Talk:eigoMANGA

Value?

If you ask me, this site has no Wikipedia value because its a for-profit company. Just like YTMND has their own Wikipedia on their site, I believe eigoMANGA should do the same. --66.177.71.165 17:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

• Well no one asked you. eigoMANGA has been on record by the comic book industry for making significant contributions to web comics and OEL manga. If their work was good enough to be exhibited in a museum then they are good enough for Wikipedia. http://www.comicon.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=37&t=002046 --70.132.28.252 17:42, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Selling artist material without permission?

Someone I know on IRC raised via private message the possibility of including information in this article about apparent controversies regarding Eigomanga using artist material without permission.

14:12 <kit> I have no real desire to edit a certain article myself, but recently came across a page that you may want to look into editing with all the
            facts in a neutral manner.
14:12 <kit> This article: http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/EigoMANGA  mentions nothing of the banning from conventions due to selling artist material without
            their permission
14:14 <kit> For references, see this rant by applegeeks creator Hawk: http://www.applegeeks.com/blog/?p=498
14:17 <kit> Related rant in MacHall here: http://machall.com/?strip_id=273
14:18 <kit> More recently: http://ldragoon.livejournal.com/36087.html (lol livejournal)
14:26 <kit> and finally here: http://inkandtea.com/reviews_fanime.html

Should this be mentioned in the article? We could maybe just throw a mention into the lead section (with references, of course). On a related note, none of the material in the article seems to be sourced, so I'll slap a tag on it. --Slowking Man 23:30, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Selling artist material without permission?

I've heard of the allegations and it and a rumor based off a blog has no place in Wikipedia. I'm all for neutrality but it's never a good idea to be the opposing side when your viewpoints are based off of blogs and livejournal entries created by a 15 year old with a grudge. --GreenHillZone 23:38, 22 September 2006

• Please don't delete content put in by someone else when it's directly relevant to the discussion at hand. Leave it for other editors to view and decide for themselves. I don't see anything about 15 year olds with a grudge. The sites referenced were written by the Applegeeks creator, one of the creators from Machall and two showing photo evidence of the topic. I think a one-line edit inclusion reflecting that something happened (again since it's referenced on both the applegeeks site and machall) should at least be considered. - Kitness 00:33, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

S--- Stirring Is Wrong!!!!!!

I checked out AppleGeeks blogs and forums and these same people admitted in future entries that the issue was blown way out of proportion. And several months later at Otakon 2004, these same people met with eigoMANGA officials and both of them put the issue to rest. It's wrong to isolate one blog entry to going to town on it when the very people involved including Machall, dealt with the issue and moved on. You're very selective in picking out blog entries but neglect the future entries and forum quotes where they state that this issue was overrated and they have moved on.

And where does Slowk get off saying that eigoMANGA was barred from conventions? They have tons of pictures on them at cons on their myspace site. He's only proving when he "leeps before you looks" when editing. After reading Slowk's profile, he has your own credibility issues to worry about.

It's not Wikipedia's policy to "stir up s---" and that's exactly what Slowk was doing.

• Would you mind linking to the specific blog entries or forum posts you're referencing? I think that would make your argument much more compelling. --Mediocre (talk) 00:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Sakurapak-cover.jpg

The image Image:Sakurapak-cover.jpg is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --01:58, 4 October 2008 (UTC)