Talk:4Kids Story Alteration in One Piece

Be Careful Here
Joekido, be careful not to write anti-4Kids stuff. Your always tempt to write it, but you have to write the words as if you are in neutral opinion. Its hard to do, but we can't use the site as a anti-4Kids marched (no matter how much they screw up One Piece ¬_¬).

Avoid anything that sounds too one sided. Also when you analyse characters, it might be best just to compare personnelities not avoid details... Otherwise we're repeating here was we have said elsewhere.

You don't have to listen to me, but its some free advice on how to handle anything linked to 4Kids. One-Winged Hawk 22:58, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

God, Angel, your like a big sister of this site and sometimes you have a triwling iron arm here.

I did my best not to write ant-4Kids, I did tried to aviod bashing and being one-sided. It's hard for me to be two-sided because I often only use one-side scale. But thanks for your warning and help me out, teach me how to take both sides.

(Joekido 23:49, 5 February 2007 (UTC))


 * It's true; while I was readin the artilce, I sensed more "I hate 4Kids and what they did to One Piece" then what sounded like a more neutral look at the facts at hand, which is basically what we're trying to do here. -BF202, Feb. 5, 2007


 * See Joekido, thats another person who agrees with me. Joekido, your a good editor but this habbit lets you down too often. Its nothing big, we all do this from time to time, we'll have to work towards getting you out of this habbit somehow.  Lockgar


 * Lets see... A basic example to help Joekido along a little here with this article:


 * Dragon: 4Kids had him act as a divinder who speaks "fate" and "destiny" often. In the original he's not like that. Later it was revealed that Dragon is a revoltionary, not the impersonal of fate.


 * Lets see. "4Kids had him" would be better written as "In the 4Kids dub he was portrayed as...".  Next is "In the original he's not like that." which could be better written as "In the orginal dub version..." then go on to describe him as he appears in the orginal. This whole paragraph could easily be buffed up a bit by doing more comparisons between versions.  Don't say anything that makes a harsh statement towards 4Kids part - just stick to describing the difference and avoid any words that hint towards opinions of the editor.


 * Why don't you look at the Romance Dawn Version 1 and Romance Dawn Version 2 articles Joekido... There are good examples of how to comparison versions of characters on either page, written by someone who is is by far better at this sort of thing then I am. I would also drop " Later it was revealed that Dragon is a revoltionary, not the impersonal of fate." as this seems to be scolding the reader for their absence of knowledge on Dragon himself. And you have to be honest here a little (don't write this in the article!) - Dragon does have a mystic aura around him a little, so 4Kids portrayal of him is forgivable somewhat.


 * Someone else might give you better advice, but here is an example of how you can avoid sounding anit-4Kids with one of the statements on the page. Its a good idea to bring up his page and have it and this open at the same time.  You can see whats been written and check out if your repeating info from that page.


 * Okay I won't leature you anymore on it, class is over (lol - feels like I'm talking to a class of students here XD ). Get on with the article and the rest of us will lend you a hand if you are struggling with it. And really important to remember Joekido - don't be afriad to ask for help here if you really need it.  One-Winged Hawk 07:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that the part under dragon "Later it was revealed that Dragon is Luffy's father and a revoltionary" should have the Luffy's father part remove because that was discover very recently and only serve to spoil more then simple point out. Spoiled it for me... - 25, March 2007