Jump to content

User talk:AnmaFinotera/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6→Archive 10


Honey and Clover

Who removed that "Japanese" bit in the first line? I have just added it to X (manga). Inclusively, I left you an inquiry here. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:00, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Answered on DB, I was thinking over the other comments. For H&C, that would be User:Nohansen while he was undoing all attempts to have the article follow the MoS instead of his personal layout preferences. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Quincy (Bleach)

The article has already been merged with the list of characters, the information left in the article about Quincy abilities, tools, etc. Is extremely relavent and should not be removed. Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities or crude humor, page blanking, or the insertion of nonsense into articles. You are basically page blanking if you go through with the complete article deletion. I am trying to protect the valuable info. The items and abilities dont belong on the character page because they are not characters but the are still important and should be kept on the Quincy race article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.178.106.120 (talk) 02:07, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You are vandalizing a merge. You are not doing anything of value and have been told to stop by THREE different editors. Stop it or get blocked, its up to you. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In case you're interested... ~SnapperTo 02:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Reported as vandal only account and tagged the duplicate for CSD. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
The sock was blocked and the dupe deleted. Should probably keep an eye out for more, though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:41, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 1 July, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 14:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Awesome! Thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:50, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Tokyo Mew Mew Power Wiki

I just want to know if you have plans to add individual articles to this Wiki. You know my talk page. Rtkat3 (talk) 7:52, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

You mean to this wiki as in "wikipedia" or as in a "Tokyo Mew Mew Power Wiki"? If the later, no, never heard of one, so I don't use and and will not be editing it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk page refactoring

What are the specific criteria for 'breaking' a page? I refactor when users space out their talk pages excessively, which makes it difficult for new contributors to make additions to the talk page because they need to waste a lot of time scrolling through things. Converting bar divisions to indentations as I did with the Little Nemo talk page you referenced is making it standard format. I don't think the people who commented on this three years ago would be very offended. Indentation is not only standard but makes it easier to read when the talk page is displayed. Talk pages should also be pleasant to the eye and easy to edit, not just articles. Were you personally offended as a contributor to either the project or the Little Nemo article, or are you predicting people will become offended? I don't think most people even notice this, as I mark such things as minor, which they are. Tyciol (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Breaking a page, as in it hides comments, page won't load right, etc. Didn't care on little nemo, just noticed you'd seemed to have done the same thing there you'd done elsewhere. And yes, I found it very annoying on the anime and manga project talk page. The headers don't need to be "properly" cased like they do in an article, people's signatures moved around, etc. No one had any issues at all with anything with any posts. We do have folks who will correct minor things (like indenting), or missing sigs, but that's about it. The rest, let people use small case if they want, misspell, etc. It is fine. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:27, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

PR experiment

Dear AnmaFinotera, I'm writing in hopes of enlisting your aid in a four-month experiment at Peer Review (PR). The success of the experiment will depend on finding at least 10 editors willing to review at least one article a week through the end of October 2008. The experiment will employ a streamlined review process designed to insure that every nominator who seeks a review gets one and that reviewers do not waste time doing long reviews for nominators who do not respond to an initial short review.

The way it works is this: (1) Choose any article at Peer Review that lacks a review. Wikipedia:Peer reviews by date, especially the backlog list, is still a good place to find such articles. (2) Provide a short partial review based on your initial observations and wait to see if the nominator responds. Examples of short reviews can be found at Wikipedia:Peer review/Foreign relations of India/archive1 and Wikipedia:Peer review/Ed Stelmach/archive1. (3) If the nominator does not respond, the review is done. (4) If the nominator responds, continue the review as you see fit.

The experiment will require no noticeable administration. However, if you plan to participate, it would be helpful if you posted a brief note to Wikipedia talk:Peer review to that effect.

At the end of October, we can see how the experiment turned out and whether this process or some modification of it could sustain Peer Review permanently with minimal backlogs. If you can help, that would be great. If not, that's perfectly OK. We are all tremendously busy with a lot of different projects.

I have chosen to write to you in part because you've done peer reviews from the backlog during the past four months. Please forgive the form-letter nature of this note, which is more efficient than a personal note. With respect and thanks for your hard work on many projects, Finetooth (talk) 20:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Its an interesting experiment, but I wouldn't be comfortable making the commitment as I've just bought my first house and will be in the process of moving and doing renovation during the expeiment's time frame. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

IP blocking

Just to follow up your question at AIV, typically IPs are never indeff'ed (rare exceptions being made in the case of open proxies), but they will receive increasingly longer blocks if the behaviour continues. –xenocidic (talk) 15:53, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah okay. I know some IPs have been blocked when they have been used by socks and confirmed by check user, just wasn't sure if this one could be. He seems to have been at this for a long long time, and doesn't even bother trying to hide it. Oh, you may want to put a new block notice on his talk page :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Hrm, I wasn't the blocking admin, what was the IP again? Never mind, found it in your contribs to AIV.  Done. –xenocidic (talk) 16:51, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand why they would just say crap like that to you...... – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 21:37, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Who? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:16, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Fires on the Plain peer review

Well, I'm pretty sure I did everything properly but it doesn't appear on the "Peer Review list" at the top of Wiki: Film talk page, but it hasn't appeared which means I've screwed something up again. If you could double check as you said and find out what I screwed up, that would be nice. Yojimbo501 (talk) 20:01, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It does?... ok. Yojimbo501 (talk) 20:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wait, do I need to add it up there and then it will appear? Yojimbo501 (talk) 20:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that list is manually maintained rather than done by a bot. I've added it for you :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok it appears now. Thanks. Yojimbo501 (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I Loathe You : A Clique Novel

Where was the original AfD? Corvus cornixtalk 22:25, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/P.S. I Loathe You -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. Corvus cornixtalk 22:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: GA Sweeps

Thanks for your interest in helping out. Could you present a few GA reviews that you completed (both passing ones as well as failed) OhanaUnitedTalk page 01:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Here are some of the most recent GAs, GARs, and delistings
-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion#Courtesy tags redux

Hello again, AnmaFinotera ... Do you have any comments on this change?

Happy Editing! — 151.200.237.53 (talk · contribs) 18:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hi, thanks for your concern. I've responded to your reply. I can't read script, so if you can, then you'll have to check out the websites yourself to see if they're legitimate.

Intranetusa (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit summary

Just as a note from here, Zirconia really does represent Nehellenia as an old woman in one of the media--I forget if it's the anime or the manga. But mostly it doesn't go there because it's a reason why they shouldn't have changed her, which is a matter of opinion, whereas what's there now is simply the reason why they did. --Masamage ♫ 17:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've never saw anything like that in either the anime nor the manga, so no idea where it came from, hence my presuming its false. Something like that would definitely need sourced. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:56, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Cursory hunting shows that it was the anime, but I can't track down the episode. Supposedly Zirconia is a personification of Nehellenia's nightmare of being ugly, which is supposed to be why she vanishes when Nehellenia breaks out of the mirror. Found that episode, but not the one where this is explained. Not really a big deal for now, I guess, but I'll keep an eye out. --Masamage ♫ 23:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
SMU mentions this scene here, if it's of any help. -- RattleMan 23:07, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
From that explanation, its not anything specifically said, but one possible interpretation of the scenes, and therefore OR without a reliable source actually discussing it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Questions

I had brief contact with you a short time ago regarding an argument with samantha manson There was an argument between myself and an unregistered editor inserting original thought. If you look at all the Danny Phantom entries they read like a badly written fan site and could probably be merged into one entry. I don't know that I want to do the research and spend the time to fix the whole thing especially considering the fans of the show will fight me tooth and nail with their biases and original thoughts and other absurdities. The Sam Manson entry does have a great deal of problems but it's better than it was for now. My problems are the people who want to insert their fan preferences. I have written in the entry that the character's grand mother calls her Bubaleh and is jewish, a fact that is supported in the series itself, and yet a editor removed that bit of entry with the edit notes Noooooooo! I chose to undo the edit though perhaps I should have re-edited. I am currently reading myself to read the guidelines you pointed me to however, I'm thinking of letting go of trying to improve anything in this matter due to it feeling like two steps forward one step back because of all the fans who just can't accept fact over their fanon. Any suggestions? Doratheghost (talk) 21:59, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...in the end, it depends on what kind of work you want to do, and how you want to edit at Wikipedia. Tackling bigger series like that, when you have to deal with constantly beating fans in the head with policies and guidelines, can be frustrating, stressful, and time consuming. Especially for series which are still running. You may find yourself being harassed, insulted, etc. I've been called crude names, told to go "die in a fire," and had my user and talk pages vandalized because it is something I've done on some series. As you are a newer editor, you might find it more rewarding, and less stressful, to stat with a series that isn't currently airing, as they usually have few fan(atics) to deal with. That said, I've dealt with it. I had to deal with educating younger about Wikipedia policies and guidelines when I took on Meerkat Manor. It took quite awhile to clean it all up, source it all, etc, but now it is a featured topic with a featured article, two featured lists, and a GA article. :) If you decide you want to "take on the challenge" don't be afraid to ask for help from the TV project if you end up in a major dispute. In the case of the IP who removed sourced info, though, your revert was perfectly fine and future removals should be considered vandalism and appropriate warnings. When dealing with major article clean up, you'll need a fairly thick skin and be ready and willing to issue warnings, as appropriate, and, we, "smack some heads" :P Hope that helps some. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


Re-Read my original

I pointed out your error, and stated "if it was removed in error, my apologies". That is polite and CIVILITY. Your snotty reply seems to run contrary to your past history of having been a good editor.

Perhaps today is not your day, and it was your arrogance that has made mine bad.

Thanks for playing Wikipedia today, perhaps YOU are the one who needs to relax over the tea. If you'd like, let's please escalate this. I have never in all my years on Wikipedia had someone act the way you are towards me :) BMW(drive) 21:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You may have felt your original message was civil, but it was not. Civil does not have the header of "Your edits to The Irish Descendants - Vandalism" and basically rewording the level 1 vandalism template to avoid templating a regular. It was rude and completely unnecessary. You started the snottiness with such a blatantly false accusation. I have never vandalized an article in my two years of editing under my username, nor before when editing under an IP. Sue me if I resent the accusation and the tone with which it was leveled. You didn't come ask a question about why it was remove or politely correct the presumption of copying. You accused, falsely, and made it clear you felt I had vandalized "your" article. I performed what I felt were the correct actions in responding to a, get this, Suspected copyright violation report. The copyvio was borderline, but I could see the issue. As I felt the article was also on a non-notable topic, I CSDed it. It was declined, which was cool, so I followed the prescribed method of dealing with partial copyvio, and removed what appeared to be a copy/paste from the official website. Rather than simply leave a nice note explaining you had revert the removal because of X, you accused me of vandalizing "your" article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Well miss, you've done a great job today. Just because YOU have never heard of a band, you determine they're not notable and ask for it to be deleted, even though the page has links to it from elsewhere in Wikipedia. When that gets denied, you do the next step - try and rip it apart. Well played. Don't get your way, you'll find some other way to do it.

If you noted the original HISTORY of the article, a BOT attempted to label it as COPYVIO as well. It's even on my talk page. But, perhaps in your rush you failed to look at those things. TWO attempted removals based on COPYVIO for the same material are a little much, no matter WHO wrote the article.

So now, you've messed up a perfectly fine article, you've pissed off an editor who sees his role as one of SOLVING problems, you misread a perfectly good civil English message, and in order to stop yourself from looking bad for perhaps the first time, you removed all existence. Bravo.

Wikipedia needs more good editors - so please go back to the way you were much earlier today. Thanks BMW(drive) 22:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the bot report was why I came to it. Just because you remove the notice doesn't remove the report. The article is a stub, with all of one line of actual content. Anyone else would question notability too when all the article says is "The Irish Descendants are a folk group from the Atlantic province of Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada. The band was originally founded in 1990." The list of members and albums is just a list, no actual content. I also have NOT messed up anything, you reverted, the article is back to exactly what it was before (and despite your overly hostile attitude, notice that I neither challenged the CSD decline NOR reverted your putting back of the content). Here, if it makes you happy, here is the direct quote of the original message you left[1]
"Your removal of significant portions of this article under the auspices of COPYVIO (when they clearly are not) are considered vandalism. Please refrain from removing such items again, or you will be reported. If the text was removed in error, please accept my apologies. Good luck in your future edits on Wikipedia, and thanks for trying to improve this source of information."
That's a paraphrase of the level one vandal warning. It isn't just rude and a total violation of WP:AGF, especially when you knew the page, exactly as it existed, had already been pinged for violating a copyright, it was condescending. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Congratulations for proving one thing: you are unable to accept that you made an error. If you'd simply said "sorry, I appear to have been wrong after all" from the start, you would have never raised anyone's ire. We, as Wikipedia editors need to look at what we've done, and accept criticism. You made clear vandalism, it was easy to check. I sent a POLITE message (you apparently got stuck on the word vandalism and failed to read further). If someone does the exact same thing again, I will respond in exactly the same way. I create stubs based on redlinks in other important articles. It's what I do best, and it's what I will continue to do. Now, run along and do your own edits, and leave those of us who are willing to admit to our OWN errors alone. BMW(drive) 22:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
ROFLMAO. Whatever. If you actually still want to call it vandalism, fine. But, seriously, get over yourself. You are the one who can't admit he was wrong to call it that, and who feels he must defend his foolish actions just to make himself feel better. You should really read WP:Vandalism sometime. Oh, but here, let me just share a quote with you:
How not to respond to vandalism: "Avoid the word "vandal". In particular, the word should not be used in reference to any contributor in good standing or to any edits that can arguably be construed as good-faithed. If the edits in question are made in good faith, they are not vandalism. Instead of calling a person making such edits a "vandal", discuss his or her specific edits with him or her. Comment on the content and substance of his or her edits or arguments, not his or her person." I also highly recommend the very enlighting section WP:VAND#NOT, particularly "Wikipedians often make sweeping changes to pages in order to improve them—most of us aim to be bold when updating articles. While having large chunks of text you've written removed or substantially rewritten can be frustrating, simply making edits that noticeably alter the text or content of a pages should not be immediately labeled vandalism." and "If a user treats situations which are not clear vandalism as such, then it is he or she who is actually harming the encyclopedia." Have a nice day-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Tokyo Mew Mew

I'll begin reviewing it today. (I've been hosting a pair of friends from East Timor for the past few weeks, but we took them to the airport yesterday.) Sorry for the delay! – Scartol • Tok 12:34, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Ah, no problem. I hope they had a great visit :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:48, 22 June 2008 (UTC)
The copy editing has been completed. :) There are some issues still outstanding (refer to the talk page), but we could apply for GA class soon. G.A.S 15:17, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Re Diff; not quite unnecessary: Refer to Wikipedia:How_to_fix_bunched-up_edit_links for the symptoms and the fix; the only differences is that in this case, it was due to the "infoboxes" on the right, not images. As for the "|index=/Archive Index" change, that got in inadvertently:). G.A.S 15:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
The edit links aren't bunched up, and that isn't needed for a talk page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:45, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
At that time there were no TOC and the edit link for the first section went missing (on top of the text, or behind the infobox), which makes it quite inconvenient if you need to edit that section/look at the code. G.A.S 15:49, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but the ToC disappeared because you manually archived some stuff :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:15, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Should I put those discussions back? ;) G.A.S 16:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Nah, with the copy edit comments it has enough for a TOC and should all be good now, right? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
Not to mention enough work to keep us busy for a while. I am done for now, in case you would like to continue without edit conflicts. Would you like to attempt to move the one section from the plot to the characters section? The move seems to make sense, and would remove some redundancy. The other option is, as he said, to remove the characters section, but that would be odd given the manual of style and the other featured anime and manga articles. G.A.S 17:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
LOL, true true. I'll work on that awhile, as it is helping me keep my mind off things. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(←) Have you decided what we shall do with the section within plot re characters and the characters section? (Bullets 3 and 7) G.A.S 06:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

No, not yet. Not sure how to fix the characters without using bullets...and there just aren't enough FAs to look at for guidance. I may try checking some FA TV articles, see what they use. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
I think that we can start by removing the section in "plot", per suggestion. Then we should attempt to work that detail into the characters section. Wikipedia:WikiProject Television/Assessment lists that they have 29 FA's. Here is a quick summary of the applicable ones:
Time after time, those with proper paragraphs display better, so this is a given. We could attempt to add "out of universe" detail to the section, but I am unsure whether it will help. Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games/Assessment's Featured articles may also give advice. G.A.S 17:02, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The live action ones aren't good examples, unfortunately, as they focus on the cast, which isn't something we go into huge detail about. MM I wrote. :P It has no overall plot section as its a non-fiction work, so the Meerkats paragraph is sort of a combo section. I'll keep thinking...-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed, nor do we have any information about the casting/character design. MM, I know, but couldn't leave it out, could I?;) You would have seen by now that I mentioned this on the MOS talk page; maybe they have some ideas. Regards, G.A.S 17:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Of course, we can always nominate the article for GA, and see what input they provide... G.A.S 21:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I want to go straight for FA, not GA, so will see if I can figure something out this weekend. Been a long week :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:13, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Nice. But was it not according to Scartol near/at GA level? Anyway, FAC should provide valuable input. G.A.S 21:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Still working on the character thing. Went into contract on a house on Friday, so had inspections Monday. Also, I probably won't be able to merge Ichigo to the character list until August as all of my manga is now packed :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Congrats! In any case, there is no time limit, and more than enough to keep us busy until then. G.A.S 05:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I just did a change to try the page without a character section...what do you think? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:56, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems fine to me;). If this makes FA we should update the MoS accordingly. At most we may need to expand on the characters in the plot section, but I think that will be unnecessary. G.A.S 19:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the MoS needs updating. If this were a longer series, it could support a full character section, I think. With it being so short, most of what can be said is already in the plot. The other alternative, though, would be to go with a bullet method, which I'll also test later, that takes a summary from the list of. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I tend to agree with Scartol on this one: A bullet list is a no go. If a better description is really needed we should be able to work it into the plot section. I can also see his point (and WP:NOVEL's) of avoiding a character section altogether. Refer to Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Style guidelines#Characters in "NovelTitle" for what I mean by updating the MOS: We need not prohibit it, just say that it an acceptable option.) There are some examples I can quickly point at: Starship Troopers, The Lord of the Rings, To Kill a Mockingbird: Neither seems incomplete without an character section. Regards, G.A.S 05:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah okay. So can you think of anything that was in the character section that might be good to incorporate int the plot section? If there is no character section I think we can expand the plot a little if needed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:34, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the information you removed, none of it seems that important and the more important parts are already fully covered in the plot section. The only items that were removed are: the minor character list (Not important), some background information on the aliens (Trivial at best—and it differs as opposed to MMP), and the part about them getting their name (Trivial). What should be added to the plot section? I cannot think of anything specific that is missing. G.A.S 05:45, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Alrighty...so what do you think, GA or be bold and go straight for FA? :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
If the Wikiproject had a proper A class review, I would have taken it there instead of GA review, but alas, it does not (yet). As such I would have taken it to GA first, even if it is just a formality; then again, being bold is your style:) G.A.S 06:35, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
LOL, true true. Why stop now? :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:46, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Do you want/need me as co-nominator? Given that you did most of the work;) G.A.S 11:53, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Sure :) I was gonna ask since I didn't want to just add you first :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:08, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Ball

When do you plan to make the merger? I think there is consensus, in fact, none have opposed to the idea here. It appears someone even suggested that we merge Dragonball (film) also. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:06, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I suspect, from the reaction at Bleach on the idea of merging the film, that merging the DB film will be a no go. It should be a separate discussion though after the rest of the merging is done. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

The investigation into reliable sources at FAC

Hi, the last time we had discussion, it was about the reliability of sources. This was an issue in particular to pop culture subjects that included games and anime. One particular problem is with proving the reliability of websites. Thankfully, Ealdgyth the resident source checker at FACs has posted her thoughts at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-26/Dispatches, which is a presentation of WP:RS and WP:V in clearer and common terms. The information in the dispatch can help the relevant Wikiprojects to find and defend their sources, as well as eliminating any possible arguments from those enamoured with unreliable sites (if they really wish to prove those sites are reliable, at least now there are suggestions or hints to tell them what to look for). I hope this is of help. Jappalang (talk) 13:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Friendly reminder

Hello, I sometimes read WP:EAR, so I was reading over some recent changes to liaison psychiatry. It looks like when you posted {{uw-3rr}} to Justinmarley's talk page yesterday, you yourself were on your fifth revert in 24 hours. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 17:26, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Paul Zerdin

Hi. I recommend AfD. There's just about there to mean it shouldn't be speedied. --Dweller (talk) 13:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

John D. Groendyke

I added some referenced to John D. Groendyke and removed the speedy tag. By the way, the article survived AfD a while ago. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John D. Groendyke. --Eastmain (talk) 16:03, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Twas a very short AfD, but that's fine to. Already saw the CSD removal. Just came by while clearing the copyvio backlog. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Somme American Cemetery and Memorial

Hi, I removed your speedy deletion template from this article. (I stubbed it out first, then reverted to the version before your template). It turns out that all the text is originally from the American Battlefield Monument Commission, a federal agency, and is therefore public domain. Thanks, Darkspots (talk) 20:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, good catch. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:33, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Darkspots (talk) 20:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Pteridomania

Please refer me to specific guidelines indicating the amount of quoted material that is appropriate. For you to delete all the quoted material seems to be more in the spirit of bullying than helpfulness. Thanks. - House of Scandal (talk) 20:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I did refer you to the specific guidelines in my edit summary, twice. WP:COPYVIO and WP:COPYRIGHT. WP:NONFREE is also helpful (and clear):
"Brief quotations of copyrighted text may be used to illustrate a point, establish context, or attribute a point of view or idea. Copyrighted text must be attributed and used verbatim. Any alterations must be clearly marked, i.e. [brackets] for added text, an ellipsis (...) for removed text, and emphasis noted after the quotation as "(emphasis added)" or "(emphasis in the original)". Extensive quotation of copyrighted text is prohibited."
Half an article of quotes, with most of the rest also attributed to the same source is a very clear case of "Extensive quotation. It has nothing to do with bullying. Wikipedia's copyright policies are the most strongly enforced ones out there, and violations must be dealt with quickly by law. If you feel I am incorrect in considering the amount of quotes extensive, feel free to also ask on the NONFREE talk page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, "brief quotation" and "extensive quotation" are not specific. Have you decided that half of an article being quotes is excessive or is this a guideline? Is one third excessive? How about one quarter? I am inferring that you think no amount of block quotation is appropriate because you did, in fact, remove all of it. House of Scandal (talk) 20:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, I think the amount of quotation is less than half but let's not lower ourselves to counting individual words. I am receptive to the idea of cutting each of the blockquotes down somewhat but maintain that removing all of them was needlessly heavyhanded. - House of Scandal (talk) 21:06, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Half an article seems like a pretty common sense interpretation of excessive. Going by character count, it was 52.6% of the article content, if you want to be picky about it, and that includes the categories and headers. I removed all of the quotes because they were all extremely long, and were not being used appropriately. Direct quotes should be used sparingly, not used in such huge chunks. I also removed them all because coupled with the paraphrased portions also attributed to the same source, the article was nearly eligible for CSD as blatant copyright infringement. See also Wikipedia:Copyright problems which includes a section on appropriate use of quotes, which this, again, is not. You may think I think no amount is appropriate, but obviously that is false as I use them in my own articles, including an FA, a GA, and a current FAC. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:09, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
In response to your concerns I've shortened the quotes considerably. While the current length might be more than you would prefer, I think copyright infringement is no longer a concern. Given the amount of material on Wikipedia screaming for improvement (hit your random article button a few times and see what you find), I am urging you to step away from this matter rather than fixating on our difference in opinion. I do appreciate your concern for the guidelines and for Wikipedia in general. - House of Scandal (talk) 21:17, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, and as copyright violations are never anything I will just step aside on when they continue, I have reported the page to Wikipedia:Copyright problems for administrative review. And, BTW, I got to the article, a CorenBot report at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations as I stepped in to clear up the 12 day backlog. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please don't template the regulars, especially when you're involved. Thanks. APK how u durrin 21:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Even regulars can be templated for 3RR (and that's an essay, not a guideline nor rule), nor does one have to be uninvolved to do it. I certainly hope, however, you intend to give him the same warning for leaving ME a 3RR violation when I have not, in fact, violated 3RR when I did only 2 reverts. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I did ONE revert. House of Scandal (talk) 21:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
You did three (1, 2, and 3). Reverting while barely shortening is still reverting. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The Hustler (film)

In the absence of a copywriter to review the article, is the article as it now stands eligible in your estimation for listing as GA? Otto4711 (talk) 01:34, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

  • I don't mean to be a pest, but i'd like to move this nom forward. If the improvements to the article since your comments are sufficient I'd appreciate if you'd promote it. If not, specific feedback as to the current issues would be greatly appreciated. Otto4711 (talk) 01:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
It still needs to be copyeditor. One has said he would review the article. I'll give him a poke. Prose is a GA criteria, so I can not, in good conscious, promote it without a CE.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Actually, you pissed off two two of them, and as it is unlikely anyone else is going to be willing to CE it at this point, I have failed the article. Please have the article copyedited for the prose issues before renominating. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:30, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Re-version

Re-version has been speedily deleted due to apparent copyright infringement. This is not the case. It seems the the apparent copyright infringement is caused by a site using the text from WP rather than the other way around. Can you reverse the deletion? Ta. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 05:47, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I am not an administrator so I can not undelete anything. User:Karanacs was the deleting admin. You would need to ask him to reevaluate the deleted article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Question

Do you think it would be reasonable to use the DiC promotional video itself as a reference, without linking to a website that violates its copyright? Or would that run into verifiability issues? It doesn't seem like it should, since the thing is pretty easy to find if one wants to, but I'm not sure. --Masamage ♫ 19:42, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Was the video included in any of the DVD releases (can't remember at the moment)? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:50, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
It's pretty embarrassing, so I'd expect not; I don't personally own any of the DVD sets to check, though. Actually, I'm not sure where the denizens of the internet found it. I guess we could ask around. --Masamage ♫ 21:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
It has to be available somewhere, since I believe it was never aired, right? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Not as far as I know. Hmm hmm hmm. I'll start by asking the Wikimoon people, I think; they know a lot of crazy stuff. --Masamage ♫ 05:03, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah...the main thing is it being available in a legal form :P If its on one of the DVD releases, we could then source it to the DVD release, but if it is only available via online uploads, it probably can't be used. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:05, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Speedy Deletion Tags

I notice that on the edit summary fot this page - Alex Perelson - you revert someone else removing a speedy tag on the grounds they are not an admin. I suggest you look here - [2] where it says "Anyone except a page's creator may contest the speedy deletion of a page by removing the deletion notice from the page". I'm not having a go because admins normally remove them so you may not realise anyone can but hopefully by telling you you can avoid future edit wars. I've not looked into the stalking bit and nor do I intend to. FYI, I'm not an admin, jsut trying to be friendly. Dpmuk (talk) 11:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

They really should fix the box to change that then, though I don't think CSDs should be removable by anyone by an admin. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:13, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Blue Dragon

I heard a Blue Dragon wiki was starting. If you'd like, you can contribute information there. Rtkat3 (talk) 9:18, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but no. I have no interest in contributing to other wikis. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:51, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Pick of the Litter (manga)

What is this? The article appears to be a combination of both a manga and fictional character(s). Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:00, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

How odd...they did indeed seem to create a character article instead of one for the whole series. Not a totally new editor, so no idea what they were up to. Will smack it around into an actual series stub. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:07, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

RFCU

Try this if you feel its urgent. Otherwise, I've suggested a RFCU on Ani. — MaggotSyn 21:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Format for a reference

What is the correct way to reference a booklet from a CD? I'm having trouble finding this one. I wanted to get rid of the Hitoshi Doi reference on List of Sailor Moon episodes since it technically is a fan website reference and all of these can be found in an official list inside the CD booklet from the Memorial Song Box collection. Grapeofdeath (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

{{Cite album-notes}} should work :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
All set. I think we can take the "need for references" off the page. Since there are no official pages for the English release dates, I used the ANN pages. Grapeofdeath (talk) 02:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
The lead needs in-line citations for everything it mentions except the first line. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Work on SCV

Wow, thanks for your great work on WP:SCV! Did you really take care of all these? How long did that take? GlassCobra 22:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem. I did it in batches. The first, going through July 1st, took me about an hour, while the rest I did in spurts across a five hour period, with each probably taking about 15-30 minutes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Geez, that's some real dedication! GlassCobra 17:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
For all your hard work keeping the project clean from copyright violation and advertising in an area known for being particularly prickly and tedious to work in. Thank you! GlassCobra 17:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

That really was a great work you did. You earned all of our thanks. G.A.S 17:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Awww...thanks to both of you (and I agree on it being rather prickly area :P ) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:16, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Great job AnmaFinotera, I award you with this:
The "I've Got a Lot of Barnstars!" Barnstar
You have alot of barnstars, great job! But you do deserve em' all! Great job! – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 02:15, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
LOL, thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not a real Barnstar, it's self-made (i'm sure you knew that though). I just made that as a joke, because you seem to have alot of them. : ) – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 16:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with self made and its the thought that counts (and it gave me a much needed laugh) :D -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't hurt to have a bit of humor in your life. : ) – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 18:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Also, I notice you like Meerkat Manor. Is it good? it seems alot of people are pretty crazy about it. It looks like any other nature show in the previews, but I could be wrong. : ) – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 01:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
It is interesting. Over the top dramatic, soap operaish narration, but also very interesting to see how the meerkats live in a highly cooperative societal structure, while at the same time being rather vicious at times (like dominant females killing and eating subordinates pups because only the dominant is allowed to mate). It is unique in terms of both the narration, and in the innovative camera techniques combined with the meerkats being habitualized allowing for a whole new level of coverage such as being in the burrow as babies are born or fights occur. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:35, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Interesting, by the way, the video was Kenya by Jonti Picking. Kenya believe it? – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 01:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
~Groan~ :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:42, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
It's epic. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 01:43, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Or have you seen that before? Here's a good one. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 01:46, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

1997 Fiesta Bowl

I knew the page was questionable and i was just about to clean it up when it was deleted. So... I cleaned it up again now look at it. Bcspro (talk) 15:08, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I did...don't see any copyright issues with this version, so happy editing :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I also cleaned up the January version which was honesty the samw way. Could you also look at this one? Bcspro (talk) 15:20, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Didn't spot any copyright issues there either. May want to check with the appropriate sports project, though, for tips on formatting and all that. Sports articles aren't my forte content wise :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Just Letting You Know

"fix previous attempt at referencing - going on faith that entire article is referenced from that one source (and hoping it isn't just copied word for word" on Bushveld Rain Frog history.

The entire article IS referenced from 1 source and I paraphrased[sp?] it. Cruise meerkat (talk) 02:31, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

As long as its paraphrased, that's fine, but it would be good to find more sources to cite. There are several reliable web sources, and likely many more book sources, about that frog I believe. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:33, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok, thanks! I'll try to find more references. Thanks. =) Cruise meerkat (talk) 03:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pygmy Kitabu

You might want to adjust your nomination to remove that comment from Nutter..(sp?). Given that its an AfD with both you and HoS, I really don't want to edit it. Regards. — MaggotSyn 03:14, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I've been moving them down as he throws them in, and have now asked him twice to please stop shoving his comments in the middle of other peoples but he just keeps doing it. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:16, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this an adequete prose...

I wonder if this is adequete for a short paragraph for converting Case Closed#movies into prose?--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 23:52, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that would be good. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

We the Janitors

WikiMedal for Janitorial Services
For your work at SCV. — MaggotSyn 03:02, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Full Moon o Sagashite header

On the Full Moon o Sagashite page the word Shinigami is in italic text throughout the page. I understand that it is correct to do that, but is it correct for the a header to be in italic text too? I see that you changed it so it wasn't in italic text and Atichoker changed it so it was in italic text. I removed the italic text because it looks a bit strange, please correct me if I'm wrong. ♥Tory~♥Amulet♥Heart♥ 23:42, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is. In general, headers shouldn't be in italics but Atichoker seems determined to claim it is and I don't feel like dealing with them and an edit war so I will leave it alone until I can get confirmation one way or the other. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:08, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I see. Is there anywhere on Wikipedia that talks about that? ♥Tory~♥Amulet♥Heart♥ 18:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I started a conversation at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Foreign Terms and Headings, but they said it was fine. Still looks silly to me. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay well I aggree it looks kind of silly but if it is fine then I guess I'll leave it alone. ♥Tory~♥Amulet♥Heart♥ 00:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Notability issues

Greetings AnmaFinotera, You have just redirected an article - The Party Album (Alexis Korner) - that has only been up for a few minutes and had an underconstruction template. Surely it deserves at least a speedy deletion template which can be contested as per

Important note: Failing to satisfy the notability guidelines is not a criterion for speedy deletion. However, an article that fails to assert that the subject of the article is important or significant can be speedily deleted under criterion A7. A mere claim of significance, even if contested, may avoid speedy deletion under A7, requiring a full proposed deletion or Article for Deletion process to determine if the article should be included in Wikipedia.

As you know, it takes time to create articles and to see it wiped off like that is unpleasant, to say the least. By Wikipedia guidelines, any recording by Alexis Korner is notable, and any live recording with the line-up of that particular recording, particularly so. Feedback, please. --Technopat (talk) 16:25, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Music albums are not deletable via CSD (as you yourself just noted). The other option was AfD, which would have ended with the same result, redirect over deletion. Per WP:MUSIC guidelines, unnotable albums are redirected back to the artist or the artist's discography. There is not a single guideline that claims that any recording by Korner has some inherited notability, nor are all live albums instantly notable. All albums are evaluated independently per the music notability guidelines. And yes, it takes time to create articles, however if the creator can't establish notability from the get go, they should create it in their user sandbox and work on it there until they are sure its notability is clear. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for prompt reply. Obviously I did not mean that Wikipedia specifically mentions Korner as being notable, which is what you seem to imply that I had stated. If there was any syntactical problem there, the guideline I was referring to was
In general, if the musician or ensemble that recorded an album is considered notable, then officially released albums may have sufficient notability to have individual articles on Wikipedia.
But thank you for the sandbox suggestion - I did think that it was more for experimenting and that the underconstruction template was valid for a wikipedia article. --Technopat (talk) 16:45, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The key there is may have, not necessarily does have. Its notability still has to be supported by significant coverage in reliable, third party sources. You can use your userspace to work on new articles over a reasonable period of time by making user subpages (see WP:UP#SUB). Just add {{userwip|NAMEOFFUTUREARTICLE}} to the top to indicate that is what it is. I've done it myself a few times, such as for Meerkat Manor: The Story Begins, which I wasn't sure would meet notability requirements at first, so I worked on my user space or about a month or so before feeling it was good to go. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:07, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Ball redirects

Is making an edit like this a good idea? I also don't understand why the latter was tagged with {{R from merge}}. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...making the redirect more specifically is normally okay, though in this case I think it would be detrimental to the person looking for the information. The second one should not have a merge tag at all, just a redirect from alternate name. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I was going to get to nailing the redirects with the appropriate tags (like I did here) but changed my mind. There are way too many! Can you program your TWINKLE to do this? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:23, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Alas no. It would be nice if Twinkle (or Friendly) could add redirect templates (and save me some searching and typing :P) Would maybe get more folks to use them as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Now someone else piped one [3]. You are watching these redirects correct? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:25, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I have them all on my watch list. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:40, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Should I undo the change or do you want to? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:53, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...maybe start a discussion on it somewhere, see what JHunter's reasons are. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:13, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Guess I'll leave it in your hands. That ok? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:19, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, can you drop him a note to ask? I've got rather a full lot of late. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:20, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Never mind it. I'll just revert. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Abtract is at it again. Is he still after you too? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:43, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Yep, I've left Seph a note about it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:58, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I've also now reported, again, to AN/I -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Wow, he's practically banned. I can hear the fanfare ;) What about that attack page he set up? Can it be deleted? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it can at this point. After this long, he obviously wasn't doing anything with it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:03, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Would you suggest {{db-attack}}, {{db-banned}} or an afd? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:08, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
{{db-attack}}, but I've asked in the AN/I to see if someone will just go ahead and delete it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

I don't know how I could ever thank you. : ) You have tought me so much, and thanks for the barnstar! ; ) I wish there was more I could say. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 21:51, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Quite welcome, and you've earned it :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
That's great! Together I believe we can make some great pages. ; ) – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 22:03, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

On one of your userboxes it says that you are a webmaster. What website do you work for? Is it Wikipedia, or is that just a pastime? – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 04:06, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a hobby. I'm a web application developer for one of the largest state agencies in Texas . I also have a few personal websites and used to do freelance stuff through my own business. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Awesome, what's your business? I make horror manga, I'm still waiting to get discovered by a company. My main manga series is Fatal Moon. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 05:25, 16 July 2008 (UTC) P.S. Glad Wikipedia is a hobby, I was worried that I was interfearing in your job... : (
It was a freelance web development and hosting business. I pretty much shut it down a little over a year ago. Got tired of dealing with the business side and non-paying clients and all. :) And no worries, Wikipedia is a hobby, though sometimes I start to wonder if it isn't a second job as much time as I spend here LOL. Still, its fun and it lets me enjoy some of my favorite loves: reading, researching, and writing, without the same stress and pressure as my fiction writing does. I've wanted to do my own manga, but alas, I am not an artist when it comes to drawing people (I make decent landscapes and abstracts though). I do like to write fiction though, and join in the insanity that is NaNoWriMo each year :D -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
What was your manga idea? My manga is about the aftermath of the apocalypse, everyone that has not been raptured gets sent to a moon controlled by demonic superhumans sent to them by the anti-christ, and everyone has to prove themselves worthy and kill the anti-christ. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 23:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Something of a shojo piece, with a high school senior coming home from school to find an injuried demon lying in her backyard. He left the demon world because his little brother, whom he loves, has turned against him and tried to kill him. She tends his wounds and lets him stay with her (she lives alone). She has a bad heart, due to a tragic event in her past, and has been told by doctor's won't live till graduation. They all in love while he hides in the human world in hope his brother will come to his senses and her death comes closer with each passing day. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Interesting story. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 01:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah...have plot twists figured for it, and other chars (of course). May eventually write a manga-inspired novel for it (new term!) :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
It would be a sucky story without other characters and contrast, so that's essential. It could be a light novel, and you could hire a shojo artist. Just made a new series actually, about a exorcist who has a rare disease called Blak, that comes from being exposed to many evil entities to the point where your eyes a pitch black and you are blind to everything exept ghosts, spirits, etc. Since demons are attracked to human fear (Blak also causes you to be totally valiant against demons), he brings a woman named Lisa, who is a professional spirit channeler. The series is highly infuenced by A Haunting. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 01:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
What's some of the novels you wrote? – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 02:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like an interesting story (with a touch of Pitch Black influence? :D So far I haven't finished any of them. Two I've worked on most in the last few years are The Guardian, a fantasy/dramatic romance piece that is intended to span at least two books. It follows a princess, her prince, and their two guardians, for about 10 years of their lives as relatively blissful happiness is torn apart by betrayal and evil. Plenty of the good vs evil themes, with unicorns, dragons, talking animals, dinosaurs. :P The second, Enslaved Heart is a...hmmm...sort of a Christian Romance, but more than that. Its set in a future world in which the wealthy have decided to aid the "poor" by instituting a new form of slavery, in which those who don't make enough are fair game to be enslaved for manual labor. The rest I've started over the years are various romantic suspense works, though not the silly Harlequin things, but the fuller, longer, I refuse to use silly language novels :D -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
You're a really good author : ), what's your favorite manga or novel? Mine are Blue Heaven by Tsutomu Takahashi (and all the rest of his manga), Yu-Gi-Oh! (only the first series), D.Gray-man, Embalming -The Another Tale of Frankenstein-, Tista, Edomae Sushi Kirara no Shigoto (from Super Jump), Jin -Hitoshi- (from Super Jump), Cloth Road, Barefoot Gen, Roman (manga adaption of Sound Horizon rock opera), Gantz, Naruto, Bleach, Happy World! (from Ultra Jump), and Kōkoku no Shugosha. :D – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 03:19, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Doh, that's a much harder one to answer. I have over 500 manga volumes in my collection alone (and over 800 books total). If I were to try to limit it though, for manga I'd have to go with Marmalade Boy, Sailor Moon, Mars, Cardcaptor Sakura, From Far Away, and Rurouni Kenshin, which are all ones I've read over and over (Mars I literally re-read every month). For novels, it more depends on my mood, but for the ones I've read an insane number of times: Black Beauty, Little Women, Jurassic Park, and Lad: A Dog (and the rest of Albert Payson Terhune's dog novels), Watership Down, and Shades of Twilight. I have a hard time choosing a favorite anything :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I have over 600 manga in my collection, plus the magazines over 700. :P Anyway, I'm going on vacation, it's gonna be three days, so the coversation is not over! Plese keep that in mind. : ) Bye. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 16:07, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Have a good vacation :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Random break

Heh...heh....I decided to bring my computer. ^_^ Also, something I forgot to say (or type :P), the series BLΛK♦EXORCIST (the name of the series I mentioned earlier), is a series of one-shots, one of it's main uniquities* is the fact that you don't know what the heck the exorcist guy did to the very end. Although, a short paragraph explains what happened at the last page. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 05:47, 18 July 2008 (UTC) *I don't know if that's a word or not, but it works.

LOL, I can't go on vacation without my computer. I'm too addicted to it. (and hey, I make up words all the time) :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 12:08, July 18, 2008 (UTC)
I may not be able to respond as quickly, so far it's great, I just went to SeaWorld (San Diego), which was great exept for the wasted women sitting in front of me at the Shamu show. -_- Tomorrow i'm going to a wedding, which is the reason I went to San Diego in the first place. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 04:57, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Cool! I have been to Sea World in San Antonio once. I went while it wasn't too crowded, so it was fun :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, it was fun. : ) I saw something very bizarre, a totally white English kid wearing a Dokonjo Gaeru T-shirt, a extremely obscure Weekly Jump series. O_o It was sorta odd.... – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 05:14, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
LOL, no, weird was being in Target one day and seeing this like 50 year old guy who looked like he might live in a trailer park walking in front of me wearing the t-shirt that came in the Blood+ box set! :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Both of those are wierd, but Dokonjo Gaeru was from the 1960s, I can't even imagine a Japanese kid wearing that shirt. I didn't even know they would even make a shirt of that series, he was just a average kid with his mom at SeaWorld. *_O i would ask the kid where he got the shirt....but I can imagine it would be really creepy to have some random guy walk up to him and say, "HEEEEEEEeeeeeeyyyyy....where'd you get that nice Dokonjo Gaeru T Shir—{gets slapped in the face with mom's perse}. That wasn't even released in america! But the 50-year old dude sounds about just as weird... – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 05:49, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Little questions

  • Does the plot in a manga series need ref?
  • Do you mind if I request a copyedit for Himura Kenshin?

