this section that amount to personal attacks, Jtrainor refuses my attempts to de-escalate the situation and keeps reverting to the old version. At this point I will take no responsibility for those statements of personal attack - they are now all Jtrainor's responsibility.207.69.137.11 06:10, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Everything posted to Wikipedia is public - Jtrainor has likely reverted your edits to preserve the record of what was actually said. MalikCarr 08:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I am certain that Jtrainer is as well aware as you are that the History button 'preserve[s] the record of what was actually said'. Therefore, there must be some other reason for re-escalating the situation. What those motives are, are unknown to me. Again, I am interested in removing the personal attacks that I made from this discussion - my efforts have been thoroghly rebuffed - and I am not willing to enter a revert war over the issue.207.69.137.7 13:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC) Another redaction of the personal attacks I had made in this section, this time by strikethrough. I no longer support those comments being made in public.GundamsRus 14:02, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm reverting you because it is against policy to remove material from talk pages unless it's being archived. Jtrainor 18:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)