# Talk:Mello (Death Note)

Is repeated like more than 50 times through out this article. If someone could write it to give it some flair and creativity, and not blandness, we'd have a better article.
Xuchilbara (talk) 20:23, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, sure, it would be nice to make it read better, but "Creativity" - no. We are here to describe. I admit that having something repeated more than 50 times is strange, so I welcome an attempt to fix it, but our priority is conveying information in an encyclopedia, not having a really flowery paper that is a total pleasure to read. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
By "creativity" I meant bringing some spice to something thats written in some parts, almost entirely, as "Ohba said", which is not very creative at all. Writing is creative in itself, and whoever wrote it seems to be lacking in that department. In writing you want to try and avoid using the same terms and expressions over and over again, no matter what the subject is. It would be as if I kept saying or typing my sentences starting with "In writing" which has almost no creativity what so ever. That was my point. Having a encyclopedia entry that is totally unpleasurable and lacking in writing, while repeating itself constantly, is also not something that should in a encyclopedia. Conveying info may be the top priority, but that doesn't mean it needs to be half arsed or below standards when doing so. It doesn't make us look that intelligent or respectable to boot. Surely we could word our sentences better, eh?
Xuchilbara (talk) 23:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

1. I wrote it. 2. Next time you might want to say "whoever wrote it should try to add more variety next time" instead of "whoever wrote it seems to be lacking in that department" as the former doesn't sound as personally charged. Focus on the content, not the person. Anyhow, I didn't care about trying to word it better because first and foremost I wanted the information there right away. Rewording is something to be done later. Also, it is better to sound dry than it is to go so flowery that it strays into Wikipedia:NPOV and Wikipedia:Original research - both of which are unacceptable on here. WhisperToMe (talk) 23:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I think you misinterpetated some of my comments. I don't remember ever saying anything about making it "flowery", or anything that would have violated NPOV or OR. (And believe me theres some bad wiki articles out there, that are that bad.) I'm sorry if I offended you. Anyway, yes you're right. I couldn't think of the right words, but you put it there on the map. "Variety" would have been a better context.
Xuchilbara (talk) 00:41, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, when I think about it "Variety" is the best way to describe it - What the phrases need are varieties of words just to make things more even and flow better :) WhisperToMe (talk) 01:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll see if I can add that variety & flow when I have the time to tidiously go through the article. If not, I think you or another editor might get to it before me. Thanks.
On a another note. IDK how to fix the box to the right w/ Mello's picture in it. But its kinda messing up the text there. Theres gotta be a way to make it all even.
Xuchilbara (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm using Mozilla Firefox 2.0.03 on Windows XP and the infobox looks fine - Do you have a screenshot? Have you upgraded your browsers? I wonder if it is a browser issue. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't have Firefox. I have Explorer. But i have Windows XP. I tried to take a Screen but you have to upload the file here to see what I took. I'm not sure what the problem is then. :-/
Xuchilbara (talk) 23:26, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok. It looks fine now. Thanks to whoever fixed it.
Xuchilbara (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Fixing more and just cutting pointless shit that we don't need in the article. Mello's one of my favorite characters, so I'm going to work on this article to get it past Start-class and at B-class at the very least. StardustDragon 05:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok I have a disagreement with one statement. In this article it says that Near is smarter than Mello, however Mello is said to have a higher IQ than Near however because Mello lets his emotions get in the way it hinders his thinking, thus making Near the better successor. Also, I thought that Mello allowed himself to be killed knowing it would be the only way to lawfully arrest Light, and knowing and coming to terms with the truth that Near and Mello wouldn't be able to find him without working together.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.162.48.87 (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Mello might have known that everything would happen that way, that he confirmed with Ridner that Near would try to make them write their names in the notebook directly. After a silence, he said that Mello was the only one who could actually do it, and then hung up the phone. Ridner thought Mello meant that he was going to settle himself in front of Near, BUT when you look at the result of what he did it, you end up thinking again. Near states that Mello probably hadn’t thought as far as a fake notebook, but he thought his actions would get him ahead of Near, even though he couldn’t surpass him (Near)...
“But he (Mello) knew I could never surpass L… perhaps I lacked dynamics while Mello lacked composure…In other words by ourselves we were not even able to surpass our target (Light)... [but] Together we are as able as L. Together we can surpass L.” - Near (Chapter 104)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.191.69.114 (talk) 07:05, 9 June 2009 (UTC) 

This article needs to be rewritten so as to make sense to someone who is not familiar with the comic book. I just came across the main Death note wiki article, and I've found that the majority of the separate character articles really lack clarity and would be confusing for someone who hasn't read the comic. Please try to get the prose cleaned up in this article.128.237.236.210 (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mello (Death Note). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/6QpQqTK2w?url=http://www.mania.com/death-note-vol-07_article_82762.html to http://www.mania.com/death-note-vol-07_article_82762.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)