See you--Tintor2 (talk) 00:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

So long as it is pure plot summary, it doesn't need a ref in the main article's plot section nor in chapter summaries in the chapter list. When making specific statements about a character or event in other parts of the main article, in the list of characters, etc, then a reference is needed. Interpretive statements also need referencing. And not at all, it needs a copyedit before it can be GA. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I meant the character not the series about the copy-edit request.Tintor2 (talk) 15:44, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I know :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

I forgot, good luck with Tokyo Mew Mew ^_^.Tintor2 (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) Not feeling too hopeful though. So far several comments, but none actually changing to support (or even oppose) after the comments have been addressed. :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey AnmaFinotera, could you give a little advice to fix the lead of Fullmetal Alchemist? I'm out of ideas.Tintor2 (talk) 19:58, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me, removing the tag. :)-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:03, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

MERGERS

Hey. I just recently proposed a merge of Son Goten, Trunks, his future counterpart, and Pan. I also proposed a merge of several Yu-Gi-Oh characters. Any help with this is greatly appreciated. Thanks a bunch! :3 ZeroGiga (talk) 18:24, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

86.44.20.40

Is this really Abtract? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 21:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is. I wouldn't put it past him, particularly with said IP bugging LessHeard vanU to review his block under the same sort of fuzzy logic Abtract likes to use to defend himself. But would have to do a check user to know for sure, and not worth the effort. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
We should wait and see if he starts to edit pages that Abtract touched. Or is this one of those hopping ips? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:13, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Yep, pretty much. He is a hopping one, though, if his claims of being the same IP who shoved an opinion in the RfC is valid (which is likely since that IP is 86.44.28.52). Actually I think Abtract's base IP is recorded somewhere, from one of his many blocks, but not sure where at the moment. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Is there any likelihood of either of you requesting a WP:SSP check? I am not happy with the low turnout for my block review request, even though it seems most do not support an immediate unblock, but the question of the ips being Abtract has been raised when I tried to garner further review. I recognise that there is little benefit in you two wanting to open such a report if Abtract were to remain indef'd, but I would like to know your thinking on this. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm inclined to say not to bother. Even if it is Abtract, I don't think he actually said anything accurate or of value enough to be worth the effort. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:10, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Would it help if we tagged the ip user pages with {{ipsock}} and put a {{sockpuppeteer}} on Abtract's account? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:31, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...probably not. There isn't enough evidence one way or the other. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:02, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Alisa Apps

I've given two different references from Reuters. I've given another two references and official website as external links. I think two different articles on Reuters are more than enough for notability of that person. Why this article has deleted, Would you please inform me? Thank you. Tanvir che (talk) 18:34, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

The Reuters "references" were press releases from Apps herself and her representatives. They do not count towards notability at all. Coverage of a person must be significant and from reliable, third party sources, not the person themselves. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:36, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll try later with different sources. Tanvir che (talk) 18:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Escaflowne edit

I noticed that you undid the chance I made to Dornkirk's entry in the characters page. I was wondering why.

Now I, having no experience in user talk will try to sign this.

84.192.230.63 (talk) 19:05, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Because it is unsourced and personal interpretation, which violates WP:OR. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
If I were to add several references to the parts of the tv series where they refer to isaac newton, to Dornkirk's previous life and his obsession with this force that is similar to gravity...would that suffice? Or would it be necessary to obtain a quote from one of the people who worked on The Vision of Escaflowne? 84.192.230.63 (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
No, because the series never specifically says he is Isaac Newton, they only hint. A reliable source is required. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, two remaining questions before I'll stop bothering you then. What would be considered a reliable source? From what point would hints be explicit enough for people to say that character X is so and so on wikipedia? --84.192.230.63 (talk) 20:11, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
A reliable source would be a book discussing the series, newspaper articles, papers, production materials, and acceptable websites (such as ANN, AoD, etc - not fansites). For explicit enough, someone would have to specifically say Dornkirk is Sir Isaac Newton (not, they wonder if he is, think he is, etc, but just is). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:27, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Well then, ANN's entry on the vision of escaflowne contains the following: "Various clues through out the series hint that Emperor Dornkirk is actually Issac Newton". Would it be okay to change the entry on Dornkirk and add that it is hinted that he might be sir Isaac Newton if I add a reference to ANN's entry on the vision on escaflowne? -- 84.192.230.63 (talk) 20:54, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
The trivia section of ANN entries are not RS because they are user submitted. Sorry, I should have specified ANN news items and reviews. Only the credits and basic info in ANN encyclopedia entries are considered reliable, but not trivia and notes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:55, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Apparently, AoD also has a reviewer hinting that Dornkirk is Newton, but that doesn't qualify because it too is personal interpretation. Alternatively, tvtropes mentions it on several pages. Whether that is considered good enough is debatable. Tvtropes of course wants to list and discuss the tropes in the vision of escaflowne. Dornkirk obviously qualifies for "beethoven was an alien spy". As you might have guessed, their entry on this is also generated by users, thus personal interpretation. However, Tvtropes do pursuit listing correct information and the content of their pages are reviewed, second guessed and tested to being correct. Regardless of the validity of Tvtropes, would just editing Dornkirk's entry with the hint be wrong at all? It is true that it is hinted, even if it is never confirmed by anyone on the project for obvious reasons. If not, I fear that we would need to delete all hints in a show that are never explicitly confirmed by the creator or the characters in the show as a direct consequence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.192.230.63 (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
TVtropes is not a reliable source. The hints are too open to interpretation in this case to note without other sources. Its like the ending of Wolf's Rain. People want to call it modern Tokyo, but nothing in the ending every says anything of the sort. There aren't any words at all. Even if it looks like Tokyo, we can't call it modern tokyo without a source. Can you give me the link to the AoD review you found? AoD reviews are valid, reliable sources as long as they are actually AoD reviews and not those Mania.com things :P. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:17, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
It is a mania.com review, which is why I didn't attribute much importance to it. regardless, here you are: http://www.mania.com/escaflowne-vol-8_article_73573.html . Anyways, should I just make the change saying that it is hinted that Dornkirk might be Isaac Newton, as it is undeniable that it is hinted even if it is never explicitly confirmed in or out the series? Such a hint is never confirmed anyways, just like they will never explicitly and irrefutably prove that Suzumiya Haruhi is warping reality. -- 84.192.230.63 (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
No, that is a regular AoD review, so it is usable, but unfortunately the suggestion is so brief its not very useful. And no, hinted at is basically interpretation. Does anyone every actually say the name Sir Isaac Newton? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
In episode 24, the teacher starts talking about Newton and his contributions to science(in particular gravity of course), and then continues by saying that Newton was actually also interested in alchemy and magic and tried researching those. This is followed by a scene in which the sorcerers of Zaibach are talking with Isaac about gravity in another sense. On top of that, Dornkirk references that what he is doing on Gaea is just like what he tried to do on earth with the concept of the philosopher's stone...one of the topics of Isaac newton's occult research. As icing to this, Atlantis itself was also a subject studied by Newton. -- 84.192.230.63 (talk) 22:26, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but on one ever actually says Newton's name n specific connection to Dornkirk, nor was Newton the only one to research any (or all)) of those things. Without a more concrete source, it would almost be like attempting to say that Dornkirk and Newton are connected to Fullmetal Alchemist through Escaflowne because they both have alchemy with occult research and symbolism, and both deal with a philosopher's stone at some point. Now, do I think Dornkirk was supposed to be Newton transported to Gaea? Most likely, but one could easily argue that he could have been an assistant to Newton, or a follower behind Newton's research. As we ourselves are not reliable sources, we must turn to other reliable sources that clearly follow this line of thinking that it can then be sourced to. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:01, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry

Sorry you can't just copyright a list. Please allow me to add a sentence or two. Perhaps you have not heard of the Linnean Society? I am not a dog (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Didn't tag it for CSD for copyright violation, but for having not context. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:40, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Please explain yourself. It is a medal of the Linnean Society. Please do not try to delete such things. It can be considered vandalism. I am not a dog (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
No, it isn't vandalism at all to tag an article for deletion with it has no context. Being a medal of the society is meaningless when that is all it says. Stop removing CSD templates from your own articles, or that will be considered disruptive and vandalism. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:43, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

User:I am not a dog

I decline to block User:I am not a dog on the grounds that your deletion tags are also being removed by other editors. I'm looking into this a little more. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:00, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Other editors are allowed to decline a CSD, admin or non-admin. He, however, should not have removed them himself as per the CSD message and the numerous warnings left. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
This is true, but given that the tags were not accurate, I am disinclined to block someone who is creating valid articles. It is essentially blocking someone on a technicality, and since blocks are preventive, rather than punitive, the editor should be engaged on this behavior, rather than edit warring with him, and then blocking him. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:06, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I disagree that the tags were not accurate. Don't see any notability in those people at all, as I have noted on his talk page. And he was engaged, above. He stopped responding and restarted removing the tags as vandalism instead. I'm not the only editor who reverted his tag removals. Don't see how making a bunch of one line articles is making valid articles, but ah well. Someone else has now prodded one of the articles, so at least I'm not the only one who thinks it lacks notability. I also see an uninvolved editor also reported him to AIV, but it was removed as an "edit war." -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:09, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
It is certainly an edit war now, that is for certain. The question is not whether the article will be deleted, but whether it should be speedy deleted, which as an admin who speedy deletes often, still has to be done carefully. There is a difference between an underdeveloped article, and one that is just not worth keeping. In the spirit of collaboration, we should seek to improve the one line articles. As you note, the editor is not behaving in a calm manner, and that is hurting his cause, but we need to avoid goading him at the same time. Hiberniantears (talk) 21:18, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm pretty much ignoring him now. Can, however, anything be done about DuncanHill's running around and making accusations of collusion and personal attacks? In the AfD, he's accused Diligent Terrier of making a bad faith nom and "acting as a tag-team" with me (and now he's accusing all commenters in the AfD of meatpuppetry!). His messages on I am not a dog's talk page haven't been very civil either. Considering he has no personal vested interest in any of these articles, his reaction seems rather over the top... -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for you help. I'll look into the situation with DuncanHill, but I'm about to have dinner with the Mrs, so it will be a while. If you need rapid resolution, you can always take it to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Hiberniantears (talk) 22:24, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
No super rush. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Darwin-Wallace Medal

An article that you have been involved in editing, Darwin-Wallace Medal, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Darwin-Wallace Medal. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? - Diligent Terrier (and friends) 21:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Polishing up a lead section

I was wondering if you could help me polish up the opening for List of Futari Ecchi chapters. I think I've included most of what I need, but I'm not very good at making it sound good. I'm best at making lists. Grapeofdeath (talk) 05:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll give it a going over (though you'll want a real copy editor to give it some final tweaking if you plan to go for FLC ;) ). BTW, don't forget that book and magazine titles should always be italicized. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you so very much. It looks so much better. I wasn't tryng to get it anywhere near FLC, but I did want to make sure it was understandable, especially with all the unnumbered chapters and the rearranged order. This is definitely the most complicated list I've put together so far. I had to buy many magazines to get all the correct numbers. :P Grapeofdeath (talk) 06:15, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
No prob and you certainly made a good start :) For future work, you may want to add in the romanization of the titles to the nihongo template, and the cover characters for each volume of it changes a lot. Not sure if that particularly one would benefit from summaries or not, with the chapters not really flowing much. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:20, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll eventually have the romanizations done, it's just taking a long time. So many... And the same person is on each cover, so I wasn't sure if I should bother with it. Grapeofdeath (talk) 06:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Nah, if its just the same person, no need to include :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:39, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Hohenheim

I really hate being rude, and forgive me if replying to your edits has been of any annoiance. My simple synopsis needs no reference. The Full Metal Alchemist Characters article is crammed with unsourced descriptions, some of which I believe are quite dubious. Does logic not tell you that the alchemist Hohenheim from Full Metal Alchemist is based on one of the most renowned alchemists on planet Earth, who also goes by the same name? 21:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does need a reliable source to back up a claim that the character is based on any real life person. Otherwise it is WP:OR. Much of the list is unsourced, it is true, but most of it is pure plot summary which comes from the series itself. Sources are desired, but unless its OR or interpretative, they aren't completely required. If there are some bits, however, that are dubious or appear to be OR or interprative, by all means please tag them with {{fact|date=July 2008}} or remove them for being unsourced OR. I haven't read the list in-depth as I'm just now reading the manga and don't like being spoiled. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:33, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clearing things up. By the way, do you consider Anime News Network by any chance a reliable source? I've seen a very few references directing me to that site, and I'm not sure how trustworthy such site is. Have fun reading the manga. 11:16, 19 July 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarkKunai (talk • contribs)
Yes, Anime News Network is one of the, unfortunately, few online reliable sources for anime and manga information (along with AnimeOnDVD.com and ICv2, it makes up our core info sites). There are a few limits with ANN though, as noted in the reference section of the Anime and manga project page:
A note about using Anime News Network as a reference: ANN is divided into sections of varying quality. For news, reviews, and release information, ANN is reliable source and close to being a newspaper of record for anime and manga. However, because the encyclopedia portion is user-edited, that information is not reliable by Wikipedia standards. That said, it is the experience of this WikiProject that the ANN's encyclopedia can be used with care for certain kinds of information:
  • Generally reliable but try to confirm these with a second source: production staff, producers/publishers, air/publication dates
  • Not very reliable and so use only with confirmation from other sources: biographical data, episode title translations
  • Do not use: genres (except as given by a reviewer)
Note also that credit lists, especially for mangaka, are rarely complete.
Hope that helps some. :) The project also lists a few other websites that are considered reliable sources -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:30, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Lucy Lawless

Why you back in my edits in Lucy Lawless? StevenLSears (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Because they were inappropriate and you are a sockpuppet that has been blocked from editing numerous times, but continue making accounts despite knowing you are not supposed to. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
I only want edit in piece. StevenLSears (talk) 21:08, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
You are not allowed to edit here anymore. That is why ALL of your accounts continue to be blocked. You refused to follow Wikipedia editing guidelines over and over again. You have lost your right to edit here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Speedy tags

Can you please check that pages that I create are not from mirror sites before you place speedy tags on them? Thanks. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

How can a mirror site mirror a page that didn't exist. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
This can happen in two ways:
  1. When an article is split the contents are part of a page at the morror site.
  2. The mirror site page is created from a fresh database dump after a page is created on WP or some sort of bot adds new pages to the mirror site.
If you take a careful look at the pages the I created that you tagged with a speedy you will see that it is a mirror site. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
If it was a split, then the deciding admin will be able to see it, and in the future it would be useful if you note in your creation edit summary that the contents are being split from article X. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I did note that the article was a split in the edit summary. Also, if you care to follow the link to the supposed infringed site you will notice that it is a mirror site. Can you please do this and then remove the speedy tags? Ta. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
We should also not be creating unnecessary work for the overworked admins. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 02:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Shulman

Hi. The author of this article (who I suspect to be Andrew Shulman) recreated the article. It just can't survive AfD. If the author wants to go through the processes, he's welcome to. But as long as it's a copyright violation/plagiarism, it has to go. - Richard Cavell (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I agree completely. May need to salt it if he keeps recreating it, until he gets the point. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
if he is indeed a winner of the Piatigorsky award, he is likely to be notable, and the better course would be to rewrite the article free of copyvio and self-advertising. I can see no valid basis for salting, and, given the reviews cited, I doubt an AfD would succeed. Principal cello with the LA Phil is almost unquestionably notable. DGG (talk) 08:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I meant salting if Shulman himself keeps recreating the article, unless you actually believe there is nothing wrong with him doing so. If you feel he is notable, feel free to make a valid article, though I suspect you'll find he'll keep editing it to suit his own preferences like most people egotistical enough to make articles about themselves here. And are you checking my contribs or something, because you seem to be turning up a lot lately around stuff I touch? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 09:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't doubt that Andrew Shulman is notable, but User:As1960 has been disruptive. I indefinitely blocked him in the end. I strongly suspect that As1960 is Andrew Shulman himself. His article was plagiarism (though indeed it may have been a plagiarisation of his own website), and obviously was written by a person with a conflict of interest. - Richard Cavell (talk) 02:13, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Post Oak Mall work

Brilliant! Everything is updated and awesome again! A few questions remain however:

1) Sears relocated from Manor East Mall? How? There wasn't even a space for Sears in Manor East Mall, unless that's where the Wal-Mart was. I've always heard Sears relocated from downtown.

2) Wasn't the "dandelion fountain" that was shaped like a tree...this one? If so, if you look at the placement of the skylight and the store in the background, and comparing that to the old 1982 mall directory, you would see that it was in front of Foley's.

3) According to the official fact sheet, the mall was renovated in 1994. If the ceilings already existed and all, what did they do?

4) The kid's play area opened in 2002 or so, but it isn't mentioned on the page. Perhaps you could get that as well?

5) I made some edits to the food court section. Tell me what you think. Remember, it's six now, because Corn Dog 7 closed. TheListUpdater (talk) 17:27, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'll double check the Eagle archives for that time, but yes the source specifically said it moved from Manor East Mall. Manor East isn't exactly a tiny mall, despite its near death a few years ago :-P For the fountain, I used the description from the Eagle, including the note on it's location. The picture in the archive reels was too obfuscated to compare to that one though. The mall has been renovated a few times, I believe. Will have to check the archives on what was done in 1994. I know the first reno, 3 years after it opened, was to complete the mall and add the additional store space. For the kid's play area, need a source. I have a huge list of Eagle articles on Post Oak to check at the library. It spans from the year before it opened through I believe two years after. For beyond that, if you know the month it opened, it would help as I'd have to check the entire month/year reel to find articles. Silly Eagle only has a partial archive index :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I actually saw, in the 25th anniversary thing, they had the play area opening date listed. Unfortunately, I didn't take a picture. Manor East Mall IS dead, the only remnant of the original mall is the Bealls/Jo-Ann building, everything else was torn down except for Hastings, which opened later. I never went inside Manor East except once, and it was mostly an empty corridor with a few windows and benches...everything was blue. I tried to ask around on Houstonarchitecture.info forums but only got a few dinky exterior pictures, which was a tiny comfort. TheListUpdater (talk) 19:41, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Um, have you not been around lately? Manor East has been completely renovated and expanded. Its now an outside strip mall, but it is very much revitalized with the new HEB, multiple restaurants (including the always on every corner Starbucks), a bank, the must have liquor store, etc. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:51, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, that's kind of what I meant. It's not really a "mall" anymore at all. Of course there's an H-E-B, a Bealls, a Jo-Ann, and stuff. The wording was confusing, but what I meant was the building was torn down (for the strip center) only leaving Jo-Ann/Bealls and Hastings and the Theatre Co. The rest of the land was turned into a new Family Dollar, Baskin's, and H-E-B. Ever noticed that most of the malls on deadmalls.com have been redeveloped into a thriving strip center? Manor East Mall is no exception. It was torn down circa 2003, and my main point was that I didn't really know the interior decor or layout of the old mall. From what I can remember, it must have been an "L", with Montgomery Ward and Wal-Mart on the corners and Bealls at the angle. Hastings was "bolted on" to Wards. Yeah. Something like that. TheListUpdater (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
According to HAIF, the Sears was in Townshire Shopping Center, the one where Hurricane Harry's and other stores are. The Sears then became a hardware store then a Blinn satellite class center then Albertson's. Townshire also had a cinema in the early days. I'm really tempted to agree to the Townshire Shopping Center, but it doesn't seem to be a pressing issue, so I won't push it. Two things, however: regarding the play area, since it happened in the recent past, wouldn't it be easier to just ask the mall themselves when it opened? Secondly, I'd like to use the {{talkback}} template for my user talk page, but I don't exactly know how to use it. Do I just put {{talkback|TheListUpdater}} on my user talk page and it will do the rest, or is there more to it than that? TheListUpdater (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
HAIF? Yes, I do remember Townshire having a cinema. Some friends and I were discussing it the other day, while talking about the theater at the mall (they both remembered it, BTW :P). For the play area, we can ask them, but they aren't a usable source so would still need to find an actually source for it. For talkback, you don't put it on your talk page. You put it on the other person's talk page to let them know you have replied to your message on your talk page :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:22, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
HAIF stands for Houston Architecture dot Info Forums. link. Mostly, the forum is on Houston stuff, but there's a page on BCS too. Check it out. You can see a few threads I made, trying to get backup or lack thereof on the things on the mall's Wikipedia page. For the Sears issue, however, I honestly really don't know, but like I said, I think Manor East Mall would've been a lot more noteworthy if it had included JCPenney, Montgomery Ward, AND Sears in the mid-70s (Rolling Acres Mall was one of the first to claim that). Maybe Manor East just had something like their "Appliance Dealer" stores that they have in smaller markets. A Manor East Mall article would be an interesting topic to pursue, though...TheListUpdater (talk) 17:07, 18 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yeah, I've browsed there sometimes. Forum postings aren't reliable sources, though, so while they may offer pointers to places to look for info, anything there isn't useful. I have been considering doing a Manor East Mall article, but want to finish Post Oak first before I go off into another research arena, particularly as I suspect Manor East research would require a trip to Carnegie :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:12, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Belldandy

Hi! I was just wondering - if you have time - if you could advice me regarding Belldandy. I'd like to get it up to Featured standard before the 20th anniversary (late August), but I have no experience with FAC, so I don't know if it is close enough to be worth making a shot at it. I'd hopped to work on Oh My Goddess!, but uni constraints meant that I can't do that until next week, so I doubt I have even a remote chance with that one (although I plan to spend a lot of time on it now - unfortunately my rewrite of the Norse origins section was lost with a computer crash). Anyway, any advice from you would be greatly appreciated! - Bilby (talk) 07:48, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Sure. One thing is the lead. It should be a summary of the article, and thus need few to no sources at all. So it needs rewriting, and anything sourced in it that isn't in the article needs to be incorporated into the article as much as possible. You may also want to recheck the infobox. For example, it says her birthdate is unknown, yet then has a guess at her age while at the same time calling her a Goddess (which would tend to mean she is immortal and has lived a long time). With FA, MoS compliance will be much more closely checked. The image in "Creation and conception" needs to either be left align or moved, as images should never be right aligned if they are placed just below a header. That table of "Holy Bell's appearances" is very likely to be considered trivia and superflous. I'd recommend summarizing it in the prose and dropping the table all together. The "Description" might be better served being fleshed out some and incorporated into "Creation and conception" section, as it speaks more to her character design than her role in the series. To stand out, quotes need to be at least four lines long, so the quote in "Reception and critique" needs to be put back into the text or expanded.
If the article hasn't been copyedited, I strongly strongly recommend getting that done before an FAC. Believe me, its like one of the first things folks ping an article for. :P The only other thing I can think of is the references. Double check them all to make sure they have complete info (including ISBNs for books, ISSNs where available for magazines, author names, titles, dates as available, etc), are using the appropriate citation templates, and have no errors (like misformatted dates). Of course, also make sure all meet WP:RS, especially the web references. Combine any duplicate refs, such as books using pages from the same chapter (just use one ref with the pages set to pp. x-y rather than one per page). Hope that helps some. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 09:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
That does - thankyou. :) I'll run through all of that and see how it looks. - Bilby (talk) 09:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Quite welcome. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Of interest

I used your name here. Your welcome to correct me. Synergy 08:10, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Re Abtract

The indef block has not stuck, so I have substituted it for a fortnight tariff - of which 3 days have been served. You may wish to review the comments I have made on Abtract's talkpage. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:53, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay...I guess I can see why the indef didn't stick, by per the levels of increasing block, shouldn't it have been a month instead of just two weeks? Alas, I see he did is usual response to blocking of complaining that "well you didn't block them, so you can't block me" and refuses to acknowledge that he continues stalking both of us (despite promises to leave both of us alone). I guess a two week break without dealing with him is better than nothing. I'm sure we'll be back at AN/I in another two weeks, though, as he seems to be mentally incapable of stopping his disturbing obsession with following and harassing us. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
  • The third party admin I have been corresponding with as regards Abtract has left me this message. I suggest you review the content of Abtracts suggestion. If you need to discuss this matter I suggest you take it up with Ncmvocalist, since I am disinclined to communicate further with Abtract. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Abtract does tend to have that affect, and I appreciate you sticking in there and trying to resolve things. Unfortunately, Abtract already has shown he doesn't even care to listen to administrators, and he has blown off numerous uninvolved editors trying to help him. I will not agree to Abtract's "suggestion." Its the same old BS he has pulled before, attempting to lay the blame on his behavior on everyone but himself, then acting as if he is being magnanimous by offering a "solution". He will just continue finding other ways of harassing and stalking us. He's already done it before over and over and over, then smugly continues the longer he is allowed to get away with it. He is the only one stalking anyone. I don't have his talk page in my watch list. I don't follow behind his edits. I don't inject myself into his discussions just to disagree with him. Frankly, I think he is mentally unbalanced to act this way despite six blocks. He wants to agree to something, then he should agree to leave both myself and Sess alone, completely. Remove pages we work on from his talk page. Not communicate with us, not inject himself into our discussions or leave little notes on our talk page. Nothing. Of course, he's already supposedly agreed to that twice before, but he always changes his mind within 24 hours and turns around complaining that he is the harrassed one. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 09:59, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
In the absence of compelling evidence, the community can and will do little to help, particularly if you refuse to resolve your differences there. No one has the authority to exert ownership over Wikipedia or all pages edited by a certain user, or a certain 2 users. However, if the 3 of you agree to the explicit agreement I've drafted out, each of you will encounter much less (if any) problems, because a user who violates the agreement will be sanctioned or blocked without warning. Ncmvocalist (talk) 16:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I see JHunter, an admin who is very much involved in this issue has already unblocked him, nullifying your proposed agreement, without even waiting for a response from Abtract's victims. I appreciate you attempting to help, but in truth you are not an admin, and can't do anything to enforce the agreement. Abtract has violated such agreements before, and he will break this one, then claim it wasn't official or find some other excuse. I also will never agree to such terms that still gives him fair game to harass and stalk us on other articles (reverting isn't all he does, and his favorite target among articles I work on are the Meerkat Manor articles, which isn't anime nor manga. The only way I'd make any agreement at all is if his 2 week block remains in place until its done and he is banned from interacting with us at all, including not touching any article nor the talk page of articles that either of us is an editor on. I can just seem him using the loopholes to do things like tag articles for issues, attempt to get GAs or FAs we've done delisted, etc. There are lots of ways to harass us without having to revert when he's left with the options. Basically, it would have to be a virtual restraining order before I'd even consider it, and it must be backed up by an admin who isn't Abtract's defender. One willing to keep an eye on him or agree to be the one to report to if he violates. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
While Ncmvocalist is not an admin - I mistakingly referred to him/her as such - they have put forward a very reasonably worded agreement, and it is the content that should be considered and not who wrote it. Abtract has signed up for it, and it draws a line over which none may cross. I urge you to do likewise, for in your interactions with A I have not seen you provoke an issue. Sess has on occasion reverted A where he had good faith belief that A was editing disruptively; this will have to cease, but if anyone does a bad edit the likelihood is that it will get undone - it also means that you and Sess have no more to do with A and can get on with editing the encyclopedia. Again, under the circumstances I see this as the best way forward and suggest that you and Sess sign up to it. LessHeard vanU (talk) 18:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Abtract has made such agreements before. He won't keep it anymore, and while it may seem reasonably worded, it really doesn't protect against some of his favorite forms of harassment. He has tormented both of us for two months now, yet we seem to be the ones who keep getting punished for it and who are supposed to jump through hoops to appease him. Gotta love how often life reminds you that it isn't fair. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
The agreement I've written out is indefinite and is not nullified, nor does it preclude any future agreement. Why won't you agree to 'not revert' any edit made by Abtract in exchange of the same, plus more, as a bare minimum? Your reasoning for refusing is insufficient so far, and your proposal is so extremely against Wikipedia principles and unreasonable, that I expect no Wikipedian to agree to it under any circumstances. Your refusal to sign is therefore unhelpful to yourself and not in your interests - but quite the contrary for Abtract. This is the last time I'm going to urge you to sign it, for your own sake. Ncmvocalist (talk) 19:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
And if he vandalized an article, like he did Meerkat Manor before, not by reverting, but by shoving invalid [citation needed] tags all over it (which is easily grounds for an FAR to get it delisted)? I'm not supposed to revert? Sorry, but no, as long as it does not fully restrict him from doing ALL of the harassing actions he's been doing, not just reverting or leaving notes on the talk page I see no reason to agree to not undo it. I work on several articles that do not have any other active editors who can/will revert in my stead. The proposal primarily benefits Abtract, as it gives him free reign to continue he usual behaviors, except for the reverting itself. He's nitpicked wording before to excuse violating similar agreements. I have absolutely no faith he won't do it again. I also would not agree to sign anything when he's already been released from his block. On his last block, he was warned to stop or he'd be blocked again for a longer time. Instead, he gets a few days because someone else released it. No offense, but consider none of the restrictions at this point have held, why should I even waste the time agreeing to yet another one? Even if he breaks them, its obvious nothing will really be done. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
If you're going to continually assume bad faith, then there's no point complaining in the future - there'll be little to no help. The proposal is for your own good if you do not want to be blocked for edit-warring in the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 05:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
It is a sad state of affairs that Abtract can stalk both myself and Sesshomaru for more than two months, fully acknowledging he is doing it, and WE'RE the ones threatened with blocks. And sorry, but you're damn right I'm gonna assume bad faith. He earned that himself with his own history. Good faith went out the window when he continued stalking after all the blocks, all the warnings, and all the people leaving him messages telling him to stop, his saying he would, and then his still doing it.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:06, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(OD)And this is why I supported the block, and opposed the unblock. You are saying that an editor who has been stalked and edit warred against by Abtract on multiple occasions is in the wrong to assume bad faith in him. AnmaFinotera has no reason to assume good faith, much like anyone else who's ever tried to work with Abtract before. Everything she says above about his history is true, and can be found on his talk page and block log.

This is a major problem around wikipedia it seems, trying to save disruptive editors at the expense of productive ones. Neither of the two editors who were directly affected by Abtract (both now and in the past) were not As I said on ANI, Ncmvocalist, I hope your idea works but I doubt it will. I can also no longer assume good faith here, and I find your vague threats of not helping Anma in the future extremely uncivil along the lines of "support me or else." She's not the one who's been blocked six times. Dayewalker (talk) 06:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Dayewalker...you seem to be the only one lately who gets how bad this has been. :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:07, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Dayewalker, these three editors are under scrutiny. There is clear evidence of edit-warring, and all users would've been blocked, had it been spotted earlier. But again, blocks are preventive, not punitive. The conduct has ceased for all 3 users so that's where it ends for now, and why no blocks are present currently. I don't expect an assumption of good faith between the parties in a dispute (that's not the problem), however, I expect it for an uninvolved user, particularly when such a user has formed the agreement. If the community sees that reasonable efforts were not made to resolve this dispute by the filing party, then there will be a genuine reluctance to help. I understand that as someone who's presumably followed this dispute since the beginning, you might disagree that reasonable efforts were made, but this is from the view of a user who's outside the dispute, looking at it now, and trying to resolve it now. And note, it is most likely that other users who'll look at this in the future, will be outside the dispute, looking at it at the time, and trying to resolve it at the time. Ncmvocalist (talk) 08:51, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Why, since this issue is about Abtract's behavior and his sixth block in less than a year, would three editors be under scrutiny? If you're going to come to someone else's talk page and say they were clearly edit warring and should have been blocked, you need to provide diffs for that. That is too great of an accusation to throw out with no evidence. How would Sess or Anma have been blocked, when Abtract has ignored every promise he's made to leave them alone? Dayewalker (talk) 09:14, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Let me make myself plain. Editors are each responsible for noticing when a debate is escalating into an edit war, and for helping the debate move to better approaches by discussing their differences rationally, rather than through disruptive editing - revert rules should not be construed as an entitlement or inalienable right to revert, nor do they endorse reverts as an editing technique. Edit-warring, whether by reversion or otherwise, is prohibited; this is so even when the disputed content is clearly problematic. An editor's misconduct does not legitimize another's, when it is disruptive to the entire encyclopedia. We have a rule; Bold, Revert, Discuss. If all users cannot follow this rule and choose to go with Bold, Revert, Revert, etc. then they're all under scrutiny.
Btw, where are the diffs of every promise he's made? Was he unblocked for any of these promises? No. He's been unblocked conditionally; if he breaks the conditions, he's blocked. Blocks are not punitive. Ncmvocalist (talk) 09:25, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
You can make yourself plain, but you're just covering yourself. All editors are always under scrutiny, that's not what I was talking about. You've taken the up defense of a six-time blocked editor and are saying the two editors he's harassed are under the same amount of scrutiny he's under. An editor blocked six times in a year for stalking and edit warring should logically be under more scrutiny than others, wouldn't you say?
As for the diffs, his promises are on his talk page as everyone who's followed his history can tell you. I'll have to go back to his previous blocks later to find specific ones. Since you got defensive and didn't provide diffs of the edit warring you've accused Sess and Anma of (which should have been just a few days ago, and much easier to find), I'm going to go out on a limb and assume your characterization of them both as edit warring and deserving of blocks was just a gross overstatement. Dayewalker (talk) 09:33, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
No doubt, he is under more scrutiny for the reasons you've stated, and now because he's under an editing restriction.
That doesn't change the fact that this was a personally motivated bad-faith revert. No efforts to discuss the initial revert by Abtract were made. Abtract did revert again here making his conduct fall into question. Contrastingly, Abtract reverted Sesshomaru's revert, and then Sesshomaru again reverted Abtract's revert. This is not helpful conduct at all. This is compounded by the unwillingness to agree to not to revert at all, any of each other's reverts - under this scheme, if Abtract reverts, he'll be blocked - if C or S revert Abtract, then C or S will be blocked respectively, while if it's vandalism, someone else will revert it. So this problematic edit-warring has put all 3 editors under scrutiny; (it's blatantly obvious to everyone that Abtract is under more scrutiny, apparently except to AnmaFinotera and possibly Sesshomaru and yourself who think otherwise) but this does not change the fact that S and C need to take care in their editing in the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:03, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Also C's (and possibly S's) unwillingness to agree to only one term pertaining to them (not to revert A's edits), in stark contrast to A agreeing to the multiple terms including not to revert S and C's edits, is very convincing that edit-warring is an issue here. It's not about a 'defense' or 'prosecution' or 'attack', it's just how this is to someone else looking at it. The agreement isn't unreasonable, given it does not preclude any other agreements or remedies in the future. Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

(OD)Your example of bad faith editing was brought on because Abtract was stalking Sess, which he was blocked for before on several occasions and had promised not to do. As for Anma, all you've got in the way of evidence is "very convincing that edit-warring is an issue here," which is presumptive and proves absolutely nothing.

I'll just end this. You've already threatened and showed bad faith to the people who've been harassed and stalked, and closed the ANI discussion against their wishes. I would just ask that in the future you use equal vigor in defending them and their contributions if the matter of their six-time blocked stalker comes up again. If you think you've fixed the problem, I only ask you remain vigilant to ensure that it stays fixed and quality editors feel free to be productive on wikipedia without fear of being stalked. Dayewalker (talk) 22:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)


AIH ecovillage - please do not delete

Hi,
I am new on wikipedia. I made an entry on AIH (Andelssamfundet i Hjortshøj) an eco-village/society in English and Danish. The English one got deleted for my big suprise. I did not have time to the hang-on....
I would like that it would be reestablished as well as being excepted that ecovillages can apear as other entries apear as well.
- The "ecovillage" term actualy is not unknown in wikipedia. It exists on 14 languages !
- AIH is one of those "eco-villages", which are already exist under "Global Ecovillage Network". like Findhorn Foundation, Auroville, Crystal Waters, one in Argentina and one in Mexico, another Danish one Svanholm etc.
I am wondering why some can exists others not. In the same time you have all different companies (car companies etc) and places all kind. Just under AIH exists an Australian Music Band with a name AiH (Architecture in Helsinki).
Eco-villages, eco-societies are as important as others. Showing the way how people can live sustainable in this world.

best regards Judit Szoleczky --Judit Szoleczky (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an admin so I did not delete the article, I only nominated for it for deletion. It was deleted because an administrator agreed that it was not a notable topic and it was also created by copy/pasting substantial amounts of copyrighted content, which is a direct violation of Wikipedia policy. Different language wikis have different guidelines and levels of strictness. The English one has more stringent criteria for inclusion, and more active monitoring of inappropriate articles, than others. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Formatting Help

How do I get a link like the word link, like redirect I think, to go somewhere, but it's not the name? That's confusing. OK, how do I link Endurance (TV series) with only the word Endurance? If that's still confusing, tell me and I'll try to simplify it. Cruise meerkat (talk) 22:49, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You use what is called a piped link. ''[[Endurance (TV series)|Endurance]]'' to get Endurance (don't forget, all TV series, book, film, and magazine titles should be in italics) :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:10, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh thanks! I did that but backwards and I was so frustrated! Thanks again. =) Cruise meerkat (talk) 02:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreement

I decided to sign here. Why not right? Seems to be the best thing to do ATPIT. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:51, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

My why not is above and in the AN/I that was closed. Not that it will matter...he never keeps his agreements anyway. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

San Cristobal River Enhancement Defenders

I guess deleting San Cristobal River Enhancement Defenders article is not right. I was the one who created that. Because the sentence was made all by myself and I didn't copied it from a webpage. I guess it's just a coincidence that we've used almost the same words. But still, my article and that one from a website is still different. So, bring back the article I wrote. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jonathan329 (talk • contribs) 04:55, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not an administrator, so I didn't delete the article I only nominated for deletion. Sorry, but as it is highly unlikely you made up an entire article that is word for word from another website, it is highly unlikely that an admin will agree to undelete it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I was the one who sent you a comment about the deletion of San Cristobal River Enhancement Defenders (also the creator of the said page). I forgot to put my signature last time. --Jonathan329 (talk) 05:00, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

So, what do we need to do now?--Jonathan329 (talk) 05:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Nothing, really. In addition to the copyright issues, the San Cristobal River Enhancement Defenders is not a notable organization per Wikipedia requirements (see WP:ORG), so the article would have been deleted anyway. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:20, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

R from merge etc.

You previously wondered about whether Friendly or Twinkle could add these templates: Friendly can indeed add them if you are on a redirect page like this (example). Unfortunately the list of options is still short. G.A.S 15:49, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Cool :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:50, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Tarja

Yup. Blocked indef. Obvious sock. Sorry it took so long to reply and do it, I forget about messages so easily. Don't hesitate to message me if you find anymore (Might be better to leave a talk page message and then e-mail me if I don't respond). Thanks (and sorry) for leaving a second reminder message! ScarianCall me Pat! 16:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No prob (and I know the feeling on forgetting messages LOL) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

New Bart article

I just recently created a Bart (magazine) article, but for some reason, half the page won't show up on my computer. -_- Is it the same on yours? Because I'm really pissed right about now. If you know the problem, please tell me. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 23:39, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Um....hello? : ) – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 01:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Oro...how are yu sending me messages from the future? :P And sorry, I was offline sleeping a bit. I'm an insomniac and tend to sleep twice a day in short snatches to get enough to be functional. For the article, you forgot to close your use of the named ref. I've fixed it for ya :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: Post Oak Mall nightclub

The Post Oak Mall article is indeed good, but the main problem about it, in my opinion, is what happened to the cinema after it closed. However, the current wording:

The empty space was replaced with a full-service restaurant and an entertainment section

is misleading at best. What happened is that it was replaced by a series of bars and nightclubs. First came Oxygen, which stayed up for several years after closure of the cinema. After Oxygen shut down, it became Cactus Canyon, which I remember having a well-publicized fight. Then Cactus Canyon simply became The Canyon before shuffling off. This was around the time Foley's was being "Macy-ated" if I recall correctly. Then it became Rockies. Granted, if you consider serving beer a "full-service restaurant" and a karaoke for an "entertainment section", then I GUESS it could work. Rockies has a website and just last Saturday night (or Sunday morning, technically), a man trying to break up a fight fell on the concrete and got severe head injuries. (link). Comparing mall directories, which I own, one would see that Rockies is clearly in the old theater area. The other "things" that can be mentioned...

  • Walgreen's was later the spot of Chelsea Street Pub & Grill. After it closed, it was vacant for a while until it became Chuck E. Cheese's (with no interior entrance)
  • Luby's Cafeteria was in the mall until about 2000 or so, and Chelsea Street lasted a few years after that (2002?). It bit the dust chain-wide in 2004. Luby's was vacant for about 8 years, serving periodic use for things the Halloween store, until finally becoming Rugged Outdoors Armory.

I noticed that your userpage has gotten badly vandalized occasionally, like other well-known editors on Wikipedia (by the way, do organized vandal/troll groups exist on Wikipedia?) I also noticed that you got a small "badge" on the upper-right of your user page for making articles nominated for DYK. It turns out I have one too. So how do you have a little question mark badge on yours and I don't?

OK, that's all I wanted to say, please respond! Thanks! TheListUpdater (talk) 00:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The main thing is that we need sources for all that. The sentence came from the source, and I presumed it meant the theater was where Casa Ole currently is, but yeah, sources are still needed. I plan to take another trip to the library and do more searches, it will just take awhile. I'm in the middle of buying a house and moving. It would help to have months/years for the closing of stuff, though hopefully one will lead to the next. For the badge, its something I put there myself. :) I don't know that I would say there are organized vandal/troll groups, but there are some persistent ones with like no lives or something, that vandalize once a week or so. :P I made a subpage User:AnmaFinotera/MiniBrags, which has the code, then transcluded it in my main page. got the idea from another editor who had it on his user page. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:25, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Naruto characters

Is finally at WP:FLC after a copy-edit. Hopefully we can finally get a good model to chuck around while cleaning up anime and manga articles =) Sephiroth BCR (Converse) 02:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Yahoo! Keeper deserves an award for tackling that one! I'll be keeping an eye on it to steal get ideas for List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters, which I plan to take to FLC after the last merge is done along with a copyedit. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

SOFIXIT on Indianapolis Early Music Festival

Hello, I believe you tagged the above article twice, once as a copyright problems, and once as lacking in-line cites and categorization after I quickly stubified it. As you knew where the data came from (the original copyright violation you identified) it would likely have taken 1 more minute, at most, to add the citation you are asking for. I realize you are a very experienced editor who I've seen around a lot, but I would ask that you try to fix things that you can trivially fix rather than tag them (per [4]). That kind of thing drives people away from articles in my experience. Thanks. Hobit (talk) 13:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Um, no. It isn't my job to fix it unless I choose to do so. For copyright problems, I tagged it for deletion, properly, because it was a complete copy/paste from another website. That's illegal. Nor am I going to go hunt up the references for it just because the person who made it was too lazy to actually write a real article for it, but choose to just steal someone else's hard work. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:22, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I do realize just how rude my message above sounded, and I'm sorry about that. That said, when you added the tag about cites you had to know where the cites would come from (the original article you tagged as a copyright violation.) I'm not upset about you tagging it as a copyright problem, it clearly was. I was annoyed that you tagged it as needing in-line cites when A) you knew where the information was (the article you found as a copyright problem) and B) you are an experianced enough editor that you could have fixed the problem almost as fast as you could have tagged it. I'll drop it at this point. I'd just ask that you consider fixing trivial problems in the future rather than just tagging them for someone else. Hobit (talk) 16:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Code Geass intro-rewrite.

You know, when making that intro, I was purely following the Rurouni Kenshin article's intro. Why don't you tag that then as well? What on earth does it need? I've looked at other anime articles that have even less than Code Geass' and they don't have this tag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keron Cyst (talk • contribs) 19:42, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

See Tokyo Mew Mew for an appropriate lead. The lead should summarize the article, as per WP:MOS-AM and WP:LEAD. It should start with the name, writer/creator, give a brief plot overview (1, maybe 2 sentence), cover English licensing, adaptations, and the reception. The lead should be an overview of the article that lets a reader who doesn't want to read the whole article grasp the pertinent points. Kenshin wasn't tagged because it was under going merges. Those are done now, though, so its been tagged. Many other articles are lacking tags, but that isn't an excuse to remove them from those that have. We has some 10k+ articles, and a very small handful of project members working on clean up, including tagging. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:51, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
I see. (Sorry for forgetting to sign earlier, while I'm at it.) I'll keep that in mind if I want to try expanding on that section again... Keron Cyst (talk) 20:38, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
No prob. I find leads are actually one of the hardest parts of an article to deal with :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Val Chadwick Bagley

Thanks for the heads-up on the move button -- it's something I've never needed before. Handy.

As part of the mixup over my error, the page was deleted in both areas and seems to have no history now in either place. I recreated the page, but I don't know if a bot will come attack it or what. I seem to have dug myself into a hole.

If you could check and make sure the page still exists and that nothing will be deleting it because I screwed up, I would be ever so grateful. Thanks. Thmazing (talk) 04:58, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It was deleted because he isn't a notable person. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:35, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Val Chadwick Bagley

I searched for this illustrator using http://news.google.com and its archive search, and found a newspaper story about him which I added to Val Chadwick Bagley as a reference. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Val Chadwick Bagley. --Eastmain (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No need. A single newspaper article about a local person does not establish notability. Its a fluff piece and does not meet WP:BIO. If that was all it took to establish notability, I'd have an article as I've been in my local newspaper as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Do... you have a job?

I was looking at your contributions and I noticed that every day they're nonstop except for a 2-3 hour gap here and there along with a 7 or so hour gap that I assume is used for sleeping. I'm worried about your health. - Norse Am Legend (talk) 17:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Presuming you are asking in earnest, yes I have a full time job. I'm a web developer. The 2-3 hour gaps are likely the sleeping ones. The 7 hour one would be me going out and doing errands. I also often don't do much heavy editing besides vandal patrol while reading, playing video games, watching TV, etc. I'm just very good at multi-tasking (too good, really, as I generally can't sit and just do one thing at a time). My health is fine, but thanks for your concern. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Recbon

This editor's "good" intentions don't add up. You gave plenty reason to justify those removals, yet (s)he is (for some obscure reason) against them. Have you spoken to an adminstrator about the likelihood of this being a single purpose account? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:55, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

No...I suspect that's all it is, but not sure what, if anything, can be done. He isn't breaking 3RR with his waiting for each revert, and as I'm the only one who has been reverting his reverts, it would just be considered a disagreement. Technically an SPA isn't against policy and won't be dealt with unless he gets really disruptive (like starts undoing the merges and all). I suspect he is only reverting me to be annoying and because he falsely believes that if that stuff stays, it will be justification for undoing the merges and stuff. Either that or its just a sock of someone wanting to annoy me, which I wouldn't put past a few folks. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I have to ask this

Why did you revert the Cardcaptor Sakura page back to an edit that was obviously not about the series? I reverted it back for you. ^_^ ^_^ (talk) 03:00, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I didn't. Take a look at the diffs of the version I tried to revert to.[5]. I have no idea what the heck happened to Twinkle that it pulled in a totally different article. That is beyond weird...never seen it do that before. While your revert fixed that error, it also restored the actual vandalism I was reverting. I've restored the pre-vandalism version. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Did you see this..?

[6] I think you really pissed off Grawp! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think she'd wanna see that..... : ( – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 23:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, he tried to redirect my user page to a page called that twice. An admin was kind enough to completely delete it from my talk page history. Alas, while my user pages are move protected, they can't be semi-protected from IP edits. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:50, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I feel so bad for you....why do so many people inslut you so crudly, especially to a woman, that is completely unecceptable. -_- – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 03:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
No idea why some folks feel the need to be so crude and insulting. In Grawp's case, he's a well known sck/vandal who does that to anyone who happens to stumble on one of his vandalism runs and cleans up behind him. The actual editors, well, guess they just lose their tempers or are unable to think and post calmly. And some, of course, think there is nothing wrong with such language and insulting, which makes you wonder about society as a whole. I've lost my temper a few times in discussions and even thrown out some mildly uncivil comments, but glad to say I still manage to avoid descending to such low level, disgusting vulgarity. It is the one major drawback of Wikipedia...the more active and visible you are, the more likely you get attacked, your user page vandalized, etc and there really are few protections available. Even the cyber stalkers are allowed to harass anyone they want if they occasionally do a good edit now and then, while the victims are blamed for not "working together." It would make an interesting fictional piece to write a novel set in a town that runs similar to how Wikipedia does sometime. :P In the end, I just tell the new folks that my first piece of advice to them is to have a thick skin, or this isn't the place for them. Most insults I can ignore, a few (that Grawps) a seek to have removed or will pursue action on, in the case of actual editors and not socks. In the end, though, I shrug it off and instead pity those who lead such lackluster lives that they must seek entertainment by acting in such ways.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:36, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
That's kinda sad, I'm suprised I haven't been vandalised once. Which is kinda weird considering everyone at ANN thinks i'm stupid, and I could imagine that many of them go to Wikipedia. To me, they seem like the kinda people that would be vandlising pages n' stuff. And i'm pretty well known on the internet, mostly for my strong hatred of Cartoon Network. :D – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 05:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
I think most ANN folks don't bother with Wikipedia...too much work ;-) I suspect one reason I get hit so much is I do "contentious" stuff, like AfDs, copyvio monitoring, etc. And, of course, I started discussions on merges that usually get consensus, then when the merge is done most people take it out on me. Sometimes, ya gotta wonder if I'm a masochist that I love editing on Wikipedia anyway LOL-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
A Barnstar!
The Purple Barnstar
I hereby award you this Purple star as I have seen the abuse and vandalism your userpage has gone through during your time on Wikipedia. I commend you on your patience, civility and endurance. G.A.S 06:04, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Aww, thanks! Much appreciated :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Many much barstars. :D – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 16:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
If vandalism to your user page becomes too frequent, you can always opt in to have Cluebot keep an eye on it. G.A.S 07:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, didn't know about that! Added :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Highlight the following text to see my message: I will be on AoD under the name "Jump Collector", so ya' know it's me. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 18:21, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Cool (and I suspect I would have guessed that was you ;)) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
What's your name at AnimeOnDVD.com, or is it just your name here? Also, were they changed to Mania? I typed in thier website and it redirected to something called "Mania Entertainment".... – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 01:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Same as here and yes. A few months back, the site was sold to Mania.com. They changed over the URL and appearance last week, though the forums are the same. http://www.mania.com/aodvb/ will get you directly to the forums. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:10, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

List of extreme makeover home edition episodes

Hi AnmaFinotera,

Please do not jump to conclusions i am about to ask your help and advice. I noticed on the one piece episode where 4kids merge episode you have used notes i ma just wonder how you use them? Cause i am going to work on the above and try and improve but something i have notices is a lot of thing that could be put into a notes part of the page so would reduce the summaries down.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 11:23, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

No problem (though not sure what conclusions I'm not supposed to jump to :P). This is a relatively new feature of wikipedia, the ability to "group" references. To use them, you basically add a named group attribution to each <ref> tag. For example, <ref group="n" name="i">a note</ref> will give you[n 1]. Then, below, you use the same group attribute to show that group in another section, i.e. <references group="n" />. See WP:REFGROUP for a longer explanation. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:47, 26 July 2008 (UTC)
Ok thanks for that, i will need to work out how to do the extreme makeover article as it has a lot of information that be good to have but some that is not so will need to try a few things but i think notes would be best way forward. --Andrewcrawford (talk) 12:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)


Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James McDonald (Irish Filmmaker)

Found non-IMDB sources linking McDonald with his film company LAC and showing minor notability and additional awards for his films. If article survives AfD I will add them. Michael Q. Schmidt (talk) 06:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

'Kay. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

All Around Amazing Barnstar
I give you this Barnstar for being patient when I need help with simple things and being an amazing and super-organized Wikipedian! Cruise meerkat (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

P.S. Congrats on getting a house! ^^ Cruise meerkat (talk) 02:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, for the barnstar and the congrats! :) Exhausted myself this weekend finding and ordering appliances and furniture for it...looking forward to just sitting and enjoying it next weekend :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:58, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought

Have you given RfA any consideration in the near future? Mind you, I'm not asking to nom you, as we both probably know I'm not solid enough for the job. I've seen some very positive contributions from you in recent weeks (setting aside some of the differences we've had or mistakes I've seen you make; objectively speaking of course, I don't mean it in a bad way). Anyway, it was just a thought I wanted some feedback about. Synergy 01:17, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I've considered it, but I don't think I have the right personality for it. I have too low a tolerance for vandalism, and my definition of what vandalism is is still broader than Wikipedia's LOL. I also don't think I'd trust myself with admin tools in a dispute yet. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Thats a very candid response and admirable trait (knowledge of ones weak points). I hope you do work on and improve your qualities. You appear to be an asset and a net positive. Well, enough flattery. Back to work. Synergy 01:41, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :) I am working on being more patient and on being better able to neutrally deal with disputes and issues without losing my temper. :P Better than I used to be, but still a ways to go. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
You have good contributions, but civility concerns will nuke your RfA. FYI, if you really want the mop, then follow WP:BRD to the letter and forsake the use of "revert (vandalism)" (TW) in content disputes. Just commenting as an admin coach :p sephiroth bcr (converse) 19:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
~grin~ Yep, I still need to work on that one (though at least I do avoid using rollback in them LOL) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

your reply to m at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark A. Heckler

  • kindly smile when you say that. The conventional :) will do. So would strikeout. FWIW, I check out every single afd except porn, wrestling, sports and pop music if I possibly can at least once in the course of the discussion, and as you too are interested in such we will always be encountering each other. DGG (talk) 03:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
It was only slightly tongue in cheek, and partial actual curiosity as I have noticed it being a greater occurrence of late, particularly with detagging PRODs (often within hours of my leaving them) and CSDs. I know you have a more inclusionary view than I do, so it wouldn't surprise me, just curious. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Shelton & book cover

Please quote me the relevant passage at nonfree -- I don't see it.

In any case, there is *some* critical commentary in the article (tho not much). Perhaps I should add a bit more.

Please don't remove a valid FUR without discussing it. And please be careful in your own edits -- youremoved new material re Shelton in your hasty reversion. --Pete Tillman (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ask at non-free, its been stated repeatedly. Covers should be used in articles specifically about the work. It also says it very clearly in the book license: it is to be used "to illustrate an article discussing the book in question." Shelton's article is NOT the place for critical commentary of his books. It is a biography, not a book review. If the book is notable, it has its own article and then the image is valid, but it isn't. Shelton himself is barely notable. The only acceptable image in the article would be one of Shelton, NOT the cover of a book mentioned in a sentence or two. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

GRΣΣK

Hi, you reverted my "see also" link to Faux Greek on Greek (TV series) with the comment "unsourced". I don't think this is quite right. I don't think you're disputing that the show's title is displayed as "GRΣΣK", are you? And I don't suppose you're questioning that the use of Σ for E is a fairly widely-used gimmick. So you are presumably questioning whether "Faux Greek" is a suitable title for an article on this gimmick and whether the Faux Greek article itself contains good sources. I agree on both counts that things could be improved. I do not know of any better name for this phenomenon; if you do, the correct remedy is to change it or suggest it. I also have not (yet) found any good sources for the phenomenon. But there is no Wikipedia policy that says that articles should be perfect from the beginning; quite the contrary. Go ahead and tag the article as unsourced -- that is perfectly appropriate. But I don't see the problem with a link from the GRΣΣK article to the Faux Greek article. Faux Greek, used for the show's title, "GRΣΣK".--Macrakis (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm questioning the declaration that the title is "Faux Greek", the appropriateness of see also per the guidelines regarding what goes in See Also. It has nothing to do with the television series. As for the article itself, from your remarks above and searching, this seems to just be a term you made up and as such, I have tagged the article for deletion. Wikipedia is not the place for WP:OR. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:18, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the deletion notification. I, too, question the title; it is a placeholder until a better one can be found. Do you prefer, say, "Use of Greek letter in writing English"? That would be fine with me. Surely you don't question the reality of the phenomenon, which can be witnessed in half the pizza places in the Northeast? And the stub-level content does not even rise to the level of "research", let alone "original research". It is simply mentioning the phenomenon and giving a place to centralize information on it. --Macrakis (talk) 12:42, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Looks like our friend is back

Hello. It looks like our friend from Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/70.146.241.244 is back with a new dynamic IP. If this anonymous editor keeps jumping across multiple IPs (I just blocked 65.0.160.81 (talk · contribs)), it may be worth semi-protecting the editor's target articles. If I am not on the next time it happens, feel free to drop a request at WP:RFPP. Thanks, --Kralizec! (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

So I see...this time he even vandalized one of talk page archives. Wee! I have been trying to get the target articles semi-protected, but the SPP reports have had mixed results. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:11, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
I went ahead and protected four of the pages for ten days. Hopefully our IP-hopping friend will get bored and move on to something more productive [7]. --Kralizec! (talk) 02:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :) He seems to realize he's annoying, and just doesn't care. *shaking head* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Ore wa Mita

Hello AnmaFinotera, if you wondering where I was, I was creating an article for Ore wa Mita. It's one of the first manga translated to English, the manga is said to be "Non-Notable", which I don't understand because I gave it lots of reliable sources. : ) – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 17:39, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...I only see one reliable reference, ANN, which shows it exists. One-shot titles are rarely notable, per the Anime and manga notability guidelines and WP:N. The bit about it being the predecessor to Barefoot Gin should be in the BG article, but otherwise I'd have to agree with the PROD. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:26, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I guess so, although, the Last Gasp source is reliable, that's the official publisher of Barefoot Gen. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 19:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
It is? I just gave the site a quick glance and it didn't look professional so I didn't examine it further. Still, only two, one of which isn't a third-party, alas, notability isn't shown. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:46, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Haha! yeah it is a pretty amateurish ol' site. The publisher is underground. I can make the other source third party, if you want. : ) – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 22:23, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
You know...being underground, I'd be curious as to whether their publication of either title was done legally (i.e. paid for the license and all)? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:31, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Okay, maybe not underground.....they're "obscure". They're license was legal, and Last Gasp didn't publish I Saw It, they hold the rights to selling it. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 01:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I have a few things to say: If their license was illegal, it wouldn't have reviews on the back by Art Spiegelman. Also, Ore wa Mita was one of the first manga translated to English, that's one of the reasons I created the article. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 05:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I was just curious :) I vaguely remember a discussion last month about a manga title that was considered by some to be "illegal" because of problems with the license. And, let's not forget the big deal going on with Be Beautiful and the Libre's accusations of illegal translations because of licensing confusion that have left a lot of series on hold :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
What manga is it? – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 16:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
I can't remember...it was brought up on the AM project talk page. I'll have to lok back to see. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Nathaniel Bacon

Howdy,

It has been awhile now, with no subsequent opinion up or down on moving Nathaniel Bacon (diplomat) to another page. Since you objected to "Nathaniel Bacon (rebel)," could it be moved to "Nathaniel Bacon (colonist)"? As I have noted on the talk page, every day it stays at "Nathaniel Bacon (diplomat)," Wikipedia is just plain wrong.

TuckerResearch (talk) 22:11, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. TuckerResearch (talk) 13:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Sailor Moon

Left you a question back there. Isn't the page on your watchlist? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:36, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I'm in the middle of moving and renovations, so not always going to answer quickly. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Sourcing Question

With that Setting section on the One Piece page - Goodraise is going through and sourcing to the primary work. Am I right that something like that needs to be sourced to the guidebooks, rather than the primary work, or is what he's doing acceptable? Doceirias (talk) 00:58, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Some primary work is okay, but it should also be supplemented with guidebook and third-party stuff, particularly anything that is interprative and not a direct statement from the manga and/or anime. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:53, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion

Didn't want to embarrass you on the Deletion page, but I think you meant "facetious", not "factitious". Anyway, enough discussion there -- let the others debate and decide. I have found lots of things in libraries that I have not found in Google. --Macrakis (talk) 04:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Doh, silly spell check. Wouldn't embarrass me though, I don't embarrass easy, particularly about my spelling snafus. I have also founds lots of things not found in Google. I wrote almost all of Post Oak Mall using articles found spending a few hours in front of a microfilm machine. I enjoy library research. However, between Google and Amazon, if there were books that actually used the term that could be checked, I find they are helpful indicators as to whether there might be something there, or at least point possible books. None of those are evident here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Spell check doesn't help -- factitious is a real word, too.
About Googling terms, that is relatively easy if there is an unambiguous standard term, e.g. Affymetrix (a company), and can be very hard if the term is ambiguous or there is no standard term. I work on the other side of that problem: I work on search engine design and implementation....
What's more, often the Google Books results are useless because the good stuff is overwhelmed by the junk. Try to find a serious history of hummus bi tahini using Google Books and Scholar -- you will find lots of cookbooks, but not a single serious reliable source. As it happens, I did find one (which I still need to verify) but not using online sources.... --Macrakis (talk) 04:49, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you believe?

A Barnstar!
Veteran Editor IV
You have been active on Wikipedia for 3½ years now, and made a ton of edits since. They are indeed appreciated. Congratulations! G.A.S 05:14, 1 August 2008 (UTC)
Wow! It has been awhile, eh! And even mid-move, here I am still checking my watchlist regularly :P Thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:17, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Gantz

Hi AnmaFinotera, could pay a look at Gantz? I think it needs too much reorder and tags but Im not very sure.Tintor2 (talk) 00:39, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it needs reordering per the MoS, and tags - especially unreferenced. I'll add those and do a quick reorder. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:57, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
And done. I cut out quite a bit of excess stuff, but could use more trimming, expansion of the real world aspects, and sourcing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:13, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I ll try to make some moves there.Tintor2 (talk) 01:15, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Cool. I also tagged to two separate character lists for merging. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Nathaniel Reed.

Hi, AnmaFinotera! I don't recall if I asked you about this article before or not, but since it has been rated as B-class, I thought with a little work I might get it ready for GA-class. However, I am not sure what exact things need to be done first (to improve the article, that is). Would you mind looking over the article, and giving your feedback for me, please? That would be much appreciated. Thanks!!! Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 00:59, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. The biggest thing is the need for referencing. Depending on the project, it really isn't B class yet, but C, do to the large amounts of unreferenced statements. To go for GA, all statements (except the lead, of course) must be well referenced to reliable sources. The lead should be a summary of the article, and shouldn't need references itself as it should be supported by the article proper and its references. With that, I'd highly recommend having a copyeditor go over it before going for GA, to fix any prose and MoS issues. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:17, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your help!!! Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 01:22, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
P.S. Would you by any chance happen to know of any good copyeditors I might look to for help? Thanks! Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 02:41, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
User talk:Scartol, User talk:Keeper76, and User talk:Malleus Fatuorum are three I have worked with before that I'd recommend. Not sure if Scartol is currently taking requests though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you!!! Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 03:12, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

license violation

Hi, the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouml violate the license of Bouml regarding all the wikipedia sites ( please refer to http://bouml.free.fr/legal-mentions.html ) because it directly reuses sentences extracted from the site without authorization. I contact you because you are involved in the historic of this article. Best regards Bruno pages (talk) 10:55, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Then tag it for copyvio CSD (G11) and give a link to the site where it is taken from, though the article was probably created by the Bouml people themselves. Such groups are always spamming Wikipedia with copy/pastes of their own website. My only "history" with the article was tagging it for deletion myself, but someone else edited the article remove the copyrighted material. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:37, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
no, I am the 'Bouml people' (I work alone on it), and I don't know you write this article and wasn't able to contact him/her. I written in the past an article on Bouml which was deleted without any discussion, I also see other articles (not written by me) concerning Bouml also censured by Wikipedia for the same bad/wrong reason you invoke, this is why I have place a 'special' article for Wikipedia in my license. However let me say articles concerning some other UML modelers are not censured even they are similar to previous articles concerning Bouml ... the choices are made arbitrary and of course depend on who moderates. Best regards. Bruno pages (talk) 15:18, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
I didn't write the articles. If you re the Bouml person, then per WP:COI, you shouldn't edit it nor are you allowed to make "special licenses" for Wikipedia. As you have said the text is copyrighted, I've requested the article be deleted again. Also, per the logs, there was no previous article for Bouml. We don't "censor" content, but we do require reliable sources and actual notability. It has nothing do with arbitrary choices nor "moderators" as there are no such things. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:50, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
sorry, I did a mistake in the sentence "I don't know you write this article", the right one is "I don't know who write this article" (I am French) I tried to said I don't know the author of this article (nor the author of the other ones except mine). Previous articles was exist : mine of course (April 2007, censured by Zeibura), an other one in German or Dutch (2 or 3 months later mine if I remember well), and I don't remember details for the third. You said nor are you allowed to make "special licenses" for Wikipedia : I decide myself like I want concerning the license of my personal work, and you have to follow my license when an article concerns Bouml (I imagine to check respect of licenses is part of the moderator work). Best regards. Bruno pages (talk) 20:21, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
No. You can copyright your specific words (and as such the article has been deleted). If someone decides to write an article about Bouml, however, as long as they do not use your copyrighted words, you have no control over the article. There is no such thing as a license on ideas or in limiting people's abilities to talk about the product. If it is notable and it has valid sources, such text will be kept. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:47, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


ADV films

I will assume you know what you are doing by removing the redirects, and will let some other admin decide if they need to go to RfD, though I admit i dont see why. You did put one on again after I removed it, and perhaps it would have been better to explain things to me. DGG (talk) 23:24, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Both pages were just created today by a new editor, a recreation of a list removed from the ADV Film article by consensus months ago. They never existed before and its doubtful anyone would type in "List of ADV films" so not a valid redirect option. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

My Family

As somewhat of an expert on TV articles, I would ask for help and assistance at the My Family page. An IP user added a "Summary" section. I removed it as such a huge section was inappriopate. It was been re-instated by a user, and Dudesleeper on the talk page just attacks me. The section is here [8]. I would explain your help about whether such a section is appriopiate. Many Thanks.--UpDown (talk) 19:54, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

I would appreciate your opinion on this matter. This section, now renamed "History", completes lets down the page.--UpDown (talk) 17:39, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Agree it should be removed. It isn't valid production info, and it is completely unsourced and adds nothing of value. Blech...I didn't see that my stalker was also working on the article. :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:15, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Just so you'll know, Abtract has contacted Ncmvocalist to watch this page. [9] — [Unsigned comment added by Dayewalker (talk • contribs) 17:16, August 3, 2008.]
Not surprising at all. The creator already shoved the worthless stuff back anyway. UpDown, due to Abtract's presence, you'll need to ask at the TV project to smack that guy down who is wanting to put such useless garbage in. I don't want to have to deal with that nut again. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:32, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, a shame you edit was reverted, but unsurprising. I will contact the TV project now.--UpDown (talk) 07:08, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Sailor Moon

Does the lead paragraph necessitate references? Thought it would be required for things like the conception and reception areas. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:10, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The lead paragraph shouldn't need references, because it should be a summary of the article. If it introduces new facts not sourced in the article, then it should be sourced. The rest of the entire article should be referenced, including conception, reception, etc. Only the main plot summary doesn't require it (in the series article...if you meant to link to the character one, then its the entire article sans the lead, as noted). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:20, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Does that {{fact}} tag have to go? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:41, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
If the article doesn't support that claim, then the fact tag should remain. If its sourced in the article, the fact tag should be removed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:43, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Do you have the time to look into it? I don't see it anywhere else. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:53, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Giving it a once over, nothing in the reception section supports those claims. The article has quite a few sourcing issues as well, so doesn't surprise me much. From the statements themselves, I suspect they are at least partially correct, so just need a valid source. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:29, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Case Closed

I have put up the notice I mentioned last night. Check if the wording is OK, thanks!--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 14:55, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Looks fine to me. Thanks. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:00, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Abtract's user page

Did you catch this? Looks like a personal attack against me. He even mentions you on the user page. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I hadn't looked to see what he was doing. For the section on you, I'd agree, that's a personal attack. No idea who to report it to, though, since seems like he is just being allowed to get away with anything. Maybe User:Natalya, though Abtract seemed to run and whine to her about me calling him a stalker (never mind that he admitted to it *rolling eyes*). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:11, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I'm removing it. Well the "fool" part at least. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I left a note on Natalya's page, since he made false accusations about me there (claiming I called Ncmvocalist a nut and that I'm a "danger to myself" *rolls eyes*). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:16, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Left a warning on Abtract's talk page. Was a {{uw-npa3}} too kind of me? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 01:19, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Seems fair to me, but I suspect one of his supporters will probably pitch a fit, as technically it violates the agreement you signed (reverted him). Its better to let an admin deal with him than doing so directly. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

AnmaFinotera, I appreciate you expressing your concerns - there are definitly some issues. If you didn't already see my reply at User_talk:Natalya#Your_eagle_eye_is_needed_pls, I hope you'll take a look at it - I've similarly directed Sesshomaru and Abtract to it also. I really believe that the three of you can be productive contributors to the encyclopedia, but things would be much healthier for everyone (the three of you, and all close parties also) if things could just be let be. Be the better person and don't let someone's bickering get to you. -- Natalya 01:36, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

"Be the better person" would be better advice if Abtract hadn't been blocked for wikistalking and personal atacks against these two editors multiple times, and been unblocked last time with a promise (again) to leave them alone. Anma/Sess, on behalf of wikipedia, I apologize. This is exactly the kind of situation I was afraid of last time. Dayewalker (talk) 01:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. It would be one thing if this just started up, I could see the call to be civil and all. But with the past history, I'm being about as civil as I can be considering he is still finding little ways to harass us both while "following" the agreement. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Not to seem arrogant, but I "am" a productive contributor, despite the headaches of the situation with Abtract. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
No, after posting I actually relalized that you deserved more credit than I gave you - my apologies. After a point, you're right, you can't ignore things. That doesn't mean that there still shouldn't be civility! But, that also doesn't mean that you shouldn't report issues and the like. I'm not 100% sure what to do in this situation, but we'll see how it goes. Abtract has given some rationale at User_talk:Abtract#August_2008, and at least from a perspective of an editor who he is not having disagreements with, it seems a little less malicious than originally thought. Not that things couldn't have been done better (as always!). Anyway, thanks for working on this issue, and for your patience. We'll see how things go, and I'll do my best to keep eyes on the situation in a hopefully neutral fashion.
On a totally unrelated note, I've gotten that gender confusion mentioned on your userpage a bit in the past (although, probably not as often as you?). People don't give women enough credit for being present on Wikipedia! -- Natalya 11:00, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for keeping an eye on things. And LOL at the gender confusion. Even with the note on my userpage, I get referred to as a male. I thought about making my pages pink, but I just hate pink too much to tolerate it :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

Are you sure this is vandalism? It's not clear to me. Toddst1 (talk) 17:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably best to reply on AIV as I'm not the only one asking this. Toddst1 (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Reply left there with a partial list of the most recent IPs, and the SPP. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:55, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Few article checks.

Hello,

Is it possible you could have a quick check over the following articles and tag them, so i know what still needs done to improve them. And make any other comments that might not be a tag please :)

And if you think there class or importance is wrong can you modify them?

Only asking because your a more experienced editor than me.

Thanks--Andrewcrawford (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

For Extreme makeover; dump the red links on the family names. Few, if any, will ever be notable enough to have their own articles. Also, IMDB is not a reliable reference, so those need to be removed. Ditto TV.com. Both are user edited. The notes section is excessive and needs to be paired down a lot. If its relevant, it should be in the article, otherwise its mostly unsourced commentary. Some of the location names need to be fixed. Should be using city, state link rather than two separate links. If the prod codes came from TV.com, that whole column should go. Per TV project consensus, it isn't reliable. Also, episode summaries do not need a reference, so all those lines need to go. All of the Yu-Gi-Oh's have major issues. I'll clean some and tag for the rest. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:47, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've tagged the media list for merge - bad split. For the episode lists, I've fixed their names, and I've cleaned up season 1. I've tagged all of them, however one of the biggest issues is that they all have the wrong names in Japanese name. That field is for the romanji version of the name, not an English translated. All four season lists still need a lot of work. See List of Dragon Ball episodes and its subarticles for guidance. I've also alerted the project to the need to overhaul all four. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:09, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
it was only split because the article became the 3rd largest on wikipedia ;) but comments noted and i will try work on them more now thanks :)--Andrewcrawford (talk) 17:52, 6 August 2008 (UTC) Ingore that first part i am complete idiot i misunderstood i thought you meant merge the list back to media part, but i agree with mergint he information into yu-gi-oh! gx page it needs clean up anyway.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 18:06, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I wish i knew about tv.com and imbd.com not being allowed for reference just seen other guides like tat so assumed it was fine. wasn't sure since the type of show if extreme makeover would qualify for individual episode so thought best adding it for now easily removed. as for the notes trust me i was trying to think should i remove it or keep i decided for now i am trying to get it into list format i will just keep it for now and then go back later and remove it. but i really appericate your comments :)--Andrewcrawford (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
For Yu-Gi-Oh! GX, the issue of size isn't solved by that kind of split. Part of the problem is the overly long plot, and it has some other issues that can be fixed without doing a full media split. I've asked at the A&M project for someone to adopt to get it back into shape for it follows the MoS. For the Extreme Homemaker over, very few television episodes of any series are notable enough to have their own episode. Best to presume they don't than to redlink and presume they do. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:07, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
That cools it be good to see it made better, basically i just done the lead in because someone previous tagged it say it needed, unfortunately my English aint great so i probably made it worse :( although i did say in the talk page plenty of times for someone to shorten the summaries and tidy them up but no one ever did :(. i have one issue will the project remove the first English air date which was the UK for quite a few episodes and replace them with American :( cause there was a lot of campaign to use first English air date.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 18:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
In general, the first English aired date should be noted, not the first American. Usually the first English = the First American, but not always. If there is a reliable source showing that the series aired in the UK before the US, it should be noted on the talk page and discussed. Other Wikipedia talk pages, however, are not reliable sources, hence those being removed during the cleaning. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:33, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
It was noted before the split so it if is rediscussed and note din the new talk page it be fine?--Andrewcrawford (talk) 07:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
As long as there are reliable sources to prove the dates, yes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Giannis Arabatzis

Thanks for the tip. I wont repeat it again in the future. Darth21 (talk) 15:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. :) Its also good to discuss article renames before implementing them, unless its to fix a spelling error or naming convention (and then that should be noted in the edit summary). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Riku

There is entry there that says:

  • Riku Sanjo (born 1964), Japanese mangaka konicha fou twa
What does "konicha fou twa" mean? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Umm...I have no idea...taking it backwards to kanji then running it through a translator comes up with zip so I'd remove it as nonsense. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to bother again

Are you doing the Fruits Basket on Wikiquote too?Mooncrest (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Nope, I don't edit on Wikiquote. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Really? That's a surprise. You are usually active in anime/manga articles and stuff. :) Mooncrest (talk) 20:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Can you help me with my userpage? It's really messy, especially the userboxes. Please and Thank you.Mooncrest (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

What would you like to do with it? Wikipedia:User Page Design Center can help you learn how to work with the design.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:38, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Report using WP:TW of 68.220.174.133

Before submitting a report, be sure that the user has been warned enough times. It seems that the history only indicates one warning. ——Mr. E. Sánchez Wanna know my story?/ Share yours with me! 01:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

All warnings are under his numerous other IPs. I can provide a record if needed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Tags on 3000 Leagues in Search of Mother

Hi AnmaFinotera! Please explain the cleanup and copyright tags you posted on the page. I'm not really sure what problems you're referring to. The only problem I can see is that 3 characters each have their own image, which is not necessarily a violation of policy, but goes against the spirit on WP:NONFREE. To that end, I will try to get one picture containing several characters at the same time. Other than that, please explain. -- Ynhockey (Talk) 08:28, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Clean up for not following WP:MOS-AM at all. The "crew" table is not appropriate. Relevant people should be mentioned in prose in a production section. The character section is missing the voice actors for each, and the individual images need to go. There is no media section at all. There needs to be one, with subsections for "Anime" — with the info including original airing, English licensing, and the theme info in prose form — and "Films" — discussing the two films, with the staff lists gone (wholly inappropriate - only major folks should be mentioned in prose form, not a indiscriminate list), and the image is completely unnecessary and violates WP:NONFREE. I think the lack of references is obvious as there isn't even one. :P Reliable references are a must for any article to get above start class. Hope that helps. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm attempting to merge several articles into one at navigation keys in relation to the AfD discussion at WASD keys. Please leave it alone. Haikupoet (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

That isn't the proper way to go about it. You need to make sure the article histories are being merged in to if you are just going to copy/paste the entire WASD keys article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
The plan is to convert the source articles into redirects, pending AfD. I will add links to the articles to make sure they don't get lost. Haikupoet (talk) 15:20, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
It isn't just a matter of them "getting lost" its following GFDL and not unnecessarily wiping out the entire history of all the articles. As the other editor also told you, at least one should be done as a straight move, with the rest merged in, and NONE of it should be done until the current AfD is done. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:19, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Wallflower

Did you do the wallflower episode list yet? I have added the rest of the names but not all of them.Mooncrest (talk) 15:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean the chapter list? No yet. Been a hectic week. I'll work on it today. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
There, its done. It still needs all of the Japanese names for the chapters (using {{nihongo}}), and the cover characters filled in. Also needs summaries, but that will take some time, and a list of the chapters serialized in Japan but not yet published in a volume. I'll work on the lead later today after running some errands and stuff. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you mind if I help out? I'll look for some summeries if I get the time to.Mooncrest (talk) 17:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

  • 76- love is a Mirage
  • 77- The way to become a domestic man
  • 78- The tale of the prince and the princess

Here ya go. Mooncrest (talk) 19:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to add the other chapter names. Summaries should not be "found" as that's a copyright violation. They need to be written using the volume. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Done! Mooncrest (talk) 00:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Millennium Snow

I'm going to help out with the article Millennium Snow so can you give me a anime/manga that gives me instructions to edit an article. And can you please help answer my question in the talk page of Millennium Snow. PLease and Thank you! Mooncrest (talk) 01:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:MOS-AM is the manual of style for anime and manga articles. Tokyo Mew Mew is a good article to use as an example as well (FA ready). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Blue Dragon

Have you heard any news about the plans to start Blue Dragon's anime page yet? Gears of War is thinking that all anime characters should have their own character page. Let me know on my talk page. Rtkat3 (talk) 7:33, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Kyo Kusanagi

A user added this source to put some poll. I reverted because it was a blog. Is it okay?Tintor2 (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, poll results from an unknown poll reported in a blog is not a reliable source. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Done the merge of the Rurouni Kenshin characters and Kenji Himura! It still needs some tags but I wanted to finish it already (I was really lazy). About the characters names, are we going to have a consensus or anything decide it.Tintor2 (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Ehhh.. AnmaFinotera?Tintor2 (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
To decide what about the names?-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
About changing the order of the name (example: Himura Kenshin to Kenshin Himura).Tintor2 (talk) 13:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh, consensus seemed to be to use the Japanese order. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
An anon user has been editing the Sagara Sano article and fixing the grammar on July 27. Is it better now?Could the tag be removed?Tintor2 (talk) 16:05, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
No. Though it is better, it still needs to be visited by a Wikipedia copyeditor who is familiar with our guidelines about tone, prose, style, etc. before it can go up for GA. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:15, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Plot at "Imprint"

I'm cool with taking the section down some more — I'm not happy with how long I left it, either — but I think we might want to aim for around 450 words rather than 350. MOSTV specifies that plots should be covered in 200–500 words, with upwards of 350 for complex plots. I'm thinking that 450 to 475 is what we should aim for, as the plot is fairly difficult to summarize in 350 words without losing important info. Sound fair? Mr. IP 《Defender of Open Editing》 18:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds fine. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Musing

Since we now have our first FL character list, I was wondering about our first FA character article. For the purposes of the Naruto characters, my initial suspicion is that Naruto Uzumaki or Sasuke Uchiha would be the only ones able to pass the bar at WP:FAC just in terms of depth (and I would probably do Sasuke because it's already a GA). My biggest problem is that I think the FAC reviewers will have a big problem with the "Background", "Plot overview", and "Appearances in other media" format, as it lends too much weight to the in-universe point of view, and was wondering whether the format should be adjusted to the "Appearances" section seen in like Cortana (Halo), Master Chief (Halo), Soma Cruz, Alucard (Castlevania), or similar. This could then be subdivided into sections like "Anime and manga", "Video games", "Films", "OVAs", etc. The "Background" section would then be moved into the general prose of the "Appearances" section (in volume X, Sasuke's past is expanded upon...). Then after getting someone to copy-edit to death (and copy-editors seem to be in very short supply nowadays), it probably would have a shot. Thoughts? sephiroth bcr (converse) 20:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...I guess I can see that. Maybe retool it to be closer to what the MoS has, which would bring Background and Plot overview into a single Outline section. Or take some inspiration from the TV MoS's character article section (though of the two, I think ours is better). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
Eh...I still prefer the video game characters format. Especially in long running shōnen series, a decent-sized "Personality" and "Abilities" section will always exist, and "Character outline" is more appropriate for that. Adding in "Plot overview" to that makes the section a bit bloated. IMO, I think "Appearances" is the way to go. Cortana (Halo) and Master Chief (Halo) passed FAC with this format, so go with what works. We're really obssessed with all these milestones for WP:ANIME, aren't we? :p sephiroth bcr (converse) 00:41, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm....I think those would work too, and probably better for our purposes and general content than the TV one. :) Yep indeedy :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Guild of Drama Adjudicators

Hello, I removed the speedy deletion notice in error. My apologies. It was left at a similar time to another note from Corensearchbot, and having addressed the concern of Corensearchbot, I removed what I thought was its notice. Is there somewhere I can see the reasons given for the speedy deletion of the article given the article has now been deleted?Kwib (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if you click its name you'll see the reason it was deleted in its deletion log[10]. It was deleting for being a copyright violation. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:42, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hometown Girl

I undid your redirect of Hometown Girl to Mary Chapin Carpenter. I've expanded the Hometown Girl page and added a source (the allmusic review from the infobox). It was on a major label and it's by an irrefutably notable artist, so I think it should be given the benefit of the doubt. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 16:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but that doesn't mean it currently meets WP:MUSIC. I've added a notability tag to encourage folks to expand it to include what makes it a notable album. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I've added a couple more sources. Do you think it looks better now? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 17:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Better than most anyway, though would be good to fix the Allmusic ref. Looks bad to say "go find the link in the infobox" :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

re:Extra care housing and others to look at

Thank you for pointing this out. I will take care of it. Jon513 (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Abtract

I was wondering, do you think there's enough information here to make another ANI case? He hasn't stopped tailing me, and is now "cleaning up" dab pages I have edited. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Probably, though may want to wait until JHunterJ returns from whatever break he is on to give him time to respond. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Sure is intimidating to see him at it again. Hope J returns soon. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Appears that J is back but he doesn't seem too happy. Wonder why? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
No idea. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Dragonball dubs

hello,

i have now made some notes about the other dubs with some sources, the movies i am still trying to find a relible source apart from amazon.

User:Andrewcrawford/test1

if you can let me know if it ok and if i cna add it, if there minor problems can you let me knowhwo to fix them, as i say the movies is not finished yet

Taking a quick look, all the sources all seem fine except for #2 (http://templeotrunks.com/media/lost_dub/index.html) which is a fansite and not an appropriate source. A few minor spelling, grammar, and neutrality issues, but those can be fixed when its put in the article. Also, the note at the end of the film section is unnecessary, since all the films have their own article. Hope that helps some. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:11, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
\ok thanks i will try track down another source for the frst dub of dragonball

the movies i was not sure where to put that bit so just made a section, would it be best to put that into the movies themself?Andrewcrawford (talk) 18:00, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, for those where it is applicable, that is best put there, making sure to state the facts neutrally :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


Son goku in other media

I'm afraid the change was not vandalism as you so eloquently put it. There is a discussion on Talk:Son Goku (Dragon Ball) that led to the change. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 20:43, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I didn't revert it as vandalism, though it was completely inappropriate and that discussion was badly done and only between two people. There is just no other wording for that template to get it CSD. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:45, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Gray Ark VS. Viz Media

I'm sorry to bother you, but I would like to notify you that a decision between using the Gray Ark fanbook spelling and the Viz Media translation for the characters of D.Gray-man will be going on at Talk:List of Black Order members and any input from you will be appreciated. Itzjustdrama (drama?) 21:51, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Responded (and not a bother) :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Request For Help (RFH)

Dear AnmaFinotera, I’m new to Wikipedia, Still I'm learning details, I want to add a request for validating the neutral point of view for user:Ragib, I traced his contributions, I don’t think he is presenting a neutral point of view, I'm not speaking about Makkah Learning Center, you know it will establish notability sooner or later. Can you please show me the official way of doing this?--Puttyschool (talk) 00:16, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you are asking. If his view is not neutral, the closing administrator is the one who will make that determination. Administrators are always watching the AfD discussions so if he was actin inappropriately someone one would say so. I don't see any signs that Ragib is being disruptive at all. He has correctly pointed out to your that your arguments for keep to not meet Wikipedia guidelines for notability, and the various pages where you can read these policies and guidelines. He has been an editor for over 4 years with no blocks to his name. Both of you are allowing your discussion to get very heated, however, and a I suggested in the AfD, I think it best if you both disengage from discussion with each other and stick let the AfD run its course. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I’m not speaking about this AFD, Wikipedia is not the place that will establish notability for a church or mosque or similars, they are notable by nature to each religion or group, and this what makes the discussion funny. My question is: If I can validate this using other contributions, what are the procedures?--Puttyschool (talk) 02:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
No, you can't and yes, Wikipedia is the place that will determine what it considers notable, nothing else. We have guidelines that have already been pointed out to you several times that determine if a topic is notable for inclusion here, irregardless of what notability they may have to someone else. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:37, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
nothing more, Best Regards--Puttyschool (talk) 11:46, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I was not changing your comment, I was showing In bold what I agreed upon, which is “Wikipedia determine if a topic is notable for inclusion in Wikipedia”, Sorry Again, BR--Puttyschool (talk) 14:14, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
No problem, its just better to state rather than edit someone else's comments. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Damian Hayes..

.. is deleted. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 01:08, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Did you merge the page history with Damian Haze (or was there nothing to merge)? It seems like its been split awhile? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:38, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Which tag?

I don't think Frankenstein's Monster (Marvel Comics) is ready for any reflist yet but another user disagreed. Can you look at it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

References is best with less than 10. Certainly no justification at all for using a two column reflist. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:25, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Abara

Concerning the Abara article, other that it being a stub why tag it for notability? From looking at Wikipedia:Notability_(books), wouldn't applying that make 99% of manga articles non-notable.... - Xedaf (talk) 04:30, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Most manga released here can easily meet WP:BOOKS. There is, however, also an exception for manga in WP:MOS-AM . Abara doesn't seem to meet either of them though, and it seems unlikely the article can be expanded to include sourced information on things like its creation/production, reception, etc. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Your probably right, Nihei's work seems to have the most popularity in European markets rather than in the US or Japan so not there's not much English coverage of his works. - Xedaf (talk) 22:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Tags

Hello,

I am just wondering where can i find a list of all the different tags that be put on a page to show up problems?

i mean like this one{{verylong}} i know a few others just looking fora full list

 — [Unsigned comment added by Andrewcrawford (talk • contribs) 16:48, August 13, 2008.]

You can find a pretty comprehensive list at Wikipedia:Template messages. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Viz template

I have just recently created a Viz Media template. It goes well with their pages, hope you like it. ; ) – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 22:44, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't think its really a necessary template since Viz only has published five, and of those, only three of those are notable. The other two need to be merged elsewhere. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:49, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
We can always add more to it. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 23:51, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Not really. Its also misnamed. It isn't about "Viz Media" its about its magazines. Anything else added would be excessive. A template of its releases would be excessive and undesirable and would be deleted as some others already have been. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Damian Hayes -- reply

Damian Haze never existed. Although I've done some deeper investigating and Damian Hayes (Degrassi) and Damien Hayes exist. I saw you restored Damien Haze from the redirect too, but http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071018/bio_degrassi_mazin_elsadig/20071018?s_name=degrassi2006&no_ads=sky spells it "Damian" with an A, and "Damian Hayes" gets a much bigger Google hit back than "Damian Haze" does. I think we have a "Damen Haze" article because when his name was first heard on the episode, someone created the article spelled as they heard it. I'm going to restore Damian Hayes for now, as I think the other three all need merging into that one. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 00:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

That sounds about right to me. I tried to change my initial CSD earlier to history merge, but probably messed it up. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:22, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Avatar (Avatar: The Last Airbender)

Is it common for one to template a redirect's talk page as "Redirect-Class"? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

No, the template should be removed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll do that from now on ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

B.O.D.Y. Notability Tag

See Talk:B.O.D.Y.#Notability_Tag --  R45  talk! 23:57, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Pelagie Doane

Let me get this straight....You remove the images from the article, and then tag them as orphans? Try putting them back in the article now that the fair use rationales have been filled in. You should have given the uploader a little time, as they appear to be novices and require a little hand-holding. Asher196 (talk) 04:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I removed them because they are non-free book covers being added to an author article, which is against WP:NONFREE, which I explained to them and he ignored and put them back. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Recbon

I've delivered a final warning. Let me know if he does that again (I'm busy off-wiki and might not notice), and I'll follow up on it. --Masamage ♫ 16:12, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Will do and thanks! :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Kunoichi (Samurai Warriors)

Does this one fail notability requirements? If so, what are the appropriate tags? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 17:26, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does. {{notability|Fiction|date=August 2008}}{{unreferenced|date=August 2008}} and maybe a merge suggestion to List of characters from Samurai Warriors. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:30, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I noticed in the page history that you removed the copyright tag placed by CorenSearchBot on the Robert E. Haebel article, noting that it was from a .mil site and properly cited. I appreciated it. — ERcheck (talk) 02:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

No prob :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:27, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Masters Of Horror

Could you please tell me where it says to not have track listings in main articles? I find that insanely hard to believe. -Violask81976 04:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

The only place tracklistings go are in album articles and some forms of discography articles. Otherwise its just trivial catalog information that wastes space. There is no specfic place saying "no tracklisting", but if you look at WP:MOSTV you will not see any section on tracklistings at all (or even soundtracks), nor will you find a tracklisting in the main article of any television series if the article is GA or FA. It just isn't done and such stuff is always removed as part of an article clean up. Feel free to ask at the TV project if you think it should be changed, but as a whole, its not a major aspect of most series.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:09, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Jump (magazine line)

On my sandbox, I just started making a page for the Jump (magazine line). You wanna help out? The link is here. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 23:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I just added the refs. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 17:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...the history section looks good, but I can't help but wonder if this would be better just put in Shueisha's article. Lord knows it could use some real content :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:32, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
I started thinking the exact same thing. But then I started thinking how big the article is going to get, and then I thought, "No". Anyway, Jump has it's own seperate history to it, it should not be in the Shueisha article. I've been working on the list, and it needs a few more refs. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 20:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
It wouldn't get that big, considering Shuisha's article has no real content now :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:31, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, with a Jump page, we can cover stuff that we can't on the Shueisha page. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 22:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Just so you know, some of the Jump magazines in the list are really, really obscure (e.g Hyper Jump, Quick Jump). My cousin is helping out a lot, he used to live in Japan, he knows every Jump magazine all the way back to the 70's. I've got most of my knowledge from him. I was planning on calling him on the phone to figure out the dates for QJ, and HJ, but he's trying to find and erest a prostitute on the internet.....enough said.... -_- – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 00:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I think the page is ready to be created. Comments? – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 23:52, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
I still think it would be best starting it in Shueisha and without all the tables. I could have sworn there was already a list of Jump titles somewhere. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:55, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Hm? Shueisha only has a few of em'. With a Jump page, it's easier to focus on Jump, plus, you don't realize how massive the Shueisha page will get. There's so much stuff needed on that page. Hipopo, Booknavi, s-Book, s-manga.net, S-Mens.Net, S-Woman's.Net, Shueisha blog, etc. + Jump? I strongly don't think that will work.... : ) – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 00:03, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Actually, none of that is needed on the page, but that's another whole issue. If they aren't published by Shueisha, not counting the foreign ones, how can they be considered part of the Jump line? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't get what you're trying to say. All the manga magazines on the list have been considered by Shueisha, "Jump" magazines. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 00:21, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Where is the source for that, though? :P (you know its all about the sources, sources!) *grin* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Sources, sources, sources, sources, sources, sources, sources! : ) It's on Shueisha's history, which I have used for sourcing page after page. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 00:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, what i've come down to is: We can start making the Shueisha page, keep the Jump page on my Sandbox, and see how long Shueisha gets. Does that seem reasonable? : ) – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 00:15, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
That sounds fine. I'd rather see us getting the major company articles in top shape than dealing with their specific lines anyway :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:15, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Yep, let's start building. (inside joke :P) – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 21:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

I also just recently made this article: Shōnen Book. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 18:45, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikibonked

The section "What does "wikibonked" mean?" is hilarious! Thank you for learning me the name of the disease I've been suffering from, from time to time. Popperipopp (talk) 09:46, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

*grin* Quite welome! There is a template you an use too {{bonked}}, if you want to note its occurance on your user page :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:39, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
Done and done! Popperipopp (talk) 20:11, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Good topics

See WP:GTOP. Basically, featured topics with a minimum bar of all GAs (with all lists at FL naturally). This might make for easier improvement drives with a more tangible result at the end. For instance, for the Naruto character articles, pushing them all to GA (although I would have to get List of Naruto antagonists to FL) would get something at the end. It might spur improvement drives from other editors as well. sephiroth bcr (converse) 21:15, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Glad to see the discussion about a possible GT moved forward, and the criteria is looking good so far. I hope you're right that it would help spur improvement drives. If we can get folks to take the first step, aim for GA, then aiming for FA is easier. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Peer Review request

Hey there. If you have the time could you take a look at Mother and Child Reunion (Degrassi: The Next Generation) for me? Yes, it's another Degrassi article! It's about the first episode in the series and it just became a Good Article. This is my first episode article and as it says at the peer review page, I'm a little concerned about plot length. Thank you. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 22:37, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll give it looking over today or tomorrow. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:13, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Ai Nagano

  • I removed the speedy tag because Ai Nagano played Cutey Honey, a fairly iconic anime character, in a revival of the franchise. I'd vote Keep in an AfD too, but it most likely would be successful... *shrugs* ^_^ JuJube (talk) 00:05, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Without reliable sources, just that one role isn't enough to establish notability per WP:BIO. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:07, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

A Carte Blanche on Case Closed#anime

Of course I don't own that article, but I give you two month's worth of Carte blanche to remove any material on Case Closed#anime that are unnecessary, or any material that you consider as written by people who are overly obsessive about the changes in the English adaption. For that, I would not revert any changes.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 00:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...I thought most of it already had been removed? *scratching head* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I think it's not removed yet. Also, check if the manga section goes on well-- and I don't suppose it needs urgent attention? It does not have erroneous or misleading information. --Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 01:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of my article

I don't like when my articles are tagged for deletion, because I end up obsessing over it, and when I lose an article on Wikipedia, I end up griefstricken, you know? I'm really worried now, because I have school tomorrow, and worst of all, sometime this week, my article on Ai Nagano may probably be deleted before I get home from school, and that will totally ruin my day! I'm totally not having a good day right now.Kitty53 (talk) 02:11, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay...but you've already been told numerous times that you need to make sure articles meet WP:BIO before making them, so it shouldn't be a surprise that they get nominated for deletion when they don't. I thought you had picked up a Wiki mentor to help you review articles in your user space to ensure they met the necessary notability requirements before creating them? From some of your recent creations, though, perhaps not?
Also, try to remember that they aren't "your" articles. You created them, yes, but we don't WP:OWN them. And you shouldn't take things personally, and certainly shouldn't be grief stricken over a deleted article. It happens. You learn from the mistakes and move on. It is part of learning how to be a good editor. That said, AfDs run for 7 days, so it is unlikely to be deleted before then so please go to school and concentrate on your studies instead of worrying over the article. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
On an additional note, I see Ursasapien has left Wiki for health reasons for awhile. I've asked around to see if someone might be able to step in and mentor you in his place, so you can have someone who can check articles for you before you create them, and continue helping you to learn about sourcing and notability. Hopefully not overstepping my bounds, but I know you are enthusiastic about editing and would like to see you get back on track :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, and I know I don't own the articles, but now you tagged a total of three articles that I created (including Kiyoshi Kawakubo, which I created today) for deletion, and that's even worse! For this reason, I am not going to sleep well. Worse, I am so upset, I wish I was dead!Kitty53 (talk) 02:31, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...you really need to work on not letting it upset you so much, and certainly not to that extent (may also want to be careful saying things like that, the admins take a very serious view of statements). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
All I'm saying is that I need cheering up.Kitty53 (talk) 02:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Response

Then I don't know what to do! I've had a bad day! I mean, I was having such a good day up until you showed up and had to tag 3 ARTICLES that I created for deletion, AnmaFinotera! I'd ask you to apologize, but I doubt you will. I guess I should spend the rest of my life being unhappy! By the way, when I said I wished I was dead, I meant it. I don't know what will cheer me up, so I have four words: I hate my life!Kitty53 (talk) 04:41, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I won't apologize because I haven't done anything that needs an apology. I am, however, very concerned about your extreme reaction to things, including your declaring you wish you were dead and that you hate your life. Perhaps you should get offline and talk with your parents about things? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Well, then why do I even listen to you?! Ursasapien has been gone for what feels like forever, you have not cared about a thing I said, you are the most apathetic Wikipedia user I have ever met! I have feelings, too!Kitty53 (talk) 05:13, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, I know. I guess Ursasapien's health problems were worse than he thought. While you may feel like I'm apathetic or that I'm picking on you, I am aware you have feelings and am concerned about you. I believe someone is going to help you out and take over mentoring you, since it seems like Ursasapien may not be coming back for awhile and they should be contacting you soon. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I get really emotional every time I'm about to lose an article! Why isn't there a Wikipedia center for users needing cheering up?!Kitty53 (talk) 05:16, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It may seem cold, but there isn't a center for users needing cheering up because, for the most part, this isn't a social network or the place for such things. Your friends and family who know and love you are the ones who you should turn to for cheering up as they are far more likely to be sincere in their efforts. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Does upsetting me in the process of tagging so many articles for deletion count as nothing that needs an apology?Kitty53 (talk) 05:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
It isn't not my fault you got upset, nor will I apologize for following Wikipedia guidelines and applying them, as I felt was appropriate. I am sorry you don't seem to be handling it well, but I stand by my tagging of those articles for deletion as I feel they fail WP:BIO. 05:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! Now I feel so much better!:)Kitty53 (talk) 05:29, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry I got mad at you, AnmaFinotera. Can you please forgive me?Kitty53 (talk) 05:43, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:46, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Thank you!Kitty53 (talk) 05:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Case Closed, not...

Editors on that page certainly knew about the name changes, etc., that happened on the English adaptations. What I wonder is that: since these changes are nearly evenly applied on media in which there are licensed English versions:

  1. Should this kind of information repeated in any applicable subsections in the media sections, or should a separate section be used for such purposes?
  2. Is a table showing the name changes in order?

--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 19:26, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

For the first, you mean beyond the series title change? If its just the series title, then it should be noted in the lead that it was known in Japan as Detective Conan, then all other instances should be using Case Closed. For the second, I'm guessing you mean character name changes? Is so, then no. That should be covered in the appropriate list of characters (which it is now, but badly). Otherwise, the official English names should be used in all other articles, but a table isn't necessary in the main. For your earlier question, I'll see if I can work on those sections tonight or during the week. The C key on my home computer is messed up, so working on Case Closed then would have been an exercise in frustration (as were my attempts to copy/paste anything). I have a replacement for it, though, and will get that installed tonight. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
For the first question, I refer to anything beyond the title change.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 20:15, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...usually in a case like that, the first section (manga in this case) gets the fuller sourced note about changes made. Then in subsequent changes, note that the English releases uses the changes made in the manga. Now, if they made different changes (different names, etc), then it would also get the fuller sourced notes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Although the original media might be manga, it was the anime which was first licensed and the first announcement for all the changes were made in the name of FUNimation, not Viz. BTW, why do you think the current dealing of the name issue in List of Case Closed characters was done badly? Also, the title change matter is now correctly reflected on the lead.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 20:21, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, in that case, maybe note the manga made the changes to reflect the earlier release of the anime adaptation? For the list, The table on the side clutters the page, and doesn't add much that the nihongo template can't already handle better and in a neater format that better follows our standard list structure and appearance. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:27, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
OK, I admit the table was my own creation; you may check Template:Case Closed names for my rationale. I modified that template upon Template:Infobox Korean name.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 20:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Article chopped down by 75%

Just curious: Why does FINRA, the equivalent organization in the U.S. get 1,000 words on Wikipedia when IIROC, the Canadian version, gets chopped down to a stub? I added a reference as you requested.

Please see FINRA link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FINRA


Cheers,

Pokey2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokey2009 (talk • contribs) 15:02, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

One has sources, the other does not. And FINRA doesn't use half stolen words from other websites, nor does it just use a bunch of advertising stuff. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

My feelings were hurt when I read the sarcastic comment in the IIROC history about the fact that I don't know how to do footnotes. I just joined this month. You asked for references so I tried to give you as many as I could as fast as I could, and I didn't even know where to look for the instructions on how to format them. Obviously I am a newbie and not familiar with how things work here so I don't think it's necessary to be so harsh. I am really trying my best here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokey2009 (talk • contribs) 16:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry if your feelings were hurt, but considering I'd already gone behind you and fixed three, it was a little frustrating to see you were not taking the time to study the changes I made to learn how to do it. To learn mre about citing, see WP:CITE, and for some specific citation templates that will likely be the ones you use the most often, see {{cite web}} (websites and the web versions of printed newspaper and journal articles) {{cite news}} (printed newspapers), {{cite book}} and {{cite journal}} (magazines and academic journals). More citation templates can be found at Wikipedia:Citation templates-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually DID try to figure out how to do the footnotes. I clicked on the edit link on the far right which correlates to the reference so I could see how to format it. But it showed <references> or something like that and then the whole section below that was blank. I didn't see the template anywhere. That's why I was mystified. How could I know that I had to go to WP:CITE? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokey2009 (talk • contribs) 16:44, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Use the article history to see the diff. The changes are made in the article text, not in the reference section.. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:46, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Will take a while to figure this out. In the meantime would you mind taking a look at my new entry under Advocis? I can't seem to get the citation right there either. Thanks. Pokey2009 (talk) 18:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Will fix those refs as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:16, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about the reversion to older version on Advocis; definitely an accident. Not sure what happened there. Was just trying to fix a date. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pokey2009 (talk • contribs) 14:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

GA pass

Thank you for your excellent work on Tokyo Mew Mew. I have now passed this article as a Good article, and updated the various talk page templates to reflect this.

That also means you get one of these:

This user helped promote Tokyo Mew Mew to good article status.


which you may like to place on your user page (or somewhere suitable) by copy/pasting {{User Good Article|Tokyo Mew Mew}} into the page code.

Great job - well done! EyeSerenetalk 17:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks! I'll keep working on that UK TV guide source :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Well deserved! I noticed you'd sorted out the AH; I hope you don't mind that I didn't bother (I normally leave that for the bots) ;) EyeSerenetalk 17:41, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Nah, I didn't mind. I forgot the bots will do it LOL -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, congrats on the pass. Now to nominate it for A class (or to deprecate A class forever);) G.A.S 17:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks and couldn't have done it without you. You get one of those badges to you know ;) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:49, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Oops, you're right! I've rectified my oversight - apologies. Please also pass one on to anyone else you feel is deserving ;) EyeSerenetalk 17:57, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Your efforts to delete Satgas Atbara

(Bringing this here, instead of continuing on Archangel1's talk page.) I am concerned about aspects of your work in regards to this article. First, you quote policy (WP:N) as a justification for trying to delete an article, and yet you failed to actually follow that policy. It says, under the section "Articles not satisfying the notability guidelines":

"If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself, or:

  • Ask the article's creator or an expert on the subject (from ref) Sometimes contacting the subject of a biography or the representative of a subject organization will yield independent source material. Of course we have to be careful to observe and evaluate independence. You might also see if there is a wikipedia project related to the topic, and ask for help there. for advice on where to look for sources.
  • Put the {{notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors. To place a dated tag, put a {{subst:dated|notability}} tag.
  • If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{expert-subject}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online."

You failed to do any of this. You instead tried to CSD (when this clearly didn't meet CSD criteria, as it asserted notability through the use of at least one source) which isn't anywhere in the policy instructions. Only when I intervened did you finally go to AfD, which according to WP:N is the last step you should try.

You also ran afoul of another policy, WP:DP. Under the section "reasons for deletion", there are three related reasons:

  • Articles which cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources, including neologisms and original theories and conclusions
  • Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed
  • Articles whose subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:BIO, WP:MUSIC, WP:CORP and so forth)

You didn't even try to find sources, and there was already at least one, so the first and second items don't apply, and you didn't follow the instructions in WP:N, so the article hadn't failed yet, and so you can't claim the third reason. Basically, you jumped the gun, were way too hasty in trying to delete rather than either trying to improve the article yourself or allowing others the time to improve it. I would expect that kind of work from a newbie, but not someone with your level of experience.

Further, the deletion policy says "If the page can be improved, this should be solved through regular editing, rather than deletion. A variety of tags can be added to articles to note the problem." Again, you didn't try, and you didn't allow others the opportunity to try. What this, and other guidance basically says is that deletion attempts, including AfD, isn't a means to be used to spur people to trying to improve an article.

After botching this policy stuff, you then assumed I was being non-neutral while preaching AGF, and with Archangel you strayed quite close to being downright uncivil. If you're going to accuse someone of being non-neutral, make sure you have good reason; just because someone has edited in that general genre doesn't mean that they are biased. My action as an admin (and there was actually only one of these, the declination of the speedy) was based on policy and policy alone: the article simply didn't meet the criteria. (Remember, an article only has to assert notability, not prove it, to be inelegible for CSD.) I would appreciate it if you would not assume bias, but instead actually show an effort to work with others and communicate. If you had concerns about the article, fine...follow policy, look for some sources yourself (remember, that line is in the policy) and/or tag it appropriately. If you had concerns about my actions, come to me and ask for an explanation on my talk page, find out if what I'm doing has a basis in policy or is only from bias. And lastly, please don't quote policy when you've failed to follow what it actually says. AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:52, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Um, you do remember that it was CSDed for copyvio, not anything to do with notability. And, no offense, but Archangel was being downright uncivil, including before you made the decision on the CSD, but I don't see you saying anything it to him. Of course, your own remarks in the AfD aren't too far form it either. Sorry, but that doesn't seem very neutral to me. And you removed one of my comments from AfD actually supporting you, though I am assuming that it was purely accidental. Of course, if I had known there already was another article, I'd have just done a redirect and that would have been that. I stand by my actions, regardless of your complaints. I still don't think its notable, but at least the real article for it has more than two copied lines and a bunch of ELs that mostly fail WP:EL. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Black Jack manga

I was wondering if you could take a look at my table at the bottom of List of Black Jack chapters. I just re-did the whole page to be just like the other manga list pages. However no printing of Black Jack is complete, every re-print is missing a couple of chapter. I decided to use this one since Osamu Tezuka put this order together just before he died and it will also be the version Vertical Inc. will be publishing here.

There are 11 chapters not collected in this version and I was having trouble trying to make a table the would tell people where these chapters were collected. Does it look ok, or does it need some other kind of formatting?

I'm also afraid people might convert this page back to what it was originally. The page has so much more information now and conforms with other manga lists. Grapeofdeath (talk) 11:20, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll add it to my watch list to watch for possible reverts. For the list, the header of the section needs rewording, but otherwise it looks okay except publication names should always be in italics. Other than that, the lead needs quite a bit of work and, per the general Wikipedia MoS, the see also should be above the refs :) I'm not familiar with the series myself, would summaries be possible at all, or are they fairly disjointed works? From the chapter list, it doesn't seem like there is a lot of flow from one to another? I can work on the lead for you, or if you want to give it a go I can point you to some chapter lists with good leads to use as examples. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:40, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I didn't work on the writing in the article, just the tables and lists. I think summaries could possibly be done, but most of the chapters are stand alone, but you probably guessed that. I just mostly wanted to know if I used the correct format for Chapters not collected in Akita Publishing Deluxe edition. I'm hoping once this manga is published here next month, people will help out with the page more. Grapeofdeath (talk) 02:55, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

North State Symphony

The content of this article is not verbatim from the source. I think it is a sufficient formulation/paraphrase of the critical facts about the topic. The topic is sufficiently notable as it is a regional symphony so that is not an issue. Be well, Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:COPYVIO and WP:COPYRIGHT to learn more about why the article was deleted and it was considered a copyright violation. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:11, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I have reviewed WP:COPYVIO. I have read and understood it before, as I have again today. The entire text of the article was paraphrased so as to leave not a single sentence the same. That is what a copyright protects.
If the text was originally: "The object shone brightly like the sun." the copyright does not protect the sentence "The object was shiny."
There are an infinite number of formulations of the idea of a shiny object. Only the verbatim text is protected. It seems to me that a notable topic has been deleted for no good reason.
Please, if my understanding is not correct, please lets clarify the policy. If it is correct, could you help save me some time and effort by restoring that article. I had nominated it for DYK, and I am a little frustrated at this action. Be well, Thank you. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 16:36, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Note that copyright law governs the creative expression of ideas, not the ideas or information themselves. Therefore, it is legal to read an encyclopedia article or other work, reformulate the concepts in your own words, and submit it to Wikipedia. However, it would still be unethical (but not illegal) to do so without citing the original as a reference. See plagiarism and fair use for discussions of how much reformulation is necessary in a general context.
Under this provision, it would seem that the article was perfectly appropriate, and that you have been oversensitive or just erring on the side of conservatism or whatever. The text did also cite the original reference as required. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 16:46, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I am not an admin, so I can't restore an article. I simply reviewed it and tagged it for deletion. An administrator the reviewed the CSD notice, reviewed the article, and reviewed the website link. In deleting the article, he agreed that the article was too close to the source material and therefore a copyright violation. When I reviewed the article, I found that only minor changes had been made to the sentences from the source, and this is copyright violation. The verbatim is no the only thing protected, but the basic sentence/paragraph structure. Ideas are not copyrighted, it is true, and because of that your example would be correct. That would be paraphrasing and appropriate. However the instances I saw were closer to changing "He was a great man who helped many people" to "Mr. Cooper was a great man who helped a lot of people." That would still be copyright infringement. Making only minor changes to the wording does not meet with our policies. Sources should be summaries and paraphrased rather than copied and slightly modified. Hopefully that helps clarify things some? ALso, please remember WP:CIVIL. Making a personal attack against me is not appropriate, and it was not a one person decision. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:50, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Holy Moly, If there is some "personal attack" you have perceived please explain that and accept my apology before I respond further. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 16:55, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
I partially misread the last part. I found the implication that I was being oversensitive seems a little insulting, though no worries as I read it wrong (read "have been" as "are being"). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
The example you gave would not be a copyright violation at all. So we basically disagree. Furthermore, unless you are an attorney, lets just leave it at that. I spend entirely too much time on these matters. You can do your own research on the North State Symphony. I'm done with it. Pontiff Greg Bard (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia policy, it would be, and that's the only part that matters. I have no desire to do any research on the topic, and like the deleting admin, I suspect it may fail notability guidelines and end up deleted again. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Ball: Origins

Can you take a look at it? The tags seem to be misplaced. Or do there have to be citations for the plot (like Spider-Man: Friend or Foe)? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

I believe, since it is an unreleased game, the tag is asking for a source for the how the game will be played and its similarity to the Legend of Zelda game. With the length of the article, though, I'd replace it with a simplier fact tag and remove the second sentence, which is a guess. I'd also move the refs out of the infobox and into the article proper. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)
Eh, never mind. Just wanted to know that for myself. Though do you want to watchlist it? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Future Trunks Merger

Hey, just thought I'd let you know that there's a heated discussion/survey here to have the Future Trunks article merged to Trunks (Dragon Ball). Your thoughts on this matter are welcome. Now to point out in advance, I realize I may have made some mistakes during said discussion due to mere misunderstanding, but now I feel that things are getting way out of hand on all ends. Sarujo (talk) 01:31, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Rajeev Masand

Very nice fix. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 02:45, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:50, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

And might yoube able respond to the article's author inre his comment at the AfD? It might have better left at the article's discussion page, but with your work on the article you are much beter qualified to answer his question than am I. Thanks much, Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:49, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Apology

I'm sorry for some copyright vio I've done in Southwestern University (Philippines), I admit I'm guilty, it won't happen again. Thanx for reminding me..

--TrueLicense909 (talk · contribs)-- 23 August 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion change de krant/de hollandse krant

The publication has recently been sold and its name changed. These were reflected by my changes and updates to its history. Your work and Orangemikes had essentially reversed the content of these pages to an incorrect state. Could you correct please? Thonich (talk) 23:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)

Your "work" was undone be cause it was not the appropriate way reflect such changes. We do not copy/paste articles to rename them. It violates Wikipedia's guidelines regarding GFDL contributions, effectively violating the rights of all editors who have edited the existing article. Instead, if an article name needs correcting, it is moved. Nothing in the article notes that the paper has been sold or that it uses a new name. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in the article reflects the changes to name and ownership of the paper, because the changes to the article that I made to reflect those changes have been undone. I am ever so sorry if I did not follow the proper protocol. I am not very active and do not know all the tricks and etiquette. What I do know about is the subject matter at hand. And the article as it now stands is incorrect in several substantial ways. All I am asking is if the modified text that I entered is still available somewhere, so that I do not have to rewrite it. If it not, I will re-enter it manually. I have now moved the article using the proper means, but will wait a day or so before updating it to make sure it does not get deleted again. Thonich (talk) 05:48, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The deleting admin could have restored it, but looks like you took care of it already. And no problem, it usually happens a few times a day. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No. This is still the outdated text. BTW, when you undo, you remove all changes, not just the offending ones. You did not only remove the references which according to you were not references (they were sources at least, which seems to me to be of more value than nothing at all) but you also deleted the link to the homepage of the publication and the references to the foreign language versions of wikipedia. Thonich (talk) 07:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The update the text. The "references" are not references because they do not say what they are sourcing and do not provide any useful information to identify what they are (books, journal articles), etc so that someone else could find the sources to confirm what they say. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

How to unmerge

Hi AnmaFinotera, I was thinking to give a character from List of characters in The King of Fighters series to give it an article since I found some reception and the page needs to be reduced a bit. However, I have no idea how to unmerge a page, I paid a look at Wikipedia: Merge but I couldnt find anything. Any idea? Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 02:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Basically you would make the article (though I'd recommend starting in your user space to make sure the character in question can support a full article). Then, you'd leave a summary on the page, add the {{main}} template above the summary to link to the secondary article, and good to go. In your edit summary, note that you split character x to new article name. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:21, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks^_^.Tintor2 (talk) 02:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Sean McGuire (fiddler)

Hello AnmaFinotera ... First of all, thx for noting that my edits were made in good faith. I appreciate that.

I'm a relative newbie here, although over the past year, I have made hundreds of minor edits at Wiki, and these have been reverted less than 1% of the time. Now, in two swift edits at this new Sean McGuire page I created yesterday, you have reverted all of the following:

  • changed the stub from Irish musician to Irish biographical
  • removed 2 categories: Irish violinists, Fiddlers
  • removed the reference I provided
  • removed EL: Bio by Ronan Nolan
  • removed EL: YouTube Videos

Questions:

1. Why did you revert and then add back, rather than simply editing the article? In so doing, I cannot tell which of the above items A: really needed to change, versus B: they changed by default due to your reverting and then adding back??? Like what would be the reason for changing the stub from the more narrow term "musician" to broader term "biographical"? Also, why would the 2 categories "Irish violinists" and "Fiddlers" be removed when this article obviously belongs in both of these categories? It kind of looks like all this just changed accidentally because you reverted, and then were not careful in being sure to add back. ???????

1A. Actually, in your last edit at 00:16, 23 August 2008, you mentioned "add back the appropriate cats". So does this mean you felt that Irish violinists and Fiddlers are inappropriate? If so, why?

2. You left me a message on my talk page about not adding inapp. EL's. I skimmed the referenced pages, and do not understand why "Bio by Ronan Nolan" and "YouTube Videos" violate wiki policies. These pages in no way that I can see are "links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product". Seems to me they simply allow a reader to learn more about Mr McGuire. They also provide info that could be used by a future editor to expand this stub. You also referenced Wikipedia:Spam, which I looked at. Once again, I do not understand why these two EL's would be considered spam.

3. You killed the ref. I provided to show where I found support for the contents of the single sentence I wrote to get this article started. Admittedly this ref. webpage is not a news article or book, but isn't it better than nothing, until something more substantial can be provided? By removing the reference completely, it makes the article look less authoritative, not more. With no reference at all, it looks like my one sentence article could be a total fabrication!

4. If you look at the original page I created at 11:42, 22 August 2008, you will see a pile of text I copied from a YouTube page. I presumed the YouTube-er wrote this text. So I copied it over, hoping to establish a presence at Wiki for Mr McGuire. Little did I know that that YouTube-er had herself copied this text from yet another webpage! So a minute after I saved, the CorenSearchBot tagged the article and provided the link to the original page: http://www.iol.ie/~ronolan/maguire.html (of whose existence, I was totally unaware of at page creation time). OK ... so I figured the way to resolve this was to simply delete the possibly copyrighted material, and provide it as a reference instead, which is what I did. With limited time available, and wanting to get the article kick-started, what would have been a better alternative?

5. What was it about the Ken Perlman interview that passed muster as a valid EL, versus the other 2 you did not add back?

6. In your edit at 00:13, 23 August 2008, you wrote: "Reverted good faith edits by Htfiddler; Rv; links are not appropriate nor is the removal of the stub templates. using TW". So what does Rv; mean? While I did remove the Irish biographical template, I replaced it with the Irish musician template. Was this wrong? What was I supposed to do? ... leave yours and add a second stub template? I could have done that but it sure seems like overkill to have 2 stub templates. Isn't the narrow and more descriptive term "musician" preferable to the broader "biographical"?

7. Is it more appropriate for this sort of discussion to appear here on your Talk page, or perhaps on my Talk page where you already posted a couple of items, or on the article's Talk page? There are so many talk pages ... it gets confusing where to talk, and actually I think this is the very first time I am even finding the need to use one.

---

As a newbie, I'm sure I could have spent many hours trying to make this new stub perfect. But even putting up this tiny stub took more time than I really had to spare, although I admit it is turning out to be a good learning experience. I thought it was better having something on Wiki rather than nothing. I also thought that the nature of the Community here is that more experienced editors work to improve articles on behalf of us less-experienced folks. It looks to me like you are doing a great job of editing articles to conform to the "letter of the law at Wikipedia". But how does this help the end users of Wiki? Isn't that the point of all this work ... to provide information to the readers? The net result of your reverting and re-adding is that end users have much less info about Mr McGuire than they had when I finished at 20:52, 22 August 2008.

So can you help me to lead end users to a page that conforms to Wiki policies, AND contains the same informative content that was present in my 20:52, 22 August 2008 edit? And/or, can you please re-add to this article those items that inadvertently got deleted by your 00:13, 23 August 2008 revert?

Thank you kindly for your edits, diligence here at Wikipedia, and help in answering my questions.

Htfiddler (talk) 07:43, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Need help/advice

Please read this. The deeper I dig into this the more fraud I come upon. There must be 50 or more different articles created that in fact have no source, no support, no verifiability... in what appears to be a grand machination of Wiki to create a hoax. Every time I check one user's contributions I find more and more. Sockpuppets? Meatpuppets? I am out of my league as there are a slew of interconnected articles all built on the house of cards. Every contribution by User:Sharan.kapoor, User:Kapoorsharan, User:Durgamaatelefilms, and User:Karanbt, is suspect... and there are a whole slew of anonymous IP's involved. Every time I peel back a layer I find more and more. Help! Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Here is a list of the articles I have uncovered so far: Durga Maa Telefilms, Sharan Kapoor, Shaadi Ke Rang, Kutch To Huwa Hain, Khwaabh, Khushiya Ya Dhukhiya Koi Tumsa Nahiin, Kabhi Andhera Kabhie Ujala (TV Series), Kkangana, Kath Bandhan, Kyaa Dill Chatha Hai, Kismet Kaa Khell, Kamzori Zindagi Se, Kashish Khamoshiyon, Kabhi Naa Kabhie, Khamoshiyon, Kadambarii, Khwaishon, Kkangana.... many of the articles listed at Durga Maa Telefilms. How does one do a mass AfD? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:20, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ewwwwwwwwwwww....for something that massive, I'd recommend starting with an AN/I report. For a major disruption like that, admins who can just bulk delete might be the best starting point. If they say go to AfD, though, you'd do it the same as any other multiple one, it would just be really really big. You may want to make the list in a text file before starting. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
It was put to Massive AfD while I slept. Bless you folks. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

re Recbon (talk · contribs)

Thanks for your message. I note that Recbon has been blocked for a week by another admin. I am uncertain if this will result in better interactions, or is just a stop on the way for an indef block. We shall see. Whilst commenting, I would gently suggest that you don't edit war over warnings on another editors page - by blanking the warning the editor presumed to have read it, and it remains in the history when an admin takes a look. By reverting the blanking it might appear that you are harassing the editor, and it is far better to take the moral high ground in matters such as these. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Yep he has. I didn't revert his blanking, did I? Don't think I did unless it was by accident while reverting his vandalisms to the various Dragon Ball pages. I know one can blank his user page, so I just noted that it was his reaction while reporting it.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:07, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

World Embryo

Can you fix it up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonsblast (talk • contribs) 02:20, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Wow...that one is bad. I've tagged it for needing project attention, but I'm not familiar enough with it to really go much more than basic stuff. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:37, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for setting it up, I'm going to create a characther age and add in the information that has been deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonsblast (talk • contribs) 07:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

We don't create character pages automatically for all series. The series is only four volumes long. It does not warrant a character page, nor such extensive information. Alas, you did not wait for my reply before going ahead and making the list, so I have redirected it back to World Embryo. Feel free to userfy it if you want to work on it over time, but right now, its unnecessary and very excessive plot information. If, in my cleaning, I removed an actual major character, feel free to readd them to the main article with cleaned up summaries. (if you don't know how to put a copy in your userspace, let me know and I'll do it for you). As a side note, "Don't delete this page, I'll work it up to wiki's standard once I learn how >_o" is not an appropriate edit summary for creating a page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

A plea from WikiProject Media franchises coordinator

Dear AnmaFinotera...I am writing today to ask for your participation in WikiProject Media franchises. You seem to have some interest in it, since you took the time to stop by and discuss the naming convention. It is just Emperor and me at the moment, and we could really use some additional editors to help us get articles identified as ones for the projects attention and assessed as such or written from scratch. Even if your only involvement is to keep an eye on what we are doing as a liaison from another project, that would be extremely helpful. I do not know everything there is to know about all the naming conventions, infoboxes, etc from the other projects, so I would love to have a core group of editors to help me coordinate this better. So, if you are willing to spend a little time with this project and help me figure out just how far and wide this project could, should, or would be; I would be extremely grateful.

Thank you. LA (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 07:44, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, but I'm not very interested in the project at all. I only joined in the naming convention discussion because I strongly disapproved of the idea of this project trying to circumvent or take over existing conventions. I honestly don't think the franchise project is necessary at all. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:54, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Magazine project

Is the magazine workgroup that I proposed....created? I though I saw a link on Dinoguy's page. :D – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 17:04, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

No. That is the anime and manga magazine archive at Wikipedia:WikiProject Anime and manga/Magazines. Members list which RS magazines we have issues of that might be useful sources to others. We also have a book library with a similar thing. :) And no, the workgroup was never created. Not enough people responded one way or another :( Maybe once we can get Shojo Beat and Shonen Jump copyedited and, hopefully, to GA, it will spur more interest. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
That's odd, it had the exact same name... :P Simple mistake. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 17:45, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Not quite, your task force name would have just been Magazine taskforce, I believe, while this is the magazine archive. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
You're right. : ) By the way, I was just helping Hamuhamu on the List of series run in Comic Champ, although she's been gone for a while. : ( In the meantime, I will be working on Shonen Book. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 17:56, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Hello? – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 05:33, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Um...hello? :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Wanna help out on Shonen Book, I think it needs some work. I'm still making it though. : ) – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 15:59, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Please clean up this page

Majin Tantei Nōgami Neuro —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonsblast (talk • contribs) 07:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

I tagged it as needing attention. I don't have the time to clean every last one of our articles ;) (and alas, far too many of them really need it). I will leave a note at the project page about both though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:48, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me, why was the main characters page de-linked and deleted? It had a lot of information and there was a sufficient number of volumes to support it. I was looking at the Ichigo Kurosaki page and they did not seem to be any faults in Nogami Neuro's page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonsblast (talk • contribs) 03:56, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Ichigo Kurosaki is a notable character with reliable, third party sourcing, creation/conception info, and reception info. Nogami Neuro is not notable at all. Number of volumes have nothing to do with it. The character must have significant coverage in third-party reliable sources, not just be in a lot of volumes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, can I at least somehow get back that lost information in that other page and compress it onto Neuro's information. Cause I don't know how to get back that info. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonsblast (talk • contribs) 22:25, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Sure, just go to the article's history. Here is the version before the redirect [11]. You may find it helpful to look at some the project's GA and FA level series articles to get an idea of how it should be formed and how to write up an in-article character list, and maybe some project rated Bs. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:41, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't know if you're aware but...

Consensus has been reached as to the fate of auto-formatting dates, and now, per MOS:SYL: The autoformatting of dates is no longer encouraged and should generally not be used in articles unless there is good reason to do so. Just a heads up; I'll be checking the guidelines under WP:ANIME for any inconsistencies, though I'm not sure if the issue should be brought up at WT:MOS-ANIME or not. Further reading can be seen at this notice where a script is also available to make the task of delinking full dates easier (but we'd also have to check for consistency of date formatting in the article too, as the notice states, among the other things in line with WP:DATE).--十八 07:38, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it had started coming up in some FA/GAs, so I started removing them. I think, if I remember correctly, that it should still be done in infoboxes and tables, though, right? (and, of course, refs are a separate thing). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
I doubt if we're removing them from the article that we shouldn't also remove them from infoboxes and tables, especially if we're also removing them from references. And actually, they were removed from Key Sounds Label just recently, and that article has a large table.--十八 22:17, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, they shouldn't be removed from references. That's part of the reference standardization and built into the citation templates. I haven't seen any projects talk about removing them from infoboxes. Tokyo Mew Mew had them removed as part of the copyedit for GA, and the CE left them in the infobox and references. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:44, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I was getting confused about the references. But I'm still skeptical about the infobox usage. If those are kept, won't that incite new users not knowledgeable about MOS:SYL to either remove them for consistency within the article, or start adding them to dates in the article?--十八 00:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Maybe, though so far it hasn't been a huge issue. Though someone did go back and relink the dates in D.N.Angel. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:16, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Referencing Case Closed

Hello, for the Case Closed page, it says the claims need to be verified. Can you give me a summary of what needs to be refed? Like do I need to ref the names, to prove that is the actual names, ref every single plot or something. Also is there a guide all different sorts of reference? I only know how to make references to books, not websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonsblast (talk • contribs) 04:15, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Citation templates for the various citation templates, or look at some other high end articles to see how its done there (such as Tokyo Mew Mew, our most recent GA). The plot summary in the plot section does not need referencing. Everything else in the article itself must be referenced with reliable sources. The lead, however, should not need referencing as it should be a summary of the article. Ditto the infobox. That said, the issue with the Case Closed article is not so much of a need to verify claims, but to make sure the claims are not people's personal opinions and personal interpretations, and that sources cited actually back up the claims in the article. I think much of the OR may have already been removed during recent clean up edits, though should be checked over to be sure. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you do the referencing for the movies? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonsblast (talk • contribs) 04:22, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

AFDs

If you are going to AFD all these magazines, I propose you WP:BUNDLE them to save time and effort and my keyboard (mainly CTRL-V). --triwbe (talk) 14:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

That's all the ones he's deprodded for now. *sigh* He has, however, copied dozens from that site, right down to taking the images and claiming them as GFDL. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
The site is GFDL I think. But the WP:N and WP:ISNOT needs to be seen. But if you do one you will have to do them all and bundling them will make life easier. --triwbe (talk) 15:27, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
It is GFDL, but yeah, so far only one or two have been ones that "may" meet WP:N, and both of those are people articles rather than mag ones. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:20, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Beyblade

Hay i thought i mention it, this article needs some attention form the anime group :) i have already tagged it a little but i rather suspect ti will require more tags i have also tagged the other separate very small articles for merging.--Andrewcrawford (talk) 15:06, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I added the project attention tag to the talk page as well. It needs a lot of work :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Computational forensics - Copyright issues

My last changes ( computer vs. computational forensics) and the external references and links do not conflict with the copyright laws. Why was is removed than? Please not that the paragraph on computer vs. computational forensics is not in the IEEE paper you mentioned, and according to Wiki guidelines I'm allowed to give references to external web pages. So, what is the matter with this latest changes? Please, advice me.

As the current explanation of the term "Computational Forensics" is not sufficient, what do you advice us to do? Rephrasing everything? Please note that I'm the main author of the original paper and the wiki entry. Why can I not publish than?

Many thanks for your assistance! KyF Coreyrfreeman (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

All of that text was taken from various papers. I did find them all, hence their being removed. You can't prove you are the original author of all of those papers nor is Wikipedia the place to publish your personal papers and research. We aren't a personal web host. And no, you can't just add any external links. WP:EL - no Yahoo/Google groups, not user groups, and no conferences that change URls every year. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Ok, I get the point on the Google groups and the conferences. BUT, I do not agree with you on the discussion on Computer vs. Computational forensics is NOT taken from: http://www.utica.edu/academic/institutes/ecii/publications/articles/B4A6A102-A93D-85B1-96C575D5E35F3764.pdf I see the article the first time today. All text is authored be myself, including web pages and IEEE papers you mention. BUT, this is not a ego trip where I want to promote my own research. We try to define an emerging research domain. My private is not published in wiki. Coreyrfreeman (talk) 16:10, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but it is word for word from other articles. And whiel you may not consider it an ego trip, you are in essence doing nothing but republishing your own writing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I considered a definition as a definition. Rewording just to reword is not always useful. Wiki is supposed to reach a wider audience while IEEE CS is only for a small community and hardly accessible by forensic scientists. Anyway, we will try to rephrase. -- Coreyrfreeman (talk) 16:38, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Read WP:COPYRIGHT, WP:NONFREE, WP:CITE, and WP:NOT. Perhaps it will help clarify things. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:04, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Majin Tantei Nōgami Neuro

Really, thank you for your all help on the Neuro article. I very much appreciate it. Myominane (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

No problem. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Bambi

Thanks for the rewrite. I was trying to avoid copyvio, but the words in the article were pretty close to any way I could paraphrase it. :) -Verdatum (talk) 01:59, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

No prob. It was interesting to learn about that :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:03, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

The Vision of Escaflowne

About that, doesn't Madman Entertainment also own the rights to the anime? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Good question. The anime section is incomplete, I think, so article didn't mention it. I just put in the ones I saw (didn't think to check infoboxes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:04, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Hello, I see you are a great aid to the effort of making the anime section of wikkipedia a better one, you certainly are active. Are you an admin? I mean you should be considering your number of edits :p (30000?) Anyways, my congratulations and good luck. Cristian Cappiello (talk) 18:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks :) And no, not an admin. I tend to get a little to annoyed with vandals and overly pushy fans to be a good admin ;) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:15, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Mycitycollege

Could you take a look? --Orange Mike | Talk 19:54, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Sailor Moon vandal

FYI, since you've reverted almost all of the blankings, I've protected the Sailor Moon article for two weeks. I wonder what their problem is with that paragraph. --Masamage ♫ 22:55, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and Good question. The sourcing is good and all, right? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:58, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I think so? It's sourced to an article in "The Guide," reprinted on their own website. Apparently this is a fairly established gay magazine, but I'm having trouble learning much about how significant a magazine it is. The website is kind of not-safe-for-work (and I work from home o_O). Anyway, the fact itself is an interesting tidbit and therefore nice to have... Maybe we can figure out who first added the statement and ask them. --Masamage ♫ 03:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Regent Communications and Image:Regent logo.gif

Thank you for noticing the problem with Image:Regent logo.gif, which is supposed to be the logo for Regent University. I don't think it was vandalism, though, but rather a mistake in good faith by the uploader who wanted to use the logo in Regent Communications. I haven't changed Image:Regent logo.gif (it is still the university's logo), but I have uploaded the Regent Communications logo with a new name, Image:Regent Communications Logo 189.gif and added it to the Regent Communications article. --Eastmain (talk) 02:00, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I might have agreed, if he hadn't blanked the note I left him then did it again. He seemed to not care at all that he was replacing another logo. Hopefully with it uploaded under a new name and put in the article, that will take care of the issue. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Impersonated on WT:RFA

Troll alert. [12] bibliomaniac15 03:37, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, how lovely. Glad he was blocked quick. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict on Speedy on City College Orlando

I am explaining to the user how to assert the necessary licensing, see the article talk page,via a link to our Business FAQ. You can put a copyright problems tag on meanwhile if you like, but don't replace a speedy tag I remove. (In fact, i've been more of less rewriting it anyway as I usually do--this avoids the need to even temporarily blank the page or even tag it; since it is in any case wrong, per deletion policy, to delete copyvios that could be stubbified--I do that when i don't have time to rewrite and the subject deserves an article. Please do not replace speedy tags i remove; if you think I am not handling something right, you can instead ask me about it. I see that meanwhile you were offering other appropriate advice to the user--so I suppose this is more of an edit conflict than anything else. DGG (talk) 14:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

I originally was just going to redirect it to the new article, but the other was already deleted so I figured it should just be done the same, then recreate as a redirect if necessary. I don't think the school is notable enough to need to articles. It was a struggle in writing the new one to even find more than the few non-primary sources that I did. I see Mycitycollege has asked that it be deleted, though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Your approach of starting a new article, which I had not seen due to the edit conflicts at the time i wrote my comment, was equally good--I have sometime done the same. Now the ed can choose which approach to follow, and I hope we have not confused him excessively.DGG (talk) 15:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
They seem to understand they shouldn't edit any of the articles due to the clear COI. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
What are your thoughts on the merge? There really isn't much more to say about the Orlando campus than what's already in the Florida article, except a little about the campus. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:48, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I would support a merge--I have the same feeling that there will not be enough material, and in particularly not sufficient notable alumni--I'll post on the relevant talk page to that effect, and do go ahead accordingly. DGG (talk) 16:28, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Gaba Kawa

I have nominated Gaba Kawa, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gaba Kawa. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

...Did you just serve yourself an AFD notice?? :D --Masamage ♫ 18:42, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
LOL, the irony that Twinkle can't recognize the nominator is the article creator :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

List of Earthlings in Dragon Ball

There anything which strikes you as strange here? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean besides the lack of a lead and the right aligned menu which I absolutely hate? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:51, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, what happened to it? Or was there never a lead to begin with? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 22:55, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Once upon a time, it looks like it at least had a sentence. Tracing back to see when it vanished. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:57, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Found it. It was removed April 10th by vandal[13], but the admin who came behind him to fix didn't undo it. Instead, they just deleted the replaced text.[14] *doh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Uh, hate it when that happens. Think it's partly because I'm the only person watching these character lists. You don't mind adding them to your watchlist do you? It's understandable if you already have too much on your plate. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:11, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I think I had this one on my list already, but I put it on after that happened. I think I have some of the others on there already. My watchlist has grown back to 1900+ thanks to all the Bleach ones too :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Heh, that's all you have? There are 2,223 pages on mine, and most of these are disambiguations I like ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
LOL, its only that low cause every other month or so I go on a mass purging. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:39, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you take a glance at Samus Aran's reflist? I forgot how many references there have to be in order to change it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 19:28, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Usually 10 to go from references to reflist, 20 for 2 col. So that one looks fine. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:54, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I'll remember that from now on. How do I know when to use 3 or more? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:01, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
From some of the discussions I've seen in the reference areas, it seems to be never. They have even talked about disabling it all together. For me personally, maybe if there are more than 100-200. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:20, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Mysterious Cities of Gold

Hi, I think you were the user who had tagged the Mysterious Cities of Gold article with multiple issues. Do you think they have been resolved yet? I was going to remove the "fan site" tag as it seemed like a reasonable wikipedia article as it now stands. Alastairward (talk) 11:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did, and no, I do not think they have been resolved at all. It is isn't much better from the last time I looked at it. WP:MOS-TV for ways to fix it. I'd start with that horribly bulleted, overly long plot and cut it down to an appropriate length, and the characters as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Abstract

Got it - no problem. Thanks! UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:14, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I saw three pages, and deleted them; Please ping me if there are any I missed. Thanks, UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 14:16, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that was all he'd done. He'd done one of his articles too, but then reversed it after I came behind to put on the appropriate CSD tags. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

SCIO

I do understand the problems. The tests themselves are different articles from the one on the company, and not directly promotional, and might make equally valid articles as for other academic tests. As for the company, it needs rewriting, but Im not sure about deletion. I declined the speedies involved. I recognize there are no fixed standards for G11. In view of that, perhaps it would be fairer to remove it from the speedy criteria? There are undoubted cases, tho, but it isn'tt hat easy to specific in words how to select just which they are. DGG (talk) 16:02, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

For some of those tests, he made three copies of the same article. The person who wrote them all, Bohumil Kartous , copied them all from the SCIO website, and appears to either be its webmaster or otherwise employed by the company (as by his own admission[15]). Additionally, the Test of General Academic Prerequisites, appears to be a component of the National Comparative Exams, which shouldn't warrant an entire second article, anymore than we should individual articles for each test of the SAT (though I see, horrifyingly, that some of the SAT tests do have them *doh*). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:13, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Shojo Beat

Hey C-onian, I did a very brief CE on Shojo Beat, mostly very minor things, some commas, some new sentence structures, some wikilinking. The article actually flows and reads very well (and I have no idea what the article is actually about, truthfully). I learned some new stuff today! Also, I removed the CE tag, other than checking the refs for accuracy, etc, I don't see much else to do other than expand the circulation/reception section (I added {{expandsection}} there). The circ. numbers/refs look fine, but there is nothing for "reception". Has the mag been reviewed itself? Just a thought as to where it can perhaps be made more thorough. Nice work overall though, kudos. I'll keep my eye on it, let me know when you are thinking GA or whatever, I'll do another run through on it at that time. Kudos -- Keeper ǀ 76 15:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Much appreciated. I did remove the expand tag mostly because what is there is about all is there. :( Considering it is the sister pub of Shonen Jump, you'd think it would get some reviews. I'll give another search, though, before I send for GA, just to make sure I haven't missed anything. Meanwhile, I also am looking at putting that SJ article up for GA, if you want to give it a run through as well. :) That one I'll nominate as soon as its CE is done. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:22, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

In response to the warning on my talk:

I understand what you are trying to tell me on my talk page and I appreciate you and any other admins of Wikipedia that tell me when I do something wrong, so that I may avoid doing it again. However, I don't see how I could have added copyrighted material to the article on Bambi; I went back and checked my contributions, but all I remember doing is changing or correcting spelling on 1 or 2 words. I was just wondering how this could be considered copyright violation, or if you're referring to a different edit I may have made. MarioLOA (talk) 15:19, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, wow, I'm very sorry. That warning should have gone to Verdatum, who added the section on the copyright info. I was doing so much at once, I must have accidentally hit your name when I went to leave it. I've removed the warning from your page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:26, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Escaflowne Episode Listing

AnmaFinotera, I appreciate the fact that you're trying to keep things properly sourced and referenced here. The problem is that when a source is wrong, or when someone misinterprets what a source says, that can cause statements that are completely inaccurate, and thats whats happening with both of the Escaflowne subjects we are fighting over. Is it better to have a reference for something that is wrong, and hence have a statement on wikipedia that is incorrect, or is it better to not have a reference listed but have a statement on wikipedia that is correct?

First, Mystic Eyes does not appear in the final episode. 'The Story of Escaflowne' is used as an ending theme. I just put the official Bandai DVD in my DVD player and rewatched the final few minutes of the final episode as confirmation to this. It is a tradition of the show's creators to replace the ending theme in the final episode, which is what they also did in Cowboy Bebop and other shows. Watch it. You'll see that I'm right. Don't act on memory, do what I have done and watch the last few minutes of the final episode again. AnimeNewsNetwork does not say in any form that Mystic Eyes is used for episode 26. It simply lists it as the overall ending theme because thats what it is for every episode but the last. Tell me, why does this encyclopedia article state that the opening theme is not used in the first episode when AnimeNewsNetwork does not state that? The Anime Encyclopedia correctly states that the opening theme is absent in the first episode, but AnimeNewsNetwork contains contradicting information (at least using the basis that you're using to state that Mystic Eyes is used for all 26 episodes) so it doesn't make sense to me that we ignore the actual content of the show based on a very vague and easy to misinterpret line on ANN.

Second, not all of Yoko Kanno's themes were removed from the Fox version so it is incorrect to state or imply that all of them were removed which is what the article does. Certain songs remained, while others were shifted around and used frequently, like Dance of Curse. I can say this because I went through each episode in extreme detail years ago when I ran my Escaflowne site and documented the numerous instances where Kanno music was used, which is still kept on my hard drive and can be found through the Web Archive (for example here: http://web.archive.org/web/20041215110540/www.escaflowneonline.com/edited/edited6.shtml). Check out this site for another discussion of Kanno songs being used in the fox version: http://www.geocities.com/TelevisionCity/Taping/6785/esca.html. Anime Encyclopedia, one of your sources states that Kanno's music was "torn out", but sorry, that's an inaccurate statement. Just like the statement in that book that 10 episodes aired, it was 9. Or the statement that Van was disinherited, he was not, he was king of Fanelia in the second episode! Or that "on the Mystic Moon Earth girls are respected and feared for their sorcerous powers" which makes no sense to me as Hitomi was pretty much the only Earth girl there (aside from her Grandmother who appeared in two episodes and only to one person). That book contains numerous errors and at times should not be completely relied upon as a source. That's not to say that it can't at times be used as one, but its clear that because the authors have watched so much stuff their memory isn't at the top of their game for everything, resulting in many inaccurate statements, which is not exclusive to Escaflowne, but is the case for many animes covered in that book. I don't own the other book used as the reference so I can't argue against what it says at this time.

I have no desire to get into a big fight with you, or post inaccurate non-sourced material on Wikipedia. The problem is that the items used as sources on Wikipedia are not always correct and sometimes can be misinterpreted. My priority on Wikipedia is to make sure that statements are accurate first, and sourced second. Quiddity99 (talk) 17:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Quiddity99

Fansites are NOT reliable sources. And whether you like it or not, your priority isn't important. Wikipedia's priority IS sourced statements, not personal beliefs. It is better to have sourced statements from reliable sources. Again read WP:V and WP:RS. There are other things on Wikipedia I "know" are wrong, but without a reliable source, you don't go changing it. I do appreciate that you have not reverted again. I will go find my box set (I just moved so all my DVDs are still packed), and will double check the final episode. However, as I have not found a single source mentioning a second ending theme, I suspect I will find what I already believe is correct, that the same ending is used for all the episodes. I will appreciate it if you continue to avoid reverting again, and hopefully you'll appreciate my checking the song.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
And what if the source isn't reliable? Thats going to be a problem if you're going to rely so much on a source like the Anime Encyclopedia that has blatant mistakes in it. As far as I'm concerned, if a source has incorrect information in it, then it is not a reliable source and hence should not be used to post incorrect information on wikipedia. My issue with using ANN as a reliable source to state that Mystic Eyes is used in ep 26 is discussed by me already above. Out of respect for you I will not make the revert and will give you time to do what I have already done, rewatch the last part of the final episode. In addition, there is no need for me to make the revert now because I'm sure you will be doing it yourself once you watch the final episode and realize that you were wrong. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. Quiddity99 (talk) 23:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)Quiddity99
Find other reliable sources that completely discredit it, or other reliable sources that disagree with it. I've found the occasional minor mistaken in the Encyclopedia, but where that was discovered and supported by other reliable sources. However, that text is not soley sourced by Anime Encyclopedia, but also Anime Explosion, which is also a reliable source. And thank you, regarding the revert. I need to run some errands before the stores close, but I will check it tonight. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:45, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately I do not own Anime Explosion so I cannot discuss the contents of that book. ^_^ Let me ask you this. Kyle Pope is (or at least was) a columnist for Anime News Network, which you use as a source to support your side of the argument. Should I be able to find a reference from him discussing Kanno music appearing in the Fox version, would you accept that as a reliable source? I seem to remember him covering the edits of Escaflowne as well, but I'll have to do some digging to see if that really was the case. Quiddity99 (talk) 00:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Quiddity99
As long as it is a reliable source. I checked the Escaflowne Compendium, but it doesn't break down the differences in the edited version. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
As promised, I checked the final episode and it does indeed use a different ending theme, so I have corrected the list. In the future, though, it would have been much less stressful and more pleasant all around if you'd followed BRD and then left the note on the talk page and given me time to check the episode as well to verify it, instead of having continued to revert over and over again. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:11, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I am happy to see that at the very least, half of our argument is now resolved ;) Quiddity99 (talk) 02:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)Quiddity99

Hello (2)

Hi, I'm just dropping by to say hi. I appreciate your work on the List of Meerkat Manor Meerkats article, but I would like to make a suggestion. I think that "List of Meerkats from Meerkat Manor" may sound a little better from a grammatical standpoint than "List of Meerkat Manor Meerkats." I don't know about you, though. I think we should try to use the best sounding grammar that we can, so I think the title should be changed, but it's pretty much up to you since there's about all of about five users who edit the page and you're the one with all the power. So what do you think?The Pink Panther (talk) 21:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. The title is fine and it is in keeping with the current naming conventions of most character lists, which is List of Show Name characters or something similar. See Category:Lists of television characters. As this is fully inline with Wikipedia guidelines, and the focus of the list does not support changing it to reflect something like Characters of Lost, I see no reason to change it. I also disagree that List of meerkats from Meerkat Manor would be more grammatically correct. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:41, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

All right, that's fine. I just want this grand encyclopedia to be as grammatically correct as possible. Me being a teenager and all, I sometimes have kooky ideas about which phrases are grammatically correct. Thanks for your time and opinion and everything. I would like to ask, though- why do so few people edit that page? I mean, it's just you and a few IP addresses. Even I never edit, but that's mostly because I always suggest edits before doing them and they always seem to get voted down. Is it lack of interest or what? Thanks!The Pink Panther (talk) 04:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Its probably a mix of things. Most people don't like to edit featured items, I think, because it can be intimidating knowing that their edits will be extra closely monitored, as such items must be kept in top form to maintain their status. Part of it is probably a lack of interest, though I think for the Meerkat Manor articles it may be more of a lack of interest in the encyclopedic side. Someone set up a Meerkat Manor wikia awhile back to cater more towards fans, which is where I think the few other editors that sometimes worked on stuff spend more time. Also, in general, lists like that tend to be edited less than the main articles, except during the start of new seasons and for some really popular on-going works. While Meerkat Manor is the top show in Animal Planet, it is still fairly "niche" as a whole. I also suspect that while many adults enjoy the series, the primary folks who might be online searching for into that end up at Wikipedia are likely to be minors, who usually tend otbe more hesitant about editing as well.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I see. Thanks. By the way, how old ARE you, anyway?The Pink Panther (talk) 04:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

I am 31. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:14, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I see, an Oldie Mcolderton :) hehe just joking. :) The Pink Panther (talk) 06:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Flower (Bambi)

As I just noted in a reply on my talk page, I acknowledged my mistake and gave the valid criteria on the Talk:Flower (Bambi) page. Dravecky (talk) 01:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

When you get a chance, would you mind taking a look at The Star of Cottonland and let me know whether you think it has inched its way out of stub and into start class? I'm a little vague, I confess, on where exactly the boundry lies and would like a second opinion. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmm...think with the number of refs and the well formed, if brief, prose, it is above the basic stub and has indeed inched up to Start. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:01, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Coo. Thanks. —Quasirandom (talk) 00:44, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Following up: any suggestions on what's needed to get The Star of Cottonland in its current state up to C? —Quasirandom (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think to get to C, it would at least have to have a sourced media section with the manga volume info and info on the film. If possible, some production info would also be good, if it can be found. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:21, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Right ho. Manga information is exactly what I'm finding hard to get. Time to dig through amazon.jp, and if I can distinguish between the various editions. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:51, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
Oy. I'm going to have to resign myself to leaving this job to someone who speaks Japanese. I've been able to confirm the details given in the article, but not with wikireliable sources nor establish publication dates or even ISBNs of all the original tankobon editions. Bunkobon details are easy to establish as they're still in print, but not relevant to original publication. (Gotta say, though, the ceramic figurines of Chibi-neko issued a few years ago are way kawaii.) Main production staff for the film isn't hard to get, but still. Ah, well. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
We seriously need some project folks who can read Japanese. It would be so helpful! :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:47, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

P. M. Pu

Hi,

Please elaborate on your concerns with regard to the page. Katzmik (talk) 13:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure what you'd like elaborated on. The article was copied from some personal website. So the entire thing is written in a way that is completely unsuitable for Wikipedia, using vary to casual a tone and it is blatantly obvious it is just your's personal essay. It is completely unsourced and likely to contain original research considering that it is just your writing, and it is nothing more than a mirror to your site which is also against Wikipedia guidelines. We are not here to host your personal research nor to act as a mirror to your website. 16:07, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The tone may be a bit too informal. You are welcome to ameliorate the article. His '52 article is an important article though and not just to me personally. Katzmik (talk) 08:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Films roll call and coordinator elections

Roll call and Coordinator nominations

It's that time of year again – we're wiping everyone's name off of the active members list and doing a project roll call. Your username is listed on the WikiProject Films participants list, but we are unsure as to which editors are still active on the project. If you still consider yourself an active WP:FILM editor, please add your name back to the Active Members list. You can also add your name to any of our many task forces!

It's also time to start the WikiProject Films coordinator selection process! We are aiming to elect seven coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on September 14!

Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 03:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Like Talking to a Brick Wall

Noticed your attempt to communicate with JoFerg. Good luck. Take a look at her contribution list: 1482 mainspace edits, and 25 User Talk. Of those 25, 20 are clearing her own talk page of warnings, three were to irrationally scream at Thedeadlypython, and two were to document reuploading an image that she felt had been unjustly deleted. Are we getting near RFC material on this editor? I've had to nominate an article for deletion where she misrepresented nearly every source: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undefeated (album).Kww (talk) 16:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I wondered why she was continuing to ignore her edits continuing to be reverted. Blech. It seems like someone needs to take a stronger tone with her, but not sure RfC will help. From my experiences with it, its a fairly useless process 99% of the time. :( Maybe poke an admin to see if they will leave her a note reminding her about things like civility, using valid sources, and edit warring. She also seems to be doing this extremely weird thing of replacing "As of X" with "As of [[{{CURRENTMONTHNAME}} {{CURRENTDAY}}]], [[{{CURRENTYEAR}}]]"...don't think that is correct at all. I see what you mean on the sources...she actually used another Wikipedia article as a source on the David Arquette article![16]. *head smack*-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

DYK

Updated DYK query On 2 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article City College (Florida), which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Gatoclass (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

flip or flop

Do you have any Viz garaphic novels? If so, please read the last page of it. I've got Dragon Ball vol.1 here. I'm quoting the message.

Woops! Guess what? You're starting at the wrong end of the comic!
...It's true! In keeping with the original Japanese format, Akira Toriyama's world-famous Dragon Ball series is meant to be read from right to left, starting in the upper-right corner.[...]
[...] Manga or Japanese comics published in the U.S. in English traditionally been published "flopped"--that is, printed in exact reverse order, as though seen from the other side of a mirror.
By flopping pages, U.S. publishers can avoid confusing readers,but the compromise is not without its downside. [...]
In recognition of the importance and popularity of Dragon Ball, we are pround to bring it to you in the original unflopped format.

And here's another piece of evidence, Dictionary.com. The dictionary explains that to flop means "to invert (the negative of a photograph) so that the right and left sides are transposed."

Do you get it? It is not "flipped" but "flopped." Please do not revert the article again.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 06:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have dozens upon dozens of Viz manga volumes, and other manga volumes. I do see "flopped" in Bleach, however the industry term is flipped. That is what more readers will recognize so it is the more appropriate term to use. Now please stop reverting. You were bold, it was reverted, now you're supposed to discuss, not just keep reverting. I'm posting at the project about this, as I would think it has come up before and, if not, consensus should be reached as to whether Viz articles should go against standard. Feel free to leave your arguments there. Discussion is at: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Flipped or Flopped Until, please don't revert anymore and please do not change anymore articles.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:52, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Really? I was surprised that "flipped" is used. I reverted because I thought you only misread the word "flopped" as "flipped" and that we did not need discussion. I never imagined "flipped" was used. Sorry about that. I'll go to the discussion.--Michael Friedrich (talk) 13:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
No prob. I was pretty much doing the same thing because I never heard of flopped :P BTW, were you the IP who did the middle revert? Just making sure it wasn't someone else. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:03, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

regarding matters Abtract

Thanks for your message. I have asked for the views of an editor who previously involved themselves in this matter at User talk:Ncmvocalist#You are a Winner.21. My first reaction is to put back the indef block on Abtract, but I want the opinion of someone who is less involved. Hopefully there will be a response in a short while. LessHeard vanU (talk) 14:04, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll stand by. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:15, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Dragon Ball GT Sagas

"Lost Episodes" is not the title of the saga. Watch that clip. The Saga is called The "Black Star Dragon Ball" Saga. Lost Episodes was just a title used to make the DVDs seem appealing, like they really were lost or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanEdgeHead (talk • contribs) 19:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Do NOT post links to copyvio materials on Wikipedia. Funimation calls it the Lost Episodes saga. That is the name we will use. Do not change it again. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

FUNimation does NOT call it the Lost Episodes Saga. I'd like to see your proof. FUNimation clearly said Black Star Dragon Ball Saga in every trailer produced by them. Lost Episodes is just the title of the episodes, not the Saga name. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanEdgeHead (talk • contribs) 19:34, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

http://dragonballgt.com, click Sagas, very first thing to load is "Lost Episodes" not Black Star Dragon Ball. Nothing on the official site uses that name at all. Go to the DVD section, and the episodes were released to DVD under the name "Lost Episodes" and NOT "Black Star Dragon Ball." Now please find a real reliable source (not "I saw it in a trailer) to support they are really calling it anything else.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Can we alteast remove the "Saga" from the Wiki article. Because you can clearly see on the GT Website that the other three Saga titles are followed by the word "Saga". The Lost Episodes doesn't have Saga after it.

Already been done. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Well, I thank you for that. I follow FUNimation Dragon Ball releases very closely, and Lost Episodes isn't the title of the actual Saga. It's just what they call the DVD releases. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AlanEdgeHead (talk • contribs) 19:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Blue Dragon

Have you heard any developments on the Blue Dragon anime getting it's own page? I was wondering when I should be given the OK to start the characters page since Gears of War used the other page for those that appeared in the video game. Rtkat3 (Rtkat3) 5:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

No, I haven't heard anything yet. Might be good to post in the project talk page. Since I'm unfamiliar with the finer points of the work, someone there might have a good suggestion as to whether it should have a fully separate page, or be part of the existing manga pages. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:26, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Mother and Child Reunion (Degrassi: The Next Generation)

Hi AnmaFinotera. I have replied to your comment at the FLC, and require a little more feedback from you. With regards to the plot section, it may be possible that I can't see the forest for the trees, so would you mind taking another look for me and removing parts you think are unnecessary? Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 02:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, not sure how much help I could be as I tend to suck at cutting down plots. It was a struggle for me on several ep lists and chapter lists I've done. Usually I open it in word then try to evaluate each sentence and just ask myself "do I have to use this many words to say this?". A few quick things I noted, though, is too much detail on some stuff. Like the bar scene. Is it necessary to note the various conversations/updates on the adults when it has no impact on the story? Or the details on Caitlin's actions in the limo? And are three sentences needed to note Joey didn't want to go to the reunion and Lucy tries to convince him he should because his late wife wouldn't want him hiding away from his friends? That kinda thing. I can try to take a look at more in-depth if you want, but it probably won't be tonight as I'm uber tired. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:56, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
Hi. If you could possibly take stab at reducing it, I'd really appreciate it. :) Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 16:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

References

Hello, sorry to bother you again, but wondered whether you could help. An IP has insisted on several occasions to take a reference off the sitcom page That's My Boy. This maybe not be a perfect article by any means, but the two references at the bottom at least meant that verifibility wasn't a problem. However, the IP address insists that this website is not acceptable as a reference because it is not "authorised". I have tried to explain that there is no authorised reference, and the website allows us to reference the episode list and airdates, as well as production and cast info. phill.co.uk is not a fansite, but a British TV comedy encyclopedia, like sitcom.co.uk, and I believe perfectly acceptable as a reference. I have stopped editing the page, to avoid an edit war, and hope you can help? Thanks.--UpDown (talk) 07:32, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Taking a quick look, I'd have to say that the IP is partially right. Not an issue of being authorized or whatever, but it also does appear to completely fail WP:RS. The site has no information about itself on it, who the writers/editors are, what their qualifications are, where it gets its information, etc. As such, it is not an acceptable reference and something else really needs to be found. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Surely though our references themselves don't need references? As I said, I don't believe there is any other reference to be found, and this is a reliable website. I'm not saying its perfect, but its better than nothing surely...?--UpDown (talk) 07:49, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
Read WP:RS and its qualifications. This has no sources for its information, we don't know who did it so we can't say its the work of any kind of expert in the field, and we can't claim it has a reputation for fact checking or being reliable because it is an unnotable website. As such, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, no, that is not a reliable reference. Now, if you have no intentions of ever taking the article to GA or FA, it likely won't matter. If you do plan to do so, however, something else has to be found. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:42, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Absoluteanime.com

I doubt that it is a reliable source. Can you look at Majin Buu? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 16:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree, that site is fails WP:RS and shouldn't be used. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I Think My Older Brother Used to Listen to Lagwagon

I'm not quite sure why you deleted the entry I added for this EP. I know it was missing details but I had added it as a starting point until I could flesh it out. On top of that I'm bewildered by the comment you made on the Lagwagon entry when you undid my edit: do not attempt to get around deletion by making a new article!. What attempt to get around deletion? I added the entry yesterday, then edited the Lagwagon entry to point to that. Mtrolley (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

The original article for that album was deleted by a redirect, so you made a new article instead. That's getting around deletion. The album is not notable, so please stop trying to keep remaking it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realise that there had been an article that had been removed. I wasn't trying to get around a deletion, just to contribute. Mtrolley (talk) 15:36, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

On the Post Oak Mall front

1) The cinema issue continues to bother me. Maybe it wasn't 1999, because the other reference posted was also pretty suspect. What if it really did close circa 1997 or so and you might not find it in the papers because it wasn't there in the first place? And if it did close in 1999, would that mean I could open up a given 1998 paper and find the movies playing at that mall (that and Cinemark and the Schulman theater)? I did, however, find a reference for the club "Oxygen", which was one of the many clubs at Post Oak Mall's cinema space (Cactus Canyon and then Rockies). The Oxygen reference is here.

2) Steve & Barry's University Sportswear "ate" about seven or eight in-line spaces, that's why it's an "anchor store without a exterior exit". Could I "prove" this by showing a map of the stores near Dillard's and Sears before Steve and Barry's?

3) There's been a whole lot of incidents at the Mall over the last past five years...bank robberies, bar fights, and such...shouldn't that be put in as well?

4) Oddly enough, there's a blue link over the "Chinese fast food stall", which leads to "Chinese food". It could probably be de-linked, but I linked it to Manchu Wok instead.

5) Smoothies Ice Cream and Yogurt also serves gyros, apparently.

Well, that's all I got for now when reading the page. Please respond...TheListUpdater (talk) 21:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

1 - it may bother you but unless/until you find another ref saying otherwise, it stays as it is and I think the reference is fairly correct. I haven't found a reference in the eagle because I haven't had time to do more newspaper archive hunting. I did just buy a house and all, and as the eagle archives are mostly not indexed, looking up articles requires a manual search. A time consuming process. For the partial index that does exist, I did write down all possibles on the paper, which I think does include 1997...however all that is still currently packed and I'm not sure which box it is in :P I can't even find the print outs I did from my last trip right now, and I hadn't finished typing up all the stuff there. Argh. I also eventually want to make a trip to Carnegie, which has more local books than all the other branches, but they are all ones that can't be checked out.
2 - no you couldn't prove that by linking to a map, nor does it really matter "why" it is an anchor store without an exit, just that it is :P
3 - No, there is nothing unusual about any of that at all, or notable; all malls have crime, all cities have crime
4 - agreed and delinked
5 - yes, I know, and I think salads and baked potatoes and some other stuff, but for now its just listed by its rather generic name :)
Hopefully I can get back to the research soon...at least, as soon as I find the box that stuff was packed in. I have like 3 boxes of papers and notebooks :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:03, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Fullmetal Alchemist

Did you see my reply? Also, did you start reading the manga?Tintor2 (talk) 01:12, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, just answered. Not only started reading it, but already read every volume that has been released :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

P. M. Pu‎

Why are these people so adamant about keeping an article about a non-notable scientist? --Kraftlos (talk) 20:37, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

No idea, but it seems like people are just going to let this guy keep that school paper up here. :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:48, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm quoting wikipedia policy that explicitly states that they're wrong and they wont listen. WTF --Kraftlos (talk) 00:35, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, trust me I know how you feel. In album deletions for unnotable albums whose articles are just a release date, picture, and tracklisting, I quote policy and guidelines and people basically keep it anyway with variants of "I like it" or "I like the artist" *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
  • I would like to add a point amount the import of Pu's work. I am not familiar with the word "geek" used at the deletion page but most likely Mikhail Gromov cannot be considered one. Now Gromov systematically references Pu's paper in his seminal publications, including the important paper "Filling Riemannian manifolds" from '83 as well as his famous book, which has by now gone through 4 editions. Hope this helps. Katzmik (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Not really, but congrats. First person I've seen get to keep his school paper on Wikipedia in ages. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, well, I am fond of his inequality. Hope you like my Bishop-Keisler controversy better :) Katzmik (talk) 10:54, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

See Talk:Declan Hill...

...and read what I wrote there. Buki ben Yogli (talk) 20:09, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Pages that might need some work

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dance_Dance_Revolution_Hottest_Party_2

Maybe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ds_games

And http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JoJo%27s_Bizarre_Adventure

Maybe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonsblast (talk • contribs) 05:04, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

( The character's names are high lighted yet they led to something not related to the article. The characters are found in the manga chapters.) I might be wrong about these pages.

Dragonsblast (talk) 04:45, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaitou_Kid

Anything I can help with?

Is there anything I can help with? I'm not really doing anything and I wanna help you out. : ) – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 16:06, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...I was going to try to find some refs on reception for Shojo Beat, to make sure its complete before I attempt to send it up for GA, particularly review type stuff. I've been having to deal with some other stuff, though, and haven't had time. Want to see if you can find anything? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:10, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll try. : ) – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 20:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
By the way....how does List of series run in Shōnen Book look? – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 20:43, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't find one.... : ( Sorry. You must be having a rough week, huh? – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 20:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
No prob, thanks for looking. I'll go ahead and send it up for GA...cross your fingers! :) And yeah, been a pretty rough week. Sorry for not answering earlier. For the list, I think its looking okay so far, though probably don't need to break up the tables by years. I'd just do one for each decade. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm crossing mine. ; ) I totally understand that it's been a rough week. I could kind of tell by the vibe of some of your messages you posted before. : ( Anyway, thank for the advice on the list. : ) Anything else I can help you with? – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 01:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Wait a minute.... Shōnen Book is monthly, doesn't that mean it should be by year? – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 01:59, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Nah, having the tables by decade is fine. May also want to fix up the headers to use specific sizes so they are consistent from group to group instead of jumping sizes. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
If I do it by decade, I will only have two sections for the years. Let's say every five years, Kay'? – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 02:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but two sections is fine. It doesn't have to have a ton of them, it just breaks things up more than necessary. I suspect some might even question of the list is notable or necessary for a defunct magazine. Though why is there a table in the main article as well? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:49, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll explain things a little better. Shōnen Book is the root of all Jump magazines. If I combined the list with the main article, it would make the page massive. :P The table on the main article is just the series that have become famous. Like Speed Racer. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 15:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm still thinking on this one. I think, though, that if there is a standalone list, in this case the table needs to come out of the main article because famous could be seen as subjective. Since it isn't being published anymore, maybe just a short, sourced prose summary with a link out to the list. The more we work on these various articles, the more I wonder about even having the magazine titles serialized, but that's a discussion for the project, I think. Sort of back and forth on it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good, I don't get what you mean by, "the more I wonder about even having the magazine titles serialized". Could you explain that better. :P – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 06:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, didn't right that well LOL. I meant I wonder if the articles even need a full list of the titles that are/were serialized in it. I'm guessing the coming Shojo Beat GA should help get some outside views on that. Soon as I can get someone to copyedit it, and its checked against the B checklist and any corrections made, I'll also be nominating Shonen Jump. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good. The point of the lists is that it gives American people a view on how the magazine ran, and all the Japanese series a normal English person won't know. This is kinda' weird we're having two conversations right now. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 14:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I got an idea: I'll write the last series in the magazine. :-S – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 01:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Um.....sorry. : ( – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 00:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
For what? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:10, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Never mind...I just really hate argueing with people. : ( What're you doing right now? – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 01:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, didn't think we were arguing :P Just been a long week and been tired so slow answering. At the moment, just came back with my dinner (I am so so sick of take out and will be uber glad when my kitchen remodel is done!) and plan to sit here and read. Mowed my lawn for the first time and discovered that mowing in 92 degree heat makes your heart do weird little things :P Tried to find a movie to rent, but the few that looked interesting were all out. Ain't that always the way on a Friday night? :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I just went to Borders to look at the manga section. Tommorow I will go to a comic store called Meltdown, it has a lot of cool stuff, and a lot of very rare manga. :P You're getting your kitchen remodeled? :-O I just got mine too. : ) I totally understand about the take-out food. *_O – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 06:06, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Cool on rare manga. My local Half Price books has some volumes of Sailor Moon. I'm tempted ot buy them all up to keep some as backups for my volumes and eBay the rest :P And yep, I am remodeling the kitchen. Doing most of the work myself. Ripped out the three ugly layers of lineoleum, ripped out all the tile counters, and am slowly working on refinishing the cabinets. Already have the new appliances in place, but I still have to do a little work on the counters before they can bring my new counters. Also have to replace the drywall on the backsplash and get the outlets checked to make sure they didn't get damaged during the demo ;) Need to decide if I'm going to make the effort to refinish the wood floors, or put down some tile there. But once the counters are in, I'll at least be able to cook again! :D -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
T-t-t-t-t-taaaake-out fooood. *_O At Meltdown I got two rare Battle Angel Alita issues by Viz, and I'm debating on wether I should get the Cobra Viz issues or not. What's your eBay user?, I might wanna buy some stuff. :D – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 14:56, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
AnmaFinotera :P I pretty much use the same name everywhere LOL; its my own word creation, so never have issues with "that user name is taken" -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Kinda' the same with me. What are you working on now? : ) – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 22:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Really not much of anything at the moment. I had planned to spend the weekend working on the Category 6 and Category 7 articles, and the two The Green Mile articles, but ended up working on my kitchen instead thanks to having finally found a solution to my cabinet issue. Yay! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:42, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find your eBay page.... : ( – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 22:45, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Doh, that's right on eBay I'm AnmaFinotera2 cause I conflicted with myself ROFLOL -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:40, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
How do you search eBay users? – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 00:52, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
You know...that's a good question. I can't even remember how to do it either...I think there is a link to the user search from the regular advanced search page? I don't have anything for sale right now, though, so not missing much LOL -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:48, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I found it. Is it the one with the girl and the umbrella? : ) – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 01:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Yep, my usual avatar :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi again, AnmaFinotera!

This time I'm asking for advice on this article. What would need to be done to get it to GA status? Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 21:00, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

It needs a lot of clean up to get up to GA. It isn't really B class either. First, as usual, it needs to meet the MoS, and second it needs WAY more referencing, and third the plot is just beyond too long. Those are the three major issues to address before anything else. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:26, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! Mess around with the guy in shades all you like - don't mess around with the girl in gloves! (talk) 23:06, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Lisi Harrison

Why do you keep insisting on placing the {{notability}} template in the Lisi Harrison article? If you want to challenge Harrison's notability, just place an {{AfD}} template, and we'll take it from there. Dems on the move (talk) 02:54, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Because it does NOT meet the biography guideslines. Despite your assertions, her books having articles does not mean she is automatically notable. Read WP:BIO and either actually improve the article to show this so called notability for a dime-a-dozen author of assembly line books, or stop removing the tag. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Again, so nominate this article for deletion. Dems on the move (talk) 02:59, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
It gets tagged first and time given for the issues to be addressed, if certain people would stop removing the damn tag. If YOU think she is notable, prove it or leave the tag alone (oh, and kindly remember WP:3RR which we are both now on the edge of. The article was nominated for CSD and PRODed so it is obvious there are notability issues. Hell, I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that she doesn't even really write those books.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:00, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
{{notability}} is not a prerequisite for {{AfD}}. Besides, if it's been tagged like that since July, just go ahead with the {{AfD}} and we'll take the discussion there. Dems on the move (talk) 03:05, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
It is, actually, depending on who participates in the AfD. Some folks get annoyed if articles haven't been adequately tagged before being nominated. Nor is there a deadline for when it is nominated. Just because its been tagged since July does not mean that suddenly it has to be taken to AfD because you (and you alone in 2 months) have questioned the tag, without actually addressing the issue by showing notability in the article with significant, third party coverage of this person beyond just links to her website. Also, per the PROD removal, it was requested that an AfD wait until the individual book AfDs conclude, though I personally don't think it makes a difference. Even if the books are considered to be individually notable, her being the author does not make her notable without her own significant coverage. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:07, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll wait until the conclusion of the {{AfD}} process for the books. Should your AfD fail, your argument will weaken considerable. Should it pass, it may enhance your argument, but I still doubt it. Dems on the move (talk) 03:16, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Not really. There are several books on Wikipedia whose authors themselves are not notable, while the books are. *shrug* Though if all these mass market teen series books are going to be found notable, I guess I'll start following suit and making articles for all the romantic suspense series books. After all, they are all also NY Best Sellers and their authors are far more well known and well covered than Harrison. I do find it interesting that so far, the AfD is arguing the author is notable and the series is notable therefore the books are notable, and here you are arguing that the series and the books are notable therefore the author is notable as well. Nice little circular thing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:21, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Long plot section

User:Juliancolton made some edits to the Mother and Child Reunion plot summary. I'm going to try to condense it down to perhaps a paragraph for the reunion,and a paragraph for Emma, for each part. I noticed you saw the season 8 cast image. That will work wonderfully for the season 8 article. And it's free! Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:07, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty :) Sorry I didn't get a chance to work on it. When I was going to, I saw Juliancolton was working on it and didn't want to EC, then didn't get back to revisiting it due to more house reno stuff. Wee! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:35, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Cool. Hope it's going well. I might put the image on DTNG#Cast. Any objections? Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 20:59, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...I think it might fit better there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:24, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
I have a couple of references regarding the casting of season 8. If I find them tomorrow I will add them, providing that my internet connection hasn't gone out. For some reason my cable bill is $300 so I'm not paying it, and I'm expecting it to be turned off this week. I've now condensed the plot section of Mother and Child Reunion (Degrassi: The Next Generation), so hopefully it now meets your approval!
Do you think it's time to create the season 8 article yet? As I said, I've got a couple of cast references somewhere in all my bookmarks, the premiere dates have been confirmed, and eTalk have done a couple of pieces about the new season.
Finally, I made an ANI report about Robin yesterday. She has been blocked for 6 months, although it may be extended to indefinite. Regards, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:34, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
If there are sources for the premiere dates and casting, I think it probably can be created. You may need to have an administrator unlock the page...I think they ended up having to salt like four variants of the name :P And I saw that on Robinpowell, glad to see they finally gave her a longer term block. Hopefully they will extend it to indefinite. Seems like she was just trying to find new ways to be disruptive. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:14, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Please return to WikProject Media franchises

Dear AnmaFinotera...You are invited to come back to discuss WikiProject Media franchises. Since you participated in one or more discussions of the project, possibly when it was known as WikiProject Fictional series, I hope to see you return to it. The project needs your participation. Currently there is no activity on the project's talk page about the reorganization which is discouraging. I had great expectations for this project as it touches so many topics but am becoming discouraged. I hope to see you return. LA (If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page.) @ 19:19, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


Naruto characters topic

See this discussion. Cheers, sephiroth bcr (converse) 21:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

NPOV for W Juliet

Since you left the tag, any chance could you explain what, in particular, you saw at the time and whether it's still there? —Quasirandom (talk) 20:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Alas, now I can't remember. Been awhile since I tagged that one. :) I can't see any in there now, though, so guessing its gone. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
In zat case, I shall remove the tag. —Quasirandom (talk) 21:12, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Cool :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:01, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Prod Tags

Duly noted and will comply in the future. - Barton Foley (talk) 20:58, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Cast-off being

Do you think this article should be deleted? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 23:44, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

As it stands, yes, as it appears to be pure WP:OR with no actual sourced content and a quick search doesn't find any support that it is the official or proper term for such plot device. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok. What tag should I place there? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 00:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd tag for OR, essay, unreferenced; then prod it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:26, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

On the matter of Shikai Shaw

In my opinion User:Shikai shaw seemed to be needing some kind of WP:MENTORship. He might be editing quite a bit in JA:WP, but he certainly is oblivious to the stricter guidelines in EN:WP. What's more, it seemed that very basic tenets of WP like NPOV weren't heavily enforced in JA：WP; it has a very different atmosphere compared to EN:WP. Hence, he needs to get some form of education about how EN:WP works...--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 00:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems, unfortunately, to be a common problem, particularly with folks coming from JA:WP and the various spanish ones. At times I wonder if our English one is the only one that actually enforces any of the basic Wikipedia tenets :P Might be good to suggest he get a mentor to help him out. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

What do you say we start merging them? There wasn't much opposition at Talk:Hellsing#Merges. Let's go ahead and do it. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 15:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Hopefully we won't get another DBZ nut who waits two months to complain after its done. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
When should we start? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:32, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Sooner the better...I have some time tonight where I could work on some. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:52, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, all done. *whoo* Still needs some clean up and work, like a plot section and probably a split out to a List of Hellsing characters, but much better I think. Thoughts? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:41, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Great job! I'll be making some adjustments soon. Oh, do you think we can safely merge Hellsing (TV series)? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:19, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
And it appears Hellsing (disambiguation) no longer serves a purpose. Thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:36, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I think, to be safe, we'll need a second discussion on the TV series. I've heard it is very different from the manga, but not sure just how different. To me, just glancing it seems to be the same characters and basic setting, with maybe some plot changes? I agree, the disambig serves no purpose anymore. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok. Let's try to get that merge consensus first. Shall I spark the discussion or do you want to? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Started. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Failing WP:PLOT twice

Hi,

Did you think Beyond the Grave was a particularly epic fail of WP:PLOT, then? :) Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 18:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL, yep indeed! Actually that second should have been WAF. Fixed it :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of the Article I Sarted

Can you please explain how my artcle was "innappropriate". It is a complete set and think it deserves its own article. And don't try to accuse me of re-createing a Dragon Ball Z article when there is nothing that should lead you to think that. So just explain. Disturbed92893 (talk) 18:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

DVD releases are NOT notable and do not "deserve" their own article. You were in essence recreating part of a deleted article, and you are continuing to be deliberately disruptive (which you announced you were going to be on the DB talk page). If you came back to Wikipedia to continue trying to push fancruft and unnotable articles, then I suggest leaving again and just going to the Dragon Ball wikia where such stuff is allowed. It isn't allowed here. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Bob Ross deletions

Please be specific about what you objected to in the deletions and why. Thank you. Wikiuser100 (talk) 19:46, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

They were inappropriate removals of properly sourced, relevant content, in particular you removed basic biographical information from a biographical article for no valid reason. Do not repeat such actions. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Number one, mind your tone. You are acting *VERY* imperiously and not in keeping with the Wikipedia community ethic. Number two, I was very clear why I deleted the content: it did not contribute to the article; moreover, it was not up to Wikipedia standards (using only first names for wives as if readers are or should be familiar with them on that basis). If you would like to research and rewrite the content in question, please do, but do go around weilding authority in the threatening fashion that you are. When you rewrite it, please integrate why these marriages and their outcomes are relevant to the article and Mr. Ross' career. Thank you.Wikiuser100 (talk) 20:01, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Number one, stop vandalizing articles, period or get blocked. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:02, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I am not vandalizing articles: I was very clear why I made the edits I did. You, on the other hand, have an attitude. Viz your own User page:

"These articles are ones that are of special interest to me, but that I may have only made minor contributions too, or where my editing has been limited to mostly vandal smacking.

....Bob Ross - grew up watching him and use his painting technique; his article is unfortunately frequently vandalized by childish idiots"

I am not a "childish idiot". I did not vandalize the page. Please provide your rank and authority as a Wikipedia editor to make the threats towards me that you are. Thank you.Wikiuser100 (talk) 20:13, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

You did vandalize this article and Joy of Painting, hence multiple editors reverting your wholly inappropriate removal of valid, sourced content. If you remove valid content from either article again, you will be reported to the administrators for blocking. Period. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I did not vandalize it. My reasons are clear; your defense is not. You are not an administrator, yet you threaten as if you are one. You should be blocked the way you treat another Wikipedian: this is not how the community is supposed to act and react towards one-another. Please advise the proper procedure for escalating this difference of opinion so that the matter may be amicably resolved with the assistance of a moderator. Thank you.Wikiuser100 (talk) 20:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
The best way is for an admin who happens to have this talk page watchlisted to drop in and suggest that everyone takes a deep breath and calms down for a little bit. Wikiuser100, the best way to go about discussing article content is to take it to the article talk page and bring in other editors for a civil discussion about the benefits to the article of a) removing the information, or b) leaving it and improving sourcing. Generally, it's better to improve an article by adding sources, than it is to just delete, in my view. Repeatedly deleting when other editors are trying to engage you in discussion is often considered disruptive, and I can understand the warnings you received in this case. Please discuss rationally with involved editors on the article talk page to find consensus. Thanks. Tony Fox (arf!) 20:39, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for dropping in, Tony, and your calming words. Point of clarification, however: I was not the one doing multiple deleting/undoing, and other editors did not engage me to discuss things before making threats: I had simply made similar changes to both the Bob Ross and its related Joy of Painting page: in the first case to seek to clean up a below Wikipedia standard paragraph on Ross' marriages - which did not bring anything germane to the article as presented, employing only wives first names and adding divorce and in one case death date but without establishing any relevance to the subject of the article, Bob Ross; I also deleted what amounts to a promotiona/pop cultural reference to a video game that has not been produced and is only being "shopped around" after being rejected by a major manufacturer. Similarly, this does not meet Wikipedia standards for relevance.

The edits to the Joy of Painting page were parallel: first, deleting the above - which is not an actual product, just a concept being pitched -, and second deleting trivial pop cultural references to minor parodies of Ross's personna and work. None of this content was significant (or would mention a page of its own), and its removal was not injurious to the articles; rather, it streamlined and kept them more relevant rather than less.

It was the reactions of the two editors who near instantaneously posted their hostile and threatening rebukes on my Talk page within moments of one-another that started the firestorm. It is not cricket at all for such pedestrians - like myself - to go around making imperious threats and posting intimidating looking icons next to them to increase their apparent authority and bully a timid editor into submission, in one case invoking automatic "vandalism" reversion software to enforce their unilateral decisions to not challenge, partially incorporate, or improve but imperiously overrule my edit - which has just as much validity as their own.

So, now we take to the article talk pages, but how do we end up anywhere else? I have made clear to both editors who undid my edits why I made those I did - even invited one to do a rewrite - and still hold to my views. They, evidently, to theirs. How do we move forward? Thank you.Wikiuser100 (talk) 21:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"I was not the one doing multiple deleting/undoing" - oh, what do you call it when you remove whole sourced sections from articles and rip out the details of the life of a man in his BIOGRAPHY? That is multiple deleting, and you were the ONLY one doing it. No one agrees with any of your removals, so unless consensus says otherwise, the content all stays as is appropriate. You are he only one who things the video game is not "meet Wikipedia's standards for relevance" (which is incorrect as even the proposal of the game, which was a ground breaking concept, spoke to the notability and longevity of a series and a man who has been dead for over a decade. It is not a promotional nor pop cultural reference. How many people do you know who have video games based on them? As for the marriage details, well hello...it is a biography. Details about that persons life, including marriages, children, etc ARE relevant and perfectly on topic. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
AnmaFinotera, *please* calm down. A couple of admins are on this now.
Wikiuser100: you in fact did do multiple edits to both Bob Ross and The Joy of Painting, undoing the reverts made by AnmaFinotera and Thingg, respectively. Both of the changes you made removed sourced content, which, if you feel is problematic, should be discussed prior to removing, as I note you've been told by J.delanoy (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA). Essentially, the consensus here is running against your changes at present. If you think that needs more eyes, I suggest dispute resolution be your next consideration. Tony Fox (arf!) 22:00, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm trying (that was the nicer version of what I originally wrote :P). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Believers (film)

This delete argument is using everything and the kitchen sink? Am I crazy? Who can argue against this sort of overkill? Or is it time to stop trying to improve articles? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:23, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Good lord. Now he's sticking those boiler plate notices that he stuck on talk pages in actual AfDs? Has he done more than one? I'm tempted to call speedy keep because its a pointy, disruptive nomination and point the the current AN/I thread. Still, it looks like you blew up his "lack of coverage" pretty well, and have clearly showed that he is still not really looking at anything. Ya know, next time someone calls me an evil deletionist, I think I'll point to this guy cause he makes me look not nearly so bad :P-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:51, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
When I read his "boilerplate", and realized that its points had nothing much to do with the article being nom'ed, I had to respond. If he has indeed done even a cursory serach, he would have realized the error of the nom itself... and when I then studied the article's history and saw how quickly he moved to delete after asking for improvement and actually getting it... I figured there had to be some other motive. Having read the comments and followed the links.... all I can add is Yikes! Who is he so mad at that he has to destroy articles and be so disruptive in order to prove a point? And yes, he is using it other places. Again, yikes. And who ever called you an "evil" deletionist? I have heard other terms... (chukle). But seriously, you have been a very worthy guide to my own improving of articles. If I had crossed paths with this editor a few months ago, I would have left Wiki. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.
Is smugness and self-righteousness a sin, or a virtue? I commented at the ANI. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 03:55, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I find it interesting that he's now acting like all he wanted was them to be improved. Tagging for deletion is certainly not the wrong way to do it, and considering how many sources you found for this film so quickly, it seems like a pure lie that he even checked (unless he seriously sucks at web searching, and even my mom isn't that bad at it). And thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Time will tell if this person is indeed wishing improvement or not. I am myself worried because at the Believers (film) he had himself tagged it for improvement and then nom'ed it for AfD within a few hours of the article actually beginning to be improved. Does he/she know/care that things are not to be sent to AfD if a diligent effort can improve them? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't seem like he does. Unless its a really clear issue of notability, I'll usually tag for issues first and give at least a month for stuff to be fixed. If someone does deprod, I watch to see if they actual improve to show notability before I just delete (and if they do start improving, I note so on the talk page and wait awhile before considering AfD to see if they continue). This guy really does seem to be on a pointy rampage because of the novel issues mentioned on his talk page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
It was the tag, wait for improvement, then rush to AfD that got to me. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Category:Bengali film actors

Here's an odd one for you... A Bengali editor brought this to my attention and asked me to help, as it cannot be corrected with a simple page edit. Please take a look at the page for "Category:Bengali film actors" and then study the names. It is not alphabetical.... and it should be. The Bengali editor found a truely interesting situation. Who handles this sort of thing? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 04:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Most seem to be in the proper order. For those out of order, check the articles to make sure their default sorts or force sorts aren't out of whack. Rudranil Ghosh, for example, was obviously created by first copy pasting Parambrata Chatterjee's article, as it still has Chatterjee's sort on it. An oversight by the creator I'd guess. If those are fixed, the pages should get back in line. :) I fixed Ghosh and Jishu Sengupta (also copied from Chatterjee), and they are now in the proper place. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:02, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
AAAaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh........ Thank you Obi-Wan. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:05, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
No prob. I went ahead and fixed the other two I spotted as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Rudranil Ghosh

I put a HANGON on the page you just speedied. Certainly it offers little to Wiki as it stands, but a quick search found enough for this guy that maybe the author can improve in if given a couple days. Fair enough? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Just proved notability. Was actually a bit surprised at how easy it was and wondered why the author did not include it. Rudranil Ghosh won 2 Best Supporting Actor awards in 2007. I made a couple tweaks to the article accordingly to reflect this, as well as added a whole slew of lijks for the author to use. I feel strongly now that the author should have no trouble expanding it.... and yes, it was painfully terse when I first saw it myself... moments before you did. I will watch the page and give the author a few gentle tugs in the right direction. Shall I remove the speedy? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Wow. You are the fastest editor I have ever seen. Very impressed am I. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:48, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks and also surprised the author didn't note the award winning. LOL, sad part is, I'm actually playing a video game right now. When I'm focused solely on Wikipedia, I've had at least one editor accuse me of being a bot. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


and I think the author may do okay if nudged...Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Cool and thanks :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:27, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Bob Ross edits

Just a note to remind you that deletionist edits which may violate consensus and policy are not de facto vandalism:

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism.

Wikiuser100 (talk · contribs) was not vandalizing if his/her intentions were good faith -- which you have to assume, based on the edit summaries and tempered responses to other users. - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 14:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, well, he fully intends to continue his "misguided or ill-considered" edits, despite numerous warnings and multiple editors disagreeing with him. Sorry, but I see nothing good faith about his fully intending to continue being disruptive and removing sourced, valid information from articles. Per Wikipedia:Vandalism, Types of Vandalism: "Blanking - Removing all or significant parts of pages' content without any reason, or replacing entire pages with nonsense. Sometimes important verifiable references are deleted with no valid reason(s) given in the summary." His "explanation" that he basically thinks it is irrelevant is not "a non-frivolous explanation" when its clear its more of an issue of he just doesn't like it.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Important Notice

Restrictions on editing of articles between Abtract (talk · contribs), and AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) and Sesshomaru (talk · contribs) These restrictions are imposed upon the above named editors, and are not subject to amendment without agreement of a majority of the "involved administrators".

  • Abtract, as one party, and AnmaFinotera and Sesshomaru, as the other parties, are banned from interacting with, or, directly or indirectly, commenting on each other on any page in Wikipedia. Should either account violate their bans, they may be blocked for up to one week. After the fifth such violation, the maximum block length shall be increased to one month. (Note - this remedy may be expanded in scope to include interaction of any other user if it is later deemed necessary in the opinion of 3 administrators to prevent harassment.)
  • A division between both parties of future work on disambituation pages may be agreed, at a neutral venue such as one of the involved admins talkpages, but otherwise the above restrictions apply.
  • The editors are already aware of the Bold, Revert, Discuss cycle, and are reminded that edit-warring has a disruptive and detrimental effect on Wikipedia. Should either user edit-war in the future, they may be subject to further sanctions (including wider revert limitations, blocks and bans).


Involved administrators are LessHeard vanU (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), Natalya (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA), and JHunterJ (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) who should act with due notice to all the other parties. Other admins are welcome to add their names to the above, and comments by any other party is welcome.

The discussion relating to the drafting of the above restriction (adapted by LessHeard vanU from the original - and revision - by Ncmvocalist (talk · contribs)) can be found here.

LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

+ + + + +

This is the wording. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Sources

Hi. Why are you removing sources I added to articles that were marked as unsourced? Thank you. Barliman Butterbur (talk) 00:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Because it isn't a source, as per the note on your talk page. Just sticking a source in the reference section does not make it a reference if it is not actually used in the article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:14, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
It is a source for information on the subject of the article. I understood that articles with no reliable sources should be deleted. That is why I added these sources. Shouldn't the article be deleted if it doesn't have a source? Barliman Butterbur (talk) 00:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
That isn't what a source is. A source is one that is actually USED in the article, not a possible reference. Possible references should be noted on the talk page if you don't have time to do the editing to incorporate it. And no, articles with no reliable sources are not automatically deleted. The films all meet notability requirements and are perfectly safe from deletion as sources certainly exist even if they aren't being used in the article. Articles are deleted when they do not meet our notability requirements or are obvious made-up items. Articles are not deleted just because it doesn't have a source, when sources exist. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
So you remove perfectly good-- excellent, in fact-- print sourcing from totally unsourced articles because it doesn't toe some line you people have set up? I would tell you to go to Hell, but people like you carry Hell around with you wherever you go. Feel free to consider me, and my print sourcing, which you obviously despise, gone. Good day. Barliman Butterbur (talk) 05:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Considering your total lack of civility here and at User talk:Dreadstar, I'm not going to lie and pretend I won't be sorry to see you gone. If you can not understand the very basic concept that you can not claim something is a source when it isn't actually used for anything in the article, then this isn't the place to be. All anyone asked is that you actually USE the references you attempted to add all over the place, instead of just claiming it was somehow used when, in fact, it was not. We do not falsely claim to use sources, and multiple people very politely explained to you how to properly use your source. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That Handsome Devil

The original cause of the Deletion review was because of WP:Music #10. This can no longer be addressed with a simple redirect because the band in question is referenced in more than one noteable subject (List of songs in Rock Band 2 and List of songs in Guitar Hero II). The redirect needs to be either deleted, or the article fleshed out. I also feel you're actions regarding the AfD go against the nature of the AfD, as no other editors commented on the decision prior to removing the template. -- TRTX T / C 01:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You undid an AfD redirect without, instead, bring it up for deletion review. I felt that was inappropriate. You could have also just started a discussion about the deletion target, or just nominated the redirect for deletion itself. The band is still unnotable and all you did was restore the original article, not show any new notability to support having a new article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Peer review

Hi, I'm looking for a copyeditor for an article and you were listed here. I was wondering if you could copyedit Homer Simpson. I've been working on the article for a while and although I was hoping it would be longer than it is, I've pretty much hit a wall and I doubt there is a lot more I can add (other than some analysis). So in order to get it ready for a FAC (probably in late September), it needs some copyediting and I would appreciate it if you could take a look. Thanks for your time, Scorpion0422 04:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I'm not a copyeditor. Only the first section of that page is a list copyeditors, the rest are volunteers willing to participate in peer reviews for specific subjects. If it helps, User:Keeper76 and User:Malleus Fatuorum are both copyeditors I've worked with before who you might check with to see if either one has time to work on it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Well can you please do a peer review then? -- Scorpion0422 04:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll see if I can visit the PR tomorrow (today) sometime. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:20, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

LS Characters

I need a few hours to work the invididual pages out. The ref would link to the page, showing the title only which subsequently links to the book. (Unless you want every page citation to include the entire details of the book). Please do not revert the main book references. Thanks. - Mailer Diablo 05:43, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

That is NOT how to do it, and I will keep reverting it. You put the specific ref in where it is used, and every last ref must have specific page numbers. Yes, every page citation must include the ENTIRE details of each book. If you intend to reference some things using the exact same pages, then use a named reference, but do not shove a glut of false, unused references at the bottom. Use the existing, proper format. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:45, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
It is the actual mangas! I have citing by page, then to book. Please do not revert - Mailer Diablo 05:46, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
No, you are not citing anything. You are sticking in a bunch of stuff at the bottom of the page that references nothing. If you don't know how to reference properly, then ask someone else to do it. You aren't doing the article any favor at all, and you aren't citing anything. Properly cite using in-line citations as is already the established referencing, or don't bother. Do you see List of Naruto characters using such a useless system of referencing? Or any other character list with references? No. They MUST be properly referenced with inline citations not just sticking stuff at the bottom. That is not any kind of valid referencing per Wikipedia guidelines. And please do not revert again, or we will both in in violation of 3RR. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Have a look at this FA for example. The pages are cited in-line, and then it links down to the book listed as reference. I have no intention to go over 3RR; If you do not revert yourself. I will stop working on it altogether and leave it as is. - Mailer Diablo 05:52, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
That is not the same thing as what you are doing at all, and it is not appropriate for a character list like this. Please use the proper, already established in-line citations, or please just leave it as is and let someone else do the referencing properly.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:53, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I am reverted before I can even get to insert a single in-line reference! - Mailer Diablo 05:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Because that isn't the right way to do it. Put them in as in-line references only, with page specific references. Sticking every volume at the bottom of the list is neither practical nor useful..-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Refer to list's talkpage for implementation. - Mailer Diablo 06:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
So if you can't get your way, you'll just throw a tantrum and walk away? That shows no maturity at all. If you had any actual genuine interest in sourcing the article, you'd follow the established manner per Wikipedia guidelines, instead of trying to force your own unwieldy method. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Replied on talkpage again. - Mailer Diablo 06:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

What can of Talk Pages I'm not to Use?

Hi it me MrBumpFan you tell me not use talk pages such as Talk:One Hundred and One Dalmatians for general discussion of the topic so What can of Talk Pages I'm not to Use? MrBumpFan (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Article talk pages are for discussing the article, not for general discussion. If you want to discuss the film in general, or the book, or theories about either, you need to go to an appropriate web forum or BBS. Such discussion is not for article talk pages. See WP:TALK to learn more about appropriate talk page usage.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:03, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk page archiving

I noticed you have started bot archiving on the The Lion King talk page. First it clearly says on MiszaBot I's user page Before requesting automatic archiving on an article's talk page or a Wikipedia forum, please establish a consensus that archiving is really needed there. No attempt has been made to establish if bot archiving is needed. I have doubts it is, it is not a that busy talk page and I am quite happy to archive manually as necessary. I also don't see the problem with recording archive dates, they can be updated manually, and again this would be easier if manual archiving was retained. Camaron | Chris (talk) 17:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I regularly add auto archiving to many pages I come across where archiving isn't being done. You're the first to complain in months. :P Most people don't have a problem with it because no one ever bothers keeping up with the manual archiving. If you disagree with automatic archiving on the Lion King, then feel free to remove the bot. But I fully expect you to take the responsibility for archiving, which no one has bothered to do for nearly a year. The whole date archiving box thing is completely useless to most people as few people ever remember when a conversation may have happened, and new visitors to the talk page will have no idea at all. Being busy isn't a requirement for automatic archiving, it just makes sure older stuff moves out as new comes in. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:49, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I see, well I already have taken responsibility as I do with most talk pages of articles I am involved in, and I fixed up the archives a bit a month ago. Some more archiving was needed but it was not that bad, with the page just crossing 30kb in length before this. I strongly disagree that the date archiving thing is completely useless, those that took part in past discussions usually have some idea of when a discussion happened, and having some dates there when the archives get to 10+ pages, which The Lion King will do eventually is very helpful! Even some pages that use bots such as WT:RFA do have archive dates, or at least have some guidance on finding which page an old discussion was on.
I am taking your reply to me you are happy for me to remove the bot and take over manual archiving. I will try and keep on top of it. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:35, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Happy, no? But not worth fighting over. I've removed the redundant archive links from the talk header, and the page is now yours again. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:48, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know that you could remove archive links from the talk header, so thank you for doing that. I think it needs to empathised here that I am not trying to claim ownership of the page, I said I didn't mind bot archiving, though I prefer if it is discussed before it is introduced, and I was more concerned about maintaining the archive dates. That all seems quite reasonable to me. Anyway, you are right that it is not worth fighting over, so happy editing. Camaron | Chris (talk) 18:59, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Chatting

What's up? : ) – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 00:24, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Nothing much. Not getting any of the editing I wanted to do done of late, while arguing with people apparently thinking that every last book in those little dime-a-dozen assembly line teen novel series are notable enough for articles. *sigh* Making progress in my kitchen after renting a nail gun. Now there is a fun tool! *evil grin*-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Right now i'm finishing up some infoboxes on some pages. "dime-a-dozen assembly line teen novel series"? That's funny, anything that's dime-a-dozen isn't notable. I mean seriosly, they know that they shouldn't have articles, they just want to convince us to let them. σ_σ* – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 01:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Hello? – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 23:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't get it either, especially when some of the defenders even admit they are just assembly line books. Two reviews on teen websites doesn't make it notable. I think WP:BK needs to be toughened up, but not likely to happen. Ah well. At least I finally got one of the articles I had on my "edit soon" list done. Took Category 6: Day of Destruction from a horrible little stub to a decent C class article (at least, it would be C if the Films project hadn't decided to reject the C class). Sent it up for DYK, yay. :) Sorry for the delay...there is an Ike heading this way. Should be fine here, but have all these evacuuees from Houston and Galveston, so stores are CRAZY! Couple of gas stations have already run out of gas from people being crazy. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
What's an Ike? The Fire Emblem character? Sorry, I'm a bit ignorant... : ) I had a weird dream last night: I was in some shop in Mexico, and there was some "ultra rare" Viz manga that was created in the 12th century, size of an adult, and had a picture of Vagabond (by Takehiko Inoue) on it. I then bought it for $1.00, with tax. I eventually started dating the manga, climbed a giant rock with the manga, fell, and then died. The End. : ) Is it really that bad in Texas right now? : ( – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 01:25, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Ike is a big hurricane sitting of the Texas coast. :P LOL, that is a weird dream! What did you eat before you went to sleep? ;) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
ROFLOL, I don't know! It was actually a really scary dream when I had it. I just recently figured out about Santa Inoue, interesting artist. I'm still looking into Tokyo Tribe by him, it was serialized in Weekly Young Jump. Also Hirohiko Araki is growing on me. : ) – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 01:37, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Cool...I tend to not pay much attention to who wrote most manga, except for a few names where I have several of their titles (like Yuu Watase and Arina Tamura). Tamura tends to have emotionally interesting and evocative stories, but her characters all look exactly the same in every series! Its like she doesn't know how to draw really new ones and just keeps recycling over and over. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, with my artwork it's kinda the same. I recently figured out how to avoid that: Write down their facial features and clothing down on a sheet of paper before drawing the picture, and then copy from that. It's bad to get in that habit, it's almost like your hand goes on auto pilot. What manga are you reading right now? – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 01:51, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I actually haven't bought any this month at all (*gasp*) due to all the house reno costs. Currently collecting Blood+, Nana, Rave Master, and Love Mode, all of which have new volumes out. I've also started collecting Bleach, and I read all of the currently available volumes of Fullmetal Alchemist from my local library. If I don't end up picking up those new volumes, or anything else, I think this will be the first month in some 3 years I haven't bought manga. Hmmm...oh, I need to find one of my scraps of paper. There were two series I spotted at Barnes and Noble that seemed interesting, but now I can't remember the titles. *doh* One was about a cat...hmmm...-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Baron the Cat Returns? What's Michael? Super Nyan Nyan Jukebox Alita: Power Pop Hurricane? – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 02:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
No, its a newer series. ~searches Google a bit~ Aha! It was Free Collars Kingdom :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I've heard of that before. I was just watching the Lucky Star opening on YouTube, the most painful song I've ever heard. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 02:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Haven't heard that one before. Haven't seen the series, though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Here's a link. You might need to take a shower after watching this video. My eyes seriously felt like they were burning. I haven't seen the series either. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 03:03, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Alrighty (though technically, you aren't supposed to post those links ;)). I just realized I need to update my buy list. Missing the newest volumes of Beyond the Beyond, Chibi Vampire, D.N.Angel and Fruits Basket. Also forgot to add Platinum Garden to my buy list, though not sure if should or not since it may be one of those titles that Tokyopop drops. *boink* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:05, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Oops, sorry, forgot.... : P It's even more bad if you know Japanese, the lyrics are teribble! I need to buy: Jump SQ. (new issue), Weekly Jump (new issue), Comic Champ (has Bakuman in it!), Speed Racer (two deluxe volumes), Tokyo Tribe, Ultra Jump (new issue), Dragon Ball (art book), Faust, Bleach: Collector's Edition, Dragon Ball: VIZBIG, Rurouni Kenshin: VIZBIG, and the Shonen Jump: 15th Anniversary Collector's Edition. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 03:16, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
I just recently found out about a Chinese language edition of Weekly Jump!! – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 15:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Considering China's tendency to disregard copyright laws, I wonder if its a legit version or a bootleg? :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Hm....you gotta point there. But I think I saw something that said "they officially published the titles". Did you see the section I put up for it? – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 00:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I saw, but it had no sources. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to add them.....stupid fansites. The Tong Li website has a forum, which keeps poping up everywhere. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 01:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Fansites are not reliable sources. Valid reliable sources are needed to show this is a valid WSJ version and not a knock off or other such thing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:17, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
LOL, I meant I'm going to add sources. I'm not going to add the fansites! I meant that they are getting in the way! – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 01:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I just deleted it. Anyway, let's see how far we can get our conversation squished against the side of this window. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 01:44, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
LOL, G.A.S and I did that recently on one of the project pages. Well, after all the "OMG get ready there is a hurricane coming" so far its the same as any other night and it was bright and sunny earlier. Probably won't get much more than some rain (eventually) and a little wind. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:46, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Who's G.A.S? I've seen his name before. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 02:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Another editor in the anime project, User:G.A.S -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:29, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Did you get Free Collars Kingdom? Tomorrow, I'm going to go to Meltdown, I'm probobly going to get a few Battle Angel Alita issues, a Ashen Victor volume or issue, and a volume of Baoh. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 02:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
No, not yet, but just got some money today so I'll probably place an order for it and all the other volumes I had slated for this month soon. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't order anything online, only if I think I really need to. : ) It's fun to go comic stores and find something you have really wanted for a long time. : ) – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 02:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
For the most part, I order everything online. I prefer better prices to browsing ;) I do occasionally browse Barnes and Noble for new titles, or Hastings and Half Price for used stuff though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

(<-) I just read about Ike, now I'm scared... O_O Will you be okay...? You're not in Galvesdon right? – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 15:53, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I'm fine. I'm in the Bryan-College Station area, which is one place where folks from Galveston and Houston evacuated to. They made a big hub bub in the news about "hurricane force winds" and stuff, but right now its no different from a regular severe storm, without the annoying thunder and lightening. Nice rainy day to stay home, watch TV, and edit Wikipedia. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Well that's good. ^_^ I think our conversation got squished enough. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 16:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Yep, it was down to one line *grin* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)


Xena Season 1

Hi AnmaFinotera.The reversion in Xena: Warrior Princess (Season 1) was unnecessary. See List of Naruto episodes (seasons 1-2), same style, and this is a featured article. LL290368 (talk) 21:48, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

No, it was necessary. It was a horrible set of edits that added no value to the article and violated WP:NONFREE for no valid reason and used a bunch of bad references. There is no point in adding non-RS references to an article. Naruto is also an anime series, not a television series, with a different MoS for episode lists. See List of Meerkat Manor episodes for an actual featured television series to refer to, though at the moment the Xena ep list is modeling more on Lost (season 1). However, as I suspect you are another sock of Tarja, I doubt you care about actually following any such guidelines. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:13, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
You are completely wrong. Thank you. LL290368 (talk) 11:59, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
About you being another sock? Perhaps. The rest? No. Unlike you, I know what I'm doing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, i'm not a sock. I know that you are a primary editor, sorry for any offense!LL290368 (talk) 17:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
No problem and sorry if I seemed snappy. Long week with Ike's approach and a bunch of non-driving folks flooding into my area from Houston and the Texas coast. Least we are getting a 3 day weekend out of it :-P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:40, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
All right, and sorry again. What was wrong in Xena Season 1?LL290368 (talk) 18:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
It needs reliable sources and a much longer lead section. The Lost (season 1) article is a good guide to use for seeing what needs to be added with the Xena season 1 page, particularly the cast, crew, and reception section. It also needs some better episode summaries. Some of them really really short :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
OK, i will provide. LL290368 (talk) 19:19, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
See Xena: Warrior Princess (season 1) now to give your opinion. LL290368 (talk) 18:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


Better, but still using non-RS sites, including fansites. I've removed all those. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
All right. Who's Tarja, is not a singer?LL290368 (talk) 19:40, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Tarja is an extremely well known Xenophile sock who has made dozens of accounts after being continuously blocked for disruptive editing, adding fancruft and false information to articles, focusing articles here to the Spanish site, vandalizing articles, and then repeatedly evading the blocks by making more and more accounts. As soon as they are detected, they are blocked on sight as they are completely and forever banned from editing here for refusal to follow Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok.LL290368 (talk) 19:50, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

And about The Bitter Suite.LL290368 (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Except for your changing of the images, your edits were not appropriate and have been reverted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:15, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Why not?LL290368 (talk) 14:41, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Your moving the quote out of its relevant section was not appropriate not only violates the MoS but made the article confusing. It is a quote on the production of the episode, not the plot. You also added a bunch of irrelevant OR, and changed a proper IMDB template link to a manual one. You also spammed the page with a fansite link which violates WP:EL. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:24, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Believers (film)

Just added 10 or 12 more very nice reviews and sourced and cited the fimmaker being an award winner. Is this coming down to an I Don't Like IT? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

With his complete discounting of the reviews you posted, it sure seems like it. Some of his earlier messages gave the indication that he may be a bit snobbish about films and thinks the made-for-tv or made-for-dvd ones are somehow lesser films. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:00, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Well... I just asked the nom on his talk page to consider withdrawing the nomination in light of his concerns being addressed in quadruplicate. We'll see now see what we shall see. As for the deletists at the AfD... they make their mark and move on. A closing nom can easily see that the article is a far cry from what fist went to AfD... and the initial concerns for notability were extremely unfounded. Well... I have a 2-day film shoot myself to prepare for. I'll check in in the morning before heading out and check in tomorrow evening when I return home. I honestly do not know what more I can do. I mean... there are even more reviews out there... but the article is now suffering from overkkill. Thnaks so much for keeping an eye on this "new" editor. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Agreed...its something of an irony to me that I, normally in the deletionist camp, and fully arguing for keeping the film :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 08:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
I do not see you as a deletionist... more of an "improve-anist". If something is woefully bad, it best serves for it to go if it cannot be improved. You work for improvement. What is now hapening at the AfD and article is at best confusing, and at worst troubling. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 08:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks (again)...seemsl like you are one of the few people who get that :) I'm glad to see some more folks are coming in to the AfD and turning it around to the obvious keep it is. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, you and I might bump heads in the future... but working with you is a real treat. I am thinking now, after seeing THIS that perhaps he is just too new and does indeed misunderstand Wiki (yes, I am major time WP:AGF), and feels he cannot now retreat having painted himself into a corner. He seems to (reading between the lines) be saying he acknowledges that the article is improved, but feels he must go down with the ship or be considered weak. Sigh. I am on the road now... will check back in some 12 hours. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 17:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
You are way better at AGF than me! :) I am happy to see he has withdrawn the nomination, so I went ahead and did a non-admin closure. Now, if only all the links in ELs can be moved up and used to fill out the article LOL -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:38, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Just got back in. Looooooong day. Yours was the first spot I checked. So perhaps he decided that retreat was the better part of valor? Showing one can acknowledge when one's concerns have been addressed is a strength I hope he continues to cultivate. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:32, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Hope it was a nice drive at least :) I'm glad he decided to retreat, I just hope he'll also rethink his mass prodding/boiler plating and will be more thorough in his checking for sources. Meanwhile, my new favorite keep reason [17] (new users can be fun, though I hope she understood my explanation on why that didn't really work for this article) :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:42, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe he was feeling picked on. God... last January I felt exactly that same way. so I decided to share something that might allow him to be a better editor... or at least let him know that there is never a rush. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 09:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Could be and it was nice of you to share and keep up communication :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:06, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Wiki can be a very confusing place for a newcomer... and many editors use cryptic responses, chock full of wiki-isms when responding or editing. I hope my advice will be heard, as Barton does seem to wish to contribute... and I hope he does take in mind to ask questions. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Very true. I had an account for almost two years before I really was ready to take the plunge and start editing, and I started reading all kind of docs just because stuff was confusing! Of course, now I'm a total addict :P Perhaps he'll consider adoption? I wish I'd know about it when I was a new editor, that's for sure. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Well... he's an attorney and a linguist. Wiki's looser and per-consensus way of doing things would certainly feel foreign. :) Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 22:28, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Help needed

Hi! I encountered some c/e problems with the list The Office (U.S. TV series) season 4 that have prevented it from becoming a featured list. I noticed that you are interested in copyediting television series articles and I thought you might be willing to tale a look. Please let me know what you think. Thank you, Nergaal (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not a copyeditor at all. In that list you saw, only the first section is people who do copyediting. The rest are people willing to comment on peer reviews. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:05, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hulu.com

I noticed that you are in discussion with this user regarding the use of this website, and so am I. However I found an older discussion that ended in favor of the site. Now it does appear that the site itself has legitimate copyrights for distributing the content, except that it's only available in U.S. My objection stems on this issue. I intend to pursue this to see whether it is appropriate to use a site that is acessible only to limited number of users. I'd like to know what you exact views are in light of this information, or as to what I could do in this regard. Thanks. LeaveSleaves (talk) 07:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

It may have legitimate rights to distribute the content, however it is still not an appropriate site per WP:EL. Under links to be avoided, it violates items 7 and 8. I'd prefer it pass a full discussion at Wikipedia talk:External links rather than a brief discussion at the film project (which I somehow missed or I'd have been against it). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I've initiated a discussion as you suggested. Also, I was considering making users involved in earlier discussion on WP:FILMS aware of this debate. What do you think? LeaveSleaves (talk) 15:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Probably would be good to notify both the films and TV projects since they may be the most affected if the links are there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Hellsing

I've casted my vote on the discussion page. Now about that hatnote, is it ok if I change it to a {{Otheruses}} tag? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:23, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

The one on Abraham van Helsing? Its fine with me...someone else put that there. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Christy Johnson

... I has much the same problem... which is A) why I haven't decided to keep or delete, and B) why I added it to discussion in other discussion fields where notability has been claimed. I don't mind digging... and will try different parameters. It may be that she is now using a stage name (or varient/not uncommon) and these events may have hapened under her real name. I also think I wil send her, one actor to another, an email her way and ask if this is provable fact or industry hyperbole. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

And yes.... maybe too much AGF. :P Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

LOL...I'd think if it was her stage name, though, we'd have to have a reliable source saying it was her stage name :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Check this.... around paragraph 7 or 8. Getting closer. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:40, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hmmm...but still not "significant coverage" when she got a one line mention. Does confirm she was a "Miss Junior Greensboro", but I'm pretty sure the local city pageants don't count for notability (also, from my understanding, sources must not just be local/regional papers). :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Agree on that... but tends to indicate a grain or two of truth in her bio. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

ANd THIS, "Friday, Day 4" Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

That's the one I saw earlier that confirmed junior level olympic stuff. :) BTW, you seem to be fairly level headed on AfD discussions...what are your thoughts on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/(Pilot) Fringe (its technically a multi article nom because apparently the first was created today without the guy realizing one had already been created five days ago...and now he's all acting like his is the better article because he copy/pasted content from the older one to his). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:49, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Let me look. Found this..... but too young by 5 or 6 years. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:53, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Just went and visited the comedy. Opined. Keep original but cleanup the lengthy synopsis... heck, its longer than the pilot. Then merge the second into the first... combining the best of both. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
It is a fun little AfD...thanks to the names, folks are getting confused while I grit my teeth and refuse to respond to the personal attacks. Wee! :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
That's the fun. It seems like there is a Christy Johnson in NC who is also an athlete but not the same one. Wee! :D Comparing the pics, I'd agree, that one isn't the same one as this one (and this one seems to be the same as the one you noted before this, not the actress one). Makes me wonder if they borrowed bits of this second one's bio or something.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Doubt the senior borrowed from the junior. Johnson is a very common name in the Carolinas. So is Christy, Chritine, Christina, Christiana, etc. The hunt continues. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I know...born and raised there ;-) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 07:05, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

HERE's another one from NC... 2 years too old and 4 inches too tall. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

!!!!Got her again!!!! Check this. Looks like she won herself "BEST SUPPORTING ACTRESS, MUSICAL". Glad to learn she's still active in theater. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Found This, but am getting blearly eyed. If she's a junior olypian gold medalist, she's sure to be in there someplace. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The article's author came back and added what you and I had found. I left a note on their talk page asking for links to support the assertions of notability. Now will search again knowing her full name is "Patricia Christine Johnson". can now include Patricia Johnson, P. Johnson, and P.C. Johnson. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:17, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks like time ran out though...AfD just closed as delete. I guess if you can find more, you can have it userfied to work on it more. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
That's okay. That the author came back and yet did not source the assertions was quite telling. But Christy's only 24... and has plenty of time to become provably notable. Thank you much for joining me in the hunt. There are better articles to save... like Samer al-Masry which though easily shown to be notable through the most cursory or searches, needs sourcing and major expansion.... and Pratap (Film) which is about an important moment in Indian history, and need major trimming and some decent sourcing. I'll be working on Samer, and hope someone from "list of India-related deletion discussions" or "list of Military-related deletion discussions" comes forward with some help for Pratap, as I am not aa scholar of Indian nor military histories. So very glad to have spentthis time with you. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
No prob :) Now, back to finishing my overhaul of Category 7: The End of the World and researching the controversy of it airing so soon at Katrina, Rita, and Wilma! Weee! Anyone else miss the days when news archive articles were free? I'm getting tired of all the good sources being behind paid firewalls...thank goodness universities are still free to get such info (and I work at one LOL). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Input Pls

See User_talk:Rlevse#Sources_at_unsourced_articles_removed._2. See BB's talk page too. — Rlevse • Talk • 17:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm...okay, but not sure if I'm supposed to comment or not? He didn't add references, he added a book listing. The removals were correct, to me, and I did explain why they were removed, followed up by further explanation by Dreadstar. He'd already been welcomed, so what else should we have done? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Fringe (TV series) vs Fringe (pilot)

As I have already commented at te AfD, you might consider pushing for merge, as 'voters' will continue quoting series-specific reviews to support the single episode having its own article. This may be a middle-ground to which both sides can agree. The way I see it, each subsequent episode will have fans creating articles episode by episode and we'll be back at AfD again and again. The pilot is what it is... a pilot. I figure a good case can be made for it heading the the (soon-to-be-and-growing) list of episodes that will (inevitably) wish to have their own articles. This way you can show a compromising and fair-minded demeanor (to those who think you not), keep the pros and cons happy, and so keep this fan-popular (individually non-notable) information all together in a more easily sourced encyclopedic manner. Then the pilot synopsis can be trimmed to remove duplicate informations after the merge. Precedent exists on Wikipedia for this action... and should molify both keeps and deletes. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, and the main article would certainly benefit from it. I added in the reception info, and have done some work cleaning up the series article and trying to keep it in good shape. Unfortunately, with Hexhand attacking me all over the place, as soon as this AfD is done, I'm abandoning the whole thing. I thought it would be nice to watch and help a new series article be built up as a good article from the get go, but I don't have the time or desire to deal with someone who can't stop his attacking, false 3RR reports, and his refusals to allow anyone else to edit any article he does (he continues to revert all edits made by anyone but him to the pilot article). Alas, it does mean someone probably will take advantage of the lack of an established editor watching to make a bunch of episode articles that will end up at AfD eventually, but I'd rather concentrate on my up coming GAs rather than waste time and expertise where it obviously isn't wanted by a new editor who thinks he's better than those of us with experience and seeks to get anyone who disagrees with him blocked. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
AnmaFinotera ... How about letting the 2 editors discuss changes on the Talk Page and implement them without fear of AfD and other edits from those of us who aren't specialists on the topic ... that's all I'm suggesting. He already admitted he f'd up to being with by creating a second article, and that's pretty big/rare for a n00b. BMW(drive) 18:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Um, I am a specialist on the topic as a long time member of the TV project who has created FA and GA level TV articles, but I'm not going to bother doing anything else with it. The AfD can just run its course. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Cheer up girl! Cooler heads prevailed. Wiki has kept information with the merge and everybody wins. Good job!! Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 19:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm confused... as likely are you. The "keep" seemeed destined. I suggested a rational merge so as to find an acceptable compromise, but I am not "all-by-myself" a consensus. This one has me scratching my head. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, I have a strong feeling that it will be overturned in DRV, which will end the AfD discussion all together. *sigh* I think your suggestion was the best one, but won't happen now. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
And we won't know for sure unless or until Dredstar responds. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.
Sorry for lurking. Frankly, I wouldn't have been exactly surprised if it had in fact been merged. That also made the shock of colsure of AfD mild. What's bothering me more is deletion of article. That makes things lot more difficult for recreation. LeaveSleaves (talk) 20:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
That was only temporary. Its back.Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, but the version created is purely a redirect, without the history to even allow the merge suggested to happen unless someone has it archived somewhere. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Precisely my point. LeaveSleaves (talk) 20:12, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Yep...though HexHand's reactions isn't going to help anything either. He's posting in like four places about it already when he should just let the DRV run....-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, thankfully, the article is restored. LeaveSleaves (talk) 20:21, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and done the merge...let's see how long it takes to get reverted. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Would it make sense to add that deleted marketing information (as well as the comic book bit) up to production? Using the new media to promote the old is worth noting. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:56, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I'm thinking that should be in media instead of in production. Moving it down...let me know what you think. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, a better solution. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 21:00, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
And done...took me a little longer than I expected because of having to clean up the reference formatting. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:06, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
And Rlevse came to the same conclusion as did you and I. Your work must have made a pretty good impression to catch the eye of a Bureaucrat. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 01:01, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Manga Vizion

Do you know what Manga Vision is? It looks like some magazine by Viz, I found it at Meltdown. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 16:15, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Is it Manga Vision or Manga Vizion. If its the latter, it is a manga anthology published by Viz from the mid to late 90s. At the time it was introduced, I think it was the first such anthology in the US. The first issue came out in March 1995, and had The Tragedy of P, Samurai Crusader: The Kumomaru Chronicles, and Ogre Slayer. It serialized about 3 or 4 titles at a time. It was canceled in 1999 or so. Considering it was the first in the US, I'm surprised it has no article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:24, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Awesome, I'll get it. : ) I'm going there today. Maybe we could make an article! I'll get the issue, and we can use it for information. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 16:35, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for all the delay. I got the issue! And a issue of Battle Angel Alita, and Fist of the North Star. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 02:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Cool, and good find on the magazine. My local Half Price books has tons of old issues of Shonen Jump, but not much else for magazines. It does often have the original Japanese volumes of manga though. Kinda interesting to me because the Japanese volumes make up almost half of their manga section! I wonder who here reads all their manga in the original languages. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I wish I had a place like that near me... -_- I read most of my manga in the original Japanese language. : ) Ironically, I buy more English though. @_o Maybe because some are rarer. Anyway...let's try to make a Manga Vizion article, also I noticed something: Manga Vizion – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 16:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Wow! That's cool! I want to learn to speak Japanese, but I don't think I could ever learn to read it. For creating Manga Vizion, I'll try to get it started in my sandbox so we can work and gather sources a bit and launch it at a good start. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:20, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
You didn't know I knew Japanese? By the way, so far I'm not finding much sources for Manga Vizion. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 00:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Nope, didn't know that. :) And yeah, that's one reason I want to do start in the sandbox. If the reports I saw that it was the first manga anthology in the US are correct, it should be notable, but finding the sources may be more difficult since it mostly lived and died pre-internet. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Maybe we should just write about it on the Viz Media page. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 01:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
A good starting place to be sure, while source gathering. If we can't find much more than "it was published", at least its still there. :D -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:14, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
And done. I also made redirects for both Manga Vizion and Manga Vision. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:17, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Here's a good source I found. : ) Anyway, wassup? – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 01:26, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
*grin* that's one of the ones I found while doing some quick searching too. Nice, quick overview. For wassup...hmmm...not much. Even with two DVD cases, I didn't have enough room for them all, so went out today and bought a third, much to the amusement of the guy at Best Buy and my coworkers. :P Need to get it put together. Also want to find my receipt for the last ones I bought, cause the price seemed to be much higher today. Started rewatching Gungrave. Such a great series, though sad. Received Ultra Maniac from an eBay auction today as well. I'll probably rewatch it next since its been awhile and it should be light enough to counteract the sad stuff. :) Need to get to work on the stuff in my queue, like getting SJ and SB ready for a GA run, and the articles I mentioned before (Category 6 is mostly done, need to do Category 7, and the two Green Miles). First, though, to get messy eating my honey BBQ wings! :D-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Honey BBQ wings, huh? That reminds me that I need to eat dinner. Anyway, i've been working on the Santa Inoue article. Do you have anything on sale at eBay? : ) – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 01:57, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Nope, not yet. I may hit Half Price books later this week and try some "speculating" by picking up a few items and listing them, see how they go. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:59, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you ever sell the Japanese volumes? – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 02:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Nope, I never even buy them. No idea how they would sell here. I don't do a ton of eBay selling, though I've debated buying and selling some manga and/or anime when I spot out of print stuff at Half Price since they don't price it as OOP :D -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Those would sell perfectly on eBay. : ) I will be working a bit on Manga Vizion. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 02:46, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Cool. Meanwhile, I finally put in my monthly manga ordered. Partly from DeepDiscount.com and partly from Amazon. BTW, I know you said you don't order online much, but BookCloseouts.com has Tokyopop manga volumes on sale for 50-75% off, so most are only $3.99 each! :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:33, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I was asking if you were selling any stuff, so maybe I could buy something and support you. : ) But...yes, I don't order much online. : ) – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 19:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, thanks :) I don't sell much though. I have one game I want to sell, but its a low value one so I'll probably just pop it up in Amazon's marketplace or Half.com. I only eBay stuff if I think it will get some good action/bidding :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:52, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Makes sense. : ) I just recently made a new invention: Copy and paste templates to put specialty smiley faces on your talk page conversations: (σ_σ) GLARE… I think it's a great idea, normally text faces like this would take alot of work. – J U M P G U R U @Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia 20:10, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Plottiness of 7 Seeds

As the tagger of the article, would you concur that enough non-plot information has been added (and the plottiness massaged down enough) that the tag can be removed? Or do I need to finish my plan to condense the setting section? —Quasirandom (talk) 17:55, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

I'd still say there is way too much plot compared to non-plot. The story section is fine, but the character and setting sections seems very excessive. I don't really see why a list of "new animals" et all is even needed? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
That last is what I'm working on next (see the talk page). As a postapocalyptic survival story, a large part of the story is dealing with the changed environment, and comments about the series (none of which I've found in a reliable source yet, alas) highlight the author's ecological inventiveness. So the thing to do is condense it down to a prose discussion of the setting. As for the characters, each of the five groups is highlighted by the narrative, as the series progresses, with more or less equal weight. Fortunately, the nature of the premise means there's no more to list. —Quasirandom (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
I think a prose section would definitely be better than the list for the species. :) Good luck though...since its an unlicensed series, it will likely be much harder to find sources for it, and unfortunately from what I've seen most random visitors will just stick in some more plot stuff. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Unlicensed, and increasingly popular (especially after winning the award). Yeah, it'll take some conservation, but I'm willing to add it to my handful of closely monitored articles. —Quasirandom (talk) 19:44, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm...I wonder if there is an entry for it in the Manga guide...particularly with it being award winning. I need to get a copy of that...my library has it but its in the reference section so can't check it out. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:31, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Which manga guide? Thompson's? —Quasirandom (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I just came across it the other day...seemed like a nice equivalent to the Anime encyclopedia. He trashed Tokyo Mew Mew though :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
7 Seeds won't be in there, as he covers only (and all) licensed manga. He's useful, and I've used him, but I've caught him in small errors (of the using two different titles in the same entry sort) that suggest it was rushed through production. —Quasirandom (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Ah, figures. I wondered about errors. I know the first edition of the Anime Encyclopedia has a few small ones as well. I wonder if they were fixed in the second edition. Of course, I've had one guy argue that since it has some typos, its not a reliable source at all. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
*snort* I'm a freelance editor and proofreader -- there's no such thing as an object as complex as a book that has no typos. That's like asking a skyscraper have every single fitting installed correctly on opening day. The question is, was so much done not quite right to imperil the safety of occupants/information. —Quasirandom (talk) 20:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Exactly! I'm a web application developer and I'm a damn good one, but its rare that anything is finished without a single error or typo :P Me personally, I don't think the occasional errors detract from the overall usefulness of Anime Encyclopedia. Its very useful, especially for rarer series. Freelance editor and proofreader eh...ever do any CE on Wikipedia? *grin* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:26, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Why do you think I worked to start the cleanup workgroup? :-P —Quasirandom (talk) 22:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
LOL, if you have time, want to CE Shonen Jump (magazine)? Shojo Beat has already been CE and I'm prepping both for GA runs. *grin* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm kinda crunched with work at the moment, meaning I'm only up for things I can do in chunks of a couple minutes, and a CE on something that size needs a dedicated block of time. Maybe later? (BTW, are there plans to get at least starter articles for the missing manga magazines?) —Quasirandom (talk) 16:30, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
For the notable ones, yes, slowly but surely. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:41, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Merging a series together

Is the a relevant anime project guideline I can cite if I want to merge the Full Metal Panic! series together, as you did with Dragon Ball? It doesn't look like there would be too much of a fuss, but it's probably better to be prepared. TTN (talk) 18:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the MoS and overall project consensus that a series should have a single article rather than one for each media, unless a media is so significantly different it can support a full standalone article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:29, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

well done

Updated DYK query On 16 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Category 6: Day of Destruction, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Victuallers (talk) 20:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Yay, thanks! :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:54, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Tokyo Mew Mew

It was me (not logged in) who made the edits to the Tokyo Mew Mew page that you thought was vandalism and undid. I have undone your edits because it was not vandalism. The character "Kish" is actually spelled Quiche. If you don't believe me, type his Japanese name (キッシュ) into Google images and you will see pictures of quiches. キッシュ is the Japanese spelling of the French word 'quiche.' Any rendering of the character's name as "Kish" is based on error and I have corrected all the Wikipedia pages perpetuating this error. Please don't revert my edits, which were not vandalism, again. Thanks!! Frecklegirl (talk) 22:41, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

It is vandalism. We use the official English names per Wikipedia's guidelines and project consensus, not your translations of the Japanese names. This was already explained to you in the edit summary when your edits were reverted last time. They have been reverted again. If you continue attempting to change the names, you will risk being blocked. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 22:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Success and NPOV

I just checked the list of words to avoid, and successful isn't on there. More to the point, Bleach being an international success is eminently verifiable (see: every news result for Bleach on icv2), so I don't see how saying it is violates NPOV. --erachima talk 23:03, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

This has been discussed ad-nauseum in other areas. Film articles were barred from having "award winning" in the opening sentences because it does give an NPOV appearance, even if it is factual. Rather, you should just summarize its reception/success in the lead and let people draw their own conclusions as to whether it is "internationally successful." -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:04, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
Alright then, I've reworded it to be more clearly factual. My issue here is that individual sales data pieces are not sufficiently broad summaries for use in the lead, since they date quickly and give little indication of whether they are truly significant. For example, the "50 million" number in the lead is accurate, but without a comparison of what sort of numbers are common in related series, it can be misleading. (On a side note, you keep saying neutral point of view when you mean non-neutral point of view.) --erachima talk 23:27, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
If it helps, Tokyo Mew Mew is a good example of summarizing the reception section in the lead. Its a GA, but might be helpful. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:31, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Fringe

Per the comments in the DRV, I've gone ahead and relisted the AFD. Dreadstar † 23:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Inre those discusions here. I like the energy the two of you dedicate to Wiki. I think you both just got of to a rough start over the duplicate article situation and it went downhill from there. the Hexhand article was much better written than many. With advice from you, AnmaFinotera, he may have a whole slew of FA's coming aboard. And from you Hexhand, I would hope for patience and understanding. On Wiki, we have all the time we need and there is never a need to rush to publish. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I understand. I was just trying to be a peacemaker is all. We okay? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 06:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Yep :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:25, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Whew. Thanks and have nice night. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.
You too! :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Since HexHand seems more willing to listen to you, would you like to explain to him about WP:BRD and WP:OWN cause he is once again doing the "OMG, don't you dare change my edit" and reverting valid edits despite the discussion on it going on. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:37, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Will look and discuss. Care to send me the diffs so as to save me the search? Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 20:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
He added a link], I cleaned up some, he reverts ignoring the discussion on the talk page until afterwards, I revert and remind him there is a discussion, he reverts again and from there the discussion on the talk page fell apart as I quickly lost patience with his attitude and refusal to admit that he isn't always right nor the only one whose voice matters. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
When some of the content disappeared from that discussion as i was responding, I made a request for an outside opinion. Hope PC78 is someone you respect. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 23:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, he keeps moving other people's comments around on the Pilot article, because he apparently thinks other editors are idiots and the person who responded from the TV project didn't know who they actually wanted to talk to. I'm tempted to give him a warning on refactoring talk pages, but I know that would antagonize him rather than get him to actually stop that BS. Though someone should point out that people have been blocked for that. Its one thing to fix an indent when its obvious someone was replying to you and its obvious they forgot a colon, but to reorder talk page messages like that and change who replied to who is generally a big no no. In this case, it looks like he decide to take back his last response to me, rather than shuffle comments again. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Concerning some references at Goku

What YouTube refs at Son Goku (Dragon Ball) aren't links to copyrighted videos? Discussion is going on over here. Would you care to comment there? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 04:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Remarks left. BTW, have you noticed a growing glut of links to scanslations at OneManga? I had to pull links out of several InuYasha articles today alone. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
They do that? Haven't had the chance to catch any of it. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Yep...using them as "references." I'm debating nominating to have it blacklisted so the links can't be added and folks would be forced to remove them when editing the page. That site has all kinds of licensed manga scans (not even scanslations, but the actual licensed copies) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree. Any site which is exclusive only to scanslations should be blacklisted. Wasn't this considered for sites like OneManga, NarutoMangaReturns and some Sailor Moon sites? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:51, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
It was for some, like AniDB and AnimeNFO, but I don't think any of them were every actually blacklisted, just manually removed all links. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I've submitted the three worse ones to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist for consideration. If you can think of any I missed, let me know. Doing a quick check, there are 67 articles with onemanga links (not as bad as I was thinking), but there are well over 500 linking to AnimeNFO. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:42, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Yu-Gi-Oh! GX

"# (cur) (last) 02:52, 17 September 2008 AnmaFinotera (Talk | contribs | block) (18,373 bytes) (Undid revision 238943465 by WhisperToMe (talk) the manga came first :-P) (rollback | undo)"

AFAIK that was the case for the original Yu-Gi-Oh! Even if it came first, it probably came first because it took less time to create the manga than it would for an anime episode. I'll check the dates, but I am certain that the YGO GX manga is based off of the anime. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article for the GX anime says that the run began in October 6, 2004. Janime says that the manga was first posted on January 21, 2006. I could double-check the dates with reliable sources, but AFAIK, in GX's case the anime was first. WhisperToMe (talk) 07:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Template: Case Closed cite

Maybe you should leave me a few days for me to do the cut and paste list by substing.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 14:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Huh? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
You talked about a copy and paste list on the Afd. Maybe you shouldn't raise it to Afd this quick and tell me about this first.
But, then, I can easily change this template in question to apply all functions of {{cite book}}; would that prevent it being deleted?--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 14:50, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
No, I do not believe such a template should exist at all, so I still would have sent it up for TfD. I believe just using cite book is all that is needed, rather than making templates for every last series (which is what this would lead too). The template is also unwieldy for anyone to really edit who isn't very familiar with templates, and it is not intuitive to use. There is already a perfectly good citation template, {{cite book}} that you based this one off of. Rather than making a "quick" fix, just make a list of all the cite books for each volume for copy/pasting, then people can just fill in the appropriate page and chapter info, and quotes if needed (something else your template can not accommodate). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Example please.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 15:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Sigh, when would the ref tag subst bug be taken care of? Originally I don't even plan to use this template straight (ie I plan to always subst it when I use it.) and I just used it to produce {{cite book}} code. But then this bug prevented that from happening...--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 15:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
No idea..I'm not aware of the bug? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
The bug is like, if you go <ref>{{subst:some template}}</ref>, then in the ref section you would only see {{subst:some template}} rather than the actual wikicode. I originally plan to use this template as a coded version of such references list, and by using subst, it is totally transparent to all editors. But certainly it did not work-- you can try that on sandbox. I do personally know such a template, especially when put on template space, would at least cause some controversy.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 15:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
BTW, on citation standards: I don't really think requiring page numbers for manga citation is realistic, especially when most English manga nowadays-- excepting 4komas-- carry no page numbers. At least for all Viz manga I've read.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 15:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. I think it is perfectly realistic to require page numbers. If you know the chapter title, you know the page number - printed right in the front of the book most of the time, if not on most pages. I read a ton of manga, including many Viz titles, and they all have page numbers. Maybe not on every last page, but on most pages. Note that the FL character list has page numbers for most citations, except where it is referencing a whole chapter. On FA, page numbers would be required, chapter name or not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:57, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I mean, if there's a necessity to list every single page number. There's not a practical problems on quoting the page numbers for a single chapter, but like any literary work I wonder the scope of the citation should be down to the exact page the line appeared. Using a Case Closed example, the statement "Shinichi was transformed into a six-year-old boy..." should be referenced like "Aoyama, Gosho (2004). "File 1". Case Closed. Vol. 1. San Francisco, California: Viz Media. pp. pp. a-b. ISBN 1-59116-327-7. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)" or it'd be better referenced as "Aoyama, Gosho (2004). "File 2". Case Closed. Vol. 1. San Francisco: Viz Media. pp. p. b. ISBN 1-59116-327-7. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)" (the first frame seen Shinichi shrunk was the last page of File 1)?--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 16:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
It should be referenced to the page where its actually said he is a six year old boy. Or you could do a cite with both, i.e. pages=p. a, b) with a being the frame where he's shrunk and b being the page with his age and the chapter left off all together. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Of a list of cites? The Sailor Moon project maintains one for SM at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sailor Moon/References (though they inappropriate use the original volumes instead of the English ones, but gets you a rough idea). I have one for Tokyo Mew Mew, but I keep it in a text file off line since I'm the main one doing the referencing and stuff. I know I've seen it on some other series pages as well, but can't think of were right now. Some folks also keep them in their user spaces and just pop a note on the main article talk page for other editors to know its there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Plot sections doesn't need references?

Apart from the Afd to a template, you also raised a question for me: Plot section doesn't need references? But the plot section is certainly subject to WP:V. So one needs not use citations to prove the content's verifibility...?--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 14:48, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Nope, The main plot sections do not need a reference. This is the case in films, television, and books. The reasoning being that for the overall plot, it is a summary and the "unstated" source is the work being summarized and you can watch/read and verify it. All other sections, though, do need citations, including character lists, because then you are making specific statements about the details of the plot. I can try to find some relevant links for you, if you'd like to read up on it further and see discussions (I should bookmark them LOL). If you look at any FA/GA film, television, manga/anime, book articles, though, you should see that the plot isn't referenced. The only time a reference is needed in the plot is if an event is being interpreted for meaning, rather than just stated, or if there is contention about what happened in a scene and multiple views are given. Hope that helps some? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:02, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 15:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
Its one of those fun, tricky things about dealing with fiction articles :) If you have any questions on whether something may need a cite because its interpretation rather than summary, feel free to ask me or at the project talk. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:12, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

D.Gray-man

Its been some months since the inappropiate tag was added and the article has had a lot of work. Do you think it could be removed now? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 00:30, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yeah, I think its been taken care of, removed. Probably needs a CE tag if the bulk of the content additions are done? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:08, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Sakura Haruno

Would that Narutopedia site at the external links section be spam? The other Naruto articles don't seem to have this. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 02:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes. It is a fansite and does not meet EL guidelines. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

it something, anyway....

There's this.. and he seems open to listening. As you have likely now just read, I advised civility and patience. His actions will now speak for him. If he acts the bully in edits then that will come back to bite him. If he shows patience and restraint, that will show sincerity. I will be hoping for the best. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and ditto. Though I do think for the most part, I'll just avoid the articles for awhile beyond any vandalism reverts or fixing bad ref formats. Just seems easier on my stress level than trying to actually improve any of it at this point when my time can be better spent working on some other articles I'm trying to get to GA and keep neglecting to help in other places :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:16, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
And as I pointed out to him, his article is being watched... by many foks. He simply has to holster that hair-trigger. ;P Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 05:27, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Alas, no, he is still at it and only getting worse and seems determined to just revert anything and everything I attempt to do on any Fringe article and then make lengthy personal attacks on the talk page. He has some serious issues and I'm tired of dealing with his nasty nature. Civility reports have already gotten nowhere as it is obvious he has no intention of listening to anyone but himself. Debating going higher and reporting to AN/I, but as I'm sure he'd just go on more rampages, I'll just ignore him completely. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Akiko Hatsu AFD

Please take care not to bite the newbies - in the WP:COI guideline it outlines many ways to mitigate a conflict of interest that do not involve asking a person to refrain from editing an article that they know stuff about when it is up for deletion. Stuff like "try to cite people who aren't you" or "avoid peacock words". Deletion freaks people out, especially when they are dead certain that the topic is notable. Even if the material we're left with is biased, per WP:MISTAKES, bias can be removed from content. -Malkinann (talk) 14:59, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

He isn't a newbie (account is over 2 years old) and I didn't bite anyone. I pointed out the COI because he clearly stated that he is her friend, was a colleague at university, and wrote the afterward of one of her books! I pointed this out in a very polite fashion, and no, he shouldn't edit her article except as allowed by COI. I even pointed him to the AfD as the proper place to go comment about the deletion discussion, though asking him to note that he is her friend (though now he seems to say he isn't, he is just "friendly" with her. Big difference. Don't blame me that he can't seem to make up his mind about his relationship with this person, and decided to get all defensive instead of just reading the relevant guidelines and replying in a professional fashion that he was friendly rather than close friends and felt he could be neutral and would limit himself to making corrections to factual errors. Why the heck everyone wants to pounce on me for pointing out what should be obvious is beyond me. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:12, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
He registered the account two years ago, but has only recently started editing in earnest, and as such should still be treated as a newbie. I'm glad you agree that COI allows him to edit her article, but I believe that he has taken your summation of the COI guideline in this case as being definitive, which is unfortunate. I'm sorry that you feel "pounced on", as you really did nominate the article in good faith for deletion, but I also feel it's unfair to expect someone to watch an article go to AFD and to tell them specifically to refrain from fixing it. Even if he does add material in floral language, that can later be toned down and the bias eliminated. As you are more experienced with Wikipedia matters between you and he, it'd be really helpful if you gave him a hint or two as to how he can edit the article within the bounds of COI. -Malkinann (talk) 15:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to add a point. It's about dealing with experts in a field, and the person you're discussing is one of them. Most experts know many, perhaps the great majority, of the people in their field, and know them well. They may even work at the same university, but other connections are professional conferences, editing scholarly journals, and exchanging formal and informal letters and emails. I do not think it is wise to say that such a person violates COI when he or she coontributes to an article or a discussion on a talk page in an area they know about. To eliminate or ignore such people -- or worse, to force them out of Wikipedia -- is to lose an immensely valuable resource, one we cannot afford to lose. Most experts -- and I have known a fair many over the decades -- are extremely punctilious about being balanced and objective in what they say about other people and about their areas of expertise. In fact, one way to distinguish an expert from an amateur is that experts make cautious statements rather than the all-too-common wildeyed nonsense we get on Wikipedia from random crackpots. I would recommend that dealing best with an expert, as the person you're discussing is, means being polite, paying carefull attention, and above all assuming good faith. Timothy Perper (talk) 00:11, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
I did assume good faith and you already lectured twice for daring to even point out the policy to him when he called her his friend - not his professional associate, but his friend. Sorry if I foolishly still believe the word actually has some meaning. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:17, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Umm Dude...

I want to say this politely to someone whose work I respect: you're so far wrong on this Wikiquette thing that you need to chill. You have pushed the guy into a corner again and again, and are honestly not paying attention at all to what he says/does. You need to get away from him and his articles for a month; really. The next step is AN/I, and I will (based on what I have seen) recommend in favour of action against you, not him. Leave him alone, really. BMW(drive) 21:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me but they are not "his" articles! I have been editing on the Fringe article since before he even had an account! My first edit to that article was on June 5th[18], Hexhand's account was created on June 20th. He didn't do anything with Fringe at all until September 15th. He didn't even create ANY of them! How the hell are they now all his articles and he is allowed to act like and ass and run off all the experienced editors who were editing on them before him?? That is taking "don't bite the newbies" way too far, and he isn't even a newbie. He has edit warred with at least three different editors, reverting anyone (not just me) who changes "his" work. But I guess we'll just ignore WP:OWN, civility, cooperative editing, and all that and just let him take over the whole set of series articles because he can rant louder, longer, and nastier. I point him to guidelines, remind him of them, he tells me to grow up and makes paragraphs of personal attacks, but I'm in the wrong. Lovely... -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:55, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Forum-like discussion

Can you take a look at the discussion at the bottom of Talk:Jafar (Aladdin)? Someone attempted to remove it earlier, claiming it was "forumish". This attempt was reverted by someone else. I think it has to go, but what are your thoughts? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:14, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I would agree, it should be removed per WP:NOTAFORUM. Has nothing to do with the article at all, just someone's silly comment on the character. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:34, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Got it ;) Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 06:38, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Topic workshop

With good topics coming into existence, it's hell of a lot easier to host collaboration efforts, and now that we have examples of featured and good content for series articles, episode lists, chapter lists, character lists, and character articles, we potentially can make a whole lot of topics. As such, I was thinking of making a "topic workshop" of sorts for WP:ANIME. This would list potential topics, have signups for people that want to collaborate on a topic, and discussion sections for each individual topic. I also can write out a guide to forming topics (in a similar style to the prelude I wrote out at WP:ANIME/CLEANUP). Thoughts? sephiroth bcr (converse) 21:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I think that would be a great idea! It could spur more enthusiasm among editors as they can see that yes, our "fiction stuff" can actually produce good articles, featured articles, and then go on to GT/FT. Particularly in cases where an article is just one or two shy of reaching such a goal, it could be very encouraging indeed. Would also be a nice prompt to add a topic highlight to our portal. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:15, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Made a draft. Also, see discussion at WT:ANIME. sephiroth bcr (converse) 07:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
WP:ANIME's topic workshop is now active. Feel free to sign up for collaboration on topics or propose your own. Cheers, sephiroth bcr (converse) 03:07, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bulma Variant.PNG

Why did you remove this image from the Bulma page? Sarujo (talk) 01:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Because it appears to be a self-made derivative work, which would violate WP:COPYRIGHT and WP:NONFREE for usability. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
But all it is, is collage of screenshots from the show. Nothing was altered and they are not hand reproductions. In the rationale Toei Animation are still acknowledged as it is "still" their work as they were the ones who drew them. I could understand if they were copies that someone traced or drew from hand. But this is not. Sarujo (talk) 01:29, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
It is still a self-made collage, and it is altered with the fading affect. I'm pretty sure those are not allowed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:44, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
It can't be more of a violation than this. colagic image of the Doctor Who character The Master. Sarujo (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd personally call that one a violation too, but it isn't edited like this one is. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:45, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I'll find something else as it appears that hodpodging of any kind is out of the question. I thought it was a good idea as it was intended to help illustrate the character's changing appearance throughout the series without a gross abundance of individual images scattered throughout the article as the Dragon Ball Wiki has done with their articles. Am I right about in my estimation? Sarujo (talk) 03:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, in the case of a vastly changing appearance, having one representative in the lead, and then one or two well chosen, well captioned images in the article as part of the appearance section can be acceptable. In Himura Kenshin, for example, a separate image showing his OVA appearance is included, along with conceptual art. How many different appearances has she had in the series itself (not the films, video games, live action, etc)? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Sorry for butting in, but it seems Vegeta has the same problem. Should that lead image be removed? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 03:41, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I'd say yes. In addition to being a derivative of multiple works, it isn't a particularly good image and would be better dealt with using choice individual images (or if available, a promotional image that is a collage of multiple versions). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:46, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, to start off. One of the big cliche's about her is her changing hairstyle and that it's been two different colors in the two major mediams, lavender and turquoise. Also the fact that as she first appeared as a teenager and progressed into adulthood and finally middle age. Even future Bulma has a slight physical difference to her. Sarujo (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, but the hair thing is a very minor thing. A picture of her as a teenager, adult, and middle age may be appropriate, but only slight differences doesn't require multiple pictures nor illustration. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Everybody keeps saying that Vegeta pic I uploaded is ugly, but I don't see what's wrong with it physically. Like the Bulma image I also wanted a proper representation of Vegeta as that screenshot of him prior to the Image:Vegeta Variant.PNG‎ just isn't representing the character as they should. Like this image of Goku. There's probily one like that for Vegeta but it's not present at the moment. For now I'll keep searching until I find that perfect for both characters. Sarujo (talk) 04:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Well, I wouldn't say ugly, but I also can't honestly say its a good image. I think a single image in the infobox, and one or two representative images of key appearances is all that is needed, and only if it changes significantly. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:04, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Until the right representation for her and Vegeta manifest themselves, I would like to replace the image in the Dragon Ball Z section of the Bulma article with this if no one objects. As that other one looks goofy and this is more professional as if she appears to be posing for the camera. Sarujo (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The problem with that image, is the lack of a valid source. Is it a promotional image, or directly from the series. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

It's a single animation cell that was scanned on a simple run-of-the-mill scanner, that can fall under the category of screenshot. Like many productions, Project DBZ begain selling off each indiviual animation cells from all three series, the seveteen films, and the two television specials. Plus the cells from the opening introductions to UB22 and Final Bout video games are also on the open market. This just happens to be one of those cells. A tell-tell sign that this is what it is, is the dust all around it, and no background. Another example of an animation cell on the market is this scene from Final Bout with Goku and Vegeta. Notice not only the dust but the reminisce of the order number at the top. Plus Vegeta's unfinished leg which is just a blotchy edge with no colorhold of anykind. Then this vegeta pic, where behing the cell is the original sketch from which the cell was traced from. Then there are ones like this one where they have backgrounds but not necessarily the corresponding background that cell was shot with during filming production. You'll never see animation cells from more resent show like Naruto and Bleach on the open market as their respectable prodution teams utilise digital cells on state-of-the-art PC programs. That one image of Bulma in the Dragon Ball Z section of her article appears to be an open market animation cell that someone has scanned. By the way is cleaning up an image by removing dust and scratches any kind of violation? Sarujo (talk) 00:16, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Actually, no, scanning a cell is not the same a screenshot. That's a different type of media. Not sure what the rules are for those beyond that...my thinking is that its a cell, which is the entire work, so it would not be allowed. But you may want to check on that at the non-free talk page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:34, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
But this cell has obviously been cropped down and reduced in size. I don't see how a single cell constitutes whole work while a single freezeframe of that same shot in the finished production is a small portion. There are alot of film cell scans being utilized in character articles here. Including but not limited to Krillin, Frieza, and Vegeta use these types of imagery. Sarujo (talk) 01:14, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Like I said, I'm not sure what the guidelines are regarding the use of film/animation cells. It is something I think needs to be clarified though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:24, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Density of refs

Editing Jimmy Kudo to make the refs conform to GA quality. Of course this is a long process-- my memory of this series can only down to chapter precision, which mean cleaning the refs up needs me to re-read the manga; plus some newly added content are not ref'fed. What I have finished so far is merely refs in Case Closed manga #1.

However, I wonder if I have put those ref tags too densely. It seemed that I have been putting ref tags at the end of every line at some places-- it certainly helps with WP:V; but would it interfere reading?--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 05:59, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

The ref density looks fine, except that they should be after punctuation, not before. :) Also, don't forget that the page numbers should have p. or pp. in front of them (single or multi pages, respectively). Some FAs have much denser. And yeah, in doing the Tokyo Mew Mew list, I had to basically reread the series for every character's section. You'd think I'd have it memorized after awhile. :P
Some unsolicited suggestions: The names boxes are messing up readability and I think they should come out. They don't seem to add any value to the article and are already covered in the lead. Also, some of the kanji can come out. The name of the school in kanji/romanji isn't really neededed at all, for example. Just call it Titan Elementary School. Ditto Anita Hailey's name. Things like that can come out and improve readability more. I suspect the biggest issue is cleaning out the excess stuff, of course, like the relationships section and all. That is the article's biggest issue, with refs really being second. Too much plot and in-universe stuff and not enough real-world stuff.
Either way, glad to see th refs getting cleaned up. I fixed up a few that had some minor typos. Good luck with it.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:33, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Or may be you can tell me where of the article is being in-universe. I have certain disdain over the "relationship" section (especially the Hailey section), but otherwise, I don't know.
On the other hand, on the Komica Wiki ref I quoted and you doubted: This wiki is a record of Komica, a major Taiwanese 2chan-like discussion board. Unlike other wikis on Internet affairs like Encyclopedia Dramatica, though, the articles in that wiki is generally well-written, relevant, and appeared to be NPOV. Of course, being a Futaba-powered board, it is quite impossible for editors there to specifically verify each statement through linking to a specific post. Of course, if that does not satisify what is required by WP, I am happy to remove that reference and the line that relied on that reference.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 17:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
More on Komica wiki, in that wiki, the admins, in order to prevent vandalism, split the wiki into two, one read-only and one editable, and admins would only move the content from the editable wiki to the read-only one if the article has no apparent problems. This ref links to the read-only version of the article.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 17:26, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
In general, relationship sections don't belong in a good quality character article and it should come out. Beyond that, its basically a style of writing that doesn't clearly differentiate between someone "telling" what happened in the story from the story itself. For example, the "Early life as Jimmy Kudo" is written like a real biography, not like someone telling you about a fictional character's backstory. Reading Wikipedia:Manual of Style (writing about fiction)#Real-world perspective might help some with identifying that kind of thing. The Komica wiki is still a wiki, and I think it would likely fail WP:RS because of it, so another source should probably be found. While I see your point on preventing vandalism, its much like IMDB. They technically check user contributions, but not always for factualness but for "perceived" factualness - i.e. "doesn't look like obvious vandalism." Also, it still means it is user edited, even if there is a layer between the submission and posting. See what I mean?
You may want to take a look at some current GA character articles to see how they should be structured and to see how they are written from a more real-world perspective, such as Gaara or even the descriptions seen in List of Naruto characters (FL), which are all written from a real-world perspective. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree that CC is not a dating sim, relationships are not the story per se. But Jimmy is verifiably having a relationship with Rachel, and, if I remember correctly, his living in his girlfriend's house is part of the original comedy. Not to say their relationship is pivotal in some of the CC movies. So, maybe much of that content can be removed to a large extent, but the Jimmy-Rachel part, at least, cannot be eliminated. --Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 20:56, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
The part about out-universe writing is quite hard to understand, nor is the List of Naruto characters that you linked, short of its extensive lead, that out-universe as some of the examples listed in the MoS. That said, due to a shortage of reference material at my disposal (I left most of the secondary CC material at Hong Kong when I come to the States for my PhD), and the fact that I am nearly the only person who is actually editing CC articles, I can at most make this article a well-sourced, but kind of in-universe article. (Clearly some parts of the article can be made off-universe, like time dimensions, but as for author's intentions...)--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 21:10, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Also help me to check my what I just did was adding cruft. Thanks!--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 21:39, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Honestly, I'd have to say that the whole section is "crufty". While your rewrite was better, I think the years would be wrong unless something specific in the series says it takes place in the present. The relationship section is not necessary. His relationship with Rachel can be covered more appropriately in one of the other sections. See Himura Kenshin to see how his relationship with Kaoru is covered. Its also another good one for showing how to cut down the plot and put it in the appropriate format, a Character Outline with specific background and personality sections, and a Plot Overview which keeps also keeps it brief. For in-universe writing, I think the best thing is to be aware of it, try to avoid it, then trust a handy dandy copyeditor to come behind and fix any issues (its what I do anyway LOL). -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
If you have not knew that, I have actually commented the whole relationships section to prevent data loss while cleaning up.--Samuel di Curtisi di Salvadori 23:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

NPA?

I don't see how "goddamn" constitutes a personal attack. If every single person discussing the stuff agreeing that characters that die within the storyline do NOT belong in "former officers" isn't consensus, I don't know what is. Suigetsu 02:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Unless I'm being really dense and there's actually a Wikipedia process that establishes consensus, like a poll or something. Suigetsu 02:21, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
As a whole it was rude and was a personal attack against the reverting editor. And consensus is established through discussion. The discussion on the best way to format that particular list is still on-going. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:25, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Not a bit of the comment wasa personal attack (a personal attack is more of "ur stupid" or "ur gay" instead of "stop being unconstructive and discuss on the talk page"), it was simply informing him that we had agreed on the discussion page that Kibune doesn't belong in Former officers and that he had been told multiple times to discuss it on the talk page (which he did not). By the way, the issue with that revert is Kibune going in former officers or not, not the format of the list. (Admittedly, where Kibune goes will be obsolete once we reformat the list anyways, but I'm more thinking of where he should go until then.) Everyone seems to agree at the least that people who die during the storyline shouldn't be "former" until they're replaced. Suigetsu 03:02, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

MPDB discussion

I sure you're going to see it, but I wanted to point you to my most recent comment regarding this template, which is to basically say that the template's not really the issue, the eligibility of the website as an external link is, so why not close both of the template discussions, for the moment, and take the question to WP:EL? If the website passes muster there (which I take you think is unlikely), then the tempate is only a tool for posting it and should have no problem being kept, but if the website is n.g., then who needs to template? Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:11, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The template is the issue. The article has already been deleted, and it clearly fails all guidelines for WP:EL. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not talking about the article, I'm talking about the website that's being linked to, which is what the template is a tool for doing. Why not bring it up at WP:EL, see what happens, if the consensus is that it's a legit site or not. If it's not, the template's toast anyway. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think that's necessary. Flickr was declared a non-legitimate EL, and this site is really not any different from a focused form of Flickr. However, I've posted a note at the EL talk page pointing to the template deletion discussion and asking folks to come their to speak to both its legitimacy as an El and the validity of the template. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:28, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I think we've got a knotty problem here, so I've asked for help (in, I hope, a completely neutral way) at WP:AN. Ed Fitzgerald t / c 02:58, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Alrighty. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

page blanking (almost)?

did you intentionally delete almost all of Talk:The_Secret_of_NIMH? if so, why? Coffee joe (talk) 09:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, you could have read the edit summary that said "archive pre-2008 conversations". It is, after all, late 2008 - there was also an ARCHIVE box that showed the entire archive. BMW(drive) 14:18, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
What Bwilkins said. I archived all of the pre-2008 conversations to clean up the talk page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:21, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
That was an oversight on my part. i was unfamiliar with the practice of archiving article's talk pages. one more question. why bother archiving such a short talk page even if it is old? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coffee joe (talk • contribs) 10:00, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Somehow I think a 2008 post did get archived though. I will agree with you though Coffee Joe, archiving is to "shorten a lengthy discussion page", and that was by no means lengthy and should have remained as is - or at least get consensus to archive first. BMW(drive) 11:19, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I have been doing that for months with no issue, archiving old conversations on talk pages on articles I clean up. Too many issues with people replying to conversations from 2006 and 2007. It gives the talk page a "clean slate" for newer discussions. In this page's case, there wasn't anything new. I was going to post a new message about cleaning up the page, but never got around to it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:48, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I can see the merit in that. however, there have been topics on talk pages that were old that i replied to anyway because i felt that it would help inform any editors new to the article despite the latency. Coffee joe (talk) 00:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
also, on a peripherally related subject, part of my initial confusion was due to the archive box being somewhat discreet, so i over looked it. is it possible to modify the template to make it more overt - maybe by adding some exploratory verbiage for all the ignorant folks like me? Coffee joe (talk) 00:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Modifying the archive box would need to be discussed on its page. Its a very widely used template, so chances must be done only with a well established consensus. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:15, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
AnmaFinotera... did you actually see my original post as being condescending, or in any way uncivil? (see User_talk:Coffee_joe#Secret_of_NIMH to understand why I ask) BMW(drive) 13:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Not at all. Seemed reasonable and civilly written to me. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Love Hina article

You've probably noticed I'm working on Love Hina, and it's my first attempt at rewriting such a relatively large article (to fix the previously highlighted issues) so I'd appreciate some advice or suggestions.

The sources issue is a known one, I'm on the hunt for some at the moment (the manga itself can help with half the article). The lead rewrite is the bit I'm having the most trouble with, suggestions for good examples of lead sections would be useful unless you have specific issues you wish to point out (aside from my getting confused with your edit and then doing the wrong thing, which you caught before I tried undoing it). Certainly the articles I looked at were doing the same thing. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Keep in mind that the lead should summarize the article (see WP:LEAD). So it should really be one of the last parts done, since you can't summarize what isn't there yet. :) The manga section should be a detailed discussion of the initial serialization and volume release, English releases, and a short summary of other languages. In the lead, in general, you just note the original and Japanese in a briefer form. Some examples of good leads (and general overall good article structure) would be Tokyo Mew Mew (GA) and Wolf's Rain (B; good lead and generally good article). Rurouni Kenshin (B) isn't a bad lead, though its lacking a summary of the reception. Also, don't forget to look to the Anime and manga Manual of style. Hope that helps some? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that does explain it fair well. My thinking was working down the page from top to bottom, but as you say it's a bit backwards. However, it was one of the bigger issues with the page hence my tackling it first. I was definitely confused by the manga publishing being moved down the page, but the anime publishing was left at the top. Surely it's no different? For now i'll work on citations and filling out the rest of the article's many missing pieces in an attempt to rescue the page as a whole. Dandy Sephy (talk) 03:42, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
A summary of the manga and the anime releases should be in the lead, just not in heavy detail. The anime part of the lead is a summary of the longer anime section. The same needs to be done for the manga, and the lead rewritten to do the manga first, a summary, then summarize adaptations. The first step I'd take is to fix the organization of the article to follow the MoS. I'm not sure what the "Original character designs" is supposed to be, but it looks like some production info that should be redone as prose and put in a proper production section. Then work on expanding, rewriting, sourcing the individual sections. I've done some initial work on the manga section for the writing part, but it needs sourcing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:51, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, the original character designs are from production related portions of the manga. I'm planning to write a manga production section once I track down a few citation sources I've lost. Much of the anime section can then be moved to production as well. Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
The production and media sections should be separate. The production section should discussion the creation, conception, etc. The media sections discuss the releases and licensing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:02, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, for some reason I thought the anime section had more production related material. I've got plenty I can add for that at a later stage however Dandy Sephy (talk) 04:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately, it looks like the anime and OVA sections are suffering from some OR/personal opinions, and some redundancy to other sections. I've fixed up the lead some and the manga section some to help out. I've also gone ahead and done a MoS rearranging to get things going. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I can fix some of that when I sort my sources out (I'm re-reading the manga on and off so it's easily done), a lot of it is verifiable. Should the non verifiable stuff be removed straight away or a timeframe set in place to organise citations (for example although tokyopop claim it won a award at anime expo 2002, I've not found a single textual source for this, only what tokyopop have stuck to the covers of some volumes - unless their website saying so on their shop counts)? Impressive work in the timeframe you used btw, you showed my own attempt up pretty quickly :p Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:17, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
For really dubious stuff, I'd ax it. For stuff that sounds like it may be plausible, tag it with a {{fact}} tag and give a two weeks or so for someone to verify. For the Tokyopop award, while their website can be a source (someone would quickly point out a false claim for an award they didn't win), another source is better. Here is one for ya for that[19]. :) And thanks...comes from lots of practice on doing MoS fixes (and having a fast typing speed doesn't hurt) *grin* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Trust me, I've spammed ANN with plenty of search strings but they simply don't have a page with 2002 awards (or a news item covering love hina in that context). I'm surprised it's on that 2004 page, they must have won it again (it's not an issue with the claimss in the article, I've checked with the cover for volume 9) Dandy Sephy (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh, duh, didn't even check the year! :P I'm seeing confirming reports in less RS sites, so I think its fine with just using the Tokyopop site as a reference. Active Anime was considered RS in the recent Naruto FL, so you could use this one[20].-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
You need to slow down, I only went to get a cup of tea and you made 3 edits to get me edit clashed :p Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:15, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
LOL, ref formatting is my pet peeve :P I see it needs a tweak, I must fix. Its compulsory ;) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:29, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey, I'm pretty sure I was using YOUR punctuation with references :P I just edited what was there and followed it for the rest —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dandy Sephy (talk • contribs) 17:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Not unless I'm tired than I think :P It was what was there before, though. BTW, I gave you a ref for the 2002 award above :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 17:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I forgot about that :p Personally I thought it was no more reliable as a source as my animaxis one (a random note about it in a dvd review seems no better then using tokyopop's mentioning it in the small text on their site), but you're the expert AnmaFinotera-sensei :p. I do seem to spamming your talk page as much as the article though, which is worrying. Dandy Sephy (talk) 17:59, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
LOL, its only spam if its irrelevant ;) Active Anime held up as an RS in a featured list candidacy, so should be okay to use. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:01, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Rajeev Masand

I sure hope User:202.177.238.208 is not User:Shyambhagat, specially after what we went through to save Rajeev Masand at the AfD. Good catch on the "vandalism". Schmidt, MICHAEL Q.

And in the meantime....


The Special Barnstar
To thank you for your tireless efforts in making Wiki a better place and articles worthy of inclusion! Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 07:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks :) And it wouldn't surprise me. From his responses (and lack there of) on the talk page, I figured he wouldn't follow the decision no matter what it was. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:04, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Yo! Son Goku and His Friends Return!! problems

I may need some help with this article I've gone into more detail at the talk page. Sarujo (talk) 00:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Responded there. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Move tag troubles

Yeah, I figured I'd get yelled at for that, but the move tab isn't working for me. When I submit, it just says 'couldn't submit info' or something like that. guess I'll just wait for someone else to move it... which hopefully won't be long from now, because the article really has no business violating WP:UE because its workgroup doesn't like English. Suigetsu 00:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

You couldn't move it because Gin Tama already existed as a redirect that had been edited. In cases like that, if the move is uncontroversial, you do as I did and tag the target article name with a {{db-move}} tag, noting the old article and explaining why it needs moving. An admin will then take care of it. A request could also be done at Wikipedia:Requested moves, particularly if the move may be complex or controversial. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
... Duh. I... am an idiot. Anyways, hopefully this gets resolved. As much as using English translations, especially Viz translations, makes me cringe, WP:UE is a policy I'm always one to cite. Good job on the tagging, and grats on the barnstar. Honestly, you really deserve it, given the anime articles and god-awful drama, OR, and generic bullshit you have to deal with on a regular basis. Suigetsu 00:58, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks and no prob. I think almost every editor who has been here has made that boo boo at least once :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:59, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk: Son Goku (Dragon Ball)

I left a question here about the infobox. Could you edit the infobox of Son Goku so that there is a general way of Dragon Ball characters infoboxes? Thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 01:57, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

done :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
A little question, is the lead of Rurouni Kenshin better now (Should it be Japanese manga or simply manga)? Also I finished doing at least all the things I could doin Fullmetal Alchemist, any idea who could a little copyedit? Regards.Tintor2 (talk) 14:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I think consensus agreed should be Japanese manga, though to me its redundant. :P The RK lead is better, but still needs some tweaking. Since it should be a summary of what's already sourced in the article, for the most part new details shouldn't be part of the lead. There are three sourced statements that should be in sourced and expanded on in the main article, with the lead then being a summary of that. It also needs a fuller reception summary. For copyedit, maybe check Wikipedia:WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors/List of participants (though I'd check before asking someone to make sure they aren't a new editor, as they may not yet be familiar with Wikipedia's style guides and stuff). So far I haven't had much luck finding any either...and I have three articles I need to get done so I can send them off for GA. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
I see, thanks.Tintor2 (talk) 15:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Alice in Wonderland (2010 film)

Great news!! Per Google News and articles [21], [22], [23], filming HAS now been confirmed. Schmidt, MICHAEL Q. 18:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Okay...though I still think its way too soon to even have an article on it. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

blocking

No problem. I didn't realize that was a soc-puppet. Academic Challenger (talk) 21:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Transformer character articles

The character articles for the Transformers franchise could use your attention. I have tried to improve the Megatron and Starscream articles but alot of the changes I made were reverted back shortly after by Mathewignash. They came to my talk page informing me that he had listed his reasons in both talk pages so I gave my thought on all the character articles in my talk page as I felt that was the best place to call attention to said articles without hopscotching talk pages. So after so many day without a responce I went to the Megatron talk page to retort my rants about those articles. But I feel my views won't be enough to suport article improvement per Wiki-rules. Sarujo (talk) 21:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Correct translation of chapter titles.

I just picked up volume one of Black Jack today and realized the chapter titles differ slightly than the official chapters on the Tezuka World website: http://en.tezuka.co.jp/manga/sakuhin/subtitle/m089.html Some of the differences are not that big but others a very different, the most correct ones in the volume I just bought. Which do you think should be used, the ones from the official Tezuka website or the ones from the Vertcal published manga? Grapeofdeath (talk) 00:15, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Per the MoS, the correct ones to use are the official English ones from the Vertical releases, rather than the translated ones from the website. :) Its actually something we run into now and then when the official Japanese site has an English translation. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:21, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I'll start fixing them now. Grapeofdeath (talk) 00:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Image:Bulma Variant.PNG update

It appears that that film cells not acceptable per this discussion. So the images Image:Bulma75.jpg, Image:BulmaHappy.jpg, Image:Dragon-ball-kuririn.jpg, Image:Freeza Mugshot.jpg are not acceptable due to their copyright statis. Sarujo (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for checking, and good to know! :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Claymore FT

After starting on this project, I started looking for other prospective GTs/FTs and stumbled on this (well, perused stuff linking off from articles linked here, but whatever :p):

Main page Articles
Claymore (manga) List of Claymore chapters - List of Claymore episodes - List of Claymore characters

So yeah, if the main is bumped up to GA and the character list goes to FL, then we basically have our first series topic. I would say that this would be a model for most anime/manga series, as most series have nothing beyond a character, episode, and chapter list in addition to the main article (as opposed to big franchises such as Naruto, Bleach, etc.). In terms of actually getting this done, I have an idea (damn, all I seem to have lately are ideas and no time to actually do anything about them) of how to structure the character list and the reception I can garner, but I can already tell that trying to take a crack at the main article in anywhere but reception and copy-editing isn't going to work. As such, your help (which nearly brought Tokyo Mew Mew to FA, and brought a bunch of other stuff out of the gutter) would be greatly appreciated. :p If you haven't read the series, I would highly recommend it. Yagi's art style is probably one of the best I've seen and the story is pretty entertaining. sephiroth bcr (converse) 06:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Agreed that it looks like a good candidate for a GT/FT. I'd love to get Tokyo Mew Mew to one or the other, though its taking me forever to get back to finishing the character list merges, and ep list is a big headache with its semi-unlicensed state. I have never read Claymore, so I couldn't provide much help with the plot related stuff beyond some serious hack/slash of that main article (ewww!). I can't believe I tagged that back in February, and still no real improvement. *shaking head* I'm willing to give it a whirl on filling it out with respect to the real world stuff and cleaning it up though. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:23, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
To make it easier on myself, I'm gonna work on it at User:AnmaFinotera/WIP2 for awhile, before moving changes to the main article. Hope that's okay? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Fire away. sephiroth bcr (converse) 02:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Oh wow...I just looked at the character list. I no envy you :P Meanwhile, on the WIP version, I've ripped out a lot of stuff. Some may be salvageable for the character list, but the rest was just crazy. I put in a brief plot, and some hidden notes for when its implemented, since I can't really summarize it well. I'll work on the lead and real-world stuff, and when its ready for a review, I'll give ya a holler. BTW, the chapter list lead may need a slight update...it says the series will be moving in 2007, so I'm guessing it has since moved? Also, probably be good to do a simple template, with four articles, as it will likely come up in a future FT. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:13, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, you nominated the old template for deletion :p In any case, a template isn't needed for the purposes of WP:FTC - clear linkage to the lists from the main article is sufficient. And yeah, the character list is not going to be fun to cleanup. I'm probably just going to start from scratch, as the current list is so overblown with in-universe details and original research that it's a bit pointless to try to clean it up. And yeah, for the main article, give me a call when it's cleaned up. Thanks a bunch, sephiroth bcr (converse) 07:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
ROFLOL...tells you what kind of memory I have. :-P It probably should wait till the character list clean up is done, then I was thinking something like Template:Tokyo Mew Mew, though probably with a different color. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Do the Claymore manga volumes and/or anime DVDs include any production info? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

No idea. I don't own any of them. :p sephiroth bcr (converse) 03:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
What kind of production info are you looking for? I can look at my manga when I get home tonight. Grapeofdeath (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Side notes or extras discussing the conception of the manga, characters, etc., the creation of the anime adaptation, things like that. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:24, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
There wasn't anything like that in the chapters themselves, but I'll check the backs of the books later tonight. Grapeofdeath (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
There's nothing in the manga, Japanese or English, and the english DVDs will not be released until the middle of next month. The limited edition will include a booklet full of interviews and artwork, so you might have luck looking at that. Grapeofdeath (talk) 06:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Alrighty, thanks for checking :) I'll flush out the other parts then, and should be ready to check before implementing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Wow AnmaFinotera.

Seriously. I mean if Saiyan Island isn't a "Reliable Source" then how come it's used for The Broken Bond page? I mean if Viz Media is making a Hollywood Studio it's kind of obvious they're going to make some live action movies...Moocowsrule (talk) 01:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Moocowsrule

Could you be at least a little more specific about what edit you are talking about and what page? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Somebody has a great memory. And it's me. But not you. Because remember on the Naruto Talk page, I put up a discussion about how Viz Media is making a live action film studio, and how they might be making Naruto, Inuyasha, Bleach and Monster movies? Well you said the article wasn't a reliable source, yet a citation from the exact same website (Saiyan Island) was used on the Broken Bond page... and it's not fair. Yes.Moocowsrule (talk) 04:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule
Sorry, I have some 2000 articles on my watchlist. Its easier to have a "great memory" when you only deal with a handful of articles, and that you would expect me to remember something from JULY is rather ridiculous. I removed that reference because it was a rumor, not a fact, and it is not a reliable source. Just because it is used somewhere else does not automatically make it a reliable source. Its a fansite and it should not be used as a reference anywhere, period. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:38, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm sure it is easier. And seriously 2000? I have like 200... It was from July? Really? That's the month of mah birthday. XD Moocowsrule (talk) 04:52, 22 September 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule
2008, to be exact. :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
LET'S GO ON A MASSIVE FANSITE DELETION THINGYMABOB!!!! XD But seriously on The Cat Returns page a "BaronxHaru Fanclub" is used as a citation. What the hell? Seriously. I mean it's stupid. Really stupid.Moocowsrule (talk) 05:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Moocowsrule
We (project members) are trying, but there are thousands of anime/manga articles and only a dozen or two of dedicated editors. We can't get them all at once. And yes, that fanclub should be removed as a citation. Beyond WP:RS. I've seen fanfic used as cites too, and removed them. Fansite links do not belong on Wikipedia and they are not RS. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Seriously? Fanfics? That's sad... Of course most of the people who write these articles don't know Japanese... I'd say half of them are crazed otakus who think they know Japanese. Like the Vampire Knight page sounds like it was written by a fricking fangirl...Moocowsrule (talk) 06:16, 22 September 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule
Unfortunately, yes. I try to keep out some of the vandalism, but I'm also trying to avoid reading too much of the plot so I don't get spoiled to the story. I don't know Japanese either (beyond a smattering), but that doesn't negate being able to write intelligently about anime and manga series. It just requires extra effort. Unfortunately, a lot of the series articles are regularly hit by fans, usually anon editors who watch fansubs and read scanslations and thinks its more accurate than the licensed versions, and their stuff goes unnoticed, particularly on newer or less popular series. We are slowly but surely going through series by series, but each of us can only do so much at once. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:18, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Well... I DO KNOW JAPANESE SO IN YOUR FACE!!! Jk. But I was wrong. The BaronxHaru fansite wasn't used as a reference, but rather an "External Reading". So since I'm such a noob at wikipedia... Does that violate RS? I would say no... but I'm a noob...Moocowsrule (talk) 06:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule
No, but it does violate the external link guideline and should still be removed. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
How long did it take for you to memorize all these guidelines??? You make me feelz like a total noob...T~T Moocowsrule (talk) 06:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule
Hmmm...probably a couple of months, and I still check back on the pages now and then to make sure I'm remembering right. WP:RS is one of the key ones, though, particularly when you start doing good articles (GAs) and featured articles (FAs). There are still a ton I don't know or can't remember without reviewing. I keep a list of links to ones that tend to be important or relevant to articles I deal with in my userspace, just in case. If you haven't done so already, going through the Wikipedia:Tutorial can be useful for learning some of the basics. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:34, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
貴方は名前何ですか?私の名前は光(ライト)です。はじめまして "Anata wa Namae nan desu ka? Watashi no Namae wa Raito. Hajimemashite" "What is your name? Mine is Raito (written with the Kanji for Hikaru, or Light in English, so that's how I got my name). Nice to meet you."Moocowsrule (talk) 06:25, 22 September 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule
I plan to learn to speak Japanese (not even gonna try learning to write it), just haven't found time to start my lessons. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't wanna waste your space so I'm gonna write this here: WE NEED YOUR HELP!!! On the "Gintama"/"Gin Tama" Page, people are arguing whether it should be "Gintama" or "Gin Tama" I agree with "Gin Tama" because that's how I've always seen it in Shonen Jump, but what do you think? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Gintama#Gintama_vs._Gin_Tama Go here and argue.Moocowsrule (talk) 06:46, 22 September 2008 (UTC)Moocowsrule

That's actually an older discussion, but it needs to be revisited as the MoS has changed since then so it should be Gin Tama. Posting there and will put a notice on the project talk page. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:04, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Do you think I should make my own page now? Or should I wait till I make more contributions? Moocowsrule (talk) 02:38, 25 September 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule

Its up to you :) Some folks make it before they ever start editing...some folks have edited for years and never made one. It can be a nice way to introduce yourself and your editing preferences adn stuff. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 03:06, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Lol I feel stupid... I mean I'm not sure what to add... and maybe I should read more rule stuff and learn about templates before I make my own page, otherwise I might mess up my page...Moocowsrule (talk) 03:51, 26 September 2008 (UTC)moocowsrule
Hmmm...well Wikipedia:User page goes over the basic guidelines of what a user page can/can't have, while Wikipedia:User Page Design Center has tons of into and resources on designing a user page :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

List of Kashimashi: Girl Meets Girl characters

User:Juhachi is currently in the process of cleaning this up as part of the topic he's attempting to get (which is actually pretty close to being a FT), and I was wondering whether you could offer him suggestions on the list. My big two problems are namely the "characterization" part and the level of in-universe detail, but I was wondering whether you could help him out with that. Also, I noticed that you never renewed your membership in WP:FILM here. If you do, FWIW, you can partipate in the coordinator elections here. Cheers, sephiroth bcr (converse) 05:39, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't think I could be much help there. Juhachi and I do not edit well together, and I'm not familiar at all with the series. I'm not really sure what the characterization part is for? I'd have thought such differences would be in each individual character section? For the film project, I still edit a few film articles, but didn't seem to have as much concern there for fixing up bad articles or dealing with larger issues. I didn't realize I needed to renew my membership, though...will think about it. I looked at the election page, but couldn't really tell what it was all for. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:24, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The Green Mile

Could you please explain why you reverted my changes? What "MoS violation" was there? The book as originally published in 1996 was not available in hardcover; it was released in hardcover only four years later. Which is why I removed "Hardcover" from the media type, leaving only Paperback. Additionally, I added Year in Literature link to the year, I don't see what harm that does; it's only useful. Jmj713 (talk) 14:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It violates the MoS guidelines regarding linking of dates. Stand alone years shouldn't be linked like that, nor does the infobox instructions call for that kind of linking. For the media type, the instructions aren't very clear as to whether its all available or the first, but I can see removing the Hardcover from it for that one. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 14:19, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, but if you're referring to MOS:UNLINKYEARS, that has nothing to do, in my understanding, with a Year in Literature link. Jmj713 (talk) 16:07, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
No, not linking standalone years (or standalone months, or month year) was always a part of the MoS. Its more under the avoiding excessive links, and those are generally considered excessive and unnecessary links. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:08, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm back. Now...

...can you please check over List of The Bellflower Bunnies episodes, which I've vastly improved and simplified, and leave your comments here? (Also, don't forget to check out Family Moving Day.) Thanks! --Slgrandson (How's my egg-throwing coleslaw?) 03:39, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Dragon ball merges

I have a real problem with some of the Dragonball character merges that you are calling "consensus" on with a handful of votes, often with no reasoning either way, and a roughly split margin. I will take this to arbitration or disputes or something if you like, but I would prefer not to have to bother. Can you please undo the more absurd merges, they should be relisted until consensus is actually reached, not just until you decide. Nothing approaching consensus has been arrived at, and given some of these profiles endured AfDs and won, this is clearly violating the democratic decision that came before.JJJ999 (talk) 09:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

No, the merges will not be undone. There is clear consensus, with the merges clearly supported by policies and guidelines, and the keeps primarily consisting of "I don't like the notability policy" or just "keep because I said so" who never actually showed any notability for the characters. As you noted on the talk page, this is NOT a democracy, and consensus is not decided by just counting the keeps versus the merges, which is the only way your claim that the merges are not valid is supported. Nor is an article surviving an AfD over a year ago not somehow exempt from every being merged somewhere else or even from another AfD. Its interesting that you both claim this is not a democracy, then claim that democracy is not being followed, but suffice to say its not a democracy at all. The discussion had plenty of time, and members from both projects have had time to weigh in. They are supported by both the arguments, and existing project guidelines and consensus on the general topic. If you want to take it to some dispute resolution, go ahead, but they will be upheld. Your first step, per the process, would be to post to both projects to note that you (and you alone) disagree with the most of the various closings as merges (but of course, none of the keeps), and just as with the keeps, you have given no actual reason to keep the articles, but instead are calling foul on the very valid closings which were determined well within line of the guidelines for determining consensus. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs)

WP:3RR

Ok, so, basically, this isn't a template. You're edit warring on The Clique series; it's been locked for 2 days. Take this time to reach a consensus. If you two keep going on like this, both you and Ed Wood will be blocked for a week. Please don't make it come to that. And I don't care if he starts warring again; you don't have to respond in kind. We can solve this! :) Thanks, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 20:57, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

There already is consensus to not have a link to that book. See the talk page as I explained to the person who filed the report. The article was AfD and has been salted under several names. The book has not even been written. 3-4 other editors have agreed a link is not necessary, Ed is only one who thinks it should still be linked, despite the AfD, his attempt to have it overturned at deletion review failing, etc. He refuses to acknowledge any of this and just comes back and readds the link every few days. Should he be allowed to ignore the existing consensus and just let the unwanted, invalid link remain? If its not removed, it will sit there as an invalid link falsely claiming an unwritten book is on its way. This doesn't seem right to me at all. It isn't allowed on other articles, so why should Ed be giving free reign to ignore what seems to me to be very clear consensus, just because he personally disagrees?
If you think we need to have yet another discussion and another consensus, let me know, but I would think the existing one is still valid as no one except Ed disagrees with it. I also asked another admin about it a few days ago to see if what Ed is doing falls under the disruptive line. I'm trying to have patience, but this guy does nothing anymore bit keep adding these bad links to the article and template, and attempt to stop the merge discussion from happening. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:03, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Then you try to tell him (calmly and civilly, of course) so that he stops edit warring. I don't want to get too deep into the issue because I should remain unbiased while arbitrating this; however, if consensus is clear against his link then that's that. He can take it to RfC if he wishes, but for now it shouldn't be included.
Oh, and I'm not warning you because I think you're wrong; however, I just don't think anyone should be edit warring. If he starts up again, just notify me or another admin and we'll see what we can do. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 21:21, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
I tried, quite awhile ago. But he just keeps going. I'll go ahead and start another discussion so there is clear consensus on the actual series talk page. Meanwhile, could you make an edit to the article? I just realized that Liss Harrison's name is not linked in the lead! :P -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:22, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Linked that and a few other things I thought should be linked (hope you don't mind!). Returning to Ed Wood, I left a note on his talk page; hopefully he responds. Cheers, Master of Puppets Call me MoP! :) 21:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
No prob. :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:27, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Roshi

  • and while we're at it, you've provided no basis for Roshi having "notability concerns" I see nothing on the talk page to back it up, but I see considerable evidence on his last AfD and talk page that he is notable. You need to prove it if you want to tag it, before you get another 3R violation.JJJ999 (talk) 00:51, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Um, no you do not need to "prove" notability concerns. That's just plain ridiculous. The article doesn't PROVE its notability, and the merge discussion shows there are notability concerns. YOU need to stop your canvassing, stop your insulting accusations about the "stealth deletion" BS (and your canvas attempts are beyond inappropriate), and learn to actually accept the consensus and that the merge process was properly done before YOU get a violation for being disruptive. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:57, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Report me for what? You can not provide "evidence" for a lack of notability. You have NOT provided any evidence that there is notability, and the notability was validly questioned by multiple editors. Stop trying to shove your personal opinion all over the place.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 01:19, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Your edit summary

I don't appreciate the comment you made in your edit summary. The AFD, whether I closed it or an Admin, would have closed as a Keep. If you would like, I'll undo my actions and we can let it snowball keep, which its kinda already close to being there anyway. It was due to editors like you making comments in the edit summary because something didn't go your way that I took a long extended wiki break. Please don't make me regret coming back. DustiSPEAK!! 16:08, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

It was accurate, whether you like it or not. Last time I checked, non-admin's shouldn't close as snowball so fast. But no matter, I already tagged for merge. That whole set of articles is hideous anyway. People have blended the two shows together so much its insane. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:09, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Check again, this time under snowball :) Have a good sunday, DustiSPEAK!! 16:12, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:List of Dragon Ball characters merge debates

I've found several of your closures here to be rather inaccurate and inappropriate; as you can see, I am far from the only one. It's certainly concerning that you chose to close these discussions yourself when you clearly already have a personal belief and disposition; indeed, the discussions that were either tied or close you chose to close as the option that you preferred. I also find major issue in the fact that you chose not to notify the Dragon Ball task force of the Anime WikiProject, nor any of its members. This is highly disturbing, and does in fact contribute to the back-door, closed-off, secretive process that JJJ999 keeps mentioning. I strongly encourage you to review the closures that are currently being protested, as well as to recuse yourself altogether from closing these discussions. GlassCobra 18:29, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Please check the facts before listening to and agreeing with such false accusations. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Anime and manga#Dragon Ball merging shows quite clearly that the the Anime and manga project WAS aware of the discussion and if you had bothered to check, you'd see the many of the participants were members of the project and/or taskforce. Since you didn't, allow to point some out to you: Myself (aided the starting of the discussion) - A&M, Sesshomaru (both), Tintor2 (A&M), sephiroth bcr (both), SSJ 5 (DB), WhiteArcticWolf (A&M), and Quasirandom (A&M). All except SSJ 5 are extremely experienced editors responsible for many of the projects GAs and FLs. Though Onikage725 hasn't added himself to the member roles and barely does any editing, he has participated in discussions on the A&M project talk page. So please show me exactly how folks were not aware of these discussions?
No, I will not recuse myself from closing the discussions and I still feel they were ALL validly closed. Its funny how only the merges JJJ999 disagrees with are being challenges, but none of the keeps and none of the character merges he doesn't care about. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
You may feel that they were validly closed; however, it seems clear from the talk page that several editors in good standing disagree with you. It is for this reason that I again ask you to recuse yourself from closing these, and leave them to someone more impartial. Also, I did in fact see the notice on the DBZ talk page. What I took issue with was the fact that neither TTN, the originator of the debate, nor you were the author; you left it to another editor instead. GlassCobra 19:01, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
And more editors in good standing agree with me. *shrug* And yes, the notice was left by someone else, but it was left on the same day. Also, I was not the author of the debate, so if anything it would have been TTN's place to leave notice. I simply made the sections for the individual characters, and then closed the discussions a week later. I have done the same on multiple other character lists. If you want to smack my hand for not checking that TTN had left a message or doing it myself, go aheda, but I find it all these accusations and bad faith presumptions that I was attempting to be "sneaky" beyond insulting. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:33, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I see nothing is being done about pointy stuff like this[24] or in people undoing merges that are NOT being disagreed with[25]. Where is the fairness? If I'm going to get attacked for following the guidelines, why aren't these things being dealt with when they go against guidelines and what IS clear consensus even by the standards of those complaining about the Cell and TS merges?? -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Tags on My Neighbor Totoro

Tags are not valid. Some, like 'too short', are just wrong. Others, like 'prose', are against WikiWikiSpirit -- turn the list to prose yourself instead of littering wikipedia with this crap. Still others, like 'original research' are selectively applied to articles about fictional works. Go to WikipediaMath, where almost all facts are not referenced, and try this crap. FYI this is my first edit to a fictional universe entry. But I do occasionally like to read them. beefman (talk) 19:32, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but those tags are valid. This is not WikipediaMath, this is Wikipedia. If you want to remove the tags, fix the issues. Do not remove tags just because you dislike them. Unlike you, I am an extensive editor in the fictional area and I do know what I'm doing. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 19:43, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
It looks like a bunch of comments have been removed here, but I don't see this action in the page history, nor do I see the material on the archive of this page. But anyway, it looks Robert does agree with me. Is that a consensus, or is there some snazzy resolution protocol you'd care to whip out? beefman (talk) 06:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
No, that isn't consensus. Neither of your is actually disputing that there are problems with the article, only that you don't like the appearance of article tags. I have posted at the Anime and manga and the Film projects requesting additional input from editors who will not just say "I don't like it" as reasons for/against the tags, but actually argue for/against the validity of tags themselves. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:34, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Actually, I did explicitly dispute that there were problems with the article for certain of the tag items you added in my edit summary. In particular, I think the lead is of appropriate size and, while perhaps a very short (1-line) plot summary might improve it, I don't think such an issue is deserving of a tag that is so large that it, for all practical purposes and for the vast majority of readers, usurps the lead by adding a new, larger lead that consists of no actual information about the subject. Robert K S (talk) 07:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

[STRUCK REMARKS THAT ARE NOTHING BUT MORE PERSONAL ATTACKS]

The consensus issue is a red herring. Consensus means "everybody agrees" (or "every reasonable person agrees"), not "a majority agrees". Let's get back to brass tacks and figure out what the real problem is here, because... there is disagreement. Robert K S (talk) 09:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

List of Dragon Ball characters

I really think this is a bad idea. As a result of the major rewind, a lot of good faith edits have been undone. Mind if I revert and take care of the unmerging manually? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:22, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Sure, go ahead. Just frustrated that I wasted all that time doing the merges just to have them ripped apart again. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 20:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I understand. It is a pain isn't it? Hopefully it will end after another long discussion. Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 20:44, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Teletubbies characters

Hi. Please don't keep requesting deletion of Teletubbies characters. It is perfectly fine as a redirect. DJ Clayworth (talk) 00:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Please look at the full history here. This guy is a long time sock vandal and has created a massive mess today. I'm trying to get it all cleaned up. Please stop removing the CSD. This isn't a valid redirect the way it is and needs to be removed to clear out the mess. When its gone, if you want to recreate it as a valid redirect, that would be fine.-- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 00:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your eagle eye on this sock issue. Since this issue has not died yet, I went ahead and created Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Bambifan101. As such, if you run into more IP socks that you are positive are this banned editor, you may tag the IP's user page with {{IPsock|Bambifan101}} . Please let me know if I missed any of the redirect vandalism, and thanks again for all of your hard work! --Kralizec! (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
No problem and thanks. I've been trying to see about doing a range block on him, but so far I haven't gotten much response. I think that will really be the only way to get him to stop this...I think at this point he's enjoying the attention as much as anything :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 02:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

That was a rather insulting message. Sorry to read it.

And you do use tags improperly (or rather the tags themselves are improper). Editors should either make improvements themselves or, if they cannot or will not, then leave sensible suggestions on talk pages. Placing a giant tag at the top of an article ("I find this article wholly inadequate and somebody else should do something about it!") is an abuse. Robert K S (talk) 04:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I do not use tags improperly nor is it an "abuse" to tag an article as having problems. It is the purpose of tags, to indicate the article has issues. You don't just hide the issues on the talk page. For the most part, tags are pretty easy to understand, and as I note above, if someone doesn't understand why I tagged an article, all they have to do is ask and I'll post a longer explanation on the talk page (rather than just removing the tags). There are also some things not everyone can fix. There are very few copyeditors on Wikipedia, for example. Rather than having others complain about how an article's grammar sucks, a copyedit tag clearly notes that the article needs grammar and spelling fixes. Often times this encourages an IP who might normally feel they have nothing to contribute to do a little editing. Tags aren't just for editors, they also alert readers to issues. Blech, I just saw a discussion about tagging recently that discussed this, and now I can't remember where. *doh*
While you may not personally like tags, removing them purely because you don't like them is not appropriate. You should go change the Wikipedia guidelines and policies to delete all tags or change how they are used first. But that is very unlikely to happen because article tags are fully accepted by the community as appropriate (its even been suggested this idea be added to the list of perennial proposals that are rejected). I'm sorry I do not have the time, energy, or expertise to personally fix every last article on Wikipedia, but that is reality. As a member of the anime and manga project, I frequently tag articles for issues and that it needs attention from the project. Members of the clean up task force (of which I am also a member) then come through and and tackle specific issues in articles. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 04:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
As noted above, I have posted to both the Film and Anime/Manga projects asking for additional view points as to whether the tags are valid indicators of issues with the articles or not. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:40, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
(1) Talking is not hiding, it is talking. Suggesting the contrary hints at a distrust of the good-faith process. You may be frustrated that progress does not happen as quickly or as completely on as many articles as you would like, but, in the real world, no one would tolerate a graffiti artist who used stencils and spray cans to alert the neighborhood to her displeasure with its architectural insufficiencies. (2) Unrebuttably, placing tags on a talk page would serve the same community-alert purpose as placing tags at the top of articles. (3) When a reader arrives at a Wikipedia article, they are given the gift of the best shape the article happens to be in at the time. An unexplained tag at the top of an article, especially a large one that wantonly cites multiple issues, does little to alert the reader to the article's actual deficiencies (i.e., it does not explain which information the user should mistrust or ignore or seek further research on), so it provides no useful service to the non-editing reader. It does, however, provide (a) extra text for the non-editing reader to parse, which may slow them down, embarrassing them from finding the information they actually seek; worse, (b) obfuscatory information that may confuse the non-editor reader who is unfamiliar with wiki processes and protocols; (c) insult to those who have actually assisted with the article, inasmuch as it "looks a gift horse in the mouth", and as such these sorts of tags do more to hinder Wiki improvement than help it. Note here I'm only referring to the types of tags you like to add to articles, and not truly informative tags that might explain why an article is unstable, such as the "Recently died" or "Ongoing event" tags. The proliferation and unchecked size-growth of these tags is an unaddressed and worsening issue on the encyclopedia, so if there are current policy debates anent, I would appreciate being pointed in the right direction. Robert K S (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
ETA: Done, at the link you provided, expanding upon this post. Robert K S (talk) 09:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I kind find suggesting tagging of an article to be akin to vandalism to be a lack of good-faith and mildly insulting. I realize you have a different philosophy about tagging than I do, but at this moment, I hope you do see that the overall consensus of Wikipedia is that article tags are appropriate and acceptable and that they should not be removed purely for aesthetic reasons. Placing tags on an article talk page does not serve the same purpose as many folks who come to read articles never look at the talk page (and indeed, quite a few don't even know what it is or where to find it). If editors find it "insulting" that's really something that editor needs to deal with on a personal level. One of the basic tenets of Wikipedia is that anything you do may be edited mercilessly, and that includes criticism or notes that there are problems with the articles. The best editors do not take such things personally if they are accurate, but instead work to fix the issue and learn how to avoid such a problem in the future. And, for the record, I have tagged my own articles and have had articles I work on tagged and I do NOT respond by being insulted or just removing the tag. I neutrally look at the concerns raised by the tag and either fix the issue or discuss it with the tagging editor. Case in point, one of my creations, Beckett Media was tagged as being an advertisement and lacking notability. Rather than just rip out the tags, I discussed it with the editor to note that it wasn't written by an active account at the time that BM was using to advertise itself, and I worked to address the notability issues. So long as tags are placed in good faith, rather than the occasional "let me tag all your stuff just because you tagged mine childishness that I have seen and experienced, I see no reason why anyone should find it "insulting." You find the tags to be a hindrance, but I find them to be a great help, as do others. Our Anime and Manga project created an entire clean up task force to address articles needing attention. While one editor, such as myself, may not have time to do much else but quickly note and tag it for having issues, another on the task force can come through and tackle some of the work later. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:27, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I'll not debate policy here since there are more productive places for that, but it might be pointed out that you begin the above essay about how editors who are insulted need to "deal with it on a personal level" with a complaint of being insulted. The rest of your message seems to indicate I'm against template tags. I'm not. I'm against large, non-article-subject-informative template tags placed at the tops of articles, because (1) they do not benefit non-editor readers and because (2) they in some cases cause more harm than good to articles by promoting counterproductive arguments rather than inspiring editors to article improvement. I know you are a very active Wikipedian and have done a lot of good work, but based on observing your activity, I cannot believe that you do not spend more time in "battle" (i.e., arguing on talk pages and dealing with editors who are more affect than effect) than actually improving articles. Robert K S (talk) 16:02, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
You're remarks touched on motive, not the act itself, which is different. But, you are basically against almost all template tags, as the bulk do of them are clean up tags. You only seem to support a small handful of rarely use temporary type tags. I don't understand your last remark. I spend far more time actually editing than I do dealing with arguments and the what not, as my contribs show. Its actually rare to have to deal with this kind of insane fall out over my tagging an article for issues, something I've done to hundreds of articles this month alone. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Interview with Toriyama

Hi AnmaFinotera, is this interview a reliable source?Tintor2 (talk) 14:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm...unfortunately, I'd have to say no because that page does not say where the interview came from and it appears to be a personal website. Doing some searching, though, I found that the interview actually comes from one or two 1998 issues of Animerica, which was a translation of interviews in the World Guides. Unfortunately, no one in the project seems to have those older issues. It looks like the interview was in the February (Volume 6, Issue 2) and March issues (Volume 6, Issue 3). I wonder if it was reprinted in The Best Of Animerica: 2003 Edition. I found another website that seems to have the entire interview[26] but it still is missing basic details to be able to call it a copy of the magazine articles (and we'd still want to cite the magazine itself). If I knew what pages it was on, I could request a copy of the articles through my university's library. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:46, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. Another stuff I have been trying to fix Sagara Sanosuke in the last minutes. Were those grammar changes ok? At least I would like to know what part of the article needs more fixes.Tintor2 (talk) 21:00, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Taking a quick look, they look okay. You'll want to get a copyeditor to go over it before a GA or FA nom, though. They look at all kinds of things I'd never think of as an issue. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 21:48, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I request reassessment to get more copy-edit comments.Tintor2 (talk) 21:50, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I've been working my way through the blacklist request backlog and I see you've had to wait almost 2 weeks for this blacklisting. I'm sorry you had to wait so long.

I went ahead and blacklisted the domains but I see there are >300 links that need cleanup. Could you (and perhaps some Wikiprojects) work on cleaning these out over the next week or two? Thanks, --A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:57, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks and no prob. I'll see if I can get some help from the anime and manga project to clear these out. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 05:00, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Reborn! Episodes

Can you please check over and fix the tone for this page? Thanks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Reborn!_episodes Dragonsblast (talk) 08:10, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not a copyeditor, so that isn't an area I'd be the best choice to do. I'd recommend working on sourcing up the lead, tweaking the episode summaries, and cleaning up the format a little, then letting a copyeditor go over the whole thing to fix any issues with tone, grammar, etc. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Fair use rationale for Image:Solty.jpg

Can you show me which of our policies states that? Also, if it is a fanmade picture, than there is no official site for it, is it? If you can find the official site with the picture, please correct the source link, mine was simply the top correct one from Google Image.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:17, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

WP:COPYRIGHT explicitly forbids linking to any site that violates copyrights, which certainly includes fansub sites. Many have already been blacklisted from even being added. Fansites are also not WP:RS, which would include being not valid sources for images as well as for text. Fan-made images are not acceptable for use at all. Pictures used in articles should either be from the medium itself (book cover, scan of page, DVD cover, screenshot), or officially released promotional pictures (posters, magazine spreads, etc). Fan-made pictures are considered to be akin to WP:OR and are not valid representations of the work. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:37, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
It's not that fan-made images are WP:OR (which they aren't), but that they violate copyright. Since very few (if any) fans who create fan images have explicit permission from the original copyright owners, there's not even any gray area about it. This makes them completely unacceptable for WIkipedia (or any related project). Fan-made images are just not acceptable at all here.  — [Unsigned comment added by Nihonjoe (talk • contribs) 00:41, September 30, 2008.]
Fan-made images can be WP:OR (non-canon couplings for example), but you are right. The much bigger issue is that they are a violation of copyrights, and there for can not be used under fair use or on Wikipedia. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 06:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

For the constant abuse

The Special Barnstar
I see that you have been attacked and misunderstood over your time here on wikipedia for a whole lot of various reasons. Well, heres to having thick skin and not letting them get to you while editing the wikipedia. Hopefully this will make you realise your edits are not taken for granted and you will continue your hard work which is very much appreciated. Best 211.30.111.105 (talk) 13:21, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! Its much appreciated :) -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 13:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Question about merges

Why did the merges of Dragon Ball stopped? They said that they were going to check or something with:

"A user has requested comment on media, art, architecture or literature for this section. Within one hour this page will be placed on the RFCmedia list. When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list."

Did they decide something? Well, I hope it will be all okay, the article Cell (Dragon Ball) needs a lot of clean up to avoid merge and I dont see any improvement there. See you.Tintor2 (talk) 15:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

The discussion has basically stalled, with no comments being added by anyone. For now, two or three were undone, and presumably we'll either have to have another discussion all over again. *sigh* -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 15:43, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I see.Tintor2 (talk) 15:45, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Yeah...kinda sucks. Seems like everytime we make some progress on really getting the DB stuff into shape, someone comes along and wants to throw a wrench in it, which usually ends up with things right where we had them going, but with good editors having walked away out of frustration. :( -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 16:01, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
I too have a concern. Since Cell was brought back, doesn't this mean that the talk page should also go back to how it was? Lord Sesshomaru (talk • edits) 18:03, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, all of the articles that were unmerged need to have their talk pages reverted as well. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 18:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Changing Names

How do you change names on articles? If I can't, can someone do that for my article?DJ BlackZilla (talk) 23:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I've nominated your article for deletion. The game hasn't even been created yet and is certainly not notable enough to have its own article. -- AnmaFinotera (talk · contribs) 23:08, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


Cite error: There are <ref group=n> tags on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=n}} template (see the help page).

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AnmaFinotera/Archive_4&oldid=1257775630"